From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunter's legitimate concern
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:00:52 GMT


Russell Lawrence replies:
rl> Perhaps.  Let's suppose that you were confronted by a woman who 
rl> told you that she was a messenger of the Goddess Diana and that 
rl> Diana had instructed her to tell you that your hunting practices 
rl> are offensive, not only to Diana herself, but to the rest of the Olympian 
rl> Gods as well.  In view of the fact that you'd be hardpressed to 
rl> disprove such claims, would you consider them to be examples of 
rl> "facts and reason"?  

Mike Linan:
ml> Am I supposed to know or care who this Goddess Diana is?  I 
ml> follow my own beliefs and I consider them every bit as important 
ml> and valid as yours or anybody else's.  

rl> I realize that you blindly follow your beliefs, just as someone 
rl> who worships the Goddess Diana might insist on blindly following 
rl> their beliefs.  What I'm asking you to explain is this: How does 
rl> your willingness to blindly believe what you want to believe fit 
rl> in with your tendency to accuse your opponents of failing to 
rl> listen to "facts and reason"?  

From article <156bciINNn3u@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Yes Russell I suppose you could say I "blindly" follow my beliefs in 
ml> my God but, let just say that I consider that a whole lot better than 
ml> what you do judging from the pathetic examples you give.  I find it very
ml> sad when people like you must have hard "empirical" facts in front of 
ml> them before they will believe anything.  

You obviously have a double-standard.  You're quick to criticize 
your opponents for their alleged failure to listen to your facts 
and reasons, yet you yourself proclaim that it's sad when other 
people ask you to substantiate your superstitious allegation that 
the "gods" want you to (mis)treat animals as you see fit.  

ml> Are you really thinking factually and reasonably when you tell us 
ml> that your practices are good simply because one of the "gods" has 
ml> told you so?  

ml> From my view, yes.  You may retain the option to remain ignorant.

More hypocrisy, Mike?

I don't understand why you consider me to be ignorant, simply 
because I'm disinclined to blindly accept many of your claims.  
In truth, it doesn't take much knowledge or critical thinking 
ability for a man to simply believe, as you might believe, that 
Diana or Apollo or one of the other "gods" does or does not 
advocate hunting.  

Incidently, historians have catalogued many thousands of gods 
that have been conjured up since the dawn of human history.  
Would you say that someone who doesn't believe in each and every 
one of these gods is an "ignorant" man?  Or, is a man only 
"ignorant", in your not-so-humble-opinion, when he fails to obey 
a "god" that just happens to support your position for some
mysterious reason.  

Do all these gods truly exist, Mike?  Or, is your god the only one 
that you consider worthy-by-virtue-of-mere-belief? 

rl> You've stated previously that your (mis)treatment of animals is 
rl> ultimately justifiable by virtue of the permission of a god or 
rl> group of gods.  Although you've presented no evidence whatsoever 
rl> to verify that this god or group of gods truly exists, and that 
rl> he/she supports your behavior, you expect your opponents to 
rl> accept your claims at face value pending their ability to provide 
rl> contrary proof.  Using this same standard of "reasoning" [we're 

ml> See here is where you are wrong (once again) Russell.  For all 
ml> your self proclaimed intelligence, you still cannot understand 
ml> that I do not *need* or *expect* you to accept anything I say or 
ml> do.  I could not possibly care less whether you agree with me or 
ml> not.  Is that now clear enough for you?  

You're not making any sense here, Mike.  I've never 
"self-proclaimed" my intelligence in our conversations, nor have 
I offered any sort of credentials or supernatural claims (unlike 
you) to support my position.  Rather than declaring that my 
statements are true because "god" says they are, as you yourself
might do, I feel obliged to offer verifiable facts and/or logical 
reasons.  

rl> using the term "reason" loosely here], would it not be 
rl> appropriate for you to suspend your current practices until 
rl> you're in a position to disprove the claim that Goddess Diana 
rl> thoroughly disapproves of your behavior?

ml> No, I feel that I will continue debating with open minded people 
ml> who have a desire to educate themselves on our side of the issue.  
ml> I will continue to throw the arrogant, dishonest arguments of 
ml> persons such as yourself back in your face.  Does that suit you?  
ml> I care!  

I understand how you feel.  Given the growing diversity of religious
beliefs in the United States, however, I'm not sure that the argument,
"god says this" or "god says that" is going to carry much weight
with open-minded people.  Maybe you should ask the "god" or "goddess"
to give you a certificate of some kind, so we'll know that you really 
are qualified to speak on his or her behalf, and aren't just another 
deluded individual who thinks that god wants him to kill.

Satisfy my curiosity on one more point:  If one of your "gods" or 
"goddesses" ordered you to kill human animals for some reason that
he or she had failed to explain, would you obey or disobey?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