Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!plunkett
From: plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: animal vs human rights, morality
Message-ID: <410@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Feb-85 11:56:29 EST
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.410
Posted: Fri Feb  1 11:56:29 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Feb-85 02:00:32 EST
References: <232@usl.UUCP> <694@bunker.UUCP> <1616@pur-phy.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 17

> >E.g., only humans seem to be interested in moral questions.
>
> Not all humans are interested in moral questions, or are even
> cognizant of them.  What about people who are so hopelessly retarded
> ...
> Many humans do not ask such questions.  Some sociopaths, for instance,
> seem to have no comprehension that their actions are wrong, or evil,
> so do they get struck from the roster of humans?  Or am I misunderstanding
> the whole point here?

You are indeed missing the entire point.  When speaking of "humans,"
"human beings," "homo sapien," and so forth, it should be obvious that
one is referring anthropologically to the species as a whole.  Thus
generalizations may be made, even though we all know that Arthur Gumby
down the street is an exception to all of them.

..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett