pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (09/05/85)
Dave, Your analysis that I must have some irrational fear of death is as naive as you speculated it might be. I don't think that a person who engages in activities like skydiving could be said to have an irrational fear of death. I recognize that I am going to die someday. But I also recognize that while I continue to live there is an evil pig monster Damager-God who enjoys harming people and making mincemeat of out efforts to build and create. When I go skydiving, I do so realizing that God could do me harm at any moment. Why do I do it? Because by beating Him at His own game, by taking the necessary precautions and the extra care to watch out for His meddling interference, I gain a modicum of pride and satisfaction in showing the Damager-God that He is not so all powerful as He would like His sheep to believe. I don't mean to call you a liar, Dave, but no one has lived a life of sufficient length and not experienced tragedy or suffering. When you say that no such things have ever befallen you, I have to question your claim that you've had ``a really great time for most all of [your] life.'' I must admit I admire the way you speak in defiance of Him, as if daring Him to slit your throat as you speak. I hope you realize that for Him to do something horrible to someone who speaks out vocally against Him may be seen as proof of His evil, even to the most sheepish of His followers. For this reason, I believe He will purposely not do this sort of thing, thus not only preventing this sort of defection but also appearing to discredit people who speak out against Him in the process. I find it upsetting that so many people like Dan Boscovich and now Dave Trissel must find some ``flaw'' in my character or personality to account for my beliefs about God. No one has made claims about character flaws in them or in other God whorshipers resulting in their beliefs. In my heart, I know it is the work of the evil God damaging their minds that causes this sort of thing. I hope we are able to get past that damage and find the kernel of solid mind through which we will all share in a world without the Damager-God. Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (09/07/85)
In article <326@pyuxn.UUCP> pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) writes: > ... But I also recognize that >while I continue to live there is an evil pig monster Damager-God who enjoys >harming people and making mincemeat of out efforts to build and create. >I go skydiving, I do so realizing that God could do me harm at any moment. >Why do I do it? Because by beating Him at His own game, by taking the >necessary precautions and the extra care to watch out for His meddling >interference, I gain a modicum of pride and satisfaction in showing the >Damager-God that He is not so all powerful as He would like His sheep to >believe. You bring up an interesting idea here - that Damager-God is very evil but he is not very powerful. Why wouldn't the D-God cause you to break a finger each time you jumped? I presume you like to skydive and knowing you would break a finger every time should make D-God really chuckle. But it would seem he is too weak to do something like that so why fear a harmless D-God? > I don't mean to call you a liar, Dave, but no one has lived a life >of sufficient length and not experienced tragedy or suffering. When you >say that no such things have ever befallen you, I have to question your >claim that you've had ``a really great time for most all of [your] life.'' Of course I have had a few times in life when I have experienced tragedy. But these few times pale in comparison to the great amount of enjoyment I get out of life. I am well paid at work, generally work my own hours, take weekend trips to wherever (Las Vegus this month), play with my Macintosh at home, eat wherever I want - pretty good life if you ask me. Sure, once a month I may have a headache or my tasks at work are often things I don't like doing, but these minor things don't amount to the tragedy or suffering you are indicating. >I must admit I admire the way you speak in defiance of Him, as if daring Him >to slit your throat as you speak. I hope you realize that for Him to do >something horrible to someone who speaks out vocally against Him may be seen >as proof of His evil, even to the most sheepish of His followers. For this >reason, I believe He will purposely not do this sort of thing, thus not only >preventing this sort of defection but also appearing to discredit people who >speak out against Him in the process. I don't agree here. Horrible things do happen to someone every day, take the latest spate of air crashes. If such things don't convince followers of D-God then why should D-God be afraid to zap me? Certainly my absence on the net isn't going to start making them suspicious. Here you are talking openly about D-God on the net. If your death in an accident were reported tomorrow on the net do you think that would convince anyone of D-God? I don't think so. Thus, if D-God is real he/she/it could harm me as much as desired and it won't change the "followers" position. Thus, why doesn't D-God harm me? I submit that there is no D-God, or that if there is it is so weak that it can't do anything more powerful than make me do a boring task at work. If the latter is true then by definition D-God is not a God but more like a gremlin. > I find it upsetting that so many people like Dan Boscovich and >now Dave Trissel must find some ``flaw'' in my character or personality to >account for my beliefs about God. It's only natural to try to understand why someone believes something. Since I don't find your arguments for this evil God very compelling (e.g. I can easily picture a MUCH less atractive world for myself yet it isn't happening) my only recourse is to try to see why you would want to suggest such a thing to begin with. Thus, the feeble personality trait guessing. >In my >heart, I know it is the work of the evil God damaging their minds that causes >this sort of thing. In other words it's wrong for people to try to understand why you hold such a radical view but correct for you to think their minds are being controlled. If you could just answer the following simple question I would be glad to further consider your D-God theory, and if not I don't think it's worth much: Since I can picture a MUCH less enjoyable world for myself, why is it that I enjoy my life so much? Why isn't the Damager God making it miserable? -- Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
vch@rruxo.UUCP (Kerro Panille) (09/08/85)
>death. I recognize that I am going to die someday. But I also recognize that >while I continue to live there is an evil pig monster Damager-God who enjoys ^ ^ ^ ^ >harming people and making mincemeat of out efforts to build and create. When >I go skydiving, I do so realizing that God could do me harm at any moment. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ >Why do I do it? Because by beating Him at His own game, by taking the >necessary precautions and the extra care to watch out for His meddling >interference, I gain a modicum of pride and satisfaction in showing the >Damager-God that He is not so all powerful as He would like His sheep to >believe. I'd say this guy is more than a little paranoid. He should see a doctor. (I wouldn't be surprised if he's dangerous. I've seen people institutionalized for less than that posting.) -- Vince Hatem ---------------- A Bell Communications Research | UZI |----------|_ _ _\/ T Raritan River Software Systems Center | |----------| /\ & 444 Hoes Lane ---------------- ROGER GUTS T 4D-360 / /\ DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' Piscataway, NJ 08854 / / TIES (201) 699-4869 /-----/ ...ihnp4!rruxo!vch TRUE GRIT MYSTERIES - The detective series for those who NEVER eat quiche! (WARNING - MAY BE EMOTIONALLY DISTURBING TO HAMSTER LOVERS)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/08/85)
> I'd say this guy is more than a little paranoid. He should see a doctor. > (I wouldn't be surprised if he's dangerous. I've seen people institutionalized > for less than that posting.) [VINCE HATEM, speaking about Paul Zimmerman] Hmmm. If Paul Zimmerman is "paranoid" for believing in a god that is evil, does that make those who believe in a benevolent god equally disturbed and worthy of institutionalization? Or "dangerous"? Is it just because his god is different from the one they worship that results in the judgment that Paul should see a doctor. So much for religious tolerance... -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (09/08/85)
> >Why do I do it? Because by beating Him at His own game, by taking the > >necessary precautions and the extra care to watch out for His meddling > >interference, I gain a modicum of pride and satisfaction in showing the > >Damager-God that He is not so all powerful as He would like His sheep to > >believe. > > I'd say this guy is more than a little paranoid. He should see a doctor. > (I wouldn't be surprised if he's dangerous. I've seen people institutionalized > for less than that posting.) > The fact that Paul has some uncoventional views of the most popular deity does not justify personal insult of the above nature. I don't see why should a person, who views god as evil, should be called crazy, while others, who hold to the belief that god is good, are to be cosidered sane. Gods of various mythologies generally seem to have an evil side to their character. The god of the bible is not an exception to this. I really don't understand what is all the fuss about. -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
vch@rruxo.UUCP (Kerro Panille) (09/09/85)
>> I'd say this guy is more than a little paranoid. He should see a doctor. >>(I wouldn't be surprised if he's dangerous. I've seen people institutionalized >> for less than that posting.) [VINCE HATEM, speaking about Paul Zimmerman] > >Hmmm. If Paul Zimmerman is "paranoid" for believing in a god that is evil, >does that make those who believe in a benevolent god equally disturbed and >worthy of institutionalization? Or "dangerous"? Is it just because his god >is different from the one they worship that results in the judgment that Paul >should see a doctor. [RICH ROSEN] You missed the point rich, the man is oblivously rather obsessed with his fear of this imaginary Deamager-God. Read his articles on the subject. And YES, people who belive in a benevolent god - fanatically - to the point of Mr Zimmerman, (ie: would jump off a building and expect God to catch them), ARE "dangerous", and should be institutionalized. They might hurt someone else while trying to prove something. (Watch, if I try to hit that little kid over there, God will save him....) No, THAT'S not dangerous. -- Vince Hatem ---------------- A Bell Communications Research | UZI |----------|_ _ _\/ T Raritan River Software Systems Center | |----------| /\ & 444 Hoes Lane ---------------- ROGER GUTS T 4D-360 / /\ DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' Piscataway, NJ 08854 / / TIES (201) 699-4869 /-----/ ...ihnp4!rruxo!vch TRUE GRIT MYSTERIES - The detective series for those who NEVER eat quiche! (WARNING - MAY BE EMOTIONALLY DISTURBING TO HAMSTER LOVERS)
pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (09/11/85)
Dave, You confuse God's unwillingness to engage in evil damaging action with weakness. Perhaps it is not to His advantage to be as evil as possible all the time. Perhaps He has enough perspective to engage in just enough evil on a regular basis to placate His urges, while at the same time planning and executing evil on a larger scale (eg, the Spanish Inquisition, Nazi Germany, Armageddon). Perhaps the greater evils take priority, and the lesser evils are only engaged in for pleasure when it is feasible. All this is certainly within the realm of reason. It is certainly at least as reasonable as the God whorshipers' explanation of why a perfect good God would allow evil to exist and flourish, isn't it? You talk about the way your experience of tragedy pales in comparison to your good fortune. But then you mention your problems and dismiss them by calling them minor. Are you saying that you have never had the forces of anti-nature work against you and cause you problems? Or are you saying that you have learned not to care when these things happen? Who or what might have caused you not to care? Perhaps the same entity that convinces those who whorship Him that suffering in His name is good and pleasurable. You misunderstand the scheme of things with regard to God. If people are under the erroneous misconception that God is the force behind good and evil is simply the result of natural forces, why would they fear God as a result of a spate of plane crashes? Actually they do fear God more, but they have somehow come to believe that no matter how evil God is, whatever He does is ``good'' because it is He who did it. You claim that the sudden death of someone who spoke out against the Damager-God wouldn't convince many people about God's evil. Perhaps not. But maybe it might infuse the thought in the minds of just a few. The planting of that seed is something God would certainly not want to see. In the preceding paragraph, I talked about the reasons why God might not have the time or desire to harm or kill you at any given time, His mind being occupied by more pressing things, like the planning of Armageddon (which He of course prophesied). I think your description of God as nothing more than a ``gremlin'' is diffused by offering the examples of God's evil throughout history: Sodom and Gomorrah, the Tower of Babel, the plagues in Egypt (which there is historical evidence for), the Crusades, Nazi Germany. > In other words it's wrong for people to try to understand why you hold such > a radical view but correct for you to think their minds are being controlled. Dave, certainly YOU are engaging in bold speculation when you assume I must have some negative character flaw for believing as I do. You are not trying to ``understand,'' you are trying to rationalize away your disbelief by claiming that since you cannot find a problem with the belief there MUST be a problem with the believer. With regard to ``their minds,'' if control of their minds by an evil God is not the reason for their single minded belief in a good God, what is? Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/12/85)
> > >Why do I do it? Because by beating Him at His own game, by taking the > > >necessary precautions and the extra care to watch out for His meddling > > >interference, I gain a modicum of pride and satisfaction in showing the > > >Damager-God that He is not so all powerful as He would like His sheep to > > >believe. > > > > I'd say this guy is more than a little paranoid. He should see a doctor. > > (I wouldn't be surprised if he's dangerous. I've seen people institutionalized > > for less than that posting.) > > > The fact that Paul has some uncoventional views of the most popular > deity does not justify personal insult of the above nature. I don't > see why should a person, who views god as evil, should be called > crazy, while others, who hold to the belief that god is good, are to > be cosidered sane. Gods of various mythologies generally seem to > have an evil side to their character. The god of the bible is not > an exception to this. I really don't understand what is all the fuss > about. > -- > Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories > Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho You and Richie Rosen must have collaborated on this one, you sound like siamese twins. Both of you are totally missing the point. This Paul is a raving person. There exists various degrees of disbelief in something. Paul is even to the left of the extreme of the greatest of degrees. He really is hurting inside worse than someone who simply disagrees or agrees with some- thing. It is so obvious that a psychologist would have little trouble diag- nosing it as extreme or peculiar behavior likened to a psychosis. Paul is so obsessed with his ideas that he has lost the ability to reason rationally about this subject. I happen to believe in a loving God, but I don't consider this as raving and ranting about it. You would be doing Paul a big favor if you didn't pat him on the back and tell him everything is OK.
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (09/15/85)
> Paul > is even to the left of the extreme of the greatest of degrees. He really is > hurting inside worse than someone who simply disagrees or agrees with some- > thing. It is so obvious that a psychologist would have little trouble diag- > nosing it as extreme or peculiar behavior likened to a psychosis. I don't see how you can pass such a judgement on psychological state of another person. This reminds me of the situation in the USSR where people who do not agree with Marxist dogma are proclaimed insane. The ideology is that Marxism must be good. Whoever proclaims it to be evil must be crazy, and is sent to a mental institution. > Paul > is so obsessed with his ideas that he has lost the ability to reason rationally > about this subject. I happen to believe in a loving God, but I don't consider > this as raving and ranting about it. You would be doing Paul a big favor if > you didn't pat him on the back and tell him everything is OK. I think that the preposition that there is a god - whether good or bad - is a delusion. Yet, I don't consider you or Paul to be insane. I do not pat Paul on his back. If you read my other articles, you would note that I was very critical some of Paul's Ideas, especially the ones regarding entropy. But I never at any point labeled him crazy. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/16/85)
> You and Richie Rosen must have collaborated on this one, you sound like > siamese twins. Both of you are totally missing the point. This Paul is > a raving person. [RAY FRANK on Paul Zimmerman] Is the phrase "takes one to know one" appropriate here? > There exists various degrees of disbelief in something. Paul is even to the > left of the extreme of the greatest of degrees. I see, he is wrong because his position is extremely different from yours. How obvious! > He really is hurting inside worse than someone who simply disagrees or agrees > with something. It is so obvious that a psychologist would have little > trouble diagnosing it as extreme or peculiar behavior likened to a psychosis. > Paul is so obsessed with his ideas that he has lost the ability to reason > rationally about this subject. Contrast this with the following: > I happen to believe in a loving God, but I don't consider this as raving and > ranting about it. You would be doing Paul a big favor if you didn't pat him > on the back and tell him everything is OK. I fail to see the difference between you and Paul. I tend to think you are two of a kind. Your nonsense is just as raving as that of Paul, but at least Paul speaks cogently and answers questions put to him. You, on the other hand, are an evader of the first order, and your positions have never once been substantiated by anything at all. Paul's reasoning may be exactly the same in quality as those who believe in God (only diametrically opposite), but your "reasoning" processes have yet to be seen. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
ps@celerity.UUCP (Pat Shanahan) (09/16/85)
... > > I'd say this guy is more than a little paranoid. He should see a doctor. > (I wouldn't be surprised if he's dangerous. I've seen people institutionalized > for less than that posting.) > ... From another message in this newsgroup: ... > Anna Chertkova is a Russian Baptist. She was arrested in August 1973 > for her Christian activities, and subsequently sentenced to Tashkent > Special Psychiatric Hospital for "rehabilitation." ... I consider evil ANY philosophy whose adherents seek to classify people as insane and "treat" them for disagreeing with that philosophy. -- ps (Pat Shanahan) uucp : {decvax!ucbvax || ihnp4 || philabs}!sdcsvax!celerity!ps arpa : sdcsvax!celerity!ps@nosc
vch@rruxo.UUCP (Kerro Panille) (09/16/85)
>> He really is hurting inside worse than someone who simply disagrees or agrees >> with something. It is so obvious that a psychologist would have little >>trouble diagnosing it as extreme or peculiar behavior likened to a psychosis. >> Paul is so obsessed with his ideas that he has lost the ability to reason >> rationally about this subject. >... >> I happen to believe in a loving God, but I don't consider this as raving and >> ranting about it. You would be doing Paul a big favor if you didn't pat him >> on the back and tell him everything is OK. > >I fail to see the difference between you and Paul. I tend to think you are >two of a kind. Your nonsense is just as raving as that of Paul, but at >least Paul speaks cogently and answers questions put to him. You, on the >other hand, are an evader of the first order, and your positions have never >once been substantiated by anything at all. Paul's reasoning may be exactly >the same in quality as those who believe in God (only diametrically opposite), >but your "reasoning" processes have yet to be seen. > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Rich, all I have to say to you is: Look up "obsessive behavior" in a psychology book. Paul's postings about the subject obiously show some deep-seated obsession about "beating" his god to the punch. -- Vince Hatem ---------------- A Bell Communications Research | UZI |----------|_ _ _\/ T Raritan River Software Systems Center | |----------| /\ & 444 Hoes Lane ---------------- ROGER GUTS T 4D-360 / /\ DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' Piscataway, NJ 08854 / / TIES (201) 699-4869 /-----/ ...ihnp4!rruxo!vch TRUE GRIT MYSTERIES - The detective series for those who NEVER eat quiche! (WARNING - MAY BE EMOTIONALLY DISTURBING TO HAMSTER LOVERS)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/17/85)
>>>He really is hurting inside worse than someone who simply disagrees or >>>agrees with something. It is so obvious that a psychologist would have >>>little trouble diagnosing it as extreme or peculiar behavior likened to a >>>psychosis. Paul is so obsessed with his ideas that he has lost the ability to >>>reason rationally about this subject. ... I happen to believe in a loving >>>God, but I don't consider this as raving and ranting about it. You would be >>>doing Paul a big favor if you didn't pat him on the back and tell him >>>everything is OK. [RAY FRANK] >>I fail to see the difference between you and Paul. I tend to think you are >>two of a kind. Your nonsense is just as raving as that of Paul, but at >>least Paul speaks cogently and answers questions put to him. You, on the >>other hand, are an evader of the first order, and your positions have never >>once been substantiated by anything at all. Paul's reasoning may be exactly >>the same in quality as those who believe in God (only diametrically opposite), >>but your "reasoning" processes have yet to be seen. [ROSEN] > Look up "obsessive behavior" in a psychology book. Paul's postings about > the subject obiously show some deep-seated obsession about "beating" his > god to the punch. [HATEM] Hmmm. What do psychology books say about "god whorshipers"? (As Paul would so eloquently say...) Do they not qualify for such "obvious" judgmentalness? Why? Because their position is so obviously right? I don't understand. That's a very odd double standard you're wielding there. Why is Paul's "deep-seated obsession" worth condemning, while those obsessions of religious believers in general are not? (By the way, if we're talking about obsessive behavior, might I suggest reading the articles of the man you chose to defend here, Ray Frank? A perfect example: facts are answered with "Oh, yeah, well prove that I'm wrong!" or "My mind is cast in cement". A far cry from someone like Paul. Though his beliefs may be unconventional, his postings have always been as clear and cogent as any I've seen in these newsgroups, yet still the victim of a great deal of abuse. Says something, doesn't it?) -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (09/19/85)
Enough with the amateur psychoanalysis! I have taken a Bachelor's in
psychology, and that is enough to give me the authority to say the following
things:
(1) No overt neurotic or psychotic symptoms are evidenced in any of Mr. Paul
Zimmerman's postings.
(2) The charge of obsession is unfounded, since there is no way of
estimating how much of his time is devoted to maltheistic practices or
proselytizing, or to what extent his maltheism interferes with other
activities; in fact, none of us have any ideas what patterns of behavior
other than a desire to discuss it from time to time (emphatically not an
obsessive symptom) pertain to Mr. Zimmerman's beliefs.
(3) No reputable psychoanalyst would base even a preliminary diagnosis on a
small amount of correpondence on a restricted subject, barring strong
evidence of particular dysfunction, e.g., speaking about nothing but
different ways to tie women up and beat them. Anyone who does make such a
diagnosis is a fraud.
>From my experience on the network, I reach this conclusion with surety:
(4) The people performing the amateur, fraudulent psychoanalysis of Mr.
Zimmerman are assholes. They are incapable of answering his belief system
rationally and directly, and so they resort to personal attacks and
judgments which neither they NOR ANYONE ELSE is qualified to make from the
evidence at hand. Unless they apologize for their unfounded and libelous
(yes, technically libelous if it hurts Mr. Zimmerman's image materially)
attacks, they should be subjected to net ostracism, as they do not deserve
the attention of rational people.
-=-
Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking
ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/19/85)
> > > (4) The people performing the amateur, fraudulent psychoanalysis of Mr. > Zimmerman are assholes. They are incapable of answering his belief system > rationally and directly, and so they resort to personal attacks and > judgments which neither they NOR ANYONE ELSE is qualified to make from the > evidence at hand. Unless they apologize for their unfounded and libelous > (yes, technically libelous if it hurts Mr. Zimmerman's image materially) > attacks, they should be subjected to net ostracism, as they do not deserve > the attention of rational people. > -=- > Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking > ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim > CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** THEY resort to personal attacks? What about YOU? Categorically describing as 'assholes' those whom you've known only over the net is a qualified profess- ional diagnosis??? Hmmmm. Las year I couden even spell scyioanlyst, this year I are one.
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (09/21/85)
> From ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) Thu Sep 19 15:59:21 1985 > Message-ID: <11738@rochester.UUCP> > THEY resort to personal attacks? What about YOU? Categorically describing > as 'assholes' those whom you've known only over the net is a qualified > professional diagnosis??? Hmmmm. > > Las year I couden even spell scyioanlyst, this year I are one. Quoting out of context is such fun, isn't it? Before condemning the people who questioned Mr. Zimmerman's mental health, I explicitly stated that the judgment was based on my experience as a net junkie for several years. No statement or implication of any professional authority was made. But it's so much easier to dimiss my statements if you just ignore that little fact, and fail to reproduce the preliminary qualification when quoting me so others will be misled as well. What a charmer you are, Mr. Frank; we could all take a lesson in intellectual honesty from you, yes indeed. As for the ethics of personal condemnation, when people initiate personal condemnation, then it is ethical to respond with same. The people who questioned Mr. Zimmerman's mental health clearly initiated personal attacks, and therefore after objectively demonstrating their personal attacks to be unfounded, I had no compunctions about making a =well-grounded= personal attack upon them. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/22/85)
>>(4) The people performing the amateur, fraudulent psychoanalysis of Mr. >>Zimmerman are assholes. They are incapable of answering his belief system >>rationally and directly, and so they resort to personal attacks and >>judgments which neither they NOR ANYONE ELSE is qualified to make from the >>evidence at hand. Unless they apologize for their unfounded and libelous >>(yes, technically libelous if it hurts Mr. Zimmerman's image materially) >>attacks, they should be subjected to net ostracism, as they do not deserve >>the attention of rational people. [MARONEY] > THEY resort to personal attacks? What about YOU? Categorically describing > as 'assholes' those whom you've known only over the net is a qualified > professional diagnosis??? Hmmmm. [STARK] What about characterizing those whom YOU'VE known only over the net as sick or disturbed merely because you disagree with them? One thing about assholes: you don't need a degree in "scyioanlysis" (as Ray spells it) to find one, they are very apparent from their abusive behavior. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (09/25/85)
In article <561@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA>, tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: > As for the ethics of personal condemnation, when people initiate personal > condemnation, then it is ethical to respond with same. Does this moral premise extend to other areas of life or is it just for personal condemnation? Rick Frey
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy) (09/25/85)
In article <545@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA> tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: >evidence at hand. Unless they apologize for their unfounded and libelous >(yes, technically libelous if it hurts Mr. Zimmerman's image materially) >attacks, they should be subjected to net ostracism, as they do not deserve >the attention of rational people. Hear! Hear! Richard Foy
pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (10/01/85)
In article <346@celerity>, Pat Shanahan writes: > > I'd say this guy is more than a little paranoid. He should see a doctor. > > (I wouldn't be surprised if he's dangerous. I've seen people > > institutionalized for less than that posting.) > > From another message in this newsgroup: > > > Anna Chertkova is a Russian Baptist. She was arrested in August 1973 > > for her Christian activities, and subsequently sentenced to Tashkent > > Special Psychiatric Hospital for "rehabilitation." > > I consider evil ANY philosophy whose adherents seek to classify people as > insane and "treat" them for disagreeing with that philosophy. Thank you very much, Pat. I find it intriguing that the most intolerant attitudes towards my opinions come from God whorshipers. They feel I am either crazy, or engaging in satire, or deluded. When and if I finally get to talk seriously with them (many just claim I'm the antichrist and leave it at that), their ``problem'' with my opinions is the list of ``assumptions'' that I make. It is often difficult to keep from laughing at such a statement, considering the enormous list of incredible assumptions you must make to believe in God as a being worthy of whorship in the first place. Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (10/03/85)
>In article <561@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA>, tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) >writes: > >> As for the ethics of personal condemnation, when people initiate personal >> condemnation, then it is ethical to respond with same. > >Does this moral premise extend to other areas of life or is it just for >personal condemnation? > > Rick Frey In general, someone who has not abided by a moral principle has forfeited any right to protection under that principle. For instance, if someone is trying to kill someone else, then it is moral to kill them, because they have no right to object. Morality is exclusive of double standards. The person who commits an offense against another and then whines piteously when the same is done to her or him is trying to have it both ways. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/03/85)
> >In article <561@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA>, tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) > >writes: > > > >> As for the ethics of personal condemnation, when people initiate personal > >> condemnation, then it is ethical to respond with same. > > > >Does this moral premise extend to other areas of life or is it just for > >personal condemnation? > > > > Rick Frey > > In general, someone who has not abided by a moral principle has forfeited > any right to protection under that principle. For instance, if someone is > trying to kill someone else, then it is moral to kill them, because they > have no right to object. Morality is exclusive of double standards. The > person who commits an offense against another and then whines piteously when > the same is done to her or him is trying to have it both ways. > -=- > Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking > ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim > CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" What in effect you are advocating here is that it is reasonable under the proper circumstances for a person to behave in a manner that was originally condemned as improper behavior. A judges B, A's behavior is abominable, but B in turn judging A is OK? What is not evident here is whether or not A was justified and B was not. Or whether B's behavior in any case is just as abominable as A's. This is one of the arguments of the anti-capital punishment groups. They feel that under no circumstances should a murderer be murdered in turn by a legal system. They feel murder by any other name is still murder, no ifs, ands, or buts or buts about it. Bottom line here is that your argument is by no means a cut and dry issue. The ends do not always justify the means.
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (10/03/85)
> What in effect you are advocating here is that it is reasonable under the > proper circumstances for a person to behave in a manner that was originally > condemned as improper behavior. You are precisely correct. In case you hadn't noticed, we routinely snatch and imprison kidnappers, deny thieves the right to have access to their personal property for a certain period of time, and so on. What moral justification can there be for this, if not my principle of dealing with people by the same moral standard they use in dealing with others? > A judges B, A's behavior is abominable, > but B in turn judging A is OK? What is not evident here is whether or not > A was justified and B was not. Or whether B's behavior in any case is just > as abominable as A's. This is one of the arguments of the anti-capital > punishment groups. They feel that under no circumstances should a murderer > be murdered in turn by a legal system. They feel murder by any other name > is still murder, no ifs, ands, or buts or buts about it. I'm sorry, but this all seems a non-sequitur. I am not opposed to judging. Perhaps you have me mistaken for a Christian. In fact, I have never known a person who does not judge; this command in the New Testament, to judge not lest ye be judged, is another of those which sound good on paper but have never been implemented and never will be -- for instance, turn the other cheek. The issue of judging is separate from the issue of public personal attack. As for the foes of capital punishment you mention, I think they are just reacting emotionally, not rationally. If their stances came from some underlying moral principle, they would be against putting anyone in jail, because kidnapping is kidnapping. They would not restrict their argument to killing. By the way, I oppose capital punishment in 99% of all cases myself, but for different reasons. (The other 1% is when mass murder and mental competence are proved by the strictest standards of the law.) > Bottom line here is that your argument is by no means a cut and dry issue. > The ends do not always justify the means. Now you're trying to make me a Marxist! Please read what I say, not what you think I would be saying. Ends never justify means; means must be judged by a moral standard. I am really at a loss to understand where this one came from. Perhaps you have me mistaken for someone else? -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (10/06/85)
In article <12039@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > >What in effect you are advocating here is that it is reasonable under the >proper circumstances for a person to behave in a manner that was originally >condemned as improper behavior. A judges B, A's behavior is abominable, >but B in turn judging A is OK? What is not evident here is whether or not >A was justified and B was not. Or whether B's behavior in any case is just >as abominable as A's. This is one of the arguments of the anti-capital >punishment groups. They feel that under no circumstances should a murderer >be murdered in turn by a legal system. They feel murder by any other name >is still murder, no ifs, ands, or buts or buts about it. > >Bottom line here is that your argument is by no means a cut and dry issue. >The ends do not always justify the means. NO! NO! NO! (sorry about that). This is just one of the larger problems that moral philosophers have in getting their point across. What you are claiming is that it is possible to look at events from any point-in-time and judge. This is not usually what is believed at all. If A kills B, according to this theory, then it is murder because that is what murder is. I don't buy it, and I don't know very many moral philosophers who do. If A kills B in self-defense, then it is *not* murder, simply because B, in threatening A with death has stepped outside of the ``normal'' condition and all moral judgements of A's actions will have to consider that A now has *less freedom of action* than before. In the above example, suppose B robs A's grocery store and threatens A. A fears for his life but manages to shoot B. Assume that nothing (like starvation) forced B to rob A. Then B had a wide variety of choices which he could have made and he chose to rob and threaten A. This action is immoral. A, however, had many fewer options - in fact, A believed that his only options were to shoot B or to die. Given this, most moral philosophers (and me) would call A's actions moral. Note that if A had always harbored a grudge against B and decided to kill B, not because A felt threatened, but because he wanted to get away with it, my moral judgement would be different. Also, if after killing B, A proceeded to rob him of his (B's) wallet, then I would judge A to be guilty of robbery, since A is not constrained to do this. Discussions of morality are a lot of fun. But please remember that few people think that you can view events in isolation of prior events and come up with meaningful moral judgements. -- Laura Creighton (note new address!) sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey) (10/09/85)
In article <583@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA>, tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: > > In general, someone who has not abided by a moral principle has forfeited > any right to protection under that principle. For instance, if someone is > trying to kill someone else, then it is moral to kill them, because they > have no right to object. Morality is exclusive of double standards. The > person who commits an offense against another and then whines piteously when > the same is done to her or him is trying to have it both ways. Great, but this makes all morality relative to the people involved. If someone else breaks the rules, than I'm no longer bound by those same rules, but what about the possibility of a rule structure such that even if others break them, you are still bound by them? E.g. If I call you a name, you might choose not to respond back in the same manner, even though you feel you have the right. Forgive me for paraphrasing Laura's comments on our discussion, but one point she made was that much depends on the constraints placed on the people involved you which 'forced' you to insult that person back (forgive me for calling whoever it was 'that person', but I've forgotten just who it was). If you have a completely free range of actions and you choose to break a rule someone else broke, I would have to wonder why and about the sincerity with which you held the belief in the first place. If the idea is to keep dis- cussions civil and coherant, then even if you weren't the instigator, by your reaction you've almost guaranteed no further chance of a civil and coherant discussion by taking an action you claim is immoral in the first place and that does not 'need' to be taken. One point that might clarify a little bit of my position is the question of how one feels people are to be changed (or to put in more legal/psychological terms; how non/anti-social behavior can be corrected). In some cases, aside from the issue of the best way to change people, some 'crimes' are so anti- social that not only does the person need to be changed, but they also need to be prevented from committing the same crime again. But in a situation like someone calling someone else a name, what is the rationale or the advantage to responding in the manner you claim to dislike. Simply because this other person did it to you? This is where the whole Biblical idea of turning the other cheek comes in. Christ's ideas on how to change people were summed up not only in his teachings about morality (one does occasionally need to tell people what is right and what is wrong) but more often, they were exemplified in a life-style that was a model. And not in a model that showed an eye for an eye, a model that always showed the good so that if modelling was to take place, that's all there'd be to model. The other major consideration that I should hit on here is your idea of not judging people. Simply, the Bible says that we can reprimand our brothers (sorry I can't remember the refernce for this), we can discipline our brothers but the Bible makes one point clearly, the basis for all judge- ment is spiritual and any judgement that is made must be made on spiritual criteria, by spiritual people. The Bible says that we should submit our selves to the governments, but in I Corinthians 6:4-7 Paul tries to make clear the distinction, "If then you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. ... But brother goes to law with brother and that before unbelievers? Actually, then it is already a defeat for you, that you have law-suits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?" We submit to the government, obey its sanctions, but we do not have to and we should not deal with morality on its terms. The whole basis for turning the other cheek is given by Paul near the end of Romans 12, "If possible, so far as it depends upon you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, and I will repay, says the Lord'. But if your enemy is hungry, feed him an if he is thirsty, give him drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head. Do not be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good." The simple idea is that this world and the people in it are God's to judge. We should try as much as possible to be at peace with all men and leave the punishments up to God. And as for your comment about looking good on paper, how did it look in the life of Christ? Rick Frey "The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, 'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.'" John 1:29