Animal Rights FAQ [VERY LONG]
dgraft at inca.gate.net
Thu Jun 2 17:53:41 EST 1994
In article <Cqq6Is.Kot at wave.scar.utoronto.ca> 93funkst at scar.utoronto.ca writes:
>In response to the posting on Animal Rights FAQ, I have two
>questions. First let me explain that I really don't care about this
>issue, so don't respond in attacking my character or trying to overwhelm
>me with pablum (which so often happens).
You ask me not to attack you then accuse me of potentially using
"pablum" as a weapon. I am only interested in logic, OK? Also, I know
this AR stuff doesn't really belong here, but we must respond when attacked.
You are quite civil actually, but the previous guy was not. I note he
has not responded to my defense.
>Okay, I skimmed through your
>posting and noticed the conspicuous absense of one question: Haven't you
>been vaccinated, used antibiotics, or been in surgery? or perhaps in a
>more powerful phrasiology: Will you have your children vaccinated, allow
>them to take antibiotics, or undergo surgery.
See questions 81 through 86. They've not been answered yet, so I have to
put you off for a few days. The answers are in draft and I will post them
here as soon as they are ready. We are aware of this objection and do
take it seriously.
>The bottom line
>is that most of the 'activists' that I have talked to/heard from are
>simply incapable of formulating a rational arguement and following it
>through from A to B.
Why the quotation marks? Perhaps you have not been talking to the right
people. Do you find the material in the FAQ to be illogical? Please let
us know if you do and we will take great pains to correct it.
>If you could do this I would have no choice but to
>support your cause.
Not necessarily, because moral axioms are involved as well as logical
deduction. For example, you could agree with our logic but disagree that
avoiding pain and suffering is good, axiomatically.
>My other point deals with your definition of
>political correctness, I feel that this is way, way, way off. In my
>opinion something which would be closer would be: the presence of an
>unquestionable view based on popular opinion rather then reasoned
>and rational arguement (see spanish inquisition).
This is interesting. I couldn't find the phrase in any dictionary.
I have a problem with your definition. How can a view be unquestionable
based only on opinion? Anyway, that is beside the point because the
label doesn't mean anything. If I call vivisection politically correct,
does that reflect on its correctness? Of course not.
>I hope that this
>provides some (vegetarian) food for thought.
Sure does, thank you. And thanks for remaining civil (except for the
quote marks). :-) We may differ but still we are not raving lunatics.
We feel we have a rational case and only ask that people consider it
rationally, instead of taking the coward's way out and dismissing us as
"extremists". You appear willing to do that, and that is worthy of
More information about the Neur-sci