quote:

ORIGINAL: Smith117

No matter how you dress it up, this was a case of one type of people attacking another, unprovoked. It's a short leap to make from bags of a smelly, slippy substance to something that can actually cause harm. Therefore, it's an attack and I would treat it as such. Same as with the cops in Washington calling the home-torching a possible domestic terrorist act, this was a terrorist attack on the high seas, however benign it turned out to be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smith117

No matter how you dress it up, this was a case of one type of people attacking another, unprovoked. It's a short leap to make from bags of a smelly, slippy substance to something that can actually cause harm. Therefore, it's an attack and I would treat it as such. Same as with the cops in Washington calling the home-torching a possible domestic terrorist act, this was a terrorist attack on the high seas, however benign it turned out to be.

You talk as though you're working under the assumption that something that's either an attack or resembling an attack is always uncalled for.  Is this an accurate perception?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I agree that it's a pretty big generalization.

When you said, "Therefore, it's an attack and I would treat it as such", this struck me as generalizing attacks as one uniform catigory.  I'm asking if this is your working assumption.


PS-  To skip ahead a bit, it seems to me that you're dismissing it out of the idea that nothing non-violent justifies violence, or something along those lines.  I'm trying to point out that this is a pretty big generalization, and I feel it's being a bit over used in this case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

My friend, when you call it "an attack", then use that as a jumping point in your logic, that is generalizing this event as "an attack" and then reacting to the notion of "an attack".

2. To reduce to a general form, class, or law.
3. To render indefinite or unspecific.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smith117


I've said THIS INCIDENT is an attack in my eyes and if I were the captain, I would have reacted to said attack in kind. That is not generalizing.

• You said this incident is an attack.
  
• You're responding to an attack (as opposed to simply this incident).

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord


Please try to see what I'm saying.

• You said this incident is an attack.
  
• You're responding to an attack (as opposed to simply this incident).

Sorta like.. say someone comes into my place with a gun after busting down the back door.  I might generalize this as "an emergency", and react to "emergency" by calling 911.  It's the thought process, you know?

What I'm trying to point out is that, in your head, you're making the association that "[such and such] is an attack", and this is leading you to respond to it as such (or, in other words, an attack) as opposed to more empiracly what the incidient was.


If the point's a little too vague, that's okay.  I'm just trying to point out an assumption that I feel doesn't serve this instance well; it's not going to be the end of the world if it doesn't get communicated well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

When you call it an "attack", you're generalizing it in the respect of, "To form general notions or conclusions."

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Hypothetically, a man has a notion that all red objects are beach balls.  He sees a red apple, and he makes the claim it's a beach ball.  Was not his orginial notion a generalization?  Would applying his generalization to a subject not be generalizing with respect to it?

Kinda bites that this is getting stuck at semantics, but if we have to go slowly.. ah wells.  =/

quote:

Login
Message << Older Topic Newer Topic >>
RE: How can Japan defend this??? - 3/3/2008 3:34:25 PM
No New Messages
CuriousLord
Deranged



Posts: 3744
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: online

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Right.  But you may be misunderstanding what I'm calling a generalization.

I'm not saying you're generalizing all incidents as "attacks".  I'm saying that it seems like you're generalizing all "attacks" as "bad".  Because you're generalizing attacks as bad, and then you're catigorizing this as an "attack", you're inductively generalizing (or applying a generalization to) this as "bad" (because it'a an attack).

In short, by catigorizing this incident as an "attack", you're generalizing it as "bad" via induction.

Okay, now I really to go before they close the place.  Catch ya later.  :P

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smith117

quote:

ORIGINAL: Muttling

Chemicals?????   You need to improve your reading comprehension skills.   It was spoiled butter.



On a side note, turning to ram the Sea Shepherd's ship would have been insanity for any of the clumbsy vessels Japan is running in their whaling fleet.   The Sea Shepherds are generally considered an eco terrorist group and they have rammed a several vessels over the years.   They have also had skirmishes with military vessels in which they out manuevered some light destroyers and one of their ships sank after the Brittish SAS mined it in harbor.

They also have an agreement in place to defend the Galapagos islands and run patrols around the islands.  Sea Shepard isn't amatuer hour.

Check out www.seashepherd.org if you want some interesting reading.   I don't approve of a lot of what they do, but there are several of their operations (including this one) that I do approve of.


EIDTed to correct link.  Sorry for the typo.

Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension. It was acid. It may have been benign acid, but it was acid nonetheless. That isn't the point, either. At first glance, the Japanese ship didn't know what it was, only that they were under fire. Under fire = attack. I defend myself from attack. And I would do no different if I were the captain of that ship. Those people would have been swimming home.

Interesting to hear you approve of and condone attacking other ships because they do something you don't agree with. Do you also support bombing abortion clinics and killing the staff to save the unborn babies?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

You're right.  You never directly said it, it just seems like it's a loop in your logic.  That's why, at the top of the page, I asked:
You talk as though you're working under the assumption that something that's either an attack or resembling an attack is always uncalled for.  Is this an accurate perception?

Because, you see, it seems like you were implying you'd respond to an attack as it being a bad thing in Post 19...
Therefore, it's an attack and I would treat it as such. Same as with the cops in Washington calling the home-torching a possible domestic terrorist act, this was a terrorist attack on the high seas, however benign it turned out to be.

Now, my point is that you seem to be implying that attacks are "bad" things.  ("Bad" is my word, mostly because I have to use some word to convey the thought, and you haven't used one explicitly yet to my recollection.)

---

Above's a bit longer of a route to get to the same conclusion.  A shorter one..

No matter how you dress it up, this was a case of one type of people attacking another, unprovoked.  (Also post 19)

This strikes me as you catigorizing this as an attack.  While you never explicitly said it, this sounds like you're implying that, as an attack, they had no business under taking it (the latter point impled by "unprovoked").



I'm really OCD, but I'm actually going to dinner now.  Or not eatting. Hopefully the primer, because I really am quite thirsty.  Peace.  :P

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

OK before yousay it's harmless maybe a check of the MSDS should be done.

http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Butyric_acid-9923216

Now a quick check of this MSDS tells me that this "acid" is toxic, with a dermal LD/50 (skin contact lethal concentraionfor 50% of the animals tested of 530 mg/Kg in rabbits) Hardly harmless stink bombs.