From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 18:56:56 GMT

In <BvxoM0.9Cv@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:

[...]

>I don't understand why a man like yourself who publicly claims to 
>have intelligence that's vastly superior to the common man can be 
>so willing to believe that he can demonstrate the truth or 
>falsity of an idea by appealing to an authority.  What's worse, 
>many of your appeals are particularly ludicrous because they've 
>involved abstract entities: like the opinions of "cosmoses" 
>and "collective lives" and such.  Were you under the impression 
>that fallacious appeals would be more convincing if they involved 
>such grand designs?

	What is your purpose here?  You've already been told a number of
	times that my use of such terms is a literary convenience, not a
	statement of theological significance.  In addition, you have
	assumed, without basis, that cessation in the use of these terms
	constitutes an abandonment of principles: yet another egregious
	error which has been corrected.

	Now you have made two more faulty assumptions and have stated them
	as incontrovertible fact:

	   1. that there is some "appeal" to "grand designs," and,

	   2. that there is something fallacious in the consideration
		of the living world as we know it from some viewpoint
		other than your parochial, anthropocentric, and
		presumably comforting moral and ethical dogma.

	You do not address or even acknowledge these corrections to the
	record; you simply ignore them and bring the same charges at a
	later date...clearly a stalling tactic for one who has no real
	answer but who is congenitally incapable of admitting that there
	might be another valid view of the world.

	I have explained my point(s) quite clearly, and at least one
	poster obviously understands them well enough to have said so.
	I continue to post answers to your feigned ignorance only to see 
	how long you will continue this feckless bombast before tiring.

	I think it's high time you quit dancing about and stop pretending
	that your literary smile is not actually the rictus of ideological
	death.  Before I allow the likes of you to dictate to me what is
	"right" and what is "wrong" in this area, you must address the
	following and supply more than tired repetitions of past failures
	which have already been critiqued and found wanting:

	   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.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals