Eco-terrorismFollow

Has anyone heard of groups that do it? Otherwise I might start one.

The idea is pretty simple: We're heading towards disaster because of global warming. It's a matter of survival, if not for us, then for our kids or grand-kids. Since governments are slow to take real measures to curb pollution, it's up to citizens to increase the cost of pollution themselves.

So we start a movement. We do simple affirmative action to increase the real cost of polluting. It can range from simple measures, such as slashing the tyres of 4x4, to planting bombs that do damage to polluting property, such as factories or coal plants. You could do sit-ins, chain yourself to stuff, sabotage, hacking, lots of different actions which will in effect increase the cost of polluting.

Because we all know that money is what it comes down to. If governments don't want to increase the costs of polluting, isn't it up to the citizens to do so? Isn't it our duty, as responsible parents or future parents, to do precisely this? And isn't it ridiculously easy to do so, especially with tools such as the internet? And if done on a large scale, wouldn't it actually be quite effective? Not only would it raise awareness, it could eventually contribute to changing behaviour.

Of course, no damage would be done to people. Only to property. This is not about harming individuals, but purely about raising the cost of polluting through direct action. Legal or illegal.

I'd seriously consider if I was slightly less apathetic. And a bit more knowledgeable about climate change. And if I didn't have a job. And had more friends. And more money. And a bigger ego.

But still, I can see this happening in the future, and I'll be quite sympathetic to it. You?

No idea who that is but If I had to guess our leaders have plenty of files on me... after the arguments I've had on this forum, some for the good ones, but most with the bad ones when I'm raging.

I'd think that this would be a perfectly awesome life red, and I'd join with you, but I have to finish my damn degree and then I'm locked into a 12000$ debt for my "financial assistance."

Might be a great way to assert yourself against existence, that's for damn sure.

Edited, Apr 30th 2009 12:46pm by Pensive

Well... Houses is a bit far don't you think? Meh I'll come back when I'm a bit less high on the lithium/lexapro interaction.

The best way to get your point across, and to sway people into your ideals, is violence.

True story.

When in Pakistan...
Of course, we are not third-world
ELF missed the memo?

You best be trollin', son.



I've never understood this argument. The only reason they dropped the bomb was to secure unconditional surrender (and to warn off the Russians, but if you don't like bombing Dresden this is clearly not acceptable to you). This wasn't offered after the firest bomb, either. They were dropped by the same justification, and if the utilitarian argument held the first time it held the second time (although I think the utilitarian argument is pretty weak, considering how ludicrously low death estimates used to support it at the time were), because staging an invasion would not save the people they killed the first time.

It's more selective empathy, really.

Does barely human = barely deserving of human rights?

I'm not implying or assuming anything about the intent behind the statement. I'm asking a question.

I have a machine that kills only gays*, Nix. Don't make me deploy it.

* It's an ordinary telephone booth, only painted with rainbow colours. Oh, also, if you step inside, you die.

I think there is plenty you can do to work towards a more sustainable earth that isn't illegal and/or dangerous. Buy local, refuse packaging, reduce hours/mile of fossil fueled transportation, minimize use of the grid, get off the grid, go solar, quit eating cows, grow your own veggies, stop using petro-chemicals, etc, etc, etc,

If you are not doing all you can do it's pretty hypocritical to be forcing others, even big business, to do all they can do.

Do you realize that "all you can do" also names terrorism as an option? Are you now suddenly aware that there are multiple paths towards a goal and that certain paths are taken only by certain people?

You can't "do all you can do" without doing terrorist acts. They have a place and time just as reduce reuse recyle does.

So long as it is punished after the fact.

Look I linked it in another thread once already but I'll link it again

I can work my eco-terrorism at your house. I'll be by to slash your tires, threaten your kid when I see them eating a hot dog, and cut your power line. Address please?

I am sorry, but I have retracted those words, for while they were fun to type, they were not an accurate representation of what I was feeling.

To answer your question though. Rights aren't something that can be easily applied to things that you can't empathyze with. That's why we make rights at all, is because we realize that every other **** sapien out there is a lot like me, and I should feel happy and be their friend. We still have other rights categories though: animal rights... well that's about it really. A third category of "almost a human" should have rights very similar to, but possibly changed from typical human rights.

So, yes, in a sense, but I really don't like phrasing that way. Think about it like this.

It's much better to ask on a case by case or even category by category basis of whether or not something is worthy of moral consideration, and you don't have to be a human to get that. It stems from love man, and compassion. I feel something like what you're feeling and I direct moral consideration at you.

Once you're alive and can feel pain, you are worthy of moral consideration/