Steve Verdon writes:
>I want to trash you refirgerator...after all it is probably you largest
consumer of
> electricity, and electricity generation is done primarily via fossil fuels
> which might contribute to global warming.
Is this reducible to your 'life for a life' philosophy? Someone takes a
life, so you take their life?
How about a dog? If you are in favour of capital punishment, then would you
take a persons' life if he took a dog's life?
chao
john
>
> Next will be your computer since it too requires electricity.
>
> After that every lamp you own.
>
> Attacks on property = good and all that you know.[end sophist Burkean BS]
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
> --- "Chiaviello, Anthony" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > 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/
|