From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Closure on sport hunting
Date: 13 Aug 1992 19:39:39 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu



>jve> Do you truly believe in these spirits?  

>No, I don't.  

>jve> I'm not saying that you're
>jve> wrong if you do.  They are no different than your belief in the
>jve> rightness of Peter Singer, nor my parents' belief in God.  Also, if
>jve> you do believe in them, why were you trying to say that Mike Linan was
>jve> wrong for being a theist (or at least trying to discredit him for
>jve> believing in "demons" and "goblins" -- I'm sure the "Tooth Fairy" or
>jve> "Easter Bunny" was next on your list)?

>Mike's never said anything to me that would indicate that he 
>believes in either the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny.  On the 
>other hand, he did tell me that he believes in demons.  More to 
>the point, the topic of "demons" arose as a direct consequence of 
>his claim that "god" approves of his hunting practices.


	Russell, how many times do I have to ask you to PROVE that I said
	I believe in demons, goblins, ghosts and goddesses to you?  Are 
	you going to continue to claim that I said these things to you 
	without proving I did as I ask?  Have you no integrity?  Why don't
	you PROVE that you are not a liar by producing the posts or e-mail
	that I said these things to you?  


>I don't think it's reasonable to determine the truth or falsity 
>of any proposition on the basis of heresay testimony supposedly 
>offered-up, in abstentia, by various deities.  If Mike Linan were 
>to declare that "god" has authorized him to kill the rascal 
>atheist infidel known as John Van Etten, I would be disinclined 
>to accept his notion that killing John is ok unless Linan's "god" 
>personally agrees to show up in court and establish his credentials.
>Until then, such claims are likely to be challenged, and rightly
>so.


	This is totally within your right to not believe in my religion
	Mr. Lawrence.  I only brought religion into the conversation be-
	cause it is the ultimate reason justification for my eating an-
	other living thing.  That you choose to remain in disagreement
	is your right and certainly of no concern to me.


>My position isn't religious.  Your assumption that all 
>discussions about ethical judgments must arise from religious 
>beliefs reveals your historical and philsophical naivete.  


	Ah, but the almighty empirical fact that Russell Lawrence
	worships so cannot be applied for the most part to ethics.  If
	a father of five were to shoot Russell in his head and then pro-
	ceed in eat him with his family, would this be "wrong" or "bad"?
	I would say so unless they had no other means of survival.  The 
	dogs that live with Russell might think so.  But, from the family's
	perspective it may not.  And who knows who else would agree with
	the family's actions.  Can you PROVE with any empirical facts that
	such an act would be absolutely "wrong" or "bad" Russell?

	Oh and don't forget I waiting for you to prove that I told you I
	believe in goblins.  


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


	Mike Linan - Still waiting



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals