Pensive wrote:
Quote:
You're assuming a motivation after the fact based on the acts taken.
Quote:
If someone is so disenfranchised as to need to resort to terrorism, then they are probably so disillusioned and so absolutely um... warped in their perception of their own state that their very livelihood is threatened by the oppressor. In such a case, extreme means are (arguably) justified to preserve one's way of life.
Read more, try again.
Try defending instead. But I'll play...
There are two problems with your statement. The first has *nothing* to do with the two words you highlighted:
Quote:
If someone is so disenfranchised as to need to resort to terrorism, ...
This is a condition. However, it's *also* a form of Complex Question Fallacy. You've interjected an assumption of motive (reason) for someone to "need to resort to terrorism", without a shred of support or proof. You shouldn't do this. Stick to single facts. If you want to argue about whether the use of terrorism may be "arguably" justified, then just say "If someone commits an act of terrorism" and be done with it. The following statements are supposed to constitute your proof. If you wish to prove that people who do such things do so because they are "so disenfranchised", then make that a separate proof. By tossing it into the start of your formulation, the reader is either forced to reject the entire thing out of hand, or accept the additional assumption as fact.
That's problem number 1.
The second problem is that while you make a big deal out of the conditional statements "probably" and "arguably", they are functionally irrelevant to your argument. Let's start with the easy one: "Arguably" while a fun filler, doesn't add anything. We're arguing already, so *everything* is arguable. What matters is the argument you are making, and that's the argument I'm responding to. You are arguing that the case presented in the first sentence *is* justification for the use of "extreme means".
Probably is trickier. If the phrase "in that case" refers to whether the result of said probability is "true", then it's relevant. Let me state that this wasn't clear based on how you wrote that paragraph. A strict reading of your statements places the case as the entire sentence preceding. So if someone resorts to terrorism, they "probably" are disillusioned and whatnot *and* their livelihood is threatened. The "case" is that someone is "probably" disillusioned and warped in their perception of their own state, not the result of that probability.
I'll grant that you meant that to be the conditional though. It was unclear to me when I read it, but since you wrote it, I'll obviously give you the right to clarify.
I still think that the result is a pretty short circular argument. Sure. It's semi-conditional, but you just said "probably". I guess my problem here isn't logical, but functional. How do we determine this? If you're starting from the belief that the very use of terrorism "probably" justifies the use of terrorism (assuming that "extreme means" is the terrorist act you started the statement with), that kinda prejudices the whole issue, doesn't it?
Under what conditions would you determine that a terrorist act *isn't* justified (or "arguably justified" if you wish)? If you don't do this (and not just because I asked you, but as part of your thought process when judging a terrorist act), then the conditional "probably" isn't really present except as a word you inserted into the argument. So far in this thread, you've romanticized the notion of terrorism, largely based on an assumption of poor and oppressed people acting out of desperation and with no other real choice. But at least in practice, all of them have been viewed this way, not just those who you've determined meet your criteria.
And for the record. I'd replace "probably" with "almost certainly not". Today, almost all terrorist attacks are conducted at the behest and with the funding of organizations who most certainly do not meet the criteria you claim to require.
