Fw: now-action-list Urgent: Bill Threatens Safety of Youn

[Brendan R Delaney]

Brendan




"I fear that I shall journey alone, that the way will be dark; I fear the
unknown land, the presence of my King and the sentence of my judge."


--The dying words of St. Brendan


On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:

> In a message dated 98-06-26 02:01:23 EDT, you write:
>
> <<
>  a quick comment...  the activity in which we engage prides itself upon
>  teaching argumentation without personal afronts or attacks,  even when
>  "personal"  issues are discussed, even ones as explosive as abortion. i think
>  eric did an commendable job of objectively refuting your arguements, as has
>  brendan throughout this discussion...  i'm confused as to why you have to
>  result to personal attacks in your responses. perhaps i wouldn't have
>  commented, but that seemed to be the prevailing tone of your posts for the
>  past few days, particularly on this topic...
>
>  i know this is none of my business...
>
>  kellie
>   >>
>
> Kellie,
>
> I tried to answer Eric's comments with logical responses. I really felt I kept
> my personal insults directed toward Mr. English to a minimum. I am extremely
> confused by your failure to note the insults that Brendan Delaney continues to
> launch at me, my beliefs, my relatives, my geographical origin, and even my
> name. Why is it that you can only focus your condemnation of ad hominem
> arguments in only one direction? Could it be that's the direction you
> ideologically disagree with?
>

I'd like to apologize right now for anything that I said to you that was
insulting.  I'm sorry that insults were thrown around, and hope we can
have a more civil discussion of the issues...


> I think you are an example of a non-objective individual who needs to loosen
> up a little. And expand her consciousness of women's issues.
>
> Michael "Bear" Bryant
>

>From  Fri Jun 26 02:23:02 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.26.JUN.1998.022302.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 59238 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 02:26:00
 -0400
Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id CAA70322 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 02:25:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 VLKBa22301; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 02:23:02 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <6d298776.35933e47 at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 02:23:02 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Fw: now-action-list Urgent: Bill Threatens Safety of Youn
Comments: To: brdst11+ at pitt.edu

In a message dated 98-06-26 02:02:55 EDT, St. Brendan writes:

<<
 WHose morality should people base their actions on, then Bear, if not
 their own? Yours? What you are suggesting is far more dogmatic than any
 religion...Screw doctors own morality, they should just do whatever
 they're told (according their "needs" stated by the almighty Bear) Maybe
 you could start your own religion, since your morality trumps all...Also,
 are you suggesting that there aren't any female doctors? Does their right
 to do what they want with their body get trumped by your superior
 morality?

Maybe actions shouldn't be based solely on personal morality, at all. If we
deferred to the individual morality of each sovereign being, how could we have
a society that was anything but pure anarchy. Your are providing the exact
description of the system intact in the South prior to the Civil Rights Act -
deference to the moral choices of individuals being placed above the rights
established by the 14th Amendment. Don't defer to my morality, the morality of
anti-abortionists, or the morality of any special interest group. Defer to the
legal system that has been upheld by the courts. Under your inane philosophy,
a doctor with a twisted, perverted morality would be justified in breaking any
anti-molestation laws, if they conflicted with his own twisted morals.

Before you mock my thinking, again, you might want to more closely examine the
implications of your own advocacy.

Not impressed,

Bear,
a lot more worried about Pittsburgh's attempt to have debaters engage in
public, non-debate-related, advocacy...