From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:38:48 GMT


From article <1992Dec22.151733.6338@Firewall.Nielsen.Com>, byjkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson):
jk> As I expected: Lawrence makes as assertion that I find ambiguous, 
jk> I ask for some clarification, and Lawrence retorts with more 
jk> dictionary games while declining to amplify on his previous 
jk> assertion.  One wonders whether Lawrence is actually interested in 
jk> discussion or simply in wasting peoples' time...  

In article <BzoM9B.33x@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> You asked me to define the notion of "meaning", yet you proceeded to
rl> accuse me of playing "dictionary games".   I'm somewhat amazed that 
rl> you consider the term, "meaning", to be ambiguous, yet apparently have
rl> no difficulty swallowing the fact that various posters have been using 
rl> the term "animal rights" in a highly ambiguous fashion in order to 
rl> smear their opposition.
rl> 
rl> We're using the english language to communicate, and my english 
rl> dictionary defines the term "meaning" as a mental construct that 
rl> signifies or indicates (ie points).  It subsequently defines the term 
rl> "meaningful" as an expression that is full of meaning or full of 
rl> significance.  

From article <1992Dec23.154530.8018@Firewall.Nielsen.Com>, byjkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson):
jk> Lawrence avoids the issue again.  

Reread the previous comments that you've edited out... wherein I 
explained the difference (as I see it) between an expression that
is meaningful and an expression that isn't.  I wrote:

========================================================================
Would it be meaningful to say that John Kapson is an apple or that 
John Kapson is a streetcar?  Probably not, because the words "apple" 
and "streetcar" typically point to objects that have no semblance to a 
human being.  Would it be meaningful to say that John Kapson is an 
animal rights advocate?  Perhaps, but only if we make it crystal clear 
to our readers that the term "animal rights advocate" signifies a 
particular set of attributes to which John Kapson conforms.  

If we're going to make headway in the discussion concerning the 
alleged nazi advocacy of "animal rights", it seems to me that the 
proponents of the claim ought to define the concept.  It won't 
make sense to argue that Hitler advocated "animal rights" simply 
because Hitler opted for vegetarian foods unless we're willing to 
say that all vegetarians are animal rights advocates.  Nor would
it make sense to argue that the nazis advocated "animal rights" 
simply because they opposed vivisection as practiced in the 30's, 
unless we're going to say that everyone who would have opposed such 
practices is an animal rights advocate.  
========================================================================

jk> I was not asking for the definition of
jk> "meaning" as he would have everyone think; I was asking what he meant by
jk> the phrase "in any meaningful sense."  The two are not synonymous (sp?).
jk> By adding the phrase "in any meaningful sense" to his earlier assertion
jk> of "None of them lend credence to the claim that the nazi's were animal
jk> rights advocates ..." we are unable to ascertain whether his assertion is
jk> true or false until we know what he considers "any meaningful sense."

Unless you use your terms consistently, it won't be meaningful to say 
that the nazis were "animal rights advocates"...  anymore than it 
would be meaningful to say that John Kapson is an apple or a 
streetcar.  Yes, Hitler was a semi-vegetarian, but that doesn't mean he 
was an animal rights advocate.  And yes, some nazis may have been 
opposed to vivisection (as practiced in Germany during the 30's), but 
then again, most of the anti-animal-rights folks who've participated 
in this discussion would also be opposed to such practices.  

jk> Again, Lawrence seems more interested in seeing his name in print than
jk> in having an honest discussion.  I am not interested in stroking his
jk> electronic ego any longer and will not continue this thread unless he
jk> decides that he actually _is_ interested in sharing ideas, not simply
jk> splitting hairs, twisting words, and dodging questions.

You've been stroking yourself, John.  Not my "electronic ego".  If you
think we're splitting hairs to say that there's a difference between
"animal rights" and semi-vegetarianism, or that there's a difference
between "animal rights" and animal welfare, then it's obvious that
you're unwilling or unable to think critically about the issues at
stake.

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