Save the Fluffies

fried fried at aesops.force9.co.uk
Tue Dec 15 08:00:54 EST 1998


On 15 Dec 1998 11:04:16 GMT, "Jonathan J Quick" <see at message.text> wrote:

>BATEMAN1 <bateman7 at bellatlantic.net> wrote in article
><3676072C.1C1719C9 at bellatlantic.net>...
>>
>> explain to me how burning down a building is violent...lasted i checked
>> buildings were still inanimate objects.
>
>And if the building has people or animals in it? And if maybe the building
>is someone's home or the place where they carry out the work that feeds
>them and their family? Destruction of property is violence, and trying to
>pretend it isn't is pathetic.

I think you should use another word than "violence", simply from a sense of
accuracy and doing justice to the meaning of words. All your points are
otherwise relevant. I suspect that, in common with most people whose
activities hover between direct action and terrorism, a lot of thought and
effort is put into either a) not killing or hurting people, or b) killing or
hurting them. So you have to look at it on a case by case basis.

Arson as a legal offence avoids these distinctions - in some cases people
have got far stiffer sentences for arson attacks which have not damaged
people than others have got for murder, which scarcely makes sense.

I am not impressed with the kneejerk level of the posts on this subject. A
newsgroup does not really seem the right venue to be indulging in ritual
vilification.....

The most abusrd and telling point is that the ALF must be right to indulge
in such publicity stunts,.....it seems to be the only thing which raises
many peoples' awareness of the issues.....and I find our population
amazingly hypocritical about the whole thing. 

fried
>
>JJ.
>
>-- 
>Email: jjquick at foxtrot.co.uk
>Homepage: http://www.foxtrot.co.uk
>




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list