[Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27

[Laurie at advancenet.net]

First Karen, for clarification purposes, I am a male.  

Second, I find you position interesting in that any action can inadvertently
result in inadvertent violence to a person; I have to wonder what is left.
What do you define as the defining line?  Walking a picket line with a sign
on a stick can inadvertently stab someone or poke someone's eye out.  I do
not think that the possibility of inadvertent violence is a good
definitional standard. If it were, than one could logically argue that mere
peaceful demonstrations by some could inadvertently provoke inadvertent
violence by others who may join the protesters, who might be observing the
demonstrators, or who oppose the demonstrations; thus, they should not be
undertaking.

I think that your standard could probably benefit and be a workable one if
one qualified it by saying that the violence against property has a high
probability of resulting in inadvertent violence to persons.  However, it is
your standard of conduct that we are talking about; and you legitimately can
use any standard that you want independent of whether or not I agree with it
or you.  



> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-
> bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Medina
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:33 PM
> To: Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27
> 
> I looked at Laurie's list of "violence to people" vs. "violence to
> property" and, since all items on both lists could include inadvertant
> violence to a person, then everything on her two lists are pretty much
> not part of what I would be willing to consider.
> 
> But there are other views within AWARE and Peace-discuss.
> 
> -karen medina
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss