4 ms·

I’m sorry I don’t know what a fuck fuck game is, but I’m not sure you aren’t playing one with me. You’re trying to tell me that “convicted” is not an adjective

I’m sorry I don’t know what a fuck fuck game is, but I’m not sure you aren’t playing one with me. You’re trying to tell me that “convicted” is not an adjective applying to the following word terrorist? Is that your argument? Anyway, even if we accept what you say here, that there were two claims: one she was convicted of crimes. True. Two she is a terrorist: subjective. One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. A verdict of “mixture” given this split seems appropriate.

refurb 5y ago
By this logic no claims can ever be proven because in the end everything is subjective. To quote Bill Clinton, it depends on your definition of “is”. Terrorism has a pretty well accepted definition - violent acts against civilians to gain political power. That’s exactly what she was doing when caught with hundreds of pounds of explosives. But again, it’s a distinction without worth - the claim implies she is a violent radical. Whether she was convicted of terrorism, kidnapping, illegal explosives or smuggled firearms is moot - she’s a terrorist that was convicted of terrorist acts.
- mc32 5y ago
  Critically, lots of these things are viewed through a political lens. So the same exact acts can be interpreted differently depending on how the politics or motives of the actor are interpreted.
  - nailer 5y ago
    > > Terrorism has a pretty well accepted definition - violent acts against civilians to gain political power. That’s exactly what she was doing when caught with hundreds of pounds of explosives. > the same exact acts can be interpreted differently depending on how the politics or motives of the actor are interpreted. It seems you didn't read the comment you were replying to, which addresses this point.
    - mc32 5y ago
      You and I can agree on what terrorism tends to be. Fact checkers may apply political lenses to interpret violent actions differently.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  > no claims can ever be proven because in the end everything is subjective. That's not true, because Rosenberg was convicted of crimes. It's a fact to state what those convictions were. There's no arguing with that. - Rosenberg was convicted of weapons and explosive possession: 100% true statement - Rosenberg was convicted of fraudulent document possession: 100% true statement - Rosenberg was convicted of terrorism: not 100% true, there are multiple, valid, although subjective interpretations of the facts that relate to terrorism. > Terrorism has a pretty well accepted definition - violent acts against civilians to gain political power. If we go by this well accepted definition, then almost every government on the planet fits, particularly the US government. I'm sure you will now argue a caveat and qualifications to the well accepted definition you presented above, but that would undermine your point that the definition is well accepted. We can go back and forth for a while about what the definition of terrorism is, but that would just further prove the Snopes article right - that the definition of terrorism and how that applies to the facts is subjective, and would need to be determined by a court of law. > the claim implies she is a violent radical. Whether she was convicted of terrorism, kidnapping, illegal explosives or smuggled firearms is moot - she’s a terrorist that was convicted of terrorist acts. Then why not just say that? You believe she was a terrorist because she was convicted of illegal weapons and explosives possession. That's a fine statement to make, and the Snopes article agrees. But it's different from "convicted terrorist". You believe there is no distinction, but others disagree. Notably, the Snopes article covers this nuance, includes sources, and makes clear that your viewpoint is valid. It also makes room for other valid viewpoints here, which you refuse to do. Nevertheless, I disagree that words are meaningless, especially highly politically charged words like "terrorist". I'm advocating for nuance here, and your continued replies seem very absolutist to me. You're instructing me to ignore the nuance in the Snopes article, and replace it with a black-and-white view of the world that aligns with your own. What's astounding to me is that you say the Snopes article is playing games with words and definitions, when in reality it provides a well-sourced and nuanced point of view on this issue. Meanwhile you're trying to tell me that "convicted terrorist" means "someone who was convicted of unstated crimes and is also separately a terrorist". I mean, come on. That's not a fuck-fuck game?
  - nailer 5y ago
    >> Terrorism has a pretty well accepted definition - violent acts against civilians to gain political power. >If we go by this well accepted definition, then almost every government on the planet fits, particularly the US government. Violent acts specifically targeted against civilians to gain political power. > I'm sure you will now argue a caveat and qualifications to the well accepted definition you presented above, but that would undermine your point that the definition is well accepted. I think it's rather than the person you're replying to assumed their audience was acting in good faith. I believe that you are an intelligent person and likely already aware that in the common definition of terrorism, acts have to be specifically targeted towards civilians. I think you're just supporting for football team rather than trying to seek the truth and I feel bad for the parent they're engaging with you.
- 8note 5y ago
  That's not a well accepted definition though. It doesn't matter if it's a civilian or military target. Any violence done by somebody without social/economic/political power on somebody with that power is labeled terrorism
nailer 5y ago
As the other commenter asks - do you think Mohammed Atta was a terrorist?
BitwiseFool 5y ago
I don't know how to clearly capture my sentiment. Is there a logical fallacy for completely missing the intent of the argument because one aspect of it can be legalistically interpreted as completely invalid? I am reminded of how Orthodox religious folks manage to get around scripture by fixating on a few qualifying words and weaseling (for lack of a better term) out of what seems to be intent of the law.

refurb 5y ago

By this logic no claims can ever be proven because in the end everything is subjective. To quote Bill Clinton, it depends on your definition of “is”. Terrorism has a pretty well accepted definition - violent acts against civilians to gain political power. That’s exactly what she was doing when caught with hundreds of pounds of explosives. But again, it’s a distinction without worth - the claim implies she is a violent radical. Whether she was convicted of terrorism, kidnapping, illegal explosives or smuggled firearms is moot - she’s a terrorist that was convicted of terrorist acts.

mc32 5y ago
Critically, lots of these things are viewed through a political lens. So the same exact acts can be interpreted differently depending on how the politics or motives of the actor are interpreted.
- nailer 5y ago
  > > Terrorism has a pretty well accepted definition - violent acts against civilians to gain political power. That’s exactly what she was doing when caught with hundreds of pounds of explosives. > the same exact acts can be interpreted differently depending on how the politics or motives of the actor are interpreted. It seems you didn't read the comment you were replying to, which addresses this point.
  - mc32 5y ago
    You and I can agree on what terrorism tends to be. Fact checkers may apply political lenses to interpret violent actions differently.
ModernMech 5y ago
> no claims can ever be proven because in the end everything is subjective. That's not true, because Rosenberg was convicted of crimes. It's a fact to state what those convictions were. There's no arguing with that. - Rosenberg was convicted of weapons and explosive possession: 100% true statement - Rosenberg was convicted of fraudulent document possession: 100% true statement - Rosenberg was convicted of terrorism: not 100% true, there are multiple, valid, although subjective interpretations of the facts that relate to terrorism. > Terrorism has a pretty well accepted definition - violent acts against civilians to gain political power. If we go by this well accepted definition, then almost every government on the planet fits, particularly the US government. I'm sure you will now argue a caveat and qualifications to the well accepted definition you presented above, but that would undermine your point that the definition is well accepted. We can go back and forth for a while about what the definition of terrorism is, but that would just further prove the Snopes article right - that the definition of terrorism and how that applies to the facts is subjective, and would need to be determined by a court of law. > the claim implies she is a violent radical. Whether she was convicted of terrorism, kidnapping, illegal explosives or smuggled firearms is moot - she’s a terrorist that was convicted of terrorist acts. Then why not just say that? You believe she was a terrorist because she was convicted of illegal weapons and explosives possession. That's a fine statement to make, and the Snopes article agrees. But it's different from "convicted terrorist". You believe there is no distinction, but others disagree. Notably, the Snopes article covers this nuance, includes sources, and makes clear that your viewpoint is valid. It also makes room for other valid viewpoints here, which you refuse to do. Nevertheless, I disagree that words are meaningless, especially highly politically charged words like "terrorist". I'm advocating for nuance here, and your continued replies seem very absolutist to me. You're instructing me to ignore the nuance in the Snopes article, and replace it with a black-and-white view of the world that aligns with your own. What's astounding to me is that you say the Snopes article is playing games with words and definitions, when in reality it provides a well-sourced and nuanced point of view on this issue. Meanwhile you're trying to tell me that "convicted terrorist" means "someone who was convicted of unstated crimes and is also separately a terrorist". I mean, come on. That's not a fuck-fuck game?
- nailer 5y ago
  >> Terrorism has a pretty well accepted definition - violent acts against civilians to gain political power. >If we go by this well accepted definition, then almost every government on the planet fits, particularly the US government. Violent acts specifically targeted against civilians to gain political power. > I'm sure you will now argue a caveat and qualifications to the well accepted definition you presented above, but that would undermine your point that the definition is well accepted. I think it's rather than the person you're replying to assumed their audience was acting in good faith. I believe that you are an intelligent person and likely already aware that in the common definition of terrorism, acts have to be specifically targeted towards civilians. I think you're just supporting for football team rather than trying to seek the truth and I feel bad for the parent they're engaging with you.
8note 5y ago
That's not a well accepted definition though. It doesn't matter if it's a civilian or military target. Any violence done by somebody without social/economic/political power on somebody with that power is labeled terrorism

nailer 5y ago

As the other commenter asks - do you think Mohammed Atta was a terrorist?

BitwiseFool 5y ago

I don't know how to clearly capture my sentiment. Is there a logical fallacy for completely missing the intent of the argument because one aspect of it can be legalistically interpreted as completely invalid? I am reminded of how Orthodox religious folks manage to get around scripture by fixating on a few qualifying words and weaseling (for lack of a better term) out of what seems to be intent of the law.