Posts by Malcolm
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Shep, Kyle,
So let's get this right. It's okay to destroy things you morally disagree with, provided you are willing to take the consequences of your actions, and don't intend to hurt people? Have I got that right?
I don't see how any kind of society could function with that kind of violent anarchism. It seems to justify everything. After all, people always believe themselves justified in their actions. It reminds me of Professor Paz in Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", who described himself as a rational anarchist. However, he followed his anarchist logic to its conclusion, and was prepared to kill if he thought he ought to . After all, once you demonize somebody as part of an oppressive clique, any action against them becomes justified. Doesn't it? How far can property damage and reckless disregard be taken?
The inevitable suspicion is that you only intend such rules to apply to people you like. I wonder how you would feel about people using the same tactics, but to opposite political ends?
-
It's their actions and aims that they should be judged on, not their inspiration. As such religion isn't the issue
Oh, and I must point out that you seem to be defending their actions and aims based on their inspiration. I am quite happy to judge them on their actions and aims:
- Actions: significant vandalism with reckless disregard for the consequences.
- Aim: disarmanent.I'm sorry, but the Waihopai dishes weren't armaments. They can only be regarded as armaments by reference to the broader arguments I introduced earlier.
-
As you note Shep, we must agree to disagree.
By the logic you cite, it seems to me that the 9/11 attacks were a horrifying and unprovoked surprise attack on innocent civilians. Certainly, voting for a political party and filling up your car seems less offensive than attacking a military installation.
To me, that raises the question what the US should have done in response to 9/11. My view: Invaded Afghanistan, deposed the Taleban and eliminated Al Quaeda as an effective force. And left Iraq completely alone. I'm intrigued whether those who attacked the spy dishes would also have supported the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan? I assume they would not have supported the 9/11 attacks ... ?
These are not intended as trick questions. My very real concern is that it all too easy to duck the hard issues by hiding behind a veil of pacifism. It turns out that a belief in non-violence doesn't protect you from the 9/11, Madrid, London and Bali bombers. Let alone the other plots that have been frustrated.
So should we just turn the other cheek? If not, how can we justify interfering with our defence? These vandals have not turned the other cheek, yet they expect us to, I think?
It seems very self centred to me - an attempt to feel better about a local issue, and damn the global consequences.
Hmmn. That sounds familiar.
-
Shep, the whole logic of the 9/11 attacks was that the entire US economy and society was complicit in the exploitation of the Semitic, Arabic and Persian peoples. Thus, an attack on the "innocent" was justified, because by their actions they were complicit in exploitation and death. If you buy that line of reasoning, attack on infrastructure and civilian populations can be seen a legitimate part of a war, as they were in WWII.
Consequently, in a shooting war, one of the first targets is the command and control structure. If they could, enemies of the US (or Nato) would strike at places like Waihopai as a priority target.
So I see this as a direct attack on the military-industrial complex of the west. A violent attack. Was it justified? That's a different question.
Was it 'peaceful'? Not on your nellie.
By making this attack, the attackers were choosing sides. Why didn't they attack a fundamentalist church instead? After all, George Bush quoted scripture as he invaded Iraq. That was more important to him that intelligence - in fact, if he had listened to the intelligence, he wouldn't have attacked at all. They should have taken their sickles to the bible.
-
still only 1/26 of what kiwis forked out for 5 years ago for a losing sailboat
That was spent by our elected representatives. We can vote them out. Nobody elected these activists to spend our money. Nor can we vote them out.
Also, riddle me this; what if this led to an intelligence failure, that resulted in an ambush, that cost ANZAC lives in Afghanistan? How peaceful would the sickles be then?
-
Shep: I do take your point, but there is a scale of these things.
Some would argue that US consumer choices create violence and oppression in the middle east. Are the US consumer's therefore to blame? Should they be stopped? Yet their behaviour is far more pacifistic that these sickle wielding activists.
And if sickle attacks against are justified, where do you draw the line? If Nato air action against the Serbian invasion/police action in Kosovo also justified? What about Nato intervention in Afghanistan? Or the US invasion of Iraq? Or the police action in Ruatoki?
To my mind, by taking up arms, they are no longer pacifists. Good intentions don't cut it. Everybody thinks they are morally justified - including suicide bombers and cruise missile technicians.
-
Is it only me, or should disarmament start with sickles? Seems like another case of do as I say, not do as I do.
Many medieval weapons (which were used in quite nasty, violent slaughter) were adapted from peasant tools. The okinawans have rice flails (nunchuka), boat oars and the like. But for centuries in Europe people would put a sickle on the end of a pole and call it a Fauchard
-
We might be good designers, but we're even better cheaters.
-
Yes, I think there will be a better system one day. But I don't think we can design it. We can only evolve towards it, as we learn from the accumulated excesses of the accumulated crises.
-
Their industry screws up and we all feel it.Doesn't make sense?
Ah, I think it's just human nature. Human nature combined with the natural incompetence that arises from people trying to hit their quarterly targets at any costs. Terrible system. Don't know of a better one.