Mercury

Canadian Publisher Persecuted for Cartoons

137 posts in this topic

The product of that idea is anarchy. If everyone followed only those laws they judged moral, assuming they won't get caught, then there is no way to guarantee individual liberty when those liberties are judged immoral by some. I'm not saying, of course, that morals can be whatever anybody wants them to be. I'm saying they're objective, rationally established and not everyone is bound by rationality. Given the abundance of religious, environmentalist, and socialist people in our country I think it's clear how dangerous it is to be arbitrarily subjected to what others judge moral.

The rule of law is so vital to a properly functioning government precisely because it protects men from the morality of others.

The implicit premise here is that there is no way of telling moral laws from immoral "laws." I disagree in the strongest possible terms.

Well, I also strongly disagree with that premise. There is difference between a law that furthers my life and a law that infringes on my liberty. :huh:

However, I don't in my argument imply such a premise, or I didn't mean to. What I meant is that whether a law is moral or immoral isn't an obvious fact like the existence of the sun or a stone. It's something that needs to be learned by a diligent thinking process, and the fact of the matter is that many people make errors and evasions in that process. If it were up to each individual who decided a law was immoral, whether or not they were going to obey it, then we would end in anarchy. When a law is immoral the proper course is to change the law or the people/system that made it, not throw away the principle that makes law possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The method is wrong, and the conclusions false. But, as I said, this matter should be discussed on a separate thread.

Please don't indicate I am wrong in such an absolute and matter of fact tone without simultaneously providing evidence for why I am wrong!

You had written:

If you'd like to discuss this, open another thread. But, before you do that, kindly search THE FORUM for all the immigration threads, reading them thoroughly, keeping the Objectivist view of moral principles and individual rights firmly in mind.
I don't want a discussion, I just want evidence for your claim that Rush and Bill are anti-immigrants.

[Emphasis added.]

So, I took you at your word. Or shouldn't I?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because a certain law may not be that great can't be used as a justification for going on a free-for-all of breaking that specific law; otherwise we could have complete chaos.

I would like to hear you thoughts, or anyone's, if the scenario was different. Let us say that you are not a U.S. citizen and instead you are sitting in a communist country and no route for ever getting "legal" citizenship to a freer country. Your days, weeks, months and life are filled with hardships beyond most people's comprehension and that is all you have to look forward to. You could sit around waiting for death to come or you could make it happen.

Also, please show in the past where chaos happened by having open immigration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The method is wrong, and the conclusions false. But, as I said, this matter should be discussed on a separate thread.

Please don't indicate I am wrong in such an absolute and matter of fact tone without simultaneously providing evidence for why I am wrong!

You had written:

If you'd like to discuss this, open another thread. But, before you do that, kindly search THE FORUM for all the immigration threads, reading them thoroughly, keeping the Objectivist view of moral principles and individual rights firmly in mind.
I don't want a discussion, I just want evidence for your claim that Rush and Bill are anti-immigrants.

[Emphasis added.]

So, I took you at your word. Or shouldn't I?

No, I just said I wanted evidence, and you didn't provide me with evidence.

My main complaint was that the post made was pointless: by itself, simply asserting another person is wrong literally adds nothing to the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, please show in the past where chaos happened by having open immigration.

Actually Joshua Mayer in a well reasoned post provided several countries that collapsed because of unchecked immigration. From my understanding, the immigration happened in an unchecked way so that cultural displacement happened and you ended up with two separate pseudo-nations within a single country. The country would then collapse because because of a complete lack of unity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, I don't in my argument imply such a premise, or I didn't mean to. What I meant is that whether a law is moral or immoral isn't an obvious fact like the existence of the sun or a stone. It's something that needs to be learned by a diligent thinking process, and the fact of the matter is that many people make errors and evasions in that process. If it were up to each individual who decided a law was immoral, whether or not they were going to obey it, then we would end in anarchy. When a law is immoral the proper course is to change the law or the people/system that made it, not throw away the principle that makes law possible.

How complicated is it to understand that one has the right to be left alone?

Do we imagine that a significant percentage of the "New Race of Man" had mastered these issues before joining the fight against George III and Parliament?

Intellectuals need to be able to trace Rights all the way back to A is A -- without that, we get skyscrappers full of "laws." Actual people don't necessarily need to be able to do this.

Irrespective of either their understanding of the argument for Rights or their motives, so-called illegal-immigrants aren't violating anyone's Rights by coming here. What they are doing is defying irrationality, which is always a good thing . Same goes for those who cheat the IRS , speed on an empty highway, defy regulations that make it impossible to manufacture anything efficiently, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The method is wrong, and the conclusions false. But, as I said, this matter should be discussed on a separate thread.

Please don't indicate I am wrong in such an absolute and matter of fact tone without simultaneously providing evidence for why I am wrong!

You had written:

If you'd like to discuss this, open another thread. But, before you do that, kindly search THE FORUM for all the immigration threads, reading them thoroughly, keeping the Objectivist view of moral principles and individual rights firmly in mind.
I don't want a discussion, I just want evidence for your claim that Rush and Bill are anti-immigrants.

[Emphasis added.]

So, I took you at your word. Or shouldn't I?

No, I just said I wanted evidence, and you didn't provide me with evidence.

I did provide you with evidence - here.

My main complaint was that the post made was pointless: by itself, simply asserting another person is wrong literally adds nothing to the discussion.

No, the post was not pointless: I disagreed with your false conclusions and faulty method, and pointed out the grounds upon which I was prepared to discuss them. But, you had said you didn't "want a discussion," you "just want[ed] evidence." But, in this latest quote, you use the word "discussion" again [see boldface emphasis]. Which is it? A discussion or no discussion? A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, please show in the past where chaos happened by having open immigration.

Actually Joshua Mayer in a well reasoned post provided several countries that collapsed because of unchecked immigration. From my understanding, the immigration happened in an unchecked way so that cultural displacement happened and you ended up with two separate pseudo-nations within a single country. The country would then collapse because because of a complete lack of unity.

This country had immigrants coming from almost all over the globe in the 19th century and we are still here. Look further as it is not primarily the immigrants, instead maybe it is the countries leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The method is wrong, and the conclusions false. But, as I said, this matter should be discussed on a separate thread.

Please don't indicate I am wrong in such an absolute and matter of fact tone without simultaneously providing evidence for why I am wrong!

You had written:

If you'd like to discuss this, open another thread. But, before you do that, kindly search THE FORUM for all the immigration threads, reading them thoroughly, keeping the Objectivist view of moral principles and individual rights firmly in mind.
I don't want a discussion, I just want evidence for your claim that Rush and Bill are anti-immigrants.

[Emphasis added.]

So, I took you at your word. Or shouldn't I?

No, I just said I wanted evidence, and you didn't provide me with evidence.

I did provide you with evidence - here.

You are asking me to look up the evidence myself, but you are the one making the argument! Also, I've watched and listened to their shows, and I have never noticed this. So unless you provide examples of cases where they have done this, I'm not interested, and simply saying "watch the show" is not evidence.
My main complaint was that the post made was pointless: by itself, simply asserting another person is wrong literally adds nothing to the discussion.

No, the post was not pointless: I disagreed with your false conclusions and faulty method, and pointed out the grounds upon which I was prepared to discuss them. But, you had said you didn't "want a discussion," you "just want[ed] evidence." But, in this latest quote, you use the word "discussion" again [see boldface emphasis]. Which is it? A discussion or no discussion? A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect.

That was sloppy word usage on my part, and really isn't worth trying to snipe me over; I don't need a lecture on the law of identity. No I don't want a discussion, because frankly I have no interest in getting into a philosophy debate with you. I simply wanted evidence of the specific cases where these guys have been anti-immigrant or racist. Now are you going to provide actual evidence, or just be picky with semantics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are asking me to look up the evidence myself, but you are the one making the argument! Also, I've watched and listened to their shows, and I have never noticed this. So unless you provide examples of cases where they have done this, I'm not interested, and simply saying "watch the show" is not evidence.

Just to expand this, when someone proposes an argument to me, the burden isn't on me to perform an investigation and try to disprove or verify their evidence. It is on them to actually provide evidence that I can examine. Otherwise every person in the world could just run up to me, make an insane claim, and then throw a huge book at me and expect me to read it cover to cover to verify what they are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill O'Reilly has Michelle Malkin guest host his show many times. See also his self-hosted shows and written columns; here is an example:

http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=21709

See also this Google search:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=B...G=Google+Search

Rush Limbaugh also has a history of similar sentiment:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=42632

See also this Google search:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=...ion&spell=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would also note that the father of logic and Objectivism, Aristotle, was similarly charged, but had enough regard for his own life to flee Athens, stating "I will not allow the Athenians to sin against philosophy twice."

Way before I found Objectivism, I couldn't stand the Socrates Suicide Story. I hope that, someday -- in the lobby of BB&T NY? -- someone paints a huge mural of Aristotle walking away from Athens, countering this incredibly revered image of all that is wrong with the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction:

Bill O'Reilly has had Michelle Malkin guest host his show many times. See also his self-hosted shows and written columns; here is an example:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Way before I found Objectivism, I couldn't stand the Socrates Suicide Story. I hope that, someday -- in the lobby of BB&T NY? -- someone paints a huge mural of Aristotle walking away from Athens, countering this incredibly revered image of all that is wrong with the world.

That's a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill O'Reilly has Michelle Malkin guest host his show many times.
Michelle Malkin is a great woman, so I think this is great.
See also his self-hosted shows and written columns; here is an example:

http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=21709

See also this Google search:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=B...G=Google+Search

Rush Limbaugh also has a history of similar sentiment:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=42632

See also this Google search:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=...ion&spell=1

You gave me google searches of articles on illegal immigration? :huh:

Where is the specific evidence of Rush or Bill "denigrating immigrants"? I'm still waiting patiently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill O'Reilly has Michelle Malkin guest host his show many times.
Michelle Malkin is a great woman, so I think this is great.

Michelle Malkin is only great in the eyes of conservatives.

Where is the specific evidence of Rush or Bill "denigrating immigrants"? I'm still waiting patiently.

In the link I provided, Bill O'Reilly wrote:

Thousands of Americans have been killed by illegal aliens, and the only thing that can stop the madness is a public outcry because our politicians are too cowardly to crackdown.

This is an evil statement, because it uses non-objective law and epistemic equivocation to denigrate all the morally upright individuals who happen to be in transgression of the non-objective law. Haven't "thousands of Americans" been killed by Americans? Why isolate an immigration status shared by millions of morally pristine individuals?

To repeat my earlier position: if you wish to contest my claim(s), you will have to enter into discussion - you cannot eat your cake and have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill O'Reilly has Michelle Malkin guest host his show many times.
Michelle Malkin is a great woman, so I think this is great.

Michelle Malkin is only great in the eyes of conservatives.

I didn't know you speak for all Objectivists or students of Objectivism.
Where is the specific evidence of Rush or Bill "denigrating immigrants"? I'm still waiting patiently.

In the link I provided, Bill O'Reilly wrote:

Thousands of Americans have been killed by illegal aliens, and the only thing that can stop the madness is a public outcry because our politicians are too cowardly to crackdown.

This is an evil statement, because it uses non-objective law and epistemic equivocation to denigrate all the morally upright individuals who happen to be in transgression of the non-objective law. Haven't "thousands of Americans" been killed by Americans? Why isolate an immigration status shared by millions of morally pristine individuals?

This is an evil statement? I'm sorry, but this is getting borderline ridiculous. His point is that the illegal aliens who commit these crimes shouldn't have been here in the first place. Many cases have been cited where an illegal alien commits a felony, isn't deported, and then goes on to do much worse crimes. What's wrong with complaining about this? If someone you loved was murdered by an illegal alien, and the government knew this individual was both a lawbreaker and an illegal alien, wouldn't you be a little peeved that no one had bothered to deport him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill O'Reilly has Michelle Malkin guest host his show many times.
Michelle Malkin is a great woman, so I think this is great.

Michelle Malkin is only great in the eyes of conservatives.

I didn't know you speak for all Objectivists or students of Objectivism.
Where is the specific evidence of Rush or Bill "denigrating immigrants"? I'm still waiting patiently.

In the link I provided, Bill O'Reilly wrote:

Thousands of Americans have been killed by illegal aliens, and the only thing that can stop the madness is a public outcry because our politicians are too cowardly to crackdown.

This is an evil statement, because it uses non-objective law and epistemic equivocation to denigrate all the morally upright individuals who happen to be in transgression of the non-objective law. Haven't "thousands of Americans" been killed by Americans? Why isolate an immigration status shared by millions of morally pristine individuals?

This is an evil statement? I'm sorry, but this is getting borderline ridiculous. His point is that the illegal aliens who commit these crimes shouldn't have been here in the first place. Many cases have been cited where an illegal alien commits a felony, isn't deported, and then goes on to do much worse crimes. What's wrong with complaining about this? If someone you loved was murdered by an illegal alien, and the government knew this individual was both a lawbreaker and an illegal alien, wouldn't you be a little peeved that no one had bothered to deport him?

Do you want a discussion or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mercury, I'm still waiting for actual evidence of Rush or Bill denigrating immigrants. I don't want quotes about illegal immigrants that you interpret to be criticisms of all immigrants, and I don't want psychoanalysis of their epistemological processes.

If Rush, Bill, and the "ilk" are so bad, why is it that you have still never presented me with hard evidence despite repeated requests?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill O'Reilly has Michelle Malkin guest host his show many times.
Michelle Malkin is a great woman, so I think this is great.

Michelle Malkin is only great in the eyes of conservatives.

I didn't know you speak for all Objectivists or students of Objectivism.
Where is the specific evidence of Rush or Bill "denigrating immigrants"? I'm still waiting patiently.

In the link I provided, Bill O'Reilly wrote:

Thousands of Americans have been killed by illegal aliens, and the only thing that can stop the madness is a public outcry because our politicians are too cowardly to crackdown.

This is an evil statement, because it uses non-objective law and epistemic equivocation to denigrate all the morally upright individuals who happen to be in transgression of the non-objective law. Haven't "thousands of Americans" been killed by Americans? Why isolate an immigration status shared by millions of morally pristine individuals?

This is an evil statement? I'm sorry, but this is getting borderline ridiculous. His point is that the illegal aliens who commit these crimes shouldn't have been here in the first place. Many cases have been cited where an illegal alien commits a felony, isn't deported, and then goes on to do much worse crimes. What's wrong with complaining about this? If someone you loved was murdered by an illegal alien, and the government knew this individual was both a lawbreaker and an illegal alien, wouldn't you be a little peeved that no one had bothered to deport him?

Do you want a discussion or not?

No, just evidence. You provided "evidence", and I was criticizing what was provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, just evidence. You provided "evidence", and I was criticizing what was provided.

For the evidence you seek, all you have to do is go to their web-sites and type in immigration, and then read what they have to say, it is that simple. Once you are done with their sites, please read Harry Binswanger's immigration article (linked below) and let us know who you think is more objective on immigration.

http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=4620

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Way before I found Objectivism, I couldn't stand the Socrates Suicide Story. I hope that, someday -- in the lobby of BB&T NY? -- someone paints a huge mural of Aristotle walking away from Athens, countering this incredibly revered image of all that is wrong with the world.

That's a good idea.

I tried sketching it but one can only get so far with the stick figure technique.

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the complaint has been, or will be, dropped against Ezra Levant. Levant, however, thinks it's a "temporary, tactical truce" and has promised to file a civil suit against the Islamic totalitarian.

From the National Post:

Muslim leader drops Ezra Levant cartoon complaint

Western Standard publisher plans to launch a civil lawsuit

Graeme Morton, Canwest News Service Published: Tuesday, February 12, 2008

CALGARY -- Calgary Muslim leader Syed Soharwardy says he is withdrawing his Alberta Human Rights Commission complaint against former Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant.

The complaint was launched in February 2006, after the Western Standard and the Jewish Free Press reprinted cartoons from a Danish newspaper that many in the Muslim world felt insulted the prophet Muhammad. The cartoons sparked violent protests in a number of countries.

"Over the two years that we have gone through the process, I understand that most Canadians see this as an issue of freedom of speech, that that principle is sacred and holy in our society," said Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada.

"I believe Canadian society is mature enough not to absorb the messages that the cartoons sent. Only a very small fraction of Canadian media decided to publish those cartoons."

Mr. Levant said he isn't buying Mr. Soharwardy's promise, calling it a "temporary, tactical truce."

"I don't believe him. He thought this would be easy to do, just sic the human rights commission on me and it would be done. But I decided to fight back," said Mr. Levant.

"He's hurting right now. . . . What he's now saying he is going to do is not a true reflection of his feelings."

Mr. Levant said he plans to launch a civil lawsuit against Mr. Soharwardy to recover the tens of thousands of dollars he said he has spent battling the complaint.

"I put in at least 100 hours fighting this guy. He may want to run away from this issue, but I'm not going to. His values are out of sync with Canadian society."

[...]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites