[Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27

[Laurie at advancenet.net]

> I don't know the answer to your question. But something about using an
> explosive or setting something on fire are both probably out. 

Well, it is food for thought. Using explosives or setting fires or the like
are situationally dependent and so are their assessment as tactics or
strategies.  While you may not view their use in the same way I do, I do not
exclude them on principle.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Medina [mailto:kmedina at uiuc.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 6:20 PM
> To: laurie at advancenet.net
> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27
> 
> Nobel may have regretted creating dynamite. Las Casas regretted his
> assumption that Africans did not have souls.
> 
> I don't know the answer to your question. But something about using an
> explosive or setting something on fire are both probably out.
> 
> -karen medina
> 
> ---- Original message ----
> >Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:03:48 -0500
> >From: "Laurie at advancenet.net" <laurie at advancenet.net>
> >Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27
> >To: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.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
> >_______________________________________________
> >Peace-discuss mailing list
> >Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> >http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss