Huh–this really surprises me, since it’s exactly what I’ve been arguing since the very beginning. And just yesterday, you argued that there was “no debate” that “John Brown was a terrorist.”
I’m certainly happy to see that you changed your mind, if that’s what happened.
Septimus said:
**
**
To which I said:
I have color coded the above since I don’t have the ability to use hand puppets and toss treats which might make the below more understandable to you.
When I said “because he wasn’t successful” it was, and I think clearly, in response to the “deliberate large-scale attacks on innocents” part. (See how this works? Green goes with green. That will be true for other colors as well- it’s similar to matching Garanimals.) Let’s take parts of my sentence and parts of Septimus’s sentence and make one sentence: “The reason he (John Brown) didn’t make deliberate large scale attacks on innocents is because he was not successful.” Had he (John Brown- if you remembered that please give yourself a cracker) been successful, he would have made deliberate large scale attacks on innocents; that WAS his intent.
Now, am I agreeing with Septimus that large scale attacks on innocents are necessary to define terrorism? No, I am not. How would you know this you ask? Well, my rejection of septimus’s definition of terrorism should, unless the reader is willfully disengenous or jsut plain stupid, be evinced by by the fact that my very next words, in red up above that you might notice them, are
I wasn’t aware [COLOR=“Blue”]it was quantifiable; how many innocents can you kill needlessly without being labeled a terrorist? [/COLOR]
Do you remember the color coding? Well, we’re using it again, but it’s a bit more complicated this time, but that is how we learn- we build on what we already know.
Okay, see the word that is in blue? That word, it, is a neutral pronoun that in this case refers to terrorism. I would think this is obvious, but if it wasn’t before, now it is, and all because of our friend colors.
Now, that pronoun can be changed for the original noun, so let’s try that:
“I wasn’t aware that terrorism was quanitifiable.”
Quantifiable means “capable of being expressed in quantity” or, said another way, “capable of being defined using numbers”. Let’s substitute that for the sentence above:
“I (me, not John Brown- did you get that? Cracker!) wasn’t aware that terrorism could be defined using numbers.” I then ask “how many innocents can you kill needlessly without being labeled a terrorist?”. This is called a rhetorical question meaning it’s not really seeking an answer per se, though one could perhaps be given, but mainly it’s a part of an argument.
I could have asked this way:
“How many innocent people do you need to kill before you can be called a terrorist?” Or, “Andy, Blaine, Carlo, and Danny are all members of the same organization that seeks to use violence to change things they disagree with. In so doing Andy kills 4 innocent people, and Blaine kills 10 innocent people, and Carlo kills 25 innocent people, and Danny kills 50 innocent people, which ones are terrorist and which ones are not? Are all of them terrorists, or just some of them, or none of them?”
Personally I don’t think you have to kill a certain number of innocent people to be a terrorist, I don’t even think you have to kill anybody. If you send mail bombs but all of them detonate without actually killing or even seriously injuring anybody, you are still a terrorist. In the definition of terrorism (above) it never says there is a numerical prerequisite, and therefore I do not believe there is. Septimus perhaps disagrees, so to the extent that it is not rhetorical, is an attempt to find out how many innocent people you have to deliberately attack before you are a terrorist.
I hope this helps.
Hero.
How you think your behavior is appropriate for Great Debates is frankly beyond me. Take it to the pit if in fact, this is long overdue.
No I am not.
But consider this: slaves could be freed in their masters’ wills or through various other ways (as countless slave owners did). Plus again a life in slavery was not one of constant torture, beating, starvation etc., and the fact that slaves had families and their religious beliefs made it bearable.
While much is made, on various sides of the argument and by various posters, about whether slavery is more or less tollerable than death or more or less evil than murder or genocide, I think the real question is this. Is the evil of continued slavery of oneself or another more or less tollerable than ending this via deadly force.
Of course, Brown’s foibles and failures may lead us astray of this (though that was the original matter addressed by the OP), but to speak of “law” and how changes “ought to be made” seems incongruous when referencing a society that allows human beings to be treated as livestock.
Also, the death of children or non-slavers during a slave revolt (or 3rd party slave revolt) is evil. But, while the actors in instances of such violence are not without blame, there is plenty of blame to go around and much (most?) of it fairly falls on people who hold other human beings captive in order to enrich themselves.
The conventional wisdom of the origins of AA stereotypes of a tendancy to theft, laziness and vandalism claims that it started with the slaves’ shirking or theft and sabotage of their masters’ property. But, I have to wonder, though it’s only conjecture, if the cause is collective psychological projection. People who would rather steal another’s very life in order to avoid laboring for themselves, unconsciously knowing the immorality of this and seeing their own corruption in those they persecute.
While much is made, on various sides of the argument and by various posters, about whether slavery is more or less tollerable than death or more or less evil than murder or genocide, I think the real question is this. Is the evil of continued slavery of oneself or another more or less tollerable than ending this via deadly force.
Of course, Brown’s foibles and failures may lead us astray of this (though that was the original matter addressed by the OP), but to speak of “law” and how changes “ought to be made” seems incongruous when referencing a society that allows human beings to be treated as livestock.
Also, the death of children or non-slavers during a slave revolt (or 3rd party slave revolt) is evil. But, while the actors in instances of such violence are not without blame, there is plenty of blame to go around and much (most?) of it fairly falls on people who hold other human beings captive in order to enrich themselves. A man who corners a wild animal is likely to be attacked as the beast lashes out in terror or anger. How much more dangerous is a man who has had everything taken from him, and possibly from his ancestors, and perhaps from his decendants? And I’m not talking just property or labor. Culture, religion, language, even his name. Unlike a beast, a man understands and can remember this. Would I, born free, regard killing the children of slavers justified? No. But, I can’t pretend I would refrain from doing so were I a slave. Aside from the morality, man is a most dangerous beast to hold in captivity. The slaver has little justification for any damage caused when that captivity fails.
The conventional wisdom of the origins of AA stereotypes of a tendancy to theft, laziness and vandalism claims that it started with the slaves’ shirking or theft and sabotage of their masters’ property. But, I have to wonder, though it’s only conjecture, if the cause is collective psychological projection. People who would rather steal another’s very life in order to avoid laboring for themselves, unconsciously knowing the immorality of this and seeing their own corruption in those they persecute.
Oops. Sorry about that. My browser was acting weird on edit.
What’s wrong with you?
He never met my family back in Texas. Being glued to my mother for my entire life would only have added to the misery.
NM