RE: Question about PETA....

From: Harvey Newstrom (
Date: Mon Feb 19 2001 - 16:35:22 MST

At 1:15pm -0600 2/19/01, Chris Russo wrote:
>At 02:10 -0500 2/19/01, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>>When someone dismisses an opponent as being irrational, what they
>>really mean is that they don't understand and are not interested in
>Aren't you over-generalizing here? Do you really mean to say that
>all belief systems are rational, and that those who find
>irrationality are just fooling themselves?

No, not all belief systems are rational. But once someone has bought
into a belief system, I believe they will act consistently and
rationally given their beliefs. The basic facts may be wrong, but
the motivations and conclusions derived from them are natural
ramifications of the facts as given.

IF there is a God, then it makes sense to ignore human knowledge and
pray directly to God for guidance.

IF global warming is caused by greenhouse gasses, then it makes sense
to cut back on these gasses

IF nanotechnology can wipeout humanity due to a software error, and
IF we can't figure out how to make software without errors, then it
makes sense to ban nanotechnolgoy because we can't control it.

IF cloning causes as many birth defects as viable births, it makes
sense to ban cloning until we can make it safer.

IF HIV can be transmitted through casual contact, it makes sense to
avoid contact with infected individuals.

IF other races are inferior, it makes sense not to breed with them.

These are examples of erroneous beliefs. But given these beliefs,
their proponents usually act rationally and predictably in pursuing
their goals.

Harvey Newstrom <>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:45 MDT