Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Knowledge being a sort of spiral makes it so that even rational people have have identical information about a particular event, but have a tremendous difference in knowledge about psychology that can have bearing on conclusions.

OK, I guess it is possible that those supporting the building of the NYC M simply do not understand the tremendous importance of morale during time of war, and the necessity to break the enemy in both matter and spirit -- to make them give up the fight by completely obliterating their state apparatus *and* their ideology. For example, neither Germany nor Japan were truly defeated until we smashed them enough that they no longer cared to stand by Nazism or Shintoism any longer. Similarly, in this battle against the Islamic Totalitarians, it is very necessary to smash them completely and totally to the point whereby they give up Islam as a basis for being at war with us. Unfortunately, that isn't the way we are fighting the war, and so I don't think we will win on those terms. In fact, every effort is being made to *boost* the morale of Muslims around the world and even in prison camps like Abu Grad where we must treat them kindly least the whole world come down on us with moral rebuke. Also, the enemy clearly understands the issue of morale in war time given the fact that we cannot even fly the American flag at our bases in Iraq or Afghanistan -- after we conquered them! The destruction of the psychological state and the will to fight of the enemy is crucially important to break their spirits so that they no longer fight against us ever again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the proponents of the NYC M do not take into account that the Islamic Totalitarians do want to destroy us (and all of the rational based civilization across the world) and that the erection of the NYC M would be a boost to their morale,"

Does/would it boost the morale of totalitarians? If so, by how much? Does it actually have the potential to change things enough, due to purported morale boost, that totalitarians may do anything differently? Would boosting the morale of actual rights violators be enough to nullify the rights of others? Even if the morale boost is evidently unintentional? Would this really be the optimum response for dealing with actual rights violators? These things are disputed by people on the other side of the mosque issue. Nobody I've seen on either side denies that totalitarians want to destroy us and nobody has failed to have the "morale boost" argument come in front of them and across their mind. The above questions though come up in dispute over the morale boost argument. The "morale boost" thing isn't something everybody on the other side is ignoring, it is something that they are not in agreement on. I've also seen disputed who/what we can be said to be in what type of war with. If one is in disagreement about all those kinds of things then all that is left against these mosque people is some ideological overlap with the actual rights violators (I say "some" because not everybody who says they support Islam is playing up violence-encouraging sections of it, unlike the totalitarians who actually are big on that stuff. Plenty of others, hypocritical as it may be, go about their lives basically with an attitude of, "This book is great! It's perfect! Follow it! ... well, except never mind that chapter 8 and it's whole slaughtering people business.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(I say "some" because not everybody who says they support Islam is playing up violence-encouraging sections of it, unlike the totalitarians who actually are big on that stuff. Plenty of others, hypocritical as it may be, go about their lives basically with an attitude of, "This book is great! It's perfect! Follow it! ... well, except never mind that chapter 8 and it's whole slaughtering people business.")

I totally agree that there are people like this, who claim to be Muslim, and yet do not follow the edicts of Mohammed the way it was intended to be followed -- in a sense, they are using reason as being superior to the teachings of the Koran, just as modern Christians (aside from the Fundamentalists) use reason to guide their lives instead of the Word of God. However, that does not invalidate the claim that Islam means killing the infidel and waging every type of war and stratagem against the non-believers. It would be like someone claiming to be an Objectivist (because they like the novels), and yet do not follow the methodology of objectivity (of going to the facts) when it comes to arguing things like politics; whereby some Conservatives claim they agree with Ayn Rand on capitalism (Gingrich), and then turn around and condemn presidential running mates because they ran businesses and made a profit by being ruthless in the market place (Romney).

I do think there can be legitimate disagreements over the applications of rational principles. Being an Objectivist does not mean that one will agree with every other Objectivist in lock-step fashion; and that is good, since independence is a virtue. However, if it can be shown that you are making arguments that are not based on the facts of reality, then one ought to check one's premises, re-think it through taking those facts into account, and form a more rational (based on the facts integrated) conclusion.

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas,

Although we often disagree on minor issues, I usually appreciate your thoughtful input; but I'm very disappointed with your position on checkingpremises.org. I agree with Diana that you have wildly misinterpreted some of her stated views.

I also find troubling your suggestion that a nation can declare war on an ideology. Such a view makes sense to me at all. Nations declare war on other nations. This distinction is crucially relevant, and the failure to acknowledge this leads to absurd conclusions, like advocating a U.S. military attack against U.S. private property while bypassing the entire judicial process.

I hope you will reconsider. Otherwise, I may have to brand you a Subjectivst Rationalist Minovas Jr. Objectivist for all time!

--Dan Edge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although we often disagree on minor issues, I usually appreciate your thoughtful input; but I'm very disappointed with your position on checkingpremises.org. I agree with Diana that you have wildly misinterpreted some of her stated views.

I'll take your position with a grain of salt, considering that when I brought up Diana's position about eating brainless children on FaceBook you said I was making a mountain out of a molehill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"However, if it can be shown that you are making arguments that are not based on the facts of reality, then one ought to check one's premises, re-think it through taking those facts into account, and form a more rational (based on the facts integrated) conclusion."

Yes, but is that the case in some of these disputes, such as the mosque issue I've been using as my example? Has their been a failure to account for something or a consideration of such and then subsequent disagreement about it? In post #127 I mentioned some things there may be disputes about such that the idea of this morale boost thing coming up wouldn't automatically lead to the conclusions some people have about things like bombing it to the ground and whatnot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that we are at war with a deadly enemy that follows a kill-the-infidel policy changes the entire context of how (radical) Muslims ought to be treated. I've already acknowledged that this does not apply to those Muslims who do not follow that policy, so long as they are peaceful and do not advocate or act on that policy, then I don't think any harm should come to them. However, the imam who was going to run the NYC Mosque (Cordoba House) was specifically one who advocated kill the infidel and wage very type of war and stratagem against the infidel -- all the rest of us -- and to let him run the place in a time of war would be giving sanction to the enemy. It would be like letting the right-hand man of Hitler come over and set up camp in the USA during WWII, and during time of war, one cannot permit that to happen.

Regarding due process, there is a different due process during war time versus peace time. The due process during war time is to clearly identify the enemy, target him, and destroy him. There is no "due process" for the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan (the Taliban) -- one finds them and kills them. Period. Now, I don't think we could outright kill Rauf (the NYC M leader), due to the fact that he wasn't yet advocating kill-the-infidel on US soil during time of war, but he would have if given half the chance in his mosque. Therefore he cannot be permitted to have a platform in the USA. One cannot permit the ideological proponents of force on the side of the enemy have a stance during war and on one's own territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, the imam who was going to run the NYC Mosque (Cordoba House) was specifically one who advocated kill the infidel and wage very type of war and stratagem against the infidel... ...
When I google, the two top links for Rauf and killing infidels are this one from jihadWatch and this one from InfidelsUnited. Neither of them actually support eh notion that this imam is advocating the killing of infidels, let alone Americans. I assume you have seen some better evidence, and are not basing your claim on stuff like this. If so, could you post some links or references here, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, I don't think we could outright kill Rauf (the NYC M leader), due to the fact that he wasn't yet advocating kill-the-infidel on US soil during time of war, but he would have if given half the chance in his mosque. Therefore he cannot be permitted to have a platform in the USA. One cannot permit the ideological proponents of force on the side of the enemy have a stance during war and on one's own territory.

So, your position is that you believe that Rauf is going to be an "eminent" threat to "our" "metaphysical survival," and, based on these imagined abilities of yours to predict the future, as well as your belief that "we" are "at war" with Islam when in factual reality we are not, you (and Peikoff) have the right to supsend the property rights of Rauf and others associated with the Cordoba project. The funny thing is that you call them the "ideological proponents of force" when you are the one who is hellbent on initiating force, and distorting and tarnishing Objectivism in the process.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I google, the two top links for Rauf and killing infidels are this one from jihadWatch and this one from InfidelsUnited.

Pamela Geller's site certainly has such claims as well. Alongside all kinds of loony rants.

60 Minutes did a segment on this, with interviews with her and Rauf (he's a Sufi, BTW).

http://www.cbsnews.c...ch/?id=6902812n

I gave my opinion here, this is hardly the time and place to rehash it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pamela Geller's site certainly has such claims as well. Alongside all kinds of loony rants.

60 Minutes did a segment on this, with interviews with her and Rauf (he's a Sufi, BTW).

http://www.cbsnews.c...ch/?id=6902812n

I gave my opinion here, this is hardly the time and place to rehash it.

From the 60 Minutes interview:

Rauf:

"The reason why there's so much antipathy to our faith is because of the radicals, the suicide bombers. That is not Islam. We reject it."

"We condemn 9/11."

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I google, the two top links for Rauf and killing infidels are this one from jihadWatch and this one from InfidelsUnited. Neither of them actually support eh notion that this imam is advocating the killing of infidels, let alone Americans. I assume you have seen some better evidence, and are not basing your claim on stuff like this. If so, could you post some links or references here, please.

He advocates the Koran. The Koran advocates the killing of infidels. The Koran advocates killing me. By logical implication Rauf advocates killing me. It does not matter if he admits it or denies it the implication is there.

If he has a right to advocate my death indirectly through my membership in the class "infidels", it should be equally within my rights to indirectly advocate the death of Rauf by advocating for the death of all Muslims. Is this correct? Is this what freedom looks like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a video that explains the (only apparent) contradiction between the existence of peaceful Muslims and the warlike Muslims. It consists of reading from the Koran and making simple observations.

The Three Stages of Jihad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and, based on these imagined abilities of yours to predict the future...

Speaking of which:

"A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death." - Leviticus 20:27

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He advocates the Koran. The Koran advocates the killing of infidels. The Koran advocates killing me. By logical implication Rauf advocates killing me. It does not matter if he admits it or denies it the implication is there.

He advocates some of the Koran evidently. Some of it. Hypocritical? Yes. But if people were being completely logically consistent to begin with they wouldn't be following a faith of any sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I am most certainly **not** advocating that all Muslims be killed in the name of protecting us from Islamic Totalitarianism -- in fact, the essay you guys are all outraged about specifically states that this policy would not apply to Muslims who do not accept the kill-all-infidels policy. I've heard from various sources (Jihad Watch, Freedom Watch, Talk radio like Limbaugh and Hannity) that he was a Muslim who did advocate kill-all-infidel, but he hasn't spoken that way while in the USA. They looked up old sermons of his and that is what he advocated. I would look it up on Jihad Watch, but their search engine is really bad.

Here is a long article from PJ Media about Rauf, including what he is for, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and supporting families who's members have been involved in suicide bombings. Now, I suppose you could question the sources, and say they are just being paranoid, but there you have it -- the evidence is there. Does this mean we can kill him outright, no, not by itself; but I think that if he every actually advocated suicide bombers ought to take to the streets of NYC, then he could at least be thrown in jail for inciting riots or some other law along those lines.

Besides, if you don't think 911 was an act of war, then you have a problem with reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that smear job of an article is the best his critics can come up with, the hue and cry about Rauf being a threat does appear baseless.

If you start curbing the rights of people who think the muslims are an aggrieved party, and that the U.S. is the meddler that starts it all, then you'd better start with presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He advocates the Koran. The Koran advocates the killing of infidels. The Koran advocates killing me. By logical implication Rauf advocates killing me. It does not matter if he admits it or denies it the implication is there.

Have you read the Bible? Studied the history of Christianity and Judaism? The readily quotable doctrines that were enunciated and practiced when each ruled theocratically? Do you believe Islam is inherently (or historically) worse, on balance?

Edited by Ninth Doctor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read the Bible? Studied the history of Christianity and Judaism? The readily quotable doctrines that were enunciated and practiced when each ruled theocratically? Do you believe Islam is inherently worse, on balance?

"But everybody does it" is no justification. The only religion still officially endorsing violence in the present day is Islam.

And yes I do believe Islam is better at being a religion and is more of a threat than Christianity and Judaism. Religion in general is a problem, and Islam is the most dangerous of the religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"But everybody does it" is no justification. The only religion still officially endorsing violence in the present day is Islam.

There are murders of abortion doctors and clinic bombings to this day, sponsored by Christians and done on behalf of Christian doctrine. BTW no one can “officially” endorse anything in Islam. Islam doesn’t have a pope, for better and for worse.

And yes I do believe Islam is better at being a religion and is more of a threat than Christianity and Judaism. Religion in general is a problem, and Islam is the most dangerous of the religions.

I agree religion remains a big challenge. Whether Islam belongs at the top, meaning it poses the greatest threat, is a complicated issue. Violent attacks on the US with a large body count are more likely to be inspired by Islam than Christianity. Efforts to turn back the enlightenment and attacks on the separation of church and state are more likely to come from Christian sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the major religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) went through a phase whereby the non-believer was to be put to death on orders of their God. It's an aspect of mysticism, since it cannot be transmitted or taught through reason or the evidence of the senses. Hence the only real way to spread the Word and insure it's continuing existence in a society is via force instead of persuasion. Notice that in those countries where freedom is either permitted or defended, there are few fundamentalists for any of those religions. And that happens because religion is not a good guild for how to live one's life, since it is not based on reason and reality.

However, as reason became more on the rise and the people became more practical minded to live their daily lives, religion began to fall by the wayside, and they no longer tried to enforce it with the gun. This was true in Judaism and Christianity (after Aquinas, who re-introduced Aristotle). But certainly, there were time periods when religion held sway (like the Dark Ages), and yes, force was the primary way of preserving The Word of God, and non-believers were outright killed. I think they would have killed Galileo except that they had become a bit too civilized for that; instead, they threatened to torture him until he re-canted his observations that contradicted The Bible. By the 1600's, Aquinas and Aristotle had been reintroduced for about 250 years.

What those following Islam need is to come to reason, to become more rational and more this-worldly oriented. There are people wanting to do that even in Iran, which is an Islamic Theocracy, but the government keeps putting them down. And one reason they hate us -- I mean really deeply -- is not that we "are over there" but rather that one cannot run a Theocracy very well in modern times when they can gain access to the way things are in the west via satellite TV and radio and the internet. Its part of the same reason the Communists in the Soviet Union hated us -- because we interfered with their plans of total domination simply by existing. Basically, both Islamic Theocracies and Communistic States virtually consider it to be an act of war that Western values of reason and reality can get through their defenses against letting it in.

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you will reconsider.

After reading comments on Dan Edge's blog regarding the controversy of DH saying we could eat brainless babies, I posted the following comment onto his blog:

I don't think DH actually advocated that we could eat babies, given that she did eventually (even in the podcast) say that it would be immoral. However, the way she handled the issue during the podcast and during the AltosCon live session was to state that the Supreme Court had come to the conclusion that brainless babies don't have rights, and therefore began to speculate that we could eat them. This turned into a session of let's eat human baby baby-backed ribs, and I think her comment that it would be immoral to actually do it was lost in the disgust many of us felt for her bringing up the topic and the possibility that we could eat brainless babies. I don't think she handled the podcast nor the session very well, as if she had decided that eating brainless babies was immoral, then she should not have presented it as she did and should not have encouraged her audience to celebrate eating human baby baby-backed ribs. If there is a general misunderstanding of her position, she has no one to blame but herself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think DH actually advocated that we could eat babies, given that she did eventually (even in the podcast) say that it would be immoral. However, the way she handled the issue during the podcast and during the AltosCon live session was to state that the Supreme Court had come to the conclusion that brainless babies don't have rights, and therefore began to speculate that we could eat them. This turned into a session of let's eat human baby baby-backed ribs, and I think her comment that it would be immoral to actually do it was lost in the disgust many of us felt for her bringing up the topic and the possibility that we could eat brainless babies. I don't think she handled the podcast nor the session very well, as if she had decided that eating brainless babies was immoral, then she should not have presented it as she did and should not have encouraged her audience to celebrate eating human baby baby-backed ribs. If there is a general misunderstanding of her position, she has no one to blame but herself. [bold added]

Hmmm... that's interesting... let's look back in the thread a bit.

Yes, insofar as there are people out there who seem to cherry pick their ideas from Objectivism on a personal like basis -- i.e. I like Ayn Rand's views on capitalism, but insofar as she disregards God, I cannot be for Objectivism as she presented it, so I am a Christian-Objectivist -- this is an act of subjectivism; of making a decision based on emotions, rather than reason.

...

Now, if one holds onto a rationalistic argument that can be shown to be unconnected to reality and therefore not true based upon an emotional attachment to one's mis-generated ideas, then yes, this would be a form of subjectivism. [bold added]

So making emotional decisions without regard to the facts of reality (such as a concrete statement that a certain action is immoral), doing that is understandable in this case, because the emotions are ones that you personally share, and in that case it's the speaker's fault. But subjectivists and rationalists are people who unapologetically hold ideas based on emotions (like disgust, say?) without regard to facts.

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So making emotional decisions without regard to the facts of reality (such as a concrete statement that a certain action is immoral), doing that is understandable in this case, because the emotions are ones that you personally share, and in that case it's the speaker's fault. But subjectivists and rationalists are people who unapologetically hold ideas based on emotions (like disgust, say?) without regard to facts.

I had a long discussion of this topic over on FaceBook when she was one of my friends, bringing up the fact that it was a rationalistic argument that we could eat brainless babies because they didn't have rights (according to the Supreme Court). NOT ONCE did she say that she thought it would be immoral and NOT ONCE did she giver her reasons for why it would be immoral to do so. When one is involved in a controversial position and one is generally being misunderstood, that is the time to clarify one's position, which she has not done to this date. Her statement that it would be immoral was just an aside **after** she permitted her audience to run wild with speculations that we could dine out on human baby baby-backed ribs. That her position was lost on most of the audience (since not one of the people [on my friend's list that was involved] listening to that podcast caught the fact that she thought it was immoral), is her fault, for not being clear. Morality is a very important topic, and if one's statements seem to take the position that such and such is moral (as her podcast did), then she needed to come out with a statement that it is immoral and here is why. So, no, I was not guided by my emotions, she didn't make herself clear, and even her write-up reply begins with the premise that the Supreme Court says that they don't have rights and therefore it is OK to speculate that it would be moral to eat them; and it is only after that a few paragraphs down that she says it would be immoral, again, without explaining why.

Notice how I go through a great deal of trouble to clarify myself when I am caught in a controversial position on oo.net and even in this thread. **That** is the objective policy. DH did not handle the controvesy well at all, and deserves scorn for that.

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But subjectivists and rationalists are people who unapologetically hold ideas based on emotions (like disgust, say?) without regard to facts.... ...

You rightly identify the irony here. Many of the folks who use "Objectivist swear-words" like "subjectivist" and "rationalist" do not actually make any attempt to argue their own position in an objective manner. Instead, they resort to a series of "it's obvious that" style arguments or assumptions... implicitly positing an intrinsicist epistemology. Of course, in practice, these intrinsicists are subjectivists who want something to be, just because they feel that way.

If the primary discussion in this thread is about method, then it is the Checked Premises folk who are the prototypes of lousy method.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...