[LAF] FW: Anti-whaling petition

Tue Jan 22 13:44:47 UTC 2008

To Clarify my position

  I dint say  "Dint sign petitions"  i say sign them if you will but don't think they will work
  ( I did actually sign the petition that started this discussion)  and probably for the same reason that you did ) or that you have done your bit(I am sure that no one on this list would make that mistake )  I think petitions can be useful if you use them as a means to get to talk to people like we when we did petitions on thee street, but the mania for on line petitions .... well are they even ever presented  and in what form?

  If an action is necessary then it is justified unless you judge the end not to be just
  Your example of defending yourself  is a good one because it proves that  necessary in that case means justified
  why would anyone say you were not justified?  What would not be justified would be if you over powered your attacker and then killed them even though you were no longer in danger
  (In a nutshell if you think the cause is just and the action necessary  I dont see how you can say its not justified

  If the objective was something we all agreed was unjust  then the action might be necessary in the narrow sense that it was the only way to get the job done but would not  at least according to our l light be justified 

  The point of my original post however was to attack not people who advocate NVDA but theses who oppose NVDA infavour of only lawful methods

  Anyone but an idot knows thant useing lawful methods only never works. 
  Ttherefore people who take that position *and oppose breaking the law)   logically do not want the change they claim they are campaiging for

   so the people who work on a salary for a campaign group like foe  who oppose law breaking  are hypocrites
  Ed

  IVolodya <Volodya at WhenGendarmeSleeps.org> wrote:
  -----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-----

_______________________________________________
LAF mailing list
LAF at lists.aktivix.org
https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/laf

  Shut Down Guantanamo Bay
see London Page  at
www.guantanamo.org.uk

  see Events & Issues website   http://www.eventsandissues.bravehost.com/events.html

  See Book Events
  http://www.freewebs.com/bookevents/

---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/laf/attachments/20080122/39edd69d/attachment.htm>