From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:45:27 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BstCst.28G@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Russell Lawrence writes;
>rl> In short, if their brainless bodies [cabbages] are as mindless as 
>rl> rocks, I don't see how their life or death would make much 
>rl> difference to the organisms themselves.  Without senses and 
>rl> cognitive capabilities, how/why would a cabbage care whether it's 
>rl> eaten or not?  

>From article <166gpcINNsau@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> In short, can you PROVE that a cabbage is has any less right to 
>ml> life than a deer?  If not, wouldn't a critical thinker have a 
>ml> hard time placing more value on ones life over the others?  

>You neglected to answer my question:  Without senses and cognitive 
>capabilities, how/why would a cabbage care whether it's eaten or 
>not?   Would it be ethically acceptable to boil a dog alive in the
>same way that we might boil cabbage?


Just because you cannot understand HOW a cabbager can be deprived of anything
when you kill it to eat it doesn't mean that it isn't.  I'm not saying it is
but, you can't prove that it isn't deprived of anything.  It certainly is de-
prived of at least life, but that doesn't matter to you does it?  

A dog would not be "boiled alive in the same way that we might boil a cabbage"
since I think most everybody kills a cabbage by ripping it from the ground
before they boil it.  :')


>Let's move on to another sort of deprivation.  Would a cabbage be 
>deprived socially if you killed his companions?  Have you ever 
>watched a young deer romping playfully with her mother?  Is it 
>possible that you could deprive such an individual in some way by 
>shooting her mother right before her eyes?  


Because a cabbage cannot enjoy THIS TYPE of life is this the reason you 
have drawn your line where you have?  Still quite arbitrary if don't you
think?


>ml> ...  But, you don't have proof of what YOU define as meaningful 
>ml> life in plants so you argue WITHOUT PROOF that they do NOT have 
>ml> meaningfill life.  WEAK!  Weak argument IMHO.  

>As I mentioned previously, it's impossible to prove negatives.


Well what exactly is it that you have proven?  You certainly have not
proven that the line you draw to determine what is "OK" to kill and eat
is any better than other who have drawn their line in a different location
and for different reasons.


>I can't prove that plants don't have meaningful lives... nor can
>I prove that TV sets don't feel pain when I switch them off
>or that sidewalks don't hurt when I walk on them.   On the other hand,
>I've seen quite a bit of evidence to demonstrate that animals
>like chimps, and whales, and deer do, indeed, have meaningful
>lives and do, indeed, care when we kidnap them, kill them, use
>them in experiments, etc.


Great comparisons Russell.  I guess you haven't proven a damn thing then
have you?  


>Do you really believe that plants suffer?  Or, were you merely 
>hoping to distract attention from the next dog/cat/deer shooting 
>contest?   Shooting dogs and cats for sport is ok, is it not?


If in fact they do suffer, it will be so regardless if you or I believe
they do or not.  Concerning the dogs and cats comment.  Let me just say
one thing.  What the hell are you talking about.  I'm sure I'd be amused
by your reasoning (or lack thereof) that made you say that last sentence.


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Mike Linan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals