From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: A rat is a pig-headed moron is a ...
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Date: 11 Jan 1993 16:51:53 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

In article <C0ntB3.260@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
]I write:
 
]> Yes, I do.  Do you understand why animals are not treated as "minor"
]> persons, yet?  Keep workin' on it.

]How do you explain our society's treatment of "minor" persons 
](infants, for example), given your prior statements concerning 
]rights and legal responsibilities?  
]
]You wrote:
]
]======================================================================
]> The simple fact of the matter is that animals don't have rights.  To
]> have a concept of rights, one must have a concept of legal discourse
]> to secure those rights.  Regardless of how hard you try, you can't
]> make animals live within your legal system, just as I can't make them
]> live within mine.
]======================================================================

Quite simply.  A "minor" has a least one person responsible for
ensuring the minor maintains his rights and doesn't tread on the
rights of others.

The concept of "pets," which are in essence live-in feces generators,
aside, animals aren't depedent on on people (those are the viable
life-forms with frontal lobes, in case you're getting confused).

]You seem to be suggesting that an individual must have a concept of
]rights, in order to be treated in a rightful manner by individuals
]who do, indeed, fit within our legal system?   

By the way, Russ, you seem to be suffering the same affliction beast
apologists the world over suffer from.  A couple things you seem to
have glossed over in the testbook of life are 1) A logical argument
can't have an emotional basis and 2) semantic nitpicking is not a
valid form of logical argument.

Until you can provide something other than an emotional premise for
your blathering, I see very little point sitting here, holding your
hand through the interpretation of plain-text English.

One trait that separates humans from animals is that humans can
deductively reason.  Beast apologists, possibly in an effort to lend
more credence to their claim that people an animals are more similar
than they are, seem elide this fact.

Proof by demonstration appears in Russ's text, above.

]If that's not what you 
]were saying, please clarify how/why an animal's concept of rights is 
]relevant to the discussion.

An animal's concept of rights is the same as a chair's concept of
rights.  If I make the proclamation "a chair has the right to have
four legs," it sounds pretty ridiculous, and should carry as much
universal credence as the supposition of rights for animals.

Nothing about this premise is done in the animals' interest; it's done
in the interest of befuddled little folk who've spent their life in
urban sprawl and watched Bambi a few times too many.

]>>> "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
]>>>  by those who have not got it."
]>>>                                 -- George Bernard Shaw
]>>
]>>"Animals are my friends; I don't eat my friends." 
]>>                                  -- George Bernard Shaw
]> 
]> One of the more obvious reasons why Shaw was respected as a
]> professional cynic, not a professional vegetarian.
]
]This remark doesn't make much sense to me.  Were you hoping to dismiss
]Shaw's views by dumping them into a non-existent category  (eg.
]"professional vegetarianism")?   

Lissen up, Jethro.  I found one phrase of Shaw's that reflected my
philosophy adequately to be used as a .signature.  How you got this
wild hare [heh] up your ass that just because I agree with the one
statement of someone famous for making noteworthy statements, I must
subscribe to his entire kooky philosphy escapes me.

I dismissed Shaw's stance on vegetarianism because it's trivially
refuted.  And, just like his commentary on cynicism, it's hardly a
universal truth.

]Be that as it may, do you think Shaw 
]would be cynical of your political theories?  Or, do you think he'd
]accept them on the basis of mere convention?

You should try underwear about three sizes larger.  It must be terrible
to feel obligated to analyze the piss out of all pithy commentary that
comes your way.

drew
banta@abingdon.sun.com
--
"I remember a few years ago watching a docu-drama about Nazi atrocities;
at one point, a stormtrooper grabbed a cowering old man, and slapped the
yellow Star of David onto his coat.  The guy I was watching the show with
remarked, 'Guess he's the sherriff now.'"               -- Brian Scearce