From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 07:50:07 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The Emotional Killer (or out of the frying pan and into
Message-ID: <m0tn8cJ-00090NC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 02:51 PM 2/14/96 -0500, tallpaul wrote:
>On Feb 11, 1996 23:48:29, 'jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>' wrote: 
> 
> 
>>At 11:59 PM 2/11/96 -0500, tallpaul wrote: 
>>>I want to write on the theme posted to the list in the message below
>where 
>>>J. Bell wrote "It is their ACTIONS that I feel violate my rights; that is
>
>>>what justifies my seeking their deaths, should I choose to do so."  
>>>  
>>>First, one thing that marks the sane adult from the child and the
>floridly 
>>>psychotic adult is the sane adult's knowledge that "feelings" and "facts"
>
>>>are two different things.  
>>>  
>>>It is one thing to "feel," as J. Bell or all of us might, that our rights
>
>>>have been violated.  
>>>  
>>>It is another thing to maintain, as J. Bell uniquely appears to do, that 
>>>the "feeling" gives him the right to seek another person's death.  
>> 
>>You're clearly confused. I was responding to an accusation that I was 
>>defending seeking somebody's death simply because of a disagreement of 
>>OPINION.  My comment was intended to remind the reader that it is the 
>>ACTIONS of a person which justify the self-defense; not simply the 
>>disagreement. 
> 
>I disagree and I believe that my quote (reposted by J. Bell) of his
>original statement supports me. He mentioned "ACTIONS" and he mentioned
>"OPINIONS" but he relied on his "feelings" as the touchstone of reality.
>More than ever I believe that he genuinely cannot understand the
>difference. He still confuses his "feelings" which exist nowhere but inside
>his head with "ACTIONS" which exist outside his head in the real world. 


Frankly, I think you are deliberately engaging in nit-picky semantical 
arguments when your fundamental position is bankrupt.  I've always made it 
clear that I don't "assume" that every person is right in his belief that 
his rights have been violated; rather, I point out that whether they are 
right or  wrong, ultimately you (and me, and society) must deal with the 
FACT of that belief.  

If the person (people?)  in question is actually wrong, then consider it a 
useful task to explain to that person WHY his beliefs are wrong.  If he's 
RIGHT, he has the right to act to defend his rights.  The question of 
whether any given person is right, in any given belief, is an interesting 
matter, but it is only marginally relevant to the subject of "Assassination 
Politics."  Ultimately, people WILL act on what they believe to be true; you 
can't just stick your head in the sand and make them go away.  You can try 
to convince them they're wrong, or you can try to defend yourself against 
their (allegedly misguided) actions:  That is your choice.

Get back to the subject at hand and I'll be happy to continue to debate.  
Engage in silly semantics and I'll be pleased to ignore you.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMSN1V/qHVDBboB2dAQFObAQAnYKsS2YqWwWVatdTCYBvcq2eGdXD4UNf
0hLC15BHPcK7PPNx2RbgevjatE8+NFCDXsgOYdANDDcCLo9KiXGtHjOg9790msuX
sCLGKkZkijXNe64Bu2tpvcYT1Aqs+PVrYiAad/itieIvCQ3v1GdWSAvuULuNVqP0
TZptrXTDYtE=
=SJtm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----