From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 03:57:07 GMT

From article <mhulsey-181292131550@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> My claim was that the Nazi press proclaimed support for the "rights" of
> "animals."  This claim has absolutely nothing to do with what they meant
> when they used the term.  We can make that determination afterward.

Of course it does.   

You yourself have pretended to be a supporter of animal "welfare" while
vociferously railing against the notion of animal "rights".  If you're
unable to define the precise meaning of the concept that was allegedly
espoused by the "nazis", why should we take your claims seriously?

> You have accused me of equivocation regarding the term "animal rights," but
> I have not addressed the implications of the term.  It is irrelevant to my
> claim.

Please define the term precisely and unequivocably, so that we can 
dispense with ambivalent ranting.

> You are hesitant to accept that the Nazis proclaimed support for animal
> "rights" (whatever they meant) despite references indicating such. 

You say you've got references.  Please take just a minute or so and
key in the precise german phrase that coincides with the expression
"animal rights".   Surely there must be someone in your department who
can help you pinpoint the relevant passage.

> Simultaneously,  you readily accept, and expect everyone else to accept,
> that Peter Singer supports animal "rights."  You have no references in any
> language to support your claim.

How do you know?

> I have a reference by Singer (Behav. Brain. Res. 13:45-49; 1990) that
> indicates quite the opposite.  Not only does Singer *not* consider himself
> an animal "rights" activist, but strenuously objects to the term being
> applied to him.  You and others believe that non-human animals have
> "rights" when even the animal liberationist Peter Singer does not.

I don't know whether you're getting a little wiser or perhaps just
more argumentative.  Just a month ago, you were claiming that Singer
was an absolutist [how silly], but now you seem to be getting a grip
on the fact that many of your opponents don't quite fit the image
of your strawman.  

> You have repeatedly criticized my references and ability to interpret the
> facts in this case, although they are in a language foreign to me.  This
> seems a bit disingenuous considering the fact that you are incapable of
> locating and interpreting references *in our native tongue* to support your
> claim that Peter Singer "espouses" animal "rights."

Let me reiterate my claim, so that you may reread it carefully:

==========================================================================
I'd be happy to answer your question after you've defined the term "animal
rights" with sufficient precision that we can compare the "animal rights"
philosophy espoused by Singer or Regan with the "animal rights" philosophy
that was espoused by the nazis.
==========================================================================

Do you understand the significance of the quotation marks around the
phrase "animal rights"?    [Hint:  Singer and Record are *different*
people with *different* political views.] 

Be that as it may, I'd like to discuss Singer's views with you in some
depth.  Would you mind specifying the original source of the statements
you've mentioned above?   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals