Comments on: Gov. Douglas gets just desserts

By: scherpschutter

scherpschutter — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:17:29 +0000

In a democracy the State has the prerogative on violence. Problems begin when the State is no longer trusted or accepted by its subjects. In case of a revolution, things are clear – at least to those who started (or support) it. There’s a grey area for those who don’t want to start (or support) a revolution, but still don’t trust or accept the State (the authorities, the Powers that be etc.). I have the idea that this is the case for wdh3 (and many other Americans). Difficult. I don’t have all the answers. I guess this comes down to one’s personal ethics. I’m not a pacifist, by the way.
I’ll talk about Islam in another post.

By: J.D. Ryan

J.D. Ryan — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:53:26 +0000

I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one, scherp. Two things (and I’m not insinuating/implying anything on the first one, just curious)….

Other than self-defense, are there any other instances where you find violence acceptable?

Tell me more about this Islam discussion you participated in. Was this something recent? You and I have discussed the Islamic immigrant conflicts in Europe a few times, is it just as prevalent in Belgium as it seems to be in the UK?

By: scherpschutter

scherpschutter — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:43:50 +0000

If I’m attacked, I defend myself, sure, and I’m fully aware of the inherent violence of capitalism (and other isms) and the State. But these things are beyond the scope of this discussion, like wdh3 has said (btw: nice site you have). I was talking about the right of both homosexuals and right-wing politicians to have a parade (or take part in it) without being physically atacked. I know there’s a grey area. But let me put it this way: I have participated in several public discussions on Islam. My one and only condition (to the muslims who hosted these public discussions) was that my physical autonomy be respected. They were free to insult me, or to pray Allah to send me to hell – no problem at all. But if somebody is physically attacked during a public discussion, public discussions are no longer possible. That’s what I mean when I say that reason ends where violation of the human body begins.

By: JD Ryan

JD Ryan — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:39:37 +0000

If I got a face full of horse jizz, I’d be depressed as hell, too.

By: Brattlerouser

Brattlerouser — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:53:06 +0000

There was also the incident involving Matt Taibbi and a colleague from The eXile. They made a pie made filled with horse semen and threw it in the face of Mike Wines, who was the NYT Moscow bureau chief at the time. They got away with it. Legend has it, Wines suffered from some kind of depression and was reshuffled to some beat reporter back in the states. Hows that?

By: wdh3

wdh3 — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:53:47 +0000

“Reason ends where violation of the human body begins”
I mostly agree, but if someone is using their body to suggest or direct harm on others, they forfeit that right, in my opinion. As humanists, of course it should be our interest in seeing that no one is unduly harmed (um, hence the idea of being “for humans”); simultaneously, the violent aspects of the State are not going to be over-come (defended against) without a similar response. ”If I’m attacked and in danger, I will defend myself”. There’s a lot of grey area to explore, but certainly a case to be made about the inherent violence of capitalism and the State.
As for “what pies are acceptable and what cocktails are not” I don’t think it’s too hard: pies with knifes or other seriously harmful ingredients are at the least questionable; cocktails that fuck up anyone but the drinker are likewise.
Again, this all ignores conversations about the inherent violence of the State and capitalism itself (a real, physical threat to all of us), since that is probably beyond the scope of this conversation.