From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 5 Oct 1992 18:58:01 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu


In article <BvIs6A.EB7@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Oct2.155431.14889@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
>jh> Russell, why so insulting?  How do you know that Mike's
>jh> religious belief is "mindless acceptance."  

>In article <BvIDvo.A0s@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>rl> He told me so.  Ask him to explain the difference between faith 
>rl> and reason.  He'll tell you that he admires faith (ie mindless 
>rl> acceptance) far more than reason, and considers me to be a "fool" 
>rl> because I prefer empirical evidence and rational arguments.  

>From article <1aigfaINNn1n@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> Oh Russell.  I knew you wouldn't disappoint me.  Again you have 
>ml> proven to me what a liar you truly are.  I consider your addition 
>ml> of "mindless acceptance" as a complete lie since I never used 
>ml> such terms.  These terms are yours and I really must say I find 
>ml> you and your tactics pathetic.  

>What's the difference between "mindless acceptance" and "faith", Mike?


What's the difference between you and a fool Russell?   You obviously 
feel that any type of faith is mindless acceptance.  I obviously feel
that is foolish but, that doesn't make either true.  I also never
described my faith as mindless acceptance as you I admire mindless ac-
ceptance as you say I did.  You have a habit of saying people said 
things to you that they never did.  Would this be enough to label you
a liar?  Or just deceitful?


>ml> For the record, what I said to Russell was that I thought him 
>ml> foolish for discrediting my faith in God.  I told him I felt 
>ml> sorry for people like him that felt man had all lifes answers and 
>ml> would not accept anything that could not be proven with 
>ml> "empirical facts".  

>I don't think we have all the answers, but I don't see what good is
>accomplished by mindlessly accepting the "divine" wisdom of a phrase
>like, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".    Am I truly foolish
>for disbelieving that a genuine "god" made such statements?


You be the judge of that.  I for one would say yes if it is in the Bible.


>jh> Sure, he may be what's termed a "literalist" but, nevertheless, 
>jh> there is something going on in his mind that has made him choose 
>jh> his faith.  You may not like fundamentalism any more than me;  I 
>jh> however do not ridicule his belief just as I do not ridicule your 
>jh> point-of-view and the intense energy and countless hours you 
>jh> devote of your life to your concern for animals.  

>rl> It's not my intention to ridicule his religion.  However, I would 
>rl> like to discover how/why a man whose own beliefs are based on 
>rl> "faith" can reasonably label another man's comments as "idiotic".  
>rl> Can you explain it to me?

>ml> The question asked was why don't hunters hunt other hunters.  
>ml> Number one, this is against the law.  Number two, this is immoral 
>ml> in the eyes of most societies.  These two factors combined with 
>ml> the overall tone of the poster, led me to conclude that the 
>ml> poster and her comments were idiotic.  

>Witch-burning is also immoral, IMHO.  Yet many people would 
>mindlessly accept the notion that "god" wants them to burn 
>witches, simply because the bible says so.  And, of course, witch
>burning was legal several centuries ago.  Would you be quick to 
>say that such people were "idiotic"?  Or, would you be inclined 
>to argue that "idiocy" is acceptable whenever there's a "god" in 
>on the deal?  


That is totally up the judgement of the observer isn't it.  You make
what ever judgement you feel appropriate Russell.  I'll do the same.
I never asked you to accept my faith nor did I ask you to ridicule it.
You have every right to your views, however you have no right to ridicule
the views of others that are not the same as yours.  Hence I label you
a fool.


>ml> Now, if you cannot understand my reasoning, I suggest you stop 
>ml> trying as you will probably never get it.  I do not believe you 
>ml> when you say you did not mean to ridicule my religious beleifs 
>ml> and I know for a fact that you are a liar.  I suggest you keep 
>ml> your mouth closed Russell lest you provide more evidence for my 
>ml> argument.  

>You say that you know for a fact that I'm a liar.  How does your 
>"factual knowledge" that I'm a liar compare with the "factual 
>knowledge" that led you to assert last month that I'm a 
>"self-proclaimed pervert"?  

 
Your penchant for making statements of a perverse nature made it all too
obvious to me that you are perverted to some degree.  In my view you have
proclaimed this by your many statements of perversion.


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



Mike Linan








Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals