Chuck0 writes:
> No, I don't "like" violence and destruction . .
In a previous post you wrote: "I like violence and destruction." I am merely quoting you.
> . . . nor do I desire these things out of some hedonistic impulse.
Can a person ever know ALL the reasons she desires something?
> As friends who know me can attest, I am not a violent or
destructive person.
Which was my impression.
> However, I do support the use of violence and destruction for
political reasons.
I know you reject moralism, so I wonder how to you differentiate between political reasons which justify violence and destruction and those which do not? Our enemies possess political reasons (different though they are) just as we do. Under your doxology, their use of violence and destruction is as valid as ours.
> This is a conclusion that I arrived at after years of experience as
an activist and after thinking about what kinds of social change are
effective.
I ask again: do you have an example of a time when using violence and destruction (even in your personal life) achieved a better state of affairs?
> That's what works for me. Brian is opposed to violence and
destruction. I can live with that. Whatever floats your boat.
Being both a humanist and a Buddhist I have found it hard to carve an exception whereby violence/destruction is regarded as acceptable when I employ it, but unacceptable when engaged in by others. As an advocate for violence/destruction for political reasons, how do you deal with this conundrum?
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister
P.S.:
Sujeet noted:
> Or, in other words, being fucked in Mumbai is a shade different
from being fucked in Manhattan!
It all depends on the shape/size of the cock/dildo, the talent of the wielder, and the size/elasticity of the orifice.