|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:54 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
You can not compare somebody who breaks the law to save human life, with someone who blows up vehicles to make a political statement, without regard for any passerby or bystander.
|
If we can save the operating systems of the planet, we can save about 6 billion people in the process.
our own future depends on our ability to live sustainably on earth.
SUV's are just one tiny element, symbolic perhaps, in our selfish destruction of the natural world.
The guy who so successfully brought attention to this is working for the greater good. It was less of a political statement than an environmental one. He broke the law to save human life in the long term. you agree that more people will die as we accelerate our own causes of global warming, right? Do you care about future generations of people on earth?
Thousands of people have already died due to our destabilisation of climate and ecosystems. Flash floods, skin cancer, disease, respiratory diseases, etc etc are all caused by our destructive interruption of natures controls and balances. Ecocide affects everybody. trashing a few vain polluting vehicles affects only the insurance companies, but brings awareness to thousands.
congratulations to our SUV bomber, a true patriot and world citizen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rapier wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
You can not compare somebody who breaks the law to save human life, with someone who blows up vehicles to make a political statement, without regard for any passerby or bystander. |
If we can save the operating systems of the planet, we can save about 6 billion people in the process. |
The operative word in your post is "we." All of us together, or at least the majority of us acting for our own best good, but not a minority of zealots who think their conception of what is wrong in the world gives them rights to take actions that the rest of us don't have.
The fanatics who blew up the Twin Towers also felt their cause was so right they could ignore the social contract of the other billions among us on this speck of dirt hurtling through space. They were wrong, and I could no more endorse Mr Lauer for his actions than I could approve of the murderers of 9/11.
And part of me wonders how you can do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kalhoun
Joined: 30 May 2003
Location: Land of the midnight noise!
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with the Bobster. We need to address questions and come up with more original and non-violent solutions. Answers need to look at the whole Global community~ not just some small group that think they have the corner on truth & light. I don't think the ends justify the means in ecco-terrorism.
Last edited by Kalhoun on Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:11 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaganath69
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rapier wrote: |
There should be more eco terrorism.
|
So you support violence as an answer to political problems? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is an ancient thread, and I'm not sure why Kalhoun chose to resurrect it now. However, here's a more recent link showing how "ecoterrorism" legislation can be used to suppress practically any kind of dissent. (The article has quite a negative slant, but any critical reader can see that the legislation used to convict these activists is positively draconian.)
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/02/07/thugs_puppies/index1.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kalhoun wrote: |
| I agree with the Bobster. Answers need to look at the whole Global community~ not just some small group that think they have the corner on truth & light. I don't think the ends justify the means in ecco-terrorism. |
Just curious, but how can answers look at anything? 
Here's another article on the SHAC case, which reveals the outcome:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2068837,00.html
Note that there's no evidence the people who were convicted had actually carried out any of the "harrassment" or "stalking" they were said to have incited. They're going to prison pretty much for expressing an unpopular opinion. Maybe no one should ever stand up for their beliefs on any subject?
Last edited by red dog on Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:46 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ummmm...did you post the wrong link? The article in that link is about forbidding whistles etc in demonstrations at Oxford. Nothing about anyone going to prison for anything.
The article that is there was interesting. It looks like the government is making a good-faith effort to protect free speech while also protecting other people's right to go on with their lives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Ummmm...did you post the wrong link? |
Yes, I did.  Thanks for catching that; I've made the correction above. The article I meant to post is from a British newspaper and it reports the outcome of the SHAC trial -- as I said earlier, the accused activists mentioned in the Salon article were convicted, and some of them could go to prison for up to 14 years. That's a harsher sentence than some murderers and many rapists receive.
| Quote: |
| The article that is there was interesting. It looks like the government is making a good-faith effort to protect free speech while also protecting other people's right to go on with their lives. |
I couldn't disagree more. The legislation is so sweeping that it could be used against anyone who criticizes a company that exploits animals. Even the most conservative animal welfare group could be targeted if it published an article questioning a particular factory farm practice and someone, somewhere, decided to do something illegal after reading it.
What's next? Maybe the police will knock on Dave Sperling's door and demand information about some of us. Or on Chiaa's door, to find out who's reading what. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Are you sure you are responding to the same article I did? What I read said they were reducing the number of demonstrators from 50 (?) down to 12, barring noise-makers and cameras, and reducing from 4 hours to 1 the allowable time for the demonstrations.
That does not sound sweeping and I don't see how it could be used to 'go after' any group, including especially posters on Dave's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, you're looking at the wrong article. First I accidentally posted a link to the Oxford article, which had nothing to do with the Huntingdon case (except that both articles dealt with vivisection). But when you pointed out the error, I replaced it with the correct link, to a story about the conviction of the SHAC activists.
Here it is again:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2068837,00.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
No, you're looking at the wrong article. First I accidentally posted a link to the Oxford article, which had nothing to do with the Huntingdon case (except that both articles dealt with vivisection). But when you pointed out the error, I replaced it with the correct link, to a story about the conviction of the SHAC activists.
Here it is again:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2068837,00.html |
If you make violent threats (in this case threating to kill a seven year boy) and attack people's houses (in this case smashing windows) you must expect to be punished. In a civilized society we do not tolerate this kind of barbarism. That's what the courts are for. And if the courts don't agree with your point of view, that's just too bad.
For example I don't agree with abortion. But you are NEVER going to see me firebombing abortion clinics or shooting abortion doctors. Nor would I participate in any demonstration that turned violent. Nor would I threaten to kill someone's child or smash someone's windows. I don't like abortion, but as a citizen I have a moral and legal obligation to abide by the law of the land. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| red dog wrote: |
No, you're looking at the wrong article. First I accidentally posted a link to the Oxford article, which had nothing to do with the Huntingdon case (except that both articles dealt with vivisection). But when you pointed out the error, I replaced it with the correct link, to a story about the conviction of the SHAC activists.
Here it is again:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2068837,00.html |
If you make violent threats (in this case threating to kill a seven year boy) and attack people's houses (in this case smashing windows) you must expect to be punished. In a civilized society we do not tolerate this kind of barbarism. That's what the courts are for. And if the courts don't agree with your point of view, that's just too bad.
For example I don't agree with abortion. But you are NEVER going to see me firebombing abortion clinics or shooting abortion doctors. Nor would I participate in any demonstration that turned violent. Nor would I threaten to kill someone's child or smash someone's windows. I don't like abortion, but as a citizen I have a moral and legal obligation to abide by the law of the land. |
But as far as anyone knows, the people who were convicted of "terrorism" aren't the same ones who made the threats -- there's no proof that the SHAC activists had any direct connection to the people who actually threatened children or carried out the other actions mentioned in the story. What the activists did was provide information on a Web site. Some unknown people apparently read it and felt motivated to break the law.
Imagine what would happen if you spoke out against abortion on the Internet and someone read your words and decided to do something illegal. Would it be fair to put you in jail for "inciting" illegal actions, even if you'd never met or spoken to the perpetrator(s)? What if the police were looking for someone who'd sabotaged an abortion building and decided to include you in their investigation just because you'd publicly opposed abortion and might possibly know someone connected to the crime? Those kinds of scenarios are becoming more common in the United States, Canada, Britain, and probably other countries too as governments introduce broad legislation giving the police far too much power over us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| red dog wrote: |
No, you're looking at the wrong article. First I accidentally posted a link to the Oxford article, which had nothing to do with the Huntingdon case (except that both articles dealt with vivisection). But when you pointed out the error, I replaced it with the correct link, to a story about the conviction of the SHAC activists.
Here it is again:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2068837,00.html |
If you make violent threats (in this case threating to kill a seven year boy) and attack people's houses (in this case smashing windows) you must expect to be punished. In a civilized society we do not tolerate this kind of barbarism. That's what the courts are for. And if the courts don't agree with your point of view, that's just too bad.
For example I don't agree with abortion. But you are NEVER going to see me firebombing abortion clinics or shooting abortion doctors. Nor would I participate in any demonstration that turned violent. Nor would I threaten to kill someone's child or smash someone's windows. I don't like abortion, but as a citizen I have a moral and legal obligation to abide by the law of the land. |
(1) But as far as anyone knows, the people who were convicted of "terrorism" aren't the same ones who made the threats -- there's no proof that the SHAC activists had any direct connection to the people who actually threatened children or carried out the other actions mentioned in the story. What the activists did was provide information on a Web site. Some unknown people apparently read it and felt motivated to break the law.
(2) Imagine what would happen if you spoke out against abortion on the Internet and someone read your words and decided to do something illegal. Would it be fair to put you in jail for "inciting" illegal actions, even if you'd never met or spoken to the perpetrator(s)? What if the police were looking for someone who'd sabotaged an abortion building and decided to include you in their investigation just because you'd publicly opposed abortion and might possibly know someone connected to the crime? Those kinds of scenarios are becoming more common in the United States, Canada, Britain, and probably other countries too as governments introduce broad legislation giving the police far too much power over us. |
1. Sorry but that is simply not true. Three of those activists were convicted of "interstate stalking" and telephone harassment" Another was convicted for "telephone harassment" They didn't deny this but claimed that it was "free speech"
2. They gave support to the people visiting their website, it wasn't just one-sided. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| red dog wrote: |
No, you're looking at the wrong article. First I accidentally posted a link to the Oxford article, which had nothing to do with the Huntingdon case (except that both articles dealt with vivisection). But when you pointed out the error, I replaced it with the correct link, to a story about the conviction of the SHAC activists.
Here it is again:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2068837,00.html |
If you make violent threats (in this case threating to kill a seven year boy) and attack people's houses (in this case smashing windows) you must expect to be punished. In a civilized society we do not tolerate this kind of barbarism. That's what the courts are for. And if the courts don't agree with your point of view, that's just too bad.
For example I don't agree with abortion. But you are NEVER going to see me firebombing abortion clinics or shooting abortion doctors. Nor would I participate in any demonstration that turned violent. Nor would I threaten to kill someone's child or smash someone's windows. I don't like abortion, but as a citizen I have a moral and legal obligation to abide by the law of the land. |
(1) But as far as anyone knows, the people who were convicted of "terrorism" aren't the same ones who made the threats -- there's no proof that the SHAC activists had any direct connection to the people who actually threatened children or carried out the other actions mentioned in the story. What the activists did was provide information on a Web site. Some unknown people apparently read it and felt motivated to break the law.
(2) Imagine what would happen if you spoke out against abortion on the Internet and someone read your words and decided to do something illegal. Would it be fair to put you in jail for "inciting" illegal actions, even if you'd never met or spoken to the perpetrator(s)? What if the police were looking for someone who'd sabotaged an abortion building and decided to include you in their investigation just because you'd publicly opposed abortion and might possibly know someone connected to the crime? Those kinds of scenarios are becoming more common in the United States, Canada, Britain, and probably other countries too as governments introduce broad legislation giving the police far too much power over us. |
1. Sorry but that is simply not true. Three of those activists were convicted of "interstate stalking" and telephone harassment" Another was convicted for "telephone harassment" They didn't deny this but claimed that it was "free speech"
2. They gave support to the people visiting their website, it wasn't just one-sided. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
|
| 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
