Barbelith Underground > Switchboard

I'll post this again, because evidently it wasn't really read the first time.

Do we completely dismiss cause and effect? If so, why? Are you actually stating that several thousand people spontaneously decided to demonstrate on the same day without any thought as to the reason for doing so? Clearly enough people felt strongly enough about a certain issue to gather at Cronulla, peacefully or otherwise.

"You say that i) crime figures in the area show a disproportionate number of violent crimes being performed by 'Lebanese' men, ii)there had been "a number" of "incidents" on the beach "perpetrated", again, by these 'Lebanese' men and iii) that this is why the rioting took place.". Your speech marks in the above passage seem to indicate a reluctance on your part to use those words. Are you therefore doubting the truth of statements i) and ii). Perhaps this is really where the issues lie.

Actually I didn't ever make the case for iii) as bein justified, I just said it happened after points i) and ii). "...that this is why the rioting took place." is something you wrote.. I agree with points i) and ii), and I stand by it as these facts can be supported by evidence. But I think it is drawing a very long bow to then say iii) was justified by i) and ii). This assertion cannot be supported by evidence. I'll hot-key the following statement as I seem to have to continually repeat it - "Where have I ever justified violence in any of my posts". You may interpret it as such but that interpretation isn't supported by fact. If you defined i) and ii) as contributing factors, or the first steps on the way to to iii) Is agree. But you assert that I justify iii) with i) and ii). Admittedly it is human nature to simplify things but rarely are things so simple. In fact, if you read my original post, you will see that I worte "Racist elements took over and the rest is history."
I have never denied the existence of racist elements in Australia but my original post was to the question "Is Australia notoriously racist?".

If you were to say that the Cronulla riots were as a result of some astrological alignment you would be an idiot. This isn't supportable by fact. You could choose to interpret the meanings as such and,while not unprovable, nor are they provable. That's the thing with interpretation. Everyone has their own and that's what makes in an...... interpretation

In a similar vein you could say that World War 1 was caused by i) Franz Ferdinand's assassination ii) Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia iii) Germany invaded France. Was Germany racist because it invaded France? You maybe able to interpret events that way, but it is not supportable points i) and ii) alone. Nor is it a justification for iii). Points i) and ii) set up conditions that allowed iii) to occur. Nothing more, nothing less.

Another example. John calls Jim a name. Jim hits John. John kills Jim. The sequence of events is fairly clear. Does that mean Jim was justified in killing John? You may interpret the sequence of events that way, but that would not be supported by the facts. Justification would be an interpretation of events. All that have reported are the sequence of events. Lets say now say John was black and Jim was white. Can we say for certainty that John killed Jim through racism?

The point is that the those involved just happened to be Lebanese. That wasn't the reason. The target could just have easily been flight attendants had flight attendants been over represented in crime in the lead up. Does this mean that flight attendants are more prone to crime? Statistically yes, but there may be other factors. Such as constant exposure to altitude or a myriad of other factors outside of their profession to which they are exposed to by virtue of their profession.

Is Australia racist?