From: jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Violent protest
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:03:49 GMT
Reply-To: jsemrad@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of CDC


In article <66tn02fN2aVk01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
|> In article <30132@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad) 
|> writes:
|>  
|> I'm going to do a bunch of paraphrasing to save bandwidth. I'll do my best to 
|> capture the original meaning, sorry if I fail.
|> 
|> <Joe points out various scenarios wherein arson leads to death and injuries>
|>  
|> Yes, there are scenarios that lead to death and injuries. There are also 
|> scenarios that, with any reasonable probability, don't. Since you've staked 
|> out the position that arson is NEVER acceptable, I only need to come up with 
|> one counter-example, which I can tailor as I wish to make sure the attendant 
|> probabilities for death/injury fall below the threshold of "reasonable". It's 
|> really not that hard to construct a scenario in which a building is burnt 
|> with extremely low probabilities for human casualties. Admittedly, non-human 
|> casualities would probably be harder (e.g. mice). This would tend to 
|> complicate the equation.

Please feel free to construct such a scenario.  In order to be valid, it 
must be realistic, the probability of injury to humans (including firemen)
must be zero, the probability of injury and/or property loss to uninvolved
parties (including cost to taxpayers) must be zero, and since this is t.p.a,
the probability of injury/death to animals must be zero.  It probably should
also take place in such a way and in such a place that the arson has some
propaganda value or media exposure value (burning down an abandoned shack
in the middle of the desert doesn't count).

Note the probability of Bad Things happening must really be zero, not just
low.  Putting, say, a fireman, in any amount of danger in the case of arson
is unjustifiable IMHO.  Even if the probability is low, long shots do 
sometimes come in.

|> 
|> <Joe wants to keep the discussion in AR terms>
|> 
|> There are 2 questions here:
|> 
|> 1. Is it ever reasonable to use violence in the pursuit of social change? 

There are so many other (arguably more effective) avenues to pursue
social change that violence would have to be the very last resort.  Even
then it would be difficult if not impossible to justify.  Short of war
(and again I mean real war, not a war that exists only in some activist's
mind) I am having a hard time coming up with a scenario, at least in a 
society like that of the USA, where it is acceptable.  In most cases it
seems to me that it is not very effective anyways, because you end up
turning off people who might otherwise have been supportive to the cause
and because in many cases the facility that was destroyed will be rebuilt.
Even if violence could somehow be justified, it must be done in such a way
that only the intended target is harmed.

|> 2. Are AR goals "right" enough as to justify the use of violence, per #1.
|> 
|> I'm trying to keep the horse in front of the cart and discuss #1 first. 
|> Bringing AR scenarios into the picture is fruitless, since I'm sure we 
|> disagree on #2. 
|>   

I'd like to see a scenario where AR goals can be pursued via violence that
meets the conditions laid out above.  You seem to think it should be easy
to construct such a scenario.  I'm having a hard time seeing it.

Yes I would like to focus the discussion on AR issues, this being t.p.a and
all.  There is actually a real world example of (alleged) AR violence unfolding
as we speak.  The night before last several trucks belonging to a Minneapolis
meat firm were set on fire (allegedly) by the ALF and the locks to the
firm's building were filled with fast hardening glue.  "Meat is murder" and
"ALF" were sprayed on the burning trucks.  I hope to find time to summarize
the Mpls Star-Tribune accounts of the damage and the subsequent investigation
in another post or posts.

|>  
|> > Would you feel more, less,
|> >or the same anger against the bombers if just a butcher shop was burned or the
|> >butcher shop was burned and damage was caused to your home/family as well.
|> 
|>  I'd feel more anger if damage was caused to my home/family.  
|> 

Would it make you angry at all if the same thing happened to someone you didn't
know?

|> Your turn: if I watched someone close to you suffocate in a restaurant, but 
|> didn't intervene to save them as it would require breaking through a window, 
|> what would you think of my respect for property? 

What does that have to do with the discussion?  Saving a person's life due
to choking has nothing to due with pursuing social change and especially
AR goals through violence.  Besides is this even a realisitic example?
Why would someone outside the restaurant be in a better position to help
than those actually inside the restaurant?  what's wrong with the door? Never
mind, the example doesn't apply to the discussion anyways.

|> 
|>  
|> >I'm just trying to find out if you would feel any
|> >different about violence in the name of "right" causes if you became a
|> >victim of such violence even though you agree with the cause.
|>  
|> Of course my feelings would change. I don't know what they'd change to, though.

Might there be a possibility that such an incident would lead you to question
the use of violence in pursuit of "right" causes?  Might it cause you to
question the justification and judgement of the perpetrators?

Joe
Opinions are mine, etc.
-- 
================================================================
= C. Joseph Semrad                  =   Phone: 612-553-4758    =
= EMPOWER Development               =   FAX:   612-553-4018    =
= Empros Systems International      =   jsemrad@ems.cdc.com    =
================================================================
=    "My basic view on tackle and equipment costs is that      =
=     fly fishers as a group spend too much and spin           =
=     fishers spend too little" - Stream Smallmouth Fishing    =
================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals