From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 04:53:32 GMT

From article <1992Dec18.213529.3602@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
> In article <BzFI4G.9u0@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>Perhaps you meant to refer to the Hulsey Academy of "Debate" 
>>here.  It's the Hulsey Academy, not Lawrence, that's committed to 
>>the dubious practice of resolving arguments by appealing to 
>>credentials, emblems of authority, and so on.  Lawrence, on the 
>>other hand, has made it clear on many occasions that he prefers 
>>facts and reasons to 'ad hominem' appeals.  Examples:
> 
> 
> [DELETED: A BUNCH OF SELF SERVING BULLSHIT RUSSELL USES TO BLOW HOT AIR UP
> HIS OWN ASS] 
> 
> I can't take it any more Russell.  I have tried to be civil.  I have tried
> to be factual. I have intellectually honest. (As I'm sure Martin has). 
> But, I can't not take your unfounded innuendos, your evasion of  the
> issues, and your blatant attempts to ignore the facts.  You sir are the most
> closed minded, intellectually bankrupt, and intentionally deceitful person
> it has ever been my misfortune to encounter.
> I don't give a shit about your credentials as anyone so inept at bringing
> rational context to a discussion would no doubt cast shame on a jr. high
> school much less a university.

Would your use of phrases like, "I don't give a shit" and "blow 
hot air up his ass" against a backdrop of broken grammar be a 
source of pride for a junior high school?  And, speaking of 
rational discussion [as opposed to fallacious argumentation], can 
we determine the truth or falsity of a man's statements by 
appealing to his credentials, the number of his published works, 
etc, etc?  Probably not, yet for some strange reason you've 
continued to insist that truth is fallacy and fallacy is truth in 
those special cases where it suits your convenience.  

> Have you not noticed that none of the other AR advocates here on the net
> have come to your defense?  Perhaps they are ashamed to claim you as well? 
> I cannot blame them.

Nice innuendo, Greg.  Let's suppose that the other AR advocates are
ashamed of my postings.  In such a case, would their shame somehow
make your arguments more truthful?   [argumentum ad populum]

> I have received honest, thoughtful (though not always correct) opinions
> from everyone I have had contact with here.  I have always replied in kind.
> (With occasional lapses for the sake of humor)
> I have a great respect for peoples opinions.  Even more so when they are
> truthful and openly proclaimed.  You in great contrast...
> 
> I have stated before Russell.  We (that is the rest of us on the net) are
> here spending our valuable time in order to address an issue that we feel
> is important to our society.  Not, to tap dance (theres that dance word
> again) around the issues and play games of "are too" "are not".
> It truly sickens me that someone so interested in an issue refuses to be
> honest about it.  
> Though Robert, Ro, hell even Jen. J. disagree with me they are honest
> about their stance on the issues and their sources.  Exchanges with them
> lead to frank discussions and prompt me to reanalyze some issues. 
> Discussions with you only confirm stereotypes of AR advocates as
> intellectually devoid and emotionally unstably people.
> 
> What are you afraid of Russell?
> 
> Are you afraid we will make fun of you?
> Too late.  Your present inabilities or unwillingness to address the issues
> has opened you up to that. (Russell tactic 1,2,3,....)
> 
> Are you afraid we will chastise you?
> Too late.  I just took care of that one.
> 
> Are you afraid that you will make yourself look like a fool?
> Too late.  Reference Any post of Russells in the last 2 months.
> 
> Are you afraid we will prove you wrong?
> ????????
> Are you afraid that you can't prove us wrong?
> ????????
> Perhaps if you try you can?

You haven't chastised me with this posting.  However, you have
succeeded in casting doubt on the merits of your own position.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think a man like Neal Barnard
would fly off the handle like this if he were confronted by 
someone who takes issue with the factual and rational merits
of a particular set of claims.

Why don't you cut out the naive "nazi" crap, the fallacious 
appeals to credentials, and the childish ranting, and respond to 
my past two postings concerning the origin of "rights".  If 
you've lost them, I'll be happy to repost.  In particular, I'd 
like for you to explain your notion that it's bad to torture 
humans only because humans can make moral choices.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals