I completely agree. The reason that suicide bombing is so successfully devastating is that the bombers have no regard for their own lives. While I find this mentality insane, it shows that people who have no regard for their own welfare can have an immensely powerful affect on those around them. I believe that the Bush administration and Fox News want to diminish the rhetorical impact that these selfless (though insane and destructive) people have.
A "suicide bomber" commits a terrible act while sacrificing oneself, whereas a "homicide bomber" commits no sacrifice. It is easier to dehumanize your enemy if you don't have to see that they also sacrifice their lives for what they believe. It is easier to dehumanize your enemy when your enemy does not commit any self sacrificial act because we tend to think of self sacrifice as noble.
"She sacrificed so many things so that her children could go to college."
"He sacrificed his summer to build homes for the homeless."
Or even:
"God so loved the world that he sacrificed his only Son."
Self sacrifice implies something done for a greater good. Suicide implies self sacrifice. Do you see the implication? Neocons want to take away the rhetorical power of suicide bomber's self sacrifice; therefore the suicide bomber must become a homicide bomber.
Hmm, I think the phrase should reflect the intent. In the case of a terrorist planning to blow himself up, the intent is to kill other people. That's the whole point of the operation, and that is homicide.
Witness the latest bombing in Israel - the bomber boarded a bus, saw there were only 4 people aboard, and disembarked. If he was a suicide bomber, the number of people he took with him would be irrelevant. As a homicide bomber however, he wants to maximise the number of victims. That's his focus, taking as many other people out as possible.
Doesn't matter where the phrase originated - it's the best description for the act.
Bombers sometimes strike at objects rather than persons, so if it is certain that the target was the bus occupants rather than the bus itself, "homocide bomber" would seem more appropriate. "Suicide bombers" could place themselves on empty busses, in empty churches, on vacant street corners ... and in so doing get much less attention and create much less fear. The goal appears to be to create terror by the killing of others, not by killing one's self. As "suicide bomber" seems to have been a self-selected name by those praising such activity, I am of the opinion that it should not be used, as a way of not encouraging such mis-behavior. "Anti-humans bomber" is too much of a mouthful, "terrorist bomber" too broad, "murderous bomber" almost redundant, ... homicide bomber. Especially since it seems that those who encourage such activity don't like the term.
If one did not care about killing other people one would be committing "suicide " not "suicide bombing".
The problem is that suicide is not the point of the excercise- killing other people is. Killing other people is homicide, if not murder, therefore, 'homicide bombing' is an accurate description of the act, albeit an unsatisfactory one.
I am open to suggestions on what an appropriate term would be, but whatever it is should refer to the death of the people killed when the 'suicide' happened.
Once again, consistency is important in protecting journalistic neutrality. It is not necessary that the journalist invent a term that compactly describes the intent of the bomber. If there are other terms used by reporters that follow this format in other contexts, please list them. Further, if the journalist uses this format of the intention in the adjective, she should use that style consistently. Using the format "homocide stabber" "homocide driver" "homocide strangler" is just goofy. The journalist should use a term which describes how it happened. The word suicide applies whenever a person knowingly kills themselves, regardless of if it their primary goal. Thus, 'suicide' bomber accurately explains how it happened. The motives are important enough to explain in other sentences, and not lump into one adjective. Ask yourself what you are trying to avoid with the term 'homocide bomber'. The word 'suicide' is not value neutral, but what value it takes depends on your world-view. Most Western Jews and Christian sees the 'suicide' in 'suicide bomber' as just highlighting the fanaticism involved. Many Muslims see the 'suicide' as heightening the sacrifice. You will not change their views either way by making up some ad hoc term that is less specific to the act.
In that some may see the phrase "suicide bomber" as having some heightened sacrifice (killing one's self as well as others), the term is, well, not "journalisticly neutral". It's favoring more of this behavior, by appealing to those who think of these acts in an approving fashion. While both desire and need to sell papers and TV commercials is obvious, reporter will find their lives safer if such behavior is discouraged.
I am, obviously, trying to minimize any glory that might attach to such a deed. If he were to sit on the corner, sprinkle himself with gasoline, and then set fire to himself, he gets to be called a "suicial protestor". Blowing up others as well as himself gets him called "cowardly, homicidal bomber" by me -- wanting to be a murderer but not face the consequences therefore.
nb. I have seen "homicidal driver" before, as well as "homicidal biker". Doubtless there are others. Google's your friend.
If there are other terms used by reporters that follow this format in other contexts, please list them. Further, if the journalist uses this format of the intention in the adjective, she should use that style consistently. Using the format "homocide stabber" "homocide driver" "homocide strangler" is just goofy.
Such people are usually referred to as 'murderers' once they have been convicted. Unfortunately, prosecuting a dead person is generally futile, so the term 'murderer' isn't entirely appropriate.
I am simply appalled by the laziness in thinking displayed by JayBee! His comment on the nature and concept of sacrifice is such nonsense, and yet he puts on a facade of being very logical (stating syllogisms and premises).
Let's deconstruct his comment.
"It is easier to dehumanize your enemy when your enemy does not commit any self-sacrificial act because we tend to think of self-sacrifice as noble."
Have you ever wondered WHY self-sacrifice, or any kind of sacrifice is noble? What's the logical foundations of such a belief? You need to validate objectively the reasons for considering sacrifice as noble, only then will your argument stand that since sacrifice is considered noble, it is easier to dehumanize the suicide bombers.
If you understood the concept of sacrifice correctly (obviously you're making a logical error in your understanding, JayBee) then you would not call the examples you quote as examples of sacrifice.
"She sacrificed so many things so that her children could go to college."
This is NOT AN EXAMPLE OF SACRIFICE!!!
Follow this concept very carefully: A sacrifice is the denial of something of value to a person. A denial of something of value can be considered a sacrifice only if the person has NOTHING to gain from it in return or has VERY LITTLE to gain from it in return. Thus, a sacrifice is made when a person gives up a value in exchange for NO VALUE or in exchange of something of LESS value than the one given up.
Now, let's analyze your example of the woman:
The woman gave up so many things so that her children could go to college. The woman gave up many values... however what she got in return was the ability to put her children through college. Now, assuming that this woman values HER OWN CHILDREN MORE THAN say a fancy dress for herself, or a beautiful necklace, if HER CHILDREN ARE MORE IMPORTANT TO HER, then what she is doing is infact NOT A SACRIFICE! She is merely WORKING TOWARDS A GOAL to achieve her HIGHER VALUE (which is her children), and along the way she is making rational choices on which would be the best way to reach her higher value.
Thus, for the woman, her HIGHER VALUE is her children and she is giving up lesser values (her dress) as smart choices to achieve the fulfillment of her HIGHER HAPPINESS in the HIGHER VALUES.
Thus, there is NO sacrifice there.
"He sacrificed his summer to build homes for the homeless."
In this example, what is the higher value for this man? If his higher value is to enjoy his summer and NOT help the homeless, then YES giving up his higher value (summer) for the LESSER value (helping the poor) would be a sacrifice. But if for this man, the HIGHER value IS INFACT HELPING THE POOR and gaining happiness or satisfaction from it, then there is NO sacrifice in his actions!
And for the same reasons, your last example of God as sacrificing is also inverted.
If you understood the concept of sacrifice really well, you would know that NO HAPPINESS in this world requires a sacrifice... if you are demanded of a sacrifice it is not because you are noble, but because you are evil!
The concepts of sacrifice I mentioned above, while perhaps rejected by your small philosophy, are well understood by most people. Telling a parent that they are not actually sacrificing anything to bring up their child because they value their child more than they value material goods might score you points in a masterbatory philosophy classroom, but I doubt your words would resonate with many real world parents. Similarly, just because you do not see actions in terms of sacrifice does not mean that sacrifice is not a widely understood and accepted concept.
A long time ago I decided that Ayn Rand and her philosophy of greed and superiority were not worth my time. Since then, I have successfully managed to tell every objectivist that approaches me, full of this stupid rhetoric, to go fuck themselves and come back to me when they are finished with that objectivist crap. I'll make the same comment to you.
Clearly, you don't understand the role philosophy plays in human life. Ofcourse, I can understand where your intellectual digressions take root -- in the bubble of academicians who believe that philosophy can and is entirely DETACHED from reality.
On what logical basis do you say that the concept of sacrifice is understood differently under "masturbatory" philosophy, while it applies differently to "real world" moms!? Would you say the same thing about concepts like torture? - Would you say concepts have different relevance (or irrelevance) depending on whether you're talking pure philosophy or talking reality (as if philosophy has absolutely no bearing on one's understanding of reality!).
It is people like you who allow for the rampant subjectivism in some of the VERY fundamental concepts of our lives -- like Freedom and Rights. If according to your logic, certain concepts have only "masturbatory" potency but NO practical applicability, then that should apply to every other concept that we know about. How and where do you draw your "masturbatory" line? When do you say, enough of wanking my little wiener, it's time to face the world!?
And your basic argument of "scoring points" in the real world (which ofcourse you detach from any conceptual abstractions) is purely knob-headed. Humans DO NOT and SHOULD NOT function on what "feels right" to the majority, or to any random person. Just because YOU SAY that a mom "feels" like she is sacrificing for her son, though according to your own admittance, her actions are not sacrificial in the "masturbatory" philosophical sense, then does it make it actually sacrifice? Does one's feelings now dictate the definition of concepts? Can we arbitrarily apply concepts in whatever contexts we so choose to, depending on our "feelings" or moods -- regardless of how misguided we might be!?
Ofcourse, you won't agree. You're quite incapable of understanding such things with your murky intellectual framework that recognizes no objective concepts, no clear identities, no distinctive realities. This is not your fault. It is the pre-dominant intellectual culture. In people's minds today, there is a passionate aversion to anything concrete, absolute, bounded and real. People shy away from drawing lines. Concepts are degraded to mere linguistic/semantic toys, and values are set very arbitarily depending on whim and fancy. Thus, a mother these days might INDEED consider it a sacrifice to put her son through college because she had to give up her prodigal habits... she wanted that dress, but she didn't have an objective idea of what was her higher value -- hence, she does indeed find that her acts towards her son are sacrificial... and her son feels that he has made his mom sacrifice for him... she carries the demand for wages... and the son carries the guilt for life. It's a great society we live in.
Also, Jaybee, notice how your counter-argument has no standing in any valid logic.
The only semblance of an argument I can gleam from your post is this: "The concepts of sacrifice I mentioned above... are well understood by most people."
And this: "I doubt your words would resonate with many real world parents."
And this: "just because you do not see actions in terms of sacrifice does not mean that sacrifice is not a widely understood and accepted concept."
In all of those statements, you are resorting to intellectual comfort in the minds if unidentified masses. If enough "moms" in the world agree and "feel" they are making a sacrifice, then it becomes so. If the concept is widely accepted and understood in a certain way, then CERTAINLY that understanding is correct.
That is what your argument basically is. It betrays a very mediocre mental caliber. In order to reject Objectivism as a philsophy, you need to understand the concepts that you are rejecting. Claiming to reject a philosophy of life without having a clear understanding of what you are rejecting is simply being and remaining ignorant.
ergo sum, people like you enjoy hearing themselves talk. Then when disagreed with, you and yours insult the mental processes of the person you are preaching to. Clearly if someone has a different subjective perspective they just can’t understand your “truth” and this means that they must be stupid or lazy. I have seen this with your Ayn Rand cult before. Disrespect for others opinions and a sense that you are superior are hallmarks of your little philosophy.
You are missing the whole point of this discussion for the sake of telling us that there is no such thing as voluntary sacrifice, and that the whole idea of sacrifice is an error or evil.
How are you adding to the dialog of suicide/homicide bombers?
My addition to this dialog of suicide/homicide bombers is to refute your claim that the reason there is a change of terms is because there is a need to expunge the "noble" impression of sacrifice from these self-annihilating terrorists.
My argument is that regardless of who does the sacrifice, any act that demands a sacrifice off of you is evil. Thus, when a suicide bomber kills himself and others around him, he is not committing ANY kind of NOBLE act, regardless of whatever perspective you hold. Hence, there is NO NEED to change the phrasing to expunge the "noble" impression of sacrifice, because there is NOTHING noble about his actions. Thus, the phrase as it currently is, "suicide bomber" should remain. It accurately portrays the nature of the crime (being self-annihilating and homicidal at the same time). To claim that a change of phrase is necessary because self-annihilation implies self-sacrifice which implies a noble deed, is a gross misinterpretation of the concept "sacrifice".
I hope this helps you understand the objectivity of the perspective.
20 comments:
I completely agree. The reason that suicide bombing is so successfully devastating is that the bombers have no regard for their own lives. While I find this mentality insane, it shows that people who have no regard for their own welfare can have an immensely powerful affect on those around them. I believe that the Bush administration and Fox News want to diminish the rhetorical impact that these selfless (though insane and destructive) people have.
A "suicide bomber" commits a terrible act while sacrificing oneself, whereas a "homicide bomber" commits no sacrifice. It is easier to dehumanize your enemy if you don't have to see that they also sacrifice their lives for what they believe. It is easier to dehumanize your enemy when your enemy does not commit any self sacrificial act because we tend to think of self sacrifice as noble.
"She sacrificed so many things so that her children could go to college."
"He sacrificed his summer to build homes for the homeless."
Or even:
"God so loved the world that he sacrificed his only Son."
Self sacrifice implies something done for a greater good. Suicide implies self sacrifice. Do you see the implication? Neocons want to take away the rhetorical power of suicide bomber's self sacrifice; therefore the suicide bomber must become a homicide bomber.
I agre with you, JayBee.
Much more succinct than what I said.
Christian
Hmm, I think the phrase should reflect the intent. In the case of a terrorist planning to blow himself up, the intent is to kill other people. That's the whole point of the operation, and that is homicide.
Witness the latest bombing in Israel - the bomber boarded a bus, saw there were only 4 people aboard, and disembarked. If he was a suicide bomber, the number of people he took with him would be irrelevant. As a homicide bomber however, he wants to maximise the number of victims. That's his focus, taking as many other people out as possible.
Doesn't matter where the phrase originated - it's the best description for the act.
Except that the "homocide" part is already contained in "bomber." Mind actually rebutting points made in the post?
Bombers sometimes strike at objects rather than persons, so if it is certain that the target was the bus occupants rather than the bus itself, "homocide bomber" would seem more appropriate. "Suicide bombers" could place themselves on empty busses, in empty churches, on vacant street corners ... and in so doing get much less attention and create much less fear. The goal appears to be to create terror by the killing of others, not by killing one's self. As "suicide bomber" seems to have been a self-selected name by those praising such activity, I am of the opinion that it should not be used, as a way of not encouraging such mis-behavior. "Anti-humans bomber" is too much of a mouthful, "terrorist bomber" too broad, "murderous bomber" almost redundant, ... homicide bomber. Especially since it seems that those who encourage such activity don't like the term.
No shit.
Captain Carnage, your statement is in fact wrong. You say:
the bomber boarded a bus, saw there were only 4 people aboard, and disembarked. If he was a suicide bomber, the number of people he took with him would be irrelevant.
Your syllogism (philosophical term for an “if A then B” causal statement) is in error.
Your statement is: If he was a suicide bomber then the number he killed would not matter to him.
There is no basis for this statement whatsoever. Where are you getting your definition of "suicide bomber" ???
Suicide Bomber: a person who deliberately kills themselves when detonating a bomb or committing a terrorist act.
Source: Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6)
Copyright © 2003-2005 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC
If one did not care about killing other people one would be committing "suicide " not "suicide bombing".
If one did not care about killing other people one would be committing "suicide " not "suicide bombing".
The problem is that suicide is not the point of the excercise- killing other people is. Killing other people is homicide, if not murder, therefore, 'homicide bombing' is an accurate description of the act, albeit an unsatisfactory one.
I am open to suggestions on what an appropriate term would be, but whatever it is should refer to the death of the people killed when the 'suicide' happened.
Once again, consistency is important in protecting journalistic neutrality. It is not necessary that the journalist invent a term that compactly describes the intent of the bomber. If there are other terms used by reporters that follow this format in other contexts, please list them. Further, if the journalist uses this format of the intention in the adjective, she should use that style consistently. Using the format "homocide stabber" "homocide driver" "homocide strangler" is just goofy.
The journalist should use a term which describes how it happened. The word suicide applies whenever a person knowingly kills themselves, regardless of if it their primary goal. Thus, 'suicide' bomber accurately explains how it happened. The motives are important enough to explain in other sentences, and not lump into one adjective.
Ask yourself what you are trying to avoid with the term 'homocide bomber'. The word 'suicide' is not value neutral, but what value it takes depends on your world-view. Most Western Jews and Christian sees the 'suicide' in 'suicide bomber' as just highlighting the fanaticism involved. Many Muslims see the 'suicide' as heightening the sacrifice. You will not change their views either way by making up some ad hoc term that is less specific to the act.
In that some may see the phrase "suicide bomber" as having some heightened sacrifice (killing one's self as well as others), the term is, well, not "journalisticly neutral". It's favoring more of this behavior, by appealing to those who think of these acts in an approving fashion. While both desire and need to sell papers and TV commercials is obvious, reporter will find their lives safer if such behavior is discouraged.
I am, obviously, trying to minimize any glory that might attach to such a deed. If he were to sit on the corner, sprinkle himself with gasoline, and then set fire to himself, he gets to be called a "suicial protestor". Blowing up others as well as himself gets him called "cowardly, homicidal bomber" by me -- wanting to be a murderer but not face the consequences therefore.
nb. I have seen "homicidal driver" before, as well as "homicidal biker". Doubtless there are others. Google's your friend.
If there are other terms used by reporters that follow this format in other contexts, please list them. Further, if the journalist uses this format of the intention in the adjective, she should use that style consistently. Using the format "homocide stabber" "homocide driver" "homocide strangler" is just goofy.
Such people are usually referred to as 'murderers' once they have been convicted. Unfortunately, prosecuting a dead person is generally futile, so the term 'murderer' isn't entirely appropriate.
Thank you for your comments. I have created a new post summarizing the arguments, for and against.
Homicide Bomber Summary Link
I am simply appalled by the laziness in thinking displayed by JayBee! His comment on the nature and concept of sacrifice is such nonsense, and yet he puts on a facade of being very logical (stating syllogisms and premises).
Let's deconstruct his comment.
"It is easier to dehumanize your enemy when your enemy does not commit any self-sacrificial act because we tend to think of self-sacrifice as noble."
Have you ever wondered WHY self-sacrifice, or any kind of sacrifice is noble? What's the logical foundations of such a belief? You need to validate objectively the reasons for considering sacrifice as noble, only then will your argument stand that since sacrifice is considered noble, it is easier to dehumanize the suicide bombers.
If you understood the concept of sacrifice correctly (obviously you're making a logical error in your understanding, JayBee) then you would not call the examples you quote as examples of sacrifice.
"She sacrificed so many things so that her children could go to college."
This is NOT AN EXAMPLE OF SACRIFICE!!!
Follow this concept very carefully: A sacrifice is the denial of something of value to a person.
A denial of something of value can be considered a sacrifice only if the person has NOTHING to gain from it in return or has VERY LITTLE to gain from it in return.
Thus, a sacrifice is made when a person gives up a value in exchange for NO VALUE or in exchange of something of LESS value than the one given up.
Now, let's analyze your example of the woman:
The woman gave up so many things so that her children could go to college.
The woman gave up many values... however what she got in return was the ability to put her children through college.
Now, assuming that this woman values HER OWN CHILDREN MORE THAN say a fancy dress for herself, or a beautiful necklace, if HER CHILDREN ARE MORE IMPORTANT TO HER, then what she is doing is infact NOT A SACRIFICE! She is merely WORKING TOWARDS A GOAL to achieve her HIGHER VALUE (which is her children), and along the way she is making rational choices on which would be the best way to reach her higher value.
Thus, for the woman, her HIGHER VALUE is her children and she is giving up lesser values (her dress) as smart choices to achieve the fulfillment of her HIGHER HAPPINESS in the HIGHER VALUES.
Thus, there is NO sacrifice there.
"He sacrificed his summer to build homes for the homeless."
In this example, what is the higher value for this man? If his higher value is to enjoy his summer and NOT help the homeless, then YES giving up his higher value (summer) for the LESSER value (helping the poor) would be a sacrifice.
But if for this man, the HIGHER value IS INFACT HELPING THE POOR and gaining happiness or satisfaction from it, then there is NO sacrifice in his actions!
And for the same reasons, your last example of God as sacrificing is also inverted.
If you understood the concept of sacrifice really well, you would know that NO HAPPINESS in this world requires a sacrifice... if you are demanded of a sacrifice it is not because you are noble, but because you are evil!
The concepts of sacrifice I mentioned above, while perhaps rejected by your small philosophy, are well understood by most people. Telling a parent that they are not actually sacrificing anything to bring up their child because they value their child more than they value material goods might score you points in a masterbatory philosophy classroom, but I doubt your words would resonate with many real world parents. Similarly, just because you do not see actions in terms of sacrifice does not mean that sacrifice is not a widely understood and accepted concept.
A long time ago I decided that Ayn Rand and her philosophy of greed and superiority were not worth my time. Since then, I have successfully managed to tell every objectivist that approaches me, full of this stupid rhetoric, to go fuck themselves and come back to me when they are finished with that objectivist crap. I'll make the same comment to you.
Clearly, you don't understand the role philosophy plays in human life. Ofcourse, I can understand where your intellectual digressions take root -- in the bubble of academicians who believe that philosophy can and is entirely DETACHED from reality.
On what logical basis do you say that the concept of sacrifice is understood differently under "masturbatory" philosophy, while it applies differently to "real world" moms!?
Would you say the same thing about concepts like torture? - Would you say concepts have different relevance (or irrelevance) depending on whether you're talking pure philosophy or talking reality (as if philosophy has absolutely no bearing on one's understanding of reality!).
It is people like you who allow for the rampant subjectivism in some of the VERY fundamental concepts of our lives -- like Freedom and Rights. If according to your logic, certain concepts have only "masturbatory" potency but NO practical applicability, then that should apply to every other concept that we know about. How and where do you draw your "masturbatory" line? When do you say, enough of wanking my little wiener, it's time to face the world!?
And your basic argument of "scoring points" in the real world (which ofcourse you detach from any conceptual abstractions) is purely knob-headed. Humans DO NOT and SHOULD NOT function on what "feels right" to the majority, or to any random person.
Just because YOU SAY that a mom "feels" like she is sacrificing for her son, though according to your own admittance, her actions are not sacrificial in the "masturbatory" philosophical sense, then does it make it actually sacrifice? Does one's feelings now dictate the definition of concepts?
Can we arbitrarily apply concepts in whatever contexts we so choose to, depending on our "feelings" or moods -- regardless of how misguided we might be!?
Ofcourse, you won't agree. You're quite incapable of understanding such things with your murky intellectual framework that recognizes no objective concepts, no clear identities, no distinctive realities. This is not your fault. It is the pre-dominant intellectual culture. In people's minds today, there is a passionate aversion to anything concrete, absolute, bounded and real. People shy away from drawing lines. Concepts are degraded to mere linguistic/semantic toys, and values are set very arbitarily depending on whim and fancy.
Thus, a mother these days might INDEED consider it a sacrifice to put her son through college because she had to give up her prodigal habits... she wanted that dress, but she didn't have an objective idea of what was her higher value -- hence, she does indeed find that her acts towards her son are sacrificial... and her son feels that he has made his mom sacrifice for him... she carries the demand for wages... and the son carries the guilt for life.
It's a great society we live in.
Also, Jaybee, notice how your counter-argument has no standing in any valid logic.
The only semblance of an argument I can gleam from your post is this: "The concepts of sacrifice I mentioned above... are well understood by most people."
And this: "I doubt your words would resonate with many real world parents."
And this: "just because you do not see actions in terms of sacrifice does not mean that sacrifice is not a widely understood and accepted concept."
In all of those statements, you are resorting to intellectual comfort in the minds if unidentified masses.
If enough "moms" in the world agree and "feel" they are making a sacrifice, then it becomes so.
If the concept is widely accepted and understood in a certain way, then CERTAINLY that understanding is correct.
That is what your argument basically is. It betrays a very mediocre mental caliber.
In order to reject Objectivism as a philsophy, you need to understand the concepts that you are rejecting. Claiming to reject a philosophy of life without having a clear understanding of what you are rejecting is simply being and remaining ignorant.
ergo sum, people like you enjoy hearing themselves talk. Then when disagreed with, you and yours insult the mental processes of the person you are preaching to. Clearly if someone has a different subjective perspective they just can’t understand your “truth” and this means that they must be stupid or lazy. I have seen this with your Ayn Rand cult before. Disrespect for others opinions and a sense that you are superior are hallmarks of your little philosophy.
You are missing the whole point of this discussion for the sake of telling us that there is no such thing as voluntary sacrifice, and that the whole idea of sacrifice is an error or evil.
How are you adding to the dialog of suicide/homicide bombers?
My addition to this dialog of suicide/homicide bombers is to refute your claim that the reason there is a change of terms is because there is a need to expunge the "noble" impression of sacrifice from these self-annihilating terrorists.
My argument is that regardless of who does the sacrifice, any act that demands a sacrifice off of you is evil. Thus, when a suicide bomber kills himself and others around him, he is not committing ANY kind of NOBLE act, regardless of whatever perspective you hold. Hence, there is NO NEED to change the phrasing to expunge the "noble" impression of sacrifice, because there is NOTHING noble about his actions.
Thus, the phrase as it currently is, "suicide bomber" should remain. It accurately portrays the nature of the crime (being self-annihilating and homicidal at the same time).
To claim that a change of phrase is necessary because self-annihilation implies self-sacrifice which implies a noble deed, is a gross misinterpretation of the concept "sacrifice".
I hope this helps you understand the objectivity of the perspective.
In the interest of being more specific, here is your statement I was referring to.
"It is easier to dehumanize your enemy when your enemy does not commit any self sacrificial act because we tend to think of self sacrifice as noble."
I don't see why self-sacrifice is a "humanizing" factor or a noble deed.
Post a Comment