Re: Syndicate: moral responsibility

[ederic Madre <fmadre@wanadoo.fr>]

At 15:43 19/06/1999 -0400, t byfield wrote:
>for those of us who aren't in the know: where does it come from?

here, perhaps is a lead:
At 13:50 02/06/1999 -0400, t byfield wrote:
>Can violence be a legitimate recourse? once you've
>answered that for yourself, *then* the question *might* be-
>come: Did these circumstances merit the use of violence? 
>
>i think the answers are, in order, yes and no.

in short, it comes from a point of view which, to me, is not debatable be
cause it is a fundamental difvergence. in short, i think the answer to your
question is no.

hence, if you
>think the answers are, in order, yes and no.
the questions that arise from a false hypothesis or theorema can not be
answered by me.
you better talk to yourself. this is what I mean by confirmation.
my answers will never satisfy you no matter what the argumentation is.

>while i can't speak for others, *i* certainly don't know 'all of
>it.'
I meant, we've heard all the arguments. it boils down to 
At 13:50 02/06/1999 -0400, t byfield wrote:
>Can violence be a legitimate recourse?
no.

>it's very easy to glom onto some righteous and satisfying sense
>of outrage at what's happened, but it doesn't do a lot of good.
the sense of outrage existed right at the start, it existed before.
it still exists, 50 people died of death penaly in the USA this year.

you were not listening, when it was time, you had already answered
At 13:50 02/06/1999 -0400, t byfield wrote:
>Can violence be a legitimate recourse?
>yes

how can we make you say no ? I think it's too late, you and me are way too
old.

f.
------Syndicate mailinglist--------------------
 Syndicate network for media culture and media art
 information and archive: http://www.v2.nl/syndicate
 to unsubscribe, write to <syndicate-request@aec.at>
 in the body of the msg: unsubscribe your@email.adress