From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 14:22:11 MDT
Sorry to butt in again, but Harvey's questions are irrestable:
> Deja Vu! I've been through this before with someone else!
>
> Can you specifically state your viewpoints now? Have we all merely
> misunderstood your position? Are you NOT claiming that genders or races
> be valued differently, or that violence toward races or infants is
> acceptable behavior?
Well, here's what I'd say: I do not value races or genders
differently. Elaboration: all human beings are (to me) so
close to being of the same value that it is not productive
(right now, to me) to consider that some have more value than
others. (Now I hope that this isn't taken too literally: men
have much more value for heavy lifting, and women have much
more value for tending to infants.) Fortunately, there is a
large gulf between humans and animals that permits us to
value animals less than we value humans without ducking
any issues.
But I will defend the propriety of anyone to raise any
issue on this forum WHATSOEVER, provided that it is done
in a civil tone and is in compliance with the list rules.
Do you disagree?
We are fortunate; because remember the case of the ring of bird species
circling the North pole: the first species is the same as the second,
the second the same as the third, and so on. But the last species is
not the same as the first. Can you imagine how much trouble we'd be
in if there were no clear demarkation lines between people and animals?
As for infants, so many people on this list are so revolted
by any discussion of the cultural practices of infanticide,
(e.g., the former Japanese practice of allowing parents 90
days to decide), that rational discussion is impossible.
> It seems strange that we have had this huge argument, but all the people
> who seemed to be arguing this position have melted away.
Sorry that I don't have more time and energy to continue, if
you meant me.
> I guess we all imagined that these positions were
> being presented on this list. They never existed,
> no one ever proposed them, and there are no proponents
> of them. Samantha was sickened by nothing, Gina
> offended my nothing, and I have been arguing with nobody.
Well, I for one, have sworn off sarcasm ;-) at least for now!
> But why do such issues keep recurring over and over?
Because they are *difficult*.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:25 MST