[LAF] FW: Anti-whaling petition

[Volodya]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

EDMUND MCARTHUR wrote:
> if it* necessary* to use violence(By which h I mean that there is no
> other way to achieve the objective) then it is justified (If you believe
> in the cause) IF it were p[possible to achieve the same result
> iin the same time without violence then violence would be wrong since 
> it iwould  it be *unnecessary and therefor unjustified *

Ok, maybe we are just arguing definitions here. For the clarity i should say
that i don't equate necessity with justification. If i go outside and get
attacked, it might be necessery for me to defend myself, while i am justified in
eliminating the causes of attack.

> The only way you can say its not justified is if the cause is not so
> important
> and that is going to be a matter of individual choice.

That is an incorrect assumption "you believe this, the only other alternative is
that". While it is true that most things are quite simple, they are rarely black
or white.

> If you are seeking to make a distention between violence against property
> and humans I agree there is that,   but  I still think that if you
> really want to stop whaling
> it is hypocrisy to confine yourself to methods like petitions that wont work

But you didn't say that in original e-mail, you cannot substitute "petition" for
"non-violent resistance" they aren't the same (while i agree that they have
links, the former being usually the part of the latter). It would be like me
arguing against violence because genocide (which we all agree is a form of
violence) is wrong.

Personally i sign petitions only if it takes nothing from me. For example if i
were to be in a country or a place where signing the petition would get me
arrested i wouldn't do so. However, in this case i simply done it as a show of
solidarity. I agree with you that most of the time (about 97.82% is my
completely unscientific guess) petitions don't acomplish what they intend to.

> Rather like the people who opposed slavery but not the rights of the
> Slaves to revolt
> the net effect of that position WA\s that slavery continued longer than
> it would have done
> Ed

But at the same time there were people who supported the slave rebellions but
failed to support legal actions to provide slaves/ex-slaves/escapees with
protections.

"More radical than though" attitude is destructive no matter if it comes from
pro-violence or anti-violence part of any large social movement.

                            - Volodya

- --
http://freedom.libsyn.com/       Voice of Freedom, Radical Podcast
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/     Anarchopedia, A Free Knowledge Portal

 "None of us are free until all of us are free."    ~ Mihail Bakunin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHleScuWy2EFICg+0RAtG2AJ9GjJ6bW3zQp1GyvBjW+Lg75ehZrgCfSMZh
1YrM6DMz8tIxZWYIEmukhFI=
=slYa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----