From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Boiling lobsters
Date: 6 Apr 92 05:32:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: wpg.1992Apr6.053214.6959
Organization: WP Group

Christopher Morton writes:
cm> Those laws of course relate to people, not lobsters.

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl>  Opponents of "busybody" abolitionists claimed that the principles 
rl>  of freedom set forth by the US founding fathers related to white 
rl>  men, not negro slaves, and that abolition would be a blatant 
rl>  infringement on the property rights of americans.  

From article <1992Apr5.234836.746@NCoast.ORG>, by cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton):
cm> 1) I don't much care what slaveowners think.  Certainly no more 
cm> than I value the opinions of concentration camp guards and child 
cm> molestors.  I think it more than passing odd that you seem to lend 
cm> so much credence to their thoughts.  

Is it truly "odd", as you say, for us to study the ways in which 
genetic rationales were employed historically to justify unjust 
behavior? 

Is the mind of Chris Morton so brilliant and innovative that he 
would have immediately understood, had he lived back in the 17th 
century, that slavery was an unjust practice?  Or, would he have 
accepted the genetic rationales for unjust behavior and gone along 
with the flow of the times?  

cm> 2) For the 20th time, I ABSOLUTELY reject your attempts to equate 
cm> Blacks and lobsters.  It is an endorsement of racism, and an 
cm> insult to Blacks and other minority HUMANS.  If you think you'll 
cm> convince anybody by adopting the philosophical base of White 
cm> supremacists, you're as out of touch as PETA is.  

I find it ironic that you would accuse me of being racist in view 
of the fact that I reject racist/genetic arguments altogether, 
whereas you've repeatedly employed them to justify your own 
position.  

The fact that I reject genetic prejudice doesn't mean that 
I'm "equating" the victims of such prejudice.  As I see it, if one 
individual is torturing another individual, his crime isn't 
mitigated by his own genetic classification,  nor is his crime 
mitigated by the genetic class of his thinking/feeling victims.  

If one of those victims happens to be a small human and another 
victim happens to be a small pig, the fact that I've opposed his 
actions in both cases doesn't mean that I consider small humans 
and small pigs to be "equal".  Yet you've made this assumption 
because you measure cruelty, not by the degree of suffering 
involved, but by comparing the racial/genetic classification of 
the perpetrator with the racial/genetic classification of the 
victim.  

rl>  Opponents of LA's recent spousal rape bill argued that rape is a 
rl>  form of theft and that wives belong to their husbands;  hence, 
rl>  they concluded that the concept of wife-rape is a silly notion 
rl>  concocted by "busybody" feminists intent on disrupting the 
rl>  "natural" relationship between husbands and their wives.  

cm> Likewise.  You seem strangely solicitous of the feelings of 
cm> rapists.  *I'm* not.  Does that make me more sensitive to the 
cm> suffering of others?  I guess so, at least when it comes to HUMAN 
cm> slaves and rape victims.  

How genetically different must an organism be from Chris Morton,
before Chris Morton looses his sensitivity to their suffering.  Do you 
feel any compassion for the caged chimps used in medical experiments,
Chris?  How different is their DNA from your own?  

rl>  Were the proponents of abolition and the spousal rape bill 
rl>  dictating personal morality?  

cm> Sure were.  So do I when it comes to treatment of HUMANS.

Can you distinguish personhood from property?

In passing a law that bans rape, are we really imposing on
the personhood of rapists?  Or, are we preventing them from
appropriating the minds/bodies of other individuals?

rl>  BTW, you really should read Morris Dees' book, Christopher.  Dees 
rl>  was labeled as a "busybody" and "outside agitator" by his 
rl>  opponents in most, if not all, of his important cases.  Do you
rl>  share their view?

cm> And how many lobsters did United Klans of America and Tom Metzger 
cm> boil?  YOu REALLY don't get it, DO you?  I ain't buyin' into the 
cm> "Lobster is a rape victim is a Black" "argument".  Not now, not 
cm> ever.  It's dehumanizing, and insulting to women and minorities.  
cm> I value MYSELF over a lobster, whether you do or not.  

Metzger values HIMSELF over black kids.

Do you truly believe that it enhances human values when we inflict 
suffering on other individuals?  Is it "dehumanizing" as you claim,
when we have compassion for the suffering of other creatures... 
regardless of their genetic classification?

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