From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Jan 05 2003 - 09:27:30 MST
Damien paraphrases my remarks about cattle by the
substitution of the term "the Irish". You sons
and daughters of Eire out there can tell him what
you think of this.
> > "The Irish are better off being bred and slaughtered than
> > they would be if the British didn't bother raising them.
> > I ask only that they be treated well before they're killed,
> > and the killing be done as painlessly as possible. It will
> > be a sad day for the Irish race when people no longer
> > want to eat them."
I have always clearly maintained that people are to
be accorded special status. Besides, your implied
history would be screwed up. The British never
"raised" the Irish, they merely conquered them
and began denying them their freedom.
But let's suppose that your history were accurate, and
that the British had given birth to the Irish race for
the express purpose of eating them. Now we would agree
that it would have been better for the British to have
simply created the Irish with no strings attached.
Absolutely true. Fine. That's granted.
But suppose we ask of a certain Terrence O'Reilly:
On the whole, taken as a package, was it good or
bad for you that this happened?
You see the logic of my argument. It is not rocket
science. What is it about it that bothers you so?
(Besides that it "smacks" of this or that.)
Can there not be a logical argument that supports
your point of view with respect to a real, particular
person? Or must your feelings and intuitions remain
logically unarticulated? And you're not alone; I'm
sure that there are millions who believe just as you do.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST