 |
|
|
|
 |
DigiNut
You kids get off my lawn!
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto, Self-proclaimed Centre of the Universe
|
|
|
| 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.
or use a different word."
And maybe post a link to this thread. Basically, what I'm saying is, I am not going to argue with people anymore in any other threads on what terrorism is or isn't - I'm simply going to say, please explain your basis for using the word terrorism here, this is its definition, and here is the discussion for reference.
And I'd encourage anybody else who gets into a similar dispute to do the same, no matter which side of the debate they are on. Anybody and everybody here is capable of equivocation, and equivocation should not be allowed as a form of debate.
Cool? Cool.
___________________
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
|
|
 Apr-11-2004 15:01 
|
|
|
|
|
George Smiley
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: 9 Bywater Street, Chelsea, London
|
|
|
| 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"?
|
|
Apr-11-2004 15:16 
|
|
|
|
|
DigiNut
You kids get off my lawn!
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto, Self-proclaimed Centre of the Universe
|
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
Apr-11-2004 16:05
|
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:12.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|
