[Wolves] I'm back!

[Old Dan]

Jono Bacon wrote:
> Ow do Dan,
Hawwow Jono
> 
>>You're condemning some people who have had the guts
>>to stand up to the 
>>system in order to try and stop genocide from taking
>>place.  I didn't 
>>mean you were directly condoning genocide, I meant
>>it was implicit.
> 
> Implicity can go to every level, and levels you would
> not agree with. If you say that I condone genocide
> because I dont support breaking the law in relation to
> it, then you could say that we all support genocide,
> racism, rape, peadophilia and other scurges of the
> world because we are not actively fighting it.
Nope.  There is a huge difference between not actively fighting 
something, and condemning those that do - people who happen to break 
some rules (which were silly to begin with and effectively get changed 
because of those actions).

  I don't
> feel this is implicit - it is no way connected - just
> because I don't agree with that route to fight
> genocide does not mean that I do not agree to the
> fight of genocide.
In spite of the fact it worked?  You'd prefer it if the planes went to 
Indonesia and we just stuck with entirely legal means, and the lives 
taken by the 24 bombers which would have gone to Indonesia got taken so 
we(as a nation) could sit back and just say 'well *I* followed the 
rules, no flies on me, mister!'

>>Have you ever heard of self-defence?  Well, I think
>>this instance should 
>>fall under that category.  The fact that the people
>>being defended are 
>>thousands of miles away shouldn't come into it.
> 
> As stated previously I agree with breaking the law to
> an extent in terms of self defence and again this is a
> cloudy area. Remember though this is not SELF defence,
> this is the defence of the rights of other people.
No, not *rights*, Jono.  Get it right.  This was a warplane - we're 
talking LIVES.

...and yes, self-defence as a defence in court when answering charges of 
manslaughter etc does not have to mean yourself - it *can* mean defence 
of another person.

  Do
> you feel it is right to make decisions for these other
> people or do you feel this is dicatorial?
Do you think anyone's asked them?  You think BAe or whoever has sent 
some bloke with a clipboard to East Timor to say 'Do you think we should 
sell warplanes to the Indonesian government so they can use them to drop 
bombs on you?  Please tick yes or no'...

  As in the
> case with the war in Iraq, many viewed the
> "liberation" as a good thing and many did not - it is
> not clear cut - although it makes sense to help people
> because they seem oppressed, sometimes the actual
> people have different views on it. I don't know what
> to think on this to be honest - there are so many
> different ways of looking at it and every way is
> hypocrytical - they all conflict in some way.
It's funny you should mention that, actually - considering your stout 
defence of the law, IIRC you actually supported the war (at least at one 
point) didn't you?

Well, that war was /illegal/ under international law.  No, resolution 
1441 which the hawks always seem to cite *wasn't* clearance.
> 
>>What if Linux were being sold by, say, Red Hat, with
>>pre-configured 
>>k1dd13 h4x0r t00lz to a known DDoS hacker who had
>>this charming fixation 
>>with targetting hospitals to try to hurt and kill
>>people, and you knew 
>>where this 'Red Hat Hurt & Kill Linux v9.0' was
>>being stored?
> 
> This is not my point - I am saying, if there were some
> people who just did not like Linux in its current
> form, do you support the breaking of crime towards us?
Of course not, silly.  :)  We aren't hurting or killing anyone.

We also aren't hurting or killing anyone *and being ignored or even 
encouraged by the authorities who should be doing something about us*.

> Where does the line draw in terms of race? Do the BNP
> have a right to break the law just because they have a
> view of how htis country should be run?
Nope.  I could argue the right of anti-fascists to (to a limited extent) 
bend or break some laws in their fight against the BNP, though, since 
there is a mountain of evidence that when these charming individuals 
*do* raise their ugly heads people tend to get hurt.  Lots.

But that's an argument for another time.  :)

  If someone
> does not like the colour of my front door should it be
> destroyed by people - is that acceptable?
See 'Of course not, silly...' above.

   Although
> many of these are answers, many are not and the
> intention of the law is to create a generic structure
> for order - it is not perfect - I know that, but
> neither are people - if you condone breaking the law
> for one thing and not another, anarchy will break
> loose.
Actually, no I don't think so.  I think you underestimate the human race 
- most people can tell right from wrong, irrespective of what the law says.
> 
> In any case, we are not living in a free society - we
> have to be democratic over here and we have no option
> to not be - if we don't like our government we have to
> be governed by them, a factor that we have to live
> with.
That's true, but that doesn't stop us using our democratic rights to 
protest - there is a sad fact that protests tend not to get noticed 
unless they *do* break the law, or are too huge to ignore.
> 
> Nothing is perfect (apart from me *snigger*), and
> although it is great to discuss things like this, be
> prepared for everyone to be right and wrong as there
> is no clear definition of The Right Thing (TM).
Well quite.
> 
> Right, I need a cheese toastie. :)
<homer>
Mmmmmmmm, cheeeeeeeeeeesssssseeeeeeee 
toooooooaaaaassttttiiiiieeeeeeeeeee.........
</homer>

<dan>
Mmmmmmmm, Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrr......
</dan>  :)

-- 
Dan