RussK

Looking at this issue from a laissez-faire point of view--which isn't the concrete case at hand--I can agree with the decision of the fire department. A fee of $75 is required for use of that departments services. The home owner didn't pay that fee and subsequently didn't receive the services; those terms are fairly cut and dry from a contractual standpoint, and I think this is the most morally pertinent aspect of the case. I've heard it argued that the fire department should have fought the fire and then collected the fee or charge a higher, penalty fee. However, I can see why that didn't and maybe shouldn't have occurred. Of course choosing to fight the fire would have been a benevolent act, an action that would indeed be commendable, but a policy of such benevolence would hamper the ability of the fire department to provide future service--so long as they rely on their fee system. If they would have chosen to fight that fire, the message would have been sent that, "It's okay not to pay the fee, because they will fight the fire anyway." If that attitude is taken up, there is a good possibility that an underfunded fire department will result. By choosing to not fight the fire, the opposite message was sent, and I can guarantee you that a whole lot of people sent a check to the fire department.

His work will probably find its way into some text book...

I have known people with Alzheimer's. The first person I met with this disease was an old man (not elderly by any means) who lived in the condominium next door. He was an active man when he got diagnosed, and as his mental capacity degenerated, unfortunately, he was still active--he would get lost walking to the dumpster and would try to drive all the time. In fact, what is sad about Alzheimer's, from what I've experienced, is it affects otherwise healthy and active human beings who are arriving in their later years. If your hypothesis (what are your observations exactly?) is correct, after seeing many active older people in South Florida, our younger generation (America) is totally screwed, as some of those older folks would put them to shame.

I think that one's current interests and what has maybe brought them to Ayn Rand's work should be the starting point. For example, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" and "Return of the Primitive" were some of the first Rand books that I read because of my interests at the time. A more systematic method is what others have outlined here already, starting with OPAR or The Virtue of Selfishness. However, the systematic approach isn't for everyone: some people may not become interested in a a more in-depth understanding of Any Rand's ideas until after their interests have been piqued, so recommending that they sit down and read OPAR isn't going to work out very well.

I really like this point. For the longest time, ever since I started to grasp the basic understandings of rejecting life after death, I have never cared much about what should happen with my corpse. All of my closest friends and family do know that I want to be cremated, simply because I don't care what happens to my body, and it seems like the most practical solution. However, with the idea that funerals "are for the living," so long as my prior living person and ideas are respected, I could care less what happens to my body (buried, enshrined, cremated, or whatever options exist out there).

I think I read up to page eight, and then I got bored and quit. There was really nothing new in it that I noticed; by new, I mean a divergence from what they've been saying since I can remember. Here are some of the notes I made while reading it: 1) With this pledge, the GOP insists that they will "protect our entitlement programs for today's seniors." By doing that, they will be maintaining the status quo and their prior position on the issue. 2) The GOP, "With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, ... will roll back government spending to prestimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt." I understand the 'exceptions' towards veterans and troops--though I believe both could be cut significantly and better streamlined, especially the later--but what is the legitimacy for the exceptions for seniors? The senior related entitlements of medicare, medicade, and social security account for a significant portion of the budget. Furthermore, saving $100 billion, with the budgets of today, means very little. When it comes to the GOP and some of their supporters, almost nothing strikes me as more ridiculous than the current support for medicare and senior coverage, while railing against the new health care law. Nothing signifies that they are still playing political, election games and are utterly incapable of a position on principle than such examples. 3) They "will launch a sustained effort to stem the relentless growth in government that has occurred over the past decade. By cutting Congress’ budget, imposing a net hiring freeze on non-security federal employees, and reviewing every current government program to eliminate wasteful and duplicative programs, we can curb Washington’s irresponsible spending habits and reduce the size of government, while still fulfilling our necessary obligations." As mentioned previously, such cuts are a drop in the bucket and mean very little when it comes to trimming the budget to sustainable levels. This is just an easy way to tout the idea of "cutting government" while at the same time evading the issue almost entirely. 4) And don't forget, the GOP is going to repeal 'ObamaCare,' but what will they do afterwords? "We offer a plan to repeal and replace the government takeover of health care with common sense solutions focused on lowering costs and protecting American jobs. We will enact real medical liability reform; allow Americans to purchase health coverage across state lines; empower small businesses with greater purchasing power; and create new incentives to save for future health needs. We will protect the doctor patient relationship, and ensure that those with pre-existing conditions gain access to the coverage they need. We will permanently end taxpayer funding of abortion and codify the Hyde Amendment." They are going to "replace" the current law; they are going to cap liabilities; they are going to force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions; and, to top it all off, they are going to end taxpayer funding for abortion, while allowing funding for other medical procedures. There is nothing here that screams out free market solutions or, for that matter, freedom.

I'm not sure how one could possibly get billed for the actions of another group of people--counter protesters or possible terrorists. Additionally, as has been already brought up, there is a good possibility that such billing could actually reduce the practice of free speech. For example, would a modern day Martin Luther King Jr. be billed for all the extra police focus that would be given to him? That would shut down anyone without heavy funding. I think the proper thing that the city should have done was to tell that book burning idiot that the city may not have the adequate resources to protect him and his fools during their event, and that the city would not be spending thousands for the sake of his stupidity.

I agree. I never have any idea why these two people take the positions they do, and its not as they are both principled actors anyway. I think, at this point, so many people are just hating President Obama for reasons that they cannot even intelligently repeat if they were asked. There are a lot of people out there with a constant, angry, apocalyptic-drama mindset, and are focused on Nov. 2nd, when they can "take out the trash." I can't wait to see what will happen with these people when President Obama is not re-elected; their lives are totally consumed with thoughts about him right now. For many, I think, it's just a game, and if Obama loses, then they 'win' and can go home. I'm fairly certain I will not be voting--once again--unless something crazy happens, like Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck getting nominated. EDIT: and if anyone knows when this event will be replayed on TV, I'd like to know. Thanks. EDIT TWO: I just had the scariest thought while thinking of a joke about why a Mormon and Pentecostal would get together for a religious event: To establish a presidential ticket!

Yep, right on the money. Thanks for the heads up. It's easy to get confused by the world of European health care. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447687/

Thanks for the tip. I'll have to do further research into it.

I just got a Facebook account. Continuing to figure out the 'notes' feature by posting this, and thought I'd share here as well. -------- Recently, there has been a lot of buzz about net neutrality, the idea that the internet must be protected and remain 'open' and free from discriminatory service filtering. The supposed threat posed by a 'non neutral' internet has been deemed severe enough for the FCC and its regulatory authority to get involved. In fact, the FCC has been in 'off and on' meetings with service providers for some time now, with their latest bout of meetings having been declared "dead." It is interesting then that both Google and Verizon, who preside over some of the largest internet service offerings in the world, and, therefore, have the most to lose from net neutrality regulation—being told how they must offer and manage their services—are willing to enter into a joint policy agreement on the issue. Unfortunately, while both Google and Verizon may get some short term gain by leading the way toward net neutrality regulation, any such benefit will come at a price: the further erosion of property rights, which have been essential to the growth of the internet services, which both companies are dependent on. First off, however, for those interested or in need of a primer on the concept of net neutrality, as well as an excellent analysis of what effect it will have, I recommend the article, "Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet," by Raymond C. Niles, published in the Objective Standard in late 2008. When I first read the article, it was the first time that I had even heard of the topic, yet it remains the best and most informed piece on the subject that I have come across. I have heard a few pundits, especially on television, bring up the topic once or twice; however, every time, they had an extremely limited knowledge of it and usually only spoke about political activism aspects that could be affected by net neutrality. On the other hand, Niles breaks the issue down to fundamentals by explaining what the internet is and how it was created, what net neutrality is and how it will work in practice, and why "America morally must recognize the rights of Internet service providers to manage their property as they see fit." Of course, the decision by Google and Verizon to enter into a joint agreement, helping to bring about net neutrality, is not motivated by their desire to see their companies harmed. More than likely, it's an attempt to be the leaders in adopting net neutrality regulation, so as to help create the regulations itself, thereby reducing the harm it will cause. In a mixed economy, especially one with a fascist bent, like ours—private ownership of companies operating under the authority and demands of the government—such action is common place. For example, many of the largest companies in the health care industry, including private insurance companies, approve of increased government intervention, so long as they get a good, seemingly permanent share of the market (reference Great Britain's healthcare system, operated by private insurance companies). This, however, is short termed thinking with long term consequences that continue to destroy private enterprise. Just as is the case with insurance companies in Great Britain, who continue having to capitulate to government orders after having 'gotten in bed with the government,' so too does Google and Verizon risk being in the same boat in the not too distant future. While both companies, as well as other large providers, might be able to etch out some beneficial arrangement—and others are left to wither and die—with the government, the precedent that they will set will be their downfall. By voluntarily agreeing to support net neutrality and endorsing FCC regulations, both companies have implicitly rejected their rights to operate their own property in the manner that they decide is best. Once they have decided that such regulation is necessary and proper, they have agreed to submit their rightful authority to the government, and the government isn't going to repay the favor. Instead, the government is likely to use its new authority to force more regulation down the throats of Google and Verizon—really, the whole industry will be affected at the end of the day—who agreed to subjugate their rights to begin with. What then should Google and Verizon do in this case? Instead of endorsing regulations that subjugate the rights of service providers to operate their own networks, they should actively engage in promoting their property rights. If they continue to give the "sanction of the victim," not only do they risk losing their autonomy for decision making, which would harm the longevity of any corporation, but the harm to the tech sector could be irreparable.

I was worried about that, the security of foreign local nationals, as I wrote above. I had hoped that most of the documents had the names, locations, and direct comments of sources already removed, as is normal for release into a general document, like an INTSUM. That hope was based on the 10 (of the thousands) or so documents I read from the website. Unfortunately though, many people have access (illegitimate access) to sensitive information that is not intended for general, yet classified, tactical use. I think the worst possible fear that I thought of was the potential release of recruitment documents with both source and handler named within those documents, with other identifying information. If that Fox News story is confirmed, which I'm sure there's nothing wrong with the report, untold damage on the ground will occur. Any intelligent Afghani (or important Iraqi for that matter) is going to hesitate before giving anyone information, let alone on a regular basis. That prevents the collection of intelligence from not only more pertinent sources on the ground (villagers, etc...), which give the location of IEDs or caches, for example, but trickles up to the highest levels of the government. Besides the general integrity and trust of the intelligence community being eroded and called into question, the actions of a few immature cowards can have serious, immediate consequences for the soldiers and on the ground and how the government can conduct operations.

That's my line of thought, at this moment anyway. My biggest problem is with the principle of the leaks in general, the continual leaks by officials to the media, and the idea, as raised in this thread, that the behavior of these malcontents should be held up as a courageous example to follow.

I enjoyed the movie, and plan on buying it when it comes out on DVD, which is a rarity for me. It was one of those movies in which one must be actively engaged in paying attention to the details of the movie, in order to figure out what is going on. Another of the movie's positive aspects is the ending, which is a nice instrument that accomplishes two things for the director: 1) The viewer is forced to come to a conclusion about the movie, instead of being given one by the ending itself, as Tyco says below, there is "No easy way out"; 2) To create discussion amongst movie goers about the contents of the movie, as well as fuel some pretty creative ideas about the actual plot. When it comes to the discussion of the various meanings and actual story of the movie, I have what is probably the most widely held or conventional conclusion about it: that the crux of the movie is about lead the character's (Cobb), battle with what he did to his wife, Mal, by planting an idea, and his battles trying to resolve that problem while trying to accomplish the Fischer Jr. mission so as to see his children again. Additionally, I think the ending is set in reality, with the top not signifying anything additional to the back story. Interestingly, I went to the movie with someone who had already watched the movie. Upon conclusion, she told me what she thought about the way the story was supposed to be interpreted. Her interpretation is actually quite similar to that given by CapitalistSwine, on this thread: The new architect, the female student who was referred to Cobb by his father, was a lead agent to plant an inception in Cobb. I was surprised when I heard this, and a few people in the group, including myself, said something similar to, "If that approach is taken, just about any interpretation can be made about the movie." So, I was surprised to see a similar interpretation here, as it must be somewhat common; and both of those interpretations came from people who have seen the movie twice. My only gripes about the movie, besides a few CGI hiccups and scenes of unbelievability, is how the dreams and their levels were handled. The whole time-space aspect of the dreams is a little confusing and didn't aid the flow of the movie. Parts of the story would have to be re-written to find a better approach, but I think it would be worth it. When it comes to the CGI, I picked up on unnatural, jerky movements during the scene where Cobb and the architect walk vertically, etc... Lastly, the car chase in which the chemist is driving a van throughout the city, is attacked by multiple projections, and finally rolls the van, was way too drawn out and a little absurd. As far as the director's intentions concerning metaphysical or epistemological issues, as were raised in the first post of this thread, I have my doubts that he was attempting to make any such points. Of course, on an implicit level, one could say that the movie does uphold the value of the objective over the subjective. Both Cobb and his wife have a long, obsessive session in the dream world, with Cobb choosing reality (not an imaginary wife and kids) and Mal committing suicide, eventually. However, on the other hand, the whole idea of inception itself has some negative epistemological consequences. For example, both Mal and Fischer Jr. are led astray by ideas not from objective reality, but instead from a subjective dream world. As interesting as it may be to think about the multitude of potential reasons for why the storyline is the way it is, I don't think there is sufficient evidence to guess at the director's philosophical motivations.

Such compromise of classified material affects every intelligence department, including the behavior of government officials, such as senators or vice presidential aides, who have access this type of information. To allow these compromises to occur without punishment dissolves the secrecy, loyalty, trust, and responsibilities of these organizations and the individuals who participate within their operations. That type of erosion, to occur over time, would be extremely destructive to not only military or tactical operations, but the overall strategic security of the nation. I can agree to some of the points you've listed above; although, I consider many to be overblown and extreme. However, what I will not "imagine" is the idea that it's proper for someone to commit the crime that PFC Manning has admitted to. Manning was entrusted with the information he had legitimate access to, and he chose to take on the duty and responsibility of dealing with that information in a proper way. Instead, what Manning did was copy thousands of various classified documents (intelligence reports, operational reports, and memorandums--many of which he claims came from the State Dept.) and released them to his handler, Julian Assange and his organization. While I may not know every exact detail of Wikileaks and their operation, or the activities of Manning, I assure you I don't have to do any further research on the matter, and my prior writing was by no means devoid of an understanding of the facts. Interestingly, despite all the relevant details you bring up about Manning, you don't mention his conversation with Adrian Lamo. In that conversation, your hero looks like the immature, guilty and worthless soldier and member of the intelligence corps that he was--it's too bad his leadership put him at a workstation to begin with, instead of relegating him to mundane duties that they finally tasked him with when they realized he was a POS. He is clearly seeking attention and notoriety by relaying his story to Lamo. Additionally, while seeking to gain notoriety, he is probably lying to Lamo about his exploits: he claims that some of his access came from JWICS, yet all documents released so far are not classified above Secret. Manning also revels in the fact that he was a "source" and "high profile source" for Assange with "veracity" that affords his information preferential treatment with Assange. Of course, Manning probably thinks he's some kind of cool guy for his choice of words with Lamo, despite the fact he was anything but a high profile source. Interestingly, in the conversation, when Manning is contemplating what he could be considered, "a type of “hacker”, “cracker”, “hacktivist”, “leaker” or what...," Lamo, in a somewhat jokingly manner--probably to keep leading Manning on--identifies Manning as a spy. In fact, I hope that this will be one of the charges leveled against Manning, as it will put him in jail longer. Since, by his own admission, he was "a source, not quite a volunteer." Maybe they can go from the 59 years he faces to being hanged instead. Nothing excuses the actions of Manning or any of the other criminals, that includes any excuse of the "facade of elections" as you say. The electorate voted for that facade, and they got it. If they wanted the wars to end, they would end. The way to end the war in Afghanistan is not to compromise national security and commit a string of crimes. Furthermore, I reject your call to action that . Releasing over 260,000 documents--and compromising possibly the lives of Americans and foreign local nationals, professions, and general national security--numbers that Manning admitted to, is a destructive and cowardly crime. Do you think that Manning looked at all the documents he transferred, if his numbers are actually even honest, to see what exactly he was releasing? Additionally, I think that the admins should look at your post and determine if it should be deleted. As I see it, your post is advocating criminal activity: By "We", I take that as meaning either users of the forum or Objectivists in general; "THIS is how we should act" I take as advocating the illegal release of information by any of the aforementioned people with access to such information. In response to the comments about the video of the Apache helicopters, one thing by the author sticks out to me: "I know the Army employs their helicopters as separate maneuver units, but in a urban environment, it is frowned upon (for almost too many reasons to count). So simply: If that ground controller told those helos to hold their fire until boots on the ground could get there to verify they were legit targets, no tactical advantage would have been lost and the real bad guys would have exposed themselves and been wasted appropriately." Being frowned upon and being what the reality is are, of course, two different things. However, the idea that it was a rare event not to have a soldier on the ground verify a target is simply not true. It is also not true that waiting for feet on the ground cannot cause a loss in tactical advantage.

Going to see it tonight. DiCaprio has been on an impressive string of good acting.

Can you clarify why or how you support these 'whistle-blowers?' Furthermore, what exactly do you find wrong with current actions and behaviors of the government, specifically the DoD and presidential administrations, since the act of whistle-blowing implies somebody stepping forward to reveal some gross, misdeed of some sort. As for the Baghdad video: yes, I was writing of the video showing the death of two Reuters cameramen and several civilians killed by Apache helicopters. It doesn't matter how much yours or my analysis--although, I will not give an opinion referencing any of the intelligence from the illegally distributed reports--matches up with what has been released. Besides putting people, Americans and foreign local nationals in harms way, whoever has released these documents has committed a crime and abnegated duties and responsibilities that they took on by their own choice.

Supposedly, there is much more sensitive documents about to be released. Not all classified documents are created equal: a document is classified up to its highest marker, but there are generally caveats to establish proper releasability. This is a terrible crime that should be punished to the maximum extent to remind people of their responsibilities and the rule of law. Additionally, it is an embarrassment to the DoD and intelligence community in general. The immature Army Specialist they have in custody for the Iraq video doesn't need a plea deal and probably none of the other culprits do either; they have nothing of value that we need to know--charge them the max for every document released and law broken. Furthermore, the Army needs to ramp up SAEDA investigations on all appropriate sections, as well as on individuals and elements without much access to anything, such as infantry or others who like to take inappropriate photographs. Things have been too lax for way too long, but that's also because there is a war going on. As far as the information released, I'm not too concerned about the backlash of the American public toward the government. While the government may have misrepresented something, I think the public is going to be more angered about the leak itself--anyone who thinks they can tell how a war is going by the media is deluded anyway, so not many should be surprised that they haven't gotten the 'whole picture.' It should also come out, hopefully by someone who is knowledgeable of the subject, that much of the reports released (INTSUM's) contained information from HUMINT sources. This type of intelligence, while absolutely crucial and most beneficial, cannot be taken out of a long term context or view of prior intelligence. There are many factors involved when it comes to using such intel. What should be the primary concern with the release of these documents is the threat to handlers, infantryman, sources, intelligence integrity, foreign relations, and projected operational capability.

Yes, that is what I'm talking about, and as Grames pointed out, some sort of intrinsicist formulation of rights is being upheld. Those that keep insisting on this being a "legal" issue are rejecting the moral conception of rights--they are not forgetting, but choosing to consider it a non-topic--and seem to be upholding the idea of libertarianism rather than a philosophy of rational self-interest. Additionally, I can't help but agree with Grames' statement that some are taking a rationalist approach: They recognize the culture war and threat posed, yet insist on a paralytic position of inaction because there hasn't been a declaration of war--that our policy isn't perfect, so nothing will do. I cannot conceive such a position as being nothing other than idealism. Furthermore, I have to disagree with your assessment that the other side hasn't been listened to. I didn't even have a clue about this issue until it was posted on the forum, and then I went to NoodleFood to check it out. In going back and forth between both sites, I think I've seen just about every argument proposed for and against the mosque. After Diana replied to the podcast, I even participated in the comment section of that blog, and had seen some of the best arguments against Diana's position posted there. As a matter of fact, I believe that Diana's argument and the logic she uses therein have been applied and taken to their logical extent, which is inaction in the face of a threat by our enemy.

I believe this is the crux of the problem.

It's not, so we must just sit around with our thumbs up our asses instead. Oh, and what the hell are our soldiers doing over in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wrong answer, bring them home on the spot... It is definitely suicidal.

Predictably astute response to the question, and, in the analysis, acknowledging the hierarchy of rights in relation to life (and the philosophy of Objectivism). I'm very glad he took the question. If only the war was being fought under those terms. I believe, and have said almost as much on this thread, that the way things are going right now, we are going to be focused more on fighting the war on our own shores than abroad. Quite a mess and not conducive to liberty--in the short term--but to take a phrase from Dr. Peikoff, I'm not going to just lay down and surrender by allowing my enemies to operate more freely.

Recently I have started to grapple with this question as it applies to the combat in Afghanistan. After almost 10 years, it is starting to become my opinion that things have gotten so muddied over there, that even if the right solutions were effected, it's too late for any thing good to come of it. If after this amount of time, we started to have an aggressive war against the enemy, not only would the population cores of these nations be thoroughly confused, but so would our citizens and the world in general. Of course, the defense of the nation shouldn't be contingent on appeasing others, but I'm not really talking about appeasement here; these are just certain issues that can affect our chances of victory. Maybe it's just time to pack up and leave after a few short term goals are met. Really, I wouldn't be surprised if more and more average Americans do start advocating withdrawing from Afghanistan. It took things to get totally stupid in Iraq before people started to see past the propaganda of the neoconservatives, and then withdraw from there become a common topic. The way things are going now, in Afghanistan, the ridiculous factor keeps rising. Unfortunately, this is not even close to being good news. Withdrawing first from Iraq, and then potentially from Afghanistan, as the results stand right now, can not be taken as any sort of victory. After almost ten years of the 'war on terror,' we've got almost nothing to show for it considering the goals that really matter: protecting the national defense, reducing Islamic theocratic terrorism, and ending state sponsors of terrorism. This surrender, as you've identified, must have negative effects on liberty in our own country. Instead of fighting the enemy primarily where it is focused, abroad, the methods to fight the war on our own soil may continue on indefinitely--they may even become stronger and more aggressive to deal with foreign policy failures.

While I understand that the Israeli flotilla case did not involve our country, for those insisting on the automatic protection of rights in the time of war, how do you reconcile Israel's actions or their blockade with such a position? Furthermore, when doing combat operations in a foreign country, can only the enemy be targeted, only if it is absolutely known if it is the enemy and if no bystanders are harmed? While the effects of the war on foreign land are more pronounced than they are in our own country, there is still a war being fought here. Fortunately, hopefully permanently, in the execution of the war on our own shore, our government has not had to use much physical force. On the subject of the mosque, what is interesting is that in the past, there have been calls by objectivist's and objectivist intellectuals to target religious institutions because that is our enemy. A quick reading of Elan Journo's book, and the articles that also appear in the Objective Standard, acknowledge that fact. So, while I don't have any evidence that the founders of this mosque are colluding with the enemy, if they have any ties to the Saudi government or any of our other enemies, that would be enough for construction to be halted in my book. Actually, for me, it would only probably take just a strong suspicion to halt things, and then have a very long investigation. I think this war has carried on for so long, and it hasn't been fought with the proper moral authority and goals, that people have already lost sight that there is still a war going on.

I wasn't taking the position that every possible action could be committed in order to protect the country--a collectivistic conception of country is being used here. The government is there to protect the rights of its citizens, so I don't promote the idea of the "country" being the base unit of political ethics; therefore, there is nothing conservative about my argument. If you weren't referencing this type of conservatism, then I don't know what you would be talking about. Additionally, I never wrote or implied that the government should have a policy of violating rights, and if you are going to quote me, try to actually quote what I have written. The gist of what I previously wrote was that to uphold rights, out of context, like some libertarian, is wrong. In the process of protecting rights, our active police and government agencies sometimes violate rights. Note here that the policy is not violating rights, but is instead protecting rights. If some fugitive is on the run, maybe you'll get stopped; if a criminal goes into your yard, expect the law to give chase; when the government has reason to believe that a person of interest is in contact with you or is in your area, maybe your phones will be monitored; if a group is related to an invader who just attacked your country, they shouldn't be allowed to stock up on weapons and ammunition. Furthermore, remember also that I wrote that in order for this mosque to be banned, there must be some threat: I still stand by that opinion. As for those 'statements,' no, I don't agree with them. However, I do partially agree with one, and it somewhat applies to this discussion: “our enemies are trying to use our virtue of respecting individual rights against us, so we should stop respecting individual rights of Muslims”. While I don't know exactly how many agents of our enemy use such a method to destroy us, our virtue of respecting individual rights can definitely assist the enemy, especially when such a virtue is taken out of context.