4 ms·

In the Irish case, terrorists achieved their stated objectives by using terrorism. You said that was a good outcome. I don't see how that isn't advocating ter

In the Irish case, terrorists achieved their stated objectives by using terrorism. You said that was a good outcome. I don't see how that isn't advocating terrorism.

mikeash 13y ago
If you don't understand that the ends don't justify the means, then I really don't know what to say.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  > If "letting the terrorists win" means getting out of mideast hellholes, ceasing to assassinate civilians with drones, and stopping the continual interference in various places they consider holy, then yes, I'm absolutely suggesting that. Sounds like ends (violence stopping) justifying the means (letting the terrorists win) to me.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    You have that completely backwards. The means is what you do, and the ends is what happens after. The means here would be ceasing to kill and oppress. That is justified all by itself.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      If you like, but it's not simply a choice between what you do (ends) or how you do it (means), it's both how and what that matter.
    - voodoo123 13y ago
      Right but you are justifying the terrorist means (killing civilians randomly) based on their ends (inducing political chance).
      - mikeash 13y ago
        No I am not. I'm getting righteously tired of this ridiculous conversational tactic, in which the other guy takes what I say, then speeds about six thousand light years in a random direction using a warp drive built on speculation and assumptions, then attacks whatever random space junk he finds there. If you think I said it, then go find it and quote it for me.
        voodoo123 13y ago
        You: "Wouldn't an outcome analogous to the modern-day UK and Ireland be great? People getting along well, no violence, reasonably stable governments? I don't see why you paint this as a bad outcome." That outcome also included dead British cabinet ministers, civilians and infrastructure and decades of fear and hatred.
        mikeash 13y ago
        I just said that it's a good outcome. Which it is. At no point did I say that this good outcome justifies the decades of violence that preceded it.
        voodoo123 13y ago
        You said it in support of the UK's approach to terrorism. Which was to capitulate to the terrorists.
        mikeash 13y ago
        And?
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        I'm pretty sure his point is as follows: good means, good ends - no need for justification bad means, good ends - the ends justify the means good means, bad ends - the means justify the ends bad means, bad ends - no possibility of justification UK terrorism is bad means. UK political change is good ends. If the ends didn't justify the means, they wouldn't be good ends. Any statement that the means were bad but the ends were good is justification; otherwise, your opinion would be that because the means were bad, the ends were necessarily bad too, even though they would otherwise appear to be good.

In the Irish case, terrorists achieved their stated objectives by using terrorism. You said that was a good outcome. I don't see how that isn't advocating terrorism.

mikeash 13y ago

If you don't understand that the ends don't justify the means, then I really don't know what to say.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
> If "letting the terrorists win" means getting out of mideast hellholes, ceasing to assassinate civilians with drones, and stopping the continual interference in various places they consider holy, then yes, I'm absolutely suggesting that. Sounds like ends (violence stopping) justifying the means (letting the terrorists win) to me.
- mikeash 13y ago
  You have that completely backwards. The means is what you do, and the ends is what happens after. The means here would be ceasing to kill and oppress. That is justified all by itself.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    If you like, but it's not simply a choice between what you do (ends) or how you do it (means), it's both how and what that matter.
  - voodoo123 13y ago
    Right but you are justifying the terrorist means (killing civilians randomly) based on their ends (inducing political chance).
    - mikeash 13y ago
      No I am not. I'm getting righteously tired of this ridiculous conversational tactic, in which the other guy takes what I say, then speeds about six thousand light years in a random direction using a warp drive built on speculation and assumptions, then attacks whatever random space junk he finds there. If you think I said it, then go find it and quote it for me.
      - voodoo123 13y ago
        You: "Wouldn't an outcome analogous to the modern-day UK and Ireland be great? People getting along well, no violence, reasonably stable governments? I don't see why you paint this as a bad outcome." That outcome also included dead British cabinet ministers, civilians and infrastructure and decades of fear and hatred.
        mikeash 13y ago
        I just said that it's a good outcome. Which it is. At no point did I say that this good outcome justifies the decades of violence that preceded it.
        voodoo123 13y ago
        You said it in support of the UK's approach to terrorism. Which was to capitulate to the terrorists.
        mikeash 13y ago
        And?
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        I'm pretty sure his point is as follows: good means, good ends - no need for justification bad means, good ends - the ends justify the means good means, bad ends - the means justify the ends bad means, bad ends - no possibility of justification UK terrorism is bad means. UK political change is good ends. If the ends didn't justify the means, they wouldn't be good ends. Any statement that the means were bad but the ends were good is justification; otherwise, your opinion would be that because the means were bad, the ends were necessarily bad too, even though they would otherwise appear to be good.