,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
What horror.
It's far too early for us to know the source of this fire. It may very well be a terrible accident.
But since there has, in recent weeks and months, been a string of attacks on Catholic churches in France, it's also possible this was arson.
newsweek.com/spate-attacks-…
It's far too early for us to know the source of this fire. It may very well be a terrible accident.
But since there has, in recent weeks and months, been a string of attacks on Catholic churches in France, it's also possible this was arson.
newsweek.com/spate-attacks-…
People are very inconsistent about "speculating" or "jumping to conclusions" about the reasons behind horrific events:
1) If they think the potential perpetrators are political enemies, it's de rigeur.
2) If they assume they might be enemies of enemies, it's taboo.
(Contd.)
1) If they think the potential perpetrators are political enemies, it's de rigeur.
2) If they assume they might be enemies of enemies, it's taboo.
(Contd.)
I try (and probably sometimes fail) to apply a consistent standard:
It's always legitimate to be clear and upfront about the existence of different plausible explanations. It is wrong to assume one particular explanation when this isn't known.
(Contd.)
It's always legitimate to be clear and upfront about the existence of different plausible explanations. It is wrong to assume one particular explanation when this isn't known.
(Contd.)
Finally, I assume that some of the heat in the responses to my original tweet stems from people assuming that arson = Islamist terrorism.
But arson does not necessarily imply that: Even if this was no accident, there is a whole range of potential perpetrators.
But arson does not necessarily imply that: Even if this was no accident, there is a whole range of potential perpetrators.
