I guess you could look at it both ways. But it would seem to me that he is putting the onus on someone in this case.
I think it is a nice distinction Ann is making in either fighting for a cause, or being willing to die, if something isn't changed in a manner you want to see it changed. For my money, if someone wants to die for a cause, as in starving them self, then more power to them. But more often than not, it never seems to go the distance. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote: Ann, I don't think that guy is putting an onus on anyone. He seems like a very courageous person to me, taking responsibility for his own beliefs, as wrong as I think they are. But I could be incorrect, as I've found it's difficult to really know people's complete selves without knowing them in person. On Monday, January 6, 2014 11:14 AM, "awoelflebater@..." <awoelflebater@...> wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote: Seraphita, I support gay marriage and I don't feel emotionally blackmailed by the guy who's starving himself to death to protest it. IMO emotional blackmail occurs when there is a personal relationship between the people involved. To some degree, I agree with you. Emotional blackmail is the threat of something, like saying you will commit suicide or, in this case, starve yourself to death if someone doesn't comply with some demand you are making, or change something that you want changed. It is a sort of brinkmanship in the worst sense of the word but I can't say I would go so far as Seraphita in saying they should be allowed to die. I don't think it is that simple and I actually believe some causes are worth dying for, but not necessarily in that way. Because to threaten to kill oneself if something doesn't change in the way the threatener wants, is to put the onus on the one who doesn't change this thing. To die fighting for a cause is different; one consciously undertakes some action, without putting any onus or responsibility on others if one were to die, in order to uphold a principal or belief one feels strongly about. Presumably if they die upholding it they are not going to blame anyone else for their choice to have put their life on the line. In the US suffragettes jailed for their beliefs went on hunger strikes and were force fed as a result. Would you say you support such action? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 6:09 PM, "s3raphita@..." <s3raphita@...> wrote: People who starve themselves to make a political point should be ignored and allowed to die. I detest people who use emotional blackmail to get their points across. We were given the gift of rationality so let's use it. Give me reasons why Position X is preferable to Position Y and I'll either agree with you or offer counter-arguments. The only possible situation in which the threat of self-starvation is (maybe) justified is one in which the state doesn't allow people free expression of their views. That doesn't apply in the UK or USA.