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: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:04:15 GMT

In article <Bz47Lr.2MC@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Dec11.162940.16341@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>> [selective quotations deleted]
>gp> Get the point Russell?  Later provisions relaxed these standards to permit
>gp> vivisection under stringent controls.  Regardless, it is clear from these
>gp> and other quotes that you choose to ignore, that the Nazi Party supported
>gp> animal rights ( maybe if you close your eyes you can make it go away)
>
>No, it's not clear at all, Greg.  I noticed that *all* of your 
>references came from journals of associations with a vested 
>interest in the status quo.  And they're obviously intended to 
>serve a political goal by demeaning the views of opponents by means
>of fallacious "nazi" name-calling.   Typical.

[Sigh]
Russell, if you look at the quotes, you would see that these are not the
opinions of the journals in question.  These are direct quotes from
leaders of the Nazi Party.  Goring called for a complete ban on vivisection
in Aug. of 1933.  It is a historical fact . there is no room for
interpretation here.  If this was not done in support of animal rights,
perhaps you could give a few alternative reasons why the Third Reich would
do this.


Did you find the book I cited?  Did you try?   This book is not a Research
journal, and hence should not be bias in your opinion.  In addition one of
the cited references was a 1933 issue of JAMA.  Incase you didn't know,
historians often rely on journals like these (e.g. published in the era in
question) to write books on.

I find it hard to believe that you do not accept the facts I have
presented here  I am not trying to prove any guilt by association here for
the AR movement.  For none exist.  This whole damn thing started out as a
comment to Rosemary regarding the pro-AR quotes from famous people she had
been placing in her posts.

>
>A few selective quotes stating that "Hitler loves animals" 
>doesn't mean much if you were to analyze these same passages in 
>the total context of the hundreds of thousands of speeches, articles, 
>and political campaigns of the Third Reich.  
>
>gp> Question:  Do you agree that the Nationalist Socialist Party in Germany 
>gp> in the 1930's supported animal rights?
>
>rl> Of course not.  To the contrary, I think you'd be hardpressed to find
>rl> a single nazi thinker whose ideas are even remotely comparable to the
>rl> arguments set forth by folks like Gandhi or Singer or Regan.
>
Russell, I would be had pressed to find a AR person who is "even remotely
comparable" to these people.  They put forth compeling arguments(though I
disagree with them).  That is why they are leader in the area of animal
rights.  I am not claiming that the Nazis were such.  I am merely stating
that they did support the concept of animal rights.

>gp> Please reread the parts about "love for animals and the torture of
>gp> vivisection".
>
>Come off it.  You yourself might make similar statements under 
>similar contexts.  Do you hate animals?  Would you allow your 
>coworkers to perform surgical experiments on animals without the 
>benefit of anesthesia?  If your answer to either question is 
>"no", please explain how the aforementioned statements concerning 
>"Hitler's love for animals" would be different from the sorts of 
>observations that we could make about Greg Popken.  
>
I would not pass laws banning all vivisection.  That's how I differ.

>gp> Question: Do you still refuse to admit that the Nazi Party in Germany in
>gp> the 1930's supported animal rights?
>
>You're still equivocating, Greg.   Your definition of "animal rights"
>seems to waver around quite a bit... depending on the particular
>argument at hand.   
>
>BTW, are you aware of the fact that anesthesia and analgesics weren't 
>commonly used on animals back in the 30's?   
>
Yes, I am aware that in the thirties anesthetics and analgesics were not
in standard use as they are today.  That is a shame.  But, that was sixty
years ago.  Welcome to the 1990's Russell.



-- 
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