So they weren't unstable until they blew themselves up? If blowing themselves up is the only proof that they are unstable, how can their instability be the reason for blowing themselves up? In order to say that they blow themselves up because they are unstable, you would have to show instability prior to them blowing themselves up. Otherwise, you are engaging in circular reasoning:
Suicide bombers blow themselves up because they are unstable. We know they are unstable because they blow themselves up.
Given that "circular argument" and "begging the question" are (in informal usage) the same thing, while "suicide bomber" and "unstable" are NOT the same thing, you fail yet again. Give it up already, we get it, you can't do logic.
Begging the question IS DEFINED AS making a circular argument. Making a a circular argument IS CALLED begging the question.
See how that works? Now, is that true for suicide bombers and unstable people?
Suicide bombers are defined as unstable people. Unstable people are called suicide bombers.
What unnamed sources did I cite? I believe its name is "wikipedia." It even comes with these amazing things called hyperlinks, you can follow them to even more sources! Or are you claiming wikipedia is not a source?
I love how many people, when Wikipedia contradicts their world-view, will imply that Wikipedia is unreliable, but won't actually come right out and say "Wikipedia is unreliable" because they know that claim can be easily refuted.
I'd say the evidence is that human beings are remarkably stable. Witness the fact that we have had societies with streets to walk around on for thousands of years. But maybe this is just your way of making yourself feel good. Obviously, you are not unstable, and therefore, better than everyone else. I'd be a big old meanie to take that away from you, wouldn't I?
Why do you think that embryonic stem cell research will lead to embryo farming, and why is simply banning embryo farming itself not sufficient to solve the problem?
Good example. That is circular reasoning which tells us nothing about why birds are found in the air. It pretends to address why birds are found in the air, but the answer boils down to "Birds are found in the air because birds are found in the air." Just like the suicide bomber bit boils down to "Suicide bombers are unstable because suicide bombers are unstable."
Why do people decide to become suicide bombers? Because they are unstable. How do we know they are unstable? Because they decide to become suicide bombers. Yes, but WHY do they become suicide bombers? I already told you, because they are unstable! But how do we KNOW they are unstable? I already told you, because they are suicide bombers!
Of course it is derogatory. I mean, mildly derogatory. Who wears mittens? Children wear mittens. Mittens make you clumsy and goofy looking. Who else is associated with mittens? Cute, cuddly kittens! Its a non serious nickname, meant to make him sound less serious. It is about on the level with calling Obama "Barry." And that is about the level I want to keep it at with Mitt, he is not my least favorite politician. Not by far. He'd be the best shot at challenging Obama, I think. And I think someone should. Oh, I think Obama would win, but I think we progressives should primary the corporatist bastard, to send him a message, and Republicans should send their most serious guy to challenge him in the election. Much as I would love the hilarity and easy win for my side of, say, a Palin campaign, that wouldn't really help the country. A serious primary challenge and a serious election challenge to Obama might.
Perhaps the more appropriate response would have been, "It's difficult to profile suicide bombers".
Okay, I'll buy that. But it is not insightful or helpful to simply say "They are unstable and that is the most we can possibly understand about their motivations." That is just an intellectually lazy cop-out. It is a more comforting thought than "They are really just people like you and me, who are very angry about their situation, and believe this is the best way to achieve their goals."
If you were concerned with getting the narrative right, you would be more open minded to considering other possibilities. It really seems as though you are not so concerned with finding the correct narrative. It seems as though you are hell bent on defending a particular point of view that does not actually lead to any kind of insight into your opponent. "They are just crazy" is just a cop-out, it is a refusal to think things through.
But that is not at all equivalent to what I said. You put an extra "need to" in there which is not present in my example. To follow my example, you would have to write it:
Cars move because they have an engine. Cars have an engine because they move.
I'm going to start charging for the free education in logic I hand out.
Besides the suicide bombing, what evidence of their derangement do you have? Because, if the bombing is all you have, then you are basically saying this:
Suicide bombers bomb because they are deranged. Suicide bombers are deranged because they bomb.
The question, as I have stated multiple times, is BESIDES THE BOMBING, was there any evidence of instability in their lives. When you say that all suicide bombers are unstable because only unstable people suicide bomb, you are not actually saying anything at all, capiche? It is the classic definition of begging the question.
Is it? I assume that when you make a controversial claim such as "Yes, the majority of human beings are unstable. It's the reason we have so many problems in the world today, including suicide bombers." you have some evidence to back up your claim? Because otherwise you would look as though you don't know how to debate.
You don't seem to understand what is being said here. The majority of suicide attackers come from the educated middle class, HOWEVER, there are other factors that ALSO correlate with risk for becoming a suicide bomber. Those other, non-middle class attackers are in the minority.
Why is this particular narrative so important to you? What would you lose if you accepted that suicide bombers do come from the middle class, and are not all poor, ignorant, or deranged?
While there were many factors involved in bringing on any recession, short sighted greed by the ultra wealthy is almost always one of the main factors. And you are right, of course, it is not all rich people. It is a small group of ultra wealthy, mostly traditional banking families. The proof is coming out, look at the most recent government reports.
I'm all for helping Haiti, but I have worked in non profits here in America and seen that we actually do have real, crushing poverty here as well, and the poor I have helped have not all been stupid and lazy. Why do we seem to care so much more about the suffering of people outside our country, and so little about the suffering of those in it? Is it because of the national myth of the American dream? Is it because we can plainly see that the poor in Haiti are not at fault for their poverty, but excusing the American poor points out that the American dream is a lie?
They are unstable for believing in retarded shit that people from thousands of years ago made up to feel better about themselves and their surroundings. As humans, who can learn and make intelligent decisions, we should have all figured out that those stories are just that.
Anyone who would continue to act like an ape, so long after we evolved, is unstable.
If they are unstable for that reason, so are the majority of human beings. As I said, the real question is, what other unstable characteristics have they demonstrated before becoming suicide bombers? If there are none, then we can not honestly claim that their prior instability is the cause of them becoming suicide bombers.
No one has shown my comment to be wrong, so how can you claim that? Please, if you have evidence that the majority of bombers are unstable, present it. I am not tied to any particular interpretation. I don't have a horse in this race. I just thought that what I had read was interesting. If you have another viewpoint that you can support with evidence, I would love to hear it.
Robert Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, found the majority of suicide bombers came from the educated middle classes. A study of the remains of 110 suicide bombers for the first part of 2007 by Afghan pathologist Dr. Yusef Yadgari, found 80% were missing limbs before the blasts, other suffered from cancer, leprosy, or some other ailments. Also in contrast to earlier findings of suicide bombers, the Afghan bombers were "not celebrated like their counterparts in other Arab nations. Afghan bombers are not featured on posters or in videos as martyrs."[27]
Anthropologist Scott Atran found in a 2003 study that this is not a justifiable conclusion.[28] A recently published paper by Harvard University Professor of Public Policy Alberto Abadie "cast[s] doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom."[29] More specifically this is due to the transition of countries towards democratic freedoms. "Intermediate levels of political freedom are often experienced during times of political transitions, when governments are weak, political instability is elevated, so conditions are favorable for the appearance of terrorism".[29][30]
Some suicide bombers are educated, with college or university experience, and come from middle class homes. Leaders of the groups who perpetrate these attacks claim that they search for individuals who can be trusted to carry out the mission, and that those with mental illnesses are not considered ideal candidates.
Use of suicide terror against civilian targets has differing effects on the attackers' goals (see reaction below). Some economists suggest that this tactic goes beyond symbolism and is actually a response to commodified, controlled, or devalued lives, as the suicide attackers apparently consider family prestige and financial compensation from the community as compensation for their own lives.[citation needed] Whether such motivation is significant as compared to political or religious feeling remains unclear.
Dr. Yadqari was speaking specifically about Afghan bombers, and how they are different from most other Islamic suicide bombers. And other studies have found his conclusions invalid. You are cherry picking, and my point still stands.
Okay, so where is your evidence that suicide bombers are unstable? And why are you so irate? I wasn't quoting you, I was merely stating what I have heard people claim about suicide bombers.
Slashdot Mirror
So they weren't unstable until they blew themselves up? If blowing themselves up is the only proof that they are unstable, how can their instability be the reason for blowing themselves up? In order to say that they blow themselves up because they are unstable, you would have to show instability prior to them blowing themselves up. Otherwise, you are engaging in circular reasoning:
Suicide bombers blow themselves up because they are unstable.
We know they are unstable because they blow themselves up.
Given that "circular argument" and "begging the question" are (in informal usage) the same thing, while "suicide bomber" and "unstable" are NOT the same thing, you fail yet again. Give it up already, we get it, you can't do logic.
Begging the question IS DEFINED AS making a circular argument.
Making a a circular argument IS CALLED begging the question.
See how that works? Now, is that true for suicide bombers and unstable people?
Suicide bombers are defined as unstable people.
Unstable people are called suicide bombers.
Ooops. That doesn't work, does it?
What unnamed sources did I cite? I believe its name is "wikipedia." It even comes with these amazing things called hyperlinks, you can follow them to even more sources! Or are you claiming wikipedia is not a source?
I love how many people, when Wikipedia contradicts their world-view, will imply that Wikipedia is unreliable, but won't actually come right out and say "Wikipedia is unreliable" because they know that claim can be easily refuted.
I'd say the evidence is that human beings are remarkably stable. Witness the fact that we have had societies with streets to walk around on for thousands of years. But maybe this is just your way of making yourself feel good. Obviously, you are not unstable, and therefore, better than everyone else. I'd be a big old meanie to take that away from you, wouldn't I?
For the lulz, amiright?
Why do you think that embryonic stem cell research will lead to embryo farming, and why is simply banning embryo farming itself not sufficient to solve the problem?
Good example. That is circular reasoning which tells us nothing about why birds are found in the air. It pretends to address why birds are found in the air, but the answer boils down to "Birds are found in the air because birds are found in the air." Just like the suicide bomber bit boils down to "Suicide bombers are unstable because suicide bombers are unstable."
Why do people decide to become suicide bombers?
Because they are unstable.
How do we know they are unstable?
Because they decide to become suicide bombers.
Yes, but WHY do they become suicide bombers?
I already told you, because they are unstable!
But how do we KNOW they are unstable?
I already told you, because they are suicide bombers!
Yeah, circular reasoning.
Of course it is derogatory. I mean, mildly derogatory. Who wears mittens? Children wear mittens. Mittens make you clumsy and goofy looking. Who else is associated with mittens? Cute, cuddly kittens! Its a non serious nickname, meant to make him sound less serious. It is about on the level with calling Obama "Barry." And that is about the level I want to keep it at with Mitt, he is not my least favorite politician. Not by far. He'd be the best shot at challenging Obama, I think. And I think someone should. Oh, I think Obama would win, but I think we progressives should primary the corporatist bastard, to send him a message, and Republicans should send their most serious guy to challenge him in the election. Much as I would love the hilarity and easy win for my side of, say, a Palin campaign, that wouldn't really help the country. A serious primary challenge and a serious election challenge to Obama might.
Perhaps the more appropriate response would have been, "It's difficult to profile suicide bombers".
Okay, I'll buy that. But it is not insightful or helpful to simply say "They are unstable and that is the most we can possibly understand about their motivations." That is just an intellectually lazy cop-out. It is a more comforting thought than "They are really just people like you and me, who are very angry about their situation, and believe this is the best way to achieve their goals."
If you were concerned with getting the narrative right, you would be more open minded to considering other possibilities. It really seems as though you are not so concerned with finding the correct narrative. It seems as though you are hell bent on defending a particular point of view that does not actually lead to any kind of insight into your opponent. "They are just crazy" is just a cop-out, it is a refusal to think things through.
But that is not at all equivalent to what I said. You put an extra "need to" in there which is not present in my example. To follow my example, you would have to write it:
Cars move because they have an engine.
Cars have an engine because they move.
I'm going to start charging for the free education in logic I hand out.
Besides the suicide bombing, what evidence of their derangement do you have? Because, if the bombing is all you have, then you are basically saying this:
Suicide bombers bomb because they are deranged.
Suicide bombers are deranged because they bomb.
Which is pretty clearly begging the question.
Perhaps they are metastable because they are apt to fall into a lower energy state with only slight interaction.
Classic begging the question:
Suicide bombers attack because they are unstable.
Suicide bombers are unstable because they attack.
Do I really have to point out what incredibly faulty logic you are using? You should pay me for the education.
I explained that. The majority of suicide bombers come from educated, middle class backgrounds, HOWEVER, there are also other factors.
Yeah, the new site design makes me want to go postal too. Clickity, clickity, clickity, now where was that post I wanted to respond too?
The question, as I have stated multiple times, is BESIDES THE BOMBING, was there any evidence of instability in their lives. When you say that all suicide bombers are unstable because only unstable people suicide bomb, you are not actually saying anything at all, capiche? It is the classic definition of begging the question.
Is it? I assume that when you make a controversial claim such as "Yes, the majority of human beings are unstable. It's the reason we have so many problems in the world today, including suicide bombers." you have some evidence to back up your claim? Because otherwise you would look as though you don't know how to debate.
You don't seem to understand what is being said here. The majority of suicide attackers come from the educated middle class, HOWEVER, there are other factors that ALSO correlate with risk for becoming a suicide bomber. Those other, non-middle class attackers are in the minority.
Why is this particular narrative so important to you? What would you lose if you accepted that suicide bombers do come from the middle class, and are not all poor, ignorant, or deranged?
While there were many factors involved in bringing on any recession, short sighted greed by the ultra wealthy is almost always one of the main factors. And you are right, of course, it is not all rich people. It is a small group of ultra wealthy, mostly traditional banking families. The proof is coming out, look at the most recent government reports.
I'm all for helping Haiti, but I have worked in non profits here in America and seen that we actually do have real, crushing poverty here as well, and the poor I have helped have not all been stupid and lazy. Why do we seem to care so much more about the suffering of people outside our country, and so little about the suffering of those in it? Is it because of the national myth of the American dream? Is it because we can plainly see that the poor in Haiti are not at fault for their poverty, but excusing the American poor points out that the American dream is a lie?
They are unstable for believing in retarded shit that people from thousands of years ago made up to feel better about themselves and their surroundings. As humans, who can learn and make intelligent decisions, we should have all figured out that those stories are just that.
Anyone who would continue to act like an ape, so long after we evolved, is unstable.
If they are unstable for that reason, so are the majority of human beings. As I said, the real question is, what other unstable characteristics have they demonstrated before becoming suicide bombers? If there are none, then we can not honestly claim that their prior instability is the cause of them becoming suicide bombers.
No one has shown my comment to be wrong, so how can you claim that? Please, if you have evidence that the majority of bombers are unstable, present it. I am not tied to any particular interpretation. I don't have a horse in this race. I just thought that what I had read was interesting. If you have another viewpoint that you can support with evidence, I would love to hear it.
Citation needed. Preferably not a series of anecdotes, but actual statistics.
Maybe you should put your quote in context:
Robert Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, found the majority of suicide bombers came from the educated middle classes. A study of the remains of 110 suicide bombers for the first part of 2007 by Afghan pathologist Dr. Yusef Yadgari, found 80% were missing limbs before the blasts, other suffered from cancer, leprosy, or some other ailments. Also in contrast to earlier findings of suicide bombers, the Afghan bombers were "not celebrated like their counterparts in other Arab nations. Afghan bombers are not featured on posters or in videos as martyrs."[27]
Anthropologist Scott Atran found in a 2003 study that this is not a justifiable conclusion.[28] A recently published paper by Harvard University Professor of Public Policy Alberto Abadie "cast[s] doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom."[29] More specifically this is due to the transition of countries towards democratic freedoms. "Intermediate levels of political freedom are often experienced during times of political transitions, when governments are weak, political instability is elevated, so conditions are favorable for the appearance of terrorism".[29][30]
Some suicide bombers are educated, with college or university experience, and come from middle class homes. Leaders of the groups who perpetrate these attacks claim that they search for individuals who can be trusted to carry out the mission, and that those with mental illnesses are not considered ideal candidates.
Use of suicide terror against civilian targets has differing effects on the attackers' goals (see reaction below). Some economists suggest that this tactic goes beyond symbolism and is actually a response to commodified, controlled, or devalued lives, as the suicide attackers apparently consider family prestige and financial compensation from the community as compensation for their own lives.[citation needed] Whether such motivation is significant as compared to political or religious feeling remains unclear.
Dr. Yadqari was speaking specifically about Afghan bombers, and how they are different from most other Islamic suicide bombers. And other studies have found his conclusions invalid. You are cherry picking, and my point still stands.
Okay, so where is your evidence that suicide bombers are unstable? And why are you so irate? I wasn't quoting you, I was merely stating what I have heard people claim about suicide bombers.