From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:46:50 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Did the comment, "What an idiot", address the issue?  

Mike Linan writes:
ml> Did it need to?  Wouldn't any reasonable person have immediately 
ml> identified the comment as an opinion and not an argument.  You 
ml> want to see what you want to see so bad that it blinds you to the 
ml> obvious.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> What purpose was served by your comment?     Did the label, "idiot",
rl> have any meaning?  Or, was it just a thoughtless insult?

From article <1afj0gINN729@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> It's very simple Russell.  See if you can understand.  I posted my 
ml> opinion of what I thought of the Udo and her questions.  It was not
ml> aimed to please you and if it does not, I suggest you come to grips
ml> with the fact that I don't care.

Mike, I realize that it was your opinion.  What I still don't 
understand is how a person like yourself, who apparently accepts 
many beliefs without any scrutiny whatsoever, is qualified to 
identify the "idiocy" of others.   It seems to me that you ought
to identify "idiocy" by the absence of reason, and not simply by the
fact that someone else's beliefs may differ from the beliefs that you
yourself have blindly accepted.

Do you consider the statement, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live",
to be a reasonable one?  Or, would this be the sort of statement that
deserves the "idiot" label?

rl> In a previous thread, you mentioned that you consider every 
rl> statement in the bible to be the literal word of god.  Doesn't 
rl> the bible say, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"?  Is it 
rl> ethically ok for you to kill someone if you think "god" has told 
rl> you to do so?  

ml> Well, as I said before, I do not feel I need to justify or 
ml> explain my beleifs to you.  You obviously enjoy ridiculing them 
ml> and I have no desire to listen to your arrogance anymore.  For 
ml> the record you should know that the verse you quote is from the 
ml> Old Testament and Christians no longer live under those laws.  
ml> The New Testament holds God's laws from the time of Jesus until 
ml> now.  So, you chance to make me and my religion look foolish has 
ml> again failed.  There is no more "eye for an eye".  That was valid 
ml> before the New Testament.  

So what you're saying is that your "god" apparently changed his mind
and is now more tolerant of the thoughts and feelings of people who
don't think the way you think.   When did this occur, BTW?  To the
best of my knowledge, christians were burning and hanging witches 
well into the 17th century.   Now if it's true that "god" no longer
encourages witch-killing, is it possible that "god" has also changed
his mind about the ways we (mis)treat animals?

rl> Please clarify your views if you think I've misrepresented you.

ml> I *know* you have misrepresented me.  For instance, I never said 
ml> to you that I feel killing any human was justified unless I was 
ml> told by GOD and he would not do that because these are not the 
ml> times of the Old Testament.  You would like to pretend that I 
ml> would go around rounding up "witchs" and kill them.  Your 
ml> ignorance of my beliefs is only surpassed by your malicious- 
ml> ness.  

Let me repeat a question that you answered previously via email:
If "god" told you to kill a group of innocent men, women, and 
children without explaining the reasons, would you comply?  Or 
would you disobey?  

rl> Would you mind if I post a few of your email comments that touch 
rl> on the alleged rights of your "god" versus the rights of 
rl> "godless" human beings who don't share your beliefs?  Perhaps it 
rl> would help clear up some of my "misrepresentations".  

ml> No need to Russell.  I can represent my views better than you can and
ml> to tell the truth, I don't trust that you wouldn't alter them to suit
ml> your argument.  Sorry old boy but, that's what it has come to.

Gee, I was hoping you'd give me permission to clear up my alleged
"misrepresentations" by citing some of your previous email comments.

rl> BTW, are you still hoping that "god" will ask you to "bust" my ribs?

ml> If you will recall, I didn't say this.  What I said was something 
ml> to the effect that I would enjoy doing so after you continually 
ml> belittled my religious beliefs by claiming I said to you I 
ml> believe in goblins and such.  I also told you as much I as would 
ml> enjoy it, I would not do so because of my beliefs.  Are you still 
ml> threatening or promising to make your way to the San Francisco 
ml> Bay Area so that we can meet?  Are you still practicing the 
ml> martial arts you told me about?  

You seem to be confused, Mike.  However, I suppose it's a sign of 
progress that "god" has apparently decided to refrain from encouraging
your fantasies of violence.  

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