Boston Marathon: Is terrorism ever justified?

[Bryn]

... As the old saying goes, 'if it looks like a duck, it probably is a duck'. ...

http://www.abc.net.au/schoolstv/anim...platypus_f.gif

[scottycelt]

Which dictionary does this come from?

Dictionaries generally confine themselves to single-word definitions but as part of the self-appointed Intelligentsia have you ever thought of trying WIKI ...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-left_politics

[Richard Barrett]

have you ever thought of trying WIKI ...?

Good idea, thanks for the link.

Wikipedia: "The far left seeks equality of outcome and the dismantlement of all forms of social stratification. Far leftists seek to abolish all forms of hierarchy, particularly the inequitable distribution of wealth and power. The far left seeks a society in which everyone is provided equal economic and social opportunities, and no one has excessive wealth or power over others."

Scottypedia: "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."

So you're really saying these two definitions are equivalent, right? :laugh:

[french frank]

I have no prejudices in the matter other than stating the rather obvious ... 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.

The good news is that the English language is not so imperilled. If a Communist believes in Communism (and a Catholic in Catholicism), an Anarchist believes in Anarchism, not 'anarchy' (which is a state or condition, like 'Heaven').

And if someone wants to know what Communism is (or Catholicism), they read a book on Communism (or Catholicism, depending which they want to know about): they don't consult a dictionary. Furthermore, teaching a foreign language demonstrates students' propensity for misusing dictionaries: Just because a dictionary defines a word in more than one way, it doesn't mean that, in every context, every definition applies. In similar vein, there are many shades of meaning to Anarchism: it is not necessary, in every case, for someone to wave a flag, daub symbols - or even engage in violence: they can be pacifists. Which is why fhg (forgive me if this was obvious) chose to define 'a Catholic' in a very narrow, derogatory way, to show that your definition of 'Anarchist' was similary narrow and derogatory.

There are loads of articles on Wikipedia about Anarchism, the History of Anarchism &c. which provide more information than a dictionary.

[Bryn]

I'm an anarchist, same as you are when you're telephoning, turning on/off the lights, drinking water.

[John Cage.]

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The good news is that the English language is not so imperilled. If a Communist believes in Communism (and a Catholic in Catholicism), an Anarchist believes in Anarchism, not 'anarchy' (which is a state or condition, like 'Heaven').

And if someone wants to know what Communism is (or Catholicism), they read a book on Communism (or Catholicism, depending which they want to know about): they don't consult a dictionary. Furthermore, teaching a foreign language demonstrates students' propensity for misusing dictionaries: Just because a dictionary defines a word in more than one way, it doesn't mean that, in every context, every definition applies. In similar vein, there are many shades of meaning to Anarchism: it is not necessary, in every case, for someone to wave a flag, daub symbols - or even engage in violence: they can be pacifists. Which is why fhg (forgive me if this was obvious) chose to define 'a Catholic' in a very narrow, derogatory way, to show that your definition of 'Anarchist' was similary narrow and derogatory.

There are loads of articles on Wikipedia about Anarchism, the History of Anarchism &c. which provide more information than a dictionary.

Thanks, frenchie. :smiley:

[DavidP]

No, what you mean by 'justified kicking' is the usual personal abuse directed against one particular member. It is not clever, serves no purpose and ruins proper debate.

People talk about the 'Far Right', 'capitalists' etc in pejorative terms. Also, many on the Left use words like 'racist', sexist', 'toffs' and much worse on this forum alone.

Anarchists are anarchists. They tend to wave red and black banners and wear masks on demos. I'm rather loathe to yet again incur the scorn of amateur51 by suggesting a proper definition may well lie in a dictionary, but it is all I can suggest in the circumstances.

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.

Would anyone here have any real difficulty in easily identifying the Far Right and seriously wonder how to describe the politics of Nicholas John Griffin or members of the English Defence League?

The point, Scotty, is I have no difficulty defining Griffin's or the EDL's politics since they both profess clearly defined policies. "Far left", "hard left", "extreme left" and "anarchist" on the other hand are perfectly meaningless terms. They are, along with your pathetic attempts to "define" Marxists and anarchists (Nadine Dorres is on the left now?), the product of the most crude tribal politics. Unfair? Well, you’re the one implying people on here are Marxists simply because they happen to disagree with you.

[Richard Barrett]

Well, you’re the one implying people on here are Marxists simply because they happen to disagree with you.

Actually some of us really are Marxists. :smiley:

[Bryn]

Actually some of us really are Marxists. :smiley:

Though Marx himself famously wasn't. :winkeye:

[Pabmusic]

Though Marx himself famously wasn't. :winkeye:

No, I suppose not. Christ wasn't a Christian either.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Though Marx himself famously wasn't. :winkeye:

What?! Marx wasn't a Marxist???!!! Then why didn't he simply find a more accurate and appropriate label for himself?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

No, I suppose not. Christ wasn't a Christian either.

No; he was an anarchist. (Beard, long hair, sandals - you can spot them a mile off.)

[Pabmusic]

What?! Marx wasn't a Marxist???!!! Then why didn't he simply find a more accurate and appropriate label for himself?

His dictionary didn't have the word in it, of course.

[Bryn]

What?! Marx wasn't a Marxist???!!! Then why didn't he simply find a more accurate and appropriate label for himself?

He did, he and Engels both identified themselves as a "communists". That is manifestly the case, is it not?

[Pabmusic]

No; he was an anarchist. (Beard, long hair, sandals - you can spot them a mile off.)

:laugh: