Letters to the Editor
mte
Published Letters: 92 Editor's Choice: 6
-
Hypocrisy
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I just don't understand how people can say that:
Both (1) Violence against and intimidation of a civilian population for political/ideological purposes is always wrong.
And (2) Legislation and law enforcement are sometimes okay.
With minor exceptions (laws regarding the actions of government officials), (2) is a subset of (1).
I am a strict pacifist. I am not convinced that there are any justified cases of (1). But those of you who assert the legitimacy of legislation and law enforcement assert the legitimacy of certain forms of violence and intimidation against a civilian population for certain ideological purposes.
What worries me about the ELF (not EF!) is that it acts too much like the FBI.
-
A big exemption...
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Someone quotes another definition of terrorism:
"The definition of terrorism is "The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." Sounds like this fits."
Why exempt the people who write and enforce the laws?
I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider the Nazi state terrorist - and it was writing the laws, not breaking them - and the resistance non-terrorist.
Yet the quoted definition considers the resistance terrorist - since they were trying to destroy the Nazi state - and the Nazi state non-terrorist.
-
"SHE TRIED TO IMPOSE HER THINKING ON OTHERS."
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So you're saying she acted like the government?
-
"Violence motivated by political goals is terrorism."
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You do realize that legislators, and some voters, authorize, and police and soldiers perform, violence motivated by political goals?
It is part of the definition of the state. I am an anarchist and pacifist, I consider the state a terrorist institution, but I know that some people are using a double standard, e.g. approving lawful violence (the rulers' violence) while condemning unlawful violence (anybody else's violence).
-
The motives, NOT the means, are the criteria for the longer sentences.
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Another letter claimed, "They said using terrorist methods should enhance the counters,"
So arson is a terrorist method if its done for the environment, but a non-terrorist method if it's done for the insurance money? They DO apply the enhancements to cases involving environmental politics. They DO NOT apply the enhancements to cases involving right-wing politics or insurance or other motives.
-
Cabdriver, you have no idea what you're talking about
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am a pacifist anarchist, not a, uh, vendettist.
Your scenario, "played out under practical "real world" conditions of 21st century style anarchism," would be impossible in any form of 19th, 20th, or 21st-century anarchism.
In theory, the first stage could happen.
In theory the second stage could happen, noting that the corporate form is a state subsidy, and the local community may not recognize any special status for the corporations.
However, the third stage would be more problematic, no protection agency, public or private, would have any special rights; their members would have the same rights as any local individual, or any community militia members. To protect themselves, the members of such an agency could (1) handle investigative tasks and leave touchier stuff to the community militia or (2) request searches, or permission, from the community militia and/or targets' protection agencies and/or respected neutral parties. If the first protection agency threatens murder, the community militia and/or targets' protection agencies and/or respected neutral parties *may* target the first protection agency and *will never again* approve the first protection agency's search requests.
And the fourth stage, execution, would not happen, as it would leave the protection agency a band of murderers, at war with the world. Some people may shoot back. Other people may just burn their stuff. Going to war with the world is friggin' stupid. I imagine most groups would stop beforehand.
Most anarchists would find your scenario even less plausible:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI5.html#seci58
-
Grungie, doesn't your third reason just come down to ...
[Read the article: Bobbing for boobs]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"People interpret tattoos one way, and people interpret implants another."
Which leads right back to Tronic's question. Why do people interpret tattoos one way, and implants another? Why do people assume that implants suggest someone is unhappy with their body structure, and assume tattoos suggest someone wants to decorate their skin? Why don't people assume that tattoos suggest someone is unhappy with their skin, and assume implants suggest someone wants to reimagine their body structure?
I personally don't understand either one for most people but can understand implants under certain conditions.
-
But the Categorical Imperative is relativist.
[Read the article: This Modern World]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It asks how my decisions about my own actions fit in with the rest of my values and fit in with my judgments about others' actions. Also, it focuses on motives, not actions. Let's go through it again:
FUL: Act only according to that maxim which you could, at the same time, will to become a universal law. (FKE is similar but less understandable).
FH: (IIRC) Act always so as to treat humanity in any person (?) always as an end in itself, and never simply as a means.
According to the CI, the morality of any particular action depends on the motives, and in practice, the motives are relative to the people involves and the circumstances they face. Kant's contribution was not an absolute morality, it was the first careful investigation of the requirements of any possible personal morality.
-
I was threatened while growing up...
[Read the article: Strangers on a train ... under arrest?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]With the usual "if you ever look at someone like that again... I will [insert nasty threat]" from cops and worse than cops.
Before, for a few minutes, I was tired and staring into space. After, for the next several years, I was always scared of random retaliation for nonexistent offenses. These sorts of threats really screwed with my head and made it very hard to talk to other people. These sorts of prosecutions make these threats more threatening than before.
-
It's The Hobbit, not another Lord of the Rings
[Read the article: Guillermo del Toro to make "Hobbit" films: Bleah!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Structurally and stylistically, The Hobbit has at least as much in common with "fairy tales" as with "heroic fantasy."
Peter Jackson cut several of the fairy-tale elements (Tom Bombadil, etc.) while expanding some of the heroic fantasy elements (escape from Moria) or adding new ones (Frodo and Sam in Osgiliath). That worked for Lord of the Rings, but might not work for The Hobbit. Guillermo del Toro might be the better choice for the riddle scenes which are so important to The Hobbit.