NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/alt/fan/rushlim/12107

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-10 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!sugar!tghost!unkaphaed!popec
From: [e-mail] (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Mistaken logic in Rush's book?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 02:06:06 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX
Lines: 73

[e-mail] writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (Michael Doel) writes:
> >
> > I've been reading Rush's book the last few days.  In so doing, I think I've
> > come across a pretty big logic flaw (yeah I know, there's probably lots of
> > them depending on your perspective) that I'd like your comments on -
> > especially if you've read the book.
> >
> > He does a chapter on the animal rights movement.  His contention is that
> > animals don't have any rights (which I agree with).  His reasoning is to
> > appeal to the definition of a right and note that in all of the definitions
> > the person with the right must be able to assert that right.  Animals, says
> > Limbaugh, are unable to assert anything without the intervention of humans
> > and thus don't have any rights.
> >
> > Hmm...  Methinks he didn't think very long on this one.  Clearly a
> > profoundly retarted child is unable to assert their rights.  The same goes
> > with a person in a coma and an unborn child.  Yet Rush clearly feels all
> > these people have rights.  Like I said, I agree that animals don't have
> > "rights" in the same way we do, I just think Rush made a major mistake here
> >
> > Did anyone else read this the same way?
> >
>
> Mike raises a good point here, if you consider the issue from strictly an
> individual's viewpoint.  However, we must consider the concept of a
> society.  While the retarded or unborn human cannot assert their rights,
> the human race can assert such rights.  We must remember that man is a
> social (not socialist) creature.  No animal race has yet come forth to assert
> their "rights", except for the possibility of protecting territory.
>
> Either that, or Rush was dictating in his sleep.
>
> Any other thoughts out there?
> --
>
>
>  "Natural laws have no pity."       |   C.J. Burke
>         Lazarus Long                |   GE Aerospace
>                                     |    (soon to be Martin Marietta)
>


Consider tests done on animals for cosmetics.  Test that are
excruciatingly painful where no anastesics or pain killers are used.  Is
Rush saying that thsi is fine and dandy and A-OK, because these little
animals can only squeal ion pain and terror and can not ask for more
humane treatment?  And does he thus assert that those of us that heatedly
object to such practices are full of shit because the little animals
cannot assert their rights themselves?  Thta they are sentient creatures
that obviously do suffer and feel pain has no bearings on any of this?
Or is Rush one of these peculiar people that consider animals to be only
some sort of automatas with no real sense of pain or suffering in such
circumstances?


I have not read his book as this would mean paying good money for it.
So I do not know exactly what his views in his book really are.

Do you think that animals being able to suffer and feel pain imply some
sort of duty to them in our dealings with animals as we exploit them?



Pope Charles     SubGenius Pope Of Houston.   Intellectual callousness is
the worst species of callousness.

--
[e-mail] (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, [phone]
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis