Boston Marathon: Is terrorism ever justified?

[amateur51]

Indeed.

And while I'm here, this other pearl of wisdom:

"The Extreme Left consists of those who are not prepared to work within the capitalist system but simply wish to destroy it by exploiting its weaknesses, and the most extreme of those by any means. There are various ideologies, but Marxism, to which some members here clearly adhere, is the most obvious."

... apart from being crassly inaccurate makes very little sense at all. It is passing strange that someone who apparently sets such store by dictionaries comes on here and delivers himself of offensive caricatures in place of definitions. Mark Twain's comment springs to mind: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

You gotta love that Mark Twain :ok: ...

"I love food - I eat nothing else"

"Work fascinates me - I could look at it for hours"

:biggrin:

[Serial_Apologist]

You gotta love that Mark Twain :ok: ...

"I love food - I eat nothing else"

"Work fascinates me - I could look at it for hours"

:biggrin:

Never the Twain shall (we) meet.

[Padraig]

Never the Twain shall (we) meet.

He's not dead, is he?

[scottycelt]

Which dictionary defines "Anarchists" in this way?

It is a crass misrepresentation of what any Anarchist I have ever met believes in or how they behave. Try "Catholics are Catholics. They tend to wave incence, wear red cassocks and abuse children in Foster Homes" - your caricature was as offensive as that, scotty. Anarchists are people from a vast range of backgrounds who believe that individuals are quite capable of making their own decisions and do not need elected "representatives" to speak for them. They respect rules (where these are formed by groups people for the benefit of people) but despise the idea of "Rulers" (by which I don't mean measuring implements no matter what your dictionary might say) because no individual has the right to tell any other individual what is best for them. That is what "Anarchy" means: "without a leader / without leaders" - look it up!

Of course, there are some people who behave as you suggest and call themselves Anarchists, just as there are Catholics who behave in the caricatured way that I suggested above. But the popular misconception of a profound socio-political array of beliefs is perhaps why we might be having such difficulty understanding each other on this Thread.

Don't be so silly, ferney ... you know perfectly well my post wasn't 'offensive'. I could easily describe a section of yours as such but I'm not easily offended. In truth, it was your own reply which was much more the usual 'defensive' nonsense we often hear from some on the Left.

Of course, anarchists don't have to wave red and black flags, but when someone calls him/herself an 'anarchist' I take them at their word. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (pace, amateur51!) an 'anarchist' believes in ...

a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems:
absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

And like all belief systems its promoters have their very own flags and banners ...

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

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ana...w=1680&bih=913

If people who call themselves 'anarchists' don't really subscribe to 'anarchy' maybe they should simply find a more accurate and appropriate label for themselves?

[Richard Barrett]

you know perfectly well my post wasn't 'offensive' (...) the usual 'defensive' nonsense we often hear from some on the Left.

He's in a deep hole and he just keeps on digging. You have to admire it in a way.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Don't be so silly, ferney ... you know perfectly well my post wasn't 'offensive'. I could easily describe a section of yours as such but I'm not easily offended. In truth, it was your own reply which was much more the usual 'defensive' nonsense we often hear from some on the Left.

Don't be dim, scotty ... the offensiveness of your definition of an "anarchist" is in no way mitigated by your ignorance of what you speak. And, yes, my description of Catholics was insultingly offensive and deliberately so - to demonstrate the crassness of your own prejudices. And yes, I was being "defensive" - to the extent that you were attacking a group of people of whose behaviour you know nothing, such a "defence" was necessary. You seem to regard this as a weakness.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary ... an 'anarchist' believes in ...

1) a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems:
2) absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Your use of the dictionary is as wilfully slovenly as your ignorance of political history is woefully vast. The former is not a definition of "an anarchist" but one of the definitions of "anarchy" . The second is the OED definition, which corresponds to my own statement ...

Anarchists are people from a vast range of backgrounds who believe that individuals are quite capable of making their own decisions and do not need elected "representatives" to speak for them. They respect rules (where these are formed by groups people for the benefit of people) but despise the idea of "Rulers" (by which I don't mean measuring implements no matter what your dictionary might say) because no individual has the right to tell any other individual what is best for them. That is what "Anarchy" means: "without a leader / without leaders" - look it up!

You see the tiny script on page 77 of Volume One of the OED? (The bit right at the bottom of the third column next to the bold print Anarchy?) It says, quite clearly, "without a chief or head".

