[Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27

Fri Oct 12 23:29:06 CDT 2007

>This is a ridiculous reductio ad absurdum, wherein one imagines an
improbable worst case scenario as plausible, and >thus as a reason against a
particular action.

First, I am not sure exactly what I have said here that you regard as
“reductio ad absurdum” – my wondering or speculation as to what is left if
any action can result in inadvertent violence to a person, my assumption of
the possibility that any action has the potential of resulting in
inadvertent violence toward a person, my example of an illustration on my
point, or some or all of the above. Hence, I am having trouble responding in
detail or concretely.  

Second, what is or is not improbable, plausible or implausible, or worst
case or not are empirical questions not analytic ones.  I made no claims as
to the probability, plausibility, or quality of anything; I only implied the
logical and empirical possibility of that any action can result in
inadvertent violence to a person.  Either you have evidence that shows that
there is no possibility at all of any of these situations happening or that
there are no worse scenarios than those that I use as to illustrate my
point; or you are claiming these things to be universal analytic truths in
which case plausibility, probability, etc. do not enter into the equations
since they are either true and exist or false and non-existent.  I have not
seen any empirical evidence of the implausibility, improbability, or worst
case quality of the case scenario that I refer to.

Thirdly, I noted that if one used the inadvertent violence to a person
argument as a premise for deciding acceptable actions, one COULD argue that
no action would be acceptable.  I did not make that argument in what I said;
but instead, used it to suggest that additional qualifications to the
standard needed to be added and asked what they might be.

>The border line between violence and non violence was probably most
significantly threaded by the Weather >Underground, who bombed public
buildings when they were empty, taking careful precaution to never injure or
kill >anyone.
>Were their actions justifiable as a means of protest against war and
imperialism?

>I would say for the most part "no," though I have a great admiration for
their repeated blasting of the police memorial >placed in the old Haymarket
square in Chicago.

Aside from the fact that you restrict your example to one group during one
historical period in suggesting who and what were significant establishing
of borderlines between violence and non-violence (I am sure that one can
find other historic examples which furnish more clear cut distinctions as
well as less clear cut ones – i.e. actions of the partisan resistance in
WWII, the setting of crop fires to their master’s fields by field slaves on
Southern US plantations, boycotting of  products from farmers who use of
pesticides to kill insects which could inadvertently poison people when such
boycotts could result in the unemployment in which the unemployed might go
hungry due to a lack of work, etc), your assessment of the justification of
Weather Underground’s actions is of course a value judgment and as such
legitimate even if I disagree with it as would be my value judgments in the
opposite direction.  However, you have hedged your bet by saying “I would
say for the most part  ‘no’
.’’Why did you not give an unqualified “NO”?
You also express a great admiration and appreciation for “their repeated
blasting of the police memorial placed in the old Haymarket square in
Chicago.”  I think that this in its own way makes my points that
“inadvertent violence to a person” by itself does not make for a good,
necessary and sufficient basis for not taking an action and that there are
instances where the possibilities of such violence are low enough to make
the risk acceptable or situations in which that reason is over-ridden by
other concerns and factors.  

Thus, my proposal that maybe we should not exclude violence out of hand but
explore the standards in which their qualified use might be acceptable as a
strategy or tactic.

From: Matt Reichel [mailto:mattreichel at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 1:00 AM
To: Laurie at advancenet.net; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27

> 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.

This is a ridiculous reductio ad absurdum, wherein one imagines an
improbable worst case scenario as plausible, and thus as a reason against a
particular action.

The border line between violence and non violence was probably most
significantly threaded by the Weather Underground, who bombed public
buildings when they were empty, taking careful precaution to never injure or
kill anyone.
Were their actions justifiable as a means of protest against war and
imperialism?

I would say for the most part "no," though I have a great admiration for
their repeated blasting of the police memorial placed in the old Haymarket
square in Chicago.

-
mer

> From: laurie at advancenet.net
> To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27
> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:03:48 -0500
> 
> 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

  _____  

Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by
today!
<http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctW
Ltagline> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20071012/4b32bb9e/attachment.html