From: Cory Przybyla (recherchetenet@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Feb 01 2003 - 23:42:10 MST
--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > Many people agree with you on this, but a rising
> > religious undertone is showing blind support to
> > government which is spreading (effectively)
> propaganda,
>
> etc.
>
> The biggest questions that such problems pose for me
> is
> "why am I better informed than my neighbors", and
> "how
> do I account for judging my information and
> knowledge
> to be superior to theirs?".
Which is a valid reason for protesting instead of
something drastic.
> Now, in certain contrived hypothetical situations, I
> really do have objectively better information, and
> would act on it. If I alone were talking to aliens
> on a regular basis, and had a good explanation as to
> why I was the *chosen* one, then there are all sorts
> of things that I might do as a publicity stunt to
> get
> my views well known. I might chain myself to the
> front gate of the White House, as Bobby Fischer's
> mother is said to have done.
sarcasm noted and all, the insane probably wouldn't
listen to your reasons against protesting. I think
chaining yourself to the White House is illegal
although I'm not entirely sure. In theory though, the
aliens could have told her to go out and kill as they
seem to do a lot, but luckily they suggested an action
that really didn't hurt anybody. Good for the aliens
to believe in protesting instead of violence.
> > Now of course protests in reality often fall far
> short
> > of any reasonable claims (animal rights activists
> > storming Wendy's), but you claim it's about as
> > uncooperative a thing as you can do in a
> democratic
> > country. If this is universally true, then how
> would
> > you respond in this situation?
>
> If I don't, on the other hand, have any special
> knowledge,
> then all I would do is vent my indignation by
> joining
> action committees, writing letters to newspapers and
> magazines, attending local neighborhood meetings,
> and
> virtually anything that still fell within Kant's
> Imperative. (This, of course, is what I would also
> prefer that everyone else do.) I would feel this
> way
> and restrain myself accordingly no matter how
> strongly
> I felt about something.
Why are your methods acceptable and theirs not? If
you look to the history of most of our lovely
democracies, not all the citizens have even been able
to get any recognition in these manners while their
rights were directly violated. So are you just
referring to current society, and assuming that
everyone has a say? Or were the civil rights protests
of the 60's obnoxious as well?
> It is extremely easy for people to suppose either
> that
> they have special knowledge, or that they have
> superior
> morality. In their own minds this justifies
> anything,
> often up to and including violence. You can easily
> imagine the chaos if we all took to the streets, or
> barricaded the entrances to buildings, or simply lay
> down in the driveways of the homes of those we felt
> were on the wrong side of some issue.
Not all protests take to the streets, there are many
on college campuses, not in the way of anyone. I
recall at the University of Rochester numerous
protests against Sweatshop Labor since the Dean
refused to disclose information as to where the
University clothing was being made. Never did they
interupt learning, never did they infringe on anyone.
I was in the habit of being annoyed at all protests at
the time and was generally rather curt to them along
with various other protests on the campus. But in
retrospect I'd have never known that they might have
had Sweatshop Labor produced nor would most of the
rest of the student body. The Dean was forced to come
clean and they acheived an end good deed without
causing any grief except to the guilty party. This is
undemocratic?
Furthermore the protesters are generally the ones that
are non-violent and I thought it went without my
saying that violent protests are not acceptable. Some
violence breaks out as does in any crowd, but then we
should be against large concerts too? Mainly though,
it's those who try and suppress the protest that
create the violence.
> If you do disturb traffic, or "march" in support of
> various causes, how do you explain to yourself that
> it's all right for you to do this, but it wouldn't
> be all right if everyone did it?
> Lee
>
This doesn't follow. It wouldn't be 'alright' for
*everyone* to do most things that *some* people do.
This of course doesn't happen so we maintain diverse
professions in the workplace and function as a nation.
Since it is legal to protest under certain
regulations, I assure you that the number of people
who are driven enough to protest already do, and to
assume otherwise doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
The cause has to be strong enough for them to be
motivated to spend a lot of time, sometimes money,
sometimes risking dismissal from their job which pays
to feed their families.
Disturbing traffic is no more than a petty
inconvenience for something that, you've so far not
convinced me otherwise, is a good peaceful check in
the democratic process.
Cory Przybyla
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:09 MST