From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 08:28:43 GMT

[ re: John Van Etten's "nazi" cries ]

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Hitler usually began his orations with lamentations about the 
rl> victimization of the superior aryan class at the hands of the 
rl> "jews" and "communists" and "perverts" who were forcing their 
rl> views on good germans by preventing them from exercising their
rl> right to rule.  And, Hitler usually ended his speeches with rousing 
rl> slogans about the need for "aryans" to stick together as "ein 
rl> volk".  
rl> 
rl> You, on the other hand, have presented the "ein volk" [Animal 
rl> Eaters Unite!]  argument first and the "victimization" arguments 
rl> last.  In view of the inverse order of your presentation, I suppose 
rl> we could say that your rhetoric is quite a bit different from 
rl> Hitler's.  Congratulations.

In article <xsry+hl@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
jve> Russell, you seem quite confused about who is forcing opinions on
jve> another group here.  I don't recall myself, or any other nasty, evil
jve> "Animal Eaters" (to quote your words) forcing anyone to do anything
jve> (i.e., I don't recall forcing you folk to hunt or eat meat).  And I
jve> will of course never try to do so, since I respect your right to not
jve> eat meat.  Please read that a few times and try to digest it, no
jve> matter how bitter the pill may be.  Freedom is only a bad thing on
jve> *your* side of the fence, not over here.

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.  

rl> I'm curious about one point, though.  Would you agree with Hitler 
rl> that we'd be forcing our views on a set of powerful individuals 
rl> if we prevent those individuals from forcing their views on 
rl> others?

jve> What others are you talking about?  Clearly hunters like myself 
jve> don't want to eat people.  Oh -- you mean the animals.  I guess 
jve> we'll always disagree on this, Russell.  I don't see killing them 
jve> as being any different than killing celery or carrots for my 
jve> salad...

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.  

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.  

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.

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