[FRIAM] Enlightened Self Interest: was Help for texas

[Marcus Daniels]

Is an action that is not visible (or is very localized) is taken that shortens a life of an individual or a threatening group of people (e.g. neo-nazis), consistent with nonviolence?   What about an action that prevents reproduction?   What if it is not known who caused harm or if it was caused by a human agent at all?   (As opposed to cosmic rays or common toxins in an environment.)   If there is no cycle of violence is it still objectionable to pacifists?  Is  the concern among pacifists about the practical consequences of violence or about the actual physical harm to another?   This article suggests to me it is about the practical consequences.   For example, I am against the death penalty, but I am not against the permanent removal of some pathological individuals if it can be done without a public representation of vengeance.    If a child or a spouse is abused so badly that they kill their parent/spouse, I'd say we should move on (if it is discovered).   I claim this is not paradoxical.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of gⅼеɳ ☣ <gepropella at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 11:51:18 AM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Enlightened Self Interest: was Help for texas

I found this essay interesting:

Why the Greatest Advocates of Nonviolence Didn't Condemn Anti-Racist, Anti-Fascist Acts of Violence
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/41902-why-the-greatest-advocates-of-nonviolence-didn-t-condemn-anti-racist-anti-fascist-acts-of-violence

It loops back on our conversation about bringing tasers to protests as well as my question to Merle about Hinduism vs. Buddhism and "Dharma himsa tathaiva cha", or violence in the service of Dharma.  Being of an "interactivist" bent, I don't believe one can understand anything without manipulating it.  The objective observer is a convenient fiction.  This came up quite a bit in relation to the recent "March for Science".  Should scientists really be marching?  What are they marching for?  It's also relevant for politics, this tendency for people to call themselves "apolitical" or to say they don't like or pay attention to politics.  Personally, I think everyone is political, though they may lie to themselves and believe they're not.  That's why I take the opportunity, at every chance, to talk about both religion and politics ... especially when someone proscribes it.  I was playing horse shoes at the neighborhood picnic with a stranger and I made some comment about our Liar-in-Chief Trump.  He said something like "Uh-oh, you just said something political."  So, I took the opportunity to tell him that I don't believe in God, either. 8^)  And he told me his wife is an atheist!  It's rare a thing to get a non-atheist to admit they're married to an atheist.  The trick is to make it clear that Everything is permitted.  Do what thou wilt is the whole  of the Law. >8^D  But don't complain when you get punched for, say, acting like a Nazi.


On 09/10/2017 01:26 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> As far as out driving our headlights, yes please.  That's all there is, in the end:  Figuring stuff out.   Everything else is just marking time.

--
☣ gⅼеɳ
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170913/9ba57b60/attachment.html>