Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
That is not remotely related to any of my responses. As I have been telling you, I was not challenging your claims about the motivation of the police officer. I was challenging your account of attributability.laughing dog said:And why do you think the officer thought the mob was dangerous enough? From your responses, it seems you do think it is routine for US police to fire at will at people for whatever reason.
Why did the police officer thought that?
I do not know the specifics. Obviously, some of the actions of some of the members of the mob prompted his assessment. Maybe he was right. Or maybe not. I am not in a position to ascertain that. It doesn't matter though. Stipulate any reason you want, and my argument remains the same.
laughing dog said:Apparently not, since your argument is not based on ordinary usage. I did not say "solely" or "only" attributable - which is ordinary usage in that context.
But for that matter:
Let us take a look:
laughing dog said:That does not excuse their violence and destruction. And we know that 5 deaths are attributable to this mob violence - one law enforcement officer, one at the hands of law enforcement and apparently three due to some sort of health problem.
And:
First, you say "That does not excuse their violence and destruction. ". The word "excuse" indicates you are making a moral assessment. And it is in that context where you want to make an attribution. One problem with that is that blameworthiness depends on the minds of the perpetrator, not on results. One could try a loose interpretation assuming results are just a way of indicating intent, but then we run into the problem that this is not attributable to them in that sense.laughing dog said:Then by definition, the deaths can be attributable to them.me said:Sure, the deaths would not have happened without the mob violence.
Second, again, by the wide definition of attributabiliy you give above, the those 5 deaths are attributable to Biden's electoral victory, as they would not have happened without it. But surely that is not what you wanted to say, right? You were implicitly limiting the scope of attributability, right?
If I'm wrong, why then, attribute the deaths to mob violence? What is the goal of it?
It's an analogy involving attributions. It's funny that you say war context is not relevant, but then dropping a ball context is relevant.laughing dog said:For some inexplicable reason, you think some war context is relevant - it is not.
1. No obtuseness.laughing dog said:More obtuseness - I used an example and applied your "reasoning".
2. You misapplied it, as you did not use my reasoning.
3. Actually, that is what I did with the war context. We were giving examples, and you claimed that mine was idiotic. I pointed out it was not, and gave a relevant example. You dismiss it, but give an irrelevant ball example.
Your conclusion is confused. Of course the ball would not have fallen without gravity. But then, also it would not have fallen without you dropping it. When we ask for the causes, or to what/whom we attribute the fall of the ball, we intuitively consider context. If we are studying physics, the relevant cause is gravity. If we are trying to figure who damaged the car parked below the window (and on which a ball fell), the relevant cause it the person dropping it.laughing dog said:What caused the ball to fall is independent of what the ball ends up doing, so I conclude your response is nonsense. Balls falling are necessarily due to gravity. Without gravity, the ball would not necessarily fall, even if hurled down.