> Violence to persons = bad
> Violence to property = good
Tony was paraphrasing how Jim Tantillo thinks referring to the statements of
Tony. This is not the position of Tony. The word 'violence' means 'bad' so
the circular reasoning is defeated in Jim's 'putting words' into the mouth
of Tony.
Some people are more angry when a fence is left unmended, then when if the
person, plant or animal, is no longer behind the fence that is left
unmended.
What I mean is: Tony is more concerned abou the life of the plant, the
animal, than the dead wood, or thing, that it lives in.
Urban sprawl is an ecological disaster and there are many thesis worked out
on how to solve the worst problems associated with it. There are laws in
some parts of the country against sprawl. It is bad for all kinds of
things....to numerous to mention....
> You are being intellectually lazy. Have you ever thought as to why you
don't
> have any choices (not that I accept that)? Could it be capitalism works
and
> socialism doesn't?
>
> Please, please, please. This is a list to discuss ethics, not to moan over
> the lost "worker's paradise" image of Markist/Leninist hagiography.
>
> Steven
> To say that "I will not be free till all
> humans (or sentient creatures) are free" is
> simply to cave in to a kind of nirvana-
> stupor, to abdicate our humanity, to define
> ourselves as losers.
> Hakim Bey
> The Temporary Autonomous Zone, 1985
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Chiaviello, Anthony
> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 5:20 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Capitalist pigs,
>
>
> What I feel is resentful that I don't have many choices of what to do with
> my little bit of money, especially now with the widespread opinion that
the
> Capitalist restoration is permanent and terminal. But I'll say I have most
> of what I do have in CD and money market accounts, not stocks.
> Watch for socialism to be making a comeback after the capitalists
> screw it up for themselves, which they will inevitably do. Remember
Lenin's
> remark: "A capitalist will sell the rope with which the last capitalist is
> hanged." There really is (theoretically) no logical stopping place for
> capital development - they will go on until the last acre of earth is
paved.
> -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: Steve[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 4:06 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Capitalist pigs, was Re: eco-terrorism
> >
> > ROFL. Good one Tony, but if we are going to talk about size, don't
forget
> > that these "small" capitalist (and therefore good capitalists) comprise
a
> > very large portion of the U.S. economy. Many stock funds specialize in
> > "small companies" and are considered high risk and high growth.
> >
> > Feeling guilty being caught with your hand in the cookie jar?
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> > --- "Chiaviello, Anthony" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > I think your tortured explanations reinforce my perception of your
> > > argument
> > > as excessively sophistic and rather specious. There is a dimension of
> > > size
> > > to be considered in direct proportion to manipulated capital. Small
> > > investors are only capitalists in the narrowest sense of the term.
This
> > > is
> > > an example of Burkean casuistic stretching.
> > > -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 12:14 PM
> > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > Subject: Capitalist pigs, was Re: eco-terrorism
> > > >
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > I've been down and out with the flu the last few days and so haven't
> > > been
> > > > able to participate in the discussions as much as I would have
liked.
> > > > Undoubtedly from many list members' perspectives, that's a good
thing.
> > > > :-)
> > > > anyway, I'd like to address one or two small points that have been
> > > made
> > > > along the way.
> > > >
> > > > Tony responded in part to my speculations about his pension plan:
> > > > >
> > > > >Your second point, about my personal savings, seems rather
off-topic,
> > > as
> > > > my
> > > > >savings are pretty meager and not arrived at through the
exploitation
> > > of
> > > > my
> > > > >students, colleagues, or employer. Are you suggesting that they are
> > > > wrongly
> > > > >invested? Or wrongly earned?
> > > >
> > > > I don't believe the comment was off-topic. Recall that originally
you
> > > > were
> > > > trying to discredit the definition of "terrorism" used by the U.S.
> > > State
> > > > Department because it included the destruction of property as one
> > > example
> > > > of terrorist activity:
> > > >
> > > > >I think the "property" was put in there by a capitalist. How do you
> > > > >intimidate property? It's an unwarranted extension of the
definition
> > > > though
> > > > >I admit some would find losing their property worse than losing
their
> > > > loved
> > > > >ones-Tc
> > > > >Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
> > > > >Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
> > > >
> > > > Questioning such a basic and common definition of terrorism on the
> > > basis
> > > > of
> > > > "capitalist" authorship struck me as ad hominem in the extreme,
> > > although
> > > > given the long history of our wrangling over that term on this list
I
> > > only
> > > > reluctantly reintroduce it here in this context. We are all
> > > capitalists
> > > > in
> > > > one way or another.
> > > >
> > > > Or, as Burton Zwiebach quips in a different context, "[E]ven
> > > > revolutionaries travel on public roads" (_Civility and Disobedience_
> > > > Cambridge U. Pr., 1975, p. 41).
> > > >
> > > > Thus my point (perhaps feebly expressed) about your retirement plan
> > > was
> > > > not
> > > > aimed at your "savings" at all, but at the fact that you like so
many
> > > > others choose to INVEST those savings rather than simply hide your
> > > cash
> > > > under a mattress or in a piggy bank where it will accumulate but
will
> > > not
> > > > grow. By participating in the capitalist market in this way, you do
> > > your
> > > > own little part for economic growth, and in exchange you benefit
from
> > > the
> > > > gains on your investments that you would not otherwise receive had
you
> > > > simply plunked your pennies into a porcelain piggy.
> > > >
> > > > >If what your getting at is that any savings
> > > > >whatever are by definition, wrongly earned, then it would require
> > > some
> > > > case
> > > > >analysis of specific circumstances to determine whether mine are
> > > > ill-gotten.
> > > > >I'm pretty sure they're not, but one does need to be careful about
> > > the
> > > > >companies one's pension funds invests in, to be sure. Mine are
> > > socially
> > > > >aware, in a special fund for that. I don't earn so much as to make
me
> > > a
> > > > part
> > > > >of the landed classes.
> > > >
> > > > Again, I am implying nothing whatsoever about your savings other
than
> > > the
> > > > fact that you have chosen to take advantage of "capitalist" social
and
> > > > economic infrastructure in order to "grow" those retirement savings.
> > > >
> > > > Now, I would think that a professional rhetor such as yourself would
> > > have
> > > > appreciated the keen irony of such a "tu quoque" or "you too"
response
> > > (I
> > > > think I have the Latin right, but don't quote me on it). The fact
> > > that
> > > > your money is invested in a special "socially aware" fund, Tony,
does
> > > not
> > > > by itself make YOUR investments any less "capitalist" than they
would
> > > > otherwise be. After all, I personally don't care whether you've
> > > chosen to
> > > > invest in Lockheed Martin or in a record company that specializes in
> > > > producing Pete Seeger CDs . . . you have still chosen to invest your
> > > > capital in the market, thereby taking full advantage of the
> > > "capitalist"
> > > > infrastructure that exists there, rather than choosing to sock your
> > > money
> > > > away in a non-capitalist and non-interest bearing piggy bank.
> > > >
> > > > A minor point, but one I thought it would be helpful to clarify.
> > > >
> > > > Jim T.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That's it, and tiring to me,
> > > > >
> > > > >-Tc
> > > > >
> > > > >Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
> > > > >Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
> > > > >Department of English
> > > > >University of Houston-Downtown
> > > > >One Main Street
> > > > >Houston, TX 77009
> > > > >713.221.8520/713.868.3979
> > > > >"Question Reality"
> > > > >
> > > > >> ----------
> > > > >> From: Jim Tantillo[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 8:35 AM
> > > > >> To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > >> Subject: Re: eco-terrorism
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >And speaking of capitalists . . . I'm curious what kind of
> > > retirement
> > > > plan
> > > > >the administrators of the University of Houston offer assistant
> > > > professors
> > > > >like you. <g> I.E. do they give you a choice to keep your
> > > retirement
> > > > >savings under an interest bearing mattress at home, or perhaps do
you
> > > > >yourself prefer the more traditional porcelain piggy bank to keep
> > > your
> > > > nest
> > > > >egg safe? :-)
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > =====
> > "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/
> >
|
