From: Joseph D Eyerman

To: Multiple recipients of list

Subject: Re: Help us Dan Dorry, Esq.

X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

X-Comment: The Transnational Radical Party List

>

>

> To Big Dan the Lawyer Man:

>

> Now that you are the self-proclaimed savior of this list ("this list is

> dead without me"), and perhaps are feeling a little put upon by having to

> shoulder such a burden all by yourself (though, no doubt, as an Esq., you

> are more than capable of doing so), we figured we should try to help

> lighten your load just a bit.

>

> It amuses some of us that you are claiming the ability to "prove"

> what is essentially a moral debate, but we decided that if you have the

> power to give life to this list, perhaps you are in fact a miracle-worker,

> or at least a really good lawyer. As such, maybe you can help us with a

> debate we have been having on our own, here on the side, while we watch

> you vanquish your small-minded foes.

>

> The issue as we see it can be parsed into two questions:

>

> 1) What deters?

>

> 2) Whom does it deter?

>

> Answering Question 1 is straightforward. The truth is, as you have so

> eloquently put it in your inimitable way, the prospect of being killed

> does deter many if not most people. In particular, as the certainty

> of death increases, the deterrence effect grows correspondingly. That's

> why fewer people are flying USAir today than, say, two years ago.

>

> Indeed, if we knew that by boarding a USAir flight today we would

> certainly die, chances are that very few people would fly on that airline.

> Some might, just for the thrill of it, but we wouldn't call them rational

> people. But of course we can't hope to deter the irrational folk.

>

> That's where we get confused, Dan, and seek your wise counsel (presumably

> you won't bill us for it, even though you are an Esq.). Last time we

> checked, murderers, hijackers, arsonists, et al. were not the group most

> likely to be named "rational". While they might not all be willing to

> hop on board our fanciful USAir flight, it is clear that something

> "larger" than the law was motivating them. Why is it that these people

> -- precisely the ones we hope to deter -- are going to be moved to

> rationality (i.e., deterred) simply because _if_ (and Dan, that is a

> mighty big "if", so big that it may well be the undoing of your fine

> argument) they are apprehended, they _will_ be executed?

>

> Help us Dan, like no one else can.

>

> -- members of the Anti-Obscurantists Society at HLS

>

>

>