From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: More ethical relativism.  Was : PETA Activities 
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:27:18 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals

As quoted from <BtvnuK.EG4@wpg.com> by russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence):

> In article <Btut7x.LM3@NCoast.ORG>, by cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton):
> cm> Other HUMAN individuals.  He in fact had a right to appropriate 
> cm> the bodies of nonhuman animals for his eating enjoyment, subject 
> cm> of course to applicable game laws.  People are not property.  
> cm> Nonhuman animals can be.  
> 
> In 1857, Dred Scott asked the Supreme Court of the US to answer a 
> question that depended on the distinction between personhood and 
> property, and he got a response that was quite similar to your 
> comments above.  Presenting the majority opinion of the court, 
> Chief Justice Taney pointed out that Dred Scott was the legal 
> property of his owner, and that slaves had no inherent right to 

Ah yes!  I knew you'd get around to equating Blacks and animals.  Never fails.
How IS David Duke by the way?

> rl> BTW, do you still believe that it would be morally acceptable for 
> rl> "superior" alien (aryan) individuals to hunt human beings for 
> rl> sport if/when they have the power to do so?   If so, how
> rl> would you distinguish your "might makes right" hypothesis with
> rl> the nazi ethos?   In view of the comments you made earlier today
> rl> about intellectual courage, I hope you'll be kind enough (and
> rl> courageous enough) to defend your views on this topic.
> 
> cm> Morally acceptable for WHOM?  If we can kill or otherwise deter 
> cm> them, it's a moot point.  Likewise, when the deer can kill or 
> cm> otherwise deter us, hunting will be a moot point.  But of course 
> cm> this is still the same strawman that it always was.  Failing a 
> cm> demonstration on your part, the aliens DON'T exist while the deer 
> cm> DO.  This is another example of the typical AR "Well if two and 
> cm> two DID equal five...." argument.  
> 
> If Dred Scott had been able to kill or deter the man who claimed 
> to own him, then the question of the rightfulness or wrongfulness 
> of his enslavement might have been a mute point.  Unfortunately, 
> the balance of power in Scott's day rested with slave-owners, not 
> with slaves.  Still, the rightfulness or wrongfulness of Scott's 
> servitude was an appropriate topic for intellectual debate, and 
> that debate ultimately paved the way for the Emancipation 
> Proclamation.   

And once again, "If Blacks WERE no better than animals...?".  You've hit your
stride now.

> Are you willing to discuss the philosophical arguments concerning 
> distinctions between personhood and property, or, are you going 
> to continue begging the question by invoking legal status quos as 
> well as the rather weak argument that the morality of killing 
> deer would be a mute point if deer had the ability to shoot back?  

Are you going to continue to base your arguments on an acceptance of the most
egregious racist pseudo-science, or will you join the rest of us in the last
decade of the 20th century?

> Do you agree with John that it would be ethically acceptable for
> aliens to hunt humans for sport simply because they might have
> the power to get away with such actions?  Or, would you be able to 
> name one or two reasons why such hunting might not be good?

And once again, ethically acceptable for WHO?


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals