From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Blatant lies
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:38:09 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu



In article <BszH36.D2H@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Mike's never said anything to me that would indicate that he 
>rl> believes in either the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny.  On the 
>rl> other hand, he did tell me that he believes in demons.  More to 
>rl> the point, the topic of "demons" arose as a direct consequence of 
>rl> his claim that "god" approves of his hunting practices.

>From article <16edprINN7m9@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> Russell, how many times do I have to ask you to PROVE that I said
>ml> I believe in demons, goblins, ghosts and goddesses to you?  Are 
>ml> you going to continue to claim that I said these things to you 
>ml> without proving I did as I ask?  Have you no integrity?  Why don't
>ml> you PROVE that you are not a liar by producing the posts or e-mail
>ml that I said these things to you?  

>You mentioned just the other day in article <15rin4INNbq7@agate.  
>berkeley.edu> that you believe all the statements that are in 
>your bible.  Since your bible states that entities like demons, 
>ghosts, spirits, and such, really do exist, it seems reasonable 
>to conclude that you also believe in the existence of these 
>spirit-forms.  The underlying logical principle that would lead to 
>such a conclusion is called the "syllogism".  As such, it's 
>hardly a lie for me to point out your belief in spirits, given 
>your belief in the literal accuracy of the bible.  

>You've been claiming that I'm making you look silly by commenting 
>on your credulity re: ghosts, goblins, and so on.  Yet, you 
>yourself continue to cite good and evil spirits as the primary 
>determinants of ethical decisions.  Were you under the impression 
>that you could engage in some spirit-related activity (witch 
>burning, for instance) and get away with no questions asked 
>simply be proclaiming that you were obeying the orders of "god"?  


I guess you are just incapable of not misrepresenting what others say
Russell.  I never said you were making me look silly but rather that 
you were *trying* to make me look silly.  There is a very big difference.

Regarding questions pertaining to my religious beliefs, what do you hope
to accomplish by belittling them?  Do you think I am going to take your 
word or sad logic over that of God?  Because you cannot or will not beli-
eve in my God do you think that is enough reason for me to change my 
beliefs?  Not hardly.



>rl> My position isn't religious.  Your assumption that all 
>rl> discussions about ethical judgments must arise from religious 
>rl> beliefs reveals your historical and philsophical naivete.  

>ml> Ah, but the almighty empirical fact that Russell Lawrence
>ml> worships so cannot be applied for the most part to ethics.  

>Yes, it certainly does apply to ethics.  Let's examine a case in 
>point.  Let's assume that you really do believe all biblical 
>statements, and hence, also believe that disease is caused by 
>demonic infestations.  If it were true that witches could bring 
>about these sickness-causing demonic infestations, then I might 
>agree with your "god's" commandment, "Thou shalt not suffer a 
>witch to live".  As it is, however, no evidence exists to prove 
>the biblical assumptions about the magical power of witches, so 
>you might be on shaky ethical ground if you were to set out on a 
>modern-day witch burning spree.  


In your view.  Hardly important to me.



>On the other hand, there's quite a bit of evidence to indicate
>that Treponema pallidum causes syphilis, which ultimately 
>culminates in what might appear to be "demonic" fits (the result
>of neurological damage).  Consequently, I'd be on very solid
>ground if I were to declare that anyone who knowingly transmit 
>the Treponema spirochete is behaving unethically. 


Perhaps.  I don't really think many people in the world establish their
ethics on the views of Russell Lawrence though.  I know I don't.


>ml> If a father of five were to shoot Russell in his head and then 

>ml> proceed in eat him with his family, would this be "wrong" or 
>ml> "bad"?  I would say so unless they had no other means of survival.  
>ml> The dogs that live with Russell might think so.  But, from the 
>ml> family's perspective it may not.  And who knows who else would 
>ml> agree with the family's actions.  Can you PROVE with any 
>ml> empirical facts that such an act would be absolutely "wrong" or 
>ml> "bad" Russell?  

>As I've pointed out repeatedly, I have no need to prove that an action
>is "absolutely" wrong.  To the contrary, all I need to prove is that
>the class of actions have consequences that cause more harm than good.  


More harm than good in whose view.  Yours?  How convenient.


>Incidently, you've made it clear that you don't respect the 
>concept of animal rights, but you've been rather secretive in 
>addressing my allegation that you don't have much respect for 
>human rights either, but instead pay consistent hommage to 
>"god's rights", as interpreted by Mike Linan.  If you have the 
>courage to do so, please address the question that I've posed 
>several times previously: 


That I may not respect animal or human rights as defined by Russell 
Lawrence does not show me in a bad light as far as I am concerned.
Do you think otherwise?


>If "god" were to command you to kill a group of men, women, and 
>children, while refusing to explain his reasons, would you obey 
>command?  Or, would you disobey?  Would you agree with me that
>my body is the property of my mind?  Or would you be inclined to
>believe that my body is the property of some "god"?


I am tempted to answer your question but, will not simply because I
know you will use it to try to ridicule me and my beliefs.  Since anything
that you say or feel is no where near of paramount importance to me I
will decline.  You only need to know that I disagree with nearly all of
your positions concerning animal rights and hunting.


>ml> Oh and don't forget I waiting for you to prove that I told you I
>ml> believe in goblins.  

>I'm waiting for you to explain the difference between demons and
>goblins.  If I were to say that a frenchman who thinks the way you
>do believes in "le bon dieu" (ie "the benevolent god"), would you 
>quibble about the differences between his belief in "dieu" and 
>your belief in "god"?  Or would you recognize the possibility 
>that your beliefs might be the same, in spite of the superficial 
>differences in your respective labels ("god" vs "dieu")?


You are dodging the issue Russell.  Why is that?  Please provide the 
proof or admit that you lied.


>If there's some sort of substantial difference between demons and 
>goblins that would make the existence of the one seem reasonable 
>and the existence of the other seem absurd, then I'd appreciate 
>it if you'd fill me in on the facts.  Personally, I'm inclined to 
>view both entities as imaginary fantasies conjured up by 
>primitive minds to explain unusual or undesirable events.  


Did I or did I not specifically tell you I believe in "GOBLINS" or 
"GODDESSES" as you said I did?   Does it matter to *anyone* whether you
consider them to have primitive minds?


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000



Mike Linan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals