[Dan4175]

Anyone else see an inherent contradiction here?

Isn't it speciesism to think that animals can't think and make moral choices? If they can, then it is as wrong (or as right) for them to eat other animals as it is for humans - to think otherwise would be speciesism. If they cannot, then it implies that we are, in fact superior to animals and eating them is OK because they are not our moral equivalents. See quotes below...

[Singer] defined speciesism as the belief that being a member of a certain species "makes you superior to any other being that is not a member of that species."

[...]

...When asked by CNSNews.com why humans should not be able to eat animals when animals eat other animals, Singer acknowledged that humans have to be held to a different standard.

"Animals generally are not making moral choices. Animals are not the same as humans. They can't reflect on what they are doing and think about the alternatives. Humans can. So there is no reason for taking what they do as a sort of moral lesson for us to take. We're the ones who have to have the responsibility for making those choices," he said.

[dmcnash]

I saw the logical contrdiction right off but as usual so does everybody else (and they post quicker too.)

I was going to ask:

If humans are bad, Singer and his animal lover friends are human, why don't Singer et. al. just off themselves and free up some space and resources for the animals?

Sadly I believe the answer is that Singer and his fellow traverers are incapable of logical thought or their mission is to off everybody else.