Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (2172)	7/25/2005 11:38:34 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541326

she seems to forget about (for instance) the Tigers, who are not Muslim, and who use suicide bombing. She said that it is the Muslim weapon of choice, which it is. Just like wine is the French beverage of choice. Whether or not anyone else uses suicide bombing or drinks wine is another matter perhaps for another column. I'm not sure if she realizes that. It's an internal inconsistency in her position (imo). I don't follow. She seems to realize that what some Muslims do is rubbing off on her innocent brother and wishes they'd stop suicide bombing. As opposed to wishing that others would stop rubbing unfairly at the expense of her brother. I continue to wish that people would understand that "reasons" are not a synonym for excuses. I'm sympathetic to your annoyance over that. I share it. But I think that "excuse" is the appropriate word here. Providing a reason for doing something is providing an explanation. An excuse is that explanation plus a justification for doing something questionable. Since she's applying a negative value judgment to suicide bombing, it's reasonable to label the explanation given by the perpetrators an excuse. but pretending it isn't a Muslim issue in some degree I don't think she's doing that, although I can see how you might read it that way. I think what she's saying is what I was saying last week about protests--that it's primarily "about" religion but rather about a turf war, in its essence it's a turf war. That means that it's religious aspect is secondary, not that it is nonexistent. Just like terrorism is not primarily about protest but about something else. But I wasn't able to get that across in our earlier discussion so about protests so I don't expect any success here. So much misunderstanding occurs because people frame things differently. Framing something one way doesn't not negate other aspects of it.