Epicurus...

quote:

George I never said or implied that coercion has, as intent, the change of people. I don't really know where you got that from. Yes, my example was one where coercion had, as intent, a particular change, but in no way shape or form does that imply that I hold that as a general rule

Ok I guess I was assuming from your example. However, DigiNut did attempt to use coercion to exclude states from committing terrorism by stating that states cannot coerce its own population. But the only way states cannot coerce their population, by his logic, is if coercion means, in this sense, political change (why would a state change the current political system?!) However, if coercion does not mean 'for change' (which it doesn't) then states can coerce populations to not change the political system (which we would call oppression). Basically, if we are using the coercion factor of terrorism to say who can commit terrorism, then for DigiNut, coercion has to mean for change otherwise the actions of a state can fit into the definition of terrorism (just using coercion mind)

quote:

George they are NOT the same nor does one HAVE to logically flow from the other

If you look back at what you quoted me as saying you will see I specifically said "Therefore, I still say that coercion and oppression CAN be the same" I never said (because I do not believe!) that they ARE the same, just that they CAN be the same (which is basically what you also said)

quote:

Anyway, if what I just clarified is what you originally meant, then we're on the same page.

See above

quote:

Finally, and in all fairness, to say that Diginut will refuse to accept that Israel is a terrorist state in the future etc BEFORE we've even discussed this specific case is unfair. Logic is logic, and he's conceded points before, and we can easily present cases where this is true and where he will HAVE to conceed the point

Yea right!!!!!

DigiNut...

For me the areas of contension are not the actual definitions (as as far as I can see everybody pretty much argeed on them quite soon) but interpretations of those definitions, and more specifically, interpretations of who can fit into the definition (ie. the debate on whether or not states can be called terrorist, as they do fit into numerous definitions of the word)

I still say terrorism is merely a negative buzz word that people (myself included) like to use to attatch negative value to certain acts they disagree with. Terrorism is a very broad term and there are no narrow definitions as nobody can agree on one!

^--- Yep

*grabs dictionary and throws it out the window*

*breath a sigh of relief*

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Terrorism is a very broad term and there are no narrow definitions as nobody can agree on one!

Clearly, some people can agree on one, and they don't have to have the same opinions on who is committing it or why.

And since I have excluded physical examples and merely dealt with the hypotheticals, there really isn't much interpretation, just elaboration and/or expansion.

Neither the definition nor most of the ensuing discussion has resulted in any real narrowness - there is still a lot of room for interpretation and the one thing you are still complaining about in your previous post (why?) has already been sorted out.

So let's just lay it to rest, unless there are any legitimate objections or questions.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Obviously some people can agree on a definition or we wouldn't have the word in the first place!

But everyone cant agree on one definition (or at least interpretate it the same way)

Terrorism has become the new communism - its just gonna get thrown around to describe anyone who is on the other side (or just not on our side) just like communism has lost all meaning in America due to the Cold War

Terrorism will go the same way...even if we could agree on what terrorism is, and who can commit it, eventually it will become to mean anyone who is not on our side...

Your predictions for the future set aside (didn't know you were an expert on socio-linguistics too), it's fairly obvious to me that this thread won't be read or accepted by the entire world, but it's more than enough if its taken into account by this forum.

The thread's a framework for future debate. Nothing more.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Ok, so just for my future reference, if, in another thread I want to describe something as terrorist or terrorism, I would first have to consult this thread and decide whether or not that something can be defined as terrorism?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Ok, so just for my future reference, if, in another thread I want to describe something as terrorist or terrorism, I would first have to consult this thread and decide whether or not that something can be defined as terrorism?

I obviously cannot force people to consult this thread, but if I see an outrageous use of the word then my response is just going to be something like:

"I don't see how this is terrorism. Please show how the act in question is:

• Violent and unlawful;
  
• Against the 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 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.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Violent and unlawful; Against the 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 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.

There may be a slight problem tho...

This is what was posted on p1 right? Now I have no problem with this definition whatsoever, yet we have spent 8 pages arguing over what might fit into this definition...how would that be any different on another thread?

For example, if on the previous I/P thread where I described Israeli actions as terrorist (which you disagreed with), I could easily have fit those actions into the above definition, yet there is no way you would ever accept that certain things Israel do is terrorist would you?

Sorry to use an example but its just to show you why this little exersize may not work the way you want/expect





Also....

quote:

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

Do you mean...

"Coerce that entity" AND "to bring about change"

or...

"Coerce that entity" OR "to bring about change"?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley This is what was posted on p1 right? Now I have no problem with this definition whatsoever, yet we have spent 8 pages arguing over what might fit into this definition...how would that be any different on another thread?

Correction: you have spent 8 pages arguing over it. I've hardly spent any time or space arguing about what fits the definition, only what the definition is, and the discussion with other members has been pretty agreeable.

quote:

For example, if on the previous I/P thread where I described Israeli actions as terrorist (which you disagreed with), I could easily have fit those actions into the above definition, yet there is no way you would ever accept that certain things Israel do is terrorist would you?

See a few posts above, I have no intention of arguing about specific examples in this thread. Save it for the IP threads - this one is just for the definition.

quote:

Sorry to use an example but its just to show you why this little exersize may not work the way you want/expect

On the contrary, it will work exactly the way I expect it to. People who refuse to justify their use of the word terrorism will either stop using it or look extremely stupid. People who successfully justify their use of the word will receive no argument from me.

quote:

"Coerce that entity" AND "to bring about change" or... "Coerce that entity" OR "to bring about change"?

Coercion always modifies behaviour otherwise it isn't coercion. You seem to be hung up on the idea of modifying future behaviour from existing behaviour, and you're listing it as a point of contention that coercion could act to discourage behaviour that hasn't happened yet.

That is not, however, where the change occurs, and that is where you seem to be lost. Coercion modifies actual behaviour from intended behaviour and that is the key issue to realize. If a store clerk holds up a gun and tells you not to steal anything, he hasn't really "coerced" you unless you actually intended to do so.

Regardless of whether the coercion is positive or negative (to do something or to not do it), it can't exist - or rather, if it could exist, it simply has no meaning - when the intentions of the target are the same as the desires of the alleged perpetrator. There is always some behavioural modification, whether that modification is with respect to what someone is doing or to what they are thinking. If your "coercee" is already doing something out of their own free will, it simply makes no sense to "force" them to do it.

I am absolutely not going to argue this issue any further. I know why you are complaining about it - because it prevents you from taking virtually any act of violence and claiming that it could be interpreted as being intended to coerce someone for some unknown thing. Let me assure you that this is precisely the reason why it is in there in the first place - to prevent just such an equivocation.

Coercion does not necessarily imply diverging actions, but it does imply diverging intents - and if you can't identify those, you don't have coercion. End of discussion.

I know that the thought of an objective definition scares the living crap out of you, but try to deal with it. You're beating a dead horse here George.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Let's start a new thread entitled...

"The meaning of Coercion"

or else...

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

quote:

Coercion always modifies behaviour otherwise it isn't coercion

You are totally wrong...

Coercion DOES NOT mean to force someone to act a DIFFERENT way, coercion means to force someone to act a CERTAIN way

There is not one dictionary definition to back your opinions up, yet every definition from this page (Link) says that I am right and that coercion means to force someone to act a certain way, no mention of a different way.

Here are some synonims of the word 'coerce' that also suggest that coercion does not have to mean change or different...

enslave
constrain
repress
restrict
suppress
terrorize
command
enforce
intimidate
subjugate

(Link)

Coercion in no way whatsoever means to modify behaviour or to change behaviour. Coercion, by every definition on that page, means to force people to behave a certain way, whether that certain way is the way they are currently acting or whether that way is a different way to how they are currently behaving...

Please can you acknowledge this and amend your definition to account for your mistake?