Bhutto and Al Qaeda

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

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

Oh come on ekiM, you're splitting words again and it's extremely tiring. Any freaking normal person would understand what a person means when they say, "The United States is not responsible for Al Qaeda killing innocent people." Why do you have to go off half cocked for page upon page and try to get down to the extreme definitions of words. If you don't have a clue as to what a normal individual would mean by that statement you need to get your head out of books and meet some real people. Get out of your dorm room. Go to a coffee shop, meet everyday folks, talk to them.

Come to the United States, find the center of any mall. Then, announce to everyone in the joint, "The United States is responsible for Al Qaeda killing innocent Americans" and see how many of them automatically equate that you REALLY MEAN, "The United States is causally responsible for Al Qaeda killing innocent Americans, but not morally responsible." You're being childish, pretending not to know what I've been talking about is either stupidity or just for the fun of arguing. Grow up.

Scuzzy

[ekiM]

You said that I am misinterpreting what you mean when you use the phrase. So I asked for clarification. Calm down.

What would the natural interpretation of the phrase "The US is responsible for Al Qaeda's actions" be? It would be that they were morally responsible. I've been assuming that's what you meant. What you've just said seems to back that up. So I'm not misinterpreting what you've said at all.

Your argument was that US interventionism cannot motivate Al Qaeda because this assigns blame to the US for Al Qaeda's actions.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

If you want to say that the US is the (or just a) motivating factor in Al Qaeda's slaughtering of innocent civilians that assigns a level of blame and guilt on the United States for those deaths. If the US is in some way guilty of contributing to those deaths, then in turn Al Qaeda must be justified in killing those people. I do [not] subscribe to that.

Your use of the words "blame", "guilt" and "justified" would seem to imply that you're talking about moral responsibility.

In other words, your argument was that the US cannot be causally responsible for Al Qaeda's actions because this would mean that they are morally responsible. Am I wrong? Is this not what you said?

But this argument is nonsense. As you've agreed here :

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

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

But then you contradict yourself.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

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?

You imply here that if I think the US are causally responsible for Al Qaeda's actions then I should, for some reason, believe that they are morally responsible for them. Something that you said was false at the start of the very same post.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

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

See the contradiction?

I'm not misinterpreting you. You just aren't making a whole lot of sense. Getting angry doesn't change that.

[YomMamasHouse]

Here is something relevant to this thread that i found in a magazine i got for Christmas.


Left Brains vs. Right Brains
Political ideology is tied to how the brain manages conflict

By Siri Carpenter

People who describe themselves as being politically liberal can better suppress a habitual response when faced with situations in which that response is incorrect, according to research that used a simple cognitive test to compare liberal and conservative thinkers. Tasks that require such “conflict monitoring” also triggered more activity in the liberals’ anterior cingulate cortex, a brain region geared to detect and respond to conflicting information.

Past research has shown that liberals and conservatives exhibit differing cognitive styles, with liberals being more tolerant of ambiguity and conservatives preferring more structure. The new paper “is exciting because it suggests a specific mechanism” for that pattern, comments psychologist Wil Cunningham of Ohio State University, who was not involved with the study. In the experiment, subjects saw a series of letters flash quickly on a screen and were told to press a button when they saw M, but not W. Because M appeared about 80 percent of the time, hitting the button became a reflex—and the more liberal-minded volunteers were better able to avoid the knee-jerk reaction.

The study’s lead author, psychologist David Amodio of New York University, emphasizes that the findings do not mean that political views are predetermined. “There are a lot of steps between conflict monitoring and political ideology, and we don’t know what those steps are,” he says. Although the neurocognitive process his group measured is so basic that it is most likely in place in early childhood, he notes that “the whole brain is very malleable.” Social relation*ships and other environmental factors also shape one’s political leanings.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

You said that I am misinterpreting what you mean when you use the phrase. So I asked for clarification. Calm down.

What would the natural interpretation of the phrase "The US is responsible for Al Qaeda's actions" be? It would be that they were morally responsible. I've been assuming that's what you meant. What you've just said seems to back that up. So I'm not misinterpreting what you've said at all.

Not misinterpreting it? Come on ekiM, you can't figure that out? Are you claiming there's a cultural problem here? Would the natural interpretation in England be, "Oh jolly yes, surely the America's are causality responsible but not morally responsible, that goes without saying old chap!" You honestly don't know what 99% of people hearing that statement think it means?

Originally Posted by ekiM

Your argument was that US interventionism cannot motivate Al Qaeda because this assigns blame to the US for Al Qaeda's actions.

No, that is not my argument. I have contended that they are using US policy as an excuse to move their agenda forward.

Originally Posted by ekiM

In other words, your argument was that the US cannot be causally responsible for Al Qaeda's actions because this would mean that they are morally responsible. Am I wrong? Is this not what you said?

But this argument is nonsense. As you've agreed here :

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

But then you contradict yourself.

You are just inconsolable. A person can believe that it's POSSIBLE for someone to cause a situation and not be morally responsible but also the vice versa for a different situation. You're trying to say that my belief that it's possible is a contradictory statement to a separate situation is just ludicrous. Do you see what you're arguing here? "Scuzzy believes it's possible for a situation to be caused by someone and not be morally responsible, but since he doesn't believe that in this particular situation over here because of my wording then he's contradicting himself." How do you come up with this crap? If a boy knocks over a lap by backing up into it and smashes it, did he cause the lamp to be broken? Obviously. Is he morally responsible for that accident? No.

Originally Posted by ekiM

You imply here that if I think the US are causally responsible for Al Qaeda's actions then I should, for some reason, believe that they are morally responsible for them. Something that you said was false at the start of the very same post.

What I am expressing is that when you go around saying that the US is responsible for Al Qaeda's attacks because of their foreign policy you, whether cognizant of it or not, are *communicating* that they are to blame. You may mean, in your own little world, that they aren't to blame it's just a logical causality loop, but Bob, Sue, Becky, and Joe aren't seeing it that way.

Originally Posted by ekiM

I'm not misinterpreting you. You just aren't making a whole lot of sense. Getting angry doesn't change that.

Then stop trying to get down to the definitions of words. Use common sense ekiM. Don't try to win arguments by saying, "Oh well I thought you mean the fifth Websters definition of responsible, hardy har har." Get out, learn about the world from first hand experience, not from books, not from your magazines, not from the internet. Actually go out and speak with real people, in real places.

[ekiM]

I am using the common definitions of words. I'm also using logic. You ain't, buddy.

You agreed that causal responsibility DOES NOT imply moral responsibility. In the very same post you said "IF you believe that the US are causally responsble THEN why don't you believe that they are morally responsible?", implying that causal responsiblity DOES imply moral responsiblity.

This is a flat-out contradiction. Sorry.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

You agreed that causal responsibility DOES NOT imply moral responsibility. In the very same post you said "IF you believe that the US are causally responsble THEN why don't you believe that they are morally responsible?", implying that causal responsiblity DOES imply moral responsiblity.

This is a flat-out contradiction. Sorry.

No, because it depends upon the situation you're talking about. Just because I believe it's possible does not mean it applys to every single situation, you should know that if you weren't hung up on absolutes.

Scuzzy

[ekiM]

If A does not imply B then it's not a valid argument to say "A is true, therefore B should be true". A being true doesn't tell us whether or not B is true. We can't reasonably ask "You believe A, so why don't you believe B?" because believing A doesn't entail belief in B.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

If A does not imply B then it's not a valid argument to say "A is true, therefore B should be true". A being true doesn't tell us whether or not B is true. We can't reasonably ask "You believe A, so why don't you believe B?" because believing A doesn't entail belief in B.

You're saying that question can't be situation dependent? Take the dog situation. Are there situations where the man, through his action or inactions, makes the dog a murder but he's not morally responsible? Or, for that type of situation, no matter the breed of the dog, or the color of the man, or other mitigating factors, the man would always be responsible?

Scuzzy

[ekiM]

I'm saying that if you agree that "A implies B" is untrue then you can't say "You believe A. Why do you not, then, believe B?" without being either facetious or an idiot.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

I'm saying that if you agree that "A implies B" is untrue then you can't say "You believe A. Why do you not, then, believe B?" without being either facetious or an idiot.

And I'm making it clear that in some situations A implies B is true. In other situations, it's possible that A does not imply that B is true. Duh.

Scuzzy

[uBeR]

Scuzzy I thought we already agreed that when I (and many others) have already found the motive, that we're not blaming the victims. Why continue?

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

And I'm making it clear that in some situations A implies B is true. In other situations, it's possible that A does not imply that B is true. Duh.

Ok, you're utterly incapable of working in abstract logic. Let's go back to the specific situation.

I don't think that the US is morally responsible for Al Qaeda's actions. I think they are to some extent causally responsible. You've agreed that causal responsibility doesn't imply moral responsibility in general. You've offered no reasons why it would in this specific situation.

Therefore, your question "You believe that the US is causally responsible for Al Qaeda's actions. How are they not morally responsible, then?" is nonsensical.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

You've agreed that causal responsibility doesn't imply moral responsibility in general. You've offered no reasons why it would in this specific situation.

I agreed to absolutely no such thing. I stated that I believed it was possible. I said, and I quote:

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

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

I stated that because you got it into your head that I didn't think THAT situation was possible. Now your saying that this is absolute statement for all situations? Because I agree a thing "can" happen I must also believe it must "always" happen? This is where you and I get into huge arguments ekiM, you do not read things for as they are. You read in absolutes into all this stuff and believe it's stone.

If I say, "I believe a dog can bark at the moon" that does not mean that all dogs bark at the moon and that the only thing dogs ever back at is the moon. I'm tired of having to spell this shit out of you.

Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Scuzzy I thought we already agreed that when I (and many others) have already found the motive, that we're not blaming the victims. Why continue?

Beats the shit out of me what point ekiM's trying to make, but he's already made it clear he's not debating substance, just his own idea of how the topic should be discussed, the verbiage, sentence structure.... but no content. You'll have to talk to him. Now he's trying to say I've agreed that it's impossible for someone to every be morally and causally responsible... which I never said.

Scuzzy

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Now your saying that this is absolute statement for all situations? Because I agree a thing "can" happen I must also believe it must "always" happen?

No. No. No. That is exactly NOT what I am doing.

If there are situations where A is true and B is false then A does not imply B, in general. So we cannot conclude, in a specific situation, from A alone, that B is true.

You've agreed there are situations where A is true and B is false. This means that you've agreed that A does not imply B, in general. Yet you conclude from A alone that B is true.

A may offer evidence for B, or be a necessary condition for B. But A is not a sufficient condition for B. A alone cannot tell us that B is true. If you think A implies B in some specific situation then there has to be something else, C, that you think combined with A implies B.

You've agreed that there are situations where someone can be causally responsible for something and not morally responsible. Yet you act as thought this is not the case in the situation of the US and Al Qaeda without giving any reasons whatsoever. You contradict yourself.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

This is where you and I get into huge arguments ekiM, you do not read things for as they are. You read in absolutes into all this stuff and believe it's stone.

No. You do not understand what I am saying. I am not saying that there are no situations in which someone is causally responsible and morally responsible. I am saying that we cannot conclude moral responsibility FROM CAUSAL RESPONSIBILITY ALONE.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Beats the shit out of me what point ekiM's trying to make

The point that the US being causally responsible for Al Qaeda's actions does not make them morally responsible for them.

The only argument you've offered for why they should be is one that you, yourself, have agreed is false - that causal responsibility implies moral responsibility in general.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Now he's trying to say I've agreed that it's impossible for someone to every be morally and causally responsible... which I never said.

No. You do not understand what I am saying. Of course I am not saying that. You whine about being misintepreted but you're not reading what I'm saying whatsoever. Either that or you can't comprehend the most BASIC logic.

I am saying that because causal responsiblity does not imply moral responsibility, in general, then we can't conclude in a specific case that someone is morally responsible just from them being causally responsible.