Analyse this

Question

From American Heritage: "animal rights": "The rights to humane treatment claimed on behalf of animals, especially the right not to be exploited for human purposes."

The conjunction "especially" in this definition is the rough equivalent of an emphatic and also*. In other words the definition states that (a) is true, animal rights means, "The rights to humane treatment claimed on behalf of animals" AND ALSO (b) is *especially true, animal rights is, "the right not to be exploited for human purposes."

In my view the definition is conveying two meanings for the term "animal rights", the general, moderate usage is correct, "The rights to humane treatment claimed on behalf of animals", and is also saying by the use of "especially", that the other, more extreme (if you will) meaning, "the right not to be exploited for human purposes." is very prevalent in the language.

Comments? agree/disagree?

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]From American Heritage: "animal rights": "The rights to humane treatment claimed on behalf of animals, especially the right not to be exploited for human purposes." The conjunction "especially" in this definition is the rough equivalent of an emphatic and also.[/nq]
That is completely wrong. "And also" is an addition* to a set; "especially" is a higher degree of emphasis *within a set.
[nq:1]In other words the definition states that (a) is true, animal rights means, "The rights to humane treatment claimed on ... you will) meaning, "the right not to be exploited for human purposes." is very prevalent in the language. Comments? agree/disagree?[/nq]

Usenet · Answer

The inimitable "Dutch" (Email Removed) stated one day
[nq:1]From American Heritage: "animal rights": "The rights to humane treatment claimed on behalf of animals, especially the right not to ... you will) meaning, "the right not to be exploited for human purposes." is very prevalent in the language. Comments? agree/disagree?[/nq]
Disagree. When a dictionary says "especially", it means that this is a specific meaning of the term. In this case, "the right not to be exploited for human purposes" is a more specific instance of "the rights to humane treatment claimed on behalf of animals". The former is concerned about animals being used in medical laboratories and the latter, the more general, about animals being abused in any way by people.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]The inimitable "Dutch" (Email Removed) stated one day[/nq]
[nq:2]From American Heritage: "animal rights": "The rights to humane treatment ... human purposes." is very prevalent in the language. Comments? agree/disagree?[/nq]
[nq:1]Disagree. When a dictionary says "especially", it means that this is a specific meaning of the term. In this case, ... being used in medical laboratories and the latter, the more general, about animals being abused in any way by people.[/nq]
I agree with that. You said it more succinctly and precisely than I did, but that's the essence of what I was trying to get across. There are two statements there, one general and one more specific (more extreme also).

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]From American Heritage: "animal rights": "The rights to humanetreatment claimed ... this definition is the roughequivalent of an emphatic and also.[/nq]
[nq:1]That is completely wrong. "And also" is an addition* to a set; "especially" is a higher degree of emphasis *within a set.[/nq]
I get you.. nonetheless, the first clause makes a statement by itself, and the sentence could have ended there, except it would have been incomplete, the phrase in usage has another meaning beyond the general one, that is "AR". The second clause adds the extremist subset of the first group. I believe that definition would have been clearer broken into two. 1. The rights to humane treatment claimed on behalf of animals, and 2. The right not to be exploited for human purposes.

(..)

Usenet · Answer

The inimitable "Dutch" (Email Removed) stated one day
[nq:2]The inimitable "Dutch" (Email Removed) stated one day Disagree. When ... general, about animals being abused in any way by people.[/nq]
[nq:1]I agree with that. You said it more succinctly and precisely than I did, but that's the essence of what I was trying to get across. There are two statements there, one general and one more specific (more extreme also).[/nq]
It's more specific, not more extreme. You are allowing your political sentiments to interfere with your appreciation of the semantic hierarchy expressed in the definition. Whether the specific denotation of the word is "extreme" or not is not a semantic judgment and not one that lexicographers are professionally competent to make: their specialty is language, not morals or politics. Anyone can have a personal opinion about the term "animal rights", but that has no bearing on the logic of the definition.

It's true that lexicographers often include judgmental comments about certain words and expressions, but they are not personal judgments; rather, they are social judgments about the register of the language in question, for example: usually considered vulgar; slang; colloquial.

There are two more points to mention about this definition. The word "exploited" is usually negative, so the definition contains a value judgment, but that is the value judgment of the people who use "animal rights", not the lexicographers. The phrase "for human purposes" is vague. What exactly does it mean? Is there a difference between "using" animals for human purposes" and "exploiting animals for human purposes"? I think there is. For example, we use horses and other types of cattle to pull carts and plows. Is that "use" or "exploitation"? Is all use of animals for medical experimentation "exploitation for human purposes"? The answers to these yes/no questions are judgments and can be labeled "extreme" or "not extreme" depending upon what they might mean to those who hold the opinions.

Anyone who would stop all animal experiments out of concern for animal rights is an extremist. Anyone who would continue all animal experiments without regard to how the animals used were treated and whether the experiments were honestly necessary because they could not be conducted in any other way is an extremist. These two positions are extreme because they both represent uncompromising and unconditional attitudes toward the question, not because they are wrong or right. That's another issue, and one I don't wish to discuss here. Morality (ethics) is an emotional issue and a matter of faith, not a logical issue and a matter of reason. And it has nothing to do with English education, which is where I am posting from.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]The inimitable "Dutch" (Email Removed) stated one day[/nq]
[nq:2] I agree with that. You said it more succinctly ... there, one general and one more specific (more extreme also).[/nq]
[nq:1]It's more specific, not more extreme. You are allowing your political sentiments to interfere with your appreciation of the semantic hierarchy expressed in the definition.[/nq]
It is actually more extreme. The most extreme form of humane treatment of animals is arguably leaving them alone completely, which is what the second part of the definition refers to. (oops a hanging preposition >:)

Whether the specific
[nq:1]denotation of the word is "extreme" or not is not a semantic judgment and not one that lexicographers are professionally ... have a personal opinion about the term "animal rights", but that has no bearing on the logic of the definition.[/nq]
agreed
[nq:1]It's true that lexicographers often include judgmental comments about certain words and expressions, but they are not personal judgments; rather, ... contains a value judgment, but that is the value judgment of the people who use "animal rights", not the lexicographers.[/nq]
That would seem appropriate in this case because that is how those people who use the phrase in the "special" case view it, negatively.

The phrase "for human
[nq:1]purposes" is vague. What exactly does it mean? Is there a difference between "using" animals for human purposes" and "exploiting animals for human purposes"?[/nq]
Some people think so, mainly based on the degree of harm caused to the animal in question.
[nq:1]I think there is. For example, we use horses and other types of cattle to pull carts and plows. Is ... and can be labeled "extreme" or "not extreme" depending upon what they might mean to those who hold the opinions.[/nq]
OK
[nq:1]Anyone who would stop all animal experiments out of concern for animal rights is an extremist. Anyone who would continue ... Morality (ethics) is an emotional issue and a matter of faith, not a logical issue and a matter of reason.[/nq]
I think there is considerable room for reason mixed in with all the emotion, that's what makes it challenging to discuss. That wasn't my intent in crossposting to your group though.

And it has
[nq:1]nothing to do with English education, which is where I am posting from.[/nq]
I appreciate your expert advice. If I may, I'd like to restate my original thoughts for consideration. The definition makes two statements in one sentence, as follows:

"The rights to humane treatment claimed on behalf of animals, especially the right not to be exploited for human purposes."

The first part is one, general meaning, and is true by itself, and the second more specific clause is also (especially) true.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]The inimitable "Dutch" (Email Removed) stated one day[/nq]
[nq:2] I agree with that. You said it more succinctly ... there, one general and one more specific (more extreme also).[/nq]
[nq:1]It's more specific, not more extreme. You are allowing your political sentiments to interfere with your appreciation of the semantic ... semantic judgment and not one that lexicographers are professionally competent to make: their specialty is language, not morals or politics.[/nq]
Cut the baloney. Linguists and lexicographers are among the very worst when it comes to infection and contamination by politics. The nexus of the two is Ground Zero for the pernicious political attitudes that there IS no such thing as "correct" usage, that "standard English" is a form of oppression, and so on.
[nq:1]Anyone can have a personal opinion about the term "animal rights", but that has no bearing on the logic of ... a matter of reason. And it has nothing to do with English education, which is where I am posting from.[/nq]

