speciesism - prejudice or discrimination based on species; especially : discrimination against animals

I always have been thinking religion allow people feel more special because them are humans, in religion it seem all are about humans and even disclaim that humans are or have evolved from animals.

I suppose most people here is non-religion but i want ask all users opinion on theses things:

Do religion promote thinking about animal treatment or other animal problems in books (or other materials)?
Do religion books is written in way where human is most special specie is mirror of human ego? Are religion books mirror of human culture and ego overall?
Why religion books talk so less about animals/plants/earth so less while it so huge part of human everyday existence but so much about human specie? If you would write religion book would you do same?
Are religion people more likely say think like "animals are stupid" or similar then non-religion because feel more special as human over animals into they religion cults/religion book reading?
Are non-religion people vs highly-religion people more likely be vegetarian/vegan because higher ability think/reason by themselves for choosing things to do every day not by what someone saying (for example bible, going with the flow of the crowd/cult/religion speaker said)?

Definitely. Religion usually elevates "man" to a special chosen status. The bible for example states that man is the ruler of the other species.

different religions are different.

I have hear Buddhism in this issue is some different then other major religions.

On the first bold point, certainly Judeo-Christian religions elevate man over animals. That may not be universal.

On the second bold point, given the usual meaning of the word, animals are stupid. That does not necessarily mean they do not deserve some rights. Stupid people get rights also.

On the third bold point, that tends to be something that stupid non-religious people think. Intelligent people are more likely to realize that religion and intelligence are not necessarily closely correlated.

Presumably English is a second language for you so I hope this does not get lost in translation.

Oh yeah third bold was not how i was meaning it, sry.
Was meaning somewhere on lines "willing to choose they believes on right/ethical for themselves rather than believe what they're told", i mean i see lot of arguments from religion people on social networks where they argue/reason on this and other topic heavy using texts from books/they speak men not science/they as individual believes on right/ethical.

speciesist is a funny word.

religion has nothing to do with it. 99.99% of people are speciesist including most vegans.

most people haven't even really encountered the idea that we're just another kind of animal roaming around doing things that animals do. i'm not sure it's an idea that would just come up organically. someone has to hit you with it.

i have a sticker on my car that says "98% chimpanzee" and once in a while one of the high school kids i work with will ask me about it. after i explain that 98% of our DNA is identical to a chimp's, and what we are is not far off from what a chimp is, the reaction is never agreeing or disagreeing. just a quiet contemplation. i can tell that they have never even broached the idea.

Great. But if you want to teach them something useful perhaps teaching them that simply comparing DNA in that way is not really all that useful. Male humans are more similar to male chimpanzees than to female humans by that measure.

This is about as enlightened as grading the quality of a high school essay by analyzing how many words it has in common with "A Tale of Two Cities".

Do you think when black people was slaves, bible was something what slavery advocated who is Christians was able to use to justify they believes about it being right way?

Using bible quotes like:

Leviticus 25:44–46 44 “However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you. 45 You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, 46 passing them on to your ...

Luke 12:47–48 47 “And a servant who knows what the master wants, but isn’t prepared and doesn’t carry out those instructions, will be severely punished. 48 But someone who does not know, and then does something wrong, will be punished only lightly. When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required.

What big difference between racism/slavery then and speciesism now?

For example bible have quotes like:

Ge 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Ge 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

After the Flood, God tells Noah: "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." God also makes a covenant, not only with Noah, but "with every living creature that was with you--the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you--every living creature on earth" (Gen. 9:3, 10).

What seem clearly promote human specie using other species as food and dominate over them in other ways. I agree early in days human specie develop they needed use other species for food but today is 90-95%+ can easy live without using animal products not creating demand for theses products making use less animals for them.

What about plants? Is it ethical to consume a plant if that kills the plant? How about mosquitos? Can I swat a mosquito that is biting me or must I just shoo it away gently? Of course if they cannot get blood they cannot produce eggs so that is almost genocide. Am I obligated to let them bite me? How about bacteria? My immune system destroys bacteria on a daily basis. Is that a crime? What if my immune system is losing the battle? Is the use of an antiseptic on a wound a travesty? How about an antibiotic?

Bottom line, everyone is a speciest. In fact, every living thing practices specism although non-humans do not have the intellectual capability to formulate the concept. Everyone draws a line and at some level the line is always arbitrary. So if you want to draw the line somewhere different from me, fine. But do not pretend that you have some moral high ground.

If other specie try to harm you then it fine to protect you. If cow try kill me i will shot her but i think i should not kill her if her don't try kill me because flesh if i can consume plant based products not harming animal.
Plants isn't sentient being meaning they can't feel pain while animals is sentient being what feel pains same way we feel pains.
Sorry but question about plants is pretty stupid and answered 1000's times everywhere by lot people. Please do research so i don't need answer basic questions what isn't even about discussion topic.

I don't try push something to anyone or trying change they lines drawed, discussion is if major religion (in western world mainly Christianity) promote specialism or advocate against it, if with religion decreasing/increasing popularity issue like factory farming will be solved faster or slower ect. (Video link is not to promote something but educate, so we all have more information to argue about/with)
For example augie_ claimed religion have nothing to do with it and i tried compare slavery promoted in bible with specisism promoted in bible and asked where is difference, in earlier times everyone was also rasists same as you saying they are all now specisists, i am not saying any rasism or specisism is wrong - everyone can choose by themselfes if it issue or not.

Speciesism when it comes to plants is ok?

your discrimination of non-sentient living beings is as equally arbitrary a place to draw the line as those who place it beneath humans.

Plants have no basic desires to not feel pain/live/care about they baby's while animals is same as humans in theses basic desires.
Plants have no nerves to feel pain or brains to make understand what happening to them while animals have all theses things.

IMO you can't say non-sentient being without nerves/brains = sentient being with basic desires, nerves to feel pain and brains to understand what happen when choosing who to kill/make pain to(because one of them can't feel them)/make bad emotional experience (because one can't feel it) for example to your survive choosing eat one of them.
Same as you don't kill/hurt human because you have compassion to him because you understand how he feel and that he have basic needs not feel pain/live/care about his family.

I think human specie can also lot better care about non-sentient being more eco friendly but it not discussion what are we making here.

Additionally to post above:
Ability feel pain not wanting to not feel them is useless and should not be considered when choosing line placement (for example what to choose to eat)?
Why then eating human baby's should be wrong and our line should not be places along all living species including humans?
If human being able logically reason they behave should simply ignore organism ability feel pain/not wanting feel pain, what factors should we take into consideration when choosing diet/what to wear/what to drive/what entertain place to choose? Should we choose what we are advertised being right by someone else whatever it religion, parents, other people or mass media or do logical reasoning ourself?

We are using this definition for work arbitrary?
Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

By this logic you affirm any action as equally moral.

Humans are not a species. Humans are not animals. A human is a "non-animal". When humans are viewed as a species called "**** sapiens" it's exactly the point when humans are viewed as animals as opposed to humans.

What then are humans? Are humans what is something else then animal specie allowed without good reason make pain/dominate/do whatever they want including take they children away from parents/slaughter animals?

Whatever are answers, why you chooses theses answers?

Depends from person to person, place to place and time to time?

For example in 1940 year 95% person think event (or action) x is moral but 5% person think event x is highly immoral. 50 years later in 1990 year 95% person think same event x is highly immoral while 5% person think event x it still moral.
5% person opinion on 1940 now in 1990 becomes very popular in society and now is dominating 95%.
I suppose new generations is what make most 95% opinion in 1990 and 5% in 1990 are mostly people who lived in 1940 and was part of 95% opinion that time because they opinion in late adult age is lot harder to Influence but younger persons is easier to Influence in theses 50 years between 1940 and 1990 with very fast growing opposite opinion with good reasoned discussions/education about moral/health/climate or other issues with event x?

Are society moral more relative to different factors and easier to change then personal morality in individual older adult human morals whose is already created very strongly within his live experience and factors in his individual life and/or his time society?

Concerning the bold, no need to apologize. Frankly I think this entire subject is pretty stupid, but until this post courtesy forbad me from pointing that out.

Why this subject is stupid?

I don't think you are stupid in any way I just think you might placed question in your first post more differently then simply asking "What about plants? Is it ethical to consume a plant if that kills the plant?" not pointing out differences between plants and animals (that only one of them feel pain or emotions) and made research within seconds where you would probably find similar answer to my last post and would make more before asking analyzed question what imo make discussion more productive then i needing explain main difference between plant and animals.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...9&postcount=14
My apologize if message went not way i was meaning it.

There are many different definitions, they change from one culture to another. A definition common to every healthy society is that in relation to animals a human is a non-animal. One of the consequences of this is that you can't treat a human like an animal.

This doesn't follow from my definition. Different cultures define animal rights differently. I don't have a final answer.

Personally I am vegeterian and if possible (and not too inconvenient) I don't even harm insects. I have no final logical justification for this, my justification is that to harm or even eat other beings "feels wrong".

I tend to argue that the consequence of seeing humans as "non-animals" is opposite to what you've described. Animals don't concern themselves with animal rights. Animal rights are a human concern.

Do you think definition make that big difference or society view to human/animals itself make difference?
Are there society before our who you think was healthy and not did things what might feel highly non-ethical to today society? How you define words healthy society and are there historical example what i can research?

Is it not logical that we will be more compassionate against animals if we see them more similar to ourselves?
For example, early society with black people slaves was thinking them is humans (or even non-humans) who don't feel pains or emotions like white people do what allowed them not feel that guilty when doing terrible things to them. Do making they definition to non-human, black-monster or black-animal make higher change end slavery or making they definition human do it? Why you think making humans definition(and/or society view to human as animal) animals not make people more compassionate to other animals and they feelings and emotions but opposite (making totally different definition) do?

About animals not being concern about animal rights, i think making human definition animal make them think more about that they are not only animals on earth but just 1 of millions species and not feel that special about they existence as humans (non-animals). What additionally make them think more about how to care about other animals not only they animal specie.

When animals become closer to humans then at the same time humans become closer to animals. Animals have no concept of ethics or compassion. So it is a very dangerous game you're playing.

My concern is for humans first. The danger when we put humans and animals in the same category is that we start treating humans as animals, and not animals as humans.

I doubt you will find a general causal link between humanizing animals and dehumanizing humans. Animal rights have arisen in brutal societies (like Nazi Germany), but as an historical trend it is far more striking that they tend to be legislated in cultures that recognize universal human rights.

Saying animals have no concept of ethics and compassion is a strong and likely wrong statement. Some species of whale and elephants are known in studies to display compassion and even psychological trauma from loss of loved ones. Sophisticated apes tend towards what looks like normative behavior. Dolphins seem to display both.

In short your statements seem rather specist.