Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 01:08:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: a couple things, i suppose

From:         "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      a couple things, i suppose

From brni

>liese, i'm afraid that you are too intelligent to be list idiot.
>sorry.  maybe in your next life...

I have to agree with brni on that one.

        good thing.  duct tape is expensive these days.
        and in high demand.

>dave quotes:

>"I do agree that the money recieved for hunting licenses goes directly
>to wildlife management."

>"The ends do not justify the means, except under certain occassions."

>from what kerry (kilburn) tells me (and i have also heard this from
>others who have gone into bio, wildlife management, or forestry),
>"wildlife management" simply means maximizing the deer population for
>the hunters who pay for said management.

Well, I would not say that everything hunters do is for their personal
self-interest and is therefore evil. While I don't hunt and I am not
such a fan of hunting, I do have to give some credit where credit is
due. Y'see, I'm trying to provide a counter-example for the Sultanate
stereotype of the "environmental extremist." I do that for a number
of issues. I personally feel eco-tourism is "a cheap holiday into other
people's misery," as Johnny Rotten once snarled, and I don't really
have much time for "pop environmentalists" who wear birks and "Save
the Planet" t-shirts because it is the "cool" thing to do, but I
do not make attacks on them because it is better to raise your points
in a constructive manor than to dismiss them as scum and lose them as
allies. The same thing goes for Ducks Unlimited and other hunter-
naturalist groups.

        actually, i do not wish to malign all hunters here.  i know
        a couple in illinois (an ex-girlfriend and her husband) who
        have been buying land up and then letting it go wild.  the
        other farmers think they are nuts.  the local conservation
        officer goes cat hunting (thus supporting macphil's claim).

>when we talk about ends and means, the term "justify" is pointless.
>the means *determine* the ends.  the ends are always only an extention
>of the means.  read gandhi.  he knew.

I was thinking of that quote, trying to remember it, when I originally
posted, but unless I'm really reading what you say incorrectly, I
don't know what the practical results from that point is. For example,
I wish for a more ecologically-sound society. Labeling that an "end,"
I list certain actions as "means:" more use of recyclables and the
recycling of those recyclables; pollution caps; ending the use of
pesticides and other intrusions on the natural cycle; and a smaller,
more stable world population. Now, to achieve these means, I reassign
them as ends and come up with means to achieve them.

        see, there you go reassigning things (btw there is a cricket
        crawling on my terminal as we speak).  its kinda like what
        travis is doing, but not as obnoxious.  the point of the quote
        was that no matter how wonderful your stated goals are, if your
        means for reaching those goal are not consistent with the goal
        itself, then the goal is subverted before it ever reaches
        fruition.  an example of this would be lenin (assuming that
        lenin had some real and worthy goal, but used bad means, thus
        creating the soviet union, instead of a true socialist society).

        how 'bout this quote: "battle not with monsters, lest ye become
        a monster yourself."  (nietzsche).  aristotle also made a similar
        statement, when he said that if one lies habitually, one is not
        a person who lies, but a lier[sp?] (one whose essense is lying).
        by employing certain means, one becomes that which the means
        arise from.  a violent rebellion will lead to a violent regime.

While each means can be redefined as an end and each end can be re-
defined as a means, no meaningful discussion of strategy can be made
if the terms "ends" and "means" are ignored. You can trap yourself
in language, but you can trap yourself in anything.

        i'm not trying to trap myself.  i am saying that if one wants
        to escape simply becoming a regurgitation of history, one
        must develop *effective* means to pursue one's goals that
        are consistent with the goals that one is pursueing.

As for justification, the "means" do determine the "ends," but that
is essentially a physics problem. Every action has an equal and opposite
reaction. Every means has an end. This is very objective. Justification
is subjective, however, and varies from observer to observer.

        the distinction between objective and subjective is a lot
        less clear than many would like to think.

Maybe Jamie would like to assist me in muddying these waters. B)

        really, the waters are muddy enough, and with all that
        chlorine and floridation, its a wonder our vital fluids
        remain in even the traces that they do.

>brni

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Truth is our most valuable commodity - let us economize.
              --Mark Twain

Disclaimer: The opinions contained in this post are insightful
and brilliant. Obviously, these are not those of the Computer
Department, Administration, Faculty or Student Body of South
Dakota State University.

        brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU