Text 18571, 329 rader
Skriven 2005-12-12 22:23:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av MICHIEL VAN DER VLIST
Ärende: [1/2] [1/2] [1/2] [1/2] S
=================================
 >>> Part 1 of 2...

-=> Quoting Michiel Van Der Vlist to Frank Scheidt <=-

 >> You must live in a very strange world.  You say you object to
 >> murder yet you admit you can't even *define* it ... [sigh] ...

 MVDV>> That is not what I said. I *can* define murder. I am also sure that my
 MVDV>> definition will differ from yours.
 
 > So *your* definition is the proper one?  I doubt that.

 MVDV> A definition is a definition. Every definition is arbitrary. They are
 MVDV> all equally "proper".

That's nonsense!  Evil is evil!  There are absolutes in life.
 
 >> but there certainly is no reasonable difference of opinion WRT
 >> when life begins.  It obviously begins at conception.

 MVDV>> Obviously *human* life does not begin at conception. A
 MVDV>> fertilised human egg, has no brain so it can not be conscious.
 MVDV>> It is life, but it is no more human than a carot.
 
 > So you think a fertilized human egg may end up as a carrot --
 > or some other vegetable or perhaps a cat?

 MVDV> Ah, argumentation trick #71. Start with "so you think" and than make
 MVDV> it look like the opponent supports something he never said.

You didn't actually *say* it but your implication is clear ...

 MVDV> What I said is that a fertilised egg is no more a human being than a
 MVDV> carrot. 

Hence implying the equivalence ...

 >> Anyone not realizing that simply hasn't thought it through.

 MVDV>> Anyone not realising that a fertilised human egg is not a
 MVDV>> human being has not thought it through.
 
 > But if it *weren't* human it would not end up being born as a
 > human baby.

 MVDV> Of course, a fertilised human egg will never grow up to become a cat.
 MVDV> But that does not make it a human being.

Oh, then there is one specific moment when the pre-human becomes 
a human?   When is that "Magic Moment"?  Birth?   One second, 
*prior* to birth the "object" is no-longer human?  Is that "Magic 
Moment" at the dividing-line just prior to, say, the third 
trimester?  One second prior to *that* the human is not human?  
When does this take place?  Using your logic it *must* exist 
since there's a contuum from the instant of the fertilized egg 
to the actual birth of the baby.  Both of us agree, I think, 
that what is *born* is a human.

I'll be interested in seeing how you evade this "Magic Moment" 
definition ... heh heh heh ...

 MVDV> A pile of bricks and bags of mortar is not a house either.

But, unlike an embryo which takes on the appearance of a human 
being later in life thus confirming its earlier humanity, bricks 
and mortar do *not* have to end up as a house.  They might end 
up as a mere wall.  Your analogy is fatally flawed.

 MVDV>> There is no element of self defence in executing a death penalty.
 
 > That depends upon one's definition of "self-defense" ...

 MVDV> And you think your definition is the *proper* one?  Ha!..
 
It's a well thought-out definition ... when one is attacked or 
seriously threatened with attack, response is self-defense.  We 
cannot use ancient standards in modern times since present-day 
weapons are *far* too destructive for that.  You threaten us -- 
you then receive our defensive strikes!

 >> BTW, I oppose the death penalty for two reasons:  (1) If the
 >> executed person is later found not guilty of the crime there's
 >> no way he can be brought back

 MVDV>> Good.
 
 > In the U.S. in recent years, recent *months* there have been a
 > lot of Death Row convicts released because modern DNA
 > techniques showed they were *not* proven to have been at the
 > scene of the crime as it was committed.

 MVDV> We had similar incidents here recently. People convicted of murder and
 MVDV> rape were released because new techniques proved their innocence. One
 MVDV> of them had been in jail for seven years... We don't have the death
 MVDV> penalty here. 

We didn't have it for quite a few years but it's been resurrected 
(no pun intended).  Rape convictions, especially, has been 
overturned because of later DNA evidence.  Rape, almost always, 
involves the "He said.  She said." arguments which all too ofter 
are decided in favor of the woman perceived a victim.
 
 MVDV>>> A featus is not a human being. Therefor ending it's existance
 MVDV>>> is not murder.
 
 >> Huh?   Human life begins at *conception*!

 MVDV>> No, it doesn't.
 
 > That's merely your opinion ...

 MVDV> As it is merely your opinion that it does.

But *my* opinion is stongly based on logic ...

 MVDV>>> Frank are you really so naive as to believe that a self
 MVDV>>> proclamation of objectiveness has any maening?
 
 >> Of *course* not.

 MVDV>> Then why persist in it?
 >
 > Because I *am* objective.

 MVDV> Only in your mind.
 
But it is only *your* mind which rejects it.

 > To refuse to acknowledge that fact would be hypocritical!

 MVDV> It is not a fact, it is merely your opinion.
 
I think my "opinion" can also be a "fact".  In my opinion the 
surface of the sun is hotter than 100 degrees Celsius.  The fact 
of the matter is that it is *far* hotter than 100 degrees C.  My 
opinion is also a fact.

 > The fact that *you* don't happen to believe it doesn't change
 > the fact one iota.

 MVDV> Indeed, my belief has nothing to do with it. The fact that your are
 MVDV> not objective remains independent of my belief.
 
But what you claim as a "fact" is not that!  So your argument 
falls apart!

 >> Do *you* think such a proclamation is automatically *false*?

 MVDV>> No, but it does not help to convince me either. Rational
 MVDV>> objective people do not make statements like "I am objective,
 MVDV>> I am sober, I am trustworthy". They realise that statements
 MVDV>> like that are worthless. So they remain silent and let others
 MVDV>> judge for themselves. I never trust people who say "trust me".
 
 > But I am not *trying* to convince you.

 MVDV> You may not realise it but your *are* trying to convince me.
 
I certainly don't realize it ...

 > I am merely giving you some information.  What use, if any, you
 > make of it is up to you.

 MVDV> You sre *selectively* feeding me information. And some of it is false.

I haven't given you *any* false information.  You consider some 
to be false but that's *your* problem.  In fact it's your 
*opinion* and you seem to have little faith in "opinions" ...
 
 >> As before, I'd take all the facts into account, *then* make my
 >> decision.

 MVDV>> And so do I. Having mused over the facts, my conclusion
 MVDV>> is: you are not objective.
 
 > So your thinking is flawed in this case ...

 MVDV> In your misguided belief...

Huh?  My belief is *not* misguided, so *another* of your 
arguments falls apart!

 MVDV>>> But I can *also* see them as freedom fighters, sacrificing
 MVDV>>> themselves for a cause.
 
 >> They are murderous criminals *not* freedom fighters.  Freedom
 >> fighters always oppose some oppressive regime.

 MVDV>> They oppose the oppressive regime of the US.
 
 > Huh?  We *have* no oppressive regime.

 MVDV> You have taken control over Iraq by means of an in an illegal
 MVDV> invasion. For *them* you are an oppressive regime.
 
 > This is a democracy. Political acts, in general, reflect
 > general opinion.

 MVDV> Only the gerneral opinion of the people of the US. Not the people of
 MVDV> Iraq or Afghanistan. It appears they want something very different from
 MVDV> what the US people want. They seem to want an Islamic state governed by
 MVDV> the Sharia. 

You've just provided *another* reason for our liberation of Iraq.  
We certainly don't want *that* kind of governing!

 >> *These* "freedom fighters" *support* such a regime!

 MVDV>> What regime do they suppprt?
 
 > al Qaeda ...

 MVDV> Al Qaeda is not a "regime". That's a myth created by the US
 MVDV> propaganda. It does not exest as a centralised organisation with Bin
 MVDV> Laden in the middle. 

Funny stuff!  For decades the head of our Federal Bureau of 
Investigation was a man named J. Edgar Hoover.  When asked by a 
reporter what the FBI was doing to catch members of the Mafia, 
Hoover said the existence of that criminal organization was a 
myth!  In actuality he seemed more interested in catching 
car-thieves than tackling a *powerful* enemy.  GWB, to his 
credit, realizes al Qaeda *is* a real organizaition.  Europeans, 
like J. Edgar Hoover, may feel more comfortable sticking their 
heads in the sand claiming al Qaeda is a myth. Of course, as 
usual, they're counting on the US to save them!

 MVDV> Yes, many terrorist groups operate inder the name of Al Quada, That
 MVDV> does not make it a "regime".

 MVDV>> That their POV is insane is just your opinion, no more.
 
 > And my opinion happens to be correct ...

 MVDV> Opinions are just opinions. They are all equally correct.
 
"All equally correct"??!?!?!!    I cannot believe you really 
believe that!

 >> True, however the estimates made at the time with all the
 >> information available at that time indicated that if we were
 >> forced to invade Honshu it would *easily* result in more than
 >> a million deaths -- on *both* sides.

 MVDV>> There was no reason to invade the main country of Japan. A
 MVDV>> bloccade would have done it just as well.
 
 > Not so.  That has been thoroughly worked over.

 MVDV> Indeed is has and the inevitable conclusion is that the bombs were not
 MVDV> needed. 

You seem to be reading revisionist versions of history.

 > If we had blockaded Japan the people there would have suffered
 > terribly. Thousands would have starved.

 MVDV> *Only* thousands? Compare that to the 300.000 that were killed by the
 MVDV> bombs. 

Why do you keep coming up with that 300,000 number?  The official 
dead in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki was only around 100,000 or 
so.  Do you think by exaggerating the figure we're going to come 
to some sort of compromise.  The total number is of no real 
importance since it was large enough to show we had a powerful 
weapon, thus saving over a million lives.

 > We did the humane thing -- the act which *ended* the war

 MVDV> It has not been proven that that was the ony way to end the war.
 
No one has ever *claimed* it was the only way.  However, since it 
was the quickest, most humane way to win, that's what Truman did.

 > and which ultimately caused Japan to be the democracy it is today.

 MVDV> You can not prove that dropping those bombs and killing 300.000 people
 MVDV> was the *only* way toi achieve that goal.

Not the "only", but the *best*!

 MVDV> I say, Japan would have become a democracy all by itself. With
 MVDV> economic growth comes education and with education comes democracy.
 MVDV> Eventually. We see it everywhere.

You say that.  OK.  Keep saying it.  Your statement doesn't do 
any harm.

 MVDV>>> It does not look that way. There are more active terrorists
 MVDV>>> now than before the invasion of Iraq.
 >
 >> That doesn't mean they aren't learning the lesson.  Their's
 >> are acts of desperation as there's no way they can win.

 MVDV>> There is no way that you can win either. It is a lose-lose situation.
 
 > We will win.  Why?  Because, unlike the Vietnam "war" this is
 > definitely in our National Interest.

 MVDV> Yes, you need the oil.

The *world* needs the oil.  How many oil wells in The 
Netherlands??

 MVDV> Still does not mean you will get what you want.

No argument there since one *seldom* gets all he wants.
 
 >>> Actually, as I recall, only something on the order of 200,000
 >>> enemy were killed.

 MVDV>>> We have been through this before and you have been proven wrong.
 MVDV>>> 300.000 is a conservative estimate.
 
 >> I have *not* been proven wrong.

 MVDV>> Yes, you have.
 
 > I spoke of the deaths immediately after the bombs were dropped.

 MVDV> And *I* was the first to mention a figure and *I* spke of the deaths
 MVDV> as *a result* of the bombs.
 
Results you claim are true ... in your *opinion*
 >>> Continued to next message...

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)