Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 53

Thread: Is violence committed by militant Eco or Animal Rights groups acts of terrorism?

  1. #41
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Is violence committed by militant Eco or Animal Rights groups acts of terrorism?

    Quote Originally Posted by cmakaioz View Post
    Bull****.

    CIVILIAN blows up building to scare people and influence their behavior vis-a-vis a political goal? Terrorism.
    SOLDIER (i.e. military pilot) blows up building to scare people and influence their behavior vis-a-vis a political goal? STILL terrorism.

    If you assert the latter is not terrorism because the bombing was ordered by someone within a government (and therefore legal), that's a glaring, neon-sign, bash-you-over-the-head magical exemption.
    It all depends on why the building was blown up. Was it blown up to scare the citizens or the government or was it blown up for a more practical reason, such as to kill specific people inside or to destroy a specific thing within that building?
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #42
    Professor cmakaioz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Last Seen
    01-22-13 @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,582

    Re: Is violence committed by militant Eco or Animal Rights groups acts of terrorism?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    You are free to reject whatever you want, but legally disabling a nuclear power plant or missile or arms factory is still terrorism if you are doing it to bring about a social or political change. It doesn't even matter how you go about doing it as long as it is violent or causes some fear in those within the society.
    Legality is completely irrelevant to a logically consistent definition of terrorism.

    As for fear, if fear is either the planned -- or reasonably anticipated -- mechanism by which the political goal is achieved or partially achieved *in conjunction with violence*, then that qualifies the act as terrorism. If, on the other hand, some people respond with fear to the action on a completely irrational basis (for example, religious fundamentalists go off the deep end yet again because of their bronze-age dogmas), but that fear response is neither a reasonable prediction nor a planned mechanism of change, then the fear is just incidental to the action and the action may or may not be terrorism.

    For example: some fundamentalists absolutely and completely freak out in the presence of public displays of affection by gay people. One occasional counter-protest tactic of gay and lesbian activists is for couples to go out to the hate-fests arranged by folks like the WBC and then kiss each other right in front of them. Does this incite fear among the bigots? Of course it does, and predictably so...but it's not violence. The counter-protestors in such a case are relying upon the irrational dogma of the WBC folks, but non-bigoted (or at least non-homophobic) folks aren't bothered at all by it. By your fear criterion, such couples would be committing terrorism (**if** we were to treat the fear response alone is the pivotal factor).

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Just as critically disabling the power plants of a country is still an act of terrorism even if not a single person dies or is harmed by a result of the act if it is done for a reason meant to bring about social or political change. No one has to be harmed for it to be an act of terrorism.
    If no one (including fellow animals) is harmed, then no violence has taken place, and one of the criteria for terrorism hasn't been met.
    I've moved on to a better forum (scienceforums.net). Facts matter, and I don't have the time or energy for putting up with the pretense that they don't. PM me if you'd like me to get in touch with you when I'm done developing my own forum system, likely towards the end of 2013.

  3. #43
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Is violence committed by militant Eco or Animal Rights groups acts of terrorism?

    Quote Originally Posted by cmakaioz View Post
    Legality is completely irrelevant to a logically consistent definition of terrorism.

    As for fear, if fear is either the planned -- or reasonably anticipated -- mechanism by which the political goal is achieved or partially achieved *in conjunction with violence*, then that qualifies the act as terrorism. If, on the other hand, some people respond with fear to the action on a completely irrational basis (for example, religious fundamentalists go off the deep end yet again because of their bronze-age dogmas), but that fear response is neither a reasonable prediction nor a planned mechanism of change, then the fear is just incidental to the action and the action may or may not be terrorism.

    For example: some fundamentalists absolutely and completely freak out in the presence of public displays of affection by gay people. One occasional counter-protest tactic of gay and lesbian activists is for couples to go out to the hate-fests arranged by folks like the WBC and then kiss each other right in front of them. Does this incite fear among the bigots? Of course it does, and predictably so...but it's not violence. The counter-protestors in such a case are relying upon the irrational dogma of the WBC folks, but non-bigoted (or at least non-homophobic) folks aren't bothered at all by it. By your fear criterion, such couples would be committing terrorism (**if** we were to treat the fear response alone is the pivotal factor).

    If no one (including fellow animals) is harmed, then no violence has taken place, and one of the criteria for terrorism hasn't been met.
    Violence is not the only criteria there for it to be terrorism. It is either violence or fear. Fear can be just as valid and vandalism can cause fear. It has to be an act that would cause fear to a reasonable person.

    The fear in your example is not a reasonable fear. It is unreasonable to fear people kissing. It is not unreasonable that people who have their property vandalized might fear having either it happen again or something worse because the act was ignored.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #44
    Professor cmakaioz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Last Seen
    01-22-13 @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,582

    Re: Is violence committed by militant Eco or Animal Rights groups acts of terrorism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    So in your world two different situations must be the same?
    No. Two actions where the only substantial difference is the person taking the action are either both terrorist or both NOT terrorist.

    It is an obvious contradiction (special, magical exemption) to assert that the civilian doing X action has committed a terrorist act, while the military actor DOING THE SAME THING has NOT committed a terrorist act.

    The legal designation of the actor is completely irrelevant to any logically consistent definition.

    It's the same nonsense as if you were to say a right-handed man forcing himself sexually upon someone else has committed rape, but a left-handed man forcing himself sexually upon someone else has not. There's no logical warrant for the exemption.
    I've moved on to a better forum (scienceforums.net). Facts matter, and I don't have the time or energy for putting up with the pretense that they don't. PM me if you'd like me to get in touch with you when I'm done developing my own forum system, likely towards the end of 2013.

  5. #45
    Professor cmakaioz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Last Seen
    01-22-13 @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,582

    Re: Is violence committed by militant Eco or Animal Rights groups acts of terrorism?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    It all depends on why the building was blown up. Was it blown up to scare the citizens or the government or was it blown up for a more practical reason, such as to kill specific people inside or to destroy a specific thing within that building?
    As explicitly stated, the SAME action (including consideration of the intended and/or reasonably predicted results of the action), committed by two different actors (one civilian, one acting on behalf of a government, including military forces) must logically be terrorist in both cases or Not-Terrorist in both cases.

    It's Still Terrorism When A Government Does It.
    I've moved on to a better forum (scienceforums.net). Facts matter, and I don't have the time or energy for putting up with the pretense that they don't. PM me if you'd like me to get in touch with you when I'm done developing my own forum system, likely towards the end of 2013.

  6. #46
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Is violence committed by militant Eco or Animal Rights groups acts of terrorism?

    Quote Originally Posted by ab9924 View Post
    So, isn't it a viable business model, to hire a few (environmentalist/animalrights) thugs to create disturbance before you buy up something, to lower its price? After all, those thugs wouldn't exist in the first place, if the existence of that property was just.
    Mmmmm, no. That wouldn't be viable. As I said, private property rights are strong in this country, and people who commit acts of violence and destruction are criminals, not heros.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  7. #47
    Professor cmakaioz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Last Seen
    01-22-13 @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,582

    Re: Is violence committed by militant Eco or Animal Rights groups acts of terrorism?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Violence is not the only criteria there for it to be terrorism. It is either violence or fear. Fear can be just as valid and vandalism can cause fear. It has to be an act that would cause fear to a reasonable person.

    The fear in your example is not a reasonable fear. It is unreasonable to fear people kissing. It is not unreasonable that people who have their property vandalized might fear having either it happen again or something worse because the act was ignored.
    Sure, vandalism may predictably lead to fear, but not all vandalism would qualify as terrorism either. Slathering a storefront or home with hate speech and threats would certainly qualify, while breaking a window out of some personal motive for revenge would not -- even though the latter may still lead to a reasonable fear/suspicion of future property damage.

    Another example of non-terrorist property destruction: lighting a dumpster on fire during a mass street demonstration to discourage police from charging a crowd (because those doing the lighting are aware of protocols in law enforcement which may require specific additional safety measures in such a scenario...thus buying some time for the crowd). Lighting the dumpster is not violence. In this context, lighting it is a delay tactic, and it doesn't harm anyone. It IS part of a larger attempt at influencing behavior in a political conflict, but it's not violence (the normal result does not predictably lead to harming anyone).

    That's what I meant earlier when I pointed out that property destruction is not automatically violence.
    I've moved on to a better forum (scienceforums.net). Facts matter, and I don't have the time or energy for putting up with the pretense that they don't. PM me if you'd like me to get in touch with you when I'm done developing my own forum system, likely towards the end of 2013.

  8. #48
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:06 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,302
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is violence committed by militant Eco or Animal Rights groups acts of terrorism?

    Quote Originally Posted by cmakaioz View Post
    No. Two actions where the only substantial difference is the person taking the action are either both terrorist or both NOT terrorist.

    It is an obvious contradiction (special, magical exemption) to assert that the civilian doing X action has committed a terrorist act, while the military actor DOING THE SAME THING has NOT committed a terrorist act.

    The legal designation of the actor is completely irrelevant to any logically consistent definition.

    It's the same nonsense as if you were to say a right-handed man forcing himself sexually upon someone else has committed rape, but a left-handed man forcing himself sexually upon someone else has not. There's no logical warrant for the exemption.
    You say no, and then repeat that two different actions are the same. An ambulance driving over the speed limit on it's way to an accident is not a crime. If you do it, it is. See, different people, different result, and entirely logical. Mindless hatred of government is silly.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  9. #49
    Professor cmakaioz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Last Seen
    01-22-13 @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,582

    Re: Is violence committed by militant Eco or Animal Rights groups acts of terrorism?

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    Mmmmm, no. That wouldn't be viable. As I said, private property rights are strong in this country, and people who commit acts of violence and destruction are criminals, not heros.
    Unless one subscribes to a form of state fundamentalism (which would be peculiar indeed for someone identifying as a Libertarian), there is no necessary exclusivity between criminality and heroism.

    While vilified in his own lifetime...MLK, Jr., for example, was a serial criminal, and yet today is widely honored and revered and identified by many as a heroic figure.

    Law != ethics
    Law != morality
    I've moved on to a better forum (scienceforums.net). Facts matter, and I don't have the time or energy for putting up with the pretense that they don't. PM me if you'd like me to get in touch with you when I'm done developing my own forum system, likely towards the end of 2013.

  10. #50
    Educator AreteCourage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    08-30-13 @ 12:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    790

    Re: Is violence committed by militant Eco or Animal Rights groups acts of terrorism?

    Key Word: Militant

    Short Answer: Yes
    Libertarian and Atheist...wow I'm a hated man.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •