From: young@serum.kodak.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Distractions number 206 and 207
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:28:58 GMT
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Originator: young@sasquatch

In <BvBpq1.7o@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence whines:
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> I'm still waiting for to to explain why it's ok for you to kill a 
>rl> brain-dead man, but not ok for you to kill a kidney-dead man.   
>
>From article <1992Sep29.004722.3946@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> And I'm waiting for you to provide any evidence whatsoever that I
>ry> have made this claim.
>ry> 
>ry> In fact, in <1992Aug22.175923.25363@pixel.kodak.com>, I made it
>ry> specifically clear that this was NOT my position.  That was back
>ry> in AUGUST, Russell...were you hoping I'd forget?  I told you before,
>ry> if you're going to pull this kind of intellectual chicanery, take it
>ry> to e-mail.
>
>I'm still waiting for to to explain why it's ok for you to kill a 
>brain-dead man, but not ok for you to kill a kidney-dead man.   

	In the first place, I've never said "it's OK to kill a brain-dead
	man, but not OK to kill a kidney-dead man."  This is a creation
	of your own mind, and proof to the contrary has yet to be shown.

	I HAVE said that these two examples are similar in that they're
	both fatally flawed, and therefore irrelevant to the discussion,
	which is not the same thing at all, is it?

	In <1992Aug22.175923.25363@pixel.kodak.com>, I said:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The exact nature of the fatal flaw isn't what's at issue, it's the mere
existence of the fatal flaw that makes the organism irrelevant to the
discussion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	You're trying to confuse us with the application of INTRA-species
	ethics, while the question at hand is about the EXTRA-species
	application of personal, human morality.

	In point of fact, I have made it clear that, for the purposes of
	this discussion, the two examples would be treated identically;
	let's look at one of the excerpts YOU supplied:

>In article <1992Aug24.231123.4519@pixel.kodak.com>, you wrote:
>======================================================================
>Let me try to explain this once again.  To the cosmos, a brain-dead,
>or kidney deficient, or liver-failed, etc., human is effectively
>dead.  It is a non-functional organism.
>======================================================================

	[Russell's tactic #206 (Mary Otto has graciously assigned me the
	200-series): make some officious comment which has nothing to do
	with reality and hope that it distracts his opponent.]

>Why is it "ok" for Rich Young to kill a brain-dead comatose human?

	Once again, I defy you to show where I ever said this in the
	context of this discussion.  I have never said that it was OK
	to kill any human, only that it is OK to ignore your examples
	within the bounds of this discussion because they do not apply.

	Again, from <1992Aug22.175923.25363@pixel.kodak.com>:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...what I would do in special cases, with members of my own species, has
nothing to do with arbitrary assignment of "worth" based on a set of
characteristics which have absolutely no significance to the natural world
whatsoever.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	Funny how, in all those quotes you lifted from my past postings,
	you somehow missed these.

	[Russell's tactic #207: selective quotation of past conversations
	in order to destroy context and distract from the issue at hand.]

	Once again, Russell, I invite you to take this idiotic and trans-
	parent attempt to distract through misquoting to e-mail.  The t.p.a.
	readers have already seen this stuff, and if you need clarification
	of past concepts, we can take care of that privately and not waste
	bandwidth on your pathetic attempts to distract us from your deep
	discomfort with your position.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals