Bhutto and Al Qaeda

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

I thought the question itself made that rather clear: It's undemocratic, authoritarian, and unconstitutional.

It's been in use since the early 18th century and been used many many times, how on earth is it unconstitutional?

Originally Posted by uBeR

Let me rephrase: Is it your contention that when a detective in a homicide finds the motive, that he is blaming the victim?

No, when he finds the motive he is not blaming the victim.

Scuzzy

[uBeR]

Good. So we can agree that when I (and many others) say that the motive for the attacks against Americans by Middle Eastern terrorist is American interventionist foreign policy, that I (and many others) are not blaming the victims.

[YomMamasHouse]

So in turn you'd agree that the US should not have to be stuck changing our interventionism with other countries because of Al Qaeda's acts? Basically we should just find them and bring them to justice because they are depraved individuals, but not change our foreign policy?

I think the US's foreign policy leaves a lot to be desired. All that was important was acknowledging that the severe actions taken by Al Qaeda are not the fault of the US but that regardless of blame the US does play a role in generating it's list of enemies.

It sounds like you are being defensive and I can't quite figure out why. It seemed as though you felt that we were subtly trying to incriminate the US by saying that it's foreign policies were a motivating factor in Al Qaeda's decision to commit acts of terror. You wouldn't seem to agree that the US's policies were a motivating factor until we essentially signed a contract saying that once motivation was admitted no type of guilt or blame was put on the US and nothing needed to be changed. I had the feeling you wanted to insure that the US being a motivating factor changed nothing and created no negative image of them. And meanwhile, ekiM was desperately trying to impress upon you that the motive is not the conjoined twin of blame.

[accrede]

Maybe a driving analogy would be helpful here?

Imagine a wide road with two single lanes heading in opposite directions:

|               |               |
|				|
|	CAR	|      	CAR	|
|				|
|		|		|

Each vehicle is allowed to drive anywhere within its lane but not within the lane travelling in the opposite direction.

One position which the cars can drive in is indicated below:

|		|		|
|				|
|	     CAR|      	CAR	|
|				|
|		|		|

However, unfortunately sometimes lorries come round the corner and they do not always obey all of the rules of the road....

|		|		|
|	       L  O  R  R  Y	|
|	     CAR|      		|
|				|
|		|		|

This, unfortunately, results in a crash in which the lorry driver is at fault, (according to my rules of the road).

However, whether or not the lorry driver is to blame... the car driver still ends up dead...

... so, to minimise their own chances of having an accident the driver chooses to drive in the "sweet spot":

|  | 	   |	|		|
|  |       |   L  O  R  R  Y	|
|  |  CAR  |	|      		|
|  |	   |			|
|  |       |	|		|
   \_______/
       |
  SWEET SPOT

This driving position reduces the chance of a more serious head on collision but also does not take the car too close to the kerb (where the risk of a less serious collision would increase). In short, when on the roads, drive as if everyone else is an idiot and as if there is a combine harvester around every corner.

How does this relate to US foreign policy?

Evaluate the options and take the path which minimises the risk to US citizens and assets. Don't retreat into yourselves (or you may come-a-cropper on the kerb!), but don't be overly antagonistic or agressive either (or you may have a head on collsion with an oil tanker)!

My best piece of advice would be practice what you preach... if you wouldn't do it to a US citizen... don't do it to anyone else...

Just to reiterate:

The car driver is NOT to blame for the crash, morally or otherwise, but they CAN minimise their own risk. The same applies to the US.

(Disclaimer: Although some of the US' foreign policies do mean that they deserve blame, so the driving analogy is not a perfect one).

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

http://books.google.com/books?id=hUC...ikfLSmklfzLAdU

http://www.danenet.org/dcccrsa/saissues/rapist.html

http://www.fskv.org/sexualassault.htm (Look under Defintion):

"Sexual assault is the sexual expression of power and anger rather than the aggressive expression of sexuality."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...10/ai_15794136

""We can think of no other assertion in the social sciences, that has achieved such wide acceptance based on so little evidence," wrote Felson and coauthor Tedeschi, pioneers of the controversial Social-Interactionist Perspective which asserts that sexual desire can be a motivating factor in rape."

"People get furious over this, because they think it means we're blaming the victim," Felson says. "But the point I keep hammering home is that cause is not the same as blame. There is a reason why you are picked as a target, but that doesn't mean it was your fault the aggressor attacked you.""

Bottom line - human psychology is not a cut and dried issue. It is ridiculous to say that rape is NEVER motivated by power and it's ridiculous to say that it's ALWAYS motivated by power. It is ridiculous to say that rape is NEVER motivated by sexual desire and it's ridiculous to say that it's ALWAYS motivated by sexual desire.

But, most of all, this subthread is irrelevant to the original point and I'm not interested in pursuing it further.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

But, most of all, this subthread is irrelevant to the original point and I'm not interested in pursuing it further.

I love how you always have to deal in absolutes, and then run off when I provide documentation. Classic.

[ekiM]

Are you kidding? My post EXPLICITLY SAYS that we cannot deal in absolutes. That rape is never motivated by sexual desire is YOUR position. YOU are the one dealing in absolutes.

Similarly, YOU are the one who is "looking for the status quo" in begging to be told that you don't need to change your foreign policy at all.

Two really bizarre examples of you accusing me of exactly what you do yourself.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I didn't think it needed responding too, is that a problem for you? You made a statement, I read it.

No, it doesn't surprise me that you don't respond to a direct request for you to acknowledge previous logical error.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

"You are not guaranteed a response to your posts", it's in my sig just for you chief. I'll respond to what I think you're looking for a response in or that follows the parts of the thread that are worth continuing. You ignored my extremely polite requests to answer my questions for 3 pages, I'd stop crying about one paragraph kiddo.

So it's OK for you to ignore relevant parts of posts you don't have an answer for but it's not OK for me to refuse to allow you to change the topic? Interesting!

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Ok ekiM, here's what it looks like you are arguing, and why I discontinued talking about it with you.

1) A woman wears a short skirt.
2) A rapist is motivated to rape the girl because of the short skirt.
3) Conversely, since the skirt was a motivating factor, If the woman had not worn the short skirt, she may not have motivated the rapist to rape her.

How do you not see you assigning a level of responsibility for the rape to the woman because she wore the short skirt? Explain your logic to me where your causality is not related to motivation.

The woman did not intend for her action to lead to a rape and she had no way of knowing that it would. There is nothing morally wrong with wearing a short skirt. Saying that wearing a short skirt could concievably motivate someone to rape does NOT contradict this.

Causality IS motivation. Morally culpability IS NOT causality. This is really basic stuff, man.

It may make you uncomfortable that bad things can result from morally impecable actions, but it is true.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

And I clearly outlined the meaning behind that No, but you refused to listen. If your meaning behind "motivation" places blame upon the United States, then No, I do not subscribe to that. It's on Page 3, read it again. If you do not want to place blame on the United States and use the word motivation, feel free.

And since then I've been explaining that, no, saying Al Qaeda are motivated by US interventionism DOES NOT mean that they are morally culpable for Al Qaeda's actions, so won't you acknowledge the logical flaws in that line of argument and agree straight up that they are motivated by interventionism.

So where, exactly, have I been making stuff up? I asked what you meant, you clarified, I pointed out the flaws in what you were saying and asked for a restatement.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

However, explain this to me in your logical world, since this is what you're arguing:

John does act A.
Act A by John motivates Becky to do B.

Now, if A is a motivating factor in Becky's behavior, that's causality. If A causes B to occur, is that not saying A is responsible for B occurring? Now, if B did not cause A to occur, it wouldn't be responsible. If B did not cause A to occur it then wouldn't be a motivating factor. That seems fairly simple to me.

You're conflating causal responsibility with moral responsibility.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Al Qaeda states that their primary motivation is US intervention in the Middle East, this may not be their only motivation, and the United States is absolutely not to blame in any way the actions that Al Qaeda takes in response to their motivation.

If I agree to the bolded part, what do you think that means? Do you not get that? Freaking open you eyes kid.

It means you're using weasel words to avoid having to say "Al Qaeda are motivated by US interventionism".

Clear statement : Al Qaeda are motivated by US interventionism and other factors. This does not make the US morally culpable for Al Qaeda's actions.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

You boggle my mind. So, the US is to blame for making itself unsafe, and is the cause of Al Qaeda's actions, but not morally culpable for having caused Al Qaeda to kill people?

Yes, that's correct. Causal responsiblity is not the same thing as moral responsibility. The US is not morally culpable for Al Qaeda's actions. Terrorism is never justifiable. Nevertheless, the US should be looking at how their actions have contributed to terrorism and critically analyze whether their foreign policy is making them more or less safe. That you can't see it boggles my mind.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

How exactly do you come up with this stuff? Here's a better way of explaining your logic:

John pays Bob $1000 to kill Becky. John paying Bob cash is the motivating factor in the killing. John is not morally culpable for the murder of Becky.

If someone's actions are a motivating factor for an immoral action then they MAY OR MAY NOT BE morally culpable for the immoral action. Coming up with an example where they are does not contradict that. How can you not understand that? How can you think this example proves your point? I'm incredulous at this point. I have to believe that you're being facetious; nobody can be this dumb.

Some fruit are apples. Therefore all fruit are apples!

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

You read stuff into what I type all the time ekiM, I've outlined that in the past, go back and read the other posts. I'll make a statement and you'll come off half-cocked about something completely different. Hell, that's what 90% of your rant in this thread it.

No, you've frequently accused me of reading stuff into what you say but when I ask for examples you never give any. Common pattern with you.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

So in turn you'd agree that the US should not have to be stuck changing our interventionism with other countries because of Al Qaeda's acts? Basically we should just find them and bring them to justice because they are depraved individuals, but not change our foreign policy?

That's called a non sequitur, buddy. It does not follow.

If you get mugged because you walk home through a bad neighbourhood you are not morally culpable. But you'd be pretty foolish if you didn't look for another route to use in future.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by accrede

Maybe a driving analogy would be helpful here?

Imagine a wide road with two single lanes heading in opposite directions:

|               |               |
|				|
|	CAR	|      	CAR	|
|				|
|		|		|

Each vehicle is allowed to drive anywhere within its lane but not within the lane travelling in the opposite direction.

One position which the cars can drive in is indicated below:

|		|		|
|				|
|	     CAR|      	CAR	|
|				|
|		|		|

However, unfortunately sometimes lorries come round the corner and they do not always obey all of the rules of the road....

|		|		|
|	       L  O  R  R  Y	|
|	     CAR|      		|
|				|
|		|		|

This, unfortunately, results in a crash in which the lorry driver is at fault, (according to my rules of the road).

However, whether or not the lorry driver is to blame... the car driver still ends up dead...

... so, to minimise their own chances of having an accident the driver chooses to drive in the "sweet spot":

|  | 	   |	|		|
|  |       |   L  O  R  R  Y	|
|  |  CAR  |	|      		|
|  |	   |			|
|  |       |	|		|
   \_______/
       |
  SWEET SPOT

This driving position reduces the chance of a more serious head on collision but also does not take the car too close to the kerb (where the risk of a less serious collision would increase). In short, when on the roads, drive as if everyone else is an idiot and as if there is a combine harvester around every corner.

How does this relate to US foreign policy?

Evaluate the options and take the path which minimises the risk to US citizens and assets. Don't retreat into yourselves (or you may come-a-cropper on the kerb!), but don't be overly antagonistic or agressive either (or you may have a head on collsion with an oil tanker)!

My best piece of advice would be practice what you preach... if you wouldn't do it to a US citizen... don't do it to anyone else...

Just to reiterate:

The car driver is NOT to blame for the crash, morally or otherwise, but they CAN minimise their own risk. The same applies to the US.

(Disclaimer: Although some of the US' foreign policies do mean that they deserve blame, so the driving analogy is not a perfect one).

Great post.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

the US should be looking at how their actions have contributed to terrorism and critically analyze whether their foreign policy is making them more or less safe.

I've cut the crap down to this, because this is pretty much the meat of the point. If there are other little things you need me to go back and quote, then let me know. So, basically, what you're saying NOW is:

You are saying that the United States *IS* responsible for creating Al Qaeda, they contributed in part to it's creation. However, you say that the United States is not responsible for Al Qaeda's actions.

Again, I give you the pit bull example. A man breeds a pit bull and through his actions or lack of actions he is, as you put it, responsible for the dog becoming a killer. The dog goes out and kills someone. How is the man not morally responsible for the dogs action?

Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

That's called a non sequitur, buddy. It does not follow.

If you get mugged because you walk home through a bad neighbourhood you are not morally culpable. But you'd be pretty foolish if you didn't look for another route to use in future.

But your contention is that the man created the alley, created the criminals in the alley, and then walked through it.

Scuzzy

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

But your contention is that the man created the alley, created the criminals in the alley, and then walked through it.

You're stretching the analogy too far so that you don't have to respond to it.

Basically, you've said it's impossible to have a situation where all of the following are true :

A. The actions of an entity are causually responsible for X.
B. The entity is not morally responsible for X.
C. The entity should change its future actions if it wants to avoid X in future.

The man getting mugged example shows that your thinking is flawed. All of A, B and C are true there.

A. His choice of route is causually responsible for his mugging.
B. He is not morally responsible for getting mugged.
C. He should choose a different route in future.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

You're stretching the analogy too far so that you don't have to respond to it.

Basically, you've said it's impossible to have a situation where all of the following are true :

A. The actions of an entity are causually responsible for X.
B. The entity is not morally responsible for X.
C. The entity should change its future actions if it wants to avoid X in future.

The man getting mugged example shows that your thinking is flawed. All of A, B and C are true there.

A. His choice of route is causually responsible for his mugging.
B. He is not morally responsible for getting mugged.
C. He should choose a different route in future.

No, I'm not stretching the analogy to far. YOU'RE the one saying that the US is responsible for creating Al Qaeda. In order for your analogy to be even a close comparison you must also be saying that the man created the mugger, then got mugged by him, but he's not responsible (and notice I'm not putting the word morally in there, you started doing that two posts ago in attempt to make it my word, but I gave you a moral example with the dog to make you happy) for being mugged. Take a look at the Dog situation, explain where I'm wrong there.

A man breeds a pit bull and through his actions or lack of actions he is, as you put it, responsible for the dog becoming a killer. The dog goes out and kills someone. How is the man not morally responsible for the dogs action?

Scuzzy

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

You are saying that the United States *IS* responsible for creating Al Qaeda, they contributed in part to it's creation. However, you say that the United States is not responsible for Al Qaeda's actions.

Correct. However, you are conflating two DIFFERENT uses of the word "responsiblity". One refers to CAUSATION and the other refers to MORAL CULPABILITY.

That's the meat.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Again, I give you the pit bull example. A man breeds a pit bull and through his actions or lack of actions he is, as you put it, responsible for the dog becoming a killer. The dog goes out and kills someone. How is the man not morally responsible for the dogs action?

He is. Giving SPECIFIC EXAMPLES were someone is BOTH morally AND causually responsible DOES NOT PRECLUDE the possiblity of situations where someone is NOT morally responsible but IS causually responsible.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

No, I'm not stretching the analogy to far. YOU'RE the one saying that the US is responsible for creating Al Qaeda. In order for your analogy to be even a close comparison, you must also be saying that the man created the mugger, then got mugged by him,

It isn't a close comparison. It is simply an example that situations exist where A, B and C hold. Thefore your line of argument that they cannot all hold in the case of the US and Al Qaeda is flawed.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

but he's not responsible (and notice I'm not putting the word morally in there, you started doing that two posts ago in attempt to make it my word) for being mugged.

The entire root of this confusion is your conflation of different meanings of the word "responsible".

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

The entire root of this confusion is your conflation of different meanings of the word "responsible".

No, it isn't. It's in you assigning your meaning of "responsible" to my posts and going off half cocked.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

He is. Giving SPECIFIC EXAMPLES were someone is BOTH morally AND causually responsible DOES NOT PRECLUDE the possiblity of situations where someone is NOT morally responsible but IS causually responsible.

I completely agree that someone can cause a situation but not be morally responsible. Duh.

A man breeds a pit bull and through his actions or lack of actions he is, as you put it, responsible for the dog becoming a killer. The dog goes out and kills someone. How is the man not morally responsible for the dogs action?

You say: the US creates Al Qaeda and through their actions or lack of actions and they are, as you put it, responsible for the Al Qaeda becoming a killer. Al Qaeda goes out and kills someone. How is the United States not morally responsible for the Al Qaeda's actions in your mind?

Scuzzy

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

No, it isn't. It's in you assigning your meaning of "responsible" to my posts and going off half cocked.

If you use words amiguously then people will have to deduce meaning from context.

You've said that if Al Qaeda's actions are motivated by US actions then the US is "responsible" for Al Qaeda's actions and you won't accept that.

Did you mean morally responsible or causually responsible?

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I completely agree that someone can cause a situation but not be morally responsible.

Good. Scuzzy agrees that someone can be causally responsible but not morally responsible.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

A man breeds a pit bull and through his actions or lack of actions he is, as you put it, responsible for the dog becoming a killer. The dog goes out and kills someone. How is the man not morally responsible for the dogs action?

He is. He owns the dog. A dog is an animal with no moral capabilities. He is completely morally responsible for the dog and its actions.

Bad analogy! Sit!

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

You say: the US creates Al Qaeda and through their actions or lack of actions and they are, as you put it, [causally] responsible for the Al Qaeda becoming a killer. Al Qaeda goes out and kills someone. How is the United States not morally responsible for the Al Qaeda's actions in your mind?

You just asked me "If the US are causally responsible, then why are they not morally responsible?"

But you've already agreed that someone can be causally responsible but not morally responsible.

So you're contradicting yourself.