Saturday, September 09, 2006
9/09/01+5 (and 9/08/01+5)
Comments:
<< Home
Clicking on these things is like moving between parallel dimensions and forgeting where the rabbit hole you came in at is. Eat me!
Drink me!
Drink me!
# posted by 
: 8:54 PM
: 8:54 PM 
POLL: Why does T(R)ucke(R) "Cut 'n (R)un' from Snerd?
(A) 'Cause he can't get 'er done
(B) 'Cause Snerd backs 'em down
Snerd's Banned Post: Your question reflects an 'in place' analysis and conclusion. You’re "a - b" 'thinking' as presented, represents the problem (analysis) as Arabic/Muslim/Islamic/etc. terrorism and the consequent option (the conclusion 'trucked in'), is Israel's response.
This pre-existing mindset, from which your 'pall'* question … err … poll question emanates, is the point Kevron is making, I think.
Metaphorically, asking the question whether we/Israel 'stand up' or 'stand down' in the face of terrorism is akin to addressing cancer by 'attacking' its symptoms when they become visible and obvious. Obviously in this metaphor, such an approach misses a deeper analysis of its root causes and less obvious development and therefore a more effective response.
A more 'honest' analysis would include an 'understanding' of the causes of the problem of terrorism.
For example, as a response, are terrorists 'simply' mad dogs who hate 'US' with no rational basis to that position, 'cause they are simply crazy … i.e. your option (a) or (b), the 'exte(R)minato(R) response' to an infestation of your home by termites
OR (c):
Terrorism has its origins in a rationally understandable context, where if the context is understood, that context can be altered and the consequent product controlled, or from a more 'Evolved' perspective 'selected out' … i.e. the elimination of rotting wood where termites breed
OR (d):
Some combination of the two, where there is a context which allows terrorism to take hold, a context of hopelessness say, which is then exploited by mad dogs.
And this is what your option misses, and why when there exists the possibility for more 'honest' options, it appears as a 'false dilemma'.
The way I "Grok" it … (c) or failing that (d)
'Strangely' Yours,
Snerd
Post a Comment
(A) 'Cause he can't get 'er done
(B) 'Cause Snerd backs 'em down
Snerd's Banned Post: Your question reflects an 'in place' analysis and conclusion. You’re "a - b" 'thinking' as presented, represents the problem (analysis) as Arabic/Muslim/Islamic/etc. terrorism and the consequent option (the conclusion 'trucked in'), is Israel's response.
This pre-existing mindset, from which your 'pall'* question … err … poll question emanates, is the point Kevron is making, I think.
Metaphorically, asking the question whether we/Israel 'stand up' or 'stand down' in the face of terrorism is akin to addressing cancer by 'attacking' its symptoms when they become visible and obvious. Obviously in this metaphor, such an approach misses a deeper analysis of its root causes and less obvious development and therefore a more effective response.
A more 'honest' analysis would include an 'understanding' of the causes of the problem of terrorism.
For example, as a response, are terrorists 'simply' mad dogs who hate 'US' with no rational basis to that position, 'cause they are simply crazy … i.e. your option (a) or (b), the 'exte(R)minato(R) response' to an infestation of your home by termites
OR (c):
Terrorism has its origins in a rationally understandable context, where if the context is understood, that context can be altered and the consequent product controlled, or from a more 'Evolved' perspective 'selected out' … i.e. the elimination of rotting wood where termites breed
OR (d):
Some combination of the two, where there is a context which allows terrorism to take hold, a context of hopelessness say, which is then exploited by mad dogs.
And this is what your option misses, and why when there exists the possibility for more 'honest' options, it appears as a 'false dilemma'.
The way I "Grok" it … (c) or failing that (d)
'Strangely' Yours,
Snerd
<< Home
