From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:50:31 GMT

In article <BzHpL9.8n4@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Dec18.213529.3602@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>
RUSSELL writes:
>  And, speaking of 
>rational discussion [as opposed to fallacious argumentation], can 
>we determine the truth or falsity of a man's statements by 
>appealing to his credentials, the number of his published works, 
>etc, etc?  Probably not, yet for some strange reason you've 
>continued to insist that truth is fallacy and fallacy is truth in 
>those special cases where it suits your convenience.  
>

I'm am not discussing the "truth or falsity" of a statement.  What I am
discussing is the value of a man's professional opinion.  And YES you can
determine the value of a man's professional opinion based on his
performance in the field in question.
Do you agree that the value of a person's professional opinion can be
, at least in part, by that persons performance in that that field?

GP>> Have you not noticed that none of the other AR advocates here on the net
GP>> have come to your defense?  Perhaps they are ashamed to claim you as
GP>>well?  >> I cannot blame them.
>
>Nice innuendo, Greg.  Let's suppose that the other AR advocates are
>ashamed of my postings.  In such a case, would their shame somehow
>make your arguments more truthful?   [argumentum ad populum]

No but it speaks clearly of the methods you use.
>

>You haven't chastised me with this posting.  However, you have
>succeeded in casting doubt on the merits of your own position.
>Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think a man like Neal Barnard
>would fly off the handle like this if he were confronted by 
>someone who takes issue with the factual and rational merits
>of a particular set of claims.

Nor would I if I "were confronted by someone who takes issues with the
factual and rational merits of a particular set of claims."

>
>Why don't you cut out the naive "nazi" crap,

Russell, have you read any of the articles we referenced on the issue? 
Have you looked for the book on I ref. A book written by a historian in
the 1930?
Or is your word that are statements are false  suppose to be the be all
and end all of truth?

> and respond to 
>my past two postings concerning the origin of "rights".  If 
>you've lost them, I'll be happy to repost.  In particular, I'd 
>like for you to explain your notion that it's bad to torture 
>humans only because humans can make moral choices.  
>
Yes I have lost them.  And I will be happy to talk your ear off concerning
the issue.  (Because for one thing you misrepresent my opinion in the
statement above) 

But, almost two months ago I asked you for a ref on the alleged cat
experiments.  I request the ref again.  As soon as I receive them I'll
fill your in on my views on torture.

I'll be off the net for the next week or so.  That should give you plenty
of time to find the ref. Feel free to talk about me when I'm gone.(No,
that's not what Billy Holiday said.  How'd that go again....)
Maybe if you hurry Russell you can post it and it will be gone by the time
I get back.

                                   Yours Truly
                                     GREG

-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals