Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: Lost posts by me on Sartre and Communism

Expand Messages
  • tom
    Irvhal Tom Paine almost got executed himself as he campaigned against the execution of the deposed French king. Thomas Jefferson came to Paris and was able to
    Message 1 of 86 , Apr 26, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Irvhal

      Tom Paine almost got executed himself as he campaigned against the execution of the deposed French king. Thomas Jefferson came to Paris and was able to get his buddy Paine released from the prison he'd been thrown into for protesting the upcoming execution of the deposed monarch. Paine was an enemy of monarchy, but had compassion for deposed monarches.

      Peace
      Tom
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: irvhal
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 2:26 PM
      Subject: [existlist] Re: Lost posts by me on Sartre and Communism



      As Camus noted in "The Rebel," "A revolution is not worth dying for unless it assures the immediate suppression of the death penalty; not worth going to prison for unless it refuses in advance to pass sentence without fixed terms." Otherwise we indulge either the arrogance of absolutism, or in the case of settling scores with the ideologically impure, what Freud called the nacissism of small differences.

      Irvin

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
      >
      > Mary
      >
      > To the extent that dictators know that being deposed will result in execution they have more incentive to be even more despotic, like a rat in a corner. I have heard it said that ww2 might have ended 3 years earlier if not for the allies demand for unconditional surrender.For all the German and Japanes people knew surrender might have resulted in the old style of killing every man, woman and child, all animals, and salting the land to prevent anything growing for many years.
      >
      > Peace
      > Tom
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Mary
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 5:51 PM
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Lost posts by me on Sartre and Communism
      >
      >
      >
      > Jim,
      >
      > Your position is very much like Camus, and one I've also struggled with. I discovered that even Camus had some collaborators he would condemn to death, if they were responsible for the deaths of his friends. It's a difficult subject, and I tend to agree with you, but also with Camus in allowing for the possibility of exceeding limits where limits have been succeeded.
      >
      > Mary
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Mary,
      > >
      > > Yes, yes - I very much agree with your first two sentences.
      > >
      > > For myself, I would rather have "truth and reconciliation" rather than "post-war political purges". And life-time prison sentences rather than executions for criminals.
      > >
      > > A flurry of executions is not a good way to start a new dawn.
      > >
      > > Anyway it is good to see you putting up some resistence to the general tone of nihilism and cynicism in recent posts.
      > >
      > > Jim
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Bill,
      > > >
      > > > You know I'm naive about military matters but am a huge advocate of the bottom-up approach. I realize government-business does nothing out of charity, but it would be so nice if just once, these fledgling democracies were assisted rather than exploited for political or economic advantage. I don't have a problem with executing dictators as part of post-war political purges, if both they and their collaborators have fair trials.
      > > >
      > > > Mary
      > > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mary
      Hi Jim and Herman, I m glad to see your suggestions, Herman, are more moderate this time around. However, Jim, sensing these unnatural population curbs are not
      Message 86 of 86 , May 2, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Jim and Herman,

        I'm glad to see your suggestions, Herman, are more moderate this time around. However, Jim, sensing these unnatural population curbs are not quick enough for Bill's tastes either, I'm thinking three children per couple is too high and not compensatory enough for our over consumption. For the most part I agree with both of you, and apologize for blurting out statistics concerning birth defects, infertility, and autism out of context. Not able to find solid numbers on autism worldwide, I can only assume they're rising like the infertility and birth defect rates which are higher in developing countries because health care and pollution are worse. I'll not bother with my usual breast beating, because I love my children more than my own life.

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Jim,
        >
        > On 1 May 2011 22:16, Jim <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > Hi Herman,
        > >
        > > I completely agree with you that we should all be engaging in the issue of
        > > sustainable living, given such facts as world population increase and
        > > climate change due to carbon emissions.
        > >
        > > Perhaps you are retreating from your radical position of your February 2010
        > > posts. If so, I should be pleased to hear of your modified position.
        > >
        >
        > If anything, I have become more resolved in my position. I am just doing
        > what I can to make the tide appear as though I command it :-)
        >
        >
        > Anyway I have been thinking of my own position, and I would favour the
        > > introduction of legislation in the UK along these lines:
        > >
        > > New Law: It is only permitted for women to give birth to three children,
        > > and it is only permitted for men to be the registered father to three
        > > children. If a child dies before the age of eighteen, another child is
        > > permitted to the parents concerned.
        > >
        > > No problems here from me. And probably far more implementable than anything
        > I can suggest.
        >
        > I think the problems with fertility and reproduction arise where women are
        > not in charge of that. The origin of that problem does remain with men, in
        > so far as women are for them fuck-things, and goods and chattel. I suggest
        > here that this has both cultural and genetic bases. We can do nothing in the
        > short term about the genetics, but plenty about the culture.
        >
        > There are plenty of -isms that trade in keeping women as fuck-things and
        > goods and chattel. While we are taught, and accept, that it is important to
        > be nice people, tolerance for institutions that would have half the
        > population of the world at the disposal of the other half has to be
        > undermined.
        >
        > We won't need to sterilise everyone, only some men. And if that proves too
        > difficult (just see how hard it was to catch Osama), identify and agitate
        > without reservation against those -isms that would preserve the natural
        > order. You have identified some already eg Catholics and Muslims, and more
        > than half of those are women, mind you. Like I said, the problem is complex
        > :-)
        >
        >
        >
        > Such a law would not be as strong as the legislation in China, but given the
        > > UK population is not rising very fast, I think a law along the lines I
        > > propose would result in a slight decline in the population here.
        > >
        > >
        > I think the UK population is not rising fast, because women in the UK have
        > more control over reproduction than in, say, Africa. And I think the
        > legislation does work in China and would not elsewhere, because we have
        > tolerance for religious institutions built into our legal framework, and
        > they don't.
        >
        >
        >
        > > I think it is most important that the developed countries (Europe, US,
        > > Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc.) introduce such a law, as we are the
        > > countries with the largest carbon footprint per person.
        > >
        > > No doubt the Catholics and the Muslims would object to such a law, but I
        > > agree with you that certain freedoms do need to be curtailed by law for the
        > > sake of the future of civilisation and the survival of the human species.
        > >
        >
        > Yes, we agree.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Cheers
        >
        >
        > Herman
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > > Jim
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.