From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 2 Oct 1992 21:54:50 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BvIDvo.A0s@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Not at all.  In posing questions about the statement, "Thou shalt
>rl> not suffer a witch to live", I was hoping that Mike would explain
>rl> the apparent lack of harmony between his frequent use of the word
>rl> "idiot", as a perjorative label for his opponents, and his own
>rl> mindless acceptance of the King James bible as the literal word
>rl> of his "god".  Given his penchant for labeling non-christians as
>rl> "fools", without regard to the reasons for their non-belief, it
>rl> seems to me that his definition of the word "idiot" must differ
>rl> substantially from the normal english connotation of the word,
>rl> ie., as a stupid individual who can't think clearly.
>
>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."  

>He told me so.  Ask him to explain the difference between faith 
>and reason.  He'll tell you that he admires faith (ie mindless 
>acceptance) far more than reason, and considers me to be a "fool" 
>because I prefer empirical evidence and rational arguments.  


Oh Russell.  I knew you wouldn't disappoint me.  Again you have proven
to me what a liar you truly are.  I consider your addition of "mindless
acceptance" as a complete lie since I never used such terms.  These terms
are yours and I really must say I find you and your tactics pathetic.

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


>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.  

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

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

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

Mike Linan


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals