From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:57:52 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> What purpose does it serve when a writer attempts to gain 
rl> credibility for his own opinions by casting them into the minds 
rl> and mouths of non-existent beings?  Consider the difference 
rl> between the quoted text, and a more honest expression of the same 
rl> thoughts: 
rl> 
rl>     "I am a butcher.  I only discriminate between the fit and the
rl>      unfit.  Mercy is a human idea, but it's an idea that I do not
rl>      know".   -- Matt Smith
rl> 
rl> Matt's entitled to his views, but when he pretends that they're the
rl> product of the mind of "nature" or some make-shift god, I reserve
rl> the right to point out the inherent misrepresentation.

From article <1992Sep4.031211.5561@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, by smithm@plugflow.ecn.purdue.edu (Matthew Jacob Smith):
ms> Hey Asshole your the one casting opinions, by writing down your
ms> interpretation of my statement as a "more honest expression". 

In the future, please speak for yourself instead of casting your
opinions into the mind of "nature".

ms> It seems to me that you hit the nail on the head for what most of 
ms> you ARA's fail to appreciate and what my statement means.  Your 
ms> right "nature" has no mind or otherwise.  What my statement means 
ms> is that having no mind , there is no moral, or amoral, merciful 
ms> or unmerciful, cruel, or nice things about natural life.  

As you say, "nature" is mindless, and has no opinions one way or
another about laws, justice, education, medicine, or anything else.
Yet, it would be fallacious for anyone to argue that "nature's"
lack of concern for such things means that they're somehow invalid
or unworthy of our attention.  In point of fact, nature's testimony
is no testimony at all, and hence, cannot be called upon in support
of either side.

ms> Argueing about the way in which that animal will die is a mute 
ms> point, because die it will.  It makes no difference if say that 
ms> deer dies quickly by the buulet from a gun, an arrow, predation, 
ms> or by more "natural" means of starvation, disease, parasitism, or 
ms> accident.

Your comments seem irrational to me.  If it's true that deer are
capable of feeling pain or experiencing emotions, then surely
it makes a difference to you how they die.   Or, are you one
of those naive people who thinks that non-human animals are incapable
of feeling pain and emotion?

You're obviously going to die.  Would it make a difference if you
were tortured to death, as opposed to dying quietly of old age?

ms> To give deer (or other animals) human characteristics and compare 
ms> how they react with how we react to stimuli is a human device.  
ms> Eg.  deer flee from danger, it is a survival response.  They 
ms> cannot "fear" that danger or death, because they cannot 
ms> understand or even conceptualize death.  

Do you have any proof to support this statement?  

Many human children cannot understand or conceptualize death, yet
I can assure you that they're capable of experiencing fear.

Are you familiar with the concept of evolution?  Presuming that
you accept the notion that you, yourself, are an animal, what
makes you think that non-human mammals are so radically different
from human animals that they're incapable of experiencing fear?

> ...
ms> BTW ARA stands for Animal Rights Assholes.

Abraham Lincoln, Darwin, GB Shaw, Gandhi, and Einstein are a few 
of the people who've defended the rights of animals.  Do you 
consider them to be "assholes"?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals