[lit-ideas] Re: The Rise & Fall of Somalia's Islamic Courts: An Online History (The Fourth Rail)
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 20:10:23 -0800
Phil:
You end by suggesting that I am not listening to anyone else but continuing
on with my narrow viewpoint. Here is the paragraph that apparently got you
going: "Without engaging in an impossibly broad investigation, consider
those who recently demonstrated that they couldn't tell the difference
between a terrorists act and the act of someone fighting terrorism. I
continue to think that this problem is one of education. We no longer teach
logic. We no longer think it important. Have I committed a fallacy? So
what? Answer me anyway. Such views demonstrate an abysmal lack of
something. What would you call it? By definition it must include the
inability to think logically."
But there were two paragraphs that followed the above: "With heat someone
was appalled that Eric would advocate the death of terrorists. She saw no
difference between Eric's killing terrorists and Terrorists killing their
victims. Carry this out to its, excuse the expression, logical extreme and
we deny our right to protect ourselves against terrorism. We cannot kill
Terrorists because that is what Terrorists do - they kill us. So we don't
kill them. Does that stop them from killing us? No, of course not.
Terrorists while not noted for their grasp of logic either (witness their
interest in conspiracy theories, Qutb's ideas, etc) nevertheless aren't
bedeviled by this particular illogical idea. They very much believe in
killing infidels of all sorts and varieties.
"Applying (excuse the expression again) logic to the matter, if we determine
that we do not wish the Terrorists to destroy us, we must (excuse the
expression) fight against them. "Fight" in this case includes killing them
since that is what they are doing to us. We can play with other ways of
stopping them to placate the faint of heart, or our own liberal consciences,
but if necessary, we should not balk at killing them. That's if we do
indeed want to stop them, or if we object to becoming Muslim, or if we
object to accepting Islamist ideology, etc. The other approach, the gasping
and stepping back as from a pile left by a dog in a yard sounds dainty and
caring, but it is abysmally lacking in thought - "thought" being something
one does logically."
Those who criticize Eric were being illogical. I demonstrated that and you
didn't challenge that part of my comments. After considerable unrewarding
dialogue I now gather that the primary thing you are concerned about is my
criticism of the educational background (insofar as the study of logic is
concerned) of the intelligent people who were illogically accusing Eric of
being morally equivalent to terrorists. Rather than go off on a tangent,
why not show how those who accuse Eric of being morally equivalent to
terrorists have a logical argument? You say I am insisting on a narrow
point of view, but where is the evidence of that? I am looking at some
assertions made against Eric and noting that there is no assumptions,
premises, or presuppositions that can support the assertion that Eric's
beliefs are morally equivalent to the Terrorists. The one example you gave
didn't support Eric's antagonists. It supported what I was saying.
You are going off in a state of pique, but what am I guilty of other than
pointing out the illogicality of the people who claim that Eric's beliefs
about killing Terrorists (in defense) are morally equivalent to Terrorists'
beliefs about killing infidels (including Eric). . . well I might be guilty
of being in an annoyed (and probably annoying) mood - I'll admit to that.
And I wasn't interested in squeezing your ideas into anything. What is this
"position other than [my] own"? I understand there is an illogical
position, the one described above, and I think I understand it well enough
to see its illogicality. I do understand it. I just don't embrace it.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Phil Enns
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:59 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Rise & Fall of Somalia's Islamic Courts: An
Online History (The Fourth Rail)
Lawrence Helm wrote:
"You might be annoyed that I didn't find your expressions
self-authenticating but 'tis the nature of dialogue, sir. We are never ever
understood as well as we think we ought to be."
The issue is not one of being understood well enough, but whether you are at
all interested in understanding a position other than your own. You took my
comments and squeezed them into a square hole. I am not interested in
trying to fit into the neat little holes you have carved for yourself.
Lawrence continues:
"'Logical Assumption' is a common term. Perhaps it isn't as precise as
others terms we might use. It is the antithesis of 'Fallacious assumption'.
It means an assumption in a Logical argument."
Perhaps the term you are looking for is 'valid assumption'?
Lawrence continues:
"The argument you present as being in defense of Moral Equivalence doesn't
serve the current purpose."
I take that to mean your purpose. Sorry about that. If you could let us
know what you want us to say, it would simplify the dialogue. Thank you.
Lawrence concludes:
"So you intended an attack on me in your original note. Well, I missed that
as well."
You didn't miss it, because I didn't intend an attack. I thought I might
interject into the conversation an alternative to your own perspective. Not
an attack, but a different way of looking at the problem. Curious that you
would see alternatives to your own views as necessarily violent.
Anyways, I apologize for interrupting you. Carry on.
Sincerely,
mostly,
Phil Enns
Glen Haven, NS
Other related posts:
