- #1
- 14,983
- 28
Can you give me a reason to think 9/11 was significant?
Can you give me a reason to think 9/11 was significant?
But at least we're off to a good start. Just because I ask someone to defend their opinion does not mean I hold the opposite opinion!I would reword your question because it implies that you think it was not significant Hurkyl.
But at least we're off to a good start. Just because I ask someone to defend their opinion does not mean I hold the opposite opinion!
Well, that's the wrong question. I want Art to present reasons why he thinks 9/11 is significant. E.g. I want Art to jump in and say "2500 civilians died!" so I can say "So what? Big numbers are meaningless without context!"Art, can you give me a reason to think 9/11 was not significant?
The Iraq body count thing came up. Someone was basing an opinion based on the fact the number of deaths was a large number. I was criticizing that person for not putting the number in context.Penguino said:I'm still confused as to what is going on here... How were you supposedly being hypocritical with your criticism? Is this an offshoot from another thread?
So Art (of course ) alledges that I would not hold the same standard if we were talking about 9/11. So I had this naive hope that Art would play along with this exercise, and depending on the quality of the argument, I could either demonstrate the flaws in a context where he couldn't rationalize things away by assuming I have a differing opinion, or I could demonstrate the differences between the argument he presented, and the typical arguments I criticize.
Dictionary definition of significant - Having or likely to have a major effect; important:Hurkyl said:Can you give me a reason to think 9/11 was significant?
Art said:It caused the deaths of 1000's of civilians in the countries in which these wars are being waged
Actually Hurkyl - This is an ad-hominem attack!Hurkyl said:I had taken an estimate of the body count as 0.5% of the Iraqi population, and had scaled the figures down to the conclusion:
If 100 people lived in a similar conflict for four years, there's a fifty percent chance that one of them would die.
From which the numbers don't seem so much.
Art gutted the example, quoting me as if I said said nothing more than a body count of 0.5% of the country's population is not surprising. (I'm not yet sure if I care about that) He went on to say that this logic would say that 9/11 should have been a footnote in history.
Afterwards, he asserted that I would bend over backwards to villify anyone who tried to do something similar with 9/11. (Yay, a red herring, strawman, and ad hominem all wrapped up into one!)
If 100 people lived in a similar conflict for four years, there's a fifty percent chance that one of them would die.
From which the numbers don't seem so much.
I often find the need to take a stance opposite my own position in order to challenge what has been presented. Then everyone wrongly assumes my position, but that is to be expected.Hurkyl said:And one of the things I'm trying to rebuke is the assumption that whenever I ask someone to justify their position, I must be holding the opposing opinion. (Since, quite frequently, I don't have an opinion either way on the particular issue)
As the subject of this thread I have no objection to it if nobody else does.Moonbear said:Is this a test to see if Evo or I will lock a thread started by another mentor? As much as this might make for an interesting academic exercise, I think there are sufficient threads on body counts already.
It shouldn't be addressed to you, so I was about to change it.Art said:As the subject of this thread I have no objection to it if nobody else does.
I think this is the main point that was worth making here. And I am going to lock the thread now. *gives Hurkyl an evil glare*Evo said:I often find the need to take a stance opposite my own position in order to challenge what has been presented. Then everyone wrongly assumes my position, but that is to be expected.
I don't mind so long as I get the right to reply to whatever Hurkyl posts.Moonbear said:Dangit, someone make up their mind around here. I just unlocked it again because Hurkyl kept posting anyway, and now he's deleted his post. I think this thread is temporarily under construction. Tune in later folks when the mentors get their act together.
The significance of 9/11 lies in the fact that it was a series of coordinated terrorist attacks on the United States, which resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 people. It was a turning point in history that changed the way we view and approach national security, foreign policy, and global terrorism.
9/11 had a significant impact on the world, both politically and socially. It led to the US launching the War on Terror, which resulted in the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. It also sparked debates about civil liberties, surveillance, and immigration policies. The effects of 9/11 can still be seen in current events and policies around the world.
The main events of 9/11 were the hijacking and crashing of four planes by members of the terrorist group al-Qaeda. Two planes were flown into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, one into the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and one crash-landed in a field in Pennsylvania. These attacks occurred within a span of less than two hours.
The world has changed in many ways since 9/11. Security measures have been heightened, especially in airports and government buildings. The United States has become more involved in global conflicts and has placed a greater emphasis on national security. There has also been an increase in Islamophobia and discrimination towards Muslim communities around the world.
The investigation into 9/11 was led by the 9/11 Commission, which published its final report in 2004. However, there are still ongoing investigations and discussions about the events leading up to and following the attacks. Some individuals and groups continue to question the official narrative and call for further investigations into the events of 9/11.