From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:19:07 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals

As quoted from <BtsFK0.E6H@wpg.com> by russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence):

> I'm a strong advocate of personal freedom (including freedom of 
> speech), but I think it's important to distinguish between the 
> personal freedom that we all should have to use our minds and 
> bodies as we see fit, and the "freedom" of property that some of 
> us conveniently advocate when we're seeking to appropriate the 
> minds and bodies of other thinking/feeling individuals.  

That's why slavery is illegal and hunting isn't.

> Do carrots and celery plants have the capacity to experience life 
> in any meaningful way?  If not, then it's easy to see that 
> killing such vegetables may, indeed, be quite different from 
> killing animals.  

Do deer?  And who determines what is "meaningful"?  How do they do this?

> rl>   As an example, were we imposing on Jeffrey Dahmer by 
> rl> preventing him from consuming his chosen diet?  
> 
> jve> Of course we were "imposing" on Dahmer by preventing him from 
> jve> doing what he wanted to do.  The issue is whether or not society 
> jve> is right to do so (as it was in Dahmer's case).  Dahmer's victims 
> jve> were people with rights.  That's the difference.  
> 
> Let's not confuse Dahmer's personal right to control his own mind 
> and body with his (non-existent) property right to appropriate 
> the bodies of other individuals.  To the extent that we fail to 
> make a distinction between freedom of personhood and freedom of 
> property, the whole notion of rights would be turned upside down 
> and subsequently fall apart.  

Other HUMAN individuals.  He in fact had a right to appropriate the bodies of
nonhuman animals for his eating enjoyment, subject of course to applicable 
game laws.  People are not property.  Nonhuman animals can be.

> BTW, do you still believe that it would be morally acceptable for 
> "superior" alien (aryan) individuals to hunt human beings for 
> sport if/when they have the power to do so?   If so, how
> would you distinguish your "might makes right" hypothesis with
> the nazi ethos?   In view of the comments you made earlier today
> about intellectual courage, I hope you'll be kind enough (and
> courageous enough) to defend your views on this topic.

Morally acceptable for WHOM?  If we can kill or otherwise deter them, it's a
moot point.  Likewise, when the deer can kill or otherwise deter us, hunting 
will be a moot point.  But of course this is still the same strawman that it
always was.  Failing a demonstration on your part, the aliens DON'T exist while
the deer DO.  This is another example of the typical AR "Well if two and two
DID equal five...." argument.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals