NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/singles/30828

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-16 | 4.0 KB

Xref: sparky soc.singles:30828 talk.abortion:48094
Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!emory!gatech!concert!borg!news_server!martinc
From: [e-mail] (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: nkill
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:11:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: grover.MARTINC.92Nov16111116
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
Lines: 68
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of 16 Nov 92 05:40:54 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (W. David Rohwer) writes:

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles R. Martin) writes:
   >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (W. David Rohwer) writes:
   >
   >   >Oh, I'm so glad to see that the spirit of tolerance and the ideal that
   >   >one ought not be persecuted or killed for differences of opinion is
   >   >still alive on the net.
   >   >--
   >
   >    I do not mind if there are differences of opinion.  Just do not
   >   make others do what you want them to do against their will.  If you
   >   do, then you must expect consequences.  Basically, live and let live.
   >
   >David, I don't think I disagree with any of the positions you took as
   >explained.  But nkill-ing people whose positions you dislike seems to
   >display the opposite of "live and let live".  It sounds an awful lot
   >like "do what I say or I'll kill you."
   >--
   >        Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/[e-mail]

    I think that you did not read the second and third sentences of my
   response.

Nonsense.  Your second and third sentences seem to contradict your first.

   If they have a different opinion from me, then I do not have
   a problem with that.  That does change though when they try to stop me
   from doing something when it goes against what they believe and the law's
   sanction.  At that point, I believe that I must defend what I am doing and
   then try to punish them.  An example involves abortion.  I believe in the
   abortion right.  Since the pro-lifers attempt to make pro-choicers
   relinquish their abortion right, I do not have a problem with defending the
   abortion right and then attempting to punish the pro-lifers by taking away
   one of their rights.

David, I suspect you of being one of the usual underdone usenet weenies
who talk the talk but would be appalled to be asked to walk the walk.
If what you *mean* is that you believe that some means, preferably
legal, should be used to prevent Operation Rescue etc from using force
to prevent women from entering clinics at which abortions are performed,
then I agree with you.  They should be taken away and charged with an
appropriate crime.  (Now, I'll leave it for another time to wonder
whether the defenses used for civil disobedience in the civil rights
movement should apply to them as well.)  Even more so for people who
bomb abortion clinics.

However, I responded to your suggestion that you would nkill (by painful
poisoning) people who were against abortion.  That's not "live and let
live", thats "live and let live as long as you don't disagree with me."

    My position is not "do what I say or I'll kill you."  I have a
   modified "live and let live" philosophy as one can see from above.  I
   do not believe in turning the other cheek.  I do believe in an eye
   for an eye.

Let's try this by analogy, in short simple sentences.  What is your
feeling about

    nkill -poison proabortionists@usa

Is that more or less morally offensive?
--
        Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/[e-mail]
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
        3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/[phone]
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T