From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul> Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 15:47:22 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Fwd Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 08:17:57 -0400 Subject: Re: Debating Good Vs. Evil Aliens - Smith >From: Mike Jamieson <mike.jamieson.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 11:59:58 -0700 >Subject: Debating Good Vs. Evil Aliens Good and evil depends on perspective in this matter. Aliens may think it good to completely control humans, harvest their organs or genes, whatever. They may think humans evil since they destroy their world and perform alien autopsies and such. So the question is are the aliens good to humans from a human perspective or evil. (I guess then you must define what humans think is good and evil too since many dictators think they are doing their citizens good by controlling them). >I noticed that Stephen Bassett suggests we continue to debate >the moral character, etc. of alleged aliens present on earth >(and reportedly interacting with us in various ways). >Is their a reliable, and sufficient, body of data to really >carry on a useful debate? Using UFO databases and UFO folklore, we should have enough data (its hard to separate each!). We can assume that the body of data we currently have is enough to form an initial assessment with probabilities associated for each conclusion. It would be too late if we waited until we got much better quality data (cities being blown up by aliens). Better to be on the side of conservativeness rather than blissful and welcoming. Abductions and all their problems don't even have to be considered. Just look at all the cases of close calls with aircraft, UFOs terrorizing people by following them, stopping cars, irradiating people, being misinterpreted as non-alien military attacks (yes, aliens SHOULD be smart enough to realize that COULD happen), blatantly violating human laws of airspace/property. Really, we need more data, if any, of good things they do for humans. >One of the things that irritated the hell out of me, during the >dying days of Operation Right To Know (I was a co-founder), was >the amount of space taken up in our Right To Know Forum (in the >last few issues) over this very debate. My irritation probably >was based on the feeling that I simply didn't know enough (or, I >didn't assume that what others thought that they "knew" was >actually so). Therefore, spending energy on that question seemed >a bit premature... and a waste of time. Theoretically, we can discuss the issue. Its just that, like with abortion, there are two sides and they don't budge.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp