On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@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. ;)