(snip)
> >
> Dreamer: "I grew up in Texas, and I heard a lot of that separate but
> equal talk down there.  If you can call the value of a being whose head
> you cut off and stick up on a wall "different ... but not lesser" than
> the value of a being whose picture you put on the mantle, then, by,
> golly, you can justify just about any disparate treatment at all.  Seems
> a little implausible on its face though."
>
> Bissell here: Come on! I *did not* say "seperate but equal." Let me see. .
> .Hitler was a vegetarian and advocated animal rights. . .so all
vegetarians
> and animal rights people hate Jews and want to kill them. Is that any more
> rediculous than saying because I value my children differently from my dog
> I'm a racist?

Dreamer responded: "Nope, I'm not saying you're a racist.  I'm saying that
usually
when you treat one type of entity worse than another type of entity
(let's just say "worse" means "in a way you would less like to be
treated yourself), you more likely than not value the former entitly
less than the latter, all protests to the contrary.  The example of
southern segregation was offered by way of analogy rather than logical
proof."

Bissell here: An analogy usually means "a point by point" comparason.  Your
intent seems to be, IMO, to show that the way I value animals is somehow
"wrong" because I am willing to actively take part in their death, which is
something I won't do with humans. Because you are correct that valuing
different groups of humans differently than your own group is morally wrong
does not lead to the conclusion that *all* entities have to be valued the
same. This is the same trick of rhetoric that Singer and others in the
Animal Rights area have been using for decades. No, I do not *want* a lion
to kill and eat me. That does not lead to the conclusion that it is wrong
for me to kill and eat a deer. If you are serious about "do unto (all)
others as you would have them do unto you," then you are forced to conclude
that a lion that would kill and eat me is "morally" wrong, that is if you
are really making an analogy, and not a trick of words.

Right, right, the lion doesn't have a "choice," but what does that have to
do with the analogy? Unless you meant to refer to "choice," which I don't
see there.
sb




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%