Re: The Emotional Killer (or out of the frying pan and into

[tallpaul@pipeline.com (tallpaul)]

On Feb 11, 1996 23:48:29, 'jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>' wrote: 
 
 
>At 11:59 PM 2/11/96 -0500, tallpaul wrote: 
>>I want to write on the theme posted to the list in the message below
where 
>>J. Bell wrote "It is their ACTIONS that I feel violate my rights; that is

>>what justifies my seeking their deaths, should I choose to do so."  
>>  
>>First, one thing that marks the sane adult from the child and the
floridly 
>>psychotic adult is the sane adult's knowledge that "feelings" and "facts"

>>are two different things.  
>>  
>>It is one thing to "feel," as J. Bell or all of us might, that our rights

>>have been violated.  
>>  
>>It is another thing to maintain, as J. Bell uniquely appears to do, that 
>>the "feeling" gives him the right to seek another person's death.  
> 
>You're clearly confused. I was responding to an accusation that I was 
>defending seeking somebody's death simply because of a disagreement of 
>OPINION.  My comment was intended to remind the reader that it is the 
>ACTIONS of a person which justify the self-defense; not simply the 
>disagreement. 
 
I disagree and I believe that my quote (reposted by J. Bell) of his
original statement supports me. He mentioned "ACTIONS" and he mentioned
"OPINIONS" but he relied on his "feelings" as the touchstone of reality.
More than ever I believe that he genuinely cannot understand the
difference. He still confuses his "feelings" which exist nowhere but inside
his head with "ACTIONS" which exist outside his head in the real world. 
 
He shows similar confusion as he continued to write. 
 
> 
>You falsely imply that a person can't be correct in his assessment that
his 
>rights were, indeed, violated. 
> 
 
I implied no such thing. If anything, I implied the opposite. Human beings
can assess reality. But they do not do so with "feelings;" they do so with
intellectual reality testing, not emoting. 
 
> 
>>  
>>This and other posts by J. Bell and other lib'bers lead me to believe
that 
>>their claimed interest in human freedom for everyone is little more than
a 
>>cover for a set of authoritarian expectations that they can do whatever 
>>they want, free from any control, responsibility, or accountability.  
> 
>Since you just got through misrepresenting my position, probably 
>intentionally, it's pretty hard to take the rest of your opinions
seriously. 
> 
>>The argued centrality of J. Bell's "feelings" over other people's lives
is 
>>something that puts him in the god category. (Thankfully J. Bell is not
one 
>>of the dreaded tax collectors or "socialist statists.")  
> 
>You're wrong yet again.  Let's see, tallpaul needs a logic lesson: 
> 
>Let's suppose I _believe_ my rights are being violated.  While that, in 
>itself, does not guarantee that this is CORRECT, on the other hand it 
>doesn't mean that it is INCORRECT, either.  You're falsely implying that I

>was ignoring the issue of correctness; I wasn't. 
> 
 
If he was not ignoring "correctness" I neither know nor see where in his
original post he mentioned this. He may wish to give me a "logic lesson"
over the issue of observation, but this also seems lacking in his post. 
 
--tallpaul