Re: Who is human?

Dear Jeff,

I'm going to say this in as calm and straight-forward a manner as I
can muster. When you write:

> Sorry, disagree with you here.
> They are animals and do not deserve to live.

...you do not sound very different from the people who would wish
death and destruction to visit our country and our citizens. They
describe us in very similar terms. I find this troubling.

Now I must ask, was it an accident that you 'penned' your next note
to not only include obscenities but done in all caps, so as to let us
know you were shouting at us, hoping that 'raising your voice' would
get your point across more forcefully?

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> I SAY THE 6,300 PEOPLE WHO DIED ARE HUMAN.
> I SAY THE FIREFIGHTERS WHO DIED ARE HUMAN.
> I SAY THE FIREFIGHTERS AND RESCUE WORKERS WHO RUINED
> THEIR HEALTH AND RISKED THEIR LIVES TO SAVE PEOPLE THEY
> HAD NEVER MET ARE HUMAN.
> I SAY THE ORPHANS OF THOSE WHO WERE MURDERED ARE HUMAN.

Agreed, completely.

> BUT YOU ASSH*LES DON'T GIVE A FLYING F*CK ABOUT *THOSE*
> HUMANS

So that you know, this why I'm helping my wife organize a benefit
concert, with singers and instrumentalists from San Diego's finest
performing groups, coming together to raise even more funds for
relief/rescue/rehabilitation efforts. I'm not trying for sainthood,
mind you, but we couldn't just sit here and do nothing, and
desperately want to help. To paraphrase Tom Hanks on that telethon,
we're just artists, not rescuers and healers, and all we can do is
*what* we do, and try to raise a lot of money.

And pray, which I've done a lot of.

> I SAY YOU HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO BEFORE YOU UNDERSTAND
> WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN.

That may be. If you feel you are further down the path to this
enlightenment, please share with all of us. For now, I prefer
to "judge not", and maybe you might think about doing the same.

Jon

Jeff,

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> Sorry you are such a big defender of terrorism Jon.

If you ever expect that people will consider your views, to give them
thought, and to enter into any kind of meaningful dialogue, then you
owe it to all the people you are posting to (on this list, or any
other) the courtesy to not twist their words or misrepresent them.

In no way, in no words, at no time have I said anything that would
lead one to believe I am a "big defender of terrorism. How could
someone committed to peace embrace terror?

> It's your right to be that way of course but some
> of us reserve the right to be terribly offended by
> the sickening disrespect towards the VICTIMS.

You have completely ignored my efforts to help the victims.

Completely.

And if I do any self-education in attempt to understand what might
bring people to commit such unspeakable acts against innocents, it is
only in the effort to find some way to avoid a repeat of it in the
future.

Jon

Jeff,

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> I addressed my letter to those who coddle and justify
> the acts of the terrorists. You *responded* to that and
> then compared me to the terrorists.

I simply pointed out that the words you used sounded no different
than them. You yourself posted a photo of a woman being shot in the
head; it wouldn't be hard to imagine the person with the gun thinking
her an "animal" and feeling she had no right to live.

> Disgusting and offensive Jon.
> Especially low even for you.

Yes, well Jeff, it seems that anyone who would counter your opinions
is disgusting and reprehensible. So much for open dialogue...

> If you want to respond to letters addressed to

The problem is that you rarely, if ever, address anything to anyone,
preferring to use the all-inclusive "you".

> those who coddle the terrorists and make excuses
> for them, then be prepared to be considered a
> big defender of terrorism. It's really quite
> simple.

Jeff, that logic doesn't even work. It isn't simple, it's incorrect.

> If you were really "committed to peace", why
> would you want to make excuses for the psychopaths
> who raped our nation last month?

I made no excuses whatsoever. Once again, you are making things up;
my specific words were describing their actions were "unspeakable
acts against innocents".

> All we need to understand is that we will track them
> down and make them pay for their crimes.

No comment.

Jon

In a message dated 10/1/01 12:47:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
JSZANTO@... writes:

> Yes, well Jeff, it seems that anyone who would counter your opinions
> is disgusting and reprehensible. So much for open dialogue...
>

Ah, yes, but at least it is dialogue. Can you imagine Peres and Arafat?

Johnny Reinhard

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
<snip>
> BUT YOU ASSH*LES DON'T GIVE A FLYING F*CK ABOUT *THOSE*
> HUMANS; YOU CAN'T BEND OVER FAR ENOUGH TO PANDER TO
> THEIR MURDERERS AND TRY TO UNSDERSTAND THEM AND CODDLE
> THEM NAD COVER THEM WITH WET KISSES AND FIND SOFT
> PILLOWS FOR THEIR HEADS.

I think the pacifists here are not so much interested in coddling as
in understanding what drives people to these extremes. The idea would
be to understand the enemy and use that understanding to protect
ourselves and possibly defuse further attacks.

> YOU DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT THE INNOCENTS WHO ARE
> MURDERED EVERY DAY. YOU ONLY CARE ABOUT YOURSELVES AND
> THE PSYCHOPATHS YOU ARE SO DEVOTED TO IN YOUR SATANIC
> WORSHIP.

I would suppose they care more for life than you. You seem to have
violent tendencies, a predisposition to lashing out at those who
disagree and branding them with the most vile labels. Do you consider
those with whom you disagree to be your enemies? Do you think it may
be appropriate to kill your enemies? I think you should see a doctor
and see if there is a chemical imbalance in your system.

> I SAY YOU HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO BEFORE YOU UNDERSTAND
> WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN.
>
> - JEFF

It's all part of the human condition. Humans are loving, intelligent
and glorious, and humans are murderous, stupid and low.

John Starrett

> It's all part of the human condition. Humans are loving, intelligent
> and glorious, and humans are murderous, stupid and low.
>
> John Starrett

And sometimes even a single human personality encompasses
all of those extremes.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> > Do you consider those with whom you disagree to be your
> > enemies?
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> > Do you think it may be appropriate to kill your enemies?
>
> Depends on what sort of enemies. If someone is pointing
> a loaded gun at me, I may choose to defend myself. If
> someone is threatening my family, I will defend them
> using whatever force is necessary to remove the threat.

A man after my own heart. In Colorado, we have a law known
colloquially as the "make my day" law. If someone forcefully enters
your home you have the right to kill him inside your home. It was
passed with much opposition, but studies showed, at least in Colorado,
a confronted intruder would harm the occupant rather than retreat. I
find it comforting that I will not be prosecuted for defending my
family or myself in my own home.

> Fortunately these situations are very rare. But you can
> be assured that if someone were to rape any of my
> children or my wife or my sister, that that person
> would beg to be killed when I am through with him.

I suspect I would just kill the man...

> This is a normal, rational, human response to evil John.

I disagree that torture is rational, and that is what you are talking
about in the previous passage. Isn't it more rational to just remove
the threat as quickly and surely as possible?

> This is what any real man would do for his family.

There is a lot of variability in "real men". You and I would kill
those who violently attacked our families. Others here would disable
them and turn them over to the police, I suspect. Depending on your
religious and moral views, either might be deemed "reasonable" and
"manly".

> > I think you should see a doctor and see if there is a
> > chemical imbalance in your system.
>
> In order to get a visa to teach overseas a couple years
> back, I went through a complete battery of psych tests
> and am perfectly sane. No imbalances, John.

Good. Just a suggestion I thought was appropriate for what I saw as a
tendency to demonize those with whom you disagreed. Glad to hear
you're OK.

> Anyone else want to share their test results?
>
> - Jeff

Sorry, nothing to share. But the head of the physics department thinks
I am nuts for my religious views.

John Starrett