Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Poet who wrote (4236)	3/5/2001 11:57:53 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6089

As to PETA, I'll take anything more about them to BR. You're right, they're controversial, and extended discussion of them risks turning unfriendly. In general, though, it's, IMO, the age old argument of what tactics are right to bring about social change and how far is too far. Was listening to NPR coming in and they had an interview with the author of a new book Blessed be the Peacemakers who was talking about the 8 clergymen (and back then they were all men) who wrote the letter to which King responded in his Letter from Birmingham City Jail, a letter which was extraordinarily formative in my thinking, coming out as it did when I was just 19 and fully flushed with youthful enthusiasm and absolutism. The eight were, essentially, all in favor of the principles of the civil rights movement, but were gradualists, arguing for time for the segregationists to be changed in their hearts. That's simplistic, but good enough for here. What I hadn't known at the time was that Kings's letter was actually not written for them at all (he didn't even send them copies!) but he used their letter as a basis for laying out mostly for the media his principles and beliefs, which he did brilliantly. King, of course, was in that issue vindicated; if he had adopted gradualism I suspect we would still have segregated facilities in many parts of the country. Anyhow, the point is that I think most of us her are against intentional cruelty to animals, believe in kindness and respect for all living creatures (except for mosquitoes, ticks, fleas, rats, cockroaches, and a few other scourges), but that the difference is in the degree of extremism with which we hold those beliefs and act on them. Another similar group, IMO, is Sea Shepherd. They recently moved their headquarters here to Friday Harbor, for which I am sorry. You can't live in the islands without being an environmentalist, but sinking ships because you believe they are engaged in illegal (or sometimes legal) whaling is, for me at least, going way too far. (As is spiking trees, etc.) We're back to the question nobody has yet answered, when is force (which can be moral, economic as well as physical) both necessary and appropriate to bring about societal change, and when are dialogue and suasion the best course?