As an aside, I think the board’s politics lean heavily toward the individualistic (what’s known as “Libertarian” in the United States), toward a nearly anarchocapitalist philosophy, and away from a communitarian attitude. That gets misinterpreted as liberal by some, as conservative by others; in truth, those labels inadequately describe the board’s general leanings. Although Binarydrone is correct, that the many different political philosophies make the boards interesting.
Daniel
Sure, Izzy, everyone posts their opinions all the time. I just happen to think that when you’re telling people they’re contributing to terrorism, you’re making a pretty serious accusation, and it ought to be backed up by more than just opinion.
When I was in college, there was a group of student radicals who were protesting Shell Oil, due to the company’s human rights abuses in (I think) Zimbabwe. All well and good, you know? raising awareness of issues? But they protested Shell Oil by standing outside a gas station and shouting, “Baby killers!” at people stopping for gas.
You just don’t make those kinds of accusations on such flimsy evidence, not in my world. Whether you’re on the left or the right, it weakens your case to be throwing similar accusations around unless you’re damn sure they’re going to stick.
Yes, the net effect of Bush’s invasion of Iraq is unknowable – but we can look at statistics there. The number of soldiers killed. The terrorist attacks on mosques. The deaths due to lack of sanitation and power. Compare these to the deaths and tortures Hussein caused in a similar period, and you’ve got the beginnings of an argument. (Naturally, many more factors come into the argument – I’m just mentioning some of the factors here). We can’t know, but we can make educated guesses based on the facts.
Unless you have some facts for us to base educated guesses on, the situations are dissimilar.
Daniel
More likely Nigeria. There was a long-standing campaign to boycott Shell for supporting and profiting from land expropriation and human rights violations in Nigeria.
Just FYI 
Curses. He has discovered our evil plan.
Remember, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean we’re not out to get you!
Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
Signed,
The Left/Liberal Mafia
(appropriately political members of the Gay Mafia are welcome to apply for cross-institutional affiliation)
Daniel,
I don’t agree with this. People need to be less sensitive to this type of thing.
There’s an old Hasidic joke about a young whippersnapper who called an older person an “old fool”. So people told him “how can you be so disrespectful to an elderly person?!”. And the guy responded “if he is allowed to be an old fool, then I’m allowed to call him an old fool”.
What the impact is of demonstrations is a judgment call. Demonstrators have made their judgment and acted on it. If they are allowed to act on their opinion, other people are allowed to express theirs. The idea that the demonstrators get to make their decision and no one else is allowed to express their opposing opinion is inequitable. And cowardly, FTM.
I don’t think the fact that you have some facts about Bush is at all significant. All the facts that you have are being compared to a purely hypothetical scenario (i.e. what would have ultimately happened had there been no invasion). Making a judgment on this comparison requires every bit as much speculation as about the demonstrators.
(I agree with you about the “baby killer” shouters. But not because they shouted at people based on judgment. Rather because I happen to think that their judgment was way off base. Different story.)
I’ll just point out that I’m criticizing the babykiller-shouters AND the protestors-encourage-terrorism-shouters, whereas you only critique the former; were I december, I’d take this as solid evidence that liberals are less partisan than conservatives ;).
It is not, of course, cowardly to angrily reject the label of terrorism-supporters, when the only evidence the accusers have is vague supposition. If I were to accuse you of responsibility for the murders of abortion providers because you promote pro-life policies, I’d expect you to reject my characterization with equal anger.
Such unsupported attacks poison debate, are a way of undermining one’s opponents without addressing their arguments.
Personally, I don’t buy the idea that protestors encourage terrorism. Beyond the obvious point – that protestors humanize the opposition – there’s the point that you can’t trust a terrorist to tell you what he’s thinking.
If I were a ME terrorist, I’d recognize that my enemies are going to want to do exactly the opposite of what I recommend. I’d recognize that, as bin Laden pointed out, a bloody conflict between the US and the middle-East would make recruitment a lot easier for me. I’d recognize that I wouldn’t get that conflict if pro-diplomacy forces took over in the United States.
So I would pretend to favor the pro-diplomacy forces, hoping thereby to discredit them, so that the war I so desperately wanted could continue.
By helping terrorists to spread their lies, december is helping them achieve their goals. Next time a bomb blows up a few dozen innocent people – no matter whether it’s a US or a terrorist bomb – december can be satisfied that he helped target that bomb.
Wacky? No wackier than what december is suggesting. What’s truly astonishing to me is how many people are willing to take mass-murderers at their word, to take political advice from mass-murderers.
You’re better off taking advice from that mean old cat down at the street corner – at least it’s not going to try to mislead you.
Daniel
Well I’m not saying that it is cowardly to angrily reject a negative label that you disagree with. What I described as cowardly is to expect that you should have the right to act on your judgment but others do not have the right to express their contrary judgment out of consideration for your feelings. (This is an idea that you seemed to be expressing earlier).
To the contrary. Whether demonstrations encourage terrorism is itself an issue with consequences that deserves to be debated, like any other issue. Far from “undermining one’s opponents without addressing their arguments”, it is itself the argument (in this case) and a valid argument like any other.
If we were arguing about welfare and a liberal came in shouting that conservatives (or those who favor cutting welfare) are cruel and heartless, that would be an example of undermining one’s opponents without addressing their arguments. But if a liberal said that cutting welfare has the net effect of causing enormous hardship and suffering for many innocent people (a position conservatives would disagree with) he is well within his rights, even though the implication of his argument is a very negative one - that conservatives are causing enormous hardship and suffering. Here too, this is the argument itself.
The general principle is that if someone who wants to express or act on their opinions in matters of great import should be prepared for those who disagree with him to point out (what they believe are) the terrible consequences of these opinions. Someone who can’t hack that should maybe consider MPSIMS.
I believe this has been adequately addressed (by WeirdDave, IIRC) earlier in this thread.
Izzy, how do you think I’m saying people don’t have the right to call me a terrorist supporter? What kind of right are we talking about here?
I think it’s rude, presumptuous, and obnoxious, and it’s a terrible thing to do unless you’ve got some strong evidence. But the person that does it shouldn’t be thrown in jail for doing it.
My point remains: the only evidence you’ve (or anyone’s) offered to support such an obnoxious charge is a set of vague principles corroborated by the words of a mass-murderer. Extraordinary claims (peaceniks support terrorism, for example) require extraordinary evidence; nobody has come close to offering even ordinary evidence to support the charges.
If I call conservatives cruel and heartless – if I suggest that the malnutrition and poverty of children in the United States is the responsibility of conservatives – then I better have some evidence to support my claim. If the only evidence I can offer is that some dude on welfare blames conservatives, plus a set of vague principles, then you’d justifiably call me out for my baseless accusations.
That’s all I’m doing. I’m saying that the peaceniks-support-terrorism accusations are very strong accusations supported by very flimsy evidence, and as such are outrageous and shameful. If you can offer some strong evidence, I’ll back off. But nobody has come close to offering strong evidence.
Daniel
Daniel,
Sorry if I misled you with the term “right”. I meant that you consider it wrong (or “rude, presumptuous, and obnoxious”) to express the opinion that such acts cause great harm, while considering it fine to act on the opinion that they do not.
I believe we are at an impasse with regards to the rest of your post - I have nothing to add beyond my previous statements. (Unless you’ve added something new that I’ve missed).
Incidentally, I went back and reread Weirddave’s posts claiming (I believe) that we can take terrorists at face value every bit as much as we can take Susan Smith or other killers at face value regarding their motives. I found his argument wholly unconvincing:
Whereas Susan Smith et al have no reason at all for obscuring their motives, terrorists have strong and rational reasons for doing so. Their killings are means to an end, an as-yet-unachieved end. By obscuring their motives, they can continue to work toward this end. Indeed, it would be irrational for a terrorist to describe their motives accurately to their enemies.
I therefore find it irrational to believe a terrorist’s descriptions of his motives.
Daniel
Izzy, we may well be at an impasse. FWIW, I think people are innocent until proven guilty, and claims of guilt without proof are obnoxious. Therefore, protestors are free to act on the assumption that their actions don’t promote terrorism – indeed, the assumption that they’re innocent should be everyone’s default assumption. Those who want to assume protestors are guilty of promoting terrorism have the burden of proof. Continuing to make such accusations without evidence is where it gets icky.
I do appreciate, however, your respectful arguments. I think that, unlike december, you’re representing my arguments accurately, and I appreciate it, even while I disagree with you.
Daniel
Boo…, one word:
BRAVO!
IZZYR –
If I were to think things through all night, I doubt it would change the fact that you do not get this: It is not reasonable to assume cause and effect in the absence of any evidence. It is therefore also not reasonable to start an analysis with the assumption that terrorism is a consequence of protest, when the only rationale for that position is “belief.”
That would break my heart if I were: (a) looking for grading on the substance of my post; (b) felt my posts did not speak for themselves substantively and otherwise; or © had any reason to value your opinion regarding substance, especially in light of the general cluelessness you’ve demonstrated in this thread.
Hmmm, indeed. I direct you to every single one of my posts addressed to you, without exception. It is not my responsibility to not only explain things to you repeatedly, but then go back and point out where I have done so, when your failure of comprehension apparently extends to not only not understanding the arguments, but to not even being able to find them.
Don’t be an asshole, IZ.
My god, do you not see how stupid this is? What if the guy says the sky is green and grass is blue? Heck! That’s nothing more than a difference of opinion, isn’t it?? Because you can’t show me a double-blind study comparing the number of people who think grass is green to the number of people who claim it is blue, right?
This is incorrect, but it does neatly underscore the indefensibility of your position. Because, of course, you are the one who is “denying” axioms that are generally accepted to be true – just like the guy who says the sky is green and defies anyone to prove him wrong. Do we look at that man and admire the utter defensibility of his position? Or do we look at him and think how stupid he’s being?
Certain axioms are accepted as true for purposed of proof because reasonable people employing the brains God gave them conclude they are true. They see that it is rational and makes sense that the axiom is true. They see that when the axiom is road-tested, so to speak, in specific factual situations it continues to holds, which underscores its truth. They see that others, also employing their reason, reach the same conclusion, which further underscores the axiom’s probable truth.
o rest an argument on the premise that nothing can be proven and all is merely “a matter of opinion” is an act of intellectual cowardice.
This fails to take into account that in the presence of oppression a camp that is internally divided may appear united, while in the presence of free expression a camp that is largely internally united may nevertheless appear divided. So I don’t think this axiom of yours – oh, excuse me, this opinion – hold up.
If the perception of weakness is not causally related to any action undertaken or done by the other camp, then the other camp is not responsible for it and gains nothing by even taking it into account. Moreoever, it certainly does not make the first camp responsible for how the enemy perceives it, if the first camp is doing nothing that might reasonably support such a perception.
See above.
This again leaps right over the question of whether it is reasonable for the opposing camp to be so “encouraged.” That’s the point you continue to – what? Evade? Or miss entirely? But you have retreated as far as you can by claiming these are your “opinions” that cannot be disputed because, hey, nothing can be proven. Again, you may wish to continue to characterize this failure of argument on your part as a “difference of opinon,” but I will continue to call it as I see it. And when I’m shouting at you, I’ll let you know.
And I’m not sorry DECEMBER has been banned. I haven’t had many dealings with him, both because his poking of the liberal bears seemed so transparent to me and because I’m not one of the liberals being so poked. But I do think this OP was inexcusably intellectually dishonest, and I’m not sorry to see him go in the wake of it.
Wow. That was actually a pretty succinct and concise exposition of all the reasons for dictatorship from IzzyR. Neat. And vomitacious.
Actually, Jodi, I was thinking something similar to one of your points:
To say that a united group is stronger than a divided group may superficially be true. However, to apply it to this instance is to be fundamentally anti-democratic.
A democracy is not founded on the belief that many like-minded people are stronger than a group that argues. Quite the opposite: a democracy supposes that a vigorous, healthy debate leads to a stronger society, in which all members share a stake and in which the best decisions are reached.
I’d reformulate Izzy’s first proposition:
This changes the rest of Izzy’s ideas:
Members of one opposing camp tend to be attracted to an opposing camp that displays greater freedoms.
People who are attracted to the opposing camp are less likely to take aggressive action than people who are not.
From the above 3 points follows that discouraging spirited debate in your camp increases the likelihood of aggressive action from your opposers.
This is a restatement of an earlier post of mine – but it takes into account the very important point that spirited and public debate, far from being a weakness of a democracy, is its cornerstone. Efforts to discourage that debate (even if the efforts repudiate using force to discourage the debate) are ominous indeed.
Daniel
This is a minor nitpick since:
a) this isn’t really a debate anyway because the OP is completely disingenuous, so facts aren’t really required to be rigourously substantiated (in other words, I get your drift)
b) the magnitude of protests against the war in Iraq were considerably greater
BUT
There were protests against the action in Afghanistan here in Australia and they were not of the scale which I would call even insignificant (of course, that’s a matter of opinion). Saying that there were ZERO protests prior to October 2002 is totally false.
Here is a cite for a general example: http://www.takver.com/history/melb/peace91101.htm
However, as I said before the OP is completely disingenuous and no amount of anti-war, anti-american or anti-anything protesting should be blamed for the horrific events in Bali in Oct 2002 and to insinuate it is nothing but romanticising idiocy.
All righty… another book I’m glad we can close. Boo Boo Foo, good show, mate.