Do you see the flaw in the reasoning? If not, you'd probably do well to keep quiet about it.
MM
>>> Jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk 05/12/02 17:32 PM >>>
Subject: Unstable Greens
From: Michael McIntyre <mmcintyr at depaul.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 13:10:59 -0500
Michael McIntyre <mmcintyr at depaul.edu> caricatures my point about Greens. But he is really getting carried away with himself:
"Step One: Find someone with an ideology who has committed some heinous act."
Like George W Bush for example
"Step Two: Find some homology between that outlier's ideology and the act."
Like the 'war against terrorism' and support for undemocratic regimes
"Step Three: Suggest that the ideology caused the act, and that therefore anyone subscribing to that ideology is likely to act similarly."
Like the assumption of an overriding military objective that subordinates democratic niceties.
But according to Michael's ratiocination it is quite illegitimate to draw a link between someone's beliefs and their actions.
My original argument was that environmentalists tend to denigrate the official democratic process ('too slow, corrupt', to hold humanity in contempt ('consumers, polluters') and to hold the law of conscience higher than any popular mandate ('direct action').
That's a heady mix of beliefs that makes assassination, death threats, violence, vandalism all allowable, and, unrestrained by any need to convince a wider audience of the plausibility of your cause. The record of instability is hardly one or two, but now numbering in scores of incidences.
Of course Michael is right. This is not an argument about statistics, its an argument about politics, but I'd be delighted to see the statistics text book that shows that beliefs have no influence on actions. -- James Heartfield The 'Death of the Subject' Explained is available at GBP11.00, plus GBP1.00 p&p from Publications, audacity.org, 8 College Close, Hackney, London, E9 6ER. Make cheques payable to 'Audacity Ltd'