From: young@serum.kodak.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:47:31 GMT
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Originator: young@sasquatch

In <BvuA0F.7FM@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:

[...]

>You're evading the point, Rich.  Not me.  You've claimed that you've 
>established the "arbitrariness" of sentience and sapience in the past, 
>yet the only argument that you presented to support your claim fell
>apart under scrutiny: namely your appeal to the mental likes and
>dislikes of a non-existent authority that you called the "cosmos".

[...]

>Yes, there is a class of objects called the "cosmos".  And yes, 
>there is a class of objects called the "natural world".  And yes, 
>there is a class of entities called "life".  However, it doesn't 
>make much sense for you to pretend to yourself that you can test 
>the truth or falsity of an idea by appealing to the non-existent
>authority that you've conjured up in these abstract concepts. 

	"Fell apart under scrutiny?"  And who, besides you of course, is
	talking about "truth or falsity?"  The word for the day is "arbitrary." 
	Can you say "arbitrary?"  I KNEW that 'cha could.

	Look, Russell, if you really don't understand clear, concise 
	statements like the following:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From <1992Sep10.004348.10673@pixel.kodak.com>:

	In an effort to forestall the obvious, let me point out that my use
	of terms like "cosmos" and "natural world" has been an attempt to
	gather all forms of life under one convenient term....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	...then just say so, and we'll couch our arguments in simpler terms.

	Now, this is the third time that I've re-posted this.  One would 
	normally assume that three repetitions would be sufficient to make 
	it crystal clear that nothing has been "abandoned" here and that
	there is no "appeal to non-existent authority."  If we say that the 
	sapience and sentience you use as criteria to assign moral and ethical 
	relevance, or "status", to non-human species is utterly without 
	significance to those non-human species, we have said precisely the 
	same thing without using the term upon which you've hung this 
	desperate excursion into semantics rather than substance.  This is
	simply another retreat into your standard "Nature isn't a person"
	distraction; we all KNOW that (especially since you remind us of it
	regularly...usually when an adequate rebuttal has not come to your 
	mind), so please move on.

	Speaking of substance, suppose you actually deal with the following
	instead of continually editing it out and raising these irrelevant
	semantic issues?

	   o  First, you need to define "meaning" for us, since you claim
		that "meaning" is necessary to make life worthy of human
		concern.  We need a definition so that we may apply this
		standard to all species and classify them accordingly by
		your values.

		So far, your arguments are rather like those against
		pornography: "I can't tell you exactly what it is, but I
		know it when I see it."

	   o  Second, you need to tell us which external entity gave you
		the right to make life and death judgements of other species
		based on your ill-defined "meaning" test.

	   o  Third, you need to tell us the source of your absolute deter-
		mination that it is "wrong" to kill sentient/sapient animals
		for food.

	   o  Fourth, if the determination of "right" versus "wrong" in this
		area of discussion originates from within the confines of
		your own mind, you need to explain to us why we should
		blindly accept your judgement as absolute, or be relegated
		to that slag heap of humanity you use for those who do not
		agree with you.

-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)