|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Well, IS it? |
| Yes, it's such a strongly-held belief system that it might as well be treated that way. |
|
32% |
[ 13 ] |
| No, it's a practice within many sects of many faiths, but it is not a religion by itself. |
|
45% |
[ 18 ] |
| Why can't we all just get along? |
|
22% |
[ 9 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 40 |
|
| Author |
Message |
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| It is true that gentle persuasion is better than coercion or force as far as changing people's' minds, but big corporations profiting off wholesale animal slaughter will probably need to be legally pressured to stop doing so ... |
Elsewhere, I recall you advocating the use of govt and legislation to eliminate abotoirs and such ... is this merciful new stance from you an example of "spiritual evolution?" 
Oh, I just noticed. You're not yet ready to rule out using the SWAT teams to break down my door and pry this mortadella and swiss on rye from my cold, dead fingers, eh? Oh, well.
Much as I dislike large corprations and advertising, none of them ever made me eat a hamburger I didn't already want. They focus their energies, on making me want a particular hamburger, you see ... and I don't reailstically see a whole lot of vegetarians being swayed away from their current diet by a 20-second advert for a Big Mac at Mickey D's during the Super Bowl, do you?
SuperFly
| Quote: |
| I agree that Militant vegetarianism almost seems like a religion, only because I've seen people online and offline who proselytize and are very arrogant in their treatment to others who don't hold their views. BUT I think that those kinds of people, while they exist, are few and far between. |
The thing that is really nervous-making, to me at least, is that the ones who are most extreme, despite being few in number just MIGHT be dangerous people to have around. Even one such person could end up messing up a person's life, if they put their mind to it. (On the other hand, aren't I succumbing to bullying if I let such nervousness cause me to hold my tongue when I might otherwise open it and express my point of view?)
I finally stopped arguing with one in particular poster because I suddenly realized this is a person who defended and openly endorsed groups that govt authorities have labeled as terrorists, and who seemed to have no trouble living in a world in which people are harassed and threatened with violence over the question of whether to kill a rabbit for scientific experiments ... and I'm thinking, christ, I've got family, what if this person (just some random person encountered on a message board) is nuts enough to think I'm the enemy? And what if it turns out they are capable of carrying their animosoties beyond mere words?
And it's sad that thoughts like that go through my mind, but that's what living in a world next to extremists will do to ya ...
Omkara
| Quote: |
| Yeah, people can get fanatic about the issue. But that should not stop us from looking seriously at it. If we get along in this way, then we're the better for it. But if getting along means ignoring the issue, getting along isn't they way. |
No one is suggesting that the issue be ignored, but I'd like to make the point that people who agree with you about this but are so extreme about it that there's no telling how far they will go ... they are a detriments to your side of the movement.
Has anyone's mind been changed, ever when groups like the ALF plant bombs in laboratories and make threratening phone call at night to family members of people who work in laboratories?
(I'm not mixing issues. The most extreme - and dangerous - elements of the animal rights movement are inspired and motivated by radical veganism.)
One thing I'd like to suggest is that when a person like that who definitely can be viewed as extreme and fanatical begins to show their colors, and who might possibly even turnb out to be dangerous they need to be chastized - and, most effectively by those on YOUR side of the fence. At first, perhaps, gently: "WE are gentle people. We gain nothing by making people afraid of us."
If that doesn't work, shout them down: "You do NOT speak for us! We are not like you, and you are not like us, and do not try to pretend so."
But, be careful. Not easy easy to know how far people will go, not untril after the fact, and they might decide YOU are their enemy, also.
Last edited by The Bobster on Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:53 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's fear and danger at every step in the material world - it's not a fit place for a lady or a gentleman ...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| There's fear and danger at every step in the material world - it's not a fit place for a lady or a gentleman ... |
Are you threatening me? Did you just make a threat of physical harm upon my person, right out here in public? Should I be calling the police right now, or should I wait until something bad happens to me or someone in my family - and then realize too late that it just doesn't pay to express your opinions honestly? Should I at least hit the little red /!/ ?
Okay, just kidding, but the thing is, one just doesn't know. See, I've allowed my picture to be shown on this and other sites, even had people come up to me and say, Hey, you're The Bobster, aren't you?
And, RT, I've also gotten pms in the course of discussions about dog soup to the effect that I'll get what's coming to me one of these days. Inocuous enough, just like your comment above ... but you know what? It made me think real hard about opening my mouth online like this. Real hard.
Just to put everyone's mind at ease, RT, I was wondering if you would - because you do speak eloquently now and then about ethical behavior - I was wondering if you would state clearly for us whether you think that violence or the threat of violence is an ethical method of bringing about the end of a world where animals are killed for food?
Could you do that for us please? Or just for me? I know my wife would appreciate it. She keeps telling me I should stop having arguments with people on the internet.
Because, you never know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endofthewor1d
Joined: 01 Apr 2003
Location: the end of the wor1d.
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
And, RT, I've also gotten pms... Real hard.
|
huh huh... huh huh... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Frankly, what I wrote was an obscure reference to the Krishna conscious philosophical point that this world is a nasty place full of danger no matter how many nice material adjustments we make.
Ultimately, we don't belong to this world because, in essence, our pure consciousness/spirit-soul is not material.
My mistake was trying to express that in a darkly humous way, and I didn't have enough time to elaborate.
I'm really sorry if you somehow interpreted that as some kind of threat - it wasn't at all meant to be.
Actually, I know how horrible receiving threatening PMs (from anonymous potential wackos) can be, and I've brought them to the attention of mods myself...
Although I'm not a politcal pacifist, I certainly don't believe in terrorist tactics and unnecessary violence of any kind (except pertaining to sports and/or entertainment purposes among willing participants who usually get paid well....)
While I don't think that animals should be unnecessarily killed - and I think it should be against the law to do so - I don't believe in vigilante justice (and I hardly ever fight anybody - even those named "the Bobster"  ) )
Regarding "bramble", I think you've unfairly charactarized her as a supporter of terrorism because of her sharing some of the same ideals and goals espoused by radical activist groups.
In person, she hardly resembles a terrorist (though she's obviously feisty when provoked ...  )
Similarly, you can't make a convincing case that anyone who belongs to (or supports) groups organized against abortion (or for Jesus) should be viewed as a potential terrorist based on the violent acts of a few fanatical extremists loosely associated with such groups.
However, I think it's also true that groups motivated mainly by strong sentiment rather than sound philosophy are more likely to attract fanatical individuals among their ranks...
I don't think that PETA or most environmental activist groups are that bad - though their philosophies may be be somewhat off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| Frankly, what I wrote was an obscure reference to the Krishna conscious philosophical point that this world is a nasty place full of danger no matter how many nice material adjustments we make. |
Was there some relevance to my thoughts above about the nervousness one might feel for oneself and one's family from living in a world where people with extreme viewpoints might choose to cause damage over a difference of opinion?
| Quote: |
| Regarding "bramble", I think you've unfairly charactarized her as a supporter of terrorism because of her sharing some of the same ideals and goals espoused by radical activist groups. |
I haven't mentioned this person. I was referring to another author of seemingly innocuous pms. It seems my opinions rub more than one person the wrong way. Actually, bramble doesn't even try to seem innocuous, and she does scare me a little.
| Quote: |
| you can't make a convincing case that anyone who belongs to (or supports) groups organized against abortion (or for Jesus) should be viewed as a potential terrorist based on the violent acts of a few fanatical extremists loosely associated with such groups. |
No one has tried to make such a case. However, when you ask a person point blank if they repudiate violence as a means of political action, and they refuse to make such a clear statement but rather continue to voice support for groups and individuals who have been designated as terrorists by law enforcement authorities ... well. Can you understand why a guy might feel a little nervous from time to time?
See, without even thinking very hard about it, there are people in the world who believe so fervently in their particular hobbyhorse that they see no limits to what actions they might take in its pursuit or defense. That's a case where religious fervor strays over to the political realm, and it is completely antithetical to any reasonable definition of progress among free people. And it is scary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The material world is filled with dangers and unforeseen calamaties.
All violent acts have violent repercussions (whether we perceive the subtle chain of causality or not...)
Activist groups whose goal is to minimize violence to animals and the environment don't pose any extraordinary threats that I'm concerned about ...
If their goals are somehow reached (through constructive efforts) then there would be significantly less violence - and fewer bad reactions in the shape of natural disasters and senseless wars ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| Activist groups whose goal is to minimize violence to animals and the environment don't pose any extraordinary threats that I'm concerned about ... |
Like some others, you focus on goals rather than methods used to accomplish them, and for myself I've often pondered whether unjust tactics that use fear instead of persuasion, violence instead of consensus, and destruction instead of building things that arenew and useful and beneficial to the world - how can such actions ever bring about positive effects in the world, or will the result only be one more form a tyranny coming from a different direction?
"If the ends don't justify the means, then what in God's name does?" -- Lenin.
In your words, "Activist groups whose goal is to minimize violence to animals and the environment" include folk like the ALF (Animal Liberation Front) and Earth First!, and their mode of social change involves such charming responses as : setting off bombs in the dead of night in laboratories where researchers are seeking cures for cancer, diabetes, HIV, etc.; making harassing phone calls in the wee hours to family members of researchers at such labs, instilling fear in innocent people (and let's be clear that violence upon a person's mind and heart is violence also); mailing letters containing contaminated razor blades; setting fire to homes in being built in disputed real estate rather than pursuing justince through the courts and the legal system; setting fire to SUVs in a car dealership, involving multiple explosions ... I could go on.
What amazes me about these groups is the support they get, verbally or even passively or more actively in terms of donations, from people who declare themselves as committed to making a world of justice, where violence is not the norm. How can people who claim to be motivated by kindness fail to condemn such acts?
The world is a violent place, and that will continue, but while we live in it we can make choices. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For people who would like to hear different perspectives on the ALF and other underground groups, this page may be a helpful resource:
http://animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/WhatisALF.htm
Last edited by Bramble on Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have already stated here that gentle persuasion is more effective than force with regard to changing the behavior of individuals.
It's hard to even force a child to stop doing something potentially harmful unless you substitute something positive that he or she likes.
(One can argue that a firm spank might sometimes be more effective, but it should be done by a loving parent or guardian - not by one who is angry and out-of-control.)
Guerilla tactics such as street theater and performance art may effectively serve to highlight perceived injustices, but they should basically be nonviolent.
Excessive use of obscenity and profanity indicates immaturity and uncontrolled emotion.
Civil disobedience has its place, but those who do it should also be willing to go to jail.
In my youth I also participated with groups that used a variety of methods - some of questionable effectiveness - in trying to stop the Viet Nam war, but my own involvement was non-violent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_International_Party |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| I have already stated here that gentle persuasion is more effective than force with regard to changing the behavior of individuals. |
Depends on the person. It�s hard to say what, if anything, will ultimately prove effective in changing other people�s behaviour � but in many cases, �direct action� can make it more difficult for animal exploiters to stay in business. In some cases, facilities such as fur farms have been forced to close because the owners couldn�t afford insurance or security systems. Economic sabotage has probably deterred many people from starting those types of businesses in the first place. The Bobster may think I�m arrogant for not hosting a meaty barbecue, but I think it�s incredibly arrogant for any of us to dismiss direct action out of hand. We (humans) aren�t the ones imprisoned in these horrible places, absolutely helpless and waiting to be slaughtered.
| Quote: |
| It's hard to even force a child to stop doing something potentially harmful unless you substitute something positive that he or she likes. |
Yes, but children aren�t responsible for their actions to the same extent as adults. Positive tactics have their place, but I�m very skeptical of anyone who dismisses more confrontational tactics such as those of the ALF. Sometimes confrontation is necessary to wake people up to the seriousness of the issues.
| Quote: |
| Civil disobedience has its place, but those who do it should also be willing to go to jail. |
Some people choose to get arrested to make a point, and they have my admiration � but I don�t see why this should be viewed as an obligation for everyone who liberates animals or sabotages animal industries. As far as I know, the people who liberated these birds didn�t turn themselves in to the police. I�m not about to condemn them for not following what some people might consider proper protocol.
That sounds like an interesting experience. Of course you had no way of knowing which actions would turn out to be effective or ineffective�you just had to do what you felt was right at the time. From what I�ve read, I get the impression that most ALF activists consider their actions very carefully and put a lot of planning into each one. Who here is really in a position to judge them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ultimately, in a society based on laws, illegal "direct action" methods will not likely lead to a viable solution.
With respect to changing laws that need to be changed (to protect animals) such "hit-and-run" tactics figure to be counterproductive, and those involved probably are inspired by over-romantic, utopean world views.
Sometimes direct action by humans may be required to save animals from unnecessary death and abuse, but those who are party to it should be prepared to undergo all the personal risks entailed if they break laws without sufficient public support. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
I just made some of the following points in a horribly written PM to Rteacher, which hopefully didn�t go through. (I can�t believe I missed those typos.  ) Anyway, here are my thoughts:
The concerns you raise about direct action are definitely worth discussing�I just don�t like the idea of dismissing illegal tactics in principle, when we (the readers on this forum) are more or less safe from the violence that happens to animals every day. I haven�t drawn any definitive conclusions about which tactics are �right� or which strategies are �best,� and many of those that fall under the category of direct action may eventually turn out to be misguided. I�ve given a lot of thought to this subject over the years and have never been able to resolve any of these questions.
It would be great if we could have a civil discussion about it on the boards, but I�ve hashed it out a number of times with certain posters and all some of them do is respond with ad hominems and verbal abuse � or else twist what I�ve actually said as an excuse to shout me down in other threads. If the board were dominated by people who at least tried to be fair, and considered ideas rather than launching personal attacks, it would be different. I don�t want to get into another 20-page argument that goes nowhere, and which the mods refuse to keep under control.
That said, if the laws ever do change to reflect an animal rights perspective, it will be a long time from now and I doubt anyone reading this will be alive when it happens. People have to be convinced before laws can change. Showing people pictures of sweet animals and introducing them to new foods are steps along the way, but they're not going to convince everyone. I�m always happy to see individual animals being rescued in the meantime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't have time to engage right now to the extent I'd like, but I'll just drop this in, for what it's worth - actually, I've been thinking of making a separate thread to discuss civil disobedience, and whether violent actions can be considered such, or whether it's just gangsterism and terrorism ...
RTeacher
| Quote: |
Regarding "bramble", I think you've unfairly charactarized her as a supporter of terrorism because of her sharing some of the same ideals and goals espoused by radical activist groups.
In person, she hardly resembles a terrorist(...) |
RT, I was ready to admit that perhaps I WAS unfair. But then ...
| Bramble wrote: |
I think it�s incredibly arrogant for any of us to dismiss direct action out of hand. (...)
Positive tactics have their place, but I�m very skeptical of anyone who dismisses more confrontational tactics such as those of the ALF. (...) |
and
Bramble
| Quote: |
| I just don�t like the idea of dismissing illegal tactics in principle |
RTeacher
| Quote: |
| Civil disobedience has its place, but those who do it should also be willing to go to jail. |
Bramble
| Quote: |
| Some people choose to get arrested to make a point, and they have my admiration � but I don�t see why this should be viewed as an obligation for everyone who liberates animals or sabotages animal industries. |
Hint from The Bobster, no charge: read the book by Henry David Thoreau from whose title we get the term civil disobedience. He will tell you why.
Bramble
Not a perspective, just what's true.
1) ALF has been designated as a terrorist organization by the FBI and the law enforcement agencies of Great Britain. You cannot cupport tham and simultaneously deny being a supporter of a terrorist group, because that is what they are. This is not twisting facts or anything else, it is simply the real world.
2) These are quotes - not my imagination and no distortion, you can find them yourself - from the ALF website Bramble has provided.
| Quote: |
On the evening of December 20, 2007, the glass entry door of Salt Tavern in Baltimore was destroyed by pellet gun fire (...)
On the night of January 20 the Animal Liberation Front Mexico (F.L.A.M.) placed an incendiary device in an establishment of this multinational corporation (...)
a fur selling Brooklyn boutique was visited by the ALF at their peak shopping hours. One activist distributed liberal amounts of Liquid Ass, a product that, when sprayed, is the noxious and overpowering stench of rotting shit (...)
A UCSD employee and apparent animal-rights activist is scheduled to appear in federal court Thursday to answer to accusations of leveling bomb threats against the university(...) |
Bramble
| Quote: |
| Who here is really in a position to judge them? |
I am here and I can judge them thusly: people who use bombs and guns to enable political change are terrorists. If you lend support to them, you are a terrorist supporter. There, that wasn't so hard, was it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are degrees of terrorism, and I think that the term is best reserved for those groups who instill fear by engaging in the brutal killing of living beings - especially humans.
The examples listed by "the bobster", while disturbing to some extent, don't indicate more than threats of using lethal force and some actual property damage.
On the "terrorist scale", I think that would score relatively low.
And supporting a group - or cause (eg: stopping abortions) that may include some radical/fanatical elements who at some point may resort to killing does not necessarily indicate unconditional support for such real acts of terror - especially if the group doesn't sanction or encourage such acts ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
