From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 17:05:12 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The Emotional Killer (or out of the frying pan and into the electric chair?)
Message-ID: <m0tlsr9-0008z2C@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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.  

You falsely imply that a person can't be correct in his assessment that his
rights were, indeed, violated.


> 
>This and other posts by J. Bell and other lib'bers lead me to believe that
>their claimed interest in human freedom for everyone is little more than a
>cover for a set of authoritarian expectations that they can do whatever
>they want, free from any control, responsibility, or accountability. 

Since you just got through misrepresenting my position, probably
intentionally, it's pretty hard to take the rest of your opinions seriously.


>The argued centrality of J. Bell's "feelings" over other people's lives is
>something that puts him in the god category. (Thankfully J. Bell is not one
>of the dreaded tax collectors or "socialist statists.") 

You're wrong yet again.  Let's see, tallpaul needs a logic lesson:

Let's suppose I _believe_ my rights are being violated.  While that, in
itself, does not guarantee that this is CORRECT, on the other hand it
doesn't mean that it is INCORRECT, either.  You're falsely implying that I
was ignoring the issue of correctness; I wasn't.