If people who call themselves 'anarchists' don't really subscribe to 'anarchy' maybe they should simply find a more accurate and appropriate label for themselves?

They may not "subscribe" to your limited ideas of what it is, but I don't think that worries them overgreatly. They would no doubt have quite a few choice "accurate and appropriate labels" to describe you, on the other hand.

[amateur51]

Ferney, your patience is truly outstanding :ela::ok::hug:

[scottycelt]

Don't be dim, scotty ... the offensiveness of your definition of an "anarchist" is in no way mitigated by your ignorance of what you speak. And, yes, my description of Catholics was insultingly offensive and deliberately so - to demonstrate the crassness of your own prejudices. And yes, I was being "defensive" - to the extent that you were attacking a group of people of whose behaviour you know nothing, such a "defence" was necessary. You seem to regard this as a weakness.


Your use of the dictionary is as wilfully slovenly as your ignorance of political history is woefully vast. The former is not a definition of "an anarchist" but one of the definitions of "anarchy" . The second is the OED definition, which corresponds to my own statement ...



You see the tiny script on page 77 of Volume One of the OED? (The bit right at the bottom of the third column next to the bold print Anarchy?) It says, quite clearly, "without a chief or head".


They may not "subscribe" to your limited ideas of what it is, but I don't think that worries them overgreatly. They would no doubt have quite a few choice "accurate and appropriate labels" to describe you, on the other hand.

So reading between the lines of your needlessly aggressive post what you are really saying is that some anarchists do not actually believe in anarchy? Anarchy means no rulers, no government. If some anarchists believe that they should appoint rulers to replace the current lot then they cannot possibly be anarchists.

Thank you for being deliberately offensive. I have no prejudices in the matter other than stating the rather obvious (at least to the Great Ignorami) that an Anarchist believes in Anarchy, a Catholic in Catholicism and a Communist in Communism. If not, the English language is suddenly in deep trouble.

Frankly, I'm not in the slightest interested what 'choice' names some anarchists might call me . They can call me whatever they like. Maybe it's bit too revolutionary for even you but I'll still continue to call an anarchist an anarchist. And, yes, some of them do wave red and black flags.

If you consider the very mention of anarchists flaunting such banners is 'offensive' take it up with the offending anarchists, not me!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

scotty, dear, I'll try one last time: these ones are small, but the ones out there are far away.

[Bryn]

You gotta love that Mark Twain :ok: ...



"Work fascinates me - I could look at it for hours"

:biggrin:

Jerome K. Jerome, I think you will find. http://www.twowheelforum.com/images/smilies/doh.gif

[amateur51]

Jerome K. Jerome, I think you will find. http://www.twowheelforum.com/images/smilies/doh.gif

Oops :blush:

[scottycelt]

Ferney, your patience is truly outstanding :ela::ok::hug:

I suppose it all depends on one's definitions of 'patience' and 'outstanding'. As you don't believe in dictionaries, I can only assume your own definitions differ sharply from those widely and commonly used by the population at large.

As the old saying goes, 'if it looks like a duck, it probably is a duck'. Of course, the odd individual might well prefer to call it a jumbo-jet. :winkeye:

[Richard Barrett]

The Extreme Left consists of those who are not prepared to work within the capitalist system but simply wish to destroy it by exploiting its weaknesses, and the most extreme of those by any means.

Which dictionary does this come from?

[amateur51]

I suppose it all depends on one's definitions of 'patience' and 'outstanding'. As you don't believe in dictionaries, I can only assume your own definitions differ sharply from those widely and commonly used by the population at large.

As the old saying goes, 'if it looks like a duck, it probably is a duck'. Of course, the odd individual might well prefer to call it a jumbo-jet. :winkeye:

Scotty, you tedious pedant you, I love dictionaries but I don't let their contents rule my life as you seem to do. Ferney has been so patient with you but no, you have to struggle and wriggle and 'be right'. Give us all a break, eh? :erm::

[amateur51]

As the old saying goes, 'if it looks like a duck, it probably is a duck'. Of course, the odd individual might well prefer to call it a jumbo-jet. :winkeye:

You seem to have got hold of the wrong end of this particular stick, scotty.

It goes something more like 'if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck'

Your definition seems to have come from a children's dictionary (and not very demanding children at that!) :laugh: