Jake_Ellison

No. Individual rights can only exist in the context of a free state. Hamas is an Islamo-fascist terror group, and any country in the World has the right destroy it on principle, because such a group is a threat to individual rights everywhere. Your reasoning is flawed because non-initiation of force isn't the premise of Objectivist Politics. Individual rights are. Israel is infinitely closer to granting individuals their rights than Hamas or any other Palestinian authority has ever been. We support them because an Israeli victory in this conflict is the only way in which the region (or most of it) can be governed by a peaceful, rights-respecting entity. So Hamas would be happy to accept territory that has been under Israeli control for 40 years (and in fact is populated by Jews who would undoubtedly be robbed of their homes and likely killed by Hamas, unless the Israeli government does the job for them), in exchange for peace? What principles did you apply when you decided it would be a good idea for Israel to take that deal: surrender to terror and maybe it will end? No, the Palestinians have the option to take the lands they currently live on, and form a peaceful government on them (one that doesn't have any war criminals in it), or continue living under Israeli occupation. Those are the two options. Getting rid of Jewish settlements through a campaign of terror, or establishing a terrorist state run by Hamas, are not options any Israeli leader should ever leave on the table. That would be self destructive for Israel.

The video was not thought up by the group, but by a British comedy writer. So it's not a self parody, it's satire (extremely biting, dry satire, at that). And the viros didn't pick up on it when they OKd the ad as a means of promoting their ideology. Had they done that, they would've either ran with it or stopped it at the start. They wouldn't be issuing statements saying they don't think it's a good way to promote themselves anymore. That's neither true nor a valid argument. Pretty much every specific claim the group supposedly drawing all that consensus (the IPCC) made about the subject has been proven false. At this point there is nothing credible supporting the notion that GW is occurring due to industrial CO2 emissions.

Spreading Kant would mean describing his philosophy for the purpose of making it known (as opposed to for the purpose of proving a specific tenet of Objectivism wrong). So, as per those rules, you may describe any type of philosophy you wish (unilaterally or as a reply to someone's post), as long as what you are writing proves or honestly attempts to prove a specific tenet of Objectivism wrong. Keep in mind the difference between "proving Oism wrong or honestly attempting to prove Oism wrong" and "contradicting Oism". The former denotes interest in Objectivism, the latter doesn't necessarily do that. If you read the full rule #1, you'll understand why that's relevant.

Well, if the name of the game is blowing people up to save Mother Earth, good news: as of yesterday, Osama is on board.

Gates and Buffet had the conviction to give away all their money. If the citizens of a free country had two-thirds that conviction, they would give two-thirds of their money to win a war for survival. That is already far more than any government could take by force. Why would that be unimaginable? Why is it easier to imagine a group of Objectivists who would foolishly hold on to their possessions and allow themselves to be conquered by barbarians only to lose everything, than it is to imagine a group of Objectivists stepping up and doing whatever it takes to defend their country? America became a superpower (and managed to dominate the World militarily) because of its relative economic freedom. In total freedom, it would become strong enough to maintain an invincible military with a small fraction of its wealth. There would never be a chance of a totalitarian country becoming powerful enough to challenge that military.

Corporations shouldn't contribute to any type of charitable causes. They're entities set up for the profit of their shareholders. But I don't see why shareholders wouldn't turn some of their wealth over for the defense of the country, either from the dividends hey receive or by selling some of their shares, in emergencies. Bill Gates (and 40 other billionaires) just agreed to leave all their wealth to fight poverty in Africa, out of moral conviction. Why would the moral conviction of Objectivists be any weaker?

Sure, there are such incentives, I'll give you that. Why do you think those incentives are a more powerful motivator than rational self interest (which requires a person to protect himself)?

It's odd, that's for sure. At first I thought it was a parody, but no, it's from an actual environmentalist group, and those are actual English soccer stars in it.

Fine, I'll go through the trouble of linking to the posts in question. In Post 204 I quote Amaroq saying the following: "There is only one ideology that I know of that is currently waging physical war against us. Fundamentalist Islam.", and then reply: that is the fallacy of reification. (which it clearly is) In Post nr. 213 you quote Amaroq saying the following: "Why did I emphasize that they're waging a physical war against us, when it's the ideology we must defeat?", and then write: "He uses the pronoun "they" so it is clear that he is talking about people. So hopefully that clears him of the charges of reification". My reply was that no, that does not clear up anything. Instead of addressing my quote from Amaroq (the reification), you quoted a different text, to "clear up" the issue. In response, I didn't accuse you of anything, instead I simply replied that your explanation didn't clear up anything. (I explained why: without the reification I quoted and you ignored, Amaroq doesn't link this Imam to physical war) From that, you went on to complain about me accusing you of lying, and being dishonest. Far from true, I simply rejected your explanations. The rest is in your head. No, you quoted my full reply. This: "Islam is totalitarian. There is no difference between Islam and totalitarian Islam. And the plan to eradicate it would be to start removing Muslims from the face of the Earth, until they either all renounce their religion or they're all dead. Then continue on with Catholicism, which is also a totalitarian religion [...] I have no desire to eradicate either, because most of their followers are peaceful. " That text contains no comparisons between Islam and Catholicism. It simply states that Catholicism is a totalitarian religion. Nor does it contain the fallacy of equivocation, which you also alleged it does. If you continue to make those claims, you should point out the exact sentence in which the comparison occurs and the word I am equivocating on. If you continue to insult me instead, I will no longer try to explain myself, I will simply report your posts as violations of the board rules. This is the post I was referring to, in which Grames proves that the phrase Amaroq used is the reification fallacy: Post 221 It contains nothing to suggest that Amaroq made a proper argument, instead it unequivocally dismisses Amaroq's argument as fallacious. So once again, you're accusing me of ignoring things because you're not paying enough attention to get the contents of this thread straight.

Too many people on this forum underestimate science, and the level scientists are doing research on in most fields. You're not going to find an answer to your question independently of the people on the cutting edge of medical research. If you're serious about finding answers, ignoring them and going with "common sense" is not the way to go.

You should pay more attention. I accused you of changing my quote, not my posts. Which you did. I quoted Amaroq's reification, and you replaced that quote with another one, and then called me pedantic for saying it's a reification. In the mean time, Grames also posted, proving that I was right, and wikipedia in fact uses the exact thing Amaroq said as an example of reification. My post doesn't contain a comparison between Islam and Catholicism. You alleged it did, I asked you to quote it, you didn't. So I left it alone. But fine, here's my response: I'm ending the conversation because you're being an irrational bully. Thanks, I do consider myself lucky to not have to be subject to this nonsense in any way. I respect some of your contributions to the forum, but you really are being a ridiculous ass.

I don't believe you mean that. But just in case, can you provide some evidence of the seriousness of your intentions to deny the rights of a non-violent American citizen? What exactly are you planning on doing?

Can you provide evidence that the people who were shot had surrendered, and Israeli soldiers were in a position to secure them? If not, sorry, I can dismiss the circumstances they were shot in as irrelevant just fine. Soldiers are justified, under the rules of war, to kill enemy combatants in any way they wish, unless they first surrender and can safely be taken into custody. That is how all wars are fought, not just this one. Even if that were true (I doubt it is), not sure what it has to do with this situation. Everyone on this ship was a combatant, and an aggressor the second the first Israeli soldier was assaulted. Rules protecting civilians don't apply to people who set sail with the express purpose of hindering Israel's military blockade.

I accused you of being wrong. And I believe I factually proved you wrong, on both issues. In fact, now I'm accusing you of being wrong a third time, since you're also not gonna find any speculation about why you're wrong, in my posts. An office building in NY supports the killing of Americans? How? It's an inanimate object. I understand what you are saying just fine. I just don't agree with it. Ideas don't cause actions, that suggestion contradicts free will. And just because there is some meaning to the metaphor "the roots of war are ideological in nature", it doesn't follow that you have the right to use force against people for their beliefs. Not even if others who have held those same beliefs chose to wage war. In fact, you should avoid using metaphors to justify the use of force against a person altogether. Initiation of force is a concrete act committed by individuals. Unless you can show that the Imam himself has acted to initiate force, your use of force against him is unjustified. No matter what abstract principles he subscribes to, and what building he builds to preach them in. Here's Tom Boeckmann's argument: "And can there be any doubt that the Ground Zero mosque, scheduled to open on 9/11, is a celebration of the enemy's biggest coup--and that it will be so perceived by Islamic totalitarians all over the world, as well as by their ever more demoralized opponents?" Why yes there can be plenty of doubt. A mosque is not just the chosen symbol of the people who are attacking us. It is also the type of building many generations of Muslims, including a billion who are alive today, chose to pray in. I can think of nothing more monstrous than having the US government pick and choose the symbolic meaning of things and imposing their subjective choice on the American people to the point where they can declare any Muslim establishment near the WTC site a "symbol of the enemy which attacked us". Maybe to you. To me it isn't. To me an Islamic cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero (how it turned into a mosque at GZ, in your rhetoric, is beyond me) is a symbol of the presence of Muslims, and of their desire to gather and worship peacefully, in Manhattan. My evaluation of its symbolism can easily be backed up, by the countless similar establishments being used to convey that exact same meaning, everywhere there are Muslims (including in NYC). Your guess at its symbolism is speculation at best, a malicious fabrication otherwise.

There is only one claim in your posts that isn't obvious nonsense (and therefor worth addressing): the part about the boarding being illegal under international law. There are no international laws or treaties Israel and the US are a party to, that forbid blockades against an enemy or the boarding of neutral ships suspected of carrying contraband. Israel's actions were not, in any possible sense, illegal.

What comparison??? Quote me. There are Nazis who are at least as serious about Nazi ideology as this Imam is about his ideology. You don't have the right to initiate force against either. Elaborate on this one, by formulating a wider principle than one referring only to Islam and our current war against Islamists (people who seek to impose Islam on others by force). In the widest possible context (that of a generic state of war against an enemy), what beliefs and statements on the part of citizens of the defending country constitute support of the enemy? And, relying on Objectivist principles that guide the use of force, how do you justify the use of force against people who hold such beliefs or make such statements? I'm not at war with any form of Islam, or any other kind of an ideology. I oppose Islam, but am not at war with it. In fact, in such a war I would choose to uphold the First Amendment, and fight against the people seeking to wage war against Islam, or any form of it.

In my experience they're not. What's your proof?

The Republicans may not (publicly) believe in Obama's interpretation of Keynesian Economics (and the idea that the government's deficit spending can lead to economic growth), but that says nothing about their views on Marxism. Just because the Republicans want to limit spending and the deficit, that does not make them inconsistent with Marx's philosophy. There isn't a single proposal in that document that refutes Marxism, in fact there are many that fully embrace it. In fact I bet Marx would agree with Republicans that Obama's spending spree was idiotic, and that communist leaders still need to manage resources realistically.

Perhaps this helps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

I'm not a Libertarian (or a political scientist). That's not the problem at all. You didn't name the enemy fundamentalist Islam (which would be fine), instead you personified fundamentalist Islam, and said it is actively waging physical war against us (which is not fine). And I replied that that's illogical. Had you said all fundamentalist Muslims are actively waging physical war against us, I would've asked you what evidence you have of that very concrete charge, with regards to this particular fundamentalist Muslim Imam. I assume the answer would've been none, and that would've been that. Had you said some fundamentalist Muslims are waging physical war against us, and therefor all such Muslims are enemy combatants, I would've replied: that does not follow.

That's not the problem at all. You didn't name the enemy fundamentalist Islam (which would be fine), instead you personified fundamentalist Islam, and said it is actively waging physical war against us (which is not fine). And I replied that that's illogical. Had you said all fundamentalist Muslims are actively waging physical war against us, I would've asked you what evidence you have of that very concrete charge, with regards to this particular fundamentalist Muslim Imam. I assume the answer would've been none, and that would've been that. Had you said some fundamentalist Muslims are waging physical war against us, and therefor all such Muslims are enemy combatants, I would've replied: that does not follow.

Fair enough. Does that mean that if I opt out of this government program, and start trading in gold or a private currency, I become tax exempt? Just say the word, and I'll never touch another dollar again.

Yes, Professor Librescu was a hero. Not jut because of this event, he dealt with hardship in an exemplary fashion all his life. In the shooting, he had the presence of mind to not panic, and in fact act and stand up to evil, to protect his students. That takes a lot of strength of character.

Consider yourself corrected. I would most certainly not call them that. IAmMetaphysical answered your main post fully, in post nr. 202. There really is nothing more to say. You have tried to refute his answer with a reification, and that was that. And even if no one had addressed your main post, why would you feel the need to point that out? Does anyone owe you to answer your points? What if we don't think they're worth answering, are you going to keep protesting until someone does? The US did not fight an ideology in WW2. They fought the people who physically supported the war against us, in the name of that ideology (the people participating in the Japanese and German war machines). Today, those people are the Islamic regimes across the Middle East, their paramilitary proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda etc.), and their economic and military infrastructures, not American Imams. They are using physical force, this Imam is not. He is, by all accounts, a law abiding American citizen. If we left him alone, and went after the people actually connected to terror, we'd be just fine. His ideology would be defeated (because those who practice it would be defeated, and those who preach it left without practitioners), and ours would be left intact. Going after the people who speak the ideology would mean the exact opposite: we hand them victory by default, by abandoning our principles.

No, replacing my quote with a different text and calling me pedantic doesn't clear up anything. He uses the pronoun "they" to refer to all Muslims. He backs up his charge that all Muslims are at war with the US with reification (their religion is waging war against the US, so they must be waging war too). Islam is totalitarian. There is no difference between Islam and totalitarian Islam. And the plan to eradicate it would be to start removing Muslims from the face of the Earth, until they either all renounce their religion or they're all dead. Then continue on with Catholicism, which is also a totalitarian religion (I can back that up with very recent comments from the Pope, urging political leaders to enforce his religion on their people). I have no desire to eradicate either, because most of their followers are peaceful. If you wish to ask about a plan to win the war on Islamic terrorism instead, you should start a different thread. I'll answer it if I can think of anything constructive to say. But this thread is about a group of Muslims building a religious facility in New York, not about terrorism. I have seen no evidence that they are guilty of being terrorists or conspiring with any terrorists (not denying they could be, I heard rumors about the Imam's ties to various groups, but seen no evidence). That is my position and I do also agree with the way you phrased it: "We have no right to wage war against people who are not using force against us." What specifically is wrong with it? Where would the right to wage war against someone not using force against you come from? ) There are plenty of Americans holding that ideology as well. Does your plan involve modifying the Constitution to allow killing American citizens on ideological grounds?