From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunter's legitimate concern
Date: 29 Jul 1992 20:57:11 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <Bs5zHK.A4w@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>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.  


Wrong again Russell (and again and again).  Can you never get it right.  Or
is that the plan?  Play stupid, like what I'm saying is so hard to understand.
 
I have told you why I view hunting, killing and eating animals morally accept-
able.  There are many reasons but, ultimately the reason is my belief in my
God.  Not "gods" so don't misrepresent or insult me with your games Russell.

I have also pointed out the FACTS I and other hunters have mentioned that 
indicate hunting is a natural and benefitial act.  So, accept one or the other,
both or none of my reasoning.  It makes no difference to me.  However, I do 
find you a sad individual for you lack of faith in anything that can't be 
empirically proven.  To you, faith must be viewed as a weakness of mind but,
it is you that is weak and arrogant enough to feel man is being with the an-
swers and if man doesn't have the answers, they must not exist.  Definition of
a fool in my book.


>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.  


You are ignorant of faith, plain and simple.  This may not be a flaw in your
eyes but it is in mine.


>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.  


Make up as many fairy tales as you like Russell.  It's plain to see you view
anything that's not a proven fact as such a tale whether it is the word of a
unproven God or Jack and the Beanstalk.   If you cannot accept my reasons for
hunting you will not see me losing any sleep over it.  Tough sh*t Russell.


>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.  


My God doesn't just happen to support my position fool.  My position is what
it is because of what my God says.  YOU just happen to be wrong in the eyes
of my God.  You obviously don't know what the word is and you also show con-
tempt for the word.  That makes you ignorant buddy.


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


You tell me Russell.  Do they?  I know mine does and I'm not inclined to
prove that or anything else to you.   You obviously will stand your ground
no matter what facts or beliefs are put in front of you.  


>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.  


Oh come on Russell.  You must really think you are dealing with idiots.
You have implyed your intelligence through comments left and right.  Don't
play coy with me.  You are really high on yourself and that is obvious.  
You certainly come across to me as I have discribed.  

There are facts on the hunter's side of the fence Russell.  You just choose
to ignore them.  

>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?


Another attempt to discredit your adversary Russell?  And another attempt to
elevate your perceived intelligence by suggesting that only YOU can reason.

Yes sir.  Shifty and dishonest are a few more ways we can describe Ol Russell.


>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.


Maybe I should just ignore ignorant fools such as yourself Russell.  It is
apparant that a self proclaimed pervert's opinions have no value to me.  I
also do not consider you to be Mr. t.p.a.   Just the worst example since
traub.  So, hopefully you won't mind if I pay no attention to the bullsh*t
that comes from you mouth from now on and concentrate my efforts on those
who are less condesending, arrogant and pompous.


>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


Wait just a minute Russell,  I'm getting a message from one of the many Gods
out there and it has your name in it.  There is a task I must obey.  See you
later Russell,  old fool!


Mike Linan