Re: ICR and its slurs

Russell Stewart (diamond@rt66.com)
Mon, 26 May 1997 01:42:25 -0600

>Russ, you need to take it easy. I have not called you names, or used personal
>characterizations in any way (at least I hope not. If any have slipped out, I
>apologize). I have called your ARGUMENTS circular and illogical, but that is
>what a debate is about. If you are going to engage in them, you must be
>prepared to answer with substance, not name calling.

I have answered with substance. I have also presented my opinions about your
character, and about the aspects of your beliefs that I think you need to
reconsider. Perhaps I have not been as tactful about it as I should have. So
let me restate my opinion:

You are incredibly narrow-minded and more than a little arrogant. You need to
open up your mind, or *you* will not be taken seriously.

>This seems to be the crux of the matter:
>
><< I am telling you what I know and feel in my
>heart. I simply don't feel the need to look for any reason beyond the simple
>fact that others have feelings, emotions, consciousness, and awareness like
>myself. In fact, your inability to understand this simple concept makes you
>look like a more than slightly amoral person. And your behavior in this debate
>is reinforcing that notion.>>
>
>I'll answer the last part first. I have not misunderstood your "concept." I
>have answered it (and will do so again in a moment). As further evidence, Bill
>Hamilton makes exactly the same point in his post to you.

And I have responded to his point. Have you seen my response? Maybe one of
your later posts answers it. If so, I'll deal with it then.

>This does not make
>us amoral.

Let me make something clear: I *never* in any way stated or implied that Bill
Hamilton is amoral. I have had contact with him before, and I have plenty of
respect for him.

>It makes us debaters wishing to engage you on a certain point.
>Calling us names is not an answer.

I am not "calling you names", I am making a logical extrapolation from what you
seem to be telling me. Perhaps I am wrong, but if so, I haven't seen how yet.

>Now, to the matter at hand. You claim a moral system because of "what I know
>and feel in my heart." In another post, you say, "Because it does." Can't you
>admit that both of those are subjective expressions?

Of course they are. So what? That still doesn't make them supernatural or
Judeo-Christian in origin.

[Condescension deleted.]

_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|

2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.