From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: What Animal "Rights" People are _Really_ Saying?
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:37:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.221332.26644@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.204124.29895@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>>In article <swood.715232608@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>             What the Animal "Rights" People Are _Really_ Saying?
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>	 A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.
>>>				-Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical
>>>				       Treatment of Animals (PETA)
>>>				 (_Washingtonian_Magazine_, August 1986)
>>>
>>
>>Oviously this statement is nonsense, if taken literally. 
>>
>>Did Ms. Newkirk really say this, as a standalone statement?  Or did she
>>say this?  
>>
>>	"When it comes to feelings, like pain, hunger, and thirst, a
>>	rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
>
>   Clearly, there is a difference in the words, but, knowing Ms. Newkirk's
>   affiliations, I'm not at all convinced that there is a substantive
>   difference in implication.
>
>   In the very next quote, which you chose to delete, she is quoted as saying:
>
>	"The smallest form of life, even an ant or a clam, is equal to a
>	human being."
>
>   I'm assuming that, since there was no challenge to it, there must be
>   some truth to the attribution of this second set of lines to Ms. Newkirk.

Don't assume this at all.  There was no challenge to it because, unlike
the first quote, I have not encountered "this second set of lines" or any
similar version of them.  At this point I'm neither challenging them nor
accepting them at face value.

>   Given the second quote, then, I see no real distinction between the first
>   quote as presented and the expanded quote you've supplied.

Not necessarily true.  The second quote most likely has been stripped
from a wider context, where there of course would appear a further
clarification describing the sort of equality that is being discussed. 

As a paragon of clear writing, you are well aware of the ways in which
removing a statement from its surrounding context can radically alter
the intended meaning - especially when the removal is done selectively
by one who is hostile to the views being dissected. 

>
>   As an aside, I'm astounded that I find myself in agreement with the text
>   of the second quote.

If your interpretations are correct, then you must indeed feel a
profound sense of joy at finding an intellectual adversary who adheres
to a critical part of your somewhat iconoclastic position.  We here on
the net feel privileged to have been present for such a momentous
meeting of minds and we thank you for sharing this moment with us.  :-)

>  Where Ms. Newkirk and I differ, however, is in the
>   application of this realization to daily life...and I might extend the
>   scope beyond Ms. Newkirk's to include amoebae and algae, violets, and
>   oak trees.  It's interesting to note that the smallest form of life with
>   which Ms. Newkirk is familiar seems to be the ant or clam.

Do you really wish to extend the scope of moral patiency beyond the point
reached by Ms. Newkirk?

>
>   We return you, now, to your regularly scheduled arguments.....
>
>
>-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.