From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: A Policy of Peace.
Date: 19 Aug 1992 19:48:34 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <Bt7o0D.9o9@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> This doesn't make much sense to me.  Are you saying that any action
>rl> is ethically justifiable if it results in a greater sense of 
>rl> understanding on the part of the perpetrator? 
 
>rl> Consider, for example, the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis experiments 
>rl> that were exposed by the NY Times in 1972.  As I recall, the 
>rl> Tuskegee experimenters had been studying the progressive effect 
>rl> of syphilis, from 1932 onward, among a group of black men 
>rl> who had been mislead into believing that they were getting 
>rl> effective medical treatment from the researchers, whereas in 
>rl> truth, they were getting an opportunity to serve as tools in a 
>rl> hideous experiment.  Would you say that anyone who's reluctant to 
>rl> misuse other individuals in such a way would be engaging in a
>rl> a kind of "self-imposed ignorance"?  Would it be acceptable for 
>rl> parties unknown to misuse Eric Korbela in some intrusive way in 
>rl> order to expand the horizons of their own knowledge?  

>From article <16r2ljINN4am@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> I guess you just can't fathom that many or more correctly most 
>ml> everybody in this country do not equate animal life with human 
>ml> life.  Every time someone makes a comment you like to compare it 
>ml> to a situation with humans.  This may work in your mind but for 
>ml> most everybody else it does not.  

>The Tuskegee experiments were funded by the US government.  They 
>began in 1932 and didn't end until 1972 when a public outcry 
>brought about a cessation of HEW funding.  After the press 
>exposure, the major medical journals were strangely silent on the 
>subject although the Southern Medical Journal castigated the lay
>press for bringing the study to the attention of the public.  A 
>subsequent review panel conducted by the government exonerated the 
>researchers of wrong-doing.  

>One of the principles invoked to justify the experiment was the 
>theory that the knowledge of one class of individuals 
>[scientists] grants a kind of dispensation (of sorts) to misuse 
>the members of another class [low income blacks] for the sake of 
>intellectual or cultural gain.  Isn't it true that you, yourself, 
>subscribe to this theory, provided of course that you're not a 
>member of the victim class?  


Once again you are wrong in your assumption.  I believe that all *humans*
are equal.  The case you describe is unethical in my opinion.  Perhaps 
you can explain why you felt I subscribe to this theory.


>Genetic arguments also played a major role in the Tuskegee 
>research.  The suffering of the victims (ie black men) was 
>discounted because they didn't belong to a preferred genetic 
>class (white humans).  Isn't it true that you yourself are 
>inclined to discount suffering when the victim doesn't belong to 
>a preferred genetic class?  


Only if you consider it true that you yourself are inclined to discount 
suffering when the victim doesn't belong to a preferred class of lifeform.

Besides, I already told you that I do not enjoy inflicting pain and suffer-
ing on animals and that is why I try to make a kill as efficient as possible.
Have you forgotten so soon?   


>You claim that the case of animals and humans is unrelated, and 
>yet you've given me reason to believe that you don't believe in 
>human rights for precisely the same reasons that you don't 
>believe in animal rights...  namely that "god" owns humans in the 
>same way that humans own animals.  


You have a vivid imagination Russell.  


>I can demonstrate your position in this matter by asking the following
>simple question:

>    Would it be wrong for you to violate a human's rights if "god" 
>    were to tell you (via the bible), "Thou shalt not suffer a witch 
>    to live" ???

>Thanks in advance for an honest and courageous reply, and for not
>evading this question as you have in the past.


Funny but I don't think your obvious attempt to use psychology to get me
to answer your questions will work.  This is the second time you have asked
this question and this is the second time I will tell you that I have no-
thing to gain by explaining my religious beliefs for you to ridicule.  Your
definition of human rights is not what I judge to be the examples I should
use to guide my actions by.  Sorry, nice try.


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Mike Linan

















































Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals