From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor Mon May 25 14:05:39 EDT 1992
Article 5680 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor
>From: pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: NI failure
Message-ID: <1992May15.140530.1631@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <1992May13.155329.21787@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <78053@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 14:05:30 GMT

In article <78053@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992May13.155329.21787@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>, pindor@gpu (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>>>Most religions?  I'm really not sure what metric you are using here, but
>>>in the one I consider standard English (discrete), I'd say your evaluation
>>>is utter rubbish.
>
>>Firstly, it seems that you lead a very isolated life.
>
>Where do you get that impression?  *You* come up with two examples, and
>assume that counts as "most religions"?  Just what metric are you using?
>
Firstly, where are these two examples? You are cofusing different posts.
Secondly, since you seem to demand that I precisely define what I mean (your
obstinate reference to 'metric', above and in few other place), may be you would
be so kind as to specify what metric did you use in your original statement that
religions (metric please - how many or the head count of the faithful or what)
generally value (metric please) human life. I do not remeber exactly your
statement, but I think that the above captures most of the meaning. 
Although you make a reference to standard English (discrete) metric, I fail to
see how it you apply it to measure your statement vs. mine (and come up with
a superior result for your opinion). You might have noticed that I am not the
only one who fails to see how your statement measures higher (even using 
'standard English measure') than mine.
>
>Again, you are assuming one particular metric and whinging based on it.
>Good for propaganda, not for intelligent discussion.  You have to explain
>why time is the relevant metric, and not say, head count.  There's been

I could try if I knew how do you measure things.

>an exponential growth in population, you may recall, with the mostest
>being this past century.
>
And how many followers of any religion in this past century have demonstrated
that they put value in any life but their own or members of their kin or tribe
or religion? And may I remind you that it is a quite a new phenomenon to try
to establish explicit moral acceptance for abortion. Although abortion has 
always been practiced, until recently it has not been loudly hailed as morally
acceptable. The same applies to eutanasia and the 'right do die' idea. So in 
some respects, things are even getting worse.
The only religion I know of, which seems (from what I know) to explicitly stress
the value of any life, is buddism. Even here though things are not 100% clear
cut. After all, martial arts were supposedly developed in buddist monasteries,
not for purely spiritual reasons.
Could you please name another religion which demonstrates in words and deeds
that it values human life with no exception?

>Like I said, I think we have an NI failure here.  
>-- 
I'd appreciate if you were less cryptic. What this 'NI' might be?

>-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)


-- 
Andrzej Pindor
University of Toronto
Computing Services
pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca


