Nairobi terrorist attack

[ahinton]

On the contrary it's the 'mercifully very few' who appear to have grasped the issue here and it's the "others" who might need some assistance in the matter.

How come? On what grounds do you make such a claim?

If we all agree that there can be 'no excuse' for 'a monstrous act' then logically it follows than any offered "reason" for committing that act is irrelevant. Thankfully, I suspect that more than 'mercifully very few' of us can grasp that if a group of killers is willing to deliberately slaughter wholly innocent men, women, children, toddlers and babies for one 'reason' they are not likely to be too squeamish about doing the same for any other.

OK, so if you don't like the word "reason/s" here (and, to the extent that its appropriateness might sensibly be challenged on the grounds that the atrocity was at the very least an "unreasonable" act), then perhaps it might be more helpful to substitute "motive/s"; what were the perpatrators seeking to do - just kill and maim as many as they could, indiscriminately, or make some kind of political and/or religious point, however inexcusably?

Some keep searching for 'reasons' when the only one is already there staring them in the face.

It's a horrible, destructive human failing called Evil. Of course if we don't even believe Evil exists then we'll continue to desperately and unsuccessfully flail around looking for 'reasons' to explain wholly unreasonable and quite dreadful crimes.

MrGG has already poined out that this is a most unhelpful response and I have little doubt that others, including me, echo his sentiment here, but let us examine why it is so rather than merely state that it is so. If this "Evil" of which you write is indeed a "horrible, destructive human failing" to which all humans can therefore presumably fall prey, how come this incident is not as common of occurrence the world over as is day following night? "Evil", whether or not one believes in it and whatever one may think it to mean, is a concept, not a perptrator of an atrocity; one cannot go up to "Evil" and tell it to stop killing and maiming people. That's the principal reason why your response about it is not only unhelpful but grossly insensitive.

[Beef Oven!]

I have done nothing of the kind.


The reference to "excusing" arose with Mr Pee and was referred to subsequently by FF; I did not raise that subject myself.


That I had already done so is evident from my having quoted part of it. I do not see what noodles have to do with the price of milk, let alone the subject under discussion.

The "point" (since it seems to be you rather than I who has "missed" it) is that, whilst we are all agreed that the event concerned was a grave atrocity for which there is and can be no excuse whatsoever, that fact alone does not and indeed cannot of itself help anyone, least of all those injured and/or bereaved as a direct consequence of it, to come to terms with the whys and wherefores of its occurrence or to understand them in order to try to minimise the risk that such a thing will happen again.

Of course there can never be a guarantee that such preventative action can work effectively, but it certainly won't at all if no effort is made towards that end.

The other part of that point is that this atrocity is hardly comparable in background to those committed by Breivik or by the mass murderers that have on occasion wreaked havoc in US, not least because the latter examples were all committed by lone individuals and in all but Breivik's case the perpetrators are dead so cannot commit further atrocities, whereas no one has even been apprehended for having committed this one; it must therefore be considered and understood at the outset as differing from all of those.

You are going round in ever decreasing circles.

It will have to be the 'let it be' option.

[amateur51]

You are going round in ever decreasing circles.

It will have to be the 'let it be' option.

It's a Wind-Up ahinton

[Beef Oven!]

So if it's a question of "absoluteness" then you (and i'm not a philosopher !) are suggesting that it's possibly an event with NO context, no precedent and no comparison? If you are , then it's a rather dodgy way to go IMV

I didn't say that it was a question of absoluteness, I said that Mr Pee was focusing on the absoluteness of the situation, and that he was quite right to do that.

I am not suggesting that you or ahinton are wrong in what you say, it's just that it's a different conversation.

I have tried to explain to ahinton my meaning and to suggest that it's not worth going round and round, when we are talking about different things (something I don't think he is grasping).

It's best to let it be!

P.S. I'm not sure that you are right when you say you think you are 'no philosopher' ;-)

[ahinton]

You are going round in ever decreasing circles.

On the contrary; I remain still and those circles are of your making.

It will have to be the 'let it be' option.

I was unaware that an "option " was being presented here but, if so, you stick to your Beatles song and I'll stick with the subject, thanks, although it occurs to me that the opening lines of the former, namely - "When I find myself in times of trouble Mother Mary comes to me" - somehow seem more appropriate for scotty than you, but never mind (having said which the words of "wisdom" in the line that immediately follows seem to be in short supply in your responses of late)...

[ahinton]

It's a Wind-Up ahinton

Then 'tis as sadly misplaced as 'tis unsuccessful.

[ahinton]

I didn't say that it was a question of absoluteness, I said that Mr Pee was focusing on the absoluteness of the situation, and that he was quite right to do that.

No, you didn't, yes, he was and yes, he was provided that such "absoluteness" is presented as though the entire story and nothing else matters.

I am not suggesting that you or ahinton are wrong in what you say, it's just that it's a different conversation.

...to the one that you and presumably also Mr Pee and scotty might prefer to have, perhaps, but it's very pertinent to unbiased and unfettered discussion of the topic as a whole and it would do those trying to work towards amelioration of the situation surrounding the atrocity as grave a disservice as it would to its victims were we to be entering into less than that.

I have tried to explain to ahinton my meaning and to suggest that it's not worth going round and round

...yet you nevertheless continue to go round and round, rather in the manner of scotty's Glasgow, I imagine.

when we are talking about different things

We should be discussing any relevant aspect of the entire subject rather than focussing exclusively on just one of them to the deliberate exclusion of any other.

I don't think he is grasping

You're right about that; I am not of a grasping nature.

It's best to let it be!

So you are sticking to your Beatles song, then. OK.

[amateur51]

Then 'tis as sadly misplaced as 'tis unsuccessful.

You can always tell when there's the possibility of a BeefO wind-up - it's when he hits the send key :winkeye:

[Beef Oven!]

No, you didn't, yes, he was and yes, he was provided that such "absoluteness" is presented as though the entire story and nothing else matters.


...to the one that you and presumably also Mr Pee and scotty might prefer to have, perhaps, but it's very pertinent to unbiased and unfettered discussion of the topic as a whole and it would do those trying to work towards amelioration of the situation surrounding the atrocity as grave a disservice as it would to its victims were we to be entering into less than that.


...yet you nevertheless continue to go round and round, rather in the manner of scotty's Glasgow, I imagine.


We should be discussing any relevant aspect of the entire subject rather than focussing exclusively on just one of them to the deliberate exclusion of any other.


You're right about that; I am not of a grasping nature.


So you are sticking to your Beatles song, then. OK.

But you don't appear to be discussing anything!!

Gainsay isn't a discussion! Have you been at your Monty Python DVDs this morning?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[amateur51]

But you don't appear to be discussing anything!!

Gainsay isn't a discussion! Have you been at your Monty Python DVDs this morning?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Endgame.

Told you it was a wind-up ahinton

[ahinton]

But you don't appear to be discussing anything!!

Then either you can't be reading what I wrote or you're wearing dark glasses over your ears, or something. Never mind!

[ahinton]

Endgame.

Told you it was a wind-up ahinton

You did indeed - although its tiresome emptiness seems more suggestive of a wind-down to me...

[Beef Oven!]

its tiresome emptiness seems more suggestive of a wind-down to me...

Neither wind-up, nor wind-down ahinton.

You don't seem to grasp that if someone doesn't agree with you, and begs to differ, and offers to leave it there, that is the end of the matter. Nothing wrong with that.

It doesn't matter how relentless your logic is, the matter will simply go round and round.

The Monty Python link was a friendly, light-hearted way of bringing our interaction on the present matter to an end.

I will agree to disagree with you and look forward to your (always) cogently argued contributions (even though I may not agree with all of them all the time).

[scottycelt]

OK, so if you don't like the word "reason/s" here (and, to the extent that its appropriateness might sensibly be challenged on the grounds that the atrocity was at the very least an "unreasonable" act), then perhaps it might be more helpful to substitute "motive/s"; what were the perpatrators seeking to do - just kill and maim as many as they could, indiscriminately, or make some kind of political and/or religious point, however inexcusably?

We continue to miss the point. If something can never be excused for whatever reason the 'motive' is irrelevant. I may murder granny because she didn't put any sugar in my tea or because she doesn't like football. It doesn't matter. Murdering granny is always wrong whatever the 'reason'. In short, it is Evil.

MrGG has already poined out that this is a most unhelpful response and I have little doubt that others, including me, echo his sentiment here, but let us examine why it is so rather than merely state that it is so. If this "Evil" of which you write is indeed a "horrible, destructive human failing" to which all humans can therefore presumably fall prey, how come this incident is not as common of occurrence the world over as is day following night? "Evil", whether or not one believes in it and whatever one may think it to mean, is a concept, not a perptrator of an atrocity; one cannot go up to "Evil" and tell it to stop killing and maiming people. That's the principal reason why your response about it is not only unhelpful but grossly insensitive.

We have been here before. If you believe that there is Good presumably there must be a Bad. There are huge, varying degrees of both. People can't be forced to be good or bad, it's up to them.

You can call the Nairobi massacre anything you like. I call it plain, downright Evil. That may seem 'unhelpful' and 'insensitive' to you and Mr GG but blindingly obvious and quite unremarkable to many others.

[ahinton]

You don't seem to grasp that if someone doesn't agree with you, and begs to differ, and offers to leave it there, that is the end of the matter. Nothing wrong with that.

Of course I can grasp that; what you seem not to grasp, however, is that, whilst i might on occasion be responding to one of your posts, my response is intended to form part of the discussion that we're all having, not just as a reply to your post; as it happens, you are not the only opne to put forward the kinds of view to which I've responded and I'm by no means the only one ti take opposite views, so let's not make too much of a one-to-one of this!

It doesn't matter how relentless your logic is, the matter will simply go round and round.

It's not "the matter" that's gong round and round, as I indicated earlier.

The Monty Python link was a friendly, light-hearted way of bringing our interaction on the present matter to an end.

I don't necessarily doubt it but as I've said, there's more to this discussion than an interaction between two forum members.

I will agree to disagree with you and look forward to your (always) cogently argued contributions (even though I may not agree with all of them all the time).

Thank you. I does me best!