----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 12:26:23PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > Yet, he has also clearly stated that there are some people that he feels > > hold an immoral position that he disagrees with. Thus, the reasonable > > hypothesis is that he respects some, but not all, of the people he > > disagrees with. > > Eh? No contradictions. Reading your post this way, you appear to miss his point. His complaint was about people who put virtually everyone they disagree with in the immoral category. The complaint was not that liberals thought some conservatives, like Lott, were immoral, but that they seemed to think virtually every conservative was immoral. In other words, his statement is that a number of folks he differs with divided the territory between reasonable disagreement and immoral disagreement improperly. They have a far too small area for honest disagreement, pushing virtually all of their opponents into the "immoral" category. A much more interesting question to explore Gautam's position would be whether an honest pacifist-- who, for example, accepts that Hussein killed more people in Iraq than are dying now--- still is opposed to all use of deadly force could reasonably conclude that no one who is willing to kill or support killing is acting morally. If so, then Gautam would clearly allow that a reasonable person could consider some of his views immoral...even though he has a different means of applying morality than they do. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
