From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Feb 02 2003 - 01:22:34 MST
Cory writes
> > 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.
> sarcasm noted and all,
I'm not being sarcastic! (Why does this always
happen to me? ;-)
Use your imagination. What if you really *were*
contacted by aliens, and over several years shown
many interesting and valuable things? Suppose
further that you had good explanations for why
you weren't crazy. (Of course, one can never
know for sure that one is *not* crazy, especially
under peculiar circumstances. But there comes a
time when you'd have faith in yourself and Them.)
> > If I don't, on the other hand, have 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.
> 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?
Yes. Everything that I'm saying is predicated upon
living in a democratic republic with safeguarded
individual rights.
> Or were the civil rights protests
> of the 60's obnoxious as well?
Yes, to me, they were. Note I'm not debating the
efficiency of such tactics, but merely denying that
in this case the end justifies the means.
> 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
> interrupt learning, never did they infringe on anyone.
I have much less problem with those, then. Probably
the organizers wouldn't mind a bit if their opponents
held counter-demonstrations.
> 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.
I'd still be annoyed. But perhaps not so much
as I would be over a silly pep-rally!
> 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.
Yes, to take the slower and fairer route
is not as efficacious, as I was saying.
I would still prefer posted flyers and
handouts over rallies.
> The Dean was forced to come
> clean and they achieved an end
> good deed without causing any
> grief except to the guilty party.
> This is undemocratic?
Not in any major way, undemocratic.
> > 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.
What examples are you thinking of? Sure, I don't
want *everyone* to subscribe to this mailing list,
but at the same time I *do* want people to subscribe
to mailing lists and communicate the way we do.
> 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 [march & protest], and to assume
> otherwise doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
I think instead that there are many people
who care just as deeply, but who don't
happen to be organized. I hope that they
don't organize. The present people who
*are* organized also hope that all the
rest of those who're unhappy don't organize.
It would be better IMO if everyone stopped
organizing for protest marches and demon-
strations.
Lee
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:09 MST