• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Score one for the Anarchists

Mycroft said:
"Conspiracy Cells of Fire " is the anarchist group who claimed responsibility. I assume their name sounds better in it's native Greek.
Click to expand...
"Synomosía ton Pyrínon tis Fotiás"

I think we can consider your assumption disproven.
 
Mycroft said:
Lol!

When you pick the least important issue and ignore the rest, everyone knows it's because you don't have an answer for the more substantial points. Everyone, including you.

How does that feel?
Click to expand...

When I pick one issue and ignore the rest, everyone knows it's because the rest is so void of substance as to not be worth the bother responding to. Everyone, except you.

How does that feel?
 
caveman1917 said:
When I pick one issue and ignore the rest, everyone knows it's because the rest is so void of substance as to not be worth the bother responding to. Everyone, except you.

How does that feel?
Click to expand...

It feels like when you are a kid and you come home from school and your mom tells you your dog was killed by a car and you cry because you hate life but then it turns out your mom was mistaken and your dog is really alive and happy to see you and you think life is wonderful again except maybe your mom shouldn't drink so much during the day. Like that. That's how it feels.
 
Mycroft said:
When did it become my decision? The IMF is the decision maker here.

Yes, there is lots about evidence-based decision making that you're missing, but I'm trying to nudge you in the right direction. Baby steps.

For example, the IMF follows policies you don't agree with, and you have evidence that a different policy would be more beneficial. How best to get them to consider your evidence and change their minds? Is it: 1) Injure some random person who works in their building, who is unlikely to have anything to do with setting policy and who's injury is likely to prejudice the policy-makers against your views.

2) Do something to draw the attention of the IMF to this evidence of yours that they're not considering. This could include actions such as holding a peaceful demonstrations in front of their building with large signs saying things like, "Your policies are killing people, please read this book and consider different policies", pooling your money to hire a lobbyist to talk to them directly, forming a political action committee, or other possibilities.

My opinion is that option 1 is counter-productive and you would get better results from option 2. Also, it would be less anti-social and you anarchists would become more likely to form romantic relationships with women people of the gender of their preference.



That is not my goal.

I could point to the cues that should let anyone know that wasn't my goal, but I think you already knew that so instead I will encourage you to remove your head from your rectal cavity, figuratively speaking.

Recognizing it is possible you may have actually thought my goal was IMF vs Anarchist point scoring, and recognizing that I've often observed people who hold radical political views such as yours are often also people who fit somewhere along the spectrum, if you really and truly did not understand, I will explain it to you without snark and without trying to embarrass you.

Oh the irony of that statement is beautiful, but I don't think you did that on purpose. Did you?
Click to expand...

Utter baloney. First and Foremost, the IMF is a tool of Empire. Don't ever forget it.

You don't reason with the IMF.

The job of the IMF and World Bank is to drive countries into debt by making "sweetheart deals" with the people who run those basterds' banking systems. Once this is done, the target country is helpless and the IMF and World Bank can request that they "Nationailize" state assets (a big plus for a lot of western banks) and even vote in ways complementary the US in the United Nations.

The IMF and the World Bank aren't just Banks - they are Money that has weaponized.
 
Jules Galen said:
Utter baloney.
Click to expand...

True, and on more levels than just being wrong:

- Mycroft asserts that claim merely as his "opinion" even when, just a single post before, he was educated on the aspect of evidence-based decision making which requires one to first review the evidence and then make a decision based on it. I sure ain't seeing any evidence referenced to base his latest opinion on.

- As usual, he presents his opinion as deriving from some sort of general principle (the bolded "peaceful") but when we take a closer look we invariably find these high principles to be applied so inconsistently as to be merely a tool for whatever crusade he is on at the time. After all, some CCF affiliated people in Greece got arrested by the police, through the use of violence, so shouldn't the cops have rather stood outside their homes with signs saying "your policies are hurting people, please read this", hired someone to go talk to them directly, formed a committee, or other possibilities? Yet you never see Mycroft whine about that.

All in all, people get injured all the time, so the mere fact that someone got injured is hardly enough to make it interesting. When considered in context of the larger IMF vs opponents conflict it is also, given the scale and indiscriminate nature of the IMF's part of it, completely expected that at some point someone from the IMF might get injured so this also doesn't make it interesting.

Of course one can always make something appear interesting (ie anomalous/unexpected) by cherry-picking the data, in this case only scoring the anarchists and not the IMF. But then, by that reasoning I can make a thread with an interesting claim about the Earth being flat and only point to the 100 meter circle surrounding me, and when people say "what about satellites?" or "what about planes?" I can just accuse them of whataboutism :)
 
Mycroft said:
Good question. I may have cited the wrong article.

The Greek group that claimed responsibility for the German bombing, Conspiracy Cells of Fire, claimed in an online posting Thursday on a Greek left-wing website that the attack was part of a concerted campaign by international anarchist groups.

https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews....-explodes-france-office-imf-injuring-46167493

"Conspiracy Cells of Fire " is the anarchist group who claimed responsibility. I assume their name sounds better in it's native Greek.

Another source:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.tele...one-hurt-envelope-explosion-paris-office/amp/
Click to expand...

I assume it is the Greek version of "feces devouring slime slugs" or such as that is certainly their biological inclination!!
 
When was the last time a letter bomb actually killed (or even injured) its intended target?

It's really no different from Hamas firing a mortar shell into Tel Aviv expecting it will hit Netanyahu.
 
Polaris said:
It's really no different from Hamas firing a mortar shell into Tel Aviv expecting it will hit Netanyahu.
Click to expand...

More like Hamas firing a mortar shell into Netanyahu's office expecting it will hit Netanyahu but actually hitting his secretary instead.
 
Ziggurat said:
And you have no moral standing, since you applaud the death of innocent civilians.
Click to expand...

I will have to agree with Ziggurat here. More broadly, caveman1917 and Jules assume - as is their wont - the virtues of theoretical systems, while pointing at the real world which, of course, is a mixed bag and no paradise. This is facile, especially when done while consistently refusing to argue cases in their own words, citing dogmas in the abstract as if this were valid.

The IMF and World Bank are, indeed, instruments of power. Capitalism has given way to transnational corporativism. There is a palpable pushback and counter-revolution from the wealthy ever since the first taxes were levied... by monarchs, not just democratic governments. There are many reasons to despair and wish to toss all existing structures in the dust bin of history.

This is wrong because it ignores that real ideas, even noble ones, take centuries to become standard practice, and even then ethical relapse is always possible unless every person is brainwashed or straight-jacketed. The real world is full of piss and ****. It also has banquet tables. Organizing it in a better fashion takes ideas and patience, but is not served by dreaming that there are worlds with only banquets. That's religion.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
I will have to agree with Ziggurat here. More broadly, caveman1917 and Jules assume - as is their wont - the virtues of theoretical systems, while pointing at the real world which, of course, is a mixed bag and no paradise. This is facile, especially when done while consistently refusing to argue cases in their own words, citing dogmas in the abstract as if this were valid.
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense and the complete opposite of reality.
 
caveman1917 said:
Utter nonsense and the complete opposite of reality.
Click to expand...

Hey, caveman1917. I just figured we were due for some scrapping; it's been a while. ;) Now that I have your gander up, why not finally tell me what - in outline form - it is you advocate? Or take on my accusation, which does have a weak point or two, that the systems you advocate are unfair to compare to "real life" because they posit only their benefits.
 
caveman1917 said:
True, and on more levels than just being wrong:

- Mycroft asserts that claim merely as his "opinion" even when, just a single post before, he was educated on the aspect of evidence-based decision making which requires one to first review the evidence and then make a decision based on it. I sure ain't seeing any evidence referenced to base his latest opinion on.
Click to expand...

I’m don’t know what you’re referring to here. In what way was I “educated”?

caveman1917 said:
- As usual, he presents his opinion as deriving from some sort of general principle (the bolded "peaceful") but when we take a closer look we invariably find these high principles to be applied so inconsistently as to be merely a tool for whatever crusade he is on at the time.
Click to expand...

Do you disagree that non-violence is preferable to violence?

caveman1917 said:
After all, some CCF affiliated people in Greece got arrested by the police, through the use of violence, so shouldn't the cops have rather stood outside their homes with signs saying "your policies are hurting people, please read this", hired someone to go talk to them directly, formed a committee, or other possibilities? Yet you never see Mycroft whine about that.
Click to expand...

Again the knee-jerk tu quoque argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Is it really so hard to understand that hypocrisy doesn’t invalidate a criticism? Even if one were to agree that the “violence” of police arresting criminals were comparable to the violence of hurting someone with a letter bomb, the best you would have is that both actions are wrong. That’s why it’s a fallacy.

caveman1917 said:
All in all, people get injured all the time, so the mere fact that someone got injured is hardly enough to make it interesting.
Click to expand...

Interesting? How about just wrong?

caveman1917 said:
When considered in context of the larger IMF vs opponents conflict it is also, given the scale and indiscriminate nature of the IMF's part of it, completely expected that at some point someone from the IMF might get injured so this also doesn't make it interesting.
Click to expand...

If you don’t find it “interesting”, then why are you participating in this thread?

Also, I think the real issue isn’t if it’s “interesting” or not, but if it’s moral. Or if that has no meaning to you, then consider it it’s effective.

Also, were you aware that the book you linked to says the IMF has changed it stance on Austerity vs Stimulus based on research? Which, if true, would suggest that these anarchists are both ineffective and wrong.

caveman1917 said:
Of course one can always make something appear interesting (ie anomalous/unexpected) by cherry-picking the data, in this case only scoring the anarchists and not the IMF. But then, by that reasoning I can make a thread with an interesting claim about the Earth being flat and only point to the 100 meter circle surrounding me, and when people say "what about satellites?" or "what about planes?" I can just accuse them of whataboutism :)
Click to expand...

Which shows you don’t understand “whataboutism”.

Whataboutism is a tu quoque argument. Like above where you responded to criticism of anarchist violence by saying the Italian police also used violence in arresting them. Someone else using violence (if you think the police arresting criminals is violence) doesn’t make your violence okay. It’s not at all the same as ”What about this evidence that proves you wrong?”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom