"JNugent" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> Sparrow wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Sparrow wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> David Damerell wrote:
>
>>>>>> The CTC say;
>>>>>> Should another article like this appear in the Times, or any other
>>>>>> newspaper, we will seek legal advice about bringing a private
>>>>>> prosecution
>>>>>> against the author. Journalists must recognise that it is not
>>>>>> acceptable
>>>>>> to incite violence against cyclists, even if they have nothing
>>>>>> interesting to write about and a deadline to meet.
>
>>>>>> I wrote back to enquire why they planned to wait for _another_
>>>>>> incitement to murder their members, if they're willing to do it
>>>>>> at all.
>
>>>>> Leaving aside the question of whether there actually was any
>>>>> "incitement to murder", why do the CTC regard it as acceptable to
>>>>> incite the murder of anyone who doesn't happen to be a cyclist?
>
>>>> The CTC have NOT stated it as acceptable to incite the murder of anyone
>>>> who doesn't happen to be a cyclist.
>
>>> That is an entirely reasonable inference from the unfortunate wording
>>> they used. Perhaps their spokesman spoke or wrote before thinking.
>
>> The inference you express only exists in your mind;
>
> Of course it does. That's what an inference is.
No: A definition of Inference: " The act or process of deriving logical
conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true." - It has to to be a
LOGICAL conclusion, and not just be a figment of your imagination.
>
>> any other *rational* person would NOT come to the conclusion that the CTC
>> regard it as acceptable to incite the murder of anyone who doesn't happen
>> to be a cyclist.
>
> We will have to disagree on that, a solution which I do not find
> disagreeable.
I agree that you are likely to disagree with *rational* people.
>
>>>> They represent CYCLISTS so I would expect them to defend CYCLISTS
>>>> interests.
>
>>> I would agree with that (within reason). But I would also expect them to
>>> be concerned about their members' interests even when not riding their
>>> bikes. Wouldn't you?
>
>> No, not per se.
>
> Oh.
Is that all you can say? The CTC are not concerned with the members
non-cycling interests; otherwise where would it end? They have a policy that
does not cover (as far as I can see) random stabbings
http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/PolicyHandbook_March_2004.doc .
>
>>> "Hey, did you hear about poor old Bert? He was stabbed to death last
>>> week."
>>> "That's terrible!"
>>> "Yes, but it's not really all that bad - he wasn't riding his bike at
>>> the time."
>>> Doesn't quite work, does it?
>
>> I would not expect the CTC to get involved with all (or that particular)
>> stabbing/s, no.
>
> Not even to condemn it?
No; it is not their function to comdemn random stabbings; their function is
based around protecting and promoting the rights of cyclists.
>
>>>> What should the CTC have written? Perhaps "Journalists must recognise
>>>> that it is not acceptable to incite violence against 'anyone', even if
>>>> they have nothing interesting to write about and a deadline to meet."
>>>> Would that always be a true statement?
>
>>> How about "Journalists must recognise that it is not acceptable to
>>> incite violence"?
>>> Would there be anything wrong with that?
>
>> I would hazard a guess that most people would accept that it is
>> acceptable to incite violence in certain circumtances. Why else would
>> people fight a 'just war'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war for
>> example?
>
> Yes, but that's getting rather contrived, isn't it? News papers currently
> have no business inciting criminal violence against anyone (and I'm not
> sure they ever really do, not even during war, despite your odd claim that
> they sometimes do).
>
>> But, we're not talking about wars; the subject IS cyclists. So the *C*TC
>> statement is correct to specify CYCLISTS when saying "that it is not
>> acceptable to incite violence against cyclists".
>
>> It is plain and simple.
>
> I can see that that is how some people prefer things.
Yes, people do prefer things to be PLAIN and SIMPLE. - They do not
appreciate unreasonable, irrational and incorrect inferences drawn from the
CTC statement.
