You are saying that because two cultures could consider the person differently (one culture could consider the person a freedom fighter, and the other a terrorist), that the person is both a freedom fighter and a terrorist. But this is false.

Remember that the issue is not what we think is true, but rather, what is true. No matter what anyone thinks, the person is either a terrorist or not.

I am not saying it out of opinion of x or y, The actions of the person serve a specific function that perpetuates the culture itself. It is an actual role in the culture. There must be terrorists to have an anti-terrorist culture for the culture to perpetuate as is they are a necessity no matter how much that same culture villianizes them and 'wishes that there were none'. I have laid no value judgements whatsoever on the actions of the bomber. There must be freedom fighters to have a radical jihadist culture as the freedom fighter is a 'reaction to imperial terrorism'. along the kline there also must be the functions of bomber as 'necessary evil' and 'we don't agree with the methods but we understand them' for the various moderate cultural systems.

The fact of the matter is given two discrete preference inputs one is prefered over the other, all the time. If we extend the range of discrete preference to suicide bombing, the bomber will be either a freedom fighter or a terrorist all the time. However since a suicide bomber is a singular entity with variable preference unlike chocolate and vanilla which are two discrete entities, the suicide bomber is simultaneously a a freedom fighter and a terrorist. There is no need for him/her to be one or the other aside from a definition a third party imposes on the actions taken by the bomber.

Zeth:
To a single person living within any given cultural system, the bomber must be something, terrorist, freedom fighter, necessary evil, deluded fanatic, whatever. Within that same system a majority of individuals will think pretty much the same thing about the bomber, for that same system to exist 'as is' and perpetuate the same relative attitude about the bomber remains relatively the same. The definition serves the function of helping to perpetuate the system. So to an individual the bomber must be something, but a cross system view would show that the bomber is all of these things simultaneously.

I don't understand your point.

English translation, please. No speaka socialese-academese.

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 03:51 PM ----------



No speaka socialese-academese. English translation, please.

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 03:55 PM ----------



Of course not. If he has a point it is not made in English. It is a combination of socialese/academese. A peculiar exotic language said to be understood by only a few, and spoken in social science departments in inferior institutions of learning. The syntax and vocabulary are of no known language, but some say it resembles English slightly.

Hi Mr. Pot,
Wish you were here.
Love and Kisses,
Mr. Kettle

Nah. Your not understanding an argument in no way shows it is not understandable. It shows only that you don't understand it. The proof is that fluent English speakers understand me, and do not understand you.

What was your point, by the way. English, please.

Nah. Your not understanding an argument in no way shows it is not understandable. It shows only that you don't understand it. The proof is that fluent English speakers understand me, and do not understand you.

What was your point, by the way. English, please.

For the record, I understood him.

I am not saying it out of opinion of x or y, The actions of the person serve a specific function that perpetuates the culture itself. It is an actual role in the culture. There must be terrorists to have an anti-terrorist culture for the culture to perpetuate as is they are a necessity no matter how much that same culture villianizes them and 'wishes that there were none'. I have laid no value judgements whatsoever on the actions of the bomber. There must be freedom fighters to have a radical jihadist culture as the freedom fighter is a 'reaction to imperial terrorism'. along the kline there also must be the functions of bomber as 'necessary evil' and 'we don't agree with the methods but we understand them' for the various moderate cultural systems.

Fast I am not making a truth claim. The truth of what the people think is irrelevent. The fact that they do think it and it is a functional part of their shared cultural system is what is important. In fact the whole issue being discussed here is whether or not there is truth in any preferential claim. To which I would answer, who knows! and it doesn't matter!. What does matter is the definition the people use/identifies with inspires, at times requires them to act a certain way making the definition's function that which perpetuates the system. It doesn't matter if its true if people treat it like it is.

Fast I am not making a truth claim. The truth of what the people think is irrelevent. The fact that they do think it and it is a functional part of their shared cultural system is what is important. In fact the whole issue being discussed here is whether or not there is truth in any preferential claim. To which I would answer, who knows! and it doesn't matter!. What does matter is the definition the people use/identifies with inspires, at times requires them to act a certain way making the definition's function that which perpetuates the system. It doesn't matter if its true if people treat it like it is.

It doesn't matter if its true if people treat it like it is.

Now that is evidence for my point that he made no sense! Thank you. Your understanding of something is inversely proportional to its comprehensibility. Think about that.