[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Mad SCO Disease

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Wed Jun 30 11:49:00 UTC 2004


On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, AthlonRob wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 01:12 -0700, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> > It's perfectly reasonable to kill someone over a few dollars?  That's
> > what you're writing, you know.  You're telling me that it's perfectly
> > reasonable to kill someone rather than give them a little bit of
> > money.
>
> Yup... it seems reasonable to me.  Although, I would rephrase it a bit;
> it is reasonable to kill somebody rather than allow them to violently
> take anything of mine.

So don't let it get violent... allow the perceived threat to suffice and
fork over the cash.  Isn't it worth a life?  What are you out, really?

> defend v : be on the defensive; act against an attack
>
> It seems to me shooting somebody who is attacking me is very much an act
> against an attack... wouldn't you agree?

No, it IS an attack.  I suppose you think there's a difference between
"insurgence" and "counterinsurgence" and "intelligence" and
"counterintelligence" and "terrorists" and "counterterrorists".  It's just
a matter of which side is your side.  If you take even the tiniest step
outside the situation, you'll see that they're both the same thing and
just called opposite things from each side.

> I think what makes something offensive is the non-reactionary nature of
> it.  Something defensive is reactionary to something offensive... so
> unless you pull out your gun and start firing it at people without
> cause, I don't think it's being offensive, but rather defensive.

Robbing a liquor store (or a guy walking down the street) can be a
reaction to hunger or poverty.  Rape can be a reaction to years of mocking
and torment or simple neglect.  Murder can be a reaction to jealousy or
greed.

Shooting a mugger is a reaction to fear and insecurity.

There's no difference.

> > > > Again, threatening violence is very effective.  It's used by
> > > > brutal dictatorships the world over.
> > >
> > > To be perfectly correct, it's used by *all* political governments
> > > the world over.
> >
> > That's what I wrote, isn't it?
>
> No, you wrote brutal dictatorships.

Phew, there's no pulling one over on you!  You gots the eagle eyes!

> I wonder, are Monaco and The Vatican brutal dictatorships in your mind?

Yes.

> What about Japan? Switzerland?

Yes.

> > The use of violence is unjustifiable.
>
> The use of violence very much can be justifiable.

Potato... err... potato.

Yeah, that's what the original author wrote.  I didn't buy it then,
either.

> > How is incarceration not violence?
>
> Violence v. : To assault; to injure
>
> Tell me how it is violence, please.

You wouldn't be injured by incarceration?  There is no injury in isolating
a person from their loved ones and depriving them of the life they choose
to lead?

> Even if it were violence, it is justifiable violence.

Right, you already wrote that.  It wasn't any more convincing before.
Perhaps it's time to do something to improve the argument or change your
position.

And if you're willing to concede and concession doesn't impact your
position, then why did you ask?

You can go ahead and concede that incarceration is violence now.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list