From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: A Policy of Peace.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:49:56 GMT

 dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:

>*sigh*  I know, I know ... I've aroused you so much before that you
>instinctively don't want to care about my opinion, because your arguments are
>so weak that they cannot withstand any touching at their foundation, so you
>tune me out or you choose to miss my point and delude my ideas or you resort
>to making false conclusions about me or you attempt to degrade my integrity
>to uphold your arguments.  It's happened before and it will happen again. 

	You're forgetting one possibility: We're right and you're not.
You claim that it's because our arguments are weak that we don't care about
your opinion.  It could be that we think you're wrong and without knowledge
of the acts you rant and rave about.

>Killing when it is NOT absolutely NECESSARY is WRONG.  Wrong.  Violence 
>when it is not necessary is primitive, destructive, and spawns all kinds of 
>misery into this world.  I know it sounds idealistic.  I know I sound like a
>real wimp for saying it.  I know it sounds almost cliche.  But it's TRUE. 
>Really think about what I have to say.  If you don't, just FORGET
>everything I say here.

	I have thought about it, and I think you are wrong.  In many
instances what you say is correct, but I disagree with the "not absolutely
necessary" clause above.  If somebody is raping my girlfriend, he just
forfeited his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  It
is not necessary to kill him, of course, but violence is going to happen
in this situation and I will not stop inflicting damage until his attack
stops.  Given that I might use any weapon from a shotgun to a gladius,
his death is a very real possibility, and one that I am quite prepared
to live with.  I think of it as civic improvement.  In the same vein,
one may think culling a herd is necessary.

>	My whole, entire point is based on the above general statement.  I 
>don't care how much skill hunting takes.  I don't care how environmentally-
>conscious hunters are.  I don't care how fast they kill a creature.  NONE of 
>that matters, because it ALL boils down to the fact that SPORT hunters do it 
>even though their own LIFE does NOT depend on it.  Don't argue morals with me 
>on this one ... stepping back and taking a broad look at the grand scheme of 
>things and you'll see that unnecessary destruction of life is always corrupt.

	ANd how do you define necessary?

>	I'll never back down on this:  Killing when it is NOT ABSOLUTELY
>NECESSARY is wrong.  It's wrong, flat out.  Believe me, my eyes are open.
>Violence must be avoided at all costs.  It solves nothing.  People MUST learn
>to be non-violent and non-selfish if we are to improve as a race.  It's that
>simple.  And I choose to make the step, alone, or with others.  It does not
>matter, because it's do or die.  I choose life. 

	Good for you.  Stay that way.  Just don't expect me to abide by
your views and morals.  Mine are different.  Can you tolerate my views
as I tolerate yours?

<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. >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,rec.pets.dogs