From: young@serum.kodak.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:43:15 GMT
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Originator: young@sasquatch

In <BvKM21.1Fn@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes (in a fit of pique):
>
>In article <BvIw6F.F4n@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>rl> Is it ok to kill a brain-dead human?
>rl> Is it ok to kill a kidney-dead human?

[...]

>ry> I have ADDRESSED these questions and
>ry> found them to be irrelevant to the discussion, which dealt with
>ry> assignment of status by humans to non-human species.
>
>Are you saying that arguments and facts can be dismissed, without
>further argument on your part, simply because you've declared them 
>to be irrelevant?   

	Would you offer dialysis to a kidney-dead cow?  If you can answer
	this question "Yes" with a straight face, then I'll be happy to
	consider your two questions relevant.  Failing that, they remain
	irrelevant because they address INTRA-species ethics, not the
	INTER-species questions we are purportedly discussing in this
	thread, and it's already been demonstrated that the two sets of
	ethics differ.

[...]

>ry> I've not held anything within the confines of secrecy.  In fact, 
>ry> I've been quite straightforward with my comments and evaluations.  
>
>Not really.  Why didn't you declare, right from the beginning, 
>that your opponents were wrong simply because you've declared 
>them to be wrong.

	This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.  Was it not YOU who
	claimed from the beginning that the killing of animals for food is
	wrong (on some absolute scale you refuse to provide) and that those
	who might believe otherwise are mistaken?  Yes, yes, I know, "Not
	really."  If this ISN'T what you believe, then please clarify for
	us.  Without some absolute standard, you've done precisely that of
	which you have accused me: declared your opponents wrong simply 
	because you believe them to be so.

>By insisting that abilities like sensitivity 
>to pain are relevant to human-animal discussions but irrelevant 
>to non-human-animal discussions, you've defined your 
>conclusions...  not proved them.  

	You've misquoted me yet again.  I have never said that sensitivity
	to pain was "irrelevant."  I have said that using the presence or
	absence of such characteristics as the criteria to determine whether
	non-human species are worthy of human concern is arbitrary and a 
	retreat to truth-by-similarity-of-structure.

>ry> If you'd like to start another thread with your two questions,
>ry> feel free, but within THIS thread, the questions are irrelevant.
>
>I disagree that the questions are irrelevant, but if you're afraid
>to answer them, that's fine with me.

	As I said in my LAST posting, I have no fear of the questions...in
	fact, I've already in effect answered one of them quite recently...
	rather, I fear that you will use the answers to take off on yet
	another tangent which has nothing whatever to do with the question
	at hand regarding assignment of status by humans to non-human
	species.

	If you wish to start a new thread with your questions, I will
	answer them without hesitation.

>ry> I suggest that further conversation of this nature be done in
>ry> e-mail: there is no need to waste bandwidth and money with what
>ry> is clearly a "who-said-what-and-when" dispute.
>
>I don't want to embarrass you, Rich.  Relax.

	You couldn't POSSIBLY embarrass me, Russell...and based on your
	last "From-the-keyboard-of-Rich-Young" attempt, I suggest that
	you not try.

	I clearly said that my suggestion had more to do with money and
	bandwidth than anything else and I meant what I said.  I'm thinking
	of people like Mr. Van Etten (sorry if I've spelled your name wrong,
	John) who apparently has little storage and a slow modem.

>ry> Now, as I recall, there are a number of questions which DO pertain
>ry> to the discussion which you have not answered......your "public"
>ry> awaits.
>
>Cut the crap, Rich.  You're wasting my time and everyone else's.

	No, Russell, I suggest that YOU cut the crap.  Right now.  I haven't 
	wasted your time at all...there is no gun at your head forcing you to
	either read or respond to my postings.  In fact it was YOU who
	jumped into the discussion in an abortive attempt to save "ted"
	from his own words.

	Now, I suggest that you display some of this intellectual integrity
	about which you're constantly yammering and answer the questions
	which have been asked.  Your failure to supply an answer does not
	constitute a wasting of time by me, but it certainly demonstrates
	the true nature of your goals.

>I suspect there isn't a single reader out there who hasn't seen my
>answers to your "unaswered" questions at least two or three times.  
>Again, who do you think you're fooling?

	The truth is that you haven't really ANSWERED my questions; you've
	beaten around the proverbial bushes and drunk from the Holy Grail
	of Sentience and Sapience, but you've not answered the questions...
	it's painfully clear, by demonstration, that you HAVE no answers
	to these questions.  Or at least none that you're willing to share
	with us.

	Your idea of the word "meaning" is nebulous at best, as demonstrated
	by your constant retreat into example and discussion of that which
	derives from "meaning" rather than a clear, concise statement of
	that which constitutes "meaning."  You tell us, alternately, that
	a dog's life is "meaningful," or that a chimp's life is "meaningful,"
	but when asked how you know this, you can only say that you know
	this because dogs and chimps are sentient and sapient.  We don't
	want to know WHY a dog's life has "meaning," we want to know precisely
	those components of which "meaning" is constituted, so that 
	we may similarly, and objectively, judge other species.  You've either 
	ignored the question or claimed that you've already answered it.
	Notably, you haven't called the question irrelevant.  Also, notably, 
	you've chosen not to rebut my critique of your so-called "answer", but
	instead respond with these petulant little snipings.

	You consistently refuse to address questions regarding the bases
	of your ethical conclusions, preferring instead to come up with
	cute little one-liners such as "What species did you have in mind,
	Rich?" instead of an actual answer to the question.  Did you think
	the questions would go away, or that we'd forget, Russell?  You were
	stalling for time and you know it...and you STILL haven't answered
	the questions.

	I'll make this easy for you:

	   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.)