From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: More ethical relativism.  Was : PETA Activities 
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:25:57 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals

As quoted from <Bu11GB.Gy8@wpg.com> by russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence):

> As quoted from <BtxoLq.A30@wpg.com> by russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence):
> rl> In the previous passage above, you seemed to be saying that the 
> rl> "goodness" or "badness" of an ethical action ought to be measured 
> rl> by opinion alone, as though our minds might be incapable of digging 
> rl> deeper than the level of mere "acceptability" and 
> rl> "non-acceptability".  If that's the case, please tell us: 
> 
> From article <Bu0vAq.1sv@NCoast.ORG>, by cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton):
> cm> And once again you veritably glory in the opportunity to equate 
> cm> Blacks and non-human animals.  I refuse to take part in such an 
> cm> orgy of depravity.  If I was willing to do that, I'd have been in 
> cm> that cabin with your intellectual contemporary, Weaver.  
> 
> Would you mind quoting the passage where I allegedly equated blacks
> and non-human animals?    

It's INHERENT in your ENTIRE argument.  Do you deny that you compare the
treatment of Blacks and animals at every opportunity?  Is this for any REASON,
or are you just typing random phrases?  The comparison is a nonsequitor.  When
you attempt to equate Blacks with lobsters, it's clear that you value Blacks
less than others, since oddly enough NO other group seems to suffer this 
degradation.  Of course the comparison is itself inherently demeaning, and 
strongly implies agreement with the basic racist thesis that Blacks are either
not HUMAN or are a lesser breed of human.  You can run away from this as long
as you want.  You'll never get away.

> rl> I can understand that murder may seem acceptable to murderers, 
> rl> and that rape may seem acceptable to rapists and that slavery may 
> rl> have seemed acceptable to the owner of Dred Scott.  I can also 
> rl> understand why sport hunting might seem acceptable to aliens.  
> 
> cm> At least you're starting to catch on... maybe.
> 
> rl> What I'm asking you, however, is this:  Would you be able to name 
> rl> any reasons why such actions might not be good?  
> 
> cm> Because they harm other HUMANS, and violate their RIGHTS, which 
> cm> only HUMANS possess.  
> 
> Would you mind explaining why you think humans alone should
> possess rights?

Because they are a HUMAN creation.  If the humans and the aliens want to get
together and AGREE on a set of MUTUAL rights, that's just fine.  Otherwise
a discussion of "rights" vis a vis each other is meaningless.

> Before answering, please read the following passage very carefully:
> ==================================================================
> From "The Glossary of Logical Terms: Fallacies", _The Encyclopedia
> of Philosophy_, McMillen and Company.
> 
>    11) begging the question (circular reasoning), an argument 
>        that assumes as part of the premises the conclusion that 
>        it supposed to be proved. 

I've seen this before.  I've seen references to the "Protocols of the Elders of
Zion" too.  

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

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