Usenet · Answer

The inimitable "Dutch" (Email Removed) stated one day
[nq:2]The inimitable "Dutch" (Email Removed) stated one day It's more ... your appreciation of the semantic hierarchy expressed in the definition.[/nq]
[nq:1]It is actually more extreme. The most extreme form of humane treatment of animals is arguably leaving them alone completely,[/nq]
That may or may not be true. I don't know. But it is interesting that, left completely alone, feral cats, for example, kill but only sometimes eat birds, mice, rats, and other wild creatures. I don't know what the animal rights people have to say about the sometimes wanton behavior of animals in a "state of nature" and whether the ethical side of the extreme advocate of animal rights requires humans to come to the aid of the animal victims of animal "rape" and "murder" (I put these terms in quotation marks because they are not mine but come from others' descriptions of the behavior of many higher animals, such as chimps, dolphins, bears, and lions, among others. I don't want to get involved in a discussion of whether these are the proper terms or not. I don't have time).
[nq:1]which is what the second part of the definition refers to.[/nq]
No, it doesn't. As I explained, there is a difference between "use" and "exploitation". "use" can be neutral or negative, as in "I use Corel Draw instead of Adobe Photoshop" (neutral) and "Don't you understand that he's using you to meet people he can sell his phony goldmine stock to?" (negative). The negative use of "use" is equivalent to "exploit", as in "*********** exploits women", ie it uses women for questionable to unethical to immoral purposes (whatever one believes, but it's always a negative). The second part of the definition says "the right not to be exploited for human purposes". If it said "the right not to be used for human purposes", then it would be referring to an extreme position, that of leaving animals completely alone --- no house pets, no sheep shearing for wool, no claims on any animal products (eggs, for example) or muscle power no matter how well the animals are treated. Before the invention of tractors and synthetic fibers, there may have been some reasonable justification for using animals to provide the power and products that humans could not do without in order to make their farming, manufacturing, and transportation industries more efficient and productive. Now that we have machines that can replace animals and synthetics that can replace their wool (skins, fur, etc), there is an ethical question about whether we should, therefore, declare any use of animal power as exploitation rather than reasonable use. This seems to be a legitimate argument, but I will refrain from such a discussion and also from offering my opinion, which I deem irrelevant to our linguistic discussion.
[nq:1](oops a hanging preposition >:)[/nq]
No one really cares about ending sentences with prepositions anymore. It is no longer a grammatical crime. Relax.
[nq:2]Whether the specific denotation of the word is "extreme" or ... that has no bearing on the logic of the definition.[/nq]
[nq:1]agreed[/nq]
[nq:2]It's true that lexicographers often include judgmental comments about certain ... of the people who use "animal rights", not the lexicographers.[/nq]
[nq:1]That would seem appropriate in this case because that is how those people who use the phrase in the "special" case view it, negatively. The phrase "for human[/nq]
[nq:2]purposes" is vague. What exactly does it mean? Is there a difference between "using" animals for human purposes" and "exploiting animals for human purposes"?[/nq]
[nq:1]Some people think so, mainly based on the degree of harm caused to the animal in question.[/nq]
[nq:2]I think there is. For example, we use horses and ... what they might mean to those who hold the opinions.[/nq]
[nq:1]OK[/nq]
[nq:2]Anyone who would stop all animal experiments out of concern ... faith, not a logical issue and a matter of reason.[/nq]
[nq:1]I think there is considerable room for reason mixed in with all the emotion, that's what makes it challenging to discuss. That wasn't my intent in crossposting to your group though.[/nq]
[nq:2]And it has nothing to do with English education, which is where I am posting from.[/nq]
[nq:1]I appreciate your expert advice. If I may, I'd like to restate my original thoughts for consideration. The definition makes ... part is one, general meaning, and is true by itself, and the second more specific clause is also (especially) true.[/nq]
It seems to me that you are misusing the word "true" here. The definition is "true" only because lexicographers tell us that this is what people mean when they use the term "animal rights". Whether animals do indeed have rights is not a semantic question but an ethical question. When you say that both parts of the definition are "true", you seem to me to be claimimg that animals do have rights and that they should not be exploited for human purposes. There is nothing wrong with maintaining that ethical position, but it is not an appropriate response to a dictionary definition. All one can say about a dictionary definition is something like "Yes, this is what the term/word generally means" or "No, this is not what the term/word generally means"; in other words, "Yes, the definition is accurate" or "No, the definition is inaccurate".

At the level of a dictionary definition, we do not look at the truth value of the definition, only its accuracy. Definitions are merely descriptions of the meaning, not of the truth or falsity of the meaning. If someone wants to know what the definition of "Satan" is, one dictionary says this:

Satan In the Christian religion, Satan is the Devil, a powerful evil being who is the chief opponent of ***. N-PROPER (c) HarperCollins Publishers.

If you say this is "true" in the same way you are saying the definition of "animal rights" is "true", then you are affirming the truth of the existence of Satan and ***, which is another question altogether. You could also be saying that it is true that this is the definition of "Satan" for Christians, but that just speaks about the truth value of "In the Christian religion". If we were all Christians, then we wouldn't need "In the Christian religion" and would be content with "Satan is the Devil, a powerful evil being who is the chief opponent of ***". This definition makes no claim about the existence or Satan or ***, only about what the word "Satan" means.

Usenet · Answer

The inimitable Jonathan Ball (Email Removed) stated one day
[nq:1](...)[/nq]
[nq:2]It's more specific, not more extreme. You are allowing your ... to make: their specialty is language, not morals or politics.[/nq]
[nq:1]Cut the baloney. Linguists and lexicographers are among the very worst when it comes to infection and contamination by politics. ... that there IS no such thing as "correct" usage, that "standard English" is a form of oppression, and so on.[/nq]
Are you claiming that infection and contamination for all linguists and lexicographers, or just for the ones that you know personally? If the former, then I would suggest that you are engaging in rather prejudicial stereotyping. If the latter, then I would suggest that you need to learn how to choose more reasonable friends.

What I believe you are talking about is the politics of some linguists and lexicographers, but there are a substantial number of linguists who chide lexicographers for being too prescriptive in their dictionaries, which suggests that the nexus you claim is merely occasional and hardly of the sort that will breed such pernicious political attitudes as you describe.

People who make statements like "There is no such thing as correct English" and "Standard English is a form of oppression" are not acting in the capactiy of linguists or lexicographers but of priests and politicians.

Are you free of political infection and contamination, by the way? I would venture that you are not.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]The inimitable Jonathan Ball (Email Removed) stated one day[/nq]
[nq:1](...)[/nq]
[nq:2]Cut the baloney. Linguists and lexicographers are among the very ... "standard English" is a form of oppression, and so on.[/nq]
[nq:1]Are you claiming that infection and contamination for all linguists and lexicographers, or just for the ones that you know personally?[/nq]
For the field as a whole.

Similarly, not all professors of English preach deconstructionism, but deconstructionism has a stranglehold on the teaching of English literature in enough major universities that one may fairly say it is the dominant paradigm.
[nq:1]If the former, then I would suggest that you are engaging in rather prejudicial stereotyping. If the latter, then I would suggest that you need to learn how to choose more reasonable friends.[/nq]
Not all stereotypes are false.
[nq:1]What I believe you are talking about is the politics of some linguists and lexicographers, but there are a substantial ... is a form of oppression" are not acting in the capactiy of linguists or lexicographers but of priests and politicians.[/nq]
They VERY MUCH are acting in their professional capacities; don't be a ninny. You may believe they are thus abusing their positions, and I certainly feel they are wrong in their thinking, but unquestionably we hear and read their opinions on this because of their having spoken and written in their professional capacities.
[nq:1]Are you free of political infection and contamination, by the way? I would venture that you are not.[/nq]
Wrong question. I don't blend my professional background with my political opinions, as linguists and politically motivated lexicographers do. Business computer programming and systems analysis don't lend themselves to that.

Analyse this

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions