From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:26:56 GMT

In <1992Jul29.144410.27807@clpd.kodak.com>
 black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>>>If you have any questions about AR philosophical positions, why 
>>>don't you ask someone like Robert Black or Ted Altar or myself, 
>>>instead of posting comments aimed at another individual who shares 
>>>your particular set of (mis)understandings?  

>Dan Sorenson writes:
>>	For the same reason I don't ask Sarah Brady for an interpretation
>>on the second amendment -- I don't think I'll get a neutral response.

>Say what?  Russ has suggested that you ask AR people if you wish to
>know more about their philosophical positions and you demur.

	Sorry, that was a mis-read on my part.  I would certainly ask
Russ, Rob, or Ted for information on philosophical positions of the
organizations.  My mis-read had me thinking claims, not positions.
The old "guns are 41 times more likely to kill a family member than a
criminal" pap from Sarah Brady I avoid, just like the "cattle farming
is the cause of the drought in California and most of the world's
groundwater contamination" pap I've seen before.  I'm not saying these
are exact quotes, mind you, just examples of what I consider to be
very biased reporting based on dubious evidence.  Those I ignore.

>Dan Sorenson writes:
>>	If they can do it, it's doesn't matter a whole lot what I think,
>>does it?  If their morals show it's fine, it's fine.  Morals go to those 
>>who can enforce them.

>Right and Jeffrey Dahlmer was perfectly moral until he got caught, at
>which time he could no longer enforce his morals so he suddenly and 
>magically became immoral at the instant of his arrest?

	Sounds about right to me.  Let's say Jeffrey had a Kill-O-Zap
ion blaster with automatic targeting and managed to kill the police
who tried to arrest him.  A riot of people who think he's immoral come
to arrest him, but he gets them all.  Guess what?  He's morally fine
because _he's_ the only one left to judge.  Prior to being caught, he
was the only one who knew about it and could judge it.  The police are
the muscle society used to enforce its collective morales.  Don't
confuse the issue by assumming your morals are always the correct ones.
Jeffrey's morals disagree, but they are just a valid.  Sick, but valid.
The only reason he's locked in jail is because enough people opposed them.
I'm certain a devout Mormon would give you a good reason for polygamy and
how it is morally right, but it makes no difference if it's true or not
when the government has the power to enforce its own moral claims.

>Dan Sorenson writes:
>>I think many people could be killed and nothing but good come from it.
>>Murders, rapists, and child molesters come to mind, but I digress...

>Why? As long as these murderers, rapists, and child molesters can get
>away with their behavior and don't see that they're doing something
>wrong, then according to your ethics they are perfectly moral.  How can
>it be "good" to kill a moral person?

	Think of it as civic improvement.  I didn't say it would me
morally right, just that many of them could be killed and nothing but
good come of it.  That killing need not be murder, you know.

>Dan, you must be pulling our leg with this pseudo-ethical pap.  Tell me
>you're just joking and meant to put a big smilie down here at the end. 

	Sorry Rob, but I truly believe that people should not be judged
based solely on my ethical code, and I expect that same treatment from
others.  I'm also enough of a realist to know that what I think doesn't
mean zip/squat unless I've some power to enforce my views with.  I deal
with the effective, not the abstract or absolute, in this view.  Don't
take it to mean more than that.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >