Paul Mitchum
Mar 1, 2007, 4:46 AM
Reportar Abuso
|
Al Smith <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 11:39 pm, use...@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > Al Smith <caddyshack...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 27, 11:53 am, use...@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > > Al Smith <caddyshack...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 26, 7:46 pm, use...@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > > > > Al Smith <caddyshack...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > [.]
> >
> > > > > > > If murder is defined as the unjust killing of a human being,
> > > > > > > scientists are better equipped than politicians and clergy to
> > > > > > > determine what a human is.
> >
> > > > > > First of all, that doesn't follow.
> >
> > > > > Who do you think would be least biased and make the most accurate
> > > > > assessment of what a human being is:
> >
> > > > > 1) A politician like George W. Bush
> > > > > 2) A theologian like Jerry Falwell
> > > > > 3) A scientist like Stephen Hawking
> >
> > [.]
> >
> > > > Your argument is flawed on a couple of different levels.
> >
> > > > There will always be disagreement. And that's good, because it means
> > > > that the fundamental philosophical question -- what it means to be human
> > > > -- is left for all to answer on their own. I don't want Bush, Falwell,
> > > > *or* Hawking to dictate to me what's human and what isn't. I'll listen
> > > > to their ideas and come to my own conclusions. That's freedom.
> >
> > > Relativism like this means those cruel, evil cultures I described in the
> > > sentence above will always be possible. Having an unambiguous morality
> > > that strives for perfection means society doesn't regress. [.]
> >
> > Al, you just defined yourself. The definition is far from flattering. I
> > mean, I understood you to be shortsighted and stupid, but those things
> > are forgivable. This latest, however.... This is another level.
>
> Your effort to reach me at personal level is pathetic. You are an
> unmitigated tool. I cannot relate to you.
Obviously. The rest of us, here in the freedom-and-reality community,
tend to see things a little differently than the one-size-fits-all
worldview you espouse. We believe that we can deal with whatever we need
to deal with despite our differences, and perhaps even do a better job
of dealing *because* of the rich diversity of our views. You seem to
think that only Steven Hawking gets a say. You don't even value your own
opinion over his.
> > You believe that freedom is too ambiguous and dangerous to be allowed,
> > and that all individuality should be sublimated to an 'objective,'
> > 'scientific' view.
>
> Of course, lacking an understanding of the country you live in, you don't
> realize that we don't live in a pure democracy and that we employ experts
> in various fields to help shape policy. I can't imagine what silly world
> you live in where you are afraid of the opinion of scientists.
>
> > So now that you've defined yourself, Al, there's something I've been
> > dying to ask a full-blown fascist: What's the attraction? Is it really
> > *that* hard to compromise?
>
> I don't know why you'd like to compromise when it comes to human life.
> Maybe you can still convince me it's a good idea before I get to vote on
> yours.
Al, you've missed the point entirely.
And I suggest that if anyone is still reading this subthread, they might
reconsider the subject line. See, someone wrote it as sarcasm. Which is
ironic. Which is funny.
--
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them. -- Adlai E. Stevenson
|
