Ted Kaczinski aka Unabomber

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by ebacon

And that's . . . ridiculous.

The Declaration of Independence is a prime example of a few people that got so pissed off they couldn't stand themselves in substantial part because the King wouldn't hear them. And after they wrote it there was some fightin'.

Yeah, that's not anywhere near a parallel.
Ted's crimes were intended only to draw attention. The founders were revolting to gain independence.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

Yeah, that's not anywhere near a parallel.
Ted's crimes were intended only to draw attention. The founders were revolting to gain independence.

It's certainly to the point you initially made.

"Anyone who has to resort to violence and/ or terrorism to have their ideas heard, does not have anything worth hearing. IMO"

That's a blanket statement, covering any use of violence, not specific to Kaczinski.

John

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

Yeah, that's not anywhere near a parallel.
Ted's crimes were intended only to draw attention. The founders were revolting to gain independence.

Hmmmm...................

Kaczinski was a brilliant, yet disturbed malcontent. You're right, he was trying to draw attention, in all the wrong ways.

The Founders were seeking Independence from foreign rule, from being taxed by a foreign government that had ceased to allow them any say in governing, and unprecedented freedom for wealthy, causcasian males.....themselves, basically. The poor, female and non-whites, not so much.

Dave

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by Boreas

It's certainly to the point you initially made.

"Anyone who has to resort to violence and/ or terrorism to have their ideas heard, does not have anything worth hearing. IMO"

That's a blanket statement, covering any use of violence, not specific to Kaczinsky.

John

I disagree. My statement does not cover any use of violence. I specifically said "to have their ideas heard".
The founders were beyond caring who heard their message. They were implementing their ideas.
The Boston tea party is an example of their non-violent attempts at being heard.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

I disagree. My statement does not cover any use of violence. I specifically said "to have their ideas heard".
The founders were beyond caring who heard their message. They were implementing their ideas.
The Boston tea party is an example of their non-violent attempts at being heard.

No worries Was- the tar and feathers will clean off with some turpentine. So your hero is Gandhi?

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

Yeah, that's not anywhere near a parallel.
Ted's crimes were intended only to draw attention. The founders were revolting to gain independence.

I hear where you are coming from. Violence should never be an interim resort in a debate. At best it should be a last resort and even then the perp has to understand that if he can't do the time then don't do the crime. Most political arguments have been heard before and another person going apeshit won't sway public opinion one way or the other.

Where I disagree with you is on a narrow point, namely that if someone resorts to violence then they should be ignored.

I guess I see political violence as feedback. If someone is bothered enough by an issue then it behooves us, as self-governing people, to look into the matter and see if the perpetrator has a legitimate gripe. Sometimes perps do, sometimes they don't.

My understanding is that after the Civil War we granted amnesty to Confederate soldiers. That's basically an acknowledgement that they had a legitimate gripe.

On the other hand we have people such as abortion clinic bombers. We do not grant them amnesty simply because their gripe is illegitimate to the extent the government is ill equipped to address their concerns. All of us have to live with stuff that we disagree with.

I guess where I am developing a soft spot for Kaczynski is that he talks about stuff that I have also arrived at through independent thinking. As I gain more experience and knowledge through debating politics I have also learned that I am not alone in my train of thought. Examples include Luddites - I have thought about the concept but never heard of the word or the movement until arriving on AK. Now I see Kaczynski labelled as a neo-Luddite.

Another example is the idea of machinery ruling people instead of the other way around. The first time I heard of that concern was about fifteen years ago. A fellow patent attorney graduated from a Christian college and had focused his studies on the effects of technology on man. Apparently there are people that study that stuff. I never knew. Thoughts about the topic rolled around my head for years. As I studied Ayn Rand and her focus on inventorship and her ridiculous conclusion that inventors were inherently God's gift to society I also thought about machinery such a drones and the PATRIOT Act with its eased restrictions on eavesdropping on citizens. That stuff recently reminded me of Kaczynski.

Kaczynski's caution against machinery could also speak to our energy addiction, obesity problems, etc.

I'm tired and rambling. In any event I find Kaczynski's paper worthy of reading even though he resorted to violence.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by ebacon

My understanding is that after the Civil War we granted amnesty to Confederate soldiers. That's basically an acknowledgement that they had a legitimate gripe.

We stretched ol' Jeff Davis' neck for him.

Granting amnesty to opposing forces, except in the case of war criminals, is SOP. Winners don't want the responsibility for incarcerating hundreds of thousands of people in a newly conquered country or, in the case of the Civil War, a newly reunited country. The logistics are insane and you have an even more aggrieved and hostile population to deal with.

What Grant did at Appomattox Court House that was unusually magnanimous was to let the confederates keep their weapons and mounts. They'd need them to put food on the table. He may have allowed the officers there to keep their swords too.

John

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by ebacon

Another example is the idea of machinery ruling people instead of the other way around. The first time I heard of that concern was about fifteen years ago. A fellow patent attorney graduated from a Christian college and had focused his studies on the effects of technology on man. Apparently there are people that study that stuff. I never knew. Thoughts about the topic rolled around my head for years. As I studied Ayn Rand and her focus on inventorship and her ridiculous conclusion that inventors were inherently God's gift to society I also thought about machinery such a drones and the PATRIOT Act with its eased restrictions on eavesdropping on citizens. That stuff recently reminded me of Kaczynski.

Kaczynski's caution against machinery could also speak to our energy addiction, obesity problems, etc.

Have you pondered an economic system that no longer exists to serve the people, rather the people exist to serve it? Consider how this ties into your thoughts on technology and add an economic machine that cuts the "human factor" out of it's decision making process while operating with lightning speed, brutal and apathetic efficiency. The needs and inevitable frailty of the human element cut completely out of the equation.

As someone here once told me, "As harsh as it may sound, employees are really nothing more than machinery...."

Stick around a while and watch what happens as things evolve over the next few decades..................

Dave

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Boreas

We stretched ol' Jeff Davis' neck for him.

John

Mebbe we shoulda but ol' Jeff Davis died in 1889 in Biloxi at the plantation his sugah mama left him.It took him 20+ years to push for reconciliation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Mebbe we shoulda but ol' Jeff Davis died in 1889 in Biloxi at the plantation his sugah mama left him.It took him 20+ years to push for reconciliation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis

Who cares? I'm more worried about what's coming down the pike, than I am about what happened to that traitorous old prick.

Dave