Subject:
|
Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 23 Sep 2001 23:46:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
656 times
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > A man is walking along the footpath, and sees a child run out into the road,
> > chasing a ball. He also sees a car coming, but the child doesn't seem to. He
> > decides in that moment to take action, and runs out into the road, pushing the
> > child clear of the car. As a result, the little girl sustains many cuts,
> > scratches and bruises, and a bad hit on the head. His head connects with the
> > car, and he's killed instantly. The driver of the car subsequently loses
> > control, slamming into a tree, and later dies also.
> >
> > Now, the man's action is decidely violent,
>
> No.
>
> And if you seriously want to make the argument that he was violent, your
> understanding of violence is flawed. Seriously.
So it seems our disagreement here is based on different views of violence.
From www.dictionary.com (admittedly not a definitive source):
vi·o·lent adj.
1. Marked by, acting with, or resulting from great force: a violent attack.
2. Having or showing great emotional force: violent dislike.
3. Marked by intensity; extreme: violent pain; a violent squall. See Synonyms
at intense.
4. Caused by unexpected force or injury rather than by natural causes: a
violent death.
5. Tending to distort or injure meaning, phrasing, or intent.
I think the man's action falls into both 1 and 4, and possibly 2.
And where's your evidence that the people on board flight 93 didn't do
something similar?
> > having directly caused injury to the
> > girl, his own death, and possibly contributing to the death of the driver. Was
> > he a violent man?
>
> Not based on this evidence. This is a pretty irrelevant example, really.
>
> > > Some people on that
> > > flight apparently weren't pacifists.
>
> > *That* is a much more agreeable statement than the one I disagreed with
> > earlier.
>
> I wasn't referring to the hijackers.
Neither was I. Given that a certain percentage of Americans are non-pacifists
[1], it's logical to assume a certain number of the passengers on flight 93
were also non-pacifists. I just don't see any evidence which definitely
includes those who took action in that number.
> It's essentially the same thing I said
> before.
To re-quote:
> > > > "Thank *all that is worth living for* that the heroes on board that flight
> > > > *weren't* pacifists."
This implies to me that, specifically, the people (by all reports, at least 4),
who took action were definitely not pacifists.
> > > Some people on that
> > > flight apparently weren't pacifists.
This however doesn't attempt to label any particular passenger on the flight,
terrorist or otherwise. In fact it doesn't definitely imply that *anyone* on
the flight was not a pacifist (unless you take "apparenty" to mean
"definitely").
That's a pretty big difference IMO.
ROSCO
[1] No, I don't have any statistics - In my opinion, this percentage is
probably not negligible, and thus the actual numbers are not really relevant.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply: | | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes: <snip> Ross, you're wriggling around, for no real reason I can see, except to avoid admitting the truth of my answer to Horst's question: Horst said: (...) And I answered that what was done on flight (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
| I see you've chosen to try to worm out rather than admit your error. I expected better from you, Ross. (...) No. And if you seriously want to make the argument that he was violent, your understanding of violence is flawed. Seriously. Hence the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
55 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|