By the way John, the person who actually wrote
'attacks on property=good' was none other than Tony C. himself.
Ooops.
Steve
--- John Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I now must modify my position again. I now agree with Jim:
>
> 'attacks on property = good
>
> attacks on people = bad'
>
> inferred and attributed to Tony.
>
> Tony is correct. Attacks on property is good. The reason being is that
> women
> were once property of men and slaves were once property of men. In the
> past
> women were 'chattel property' of the male. In fact if a man divorced his
> wife in the past, and left her with five kids, the woman had no right to
> even the house of the family. This is because women were property of
> men. No
> woman could only property unless her husband was deceased.
>
> The other example is salvery. Once apon a time, there were millions of
> people who could own nothing, not even the rights to the fruits of their
> own
> labours.
>
> Therefore attacks on property are good. Some lawyers got together and
> decided it was wrong to have people remain property of others. It was
> the
> liberals the made freedom a concrete term.
>
> thanks Tony
>
> for getting me to re-think my position
>
>
> Now if houses could not be bought nor sold, then there would be no
> homeless
> people in the world.....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chiaviello, Anthony <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 11:58 AM
> Subject: Re: an "ethics of terrorism"? was Re: State Sponsored Ecoterror
>
>
> > Again, your nitpicking to the extent of sophism. perhaps I misspoke,
> but
> > attacks on property = good. Attacks on people = bad. Attacks on people
> > effective, though, to inspire terror. Attacks on property frighten
> many,
> > maybe thus terrorism but not violence. weird stuff huh> -Tc
> > Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
> > Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
> > Department of English
> > University of Houston-Downtown
> > One Main Street
> > Houston, TX 77002-0001
> > 713.221.8520 / 713.868.3979
> > "Question Reality"
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From: Jim Tantillo[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 12:32 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: an "ethics of terrorism"? was Re: State Sponsored
> Ecoterror
> > >
> > > I'm surprised no one picked up on this. Tony wrote (and Tony, I'm
> not
> > > picking on you, I just find the following curious):
> > >
> > > > There is an ethics of terrorism that excludes attacks on
> human
> > > life,
> > > >restricting it to property. The activists who blew up the math
> building
> > > in
> > > >1970 (?) thought no one was inside. Their intelligence was faulty
> > > (perhaps
> > > >in both meanings of the word); they did not intend to kill anyone.
> But
> > > they
> > > >did, and one was sentenced to Attica and died in the rebellion
> there.
> So
> > > you
> > > >could say he paid for his mistake, but his intention was
> revolutionarily
> > > >pure: to destroy the facility that did the development work for
> making
> > > >napalm, as a demonstration against the war that would financially
> hurt
> > > the
> > > >university establishment but not kill anyone.
> > >
> > > You write here that there is an "ethics of terrorism" that excludes
> > > attacks
> > > on human life and restricts such attacks to property. But I thought
> you
> > > have been saying all along that terrorism directed against property
> is
> > > either a non sequitur or a category mistake?
> > >
> > > How can an ethics of terrorism restrict itself to attacks against
> property
> > > when the concept "terrorism" itself can *only* apply to acts of
> violence
> > > against people? Perhaps this is simply carelessness on your part;
> or
> else
> > > I am not reading something correctly. But are you being consistent
> here
> > > with your own use of the term "terrorism"?
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
--Jamey Lee West
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
|