Boston Marathon: Is terrorism ever justified?

[DavidP]

TS, you are right to assess as containing generalisations. But let's look at those generalisations and see whether or not they are largely justified. For I;m sure you'll agree that generalisations don't undermine arguments per se - they only do that if they are patently inacurate.

Here's what I stated (though I've broken it down into the main points and numbered them, for convenience of referral.

1 Authority, to the hard left and to anarchists, is by definition a bad thing and to be opposed.

2 The police must have been in the wrong, because to these people they always are, simply because they represent "authority".

3 The general ideology under which most anarchists operate are as follows:

a) If the police detain a criminal, they infringe his rights.
b) If the police kill a criminal, they are murderers.
c) If the police fail to catch a criminal, they are incompetent.


4 if you had read various posts on here over the years, you would have found that ... whatever crime is committed, whatever criminal is involved, somebody pops up with some excuse or some defence of the criminal.

5. The only exception, so far, as far as I remember, has been Jimmy Savile.

Now, I accept that point 3 was pushing it a bit and there may well be exceptions to that, but I think that most unbiased observers will hold the validity of the others, especially 1 and 2. 4 is certainly very clearly accurate.

I'm always, though, ready to be shown I'm in error, by properly reasoned argument!

Instead of simply repeating the same generalisations you need to be more specific if you want your arguments to be taken seriously. Can you define the "hard left" for us and tell us who the anarchists are in this case?

[ahinton]

1 Authority, to the hard left and to anarchists, is by definition a bad thing and to be opposed.

Who has decided - and how can you prove that they have all decided - that the "hard left" disapprove and support the opposition of all authority? Who are the "hard left" and what defines them and distinguishes them from everyone else. If this "hard left" disapproves of all authority, they would have to disapprove of their own, surely? Anarchists are generally anti-authority, but that's by definition, so it's your sweeping and vague generalisation about the "hard left" that I question here.

2 The police must have been in the wrong, because to these people they always are, simply because they represent "authority".

Whilst that, as you and I both know, is a nonsense, the very point of "authority" is that with it comes not only rights and powers but also responsibilities; furthermore, the police are no less likely to commit errors of misjudgement than any of the rest of us but, as with all others in authority, they must be accountable for their actions and decisions, good and bad, to their paymasters whom they are charged to serve.

3 The general ideology under which most anarchists operate are as follows:

Ah, now it's only "most" anarchists - and the "hard left" now seem conveniently to have gone off to do something else...

a) If the police detain a criminal, they infringe his rights.

That's not true, as well you know; when the police detain someone, it has not yet been determined that the detained person is a criminal and he/she are not to be regarded as a criminal until charges have been issued against him/her and, even then, the detained person is still not a criminal in the eyes of the law until he/she has been tried and convicted of a crime or crimes. What the police do when they detain someone is restrict his/her freedom temporarily and there are, as well you know, legal limits to the extent to which they are permitted to do this unless and until charges are brought.

b) If the police kill a criminal, they are murderers.

Again, not only is that not necessarily true, it is in itself no different for the police than for anyone else; if someone - whether or not he/she is part of the police force - kills someone, a variety of conditions might be applied to that taking of life, including negligence, accident, manslaughter and, yes, murder, but the fact that these are all widely different conditions means that, as not all killing is murder, no one who kills anyone is a murderer by definition and, in any case, they are none of these things until they've been charged, tried and convicted.

c) If the police fail to catch a criminal, they are incompetent.

Well, sometimes that is demonstrably the case, though not necessarily always. Again, it's important to appreciate that the police are not only not above the law but also that they are not above making mistakes and not above being incompetent from time to time.

4 if you had read various posts on here over the years, you would have found that ... whatever crime is committed, whatever criminal is involved, somebody pops up with some excuse or some defence of the criminal.

I have done this and cannot agree with you; that said, the commission of a crime and being charged with and convicted of a crime does not exonerate the police, the judiciary or indeed anyone else professionally involved from the responsibilities with which their paymsters charge them - in other words, the fact of the commission of murder does not and indeed cannot of itself mean that the police, judiciary et al can do no wrong in the arrest, detention, charging, trying and convicting of a criminal accused of that crime.

[QUOTE=Simon;289198]5. The only exception, so far, as far as I remember, has been Jimmy Savile.[/I]
Then your memory clearly lets you down.

Now, I accept that point 3 was pushing it a bit and there may well be exceptions to that, but I think that most unbiased observers will hold the validity of the others, especially 1 and 2. 4 is certainly very clearly accurate.

You seem quite fond of speaking for others without asking them first.

I'm always, though, ready to be shown I'm in error, by properly reasoned argument!

Ah, well that's all right, then!

I blame that Bartók, meself...

[MrGongGong]

Instead of simply repeating the same generalisations you need to be more specific if you want your arguments to be taken seriously. Can you define the "hard left" for us and tell us who the anarchists are in this case?

I'm quite keen on the anarchists
they seem to be very good at getting things done efficiently in my recent experience .....

[DavidP]

[QUOTE=ahinton;289300]Who has decided - and how can you prove that they have all decided - that the "hard left" disapprove and support the opposition of all authority? Who are the "hard left" and what defines them and distinguishes them from everyone else. If this "hard left" disapproves of all authority, they would have to disapprove of their own, surely? Anarchists are generally anti-authority, but that's by definition, so it's your sweeping and vague generalisation about the "hard left" that I question here.


Whilst that, as you and I both know, is a nonsense, the very point of "authority" is that with it comes not only rights and powers but also responsibilities; furthermore, the police are no less likely to commit errors of misjudgement than any of the rest of us but, as with all others in authority, they must be accountable for their actions and decisions, good and bad, to their paymasters whom they are charged to serve.


Ah, now it's only "most" anarchists - and the "hard left" now seem conveniently to have gone off to do something else...


That's not true, as well you know; when the police detain someone, it has not yet been determined that the detained person is a criminal and he/she are not to be regarded as a criminal until charges have been issued against him/her and, even then, the detained person is still not a criminal in the eyes of the law until he/she has been tried and convicted of a crime or crimes. What the police do when they detain someone is restrict his/her freedom temporarily and there are, as well you know, legal limits to the extent to which they are permitted to do this unless and until charges are brought.


Again, not only is that not necessarily true, it is in itself no different for the police than for anyone else; if someone - whether or not he/she is part of the police force - kills someone, a variety of conditions might be applied to that taking of life, including negligence, accident, manslaughter and, yes, murder, but the fact that these are all widely different conditions means that, as not all killing is murder, no one who kills anyone is a murderer by definition and, in any case, they are none of these things until they've been charged, tried and convicted.


Well, sometimes that is demonstrably the case, though not necessarily always. Again, it's important to appreciate that the police are not only not above the law but also that they are not above making mistakes and not above being incompetent from time to time.


I have done this and cannot agree with you; that said, the commission of a crime and being charged with and convicted of a crime does not exonerate the police, the judiciary or indeed anyone else professionally involved from the responsibilities with which their paymsters charge them - in other words, the fact of the commission of murder does not and indeed cannot of itself mean that the police, judiciary et al can do no wrong in the arrest, detention, charging, trying and convicting of a criminal accused of that crime.

5. The only exception, so far, as far as I remember, has been Jimmy Savile.[/I]
Then your memory clearly lets you down.


You seem quite fond of speaking for others without asking them first.


Ah, well that's all right, then!

I blame that Bartók, meself...

And "reasoned arguments" rely on the use of facts and evidence (however disputed) to back them up - Simon offers us neither. Until he defines what constitutes the "hard left" or who the "anarchists" are it is impossible to engage with him on any level.

So, come on Simon, offer us your definition of the "hard left" and "anarchism" so we can have this reasoned argument you claim to want. (And, by the way, answers which contain "the hard left are those who [insert whichever argument I, Simon, happen to dislike on this occasion] will be disallowed.)

[Simon]

Instead of simply repeating the same generalisations you need to be more specific if you want your arguments to be taken seriously. Can you define the "hard left" for us and tell us who the anarchists are in this case?

The usual tactic of those without argument - resort to "define... define..." :laugh: The other tactic is to ask further questions instead of answering. So you've managed both, DavidP. Well done.

As I stated, generalisations are only unjustified if they are inaccurate. So instead of diversions, how about a counter-argument? I'll show you how to do it...

Example:
To succeed in defeating my point, you need to show that my generalisation that "Authority, to the hard left and to anarchists, is by definition a bad thing and to be opposed" is incorrect.

This means that you need to find instances of anarchists and extreme left-wingers supporting the police and making favourable comments about authority.

The anticipation is almost thrilling... :smiley:

[teamsaint]

I'm quite keen on the anarchists
they seem to be very good at getting things done efficiently in my recent experience .....

I would imagine they have low overheads and fixed costs, Gongers.

(and in the case of the Chumbas, low variable costs these days:sadface:)

[MrGongGong]

The usual tactic of those without argument - resort to "define... define..." :laugh: The other tactic is to ask further questions instead of answering. So you've managed both, DavidP. Well done.

As I stated, generalisations are only unjustified if they are inaccurate. So instead of diversions, how about a counter-argument? I'll show you how to do it...

Example:
To succeed in defeating my point, you need to show that my generalisation that "Authority, to the hard left and to anarchists, is by definition a bad thing and to be opposed" is incorrect.

This means that you need to find instances of anarchists and extreme left-wingers supporting the police and making favourable comments about authority.

The anticipation is almost thrilling... :smiley:

Simon you daft goat
you are STILL stuck in the ridiculous idea that conversations are somehow competitions that you can win or lose.......... :laugh:

[amateur51]

The usual tactic of those without argument - resort to "define... define..." :laugh: The other tactic is to ask further questions instead of answering. So you've managed both, DavidP. Well done.

As I stated, generalisations are only unjustified if they are inaccurate. So instead of diversions, how about a counter-argument? I'll show you how to do it...

Example:
To succeed in defeating my point, you need to show that my generalisation that "Authority, to the hard left and to anarchists, is by definition a bad thing and to be opposed" is incorrect.

This means that you need to find instances of anarchists and extreme left-wingers supporting the police and making favourable comments about authority.

The anticipation is almost thrilling... :smiley:

How's about meeting people half-way Simon by defining who you mean by hard-left and anarchists with a contemporary example

[Pabmusic]

The usual tactic of those without argument - resort to "define... define..." :laugh: The other tactic is to ask further questions instead of answering. So you've managed both, DavidP. Well done...

No classical scholar of logic would have agreed with you. A common tactic among those who have flimsy arguments is to use a definition of something that differs from the other person's. It's a type of special pleading. Even if it's not done deliberately, it creates a fallacious argument if both parties do not agree on definitions. Seeking the definition the other person's using is quite the opposite of being a "usual tactic of those without argument", but rather something designed to make the argument meaningful.

[Simon]

A common tactic among those who have flimsy arguments is to use a definition of something that differs from the other person's.

But I haven't used a definition that differs from anybody else's. How could I - nobody else has provided a definition!

Seeking the definition the other person's using is quite the opposite of being a "usual tactic of those without argument", but rather something designed to make the argument meaningful.

Seeking a definition CAN be a way of taking an argument forward. Sadly, on many internet forums, and certainly in this thread on here, it is precisely as I described.

I was using the word "anarchist" and the concept of the "hard left" in a general sense that I think anyone with average intelligence and knowledge would accept, so I don't think it needs defining, but I'd be happy to accept any generally recognised and rational definition.

So to continue...

If you believe that anarchists and the hard left in general are supporters of the police and of "authority" in general, why not just say so?

I don't - which was one of my main points.

I'm happy for others to disagree, and if I'm wrong, then I'll admit it. But despite all kinds of posts and howls against me, nobody has actually yet written:

"Simon, you are wrong here, because... "

That's all I'm awaiting...

[scottycelt]

... A common tactic among those who have flimsy arguments is to use a definition of something that differs from the other person's..

Indeed ... and an even more recent common tactic among those who have flimsy arguments is to use a definition of something that differs from long-established and officially-recognised dictionaries ... :devil:

[Pabmusic]

Indeed ... and an even more recent common tactic among those who have flimsy arguments is to use a definition of something that differs from long-established and officially-recognised dictionaries ... :devil:

Oh dear! That's not what I mean at all, and I suspect you know it. A good example of what I'm saying would be the creationists' cry of "evolution is just a theory". There is a considerable difference between a scientific theory (the highest level of explanation, actually) and the colloquial 'theory' - a mere idea. The creationist makes his point based on one definition, the scientist answers based on another. If that is done deliberately (that is, usually) rational argument is meaningless.

What you are doing is objecting because it seems as the definition of one particular word is changing. Words are our servants, not our masters, and their meanings change constantly (look at the 180-degree change in the meaning of 'nice' over the last 400 years). 'Marriage' is no less prone to change than anything else.

In any case, there's already a thread for this elsewhere.

[MrGongGong]

I was using the word "anarchist" and the concept of the "hard left" in a general sense that I think anyone with average intelligence and knowledge would accept, so I don't think it needs defining, but I'd be happy to accept any generally recognised and rational definition.

That's a fail i'm afraid
Particularly if you insist on the stance (or elevated saddle ?) that treats "logic" as somehow what we should apply.
I don't think your idea of what an "anarchist" is would be in agreement with many (cue our Caledonian friend and his misunderstanding of anarchism )
as to "hard left" ? that has more to do with navigating a narrow boat into a small lock than anything else these days ........

Simon you are wrong here because you present opinion (Bartok ?) as fact

[french frank]

I was using the word "anarchist" and the concept of the "hard left" in a general sense that I think anyone with average intelligence and knowledge would accept, so I don't think it needs defining, but I'd be happy to accept any generally recognised and rational definition.

1. As I understand it (but I don't think I'm an anarchist, so may not understand it) there are various contexts in which the word could be used e.g. political philosophy or populist journalism. The importance of definition, in a discussion, is to understand exactly what you mean by it when you use it. It doesn't matter that you use it in a 'non standard' way, as long as everyone understands what you do mean by it. Otherwise discussion is impossible.

2. I don't think the term 'hard left' would be used at all by anyone of 'average intelligence and knowledge'. But if you do use it in a discussion, you should be able to supply a definition of what you mean by it. Preferably with examples...

[amateur51]

Oh dear! That's not what I mean at all, and I suspect you know it. A good example of what I'm saying would be the creationists' cry of "evolution is just a theory". There is a considerable difference between a scientific theory (the highest level of explanation, actually) and the colloquial 'theory' - a mere idea. The creationist makes his point based on one definition, the scientist answers based on another. If that is done deliberately (that is, usually) rational argument is meaningless.

What you are doing is objecting because it seems as the definition of one particular word is changing. Words are our servants, not our masters, and their meanings change constantly (look at the 180-degree change in the meaning of 'nice' over the last 400 years). 'Marriage' is no less prone to change than anything else.

In any case, there's already a thread for this elsewhere.

Many thanks for nipping our dictionary-obsessed friend's 'arguments' in the bud, Pabs. :ela::ok: