From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:07:29 GMT

In article <Bz9q1t.Ayr@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>[...]
> Again, thanks for admitting that you lacked the ability to analyze
> the evidence. 

I admit no such thing.  I am no less qualified than you to evaluate this
evidence-- unless, of course, your mysterious, top secret, "ivy-league
degree" is in history.
 
> In the past, you've criticized Dr. Neil Barnard for offering nutritional
> advice to american citizens... presumably because Barnard has a degree in
> medicine rather than "nutrition science".    In view of such criticism,
> don't you think it's kinda hypocritical for you to promote these "nazi"
> allegations, given the fact that you can't read german and apparently
> have little expertise (if any) in historical studies?

Not at all.  You apparently cannot or will not understand the difference
between posting to UseNet and making a press conference calling for
alteration of dietary recommendations for Americans.
 
[...]
> 
> Your facts are grossly insufficient.

My facts, referenced in the Nazi press, are sufficient to prove that Nazi
Germany proclaimed support for animal "rights."
 
>[...]
> > At least I have provided evidence that others, with a knowledge of German,
> > can verify.  After weeks, we are still waiting for your "evidence"
> > regarding the "cat-shooting" and "beagle-drowning" experiments.
> 
> Are my postings to usenet your only source of information?

Remember, the burden of proof is upon you.  You are the one claiming that
the "cat-shooting" and "beagle-drowning" experiments are unnecessary.  Your
proof is  lacking.
 
>[...]
> 
> - Please specify the full set of "rights" that were proclaimed by the
>   "nazi press"?

Why?  This is not the issue.

> - Please define the term "nazi press".   In particular, do you have
>   any idea how many publishing organizations/companies this term might
>   entail, not to mention the total volume of published material?

Do you not understand the implications of National *Socialism*?  Do you
suggest that Hitler did not exert control over the Nazi press?

The "volume of published material" produced by the Nazi press is
irrelevant.  Just focus on the references I gave. 
 
>[...]
> Please explain the connection that you perceive between the opposition
> to "vivisection" [make sure that you've defined the term precisely
> in historical context] and Hitler's mistreatment of jews.

The term "vivisection" is the same in English as German.

If you had read, rather than ignored the references I gave previously, you
would know the answer to this question.

From Arluke & Sax (Anthrozoos 5(1) , p19):

"By allying themselves closely to animals in their pursuit of animal
protection, the hated 'vivisector' became synonymous with the Jew, enemy of
both animals and Germans.  Animal protection measures, then, may have
served as a legal vehicle to express these anti-semitic feelings."
 
--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals