Please don't be too hard on NL. Just in case you haven't noticed yet, he's helping you set up your arguments against the deathists by immitating their tactics. I think we owe him or her a debt of gratitude.
Yes, his statements are nasty about you and your motives all while acknowledging no bad motives against Michael and his lawyers. But what could Terri-life advocates expect in court against Terri-death advocates? That Michael will end up doing what all Perry Mason bad guys do in the last 5 minutes? Not blooming likely.
Starting with NL's number 63, we have some very fine examples of our opponent running free and loose with mixing your words with his own, and then twisting them against you.
Let's start.
We generally don't try and sustain pets because we don't have the same moral paradigm for them as for humans. We just don't employ the same traditional efforts to save an animal from death as we do humans (when thinking clearly).
So, in #63, we encounter the first error of NL. He writes as if a majority can be assumed to have replaced our moral code to coincide with that of Professor Peter Singer's at Princeton U -- that animal and human lives should be treated as equivalent.
I bet you didn't sign on to that, but nobody called him on the assumption.
Animals are humanely put down, but our TRADITIONAL moral code does not permit us to do that to fellow human beings.
I have catalogued how the "Progressives" have been trying incrementally to change our principal paradigm, without your consent, by trying to slip past your awareness, and by confusing issues (as their agents and fans are doing in this case), for quite some time.
That's what our efforts are all about in this case -- PREVENTING THE NEXT STEP in the incremental retreat from our cultural linchpin: PROTECTING INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE.
