From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:22:40 GMT

From article <mhulsey-141292100824@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <Bz2BtD.ByC@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> 
>> From article <mhulsey-101292134012@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>> mh> As I said earlier, I cannot translate this 1933 tract myself to 
>> mh> confirm its proclamation regarding animal "rights" in Nazi 
>> mh> Germany.  
>> 
>> In other words, you lack the ability to examine the evidence.
> 
> My knowledge is finite.  I cannot read German.  Do you think that you are
> being profound here?

Again, thanks for admitting that you lacked the ability to analyze
the evidence. 

In the past, you've criticized Dr. Neil Barnard for offering nutritional
advice to american citizens... presumably because Barnard has a degree in
medicine rather than "nutrition science".    In view of such criticism,
don't you think it's kinda hypocritical for you to promote these "nazi"
allegations, given the fact that you can't read german and apparently
have little expertise (if any) in historical studies?

>> mh> However, I have a colleague from Germany who can.  I will contact 
>> mh> her for assistance in confirming that this 1933 reference does 
>> mh> indeed proclaim what my other references suggest.  I will post 
>> mh> her assessment of this question, for better or worse, ASAP.  
>> 
>> We'll look forward to hearing from you, once again, after you have
>> your facts in order.
> 
> My facts are in order, we have to put them in a form that you can
> understand.

Your facts are grossly insufficient.

>> mh> Perhaps then we can put an end to Russell's unjustified 
>> mh> complaints about the veracity of my references, and he can then 
>> mh> proceed with his inevitable evasions of this damaging revelation.  
>> 
>> Unjustified complaints???  This sounds strange, given the fact 
>> that you've already admitted your inability to analyze the scanty 
>> evidence at your disposal.
> 
> At least I have provided evidence that others, with a knowledge of German,
> can verify.  After weeks, we are still waiting for your "evidence"
> regarding the "cat-shooting" and "beagle-drowning" experiments.

Are my postings to usenet your only source of information?

>> When you can round up some solid facts and rational arguments to 
>> prove your case, please let us know.  For starters:
>> 
>> 1) You stated previously that Hitler endorsed the philosophy of
>>    animal rights.  Can you point to some specific papers or speeches
>>    that support such a claim?
> 
> I stated that the Nazi press proclaimed that animals have "rights," and,
> given the fact that Hitler was dictator of Nazi Germany, that he approved
> of the content of these press releases.  

- Please specify the full set of "rights" that were proclaimed by the
  "nazi press"?

- Please define the term "nazi press".   In particular, do you have
  any idea how many publishing organizations/companies this term might
  entail, not to mention the total volume of published material?

> I have no idea whether Hitler
> personally believed that animals have "rights," or whether it was simply a
> propaganda maneuver to justify his persecution of the Jewish people.

Do you understand the concept of a "false alternative"?  Example:

	"I have no idea whether Hitler personally advocated the autobahnen
	 or whether the promotion of high speed highways was simply a 
	 propaganda maneuver to justify his mistreatment of Jews."

In this statement, there's no established connection between autobahnen
and the mistreatment of jews.  By positing such an alternative, the
speaker attempts to fool himself and/or his readers by implying that 
there is a likely connection.  

Please explain the connection that you perceive between the opposition
to "vivisection" [make sure that you've defined the term precisely
in historical context] and Hitler's mistreatment of jews.

> ...
>> 2) You stated previously that the Third Reich was the only "modern
>>    civilization" [sic] to "officially embrace" a philosophy of
>>    animal rights.  Would you mind defining the term "philosophy
>>    of animal rights" in this context?   Can you point to any
>>    specific pieces of legislation under the Third Reich that you
>>    consider representative of the animal rights concept?  And
>>    please explain how/why such legislation was unique to nazi
>>    germany.
> 
> I am sure that any evidence that I could provide would not satisfy your
> definition of animal "rights."  Your definition of animal "rights" is
> inconsistent.  For example, you implied previously that Hitler could not
> have supported animal "rights" because he received injections of bull
> testicle extract.  However, you have previously argued that supporters of
> animal "rights" have no obligation to refuse medical treatments developed
> using animals.  Make up your mind.

You're using the term, "developed using animals", ambiguously.  [This is
called "equivocation", Martin, but I suppose you knew that already.]

I've stated previously that it's serves little purpose for anyone 
to reject a medical treatment program on the grounds that its 
intellectual foundations are tainted by the prior (mis)use of 
animals.  And why?  Because such refusals won't undo history and 
bring dead animals back to life, undo past suffering, etc, etc.  

Hitler didn't simply receive injections that had been developed using 
animals.  To the contrary, he received injections that were *manufactured*
from animals.  

> The important question is whether the Nazis proclaimed their support for
> animal "rights," not whether their definition of animal "rights" is
> acceptable to you.  As you have reminded me numerous times, there is a
> great diversity of opinion on such matters.

As I've pointed out several times, your definition of "animal rights"
is grossly inconsistent.

> There is absolutely no need to demonstrate that legislation regarding
> animal protection is unique to Nazi Germany.  In fact, you and I *know*
> that such legislation is not unique to Nazi Germany.  What *is* unique is
> their proclamation that animals have "rights."  No other civilization,
> government, etc. has *officially* proclaimed this.

How do you know, Martin?  Are you a well-informed student of history?
Or, are you merely relying on someone else's opinion?  

We'll be able to determine the truth or falsity of your claims after
you define your terms more precisely.  

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