Point 1- logical fallacies gain acceptance through continued use over time. Making up another ‘fallacy’ does not mean that it deserves such a strong name as ‘The Open-Minded Fallacy’ gives the impression of substance that it does not deserve; it is an unwarranted appeal to authority.
Point 2- Such reasoning would deny the following:
‘All men are created equal’ 18thC
‘Slavery is not good’ 19thC
‘Women should have the vote’ 20thC
‘Negroes should have equal rights’ 20th century
Your ‘Open-Minded ‘Fallacy’’ would claim that at those times these statements were false because of an appeal to open-mindedness.
In the same way it is not possible to deny such an appeal to open-mindedness to PETA and Peter Singer.
I’m glad to see that you don’t just write the Japanese off as “collateral damage.”:rolleyes:
Actually, my views are more in line with blowero’s. I don’t believe in killing – not even that done by the IRA.
The winners in a war get to write the history. That’s the reason that many Americans cannot see their own history of terrorism.
I have absolutely no doubt that most terrorists believe in the cause for which they are fighting.
As for the “new” open-minded fallacy of flipping the situation around, I was raised by a Pacifist father over half a century ago. So these ideas are nothing new to me. Also, I believe that most of the great religions teach something along the lines of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Social Construction has at least two approaches- strong Social Construction which claims that ALL events are socially constructed and weak Social Construction which claims that many events thought to be ‘of themselves’ are in fact socially constructed. I fall into the latter category.
I guess the real debate is “when is the use of force to preserve a way of life justified?” Al Quada demonstrated that they are a threat to our safety and our way of life so we are perfectly justified in defending outselves and taking action against them. That’s an easy one. The Palestinians feel that the Israelis shouldn’t be on their land. That’s a little tougher to answer. How about if I feel Walmart is a threat to my mom&pop store? Do I have the right to carbomb the Walmart because I feel it’s a threat to my economic stability.
I think that if you do not feel that we (Americans) are morally superior to terrorists than it simply becomes an issue of self-interest. Other people are willing to use force against us so we are justified in using force against them. The rightness and wrongness of it is irrelevant.
I don’t know that killing innocent people is ever justified. As for whether force should be used, it depends on the situation. I don’t think I can say that killing is absolutely wrong in every situation. To use the old cliche “If you could go back in time and kill Hitler…”, I have a hard time saying it would be wrong to do so. But every situation is unique, so I don’t think it does any good to try to formulate some abstract rule about “when force is justified”.
But the evidence linking Al Qaeda to Iraq was extremely sketchy, so while one might make a case for the Afganistan invasion, you can’t for Iraq. It was in fact a military operation that shouldn’t have happened.
You are showing yourself to be woefully ignorant of the actual issues that are at stake in the Middle East. Not to take sides, but from the Palestinian point of view, the Israelis are not only taking their land, but killing and subjugating their people. Your analogy is really off base.
I couldn’t disagree more. You do not have to declare yourself morally superior in order to act morally. In fact, when we try to demonize an entire race of people is when we become less human ourselves.
So how many innocent people dieing would be acceptible to stop a Hitler? One? a hundred? a million? Saying that “killing innocent people is never justified” is simplistic at best. Certainly killing innocent people should be avoided as much as possible but sometimes it happens.
Would it have been justified if the Iraqi people decided to overthrow their dictator? What you really mean is that Iraq is not our business and we should not have gotten involved in their problems.
It’s not meant as an anology. The question is still “when is the use of violence justified”? Just because someone tries to move me off my land does not necessarily mean I can blow them up.
First of all, it’s not just the Palestinians who are fighting Israel. They are supported and encouraged by other Arabs from nearby countries. None of these countries has freedom. These other countries are not occupied by Israel, but they opposed Israel just the same. In fact, they have opposed Israel since they attacked it on its first day of existance in 1948. The plight of the Palestinians is just the current excuse.
If the Palestinians had “freedom from occupation”, they wouldn’t have freedom. Living under Arafat’s Palestinian Authority wouldn’t be much of an improvement.
You asked what the Palestinians believe. I don’t know for sure. But, when I listen to sound bites from the Palestinian people or the PA, I hear lots of antipathy toward Israel, but little or no talk of freedom.
Guin, the IRA can trace their roots back to 1858 with the founding of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. the Irish Volunteers were founded in 1914.
It really depends on who’s version of history you want to read.
Well, that was hardly the first split - or the last. The “IRA we all know and love today” was formed in 1969. What you’re talking about is the split that occurred as a result of the Dáil’s acceptance of the Anglo-Irish Treaty - those members of the IRA that sided with the pro-treaty forces effectively became the Free State Army, while those who didn’t retained the name “IRA”.
And as I said in Kalt’s pit thread, even prior to that split the IRA were engaging in tactics that most people would consider “terrorist”, and were certainly described as such by the British.
This question is mostly for kalt since he/she was the first to give us this definition:
“collateral damage = accidental, unintended deaths of civilians”
As it stand now with all our modern military technology, we have the ability to make targetted strikes, which we have to admit are better than old versions carpet bombing or month-long shelling.
But there will always be civilian death within a war, its unavoidable. I don’t really care how good your intentions are, innocent lives are lost during war. At best it could be considered depraved indifference: sure you blew up the SAM site, but you also killed the children in the kidergarten that it sat on.
Now, for fear of making yet another open-mind fallacy, it has been alluded to that if Palestinians blew up Israeli military targets they would be more freedome-fighter and less terrorist. Is there an acceptable level of collateral damage when engaging is such guerillas style attacks.
I’d also like to try and seperate the terrorist from the guerilla.
From what I understand, guerilla style warfar involes using less than conventional methods (ie hiding in trees). but it DOES NOT allow dressing as a civilian.
Its been pointed out that armies wear uniforms. But I think the more important point is that in war you are not suppposed to violate a sense of trust. When a soldier dresses up like a civilian or pretends to surrender, that violates a sence of trust between combatants. Is there any validity to this?
There was a comment made during the hight of the “Impending war with Iraq” threads. It seems universal on this board that it is wrong for a military to dress in civilian clothes or hide in civilian areas. But then someone pointed out the tactics of the US Special Forces. From what I understand, Special Forces were sent into Iraq long before the war started, dressed as civilians, and began selecting targets. They were then stationed in Bagdad to “laser” the selected targets. So in effect, they were military personal dressed as civilians, and blowing up buildings that may or may not result in civilian death. Is that terrorism?
It’s wrong to demonize an entire people; it’s wrong if an Arab person does it with Westerners, and it’s wrong if a Westerner does it with Arabs.
Not ALL Arabs who say “death to America” are necessarily demonizing ALL Americans. Many people in Arab countries are against the U.S. GOVERNMENT, but do not necessarily hate all American people. Some DO hate all Americans, and THEY ARE WRONG FOR DOING SO, just as there are many Americans who hate all Arabs, which is also wrong.
My statement didn’t “unintentionally” do anything. YOU are the one who blithely referred to “the Arabs”, as if all Arabs are of like mind. That’s where you get in trouble; when you start lumping an entire race together and stereotyping them.
I agree. That’s why I can’t see trying to come up with some kind of “rule” as to when you can kill innocent people.
No, what I really meant was that the Iraq invasion was not justified under the pretext of fighting Al Qaeda. I don’t think I was as clear as I could have been.
But many Palestinians (as well as Israelis) have been killed. At this point, it’s gone way beyond “you’re on my land”. Besides which, if anyone tried to take any U.S. land, you can bet your butt we would blow them up.
I don’t think my point is really sinking in, so let me reiterate - I am NOT condoning any terrorist activity. I think what they are doing is wrong. My only point is that the view many seem to hold that the U.S. and Isreal are morally superior, and that all Arabs are evil, is naive at best. If peace is ever going to be acheived, people will have to get beyond such simplistic thinking.
And a bigger point is that it’s much easier to harp on “rules of engagement” when you are NOT the underdog. The way the U.S. won our war of independence was by violating rules of engagement and adopting guerilla tactics. Now we look at those soldiers as heroes.
I’m well aware of the distinction, but my point still holds: a social-construction process can be used to deny all the laws of logic, not just the “open-minded fallacy.”
Actually it was fought under the pretext of destroying those WMD that we will find any day now.
I hold the US is morally superior because we do not as a nation or as foreign policy view all Arabs or Muslims as “evil”. We do not arbitrarily attack civilian targets or econmomic and cultural symbols of the Muslim world. We do not hold rallies waving “Death to Islam” signs and burning effigies of Islamic leaders. Terrorists, on the other hand, do.
Do we do these things “as a nation”? No. Do Arabs do these things “as a nation”? Also no. First of all, there is no nation of “Arabia”. Does the Palestinian government view all Americans as evil as a matter of foreign policy? I kind of doubt that they would have accepted Bush’s “roadmap” for the Middle East if they have an official policy of “Death to America”.
There are Palestinian factions which maintain that Israel should not exist, AND there are Israeli factions which maintain that Palestine should not exist. To say that one side is good and the other is evil is a gross oversimplification and only serves as an obstacle to peace.
