TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The meaning of terrorism
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

DigiNut, you are so funny!

All you do is twist people's words and make things up!

You give definitions out of dictionaries, then when it is pointed out what these definitions actually mean, you tell people they are stupid!

quote:

If you are trying to prevent them from doing something they weren't going to do, it is not coercion. If you are trying to compel them to do something they were already going to do, it is not coercion

Classic example...

What about if you prevent someone from doing something they want to do? They are not currently doing it, so there is no change, but you are using force to prevent them doing it, that is coercion...

Likewise, if you force somebody to do something they are already doing, and they dont want to do that, then that is coercion too, yet, again, there is no change of behaviour...

So there you have it, coercion does not have to involve a change of behaviour LIKE EVERY DEFINITION TELLS YOU!!!

You cant make your own definitions up just to suit your argument!

Find me a definition that says coercion MUST INVOLVE CHANGING BEHAVIOUR or admit you are wrong


DigiNut, I notice you love to take the piss out of people's intelligence as you think you are so smart. But you are not, when you have been proved wrong (like I am doing to you now) you will not admit it or back down, you will just either ignore it or make something up like you will do in your next post and I am going to absolutely piss my self! Cos I can guarantee it will include a big list of fancy words (that you think makes your argument more believable LOL!), a few lines dedicated to telling me how clever you are and how stupid I am, followed by some totally made up definition!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley What about if you prevent someone from doing something they want to do? They are not currently doing it, so there is no change, but you are using force to prevent them doing it, that is coercion...

Yes, that IS coercion, and that is specifically a case in which coercion creates a deviation between their intended behaviour and their real behaviour.

They want to do it -> they intend to do it -> you threaten/intimidate them so they don't do it -> they don't do it -> their actions deviate from their intentions.

Same with:

quote:

Likewise, if you force somebody to do something they are already doing, and they dont want to do that, then that is coercion too, yet, again, there is no change of behaviour...

They don't want to do it -> they intend not to do it -> you threaten/intimidate them so they do it -> they do it -> their actions deviate from their intentions.

Get it? Got it? Good. Modification from intended behaviour to actual behaviour. End of story.

Thankyou, wasn't so hard to understand was it?

So are you going to amend this then?

quote:

Intended to coerce that entity; to bring about change specifically by intimidation and/or the threat of more violence;

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Thankyou, wasn't so hard to understand was it? So are you going to amend this then?

Uh... did you actually read what I wrote? When someone is coerced, there is a deviation between their intended behaviour and their actual behaviour. That is what we in the real world call a change.

But there is no change in their actual behaviour is there? They are forced to carry on as normal, with no change...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley But there is no change in their actual behaviour is there? They are forced to carry on as normal, with no change...

Yes, they are forced to carry on as normal, but with the a priori knowledge that they would not be carrying on as normal had such coercion not taken place. If no such a priori knowledge or expectation exists, then it cannot legitimately be said that any kind of coercion exists. There would simply be no way to prove it, ever.

The definition does not say "change from past behaviour to present/future behaviour", it just says "change." This can also be a change in intent or a change in thought. But it is still a change of some kind.

Well no not really as there is no change in their intended behaviour (as they still do not want to do the thing they are doing) and there is no change in their actual behaviour (as they are still doing what they do not want to do). All you are saying is that there is a difference between intended behaviour and actual behaviour, but that does not equal change. It can only be considered change if there is a difference between actual behaviour at one time, and actual behaviour at a later time (or a difference between intended behaviour at one time and intended behaviour at a later time) otherwise nothing has actually changed

Looking at it another way, in the two examples I gave you, which you agreed were coercion, the intended use of that coercion was specifically to not bring about change right?

Dear lord you're hopeless.

quote:

It can only be considered change if there is a difference between actual behaviour at one time, and actual behaviour at a later time.

There is absolutely no truth to that statement. Now you're defining "change" on your own personal terms - you're just going to keep nitpicking at every single word and trying to make it more and more subjective until someone gives into your way of thinking. Trust me, it's not going to work on me.

If you were going to go out to a bar and your friend convinces you not to go, are you going to argue that he didn't really "change your mind" at all? Obviously you aren't (otherwise he's not going to be your friend for much longer).

And if you were already on your way to that bar and you see your friend on the way and he says "Hey, I'm going to [same bar], wanna come" then you're not going to say in hindsight that he "talked you into it."

A variation between what someone is intending to do and what they actually do is, most definitely, a change in behaviour, because most of the time people do what they intend to do unless pressured by external forces.

This discussion is over. I'm not going to answer any more posts from you in this thread - mail your complaints to someone who cares. If anybody else has questions or comments other than George then I'd be happy to entertain them.

LOL!

How predictable! Every time mate! Every time!

Once you have been proved wrong all you do is switch to ignore mode. Your gonna sit there now and you wont (cant) reply until I have posted something else that you think you can argue against. Just like in the other thread where you proved you know nothing about the Israel-Palestine conflict! You ignored my posts as they had just shown you up* and waited until I had written something else then you mysteriously reappear! What a joke you are!


If somebody is forced to do something they do not want to do, then that is coercion. Yet whoever is doing the coercing is doing it specifically with the intentions of not bringing about change**

If I am forced by the government to sit on the back seat of a bus then that is coercion. I do not want to sit on the back seat, but I am forced to and I always have been made to sit on the back seat - nothing has changed!

Acting differently from the way you want to IS NOT CHANGE you muppet!





*you were going to enlighten me about the fact that there has never been any Jewish terrorism in Israel... Loser!

**please reply to this point if you can?

does this thread make you nostalgic of our epic battles yoepus? :P

Ha ha ha!!!
This thread has to be up there with some of my alltime favourites.
I declare George Smiley the Winner..........please take a bow.

I think we could solve this if some one could define...

the meaning of life

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley LOL! How predictable! Every time mate! Every time! Once you have been proved wrong all you do is switch to ignore mode. Your gonna sit there now and you wont (cant) reply until I have posted something else that you think you can argue against. Just like in the other thread where you proved you know nothing about the Israel-Palestine conflict! You ignored my posts as they had just shown you up* and waited until I had written something else then you mysteriously reappear! What a joke you are!

Damn it, George, you didn't prove him wrong, you are simply ignoring what he says and keep repeating illogical statements over and over again so he got tired of you.

quote:

If somebody is forced to do something they do not want to do, then that is coercion. Yet whoever is doing the coercing is doing it specifically with the intentions of not bringing about change**

Eh, you got me confused here, you say that if somebody is changing your intended actions than that's coercion, but the intention of coercion is not to change someone's intended actions??? Or is that a misunderstood variation of what Diginut said? In that case, you failed to understand that forcing someone not to do what they want to do is coertion as well.

quote:

If I am forced by the government to sit on the back seat of a bus then that is coercion. I do not want to sit on the back seat, but I am forced to and I always have been made to sit on the back seat - nothing has changed! Acting differently from the way you want to IS NOT CHANGE you muppet!

It seems here that you mixed up the word coerce with the word change. To coerce someone, as diginut said already, means to apply force in order to make them change their intended actions. So if you don't want to sit on the back of the bus, but you are sitting there because you are forced, the government is coercing you since your immediate action that would take place if there would be no force upon you to stay in the back would be to go forward.

quote:

*you were going to enlighten me about the fact that there has never been any Jewish terrorism in Israel... Loser!

Again, you are mixing up the word terrorism with the word opression. If the israeli government was to demolish palestinian houses exclusively in order to make them obedient, then you'd have a case going for you. Since that is not the case, israeli actions can't be considered terrorism.

quote:

Eh, you got me confused here, you say that if somebody is changing your intended actions than that's coercion, but the intention of coercion is not to change someone's intended actions???

No that is not coercion, but it can be coercion

quote:

To coerce someone, as diginut said already, means to apply force in order to make them change their intended actions

And I say to you what I have been saying to diginut...

Show me the definition of coercion where it says it has to be to make somebody change their actions...

You cant because that is not what coercion means...it means...

TO FORCE SOMEBODY TO ACT A CERTAIN WAY

quote:

Again, you are mixing up the word terrorism with the word opression. If the israeli government was to demolish palestinian houses exclusively in order to make them obedient, then you'd have a case going for you. Since that is not the case, israeli actions can't be considered terrorism.

No seriously, what are you bangin on about? What the fuck has the Israeli government got to do with owt?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Show me the definition of coercion where it says it has to be to make somebody change their actions...

It does not have to be explicit in the definition.
It does not have to be explicit in the definition.
It does not have to be explicit in the definition.
It does not have to be explicit in the definition.
It does not have to be explicit in the definition.
It does not have to be explicit in the definition.
It does not have to be explicit in the definition.
It does not have to be explicit in the definition.
It does not have to be explicit in the definition.

George, are you getting it yet?

It does not have to be explicit in the definition.

Read what I said about 10 posts ago, over and over and over again, until you understand it. The word force is included in the definition, as you yourself say:

quote:

You cant because that is not what coercion means...it means... TO FORCE SOMEBODY TO ACT A CERTAIN WAY

Force requires resistance. To act against resistance is to change its course of action, whether that change moves it or stops it from moving.

Seriously Georgey, you're acting like you're 12 years old now. You're just playing for attention and repeating the same things over and over again. You have barely made one single valid statement in this thread! Please just stay out of it from now on, I don't want to have to close it.

I think we may be looking at it from two different perspectives...

You are looking at 'intended' behaviour

I am looking at 'actual' behaviour

However, there is no change in either of those two in the examples any of us have been using.

If somebody is forced to do something (that they are currently doing but dont want to), then has their actual behaviour changed? Has there intended behaviour changed? No niether has, but there is a difference between what they are doing, and what they want to do...but is that what change means? That merely means their intended behaviour is different from their actual behaviour, and that is 'difference' not 'change' as nothing has changed...

quote:

Seriously Georgey, you're acting like you're 12 years old now. You're just playing for attention and repeating the same things over and over again. You have barely made one single valid statement in this thread! Please just stay out of it from now on, I don't want to have to close it.

DigiNut, I would have more respect for you if you simply called me a 'fucking ****' rather than these petty little digs that conclude every post you write. For some reason you have got this false impression that you are some kind of authority in this forum, yet you dont actually know very much about politics at all. I dunno, maybe your some kind of language expert or summat that explains why you think including fancy words in all your posts helps your arguments and why you've got all these ideas about definitions etc, may also explain why you want to keep examples out of this thread?

Tell ya what, in my definition of terrorism, it is very broad to include a wide variety of acts and actors that I wish to attatch the same moral judgement on (states and none-state actors as they are both as bad as each other) I have no love for any state that commits attrocities, whether that be my country by birth, or some country I feel compelled to defend because of my religious upbringing, neither do I have any love for those who take the law into their own hands to kill people for their objectives. There is no difference for me and if in any future thread I wish to label someone or something terrorist then you may not point to this thread and tell me I am wrong because I have not agreed to YOUR definition.

If you feel comfortable drawing a distinction between the actions of a state and the actions of what you call terrorists then fine by me, but all that says to me is that you willingly support terrorism if you think the terrorists are doing it in your name...I...dont

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley And I say to you what I have been saying to diginut... Show me the definition of coercion where it says it has to be to make somebody change their actions... You cant because that is not what coercion means...it means... TO FORCE SOMEBODY TO ACT A CERTAIN WAY

Well, if the person is already acting in a way you want it to act, then there's no point in forcing or coercing that individual, is there? The only situation where coercion makes sense is when the individual is not acting, or does not intend to act, in the way you wish him to.

quote:

No seriously, what are you bangin on about? What the fuck has the Israeli government got to do with owt?

You were the one who mentioned Israel and this whole thread was started because of a dilemma whether Israel is performing terrorist actions or not.

quote:

Well, if the person is already acting in a way you want it to act, then there's no point in forcing or coercing that individual, is there

Yes of course there is! This is what I've trying to get at! If they dont want to act that way, then they need to be forced to act that way so the coercer can make them carry on what they are doing!

quote:

You were the one who mentioned Israel and this whole thread was started because of a dilemma whether Israel is performing terrorist actions or not.

No you quoted a specific comment of mine, and I would like you to explain to me what that comment has to do with the Israeli government...

Here's the quote...

quote:

*you were going to enlighten me about the fact that there has never been any Jewish terrorism in Israel... Loser!

See, it does not say anything about the government or the state

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Yes of course there is! This is what I've trying to get at! If they dont want to act that way, then they need to be forced to act that way so the coercer can make them carry on what they are doing!

Yes, well, that's kinda what I said earlier, isn't it?

quote:

No you quoted a specific comment of mine, and I would like you to explain to me what that comment has to do with the Israeli government... Here's the quote... See, it does not say anything about the government or the state

Yes, but that quote reffered to the other thread in which you explicitly said that IDF demolishing houses is state terrorism.

Altho I do consider certain actions by the state of Israel to be terrorist in nature, the quote your refered to actually refered to DigiNuts insistance that there has never been any Jewish terrorism in Israel (to which me and somebody else gave him a few examples of actions committed by Jewsish terrorist groups - not actions by the government)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Tell ya what, in my definition of terrorism, it is very broad to include a wide variety of acts and actors that I wish to attatch the same moral judgement on (states and none-state actors as they are both as bad as each other) I have no love for any state that commits attrocities, whether that be my country by birth, or some country I feel compelled to defend because of my religious upbringing, neither do I have any love for those who take the law into their own hands to kill people for their objectives. There is no difference for me and if in any future thread I wish to label someone or something terrorist then you may not point to this thread and tell me I am wrong because I have not agreed to YOUR definition.

George, nobody cares about "your" definition, nor do they care about "my" definition. This thread is about "the" definition.

That's your problem, and evidently you even just admitted it. You create your label based on the people you want to label. But that IS the fallacy of equivocation, down to a tee. You didn't invent the word terrorism, you have no authoritative power on how it's defined or what it is, and when you try to argue against other people's assertions (when the other people are using the "normal" definition) by using your own definition, you are equivocating and squirreling the real issue.

Nobody supports you except for the other major equivocators, for whom the whole point of this thread was to knock some sense into. Well regardless of whether or not you or they "agree", your definition - and thus all arguments which ensue from it - are completely fallacious.

Since you obviously won't give up, I am reluctantly closing this thread before it turns into Georgey's ad hominem thread and another wave of IP argument (sorry Tito, it's not that your posts aren't welcomed, it's just that arguing over specific examples can only serve to weaken the thread itself). Again, thank you everyone who had something constructive to add to this thread - it's served its purpose and I have every intention of using it as a reference for future "terrorist" arguments that come up.


For anybody who walked in late and wants a summary, the main definition that people agreed on was that in order for an act to be classified as terrorism, it must be:

• Violent and unlawful;
  
• Against the collective will of a population, society, or government (i.e. not a single person or small group);
  
• Intended to coerce that entity; to bring about change in their will specifically by intimidation and/or the threat of more violence;
  
• Organized or systematic, as having some kind of pattern or regularity;
  
• Related to a set of specific demands or a specific ideology; not simply random violence;
  
• Specifically targetted on people who could not reasonably be expected to defend themselves, or their property.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.