slips

Notice an interesting similarity:

/a/ recent acts of terrorism:

1 capitalism means global violence against "others", including Islam ==>
2 the U.S. is to be blamed ==>
3 strike violence against the symbolic centers of global capitalism and
violence in the U.S> (WTC and Pentagon)

Both moves are, logically speaking, logically incorrect (I will call them
slips):

1 ==> 2: the part stands for the whole (synecdoche slip);
2 ==> 3: the part stands for the whole (synecdoche slip).

Death toll implications: three to six thousand innocent victims stands for a
globally dispersed enemy (violence of global capitalism).


/b/ recent acts of war:

1 bin Laden suspected of terrorist acts ==>
2 Taliban to be blamed ==>
3 wage war on Afghanistan.

Both moves (from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3) are, logically speaking, slips.

1 ==> 2:

 two problems: 

  (i): it assumes that bin Laden is *part of* the Taliban (empirically
problematic claim: the link can be best established by attachment only),
  (ii):it moves from part to the whole (inverted synecdoche).

2 ==> 3: 

 it moves further to the whole from the part (another inverted synecdoche 
slip).

Potential death toll: possibly a couple of millions innocent victims.


Jozsef Borocz [ borocz.net ]
Sociology, Rutgers