From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer)
Subject: Re: nkill
Organization: Netcom - San Jose, CA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 06:36:30 GMT

In article <MARTINC.92Nov16111116@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.054054.130@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>
>   In article <MARTINC.92Nov11182550@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>   >In article <1992Nov11.070916.11329@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>   >
>   >	I do not mind if there are differences of opinion.  Just do not
>   >   make others do what you want them to do against their will.  If you
>   >   do, then you must expect consequences.  Basically, live and let live.
>   >
>   >David, I don't think I disagree with any of the positions you took as
>   >explained.  But nkill-ing people whose positions you dislike seems to
>   >display the opposite of "live and let live".  It sounds an awful lot
>   >like "do what I say or I'll kill you."
>   >--
>   >		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
>
>	I think that you did not read the second and third sentences of my
>   response.  
>
>Nonsense.  Your second and third sentences seem to contradict your first.
>   

     How do they seem to contradict?

     Let me try another example.  Person P-A is doing some action A-B that
does not effect anyone else.  Person P-B comes along and commands P-A
to stop A-B'ing.  P-A responds "I will continue to do A-B until I want
to stop.  You have no right to stop me from living my life.  If you have
a problem with that, then fine."  P-B then gets pissed off and attempts
to make P-A stop A-B'ing.  P-A defends oneself and gets the police to
arrest P-B.  The above example shows what I mean when I say "live and
let live."  It does not resemble "do what I say or I'll kill you."

>   If they have a different opinion from me, then I do not have
>   a problem with that.  That does change though when they try to stop me
>   from doing something when it goes against what they believe and the law's
>   sanction.  At that point, I believe that I must defend what I am doing and
>   then try to punish them.  An example involves abortion.  I believe in the
>   abortion right.  Since the pro-lifers attempt to make pro-choicers
>   relinquish their abortion right, I do not have a problem with defending the
>   abortion right and then attempting to punish the pro-lifers by taking away
>   one of their rights.
>
>David, I suspect you of being one of the usual underdone usenet weenies
>who talk the talk but would be appalled to be asked to walk the walk.

     I disagree.  Within the last month, I attended a Pro-Choice Rally
and Walk in San Jose where I got people to sponsor me for a certain
amount of money.  I bought a Pro-Choice shirt, too.  The money went
to support the Pro-Choice movement.

>If what you *mean* is that you believe that some means, preferably
>legal, should be used to prevent Operation Rescue etc from using force
>to prevent women from entering clinics at which abortions are performed,
>then I agree with you.  They should be taken away and charged with an
>appropriate crime.  (Now, I'll leave it for another time to wonder
>whether the defenses used for civil disobedience in the civil rights
>movement should apply to them as well.)  Even more so for people who
>bomb abortion clinics.

     I agree.

>
>However, I responded to your suggestion that you would nkill (by painful
>poisoning) people who were against abortion.  That's not "live and let
>live", thats "live and let live as long as you don't disagree with me."

     It is "live and let live as long as you do not interfere with my life."

>
>	My position is not "do what I say or I'll kill you."  I have a
>   modified "live and let live" philosophy as one can see from above.  I
>   do not believe in turning the other cheek.  I do believe in an eye
>   for an eye.
>
>Let's try this by analogy, in short simple sentences.  What is your
>feeling about
>
>	nkill -poison proabortionists@usa
>
>Is that more or less morally offensive?
>--

     If you compare it against:  nkill -poison anti-abortionists@usa,
I believe that it is less morally offensive because anti-abortionists
interfere in another person's life while pro-abortionists live their
life and not interfere in another's life.  My line of reasoning is
predicated on when one considers a human a person.  I happen to
believe that a human is a person that has been born.  Some of the
anti-abortionists believe that human is a person at conception.

-- 
       +----------------------------------------------------------------+
      /  Keep Abortion Legal and Safe.  Reduce the Deficit.            /
  +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 /   //  W. David Rohwer   // Amiga       UUCP: apple!netcom.com!rohwerwd |
|  \X/       Go A's!     \X/ 3000UX   Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM      /
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: soc.singles