I cannot fathom of willful delusion it takes to ignore something so axiomatic. If I observe a group especially fixated on fulfilling their ideological goals at the expense of their material goals, I have to conclude they REALLY care about their ideological goals.
Every example I mentioned above fits. Bombing pizzerias actively sets back t…
I cannot fathom of willful delusion it takes to ignore something so axiomatic. If I observe a group especially fixated on fulfilling their ideological goals at the expense of their material goals, I have to conclude they REALLY care about their ideological goals.
Every example I mentioned above fits. Bombing pizzerias actively sets back the material goals, but it sure fills ideological goals! Same with the rest. I'm baffled as to how else I'm supposed to interpret their priorities. Do you want to try and explain how random civilian stabbings gets them any closer to fulfilling their material needs? If not, then the only possible explanation for the violent militancy is either they're indeed homicidal jihadis, or just psychotic idiots (indistinguishable). Their violence has accomplished nothing except actively set them back on the material plane. Please tell me any other possible explanation.
Ooooooh, what you're saying is "axiomatic"? Surely that ends the debate. As a sanity check I went to ChatGPT and fed it our back and forth and asked it for analysis and evaluation. I thought its assessment for your use of the word axiomatic at the end was particularly insightful. https://chatgpt.com/share/67b78443-3b64-800f-8a7e-eef3b94b5a9c
Both you and chatGPT made the same misinterpretation. The "axiom" was the subsequent sentence, that motivations are best revealed through observing actions, and that is indeed one I'd apply universally.
If a movement insists on the same tactics which have consistently set material goals backwards while advancing ideological ones, then it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that ideology is the primary driver. Either explain to me how suicide bombings and concert massacres actually advance material interests, or explain how Palestinian militancy became full of psychopathic idiots all prone towards the same "strategic miscalculations". The evasion on this topic is tedious.
I've seen this line of neo-rhetoric a lot recently: "I didn't understand your argument, so I asked ChatGPT to coach me through it, and I still didn't understand it. Q.E.D. you are wrong."
Ok. I appreciate the evasion display. The pirouettes were especially acrobatic, and I was particularly impressed with the stamina. I can tell you've been practicing for a long time.
What is there to evade? You made an empirical claim (a weak one that that doesn’t align with the consensus in social psychology or political sociology) which you then bizarrely declared as axiomatic. Simply declaring a belief as universally self-evident because you really really believe it isn’t an argument - it’s an escape hatch. If you’ve decided that there is no outside basis against which your claim can be tested or falsified then the door is obviously shut.
I cannot fathom of willful delusion it takes to ignore something so axiomatic. If I observe a group especially fixated on fulfilling their ideological goals at the expense of their material goals, I have to conclude they REALLY care about their ideological goals.
Every example I mentioned above fits. Bombing pizzerias actively sets back the material goals, but it sure fills ideological goals! Same with the rest. I'm baffled as to how else I'm supposed to interpret their priorities. Do you want to try and explain how random civilian stabbings gets them any closer to fulfilling their material needs? If not, then the only possible explanation for the violent militancy is either they're indeed homicidal jihadis, or just psychotic idiots (indistinguishable). Their violence has accomplished nothing except actively set them back on the material plane. Please tell me any other possible explanation.
Ooooooh, what you're saying is "axiomatic"? Surely that ends the debate. As a sanity check I went to ChatGPT and fed it our back and forth and asked it for analysis and evaluation. I thought its assessment for your use of the word axiomatic at the end was particularly insightful. https://chatgpt.com/share/67b78443-3b64-800f-8a7e-eef3b94b5a9c
Both you and chatGPT made the same misinterpretation. The "axiom" was the subsequent sentence, that motivations are best revealed through observing actions, and that is indeed one I'd apply universally.
If a movement insists on the same tactics which have consistently set material goals backwards while advancing ideological ones, then it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that ideology is the primary driver. Either explain to me how suicide bombings and concert massacres actually advance material interests, or explain how Palestinian militancy became full of psychopathic idiots all prone towards the same "strategic miscalculations". The evasion on this topic is tedious.
I've seen this line of neo-rhetoric a lot recently: "I didn't understand your argument, so I asked ChatGPT to coach me through it, and I still didn't understand it. Q.E.D. you are wrong."
It's...not persuasive.
I think the basic concept of axioms escapes you
Ok. I appreciate the evasion display. The pirouettes were especially acrobatic, and I was particularly impressed with the stamina. I can tell you've been practicing for a long time.
What is there to evade? You made an empirical claim (a weak one that that doesn’t align with the consensus in social psychology or political sociology) which you then bizarrely declared as axiomatic. Simply declaring a belief as universally self-evident because you really really believe it isn’t an argument - it’s an escape hatch. If you’ve decided that there is no outside basis against which your claim can be tested or falsified then the door is obviously shut.
🤸🤸🤸
Engage with the argument, coward