This is oh so typical. Support Marxism and Islamo-fascism, and you get French police protection… support the USA and you get arrested.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Pro-US protests are not tolerated in FranceJune 7th, 2004 |
 29 comments to Pro-US protests are not tolerated in France |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
After reading Le Monde and watching France2 News for the past couple of years, why I am not suprised?
Seems they arrest anti Bush war protestors as well. Big meeting Chirac ect.
Makes sense. Big crowds terrorism.
No, they were not arrested, they were escorted outside the protest and asked to wawe their pro bush slogans anywhere but in the middle of an anti bush protest. Because that’s looking for trouble.
In other words, some forms of speech in France are restricted because they might cause trouble”. So much for tolerance and freedom of expression.
Sylvain, Erik is my friend and fellow blogger but if I were a policeman charged with maintaining order at that demonstration, even I would eventually have whisked him away for his own good if things looked to get dangerous. As would any responsible police force in any civilized country. Erik should have expected this outcome and, to all evidence, he was treated courteously (perhaps because of the presence of the cameras).
In the United States, as you must well know from living in Chicago, the only permissible restrictions on freedom of speech are time, place and manner. All three apply in this case so let’s not hold French police up to a double standard. We don’t let the Klan march in Harlem (and they try, periodically) — not because we deny the Klan’s freedom of speech but because the Klan’s ability to demonstrate when and where they want is less important than the greater interest of the public not have a bloody fucking riot in the middle of New York.
The Klan’s intentions are damnable and Erik’s are laudable (he is brave, indeed!) but the same principle applies in both cases.
In other words, some forms of speech in France are restricted because they might cause trouble”.
Of course Sylvain. It’s called a “Trouble de l’ordre public” . It’s also why protest were prohibited around the US ambassy from 06/01 to 06/06 by the Prefecture de Police
Oh, and what Douglas said.
Philippe, spare me the condescending lecture, as if France was a worldwide beacon of law and order. I am French. I know what the law says. It just so happens it is always applied a certain way to certain people. If someone in a National Front demonstration tries to wave a ‘Mort aux Arabes’ sign, he will be arrested and his picture will make the front page. As he should, in fact.
But if a bunch of morons in a ‘Freedom for Palestine’ march carry ‘Mort aux Juifs’ signs, nobody cares. Not the journalists. Nor the cops. I was there. And it didn’t happen only once, from reports and photos I got from other such marches.
You say it yourself. Carrying a pro-American sign is trouble to the public order. Anti-Bush demonstrations, on the other hand, are clearly protected by the authorities. We can’t possibly let them see and hear divergent opinions. It would be so uncomfortable.
It is both quite funny, and quite revealing, that the expression of an opposite opinion is considered a disturbance of public order. It speaks volumes about French attitudes, really.
Sylvain, I know you’re french, I read you for quite a while now.
I’ve never said that
But that Carrying a pro-American sign in the middle of an anti american protestmay result in a trouble to the public order.
Of course they are Sylvain. Set up your own pro bush demonstration and you’ll be protected also.
For the record I think that those protesters on D-Day anniversary were untastefull morons.
I also think that Erik and the other “crashers” just made asses of themselves, hoping for blog-worthy troubles that didn’t occured.
It may result in trouble and the police is there to deal with it when it occurs. It seems to me that using police force to separate these groups even though no trouble has yet occurred is, um, rather preemptive, don’t you think ? Are our police forces becoming “americanized” ? (Note to our US readers : this is the word used by French citizens to describe something that is either going to the toilet, or predicted to. And of course, there is no dumb anti-americanism in France.)
But it still says something about French attitudes. The town square around where I live often has anti-war demonstrations. Quite a few people picketing a corner with signs. Not even 10 feet from them, the pro-war guys do the same thing. You’d think there would be cops around since this could result in some sort of trouble. There never are any. There is no point. It seems those violent and intolerant Americans are perfectly capable of calmly ignoring one another when it comes to expressing their opinions in a public space.
Besides, the cops happen to think they have better things to do. And in France, you’d think they’d have more serious problems to deal with as well.
Set up your own pro bush demonstration and you’ll be protected also. I wouldn’t bet on that if I were you. If I did a pro-Palestine march with ‘mort aux juifs’ signs, however, it looks like I’d get serious protection. From whom ? Who knows.
And you’re right. For one individual to freely express his opinion in a public street open to all is to make an ass of oneself. I mean, where is the world going to ?
Sigh.
It was not a few people sylvain. But thousands.
Erik and al were not 10 feet from the protest but in the middle of it, waiwing signs in front of its leaders.
Their goal was not to express their opinions, but to disturb the expression of opinions they desagree with, or more probably to make the people they desagree with look bad.
I think we should let it at that.
I will anyway.
Philippe, exactly. Which is all the more pathetic that a couple of guys were escorted by the police. A couple of people are a disturbance to a demonstration of thousands ? Please.
And since when do demonstrators, or certain ideas, have a monopoly on the use of a public street ?
Their goal was not to express their opinions, but to disturb the expression of opinions they desagree withA couple of people disturb the expression of opinion of thousands ? What are you smoking ? You are only confirming my point. One is not allowed to “disturb” the opinion if it is expressed by a mob, if only by one’s presence.
or more probably to make the people they desagree with look bad.And how could the police possibly know that ? And since when is that illegal ? In any case, if that was indeed their goal, they succeeded.
I think we should let it at that.Yeah. You should.
I don’t see any relevance for such a comparison or sufficient evidence that such an occurence is truly ‘typical’.
Also, being anti-Bush or anti-US does not mean one supports terrorism, ‘Marxism and Islamo-fascism’ (and any other grotesque names anyone has invented for Communism) and condemns capitalism, democracy and liberty as though the US is the country that has thoroughly demonstrated and practised the ideals of capitalism, democracy and liberty it regularly spouts. Comparing them thus as though condemnation of one necessitates support of the other is misleading.
Eledolie, it is indeed very typical. I lived there, I still go back there on a regular basis and finding evidence is not exactly a problem.
Also, being anti-Bush or anti-US does not mean one supports terrorism, ‘Marxism and Islamo-fascism’In theory, you may be right. But in practice, and if you looked at the signs displayed in the said march, you’d know it is equivalent. Marxism and support for the Iraqi “resistance” – many, if not most of whom, do qualify as Islamo-fascists – were on display. Moderate individuals, by definition, do not demonstrate in the streets. Especially when it will get you among a crowd of extremists.
So you’re right. One shouldn’t be synonymous with the other. But in practive, it seems a large majority of the people you will see in such a demonstration have such ideas. Nothing misleading about it. That’s just the way it is.
Thanks for offering your perspective, Sylvain. It is a pleasure to read them. However, I wish to add to the argument between you and Philippe earlier on the motive(s) of the pro-US demonstrators. We can only speculate their motive(s) in the absence of mind-reading abilities, but I think Philippe was commenting that their purpose might have been to provoke the other demonstrators whose views they probably disagree with (more than to simply express their opinions). Otherwise, it seems rather curious to me why anyone would purposely stand in the middle of the crowd to be completely surrounded by these demonstrators who were clearly unsympathetic to their actions and views. It seems only like finding trouble for themselves (of which they should have been intelligent enough to be mentally prepared for any unfortunate consequences which could have happened to them), don’t you think? Thus, should any unfortunate consequences happen to them (e.g. violence), it would appear as though they were the victims. People like us, who were not there at the scene and unaware of the true picture, would then be likely to think poorly of the other demonstrators who attacked them. As a result, they would have succeeded in projecting a poor image of these demonstrators (for the media to pick on). Yet, if this were the case, consider these questions: What is the root of such an occurence? Would all this have even happened in the first place if the pro-US demonstrators behaved themsevles and did not provoke the other demonstrators? Personally from experience, I think most people are nonviolent. Unless you purposely provoke and arouse their feelings of hatred for you, they usually would not resort to violent means. If everyone bashes anyone in the face just because that person holds views they disagree with, the world would already have been in chaos. However, this generally does not happen (fortunately).
You mentioned that in theory I may be right that being anti-Bush or anti-US does not mean one supports terrorism, ‘Marxism and Islamo-fascism’ but that in practice, this may not be the case. I do not share your view on this. I think this has nothing to do with whether theory exists or works in practice, but with certain groups of people. It seems like the view, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, is rather popular indeed. Unfortunately, such a view (if you are not pro-US, then you must be some Communist freak and/or Islamic extremist) is propagated very widely. Take for instance President Bush’s you-are-either-with-us-or-with-them ultimatum before the Iraq war. This leaves us with only 2 options when in actual case, there are at least 3. What we observe in public demonstrations on the streets (which constitutes only an extremely small segment of the whole population) is not necessarily representative of all the views possible but it does not mean they don’t exist. Thus, it is clearly misleading. Since this is not the case in reality, it is all the more that we should not continue to propagate such narrow views, no?
After further examination of the actions of the demonstrator named Erik in the article being linked, I think there is reason to believe that the demonstrator might not habour solely the intention to express his opinion but perhaps to forcefully provoke the other demonstrators. Moreover, what sort of serious political ‘opinion’ is being expressed by singing “America the Beautiful”, which seems more like the kind of songs people sing on national day celebrations? Personally, I think it is extremely dangerous and vicious for one’s political views to be mixed up with patriotism because such blind patriotism leaves no room for critical and rational analysis and evaluation of government policies which to me, is no different from the blind faith that one can observe in religious followers (e.g. Muslims for the Koran and Christians for the Bible). If one is seriously and truly committed to truth and justice, one should not subscribe to blind patriotism especially in politics and be willing to accept (if necessary) the falsehood and challenge the policies and actions of the government and people of the country of one’s origin. This, to me, is even more courageous.
In addition, I think the actions of the pro-US demonstrators (as mentioned in the article) are unconstructive and do not reflect a real willingness to solve problems. I do not think that singing a patriotic song in front of people’s faces will cause people to change their opinions about the policies of one’s government, do you? On the contrary, this is likely to breed further contempt and people are more likely to leave with a poor impression of people of one’s country.
Eledolie, since when does one’s presence, with a sign expressing a different opinion, constitute a “provocation” ? And how does it justify violence ? Maybe it was their intent but I do not believe this to be relevant to my argument; and it would not justify violence against them either, unless they start it themselves of course.
But in the absence of any evidence showing that these individuals did engagee the other demonstrators physically or made use of violence, the very fact that both they and the authorities expected violence to result from their mere presence speaks volume about the attitude of the demonstrators.
By escorting them, the police confirmed that among a certain crowd, the expression of some ideas justifies violence against their proponents.
(And, as an aside, having family members who served in anti-riot police, I have long ago learned that peace and environment activists are up there on the violence league. Funny how it works…)
You mentioned that in theory I may be right that being anti-Bush or anti-US does not mean one supports terrorism, ‘Marxism and Islamo-fascism’ but that in practice, this may not be the case.Actually, it’s not what I said. I said it was true, but in a street demonstration, and even in march-prone France, you are much more likely to walk among ideological extremists than thoughtful moderates, most of whom – those I know, at least – rarely, if ever, march, assuming they even believe in the effectiveness or relevance of such methods.
Take for instance President Bush’s you-are-either-with-us-or-with-them ultimatum before the Iraq war.Which is simplistic only if you choose to interpret it that way. It is widely accepted that Bush can only be a moron, therefore it must be a stupid, narrow statement. The diverse interpretations of this statement only reflect their authors’ biases.
In general, you can either fight, whether with the US or your own way. If not, and whether you actively oppose or do nothing, you may well stand in the way. In general, I happen to think Bush was perfectly right. But of course, given the overarching need to demonize anything the US says or does, it was bound to be interpreted in the worst possible light.
When ambiguous statements are made, which interpretation – positive or negative – is chosen mostly reflects the preference of those who react to them. Which actually makes such statements very useful to reveal or expose where opinion resides.
Thus, it is clearly misleading.No it’s not. Bush never said or implied there was only one single approach. But for all the nuances on the ground, in the end it boils down to those who fight with you and those who fight against, whether actively or passively.
Since this is not the case in reality, it is all the more that we should not continue to propagate such narrow views, no?Is a general statement that does not reflect the most minute variations of the real world misleading ? No. You can choose to call it “narrow” or “misleading”; but that is only a reflection of both your own bias and the generality of the statement. It does not make it untrue.
Elodolie, your second comment reflects a very common view, especially in France. And I agree with it, as long as you do not fall into the other trap. Namely, that anyone or any opinion labeled as patriotic – by others or themselves – must be wrong or the expression of some kind of latent fanaticism. ‘Patriotic’ is an adjective that does not make anyone or anything right or wrong by its mere presence.
Of course, when you have been taught for years to associate ‘patriotism’ with ‘blind’ – and it’s understandable in Europe, especially in France or Germany – it is hard not to assume those who express some kind of patriotism are not some delusional maniacs. I understand the assumption and its origins but Americans, and the U.S., are rather different from Europeans and France in particular in this respect. Americans are very aware of the difference between patriotism and nationalism. Europeans are prone to confuse the latter with the former.
I do not think that singing a patriotic song in front of people’s faces will cause people to change their opinions about the policies of one’s government, do you?Because marching in the street with signs calling Bush or Sharon Nazis and assimilating Baghdad to Gaza will ? And what opinion is there to change in a country where 80%+ were opposed to the war in Iraq and being pro-Israeli makes you a pariah ? Since France doesn’t have a single soldier or a dime engaged in Iraq, what is the purpose or usefulness of those demonstrations ? They have no coverage outside France, assuming they are even that well covered there.
On the contrary, this is likely to breed further contempt and people are more likely to leave with a poor impression of people of one’s country.You are quite correct. The signs the anti-war demonstrators have come to carry in the past few years reflect very badly on them and their country on our side of the pond. It cuts both ways, my friend.
Thanks for offering your argument, Sylvain, although I disagree with much of it. However, I will try to explain why.
Sylvain, you have ignored the actions of the pro-US demonstrator which are stated clearly in the article linked and described them as though all what Erik did was simply to carry a sign with a different opinion. It is important to take into account the context in which this has happened, rather than trivalise Erik’s actions. It is stated clearly in the article that Erik of No Pasaran! sang “America the Beautiful” right in the Communist leader’s face. Assuming this is true, this is one of the most effective ways to incite people to anger which would obviously be a form of provocation. It is easy to test whether this is true, simply by trying it for yourself or putting yourself in other people’s shoes or perhaps, a bit of common sense.
This might have been a form of provocation, but it does not justify violence. If one chooses to bash up another’s face simply because one disagrees with the other’s view, it is clearly wrong. You must understand that just because I am speculating (not nonsensically though) that the pro-US demonstrators might have had an intention to provoke others, this does not represent a justification for violence should violence occur. However, I think that we should take things into context, rather than jumping to the conclusion that just because he was attacked, so he was the victim and the others were all in the wrong. If the person being attacked provoked others beforehand, the person is not innocent because in the act of unwarranted provocation, he/she is clearly seeking trouble with an ill intention in mind. In fact, I think people should realise that they are responsible for their own actions and speech (assuming they are conscious). If one has the courage to provoke others, one should also have the courage to be prepared to face up to the consequences and people’s judgements of one’s actions. Just because people have a right to freedom of expression does not eliminate the fact that only they themselves are responsible for every action they take, not others.
May I know which argument of yours are you referring to and how is it irrelevant? I don’t think the article mentions that the pro-US demonstrators received violence from others. And yes, I agree that this does not justify violence, but if provocation was involved, they cannot be considered completely innocent.
This, I agree fully. However, I do not limit my judgement to only a specific group of demonstrators. To me, even the fact that the pro-US demonstrator named Erik chose to sing a US patriotic song in front of people’s face speaks volumes about the person himself as well. Every action counts and is open to judgement.
Not necessarily. The police could have escorted them because they were afraid for their safety (even if they themselves were not) and this has a well-meaning intention or they did not want the confrontation and provocation to escalate into public unrest. All this has nothing to do with the justification of violence.
You have added this as a side note. I shall assume that this is meant as a support for your argument that demonstrators can be violent. Yes, I agree. People can be violent. However, there is a difference between the assertion that people are naturally violent to opposing views and that people are violent to provocation from others. It is very important to draw a distinction. I have not done a comprehensive study or survey of violence tendencies of demonstrators but from my limited experience of day-to-day contact with ordinary people, I am inclined to generalise that most people are nonviolent unless provoked beyond a certain level of tolerance and most people do not resort to violence the first instant they realise the other person holds opposing view(s), unless there is something wrong with that person (like a severe mental illness). Thus, it is also not appropriate for you to refer to violence in general when I am referring to violence in the absence of provocation (in my earlier comment, note that I said “unless”).
This is what you said earlier. I really don’t think I have misinterpreted it. Again, I want emphasise that this has nothing to do with theory and/or practice (practice as according to this definition: the act or process of doing something; performance or action). If we focus only on public demonstrations as evidence of actions for one’s beliefs, views and opinion (i.e. what occurs in practice), we would be disregarding other forms of actions which are also mediums of representation (or activism) of one’s opinion (e.g. blogging, joining a particular organisation) and which are also what occurs in practice. Thus, I think that if you want to talk about theory and practice (which are general terms), you should not limit practice to only what occurs in public demonstrations. We should also take into account other mediums. Also, if you want to use generic terms like ‘theory’ and ‘practice’, you should not limit the observations of public demonstrations to only France, which are not representative of public demonstrations in general. Without a study or survey of public demonstrators all over the world, I am not very inclined to believe that ‘moderates’ are less likely to particpate in public demonstrations (depending on what you mean by ‘moderates’).
I am not aware that there could be other interpretations of Bush’s ultimatum. What exactly are they? Let’s take a look at the original statements that were made by President Bush in his speech : “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” The message is clear to me: if you do not support the US’ ‘campaign’ against terrorism, it means you definitely support terrorism. This is a narrow-minded view and induces people to brand others as terrorists and terrorism sympathisers immediately as long as others do not support the US in whatever it does in its ‘campaign’ against terrorism. There is also an implicit assumption that whatever the US does under the name of anti-terrorism must necessarily be right and valid with regards to anti-terrorism efforts. This is a good political ploy, come to think of it, because if you happen to disagree with the US in the nature of the anti-terrorism efforts (for instance, the Iraq war), you can be conveniently accused of being sympathetic to terrorism, extremists, Saddam, Islamo-fascism and what-not (when this may not be the case in actual fact). Actually, this has already has happened. For instance, you can take a look at some of the not-very-pleasant accusations (some of which can be visible online in blogs, etc.) people indiscriminately hurl at the moment anyone disagrees with what the US does without even considering their arguments. In addition, there are differences between supporting anti-terrorism (quite general, details omitted – may or may not include war), supporting a war in a particular country (specific), supporting the US (rather vague – what exactly are you supporting? Everything? War?), etc.
As much as I dislike quarrelling with people, I have to point out that your argument lacks cogency. A very effective way of analysing arguments is to standardise them. I shall present it here so that you can understand why.
Premise 1: There is at least one other interpretation of President Bush’s ultimatum.
Premise 2: I mentioned that President Bush’s ultimatum is narrow.
So,
I have purposely chosen to interpret it in that way.
Premise 3: It is widely accepted that Bush can only be a moron and that whatever President Bush says must be stupid and narrow.
Premise 4: These people (who think Bush can only be a moron and that whatever President Bush says must be stupid and narrow) are biased. They have an overarching need to demonise anything the US says or does.
So,
I am one of those people. I am biased against President Bush. I am bound to interpret it in the worst possible light.
Premise 5: You can fight, whether with the US or your own way, or active oppose or do nothing.
Premise 6: To actively oppose or do nothing is to stand in the way of the US.
So,
President Bush’s you-are-either-with-us-or-with-them ultimatum before the Iraq war is not simplistic. It is only simplistic because I interpreted it that way.
Conclusion: President Bush was perfectly right.
Premise (1) is undefended. However, as I have mentioned above, I do not think there can be other (non-simplistic) interpretations if you consider it in the context of President Bush’s speech. If there are, I kindly request you to spell it/them out specifically so that I can examine its/their validity. Your first premise is unacceptable; logically speaking, there is no need for me to examine your argument further because an argument falls apart immediately when one of the premises are unacceptable or false but let’s move on for a bit so I can correct some of your other misconceptions. Premise (3) is acceptable. I agree that this seems to be the common view nowadays. There is a problem with premise (4). It is categorical in its tone and sweeping in scope. It draws a very sharp accusation of people who think President Bush’s statements are ‘stupid’ and ‘narrow’. When we think about it, we can see that this accusation is exaggerated, may not even be true and is not borne out by a careful consideration of why certain groups of people have opposed and criticised President Bush’s statements and omitted the fact that certain groups of people have attempted to explain with reasoned arguments why they disagree with President Bush, rather than some sort of ‘overarching need’. It is also undefended because no argument has been given to support or justify it. Next, even if premise (4) is true, there is no relevance to the conclusion that “I am one of those people. I am biased against President Bush. I am bound to interpret it in the worst possible light.” because what and why others oppose and criticise President Bush and/or his statements has nothing to do with me. Just because others do and say so-and-so does not mean I also do and say so-and-so simply because I happen to come to the same conclusion as them that President Bush’s ultimatum is narrow. This is rather unfair to me, I think.
Lastly, both premises (5) and (6) have no connection with the conclusion that President Bush’s ultimatum is not simplistic. You have not explained why his ultimatum is not simplistic or as I put it, narrow.
Take note: My “it” refers, not to the fact that Bush said or implied there was only one single approach, but that to be not “with us” (as President Bush puts it) is to be “with the terrorists”. At that point in time, President Bush was not even referring explicitly to an impending war in Iraq (although he could already have that in mind) but to a ‘campaign’ of which he went on to provide a few details.
In his speech, he also said, “These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows.” (emphasis mine). Is this not obviously one single approach being stated explicitly?
You are making an assumption that I have taken this statement out of context such that it does not reflect the most minute variations of the real world. I do not agree with this. Where exactly have I done so? Even if comprehended in it original context (his speech), it is misleading, as I have already explained above. As I have argued above as well, I do not think that it is a reflection of both my own bias because there is only one interpretation if you bother to consider it in its context (his speech) and I do not recognise any forms of ambiguity involved (of which even if it does involve ambiguity, is likely to be reprehensible since political ambiguity of statements is strongly suspicious of an agenda to deceive people, as with doublespeak). The non-specific nature of the statement occurs only because the original speech has not been referred to but it does not necessarily mean it has been taken out of context to mean other things simply because I did not mention the whole speech.
Needless to repeat, I strongly disagree with this statement.
Elidolie, their intent is entirely irrelevant, as far as I’m concerned. Whatever you believe about their goal or intent – in the absence of any clear evidence – does not make them innocent nor guilty. Or justify violence, or the threat of violence, against them. The fact that both them and the police did believe that their mere presence could result in violence speaks volumes about the nature of the demonstrators.
It is easy to test whether this is true, simply by trying it for yourself or putting yourself in other people’s shoes or perhaps, a bit of common sense.Please spare me the condescending lecturing about ‘context’. The same people you claim are being “provoked” or “angered” also describe themselves as tolerant and open-minded. Since when are tolerance and open-mindedness associated with anger and violence against opposite ideas ? And to answer your question, if I was in their shoes, I wouldn’t care about a couple of guys “against” a demonstration of thousands. It’s preposterous.
However, I think that we should take things into context, rather than jumping to the conclusion…Translation : it is better to speculate about “context” in order to come to a conclusion that suits your prejudice, than making a judgment based on known facts and first principles.
The police could have escorted them because they were afraid for their safety (even if they themselves were not) and this has a well-meaning intention or they did not want the confrontation and provocation to escalate into public unrest. All this has nothing to do with the justification of violence.You are just repeating what I said and confirming my point. By acting to preemptively protect them, the police clearly signaled it believed them to be in danger. In other words, a clear official admission that expressing an opposite view in this particular crowd will get you in physical danger. Which confirms the known nature of the intolerance and narrow-mindedness of the marchers.
Thus, it is also not appropriate for you to refer to violence in general when I am referring to violence in the absence of provocationIt is very kind of you to tell me what is and isn’t appropriate for me to say. With all due respect, I will be the judge of what is appropriate for me to say, especially when you repeatedly distort my statements. The level of provocation that justifies violence, legally, socially and morally, is actually very high. One cannot justify violence, or the threat of it, unless the said provocation threatens the same towards you. Did these two individuals show up with baseball bats ? Did they do or say anything that implied they wanted to attack the other demonstrators physically ? No. They were there with small cardboard signs and they sang a song. Since you like to put yourself in others’ shoes, maybe you would be so kind as to ask yourself what kind of people can be so threatened and “provoked” by a couple of guys singing a song that they’d consider inflicting collective violence on them ? And they’re marching for what ? Peace ? Yeah right.
To me, even the fact that the pro-US demonstrator named Erik chose to sing a US patriotic song in front of people’s face speaks volumes about the person himself as well. Yes, it tells you he has an opinion and he’s not afraid to express them as one against hundreds. A radical concept in France, I will admit. But somehow, that’s a problem and he must be prevented from doing so “for his own protection”. We know what that means.
you should not limit the observations of public demonstrations to only France, which are not representative of public demonstrations in general.
Since we are talking about something that happened in France, France will be enough. Second, I don’t need surveys or study to express a logical opinion that is also informed by extensive personal experience. Moderates, by definition, are not prone to loud public demonstrations, especially when those involve individuals clearly known by the police to be prone to violent reaction against the expression of different opinions. Moderates do not carry signs calling Bush or anyone else a Nazi. You believe what you want. The messages and signs carried by the crowd speak for themselves.
I am not aware that there could be other interpretations of Bush’s ultimatum.So what ? Are you some kind of authority and the fact that you are unaware of other interpretations constitutes some kind of proof it cannot be interpreted any other way ?
What happened to putting things into “context” and trying so hard to see the other view on things ? Obviously, that is only required when it suits your argument.
Your lack of awareness is your own problem and does not constitute proof of anything.
So, I am one of those people. I am biased against President Bush. I am bound to interpret it in the worst possible light.Did I say you were ? Where ? If you are unable to argue without distorting or extrapolating from my statements, our conversation will be over faster than it started. The “simplistic” interpretation is too often based on some or all of those premises, whether you like or not. It can be stated explicitly, or implied, but the conclusion is invariably the same. Isn’t it a strange coincidence that this interpretation of Bush’s statement prevailed the most in countries where the premises I cited are also widely accepted ? Funny, that.
The message is clear to me: if you do not support the US’ ‘campaign’ against terrorism, it means you definitely support terrorism. That is the message you are reading into it. Again, what does that prove beyond yourself ? Because that is what you read into it, that is the only possible interpretation ? Not by a long shot.
This is a narrow-minded viewYou have certainly not proven this entirely subjective assertion. Your only evidence is that it’s “clear to you”. Well, it’s not to me. Oops.
and induces people to brand others as terrorists and terrorism sympathisers immediately as long as others do not support the US in whatever it does in its ‘campaign’ against terrorism.Nope. Not what he said. You’re extrapolating again. He says you either fight terrorism, in which case you’re on the same side as the US by mere virtue of doing so; “with us” does not mean or imply, “like us” or “under our orders”. You may interpret it that way but that only demonstrates your own biases.
If you do not fight terrorism, you are, indeed, with them, whether you actively support them – no argument for that case, I think – or do nothing. Because not fighting them, not obstructing them and their plans is effectively a form of passive assistance, not unlike denying assistance to someone in danger. A country that does not seek and fight terrorism within its own borders becomes a de facto potential harbor for them, a risk factor and a liability, if not an obstacle, for those who fight them.
There is absolutely nothing in this statement that explicitly says that 1) the US way is the only way of fighting terrorism 2) anything the US does with respects to terrorism can only be good and positive, that 3) the US leads and everybody else must follow, or else.
Premise (1) is undefended.I do not think there can be other (non-simplistic) interpretations if you consider it in the context of President Bush’s speech.So let me get something straight. It does not matter that I have another interpretation. If you haven’t heard of it, or if you do not think there can be one, therefore that interpretation does not exist and cannot be considered. In other words, the spectrum of valid interpretations is limited to whatever is arbitrarily defined by yourself and your personal view of the world.
I’m not the one with undefended, and undefensible, premises here. Not by a long shot.
The fact that you are not aware of any other interpretations only shows the limits of both your own views and your sources of information and analysis. It doesn’t prove at all that my premise is wrong, incorrect or irrelevant. Starting with such an argument weakens your credibility and the relevance of your own argument considerably.
Since when do ideas or opinions need some arbitrary critical mass of individuals to believe in them in order to be considered ?
It is categorical in its tone and sweeping in scope.So what ? Since when does that prove anything about a statement ? Believing one interpretation to be irrelevant because 1) you have never heard of it and 2) it conflicts with your own analysis, is perfectly narrow, categorical and sweeping as well.
Why is it you are allowed to get away with it ?
You have not explained why his ultimatum is not simplistic or as I put it, narrow.I did. Twice. But since you haven’t explained why it is simplistic or narrow, except by asserting it is, based on very little beyond your lack of awareness of other interpretations and your own view, I doubt you are in a position to demand explanations anyway. Especially when they are given to you and you are so unable to listen and see and accept a different view. It’s the nature of different views that you were no aware of them before you first heard them, silly. Is that so uncomfortable ?
In his speech, he also said, “These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows.” (emphasis mine). Is this not obviously one single approach being stated explicitly?No, it’s not obvious at all. Did he say “the only way to stop, eliminate and destroy terrorism is the American way” ? That is how you choose to interpret it but that is not what was said at all. If defeating a threat is the goal, stopping and eliminating that threat is an unavoidable and logical consequence of that goal. Unless, of course, you have no interest in defeating it. Or your interest is to ensure that it is not defeated. In both cases, you either actively or passively stand in the way of those who work to defeat it. And back to square one.
This is rather unfair to me, I think.Since I never made that accusation and that inference, you are in no position to complain about fairness, or lack thereof.
You are making an assumption that I have taken this statement out of context Nonsense. I never said or implied that. The statement is general, or, in your own words, “sweeping”. But apparently, that, in and of itself, is enough for you to call is “narrow”. I am unlikely to complain about you speaking out of context when there is clearly none needed for you to summarily judge someone’s intent, purpose or meaning. And other interpretations can be dismissed on the grounds of your unawareness of them.
I do not think that it is a reflection of both my own bias because there is only one interpretation if you bother to consider it in its context Since my interpretation, and that of millions of Americans, among others, greatly differs from yours, your statement cannot be true.
Unless you mean imply that anyone with a different interpretation didn’t “bother to to consider it in its context”. In other words, we either think “in context” and come to your conclusion, or we do not come to the same conclusion and therefore we didn’t “bother” to think. So “we” either agree with you, or “we” didn’t think. Isn’t it a a bit “categorical”, “sweeping” and “narrow” to flatly state that “there is only one interpretation” of something, especially when others clearly show that they believe otherwise ?
I do not recognise any forms of ambiguity involved Just because you are unable to recognize it does not mean it doesn’t exist. Since you and I see it very differently, it most clearly does exist. What other evidence do you need ? Oh, yes, I forgot : if you are unaware of it, it does not exist. And if I disagree, I didn’t think “in context”. But of course, there is nothing subjective about one’s context. There is only one : yours.
Needless to repeat, I strongly disagree with this statement.If it’s needless, don’t. You are free to disagree with anything you want. So is everybody else.
Now, on to the next comment you posted.
It is interesting to learn that there are people who actually share my view (I assume that you are referring to my assertion politics should not be mixed up with patriotism), probably because I have never come across anyone (online or offline) who has expressed this view. I also appreciate your concern that I do not fall into “the other trap”. However, I disagree with the presence of “the other trap”. I shall explain in my next paragraph as follows.
I am interested to know what sort of distinctions do Americans make about patriotism and nationalism.
When I refer to “patriotism”, I mean (as my Oxford dictionary says) love of your country and willingness to defend it. My dictionary also says that nationalism means “(sometimes disapproving) a feeling of love for and pride in your country; a feeling that your country is better than the other”. You appear to think that anyone or any opinion labelled as patriotic – by others or themselves – is not necessarily wrong or the expression of some kind of latent fanaticism. I take issue with this statement. Remember, we are talking about patriotism with respect to politics. Any political opinion that arises due to patriotism must necessarily be flawed (not in the sense of its conclusion specifically but the reasoning process in which the conclusion is arrived, because conclusion may happen to be right) because it would not be borne out of a critical and rational analysis and evaluation of political issues but out of “love” and “willingness” (i.e. out of emotions or emotional attachments to one’s country). Thus, patriotism when applied to politics (note: I said when applied to politics, not patriotism as itself) must also necessarily be blind. With such a mentality, I think one would be likely to have already closed one’s mind to opposing views and arguments, and as a result, likely to resort to unsensible and unpleasant accusations of others and flawed arguments like ad hominem arguments (i.e. attacking the person rather than the argument itself). It is fine with me if people want to express their love for their countries (whether or not they have a good reason) but patriotism should be kept off one’s political opinion. If not, I do not think such opinion deserves serious consideration, notice and respect for the reasons as mentioned.
You seem to imply that I am confusing nationalism with patriotism. It is all very simple. It depends on whether nationalism can be objective (again, depending on your definition and there are many – I would insist on defining terms properly). A very interesting description of nationalism is provided here. Most people have some sort of national pride for their countries (which would qualify as nationalism) I suppose, along with their various reasons (if there are any). It is hard for it to be objective I think, depending on what kind of standards you fix as a basis (which can be disputable). Again, emotions are likely to be heavily involved. Thus, I am not inclined to think that nationalism can be an objective basis for forming one’s political opinion and should not be mixed up with politics as well. Besides which, I should perhaps mention that nationalism is a form of collectivism, as with fascism and Marxism.
Also, before you jump straight to the conclusion that I am one of those stereotypical French/German with age-old assumptions and beliefs, brainwashed for years under the system leaving me all but unable to differentiate between nationalism and patriotism, confused beyond normal sanity levels for proper functioning to associate ‘patriotism’ to be ‘blind’ and picturing the US in my spare time as some sort of strange pompous monster, I must assure you that unregretably, I don’t fit in with those stereotypes as I am not a French or German or even European and have never set a single foot on the lands of the related countries, much less received the privilege of being taught these fascinating concepts.
(Of course, you must excuse my last paragraph though. Once in a while, I have the tendency to speak rather… differently.)
You are not addressing my point. I am talking about whether it is constructive to sing a US patriotic song in front of people’s faces to change people’s opinions, and out of a blue, you talk about marching in the streets with signs calling Bush or Sharon Nazis and what-not. I dislike arguments where people use relative comparison and/or irrelevant statements to assert or justify their points rather than addressing my point itself. If I am talking about apples, then talk apples with me, don’t suddenly change the topic to oranges. Similarly, just because somebody behaves in a silly manner does not mean you also have to follow them. Otherwise, you are only stooping to the same level as them. One is responsible for one’s own actions; don’t blame others for them or justify it along the lines that “others also do it (or started it), why is wrong with me doing it?” or the likes (not that I am saying anyone does).
To address your point though, I must say, I really don’t know. It depends very much on the way in which they express their views (for instance, do they sing irrelevant patriotic songs to convince people of their views?) and their audience.
You seem to think it is hopeless to change people’s opinions and useless for activism on the streets in France and that there is little coverage of them outside of the country. I regret that this should be the case.
I agree, assuming it is true that the anti-war demonstrators have been carrying inappropriate signs.
Eledolie, this is tiresome and I am not interested in pursuing this any further. You have clearly and unmistakably stated regarding a specific topic that there is only one possible interpretation : your own. Thereby displaying the very narrow-mindedness you claim to be denouncing. For the rest, we are getting deep into the business of running in circles, splitting hair, if not looking for them on eggs and as stubborn and persistent as I can be, I have my limits.
You also keep asking questions you refuse to answer yourself. Why is it more or less constructive to sing a song than carrying signs and banners insulting foreign heads of state and entire countries ? As a matter of fact, it seems to me that the former is a perfectly appropriate answer to the latter, whatever you think of either. As for the demonstrators’ signs and their substance – or lack thereof – these two individuals and many others before them have provided samples on their site; I have witnessed several such demonstrations in Europe myself; I lived there in 2002 and 2003 so I know a thing or two about the anti-war argument and its public expression in that part of the world. And that experience does make it difficult for me to give this particular crowd much credit or respect.
So yes, when someone has the balls – that’s the right word for it, and too bad if your PC sensibility dislikes it – to step outside in the open and challenge the kind of ignorant, foolish, morally bankrupt garbage that passes for courageous dissent – never mind there is nothing courageous, dissenting or risky about that particular opinion in that part of the world – and is not only tolerated but constantly promoted across the board as the only acceptable, politically-correct point of view, I am likely to be more respectful of their right to express their opinion than that of a large predictable mob of sheep who slavishly engage in acts of public, collective, cult-like celebration of their government’s corrupt party line.
And I can’t help but note that in this as in other matters, one now has to be a foreigner to think differently in France.
Sylvain, I have a few questions (some of which you did not answer in your last post) which I really hope you can answer without evading or sniping at me. I have tried my best to show you why your argument is flawed but you seemed to think my purpose was to send you a “condescending” lecture as if I have nothing better to do. I am sorry that you should feel this way. However, if it were, I would not have bothered to find your unstated premises and present them here so that you can see where I think you have gone wrong.
I asked you earlier which argument you were referring to and how is it irrelevant to the pro-US demonstrators’ intent. The argument about their innocence was mine though and I was the one who started it. I don’t think you could have been referring to it before because I only mentioned about their innocence after you said that it is irrelevant to your argument.
Also, this is what you said earlier before your last post:
The argument about the justification of violence has been mentioned here already and you mentioned it again in this statement in your last post: “Or justify violence, or the threat of violence, against them. ” so it could not have been this argument that you were referring to. So which argument were you referring to?
I have also already mentioned that I do not think this justifies violence by the other demonstrators in my paragraph I made in my previous post:
Can you explain why is this prejudiced?
You took my statement out of this paragraph I made:
However, I think that we should take things into context, rather than jumping to the conclusion that just because he was attacked, so he was the victim and the others were all in the wrong. If the person being attacked provoked others beforehand, the person is not innocent because in the act of unwarranted provocation, he/she is clearly seeking trouble with an ill intention in mind.
I was referring to a hypothetical situation in which violence has already taken place. The article that is linked to this blog-post did not mention that violence has taken place. If required, can you kindly point to me (give links, if you like) where such information have not been provided because I am not aware that the pro-US demonstrators have been subjected to violence by the other demonstrators?
You said that I was just repeating what you said.
1. Where did you mention (as I did) the police could be afraid for their safety and did not want the confrontation and provocation to escalate into public unrest?
This is where you picked out my statement:
which was my response to this paragraph you made:
but not to your later point that “By acting to preemptively protect them, the police clearly signaled it believed them to be in danger.” or that “In other words, a clear official admission that expressing an opposite view in this particular crowd will get you in physical danger. Which confirms the known nature of the intolerance and narrow-mindedness of the marchers.” (which you say I am supposedly confirming),
which is different from your earlier point that “By escorting them, the police confirmed that among a certain crowd, the expression of some ideas justifies violence against their proponents.“.
1. Why will only you yourself be the “judge” of what is appropriate to say? Don’t people sue others for slander in courts?
1. Why and how is singing a US patriotic song in the face of a Communist leader not a form of provocation?
2. Why does provocation only mean “showing up with baseball bats”?
3. How do you know I like to put myself in other people’s shoes?
4. How do you know that the demonstrators were marching for peace?
What about his method of expressing his views (which is what I was referring to throughout my post and was obviously more concerned with rather than whether he has any opinion or whether he is afraid to express them as one against hundreds which if he was afraid, he obviously would not have done so) by singing a US patriotic song in the face of a Communist leader?
Why is talking about France enough when you are using generic terms like “in theory” and “in practice” as though France alone would represent what happens in theory and in practice?
You also said that:
“Second, I don’t need surveys or study to express a logical opinion that is also informed by extensive personal experience. Moderates, by definition, are not prone to loud public demonstrations, especially when those involve individuals clearly known by the police to be prone to violent reaction against the expression of different opinions.” (emphasis mine)
Why don’t you need studies or surveys to express an opinion about moderates in general of what happens in reality in general? Why does only France represent what happens in reality?
According to dictionary.com, moderate means “opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion.”.
Where is it stated, “by definition”, that moderates “are not prone to loud public demonstrations, especially when those involve individuals clearly known by the police to be prone to violent reaction against the expression of different opinions”?
You also said that:
“Moderates do not carry signs calling Bush or anyone else a Nazi. You believe what you want. The messages and signs carried by the crowd speak for themselves. The messages and signs carried by the crowd speak for themselves.”
How can you expect me to believe you (without evidence) that moderates (i.e. opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion) “are not prone to loud public demonstrations, especially when those involve individuals clearly known by the police to be prone to violent reaction against the expression of different opinions” simply because you said so?
1. Wherever did I say that I am “some kind of authority”?
2. Wherever did I say that “the fact that I am [you are] unaware of other interpretations constitutes some kind of proof it cannot be interpreted any other way”?
3. Can you explain clearly why is it that my being unaware that there could be other interpretations of President Bush’s ultimatum means that I am implying (if I am, which I don’t think so, so that’s why I need your explanation) I am “some kind of authority”?
4. Can you also explain clearly why is it that my being unaware that there could be other interpretations of President Bush’s ultimatum means that I am implying (if I am, which I don’t think so and that is why I am now asking for your explanation) “the fact that I am [you are] unaware of other interpretations constitutes some kind of proof it cannot be interpreted any other way”?
5. What do you mean “what happened to putting things into context”? How is referring to President Bush’s speech and providing a link for you to scrutinise it for yourself not putting things into context?
6. Why does my supposed “lack of awareness” mean that I should believe that there are other interpretations (which you did not provide, for some reason, earlier)?
7. If you did not provide those alleged alternative interpretations earlier before your last post, how do you expect me to believe there really were other possible valid interpretations and that you would be able to provide them?
8. If my “lack of awareness” is my “own problem” and “does not constitute proof of anything”, why is your refusal to provide those valid alternative interpretations (earlier, before your last post on this topic) not a sign of your own problem and constitute that it is proof that there are indeed other possible valid interpretations?
You also said:
“So, I am one of those people. I am biased against President Bush. I am bound to interpret it in the worst possible light.Did I say you were ? Where ? If you are unable to argue without distorting or extrapolating from my statements, our conversation will be over faster than it started. The “simplistic” interpretation is too often based on some or all of those premises, whether you like or not. It can be stated explicitly, or implied, but the conclusion is invariably the same. Isn’t it a strange coincidence that this interpretation of Bush’s statement prevailed the most in countries where the premises I cited are also widely accepted ? Funny, that.”
You do not have to state your precise explicitly for me infer in from the tone and the content of your argument.
1. If you do not think I am biased against the President Bush, why are you even arguing with me in the first place at all that there are other interpretations and that, in your own words, “reflection of both my [your] own bias” (this is taken from following paragraph which you wrote earlier)?
In this paragraph you wrote:
2. Isn’t interesting and equally a strange conincidence and funny as well, that you are using your own premises which you use conclude that President Bush was “perfectly right” to explain my supposedly ‘simplistic’ interpretation of President Bush’s you-are-either-with-us-or-with-the-terrorists ultimatum? I thought they were the premises for your own argument? Why are you now using your own precises (which I have already refuted those I disagree, under the circumstance of being unaware what your other interpretation(s) was/were) for your own argument to explain this ‘simplistic’ interpretation which you disagree?
3. If you think I am “unable to argue without distorting or extrapolating from your [my] statements”, why are you unable or unwilling to provide the reasons why each premise does not truly represent your statements?
4. Also, can you kindly provide your justification for your empty assertion that I am “unable to argue without distorting or extrapolating from your [my] statements”? If you don’t, how do you expect anyone to believe you?
Why is it that because you are able to read some sort of alternative messages from this ultimatum, that this means there must be more than 1 interpretation, but it is “not by a long shot” for me to read into it and find only one valid interpretation?
Also, can you explain clearly why is it that you said President Bush “never said or implied there was only one single approach” when in his speech, he said, “These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows.” (emphasis mine)? Is this not obviously one single approach being stated explicitly?
Why is my interpretation subjective but yours not when you yourself asserted there are multiple interpretations?
When you assert that a statement has many interpretations, how can it possibly be an unambiguous statement and consequently, have an objective interpretation?
Here is my support which I have already provided in my previous post sometime ago:
and here:
by definition – and what a supremely sacred and profound that no English-speaking person in the world has ever heard of in his/her life and never-occurs-in-the-dictionary definition! – in your own divine words, moderates “do not demonstrate in the streets”!) and the following statements: “In general, you can either fight, whether with the US or your own way. If not, and whether you actively oppose or do nothing, you may well stand in the way.”.
When a person persuades others to support him/her in a cause, the person does not simply say, “Oh. I’m fighting against terrorism. Come join me.” and expect people to be persuaded to join and believe that 1) you are truly committed to anti-terrorism (without talking about what you are going to – President Bush did) and 2) whatever you do should be agreeable and 3) others have a say and be allowed to propose what can be done, but to put forward reasons and what sort of actions people can expect to be supporting when they join your coalition. This is what President does in his speech (provide some reasons and reveal what sort of actions would be taken), he does not simply say that he is going to fight terrorism in general with no reference as to what sort of actions would be taken
1. Is this not supposed to be a US-led anti-terrorism ‘campaign’ all from the start? If this is not, how is it not and which country was leading it?
2. Why are you so eager to accuse me of being biased against President Bush just because I have supposedly interpretated in a different way but when you interpret it in your own manner, it is not biased in favour of President Bush?
3. So President Bush was not saying that you are either with us or with the terrorists but according to you, either “fight terrorism” or don’t? If this is the case, why did he not say, “You either fight terrorism in general (not necessarily with the US) or you don’t?” or something like “You either fight or you dont.” but “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”?
4. If President Bush was not implying to be “with us” means to fight terrorism with the US under the control and command of the US military plans, why in the world did he mention all the specific details as to how the US was going to fight this ‘campaign’ against terrorism? Wouldn’t it be completely irrelevant to mention all these details if President Bush simply meant to persuade others to “fight terrorism” generally, rather than fight terrorism the American way? “Fighting terrorism” does not mean you must join the US-led coalition. Is it a wonder then that after which the US tried to persuade other countries to join its US-led coalition, rather than to pretend to “fight terrorism” vaguely without proposing their specific ideas to the UN and say “let’s hear your views on how we can go about fighting terrorism”?
This is what is stated in President’s Bush’s speech:
“Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.”
5. Why did President Bush use the phrase “with us” (which refers to people i.e. the Americans, and President Bush mentioned some specific actions they were going to take as a people for the purpose of anti-terrorism, not simply a concept like “fighting terrorism”) if President Bush was not indicating that to be “with us” means to fight terrorism with the US under the control and command of the US military plans rather than simply, “fighting terrorism” in general?
Why would there absolutely be anything “that explicitly says that 1) the US way is the only way of fighting terrorism 2) anything the US does with respects to terrorism can only be good and positive, that 3) the US leads and everybody else must follow, or else” in this statement if you refuse to consider it in its context (that when taken out of context it can be interpreted in many ways) or consider the underlying implicit assumption of the statement?
1. Wherever did I say or implied that “If I [you] haven’t heard of it, or if I [you] do not think there can be one, therefore that interpretation does not exist and cannot be considered. In other words, the spectrum of valid interpretations is limited to whatever is arbitrarily defined by myself [yourself] and my [your] personal view of the world.” when what I merely admitted is that I am not aware of other valid interpretations?
2. Why does it not matter that you have another interpretation when I did not say I am not going to consider your interpretation, when I have been asking for your interpretation which you did not give earlier, until now (to my surprise that you now think it is inconsequential) that you mention that your interpretation is “fighting terrorism” in general?
After which, you came on immediately with this:
In what way does not the fact that I was not aware of other interpretations (assuming you are referring to me) mean that I am providing undefended and undefencible premises?
So, exactly and specifically which premises did I assert which you think are undefended and undefencible and how and why are “undefencible”?
1. Now that you have, at last (!), provided your own interpretation (“with us” means “fighting terrorism” in general), does this still “shows the limits of both my [your] own views and my [your] sources of information and analysis”? If so, why and how?
2. Wherever did I prove that your premise that there are more than 1 interpretation of President Bush’s ultimatum (premise (1)) is “wrong, incorrect or irrelevant”? (Personally, I think you deserve a prize if you can find it and show me where.)
3. How could it be possible that I was actually proving that your premise is “wrong, incorrect or irrelevant” (what a whole load of adjectives being hurled at me, eh?) when I merely said that premise (1) is unacceptable because you did not defend it (e.g. provide the interpretations you were referring to and show why they are valid in the context of the speech that was delivered)?
Take a look at my statements again, if you will:
“Premise (1) is undefended. However, as I have mentioned above, I do not think there can be other (non-simplistic) interpretations if you consider it in the context of President Bush’s speech. If there are, I kindly request you to spell it/them out specifically so that I can examine its/their validity.” (emphasis mine)
3. How could I possibly prove that your premise (1) is “wrong, incorrect or irrelevant” (even if I want to) when you did not even provide your own interpretation (and I was like asking you politely for it) and when I was not even unaware of it/them (and I said so)?
1. What do you mean “so what?”? How and why is it deserving for you to deride it simply with a convenient “so what?”?
2. Since when does that not prove anything about a statement? For example, since when does the fact that your statement is categorical in its tone and sweeping in scope not prove that it is an unacceptable premise?
3. Also, wherever did I say that your premise that there is at least one other interpretation of President Bush’s ultimatum is “irrelevant”? Point it out to me, please.
4. How could I possibly have been saying that your premise is “irrelevant” when the concept of relevance (or irrelevence) in argument in itself necessitates referring to a conclusion (as in, it must be relevant or irrelevant to something) and in this paragraph in which I examined your premise (1):
“Premise (1) is undefended. However, as I have mentioned above, I do not think there can be other (non-simplistic) interpretations if you consider it in the context of President Bush’s speech. If there are, I kindly request you to spell it/them out specifically so that I can examine its/their validity.” (emphasis mine),
I was not even considering any conclusion yet and was only looking at the acceptability of this premise in which you never defended to give me adequate grounds to accept it at face value?
Why are you accusing me being allowed to get away with something that I did not assert (that I believe your interpretation to be “irrelevant”)?
Here is your so-called argument:
“Which is simplistic only if you choose to interpret it that way. It is widely accepted that Bush can only be a moron, therefore it must be a stupid, narrow statement. The diverse interpretations of this statement only reflect their authors’ biases.
In general, you can either fight, whether with the US or your own way. If not, and whether you actively oppose or do nothing, you may well stand in the way. In general, I happen to think Bush was perfectly right. But of course, given the overarching need to demonize anything the US says or does, it was bound to be interpreted in the worst possible light.
When ambiguous statements are made, which interpretation – positive or negative – is chosen mostly reflects the preference of those who react to them. Which actually makes such statements very useful to reveal or expose where opinion resides.
Bush never said or implied there was only one single approach. But for all the nuances on the ground, in the end it boils down to those who fight with you and those who fight against, whether actively or passively.”
Why do you believe yourself to have explained why his ultimatum is not simplistic “twice” before when what you did was to talk about what others think about Bush and how”stupid” and “narrow” they think President Bush’s statements are, and how they must all (you did not qualify; this is why it is categorical – if I force you to talk specifically about each individual potentially or actual anti-Bush statement and whether they represent some sort of “overarching need” to demonise, you would be forced to qualify this statement) have purposely put President Bush in the “worst possible light”, etc?
To repeat, here is why I think you have not explained (or have seemingly explain) earlier (before your last post – this would have changed because you have finally provided your interpretation and some argument in your last post)why his ultimatum is not simplistic:
How have you not made that accusation? If you are not making such an accusation, why are and why should you be arguing with me about my interpretation in the first place and how did you come to the conclusion that, in your own words, President Bush’s ultimatum “is simplistic only if I [you] choose to interpret it that way” from premises that talk about the general anti-Bush sentiment (as though it has anything to do with President Bush’s ultimatum itself)?
Hah! Where exactly did I say that President Bush’s ultimatum is “sweeping”? Point it out to me, please.
Notice that I was referring “this statement” to President Bush’s ultimatum because I wrote it in response to a paragraph of yours because I specifically commented on it immediately after this paragraph:
On the other hand, where do you think you could have picked out the word “sweeping” out-of-context from my statements?
Take a look here at these statements I made and specifically, the word in bold; I was referring to a premise(!) – not President Bush’s ultimatum:
“There is a problem with premise (4). It is categorical in its tone and sweeping in scope. It draws a very sharp accusation of people who think President Bush’s statements are ‘stupid’ and ‘narrow’. When we think about it, we can see that this accusation is exaggerated, may not even be true and is not borne out by a careful consideration of why certain groups of people have opposed and criticised President Bush’s statements and omitted the fact that certain groups of people have attempted to explain with reasoned arguments why they disagree with President Bush, rather than some sort of ‘overarching need’. It is also undefended because no argument has been given to support or justify it. Next, even if premise (4) is true, there is no relevance to the conclusion that “I am one of those people. I am biased against President Bush. I am bound to interpret it in the worst possible light.” because what and why others oppose and criticise President Bush and/or his statements has nothing to do with me. Just because others do and say so-and-so does not mean I also do and say so-and-so simply because I happen to come to the same conclusion as them that President Bush’s ultimatum is narrow. This is rather unfair to me, I think.”
Amazing that, I must say.
Wherever did I say or imply that President Bush’s ultimatum ” in and of itself, is enough for you to call is narrow”? (Note the words in bold.)
Wherever did I ‘dismiss’ it?
Why does branding your premise unacceptable because you did not even provide your interpretation (if you think you have, where exactly?) until your last post (on this topic) to provide justification/evidence/support that there are at least 1 other valid interpretation meant that it is acceptable and should not be ‘dismissed’ (you accused me of dismissing it and you don’t seem to agree with it)?
Did I and would I even have the chance to “dismiss” your interpretation(s) (you have only provided one though, other than mine) when you did not even mentioned what interpretation you have thought for yourself and I was not even aware of it before?
Why and how can my statement be untrue simply because your interpretation and “that of millions of Americans, among others, greatly differs” from mine?
Who do your “others” (seems like more than 1 person) refer to and where beforehand, did they “clearly show” beforehand that “they believe otherwise” here?
Where exactly have you given grounds to show that you did indeed have some sort of other valid interpretation of President Bush’s ultimatum available (of which you never mentioned beforehand) if you did not even mentioned what sort of valid interpretations are they (turned out to be only 1 other interpretation i.e. Bush’s “with us” means only “fighting terrorism” in general) only said that there are other interpretations and that my interpretation is a reflection of my own bias?
This is what you asserted earlier:
“He says you either fight terrorism, in which case you’re on the same side as the US by mere virtue of doing so; “with us” does not mean or imply, “like us” or “under our orders”. You may interpret it that way but that only demonstrates your own biases.”
Have you considered President Bush’s ultimatum in context and with reference to his original speech in the link I provided? If so, where exactly have you done so?
Wherever did I say it doesn’t exist? (I merely said, “I do not recognise any forms of ambiguity involved”. If you think otherwise, go ahead and show how and why is it ambiguous; I am not stopping you, but I never said things like “It is not ambiguous.” There is a difference between asserting that the statement does not appear to be ambiguous to me (if you take into acount the context in which this ultimatum was made) – in other words, I do not recognise any forms of ambiguity involved – and asserting that the statement is not ambiguous. ).
Wherever did I say or imply such a thing as, if I am unaware of it, it does not exist? Point it out to me, please.
What I said was that I was not unaware of other interpretations. I have not said that other interpretations do not exist without mentioning that you have to take into account the context (which you have conveniently left out in your accusation, I see).
How and why did you jump to the conclusion that I have said a statement like “it does not exist”?
For your reference, this is what I said:
“As I have argued above as well, I do not think that it is a reflection of both my own bias because there is only one interpretation if you bother to consider it in its context (his speech) and I do not recognise any forms of ambiguity involved (of which even if it does involve ambiguity, is likely to be reprehensible since political ambiguity of statements is strongly suspicious of an agenda to deceive people, as with doublespeak).”
It appears to me that there can only be one interpretations if considered in its context, thus in the absence of you providing your (or anyone else’s) alternative interpretation beforehand, I am, of course, inclined to think that there can only be one interpretation.
Again, if you think otherwise, go ahead and air your views and explain why there are other valid interpretations if taken in the context of President Bush’s speech (if you want to be believed – at least by me); I am not (was not) stopping you from doing so. This is the whole point of this commentary system anyway – to provide your own views and comments. I apologise I have rashly assumed that you would find it similarly clear and easy to see that the ultimatum was not simply referring to “fighting terrorism” in general, but I hope that you can refer to the link I provided earlier to President Bush’s speech.
I would very much appreciate it if you could answer my questions before making other assertions when the previous assertions have not been clarified. Many thanks in advance.
You may not believe this but I am probably even more tired than you after having look into your argument to discover, to my utmost delight, your
1. originally undefended (and therefore unacceptable) premises (e.g. that there is at least one other possibly valid interpretation of President Bush’s ultimatum with reference to the original speech he made),
2. irrelevant, categorical and sweeping premises to sub-conclusions and conclusion (e.g. These people (who think Bush can only be a moron and that whatever President Bush says must be stupid and narrow) are biased. They have an overarching need to demonise anything the US says or does. – which is irrelevant to the whole argument as to whether President Bush was, according to you, “perfectly right” or whether his ultimatum is narrow.),
and find myself 3. to be subjected to your unwarranted sniping (e.g. “It is very kind of you to tell me what is and isn’t appropriate for me to say.” – I doubt you have even considered the reasons I have put forward as to why I thought so, besides which, argument has nothing to do with kindness! It is not charity, for goodness’ sake, Sylvain! As if you are seeking alms from me! – and “Since you like to put yourself in others’ shoes, maybe you would be so kind as to ask yourself what kind of people can be so threatened and “provoked” by a couple of guys singing a song that they’d consider inflicting collective violence on them ? – again “maybe you would be so kind”??”
4. false accusations (e.g. “Translation : it is better to speculate about “context” in order to come to a conclusion that suits your prejudice, than making a judgment based on known facts and first principles.” when I was referring to a hypothetical situation – I was using phrases like “should violence occur” – in which violence has already taken place. However, the article that is linked to this blog-post did not mention that violence has taken place. and“Why is it you are allowed to get away with it ?” – accusing me being allowed to get away with something that I did not assert (that I believe your interpretation – premise (1) – to be “irrelevant” when I was not even referring the any conclusion or sub-conclusion yet – read my previous comment for more)),
5. irrelevant and out-of-the-topic-of-discussion statements (e.g. “And to answer your question, if I was in their shoes, I wouldn’t care about a couple of guys “against” a demonstration of thousands. It’s preposterous.” – in response to these statements of mine: “It is easy to test whether this is true, simply by trying it for yourself or putting yourself in other people’s shoes or perhaps, a bit of common sense.” when I did not even pose any “question” to you in the first place as to whether you would care – not that I am interested.)
Yes, this is, of course, my own interpretation. Whose else could it be? I was, after all, providing my own interpretation. Not yours (I am no mind-reader), which you refused to provide until your second last post. If you did not provide your own interpretation (you only implied there are other interpretation(s) earlier) or all the possible interpretations earlier that President Bush’s “with us” actually mean “fighting terrorism” in general – and not necessarily in the “American way” , there are no good grounds for me to believe that there are indeed other interpretations as you said. When you did not provide good reasons why I should believe you that there are indeed other interpretations, of course I will have to rely on my own interpretation (I can’t mind-read for other people’s interpretations or possess the sort of magical power to capture those interpretations lingering around) with regard to the amount of information I possess. Yet, you would have noticed that I did not rest upon my own interpretation and call this the end of the story and goodbye. I specifically requested you to state clearly what sort of interpretations you were referring to (look at these statements I posted to you earlier: “However, as I have mentioned above, I do not think there can be other (non-simplistic) interpretations if you consider it in the context of President Bush’s speech. If there are, I kindly request you to spell it/them out specifically so that I can examine its/their validity.”. I have had not eliminated the possibility that I could have been wrong. Yet, take a look at what you wrote back: “That is the message you are reading into it. Again, what does that prove beyond yourself ? Because that is what you read into it, that is the only possible interpretation ? Not by a long shot. Your only evidence is that it’s “clear to you”. Well, it’s not to me. Oops.”. When I say something is clear to me, I am not offering any evidence at all. I am only saying it is clear to me, that’s all. Why you regard this as evidence when this is a statement to describe that fact the message is clear to me? I am in no way saying that just because it appears clear to me, you also have to believe that it is clear to you. Besides which, you have a mind of your own. Why should I not let you use it to reach your conclusion(s)? I gave you a link to the original speech of President Bush’s speech, for the purpose of letting you look for yourself at the context in which his ultimatum was made but you don’t appear to have made good use of it for your arguments, unfortunately.
As if I don’t have my limits as well. Just looking at your argument and unacceptable statements like “But of course, given the overarching need to demonize anything the US says or does, it was bound to be interpreted in the worst possible light” is enough to make me feel like banging my head into the wall in despair and what more of your seemingly heck-care response: “So what?” when I was trying to explain to you that this precise is categorical and sweeping. Worse, your thwarted idea of “provocation” seems cover showing up with baseball bats and making statements to imply an intention of physical violence only. I was even wondering to myself whether you really understood the meaning of provocation (Oxford says, “the act of doing or saying something deliberately in order to make somebody angry and upset; something that is done or said to cause this) and whether I should also explain that to you. And what more about your assertion that ‘moderates’, by definition(!), “do not demonstrate in the streets”. If I carry on, I think will really need to reserve a place for myself in the nearest mental hospital. Yes, tell me all about having limits. I know what I have said can be unpleasant in a way but I am only telling you the truth – at least, what I think is the truth. If I have offended you in any way, then I apologise for it.
Sylvain, I ask questions for you to ponder on and answer, not for myself to answer.
You don’t seem to have addressed my point on patriotism and politics, and nationalism and patriotism.
However, I am still interested to know what sort of distinction is made in the US between nationalism and patriotism (if there really is a distinction being made) because my dictionary gives definitions where are areas where both meanings overlap and this means that it could potentially give rise to confusion between the 2 terms. Thanks.
I am also interested to know what makes you think I possess a “PC sensibility” (whatever this means – depending on your definition of political correctness which can be twisted already to carry a negative connontation).
You said:
So yes, when someone has the balls – that’s the right word for it, and too bad if your PC sensibility dislikes it (!!!) – sniping at me again, I see; this time using a value judgement though it doesn’t matter to me what you think – whether it is too bad or bad or good or too good or neutral – really, besides which does nothing to show your argument is true though it reflects on yourself as a person – to step outside in the open and challenge the kind of ignorant, foolish, morally bankrupt garbage that passes for courageous dissent – never mind there is nothing courageous, dissenting or risky about that particular opinion in that part of the world – and is not only tolerated but constantly promoted across the board as the only acceptable, politically-correct point of view, I am likely to be more respectful of their right to express their opinion than that of a large predictable mob of sheep who slavishly engage in acts of public, collective, cult-like celebration of their government’s corrupt party line. (punctuation and added words mine)
Out of curiosity, who are you referring to interestingly as “a large predictable mob of sheep who slavishly engage in acts of public, collective, cult-like celebration of their government’s corrupt party line”? Not every other group of demonstrators who are not anti-war, I hope?
Sylvain:
Why have you not answered my questions specifically or even attempted to address them at least when I have wasted so much time, energy, electricity, good resources, etc. (consider the opportunity cost) on you?
Do you have something to hide?
Are you afraid that by addressing them, it would expose to the world your empty accusations of anyone who even dares to oppose President Bush, your gross bias against anyone and any argument that criticises US policies and their supporters (Yes, I’m sure all the pro-US demonstrators did was to stand around with their little cardboard pieces and sing a little insignificant song that is as good as not having sang – And no, I am not going to say “Yeah right”, “So what?” like you do or even “show up with baseball bats” in front of you – I am so desperate as to become an American-wannabe) or your unsupported (probably untrue) assertions (e.g. your sudden evasion of the topic of nationalism and the supposed distinction(s) Americans make between nationalism and patriotism which you were so eagerly and confidently touting earlier but now, unable/unwilling to support – no worries though, I suppose you can seek comfort in the fact that you are just one of the many visible others who are fond of making such those usual, empty, baseless accusations and statements – like “It is the usual mush-brained leftist BS that has no connection to reality.” or “All this crap you are saying now is exactly the same as when oppressed populations in the former USSR were suffering in contained hell surrounded by a wall.” and would fail miserably to support if we were to challenge them to state specifically how and why – on serious political issues as though they are engaging in childhood squabbles but pretending they are being “serious” on one hand, on blogs)?
Wow !
I had forgotten this thread. This guy is almost too trollesque to be real. And has way too much time on his hands to talk to himself in public.
Maybe another great social benefit of the 35-hour week ?
Thanks for the 5-second amusement, Sylvain.
I’m very sorry, but I have to inform you that you still have not addressed my questions.
Uh. Any more jokes, Sylvain?
incredibly stupid post…