ter·ror·ism
–noun
1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. (Also from dictionary.com)
2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

your definition was of a "terrorist"

ter·ror·ist
–noun
1.a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2.a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3.(formerly) a member of a political group in russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4.an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.

In a dictionary, definitions are listed by how widely accepted and used they are. If you look up the word "Weird" in a dictionary, you will find "Of a magical nature" as a definition, but it will be low on the list because its outdated. The second version of "terrorist" is included because the word has use outside of politics and wars, in which case it has no meaning outside of its root word, "terror". Taking definitions out of context, such as only showing the one that supports you, especially when its not the first, most widely accepted definition, isn't a very good argument.

Well, I'll just use the #1 definition of terrorism you set out then - use of violence to coerce for political purposes. Washington used violence to coerce the British to leave the Americas. The Viet Cong used violence to coerce America to leave Vietnam. Al Queda uses violence in an effort to coerce people to follow Islam.

In the game, the Resistance uses violence to coerce the Ark leaders to give them equal food and water. Security uses violence to coerce the Resistance to accept second-class citizenship.

And, sad I know, taking definitions out of context is one of the most widely used ways to support an argument. Both in science (etc. research papers) and politics, many take a statement out of context and use it to support them, even if further reading shows a contradiction. One wouldn't want to point out all the evidence if it hurts his own case now, would he?

Kudos to you for checking dictionary.com though! Many wouldn't go that far and would just give up, I commend you for that!

I said one word that sparked quite the debate, and I was right in the context in which it was used(just to point that out), which is what I ment by "I see them as refugees not necessarily terrorists". Glad we all agree that warring factions sees the enemy as a "terrorist". Use of violence for political purposes.

I'm just arguing that the term "terrorist" is based entirely on someone's point of view, in any violent altercation between two nations/parties.

"The use of violence and threats TO intimidate or coerce." You latched onto the word "coerce" but not the definition of "to" which in this case specifies intent.
You don't say that cars burn gas TO cause CO2 emissions, even though that happens.

So the question of what is a terrorist is "What is the person's intent?". You have the people who committed 9/11 TO do nothing but cause terror, and then you have the people who are in a revolution TO fight for their rights. Yes, its true that the threat of military action is a coercion, but once conflict actually breaks out, the goal is to shoot the guy who's trying to enter your country or fire a missile at it, or stop you from obtaining your rights.

Say the Resistance has a mission to go steal some water from the founders. Not trying to scare anyone. The Security would then be sent to stop the resistance through force. Defense, also not trying to scare anyone. The fact that soldiers would fear for their lives would naturally happen, but its not a goal, so its not terrorism.

As far as relevance to the topic at hand, however, we can safely say either neither side is a terrorist or both sides are. Which only depends on which side of the semantics you stand on. That being so, people shouldn't decide on security just because "I want to fight the terrorists."

The arguments all in the wording now. Let's look at your main argument here, "You have the people who committed 9/11 TO do nothing but cause terror, and then you have the people who are in a revolution TO fight for their rights."

Now with some rewording, we can make these parallel. Bin Laden organized 9/11 TO cause terror to achieve (what they hoped to be) a demoralization of western society. There are then people who fight TO cause terror to achieve equal rights for their people.

And we've reached a complete agreement on the topic of Brink. Both sides are exercising righteousness in one viewpoint, and terrorism is another. And lemme just say, this is one of the last places I expected to engage in a philosophical debate about the nature of terrorism.

Agreed. But...

I pick Security. I think Resistance is all well and good, but there is such a thing as a double agent. [Possible spoiler?]

The Resistance are the militarized Homeless.

You can't turn the dictionary on some one to win an argument then say it is up for interpretation based on intent.

ter·ror·ist
–noun
1.a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism

ter·ror·ism
–noun
1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Those are both the number one use of the word(which is from the dictonary you quoted), and that is what I was meaning when I used the word. You are also taking it out of context and saying it is use of violence to coerce, which is NOT its strict definition. Now if you wish to challenge your previous dictionary posts and say terrorist are only people who wish to incite terror, then you probably shouldn't of used the dictionary to define it. Opposing factions see each other as terrorist by dictonary definition. They are both seeking political gain through use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce(coerce - to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, esp. without regard for individual desire or volition, also #1 dictionary.com), despite what the intent or gain is for either side.
That is also what i meant by "I see them as refugees not necessarily as terrorists", because in a literal sense they are, but I can see a distinction that makes their cause noble(wanting to live as every man has the right) Dictionaries are black and white, the real world is shades of grey.
So we all get to fight terrorism. Yay.

Hit reply not edit, doh.

First of all, I'm not the one who brought up the dictionary, I was just pointing out that the dictionary could be used to defend either side of the argument after he quoted it. But this just points out that we are no longer debating over the philosophical differences between groups and are more arguing over semantics. This is an argument that will never have a resolution because I have a slightly different meaning for the word than you two do.

Explore a single word in conversation with just about anyone and you will find that this happens quite often. That is why dictionaries are a lot more gray than you seem to think, even the words used for definitions are up to interpretation. We agree that all soldiers are violent. Are they all "using that violence to coerce"? You say yes, I say most are trying to stop the enemy in front of them with a bullet, which isn't coercion.

The fact that your definition requires all men on the battlefield to be terrorists seems incorrect in general to me. Words are used to communicate ideas, when a word that has evolved to be applied to conflict cannot be used to differentiate between different intentions and tactics, the word is useless.

I have done my best to wrap up the debate with zombie after realizing it, and it seems he has as well, I assume for similar reasons. As such, this is my last post on the topic of the definition of terrorism.

You used the dictionary to defend your post, wether you brought it up or not.

Dictionaries defines the word's meaning(black and white), people can make that grey and interpret their own meaning from the given data(like you). In my post I say "strict definition", meaning not interpreting but taking its exact defined words and applying it to the context in which it was used. You are right we could argue intrerpretation all day, but thats why I said strict definition.

And interpretation or not, stopping some one with a bullet is absouletly coercion. When shooting at an enemy the objective is to kill or get him to surrender. That is coercion. I don't see how you could interpret that some other way. What is YOUR definition of the word coerce? Maybe you can make it more clear for me.

Which side you feel is right or wrong, why they fight, and how you define who is right or wrong, absolutely applies to this thread as well.

Resistance.

People love to play as the underdog, but man they have some insanely cool customization options for these poor saps! I personally can't wait for one of thsoe masks to become available, just look at the new Psycho pre-order mask! Awesome.

Indeed Apple. Shadowcat and I have argued our points and made our cases, and at the very least, we understand where the other person is coming from, even if we don't agree with the viewpoint itself. Shadowcat's made a well reasoned argument, and chances are, he'll stick by it. You are by all means free to continue this argument; but it seems to have devolved on the meaning of words, from terrorism to coercion. I was just jumping at the chance to exercise all the political science classes I've been taking, and the plot of Brink is a clear parallel to numerous events in political history.

The Resistance are also the people who make the whole ARK-project fail and not operational.


That's what SD are aiming for. No faction are "the good guys" per se.

You don't cite a dictionary in an argument and then turn around to say the terms meaning is based on interpretation. I don't care what point you are trying to make, that is a fallacy.

My heart goes with Resistance, but will play both sides. Not paying $60 to see only half of the game...hehe.

I'm really not picky. Both sides have their benefits, I just prefer Security for their general badassedness. I'll play on whatever side I need to if it means getting into a good server quickly.

http://brink.chefenco.com/brink-chat-with-paul-wedgwood-eurogamer/

just found this interview with a fairly detailed explanation of the story. Lots of background noise, but it clarified some things for me.

i am going resistance because i like being the underdog. also the look all beat up and rugged . :mohawk: resistance ftw.(still going to play both story lines thow)

I'm doing Security, because I love they way they look. I'm doing both plotlines, though.
I may/may not join a guild.

Well, the "Security" I've seen, on the official game site, translated to Polish as "S?u?ba Bezpieczeństwa" which was(is, actually, but let's skip that)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S?u?ba_Bezpieczeństwa
Thats a little bit disgusting, it's like they'd be called "Al-Qaeda" in USA version, so as you see - I'll rather go resistance first .

That is a fairly poor translation, to be sure, but i would suggest that you look into the story a bit more before forming opinions. You can get a fairly detailed version of the story from my http://brink.chefenco.com/brink-chat-with-paul-wedgwood-eurogamer/ above. The sound quality is pretty bad, but i have yet to see a more complete retelling of the story.

In the end, the security is simply trying to keep order, and the resistance want equality.

That link led me to the complete opposite of a terrorist group. That "S?u?ba Bezpieczeństwa" was the force behind the Polish police state, which fits the term "Security" a lot more. If anything, the Resistance is the "stereotypical" terrorists and the Security is an ultra-repressive paramilitary group, such as that run by the Soviet Union.

They were the oppressive police force of a communist government. Akin to the SS of the Nazis.