--- 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.

John,

Jim did no such thing.  YOU are the one putting words in Jim's mouth

Check the archives here for Jim's posts:

http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0102&L=enviroethics&O=A&P=10008

Nope not in that one.

http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0102&L=enviroethics&O=A&P=10198

Nope not in that one either.

http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0102&L=enviroethics&O=A&P=3850

Dang not in that one either.

Hmmm, I think you had better do some more research on who said what.





> 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

So attacks on women in those days were good?

Hey John can Jim and I use your Pathfinder this weekend?  We want to take
it by a chop shop in L.A.  I have heard that used vehicles are worth more
hacked up than whole and I want to see if it is true?  [/sarcasm]

> 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.

Let me put some words in your mouth John (since it is all the rage these
days).  I think, correct me if I am wrong, mean that attacks on the
institution of "women are the property of men" is good not that attacking
that property directly is good.  My reading of Tony (and he can correct me
if I am wrong) is that attacking property directly is good (i.e. damaging
the property--hence you'd attack the woman directly).  Burning down a
large and excessivly oppulent house is good.  I disagree with Tony, and if
I have put your views correctly agree with you.



> 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.

Hey, is this socialism or communism?



> 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.

Actually I think it was abolitionists who did that and I don't know if
they were "liberal" or "conservative" nor do I care since the end result,
irrespective of their political views on other topics, is good.  I think
you mean attacks on certain institutions of private property.  Further I
don't see how this can generalized to an over arching principle.  Does
this mean we should start an abolitionist movement to free my dishwashers
from the drudgery that is it's daily life?  What about my oven?  If I free
one from it's bondage as an appliance do I have to free them all?  Do I
have to pay them a 'living wage'?


Steve

=====
"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/