>>(A duck that can fly is not going to endure being raped
>>10 times a day forever, they are dumb, but not that dumb.)
>>Once you start down the road of pretending that animals are humans,
>>there is only one other alternative, extermination of humans. So its
>>all madness, clearly animals are not humans, no more than soy beans
>>and lettuces are humans. The only people who don't understand this
>>are people who have been brought up without any contact with animals,
>>except as pets. People who live in cities, people who believe, in
>>their heart of hearts, that cartoon animals as realistic depictions
>>of the personalities and feelings of actual animals.
unless you are trying to be a clever old MacDonald.
Also, I don't see how Singer can be taken to be anthropomorphizing, especially given this from the alternet piece:
"Sidestepping the tricky issue of intrinsic rights, Singer bases his ethical considerations on the issue of calculating interests. Since animals (including us) have interests, such as avoidance of suffering, then those interests must be respected, as long as doing so does not entail greater suffering on our part. Poverty, hunger, abuse -- these all cause suffering which those in affluent cultures might easily prevent. That is, if we're willing to make some sacrifices. And under Singer's moral microscope, we are obligated to make those sacrifices."