4 ms·

Right but you are justifying the terrorist means (killing civilians randomly) based on their ends (inducing political chance).

mikeash 13y ago
No I am not. I'm getting righteously tired of this ridiculous conversational tactic, in which the other guy takes what I say, then speeds about six thousand light years in a random direction using a warp drive built on speculation and assumptions, then attacks whatever random space junk he finds there. If you think I said it, then go find it and quote it for me.
- voodoo123 13y ago
  You: "Wouldn't an outcome analogous to the modern-day UK and Ireland be great? People getting along well, no violence, reasonably stable governments? I don't see why you paint this as a bad outcome." That outcome also included dead British cabinet ministers, civilians and infrastructure and decades of fear and hatred.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    I just said that it's a good outcome. Which it is. At no point did I say that this good outcome justifies the decades of violence that preceded it.
    - voodoo123 13y ago
      You said it in support of the UK's approach to terrorism. Which was to capitulate to the terrorists.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        And?
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        I'm pretty sure his point is as follows: good means, good ends - no need for justification bad means, good ends - the ends justify the means good means, bad ends - the means justify the ends bad means, bad ends - no possibility of justification UK terrorism is bad means. UK political change is good ends. If the ends didn't justify the means, they wouldn't be good ends. Any statement that the means were bad but the ends were good is justification; otherwise, your opinion would be that because the means were bad, the ends were necessarily bad too, even though they would otherwise appear to be good.
        mikeash 13y ago
        I think I see the disconnect now. The assumption is being made that the British method for fighting terrorism that I'm advocating results in more or worse attacks than the American method. Therefore by advocating the British method, I'm implicitly advocating for more or worse terrorist attacks, and then justifying it by saying that the outcome is better. The disconnect is that I don't accept this assumption. I see no evidence that the US method fights terrorism better. In fact, it appears to result in far more and worse attacks than the British method. Therefore, I am advocating for something that I believe will mitigate terrorism as it happens, and produce a better outcome. Thus falling squarely in the "no need for justification" line of your summary.
        voodoo123 13y ago
        The Irish terrorists didn't cease their attacks because of the British method of fighting them. They succeeded in bombing mainland Britain 14 times, and they caused more than 50,000 casualties including 3,500 deaths. London rail stations to this day have no trash cans because the IRA repeatedly left bombs in them. They stopped their attacks when their demands were met. I fail to see what you are advocating other than giving in to terrorism.
        mikeash 13y ago
        And what if I am advocating giving in to terrorism? That does not justify terrorism, as you seem to have said. Sure, the Irish didn't cease their attacks because of how the British fought them. Likewise, various anti-American terrorists haven't ceased their attacks because of how the US fights them.

mikeash 13y ago

No I am not. I'm getting righteously tired of this ridiculous conversational tactic, in which the other guy takes what I say, then speeds about six thousand light years in a random direction using a warp drive built on speculation and assumptions, then attacks whatever random space junk he finds there. If you think I said it, then go find it and quote it for me.

voodoo123 13y ago
You: "Wouldn't an outcome analogous to the modern-day UK and Ireland be great? People getting along well, no violence, reasonably stable governments? I don't see why you paint this as a bad outcome." That outcome also included dead British cabinet ministers, civilians and infrastructure and decades of fear and hatred.
- mikeash 13y ago
  I just said that it's a good outcome. Which it is. At no point did I say that this good outcome justifies the decades of violence that preceded it.
  - voodoo123 13y ago
    You said it in support of the UK's approach to terrorism. Which was to capitulate to the terrorists.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      And?
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        I'm pretty sure his point is as follows: good means, good ends - no need for justification bad means, good ends - the ends justify the means good means, bad ends - the means justify the ends bad means, bad ends - no possibility of justification UK terrorism is bad means. UK political change is good ends. If the ends didn't justify the means, they wouldn't be good ends. Any statement that the means were bad but the ends were good is justification; otherwise, your opinion would be that because the means were bad, the ends were necessarily bad too, even though they would otherwise appear to be good.
        mikeash 13y ago
        I think I see the disconnect now. The assumption is being made that the British method for fighting terrorism that I'm advocating results in more or worse attacks than the American method. Therefore by advocating the British method, I'm implicitly advocating for more or worse terrorist attacks, and then justifying it by saying that the outcome is better. The disconnect is that I don't accept this assumption. I see no evidence that the US method fights terrorism better. In fact, it appears to result in far more and worse attacks than the British method. Therefore, I am advocating for something that I believe will mitigate terrorism as it happens, and produce a better outcome. Thus falling squarely in the "no need for justification" line of your summary.
        voodoo123 13y ago
        The Irish terrorists didn't cease their attacks because of the British method of fighting them. They succeeded in bombing mainland Britain 14 times, and they caused more than 50,000 casualties including 3,500 deaths. London rail stations to this day have no trash cans because the IRA repeatedly left bombs in them. They stopped their attacks when their demands were met. I fail to see what you are advocating other than giving in to terrorism.
        mikeash 13y ago
        And what if I am advocating giving in to terrorism? That does not justify terrorism, as you seem to have said. Sure, the Irish didn't cease their attacks because of how the British fought them. Likewise, various anti-American terrorists haven't ceased their attacks because of how the US fights them.