From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun May 26 2002 - 15:10:51 MDT
Because of course it is not "nothing".
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> On Sunday, May 26, 2002, at 04:30 am, Reason wrote:
>
>> Hmm. Well I'm not in the devaluation boat (or any sort of valuation
>> boat). I
>> was trying to separately out the more interesting factual choices (where
>> society draws the line) as opposed to the less interesting ethical
>> choices
>> (less interesting to me because most people can't discuss these things
>> rationally, and the final answer seems like a roll of the dice).
>
>
> 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?
>
> It seems strange that we have had this huge argument, but all the people
> who seemed to be arguing this position have melted away. 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.
>
> But why do such issues keep recurring over and over?
>
> --
> Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:23 MST