From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: A rat is a pig-headed moron is a ...
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:13:48 GMT

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 wrote:
> ]
> ]======================================================================
> ]> The simple fact of the matter is that animals don't have rights.  To
> ]> have a concept of rights, one must have a concept of legal discourse
> ]> to secure those rights.  Regardless of how hard you try, you can't
> ]> make animals live within your legal system, just as I can't make them
> ]> live within mine.
> ]======================================================================
> 
> Quite simply.  A "minor" has a least one person responsible for
> ensuring the minor maintains his rights and doesn't tread on the
> rights of others.

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?

> 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?

> ]You seem to be suggesting that an individual must have a concept of
> ]rights, in order to be treated in a rightful manner by individuals
> ]who do, indeed, fit within our legal system?   
> 
> By the way, Russ, you seem to be suffering the same affliction beast
> apologists the world over suffer from.  A couple things you seem to
> have glossed over in the testbook of life are 1) A logical argument
> can't have an emotional basis and 2) semantic nitpicking is not a
> valid form of logical argument.

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].

> Until you can provide something other than an emotional premise for
> your blathering, I see very little point sitting here, holding your
> hand through the interpretation of plain-text English.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion.  

> One trait that separates humans from animals is that humans can
> deductively reason.  Beast apologists, possibly in an effort to lend
> more credence to their claim that people an animals are more similar
> than they are, seem elide this fact.

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?

> Proof by demonstration appears in Russ's text, above.
> 
> ]If that's not what you 
> ]were saying, please clarify how/why an animal's concept of rights is 
> ]relevant to the discussion.
> 
> An animal's concept of rights is the same as a chair's concept of
> rights.  If I make the proclamation "a chair has the right to have
> four legs," it sounds pretty ridiculous, and should carry as much
> universal credence as the supposition of rights for animals.

Yes, it would be ridiculous to claim that a chair has a right to four
legs.

On the other hand, it's not so ridiculous to point out that a particular
animal is capable of experiencing sensations, thoughts, emotions, etc,
and that those sensations, thoughts, and emotions ought to be taken
into account in our dealings with the animal.

I agree that deductive reasoning ability plays an important role
in some ethical decisions, but not all ethical decisions.  For
example, it would be ludicrous to argue that a severely retarded
child has a right to attend harvard.   However, deductive reasoning
is just one of many abilities that make life meaningful and 
pleasant/unpleasant for a particular individual.  It's truly stupid,
IMHO, for us to focus on one such ability while ignoring the others.
While it's silly to say that a retarded child should be able to 
attend Harvard, it's not so silly to say that such a child should
not be subject to pain or suffering simply that's inflicted, not for
the child's best interests, but because it suits our own purposes.

> Nothing about this premise is done in the animals' interest; it's done
> in the interest of befuddled little folk who've spent their life in
> urban sprawl and watched Bambi a few times too many.

Are you interested in discussing the issues?   Or would you prefer
to rant on and on?

> ]>>> "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
> ]>>>  by those who have not got it."
> ]>>>                                 -- George Bernard Shaw
> ]>>
> ]>>"Animals are my friends; I don't eat my friends." 
> ]>>                                  -- George Bernard Shaw
> ]> 
> ]> One of the more obvious reasons why Shaw was respected as a
> ]> professional cynic, not a professional vegetarian.
> ]
> ]This remark doesn't make much sense to me.  Were you hoping to dismiss
> ]Shaw's views by dumping them into a non-existent category  (eg.
> ]"professional vegetarianism")?   
> 
> Lissen up, Jethro.  I found one phrase of Shaw's that reflected my
> philosophy adequately to be used as a .signature.  How you got this
> wild hare [heh] up your ass that just because I agree with the one
> statement of someone famous for making noteworthy statements, I must
> subscribe to his entire kooky philosphy escapes me.

My name isn't Jethro.   I'm sure that Shaw would be thoroughly
cynical about many of the statements that you've made so far.

> I dismissed Shaw's stance on vegetarianism because it's trivially
> refuted.  And, just like his commentary on cynicism, it's hardly a
> universal truth.

Is there such a thing as a universal truth?  If not, what's the
relevance of saying that Shaw's statements aren't "universal 
truths"?   Perhaps you should be telling us, instead, that your own
statements aren't "universal truths".

> ]Be that as it may, do you think Shaw 
> ]would be cynical of your political theories?  Or, do you think he'd
> ]accept them on the basis of mere convention?
> 
> You should try underwear about three sizes larger.  It must be terrible
> to feel obligated to analyze the piss out of all pithy commentary that
> comes your way.

I'd suggest that you learn to control your emotions.  Your interest
in my underwear size seems to be out-of-control.

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