On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Amusingly, an
attempt to minimize harm is *precisely* what you were
arguing against, ... You now claim to be attacking another position
"We mustn't harm people", but thats a straw man. Your opposition was
taking the positions that "we can't needlessly harm people" (we must)
"reduce the amount that we unnecessarily harm people" and said so
explicitly.
It's not a strawman, it is exactly what (some) people were arguing.
It's certainly not what the people you were talking to there were
arguing, they were quite specific. (And I'm not sure sure thats what
anyone is arguing, I'm pretty confident that compromising neutrality
is a decidedly minority view).
I'm glad to hear that you're not a complete monster. ;)