NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/politics/animals/10528

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 3.3 KB | 70 lines

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!tulane!wpg!russ
From: [e-mail] (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: WP Group
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:24:45 GMT
Lines: 59


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> As I mentioned previously, I've read Hitler's book and Speer's
rl> memoirs;  I've read several of the major textbooks dealing with the
rl> nazi era;  and I've also read several dozen papers written by
rl> professional students of history dealing with nazi political
rl> ideology.  None of them lend credence to the claim that the nazi's
rl> were animal rights advocates in any meaningful sense.

John Kapson writes:
jk> Please explain what you mean by "in any meaningful sense."
jk> Seems rather vague, doesn't it?

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Please define the concept of "animal rights" that was allegedly
rl> advocated by the nazis.

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (John Kapson):
jk> As I expected: Lawrence makes as assertion that I find ambiguous,
jk> I ask for some clarification, and Lawrence retorts with more
jk> dictionary games while declining to amplify on his previous
jk> assertion.  One wonders whether Lawrence is actually interested in
jk> discussion or simply in wasting peoples' time...

You asked me to define the notion of "meaning", yet you proceeded to
accuse me of playing "dictionary games".   I'm somewhat amazed that
you consider the term, "meaning", to be ambiguous, yet apparently have
no difficulty swallowing the fact that various posters have been using
the term "animal rights" in a highly ambiguous fashion in order to
smear their opposition.

We're using the english language to communicate, and my english
dictionary defines the term "meaning" as a mental construct that
signifies or indicates (ie points).  It subsequently defines the term
"meaningful" as an expression that is full of meaning or full of
significance.

Would it be meaningful to say that John Kapson is an apple or that
John Kapson is a streetcar?  Probably not, because the words "apple"
and "streetcar" typically point to objects that have no semblance to a
human being.  Would it be meaningful to say that John Kapson is an
animal rights advocate?  Perhaps, but only if we make it crystal clear
to our readers that the term "animal rights advocate" signifies a
particular set of attributes to which John Kapson conforms.

If we're going to make headway in the discussion concerning the
alleged nazi advocacy of "animal rights", it seems to me that the
proponents of the claim ought to define the concept.  It won't
make sense to argue that Hitler advocated "animal rights" simply
because Hitler opted for vegetarian foods unless we're willing to
say that all vegetarians are animal rights advocates.  Nor would
it make sense to argue that the nazis advocated "animal rights"
simply because they opposed vivisection as practiced in the 30's,
unless we're going to say that everyone who would have opposed such
practices is an animal rights advocate.

--
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans [phone]
[e-mail]   uunet!wpg!russ