From: parr@acs.ucalgary.ca (Charles Parr)
Subject: Re: A rat is a pig-headed moron is a ...
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 15:10:32 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <C0pn31.DBo@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <ll39d9INNt58@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, by banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking):
>> In article <C0ntB3.260@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> ]> 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 seem to be saying that the rights of "minor" humans stem from their 
>guardians, rather from some quality which they themselves possess.   Would
>it be ethically acceptable to torture minors if/when they lack guardians?
>If not, how does this fit in with your prior allegation that 
>a "concept of legal discourse" is a pre-requisite for the possession of
>rights?

An infant human is a 'potential person' and is accorded certain
rights in light of that potentiality. Infants (legal infants)
are *not* fully enfranchised of all the rights posessed by an
adult.

A child who lacks and individual guardian maintains the state
and the law as their guardian. 

You are holding up flimsy straw men, do try and do better?

>> 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).
>
>If animals were dependent on people, would they have rights?

Just as many rights as their owners choose to give them...But you
can't give your tarantula the "right" to my worship, as it's not
yours to give. Kiss it if you want, just don't expect the world
to join in.

>You're entitled to your opinion.   I agree with you that arguments
>ought to have a factual and logical basis.  Permit me to suggest,
>therefore, that you confine your comments to facts and reasons 
>rather than making assumptions about my personal character.  [read
>on].

Why? It's so obvious that you're a narrow minded prig who 
desparately longs to see all of humanity wedged into the
same narrow little track as yourself. I could theorise
on the deep inadequacies which spur you to such needs,
but that would be mere speculation, and the fact of
your basic absurdity shines forth without need of explication.

>Again, you're entitled to your opinion.  

Gee whiz, that's mighty white of you.

>I realize that some humans have the capacity to engage in deductive
>reasoning, but some humans lack this capacity.  Would it be acceptable
>to hunt severely retarded or mentally disabled humans?  Or use them
>in medical experiments?  Or consume them perhaps? If not, please 
>explain how/why deductive reasoning is the prerequisite criterion for
>deciding who does or doesn't deserve rightful treatment?

You don't really want to hear the darwinist/malthusian/sensible
answer to this question...But you will, from people far better
at turning your weak and feeble attempt to insult into a festival
of embarassment.

Have fun here in the lions den, my friends, because this time you
really walked into the wild kingdom...

Regards, Charles
-- 
Within the span of the last few weeks I have heard elements of
separate threads which, in that they have been conjoined in time,
struck together to form a new chord within my hollow and echoing
gourd. --Unknown net.person
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves