Gordon wrote:
> >By the standards being apparently being used here, because
> >the Nazis were concerned about smoking and cancer, any
> >effort to reduce smoking in order to reduce cancer is
> >therefore "closely linked" to Naziism.
Dace:
> Nobody is making this claim. The point is *not* that anyone who protests
> cruelty to animals is a Nazi. The point is that protesting cruelty to
> animals has no bearing on one's politics. One could be an anarchist or a
> Nazi or anything in between.
In that sense, nothing has any bearing on one's politics -- there can be racist Communists and kindly fascists and intelligent Republicans. That is, people can exhibit contradictory beliefs and behaviors. While the people generally remain unitary (this is our very useful talent) the beliefs and behaviors are nevertheless contradictory. So the reason for mentioning the Nazis remains obscure to me. Yes, a Nazi can be concerned about animal welfare, clean air, and full employment. So, as I asked before I think, what? Why is Naziism brought up in this particular context if it doesn't demonstrate anything?
| ...
Dace:
> If your politics aren't explicitly pro-people, then a pro-animal or
> pro-nature stance can easily become anti-people. (And pro-people means
> everyone, not just some "ideal type," as in Hitler and Singer.)
You can be explicitly pro-people and anti-people at once -- I'm sure I need not give examples of great leaders whose solicitude for human welfare led to their offing very large numbers of the objects of their concern. But you can't be pro-animal and anti-human consistently, because humans are animals and many of them must be moderately sentient, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.
Gordon