Daedalus

Members
  • Content count

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I have to insist that calling men "sheep" is indeed a metaphor, and that using it as an argument is indeed fallacious. What you just wrote in answer to that exact statement does nothing to dispute it. I am curious as to why you disagree, so again, if any of my specific points I made, concerning your arguments, are wrong, please explain why in terms of Logic. Until you are willing to embrace Logic as the method by which rational men must debate and settle their disagreements, I do not wish to debate the actual issue of Islam with you. I will settle for simply rejecting your arguments, and presenting mine instead, in a way that is as logical as I can make it.
  2. I have no idea why he said that. If he was in this thread, I would at least question it, but as it is, there's no point in attacking someone who can't defend himself, for a fleeting remark in a podcast. The main point is he's against allowing the people behind the mosque to continue their activities, because they actually have ties to terror groups (not because they're Muslims!!!). That part is perfectly reasonable, though I would add (and I doubt Dr. Peikoff would disagree) that the means of achieving that must be within the law.
  3. Your posts (including this metaphor "sheep" used to argue for the denial of people's rights) are a treason to Reason.
  4. Of course not. Then again, we aren't morally obligated to defend anyone's rights. Just to not violate them.
  5. Let's say someone believes in Sharia, and wishes it was the law of the land, so much so that they fit your definition of being a criminal worthy of having their rights restricted. How can him simply changing his mind, turn him from a criminal into a non-criminal? Can you think of a single current crime where the defendant can throw out the "I denounce those leaders who made me believe in this in the past" defense, and walk?
  6. This is a logical fallacy called reification (treating an abstraction as if it were a concrete). Islam doesn't want anything, Islamists (those Muslims who have chosen to follow Islam to the letter), want to do what you described. So you shouldn't use the phrase "Islam wants to do something" to advocate taking action against individuals who may or may not intend to do that thing. Men have free will, they are not possessed by Islam. That's why, thanks to the Founders, we are all free to read, speak, study, and proselytize absolutely any creed, no matter how evil, as long as we do not act on it in violation of others' rights.
  7. We should advocate arresting and charging him for his ties to terror groups (if they exist), or treating him as an enemy combatant and suspending his habeas corpus rights (if he is an immediate threat to the welfare of the United States). We certainly shouldn't advocate any restrictions on his rights, outside the established framework of our laws and Constitution.
  8. Your starting position is that teaching the Koran is inherently criminal, because it urges people to kill. The Koran is what you cite as the cause of Islam being a criminal religion, that must be banned. You don't find it a little odd that you're now faulting me for not reading something that, according to you, should not be allowed to be taught because it presumably causes those who learn it to murder?
  9. I've been to a mosque before, and I know people who attend regularly. So I know that none of this is true.
  10. I know plenty who don't.
  11. The Russians in Retrograde

    It was a Russian made plane, bought by Poland in the '90s, and owned and operated by the Polish Air Force. It was the plane the Polish President usually traveled in.
  12. You have proof that all US mosques are preaching the overthrow of the government? Present it.
  13. Some want a moral political system, some don't. Those who want it have the right to enforce it (whether they should try or not depends on the circumstances, but they always have the right to do it). The fact that some don't want it is exactly why it needs to be enforced. The above paragraph is something I consider a very important idea, that I honestly believe in. But I'm not arguing for its truth value, I'm merely arguing for my right to say it, irrespective of its truth value. If I do, then a Muslim should have the right to say the same exact thing (even though his definition of 'moral' is different from mine), because ideas, good or evil, should never be censored.
  14. When did I do that?
  15. Venezuela seizes American oil rigs

    Yes. In an ideal world, they do. Obviously, the reaction must be limited by the resources available to the country's military, and the risks involved must be considered, but in Venezuela, where there are so many American and Western interests, war should absolutely be on the table, to intimidate Chavez into ending the nationalizations, and/or Venezuelans into not supporting him. And even in the reality of our present world, where it would be foolish of a company to think anyone will fully protect their rights (even if they're in the Gulf of Mexico, not in Venezuela), it doesn't make them any less victims when they are robbed. To steal one of Penn Jillette's analogies, just because someone is walking around in slutty clothes in a bad neighborhood at night, they still have the right to not be raped, and still should in no way be blamed when it happens.