Richard Wiig

Iran doesn't need to happen for things to get worse for Israel. All that's needed is an anti-American shift. Where does the sentiments of the military, in general, lie?

Ayatollahs' dictate to people and oppress freedom. I dictate nothing and support liberty. If I was anally retentive I'd say that you were being less than objective. I'm not anally retentive, so I'll just say that you're an arsehole. Anyhow, Ayatollah, carry on. I can't read your bullshit any more. You go on ignore with the other cranks of OL

It was widely reported in the news exactly as I just said it, William. The concgegation was divided, but he was sent packing to Pakistan, and the spokesman for those who sent him packing said it was for his jihadist views. I don't care to, nor have the time to, research every damn thing I read for accuracy, much less trawl large amounts of data looking for links. If someone wants to find it they can google and do their own searching. Just because I didn't do it doens't mean I'm trying to hide anything. If Mike wants to look into the incident further, he will. If it turns out to have been reported inaccurately, then he can come back and tell me civilly and I'd accept that. That's how civil conversations go. Anyway, the essence of my post was Michael's attacking the messenger as opposed to the message. It seems that kind of thing is fine with you so long as it's biased to your worldview.

If you actually take the time to get to know Mr Spencer, you'll realise he is not anti-muslim whatsoever. I challenge you to produce just instance of him being anti-muslim. Also, as to his agenda, which many here seem to know about, just what is this agenda you are talking about?

Mike. The Imam from Auckland's largest mosque is a sufi from Pakistan, and he's recently been chased out of New Zealand for posting clips on Youtube that amounted to promoting jihad against non-muslims. Michael is shooting the messenger here as opposed to the message. All he needs to do is address the message and show where Mr Spencer is wrong, but he doesn't do that. I find that strange for someone who is supposedly an objectivist. P.S. It's especially weird that Objectivists put engergy into making apologies for Islam rather than actually fighting the evil bilge. Mr Scherk knocks Pamela Geller as a paranoid loon, but she has more energy in the cause for freedom than I've ever seen from William Scherk. Mike, Be careful with agenda-driven people like Robert Spencer

Robert, I got a chuckle out of that, myself. But I admit, it's kinda cool to see you speaking up. Thanks. Michael Well yes, I am ignorant of Michael Stuart Kelly, just as he is ignorant of me. However, his spying of bigots behind every statement against Islam speaks to me of PC'ness.

Put it this way, then. Islam or Christianity?

If he had a psychological drive to commit violence against others, then he found a sanctioning of it in Islam. If Christianity offered it to him then he wouldn't need to convert would he. I don't know why you even entertain the idea, given the overwhelmingly obvious difference between the two. Whether he was made by Islam, or psychologically prone to violence prior to Islam, is irrelevant. Islam sanctions the violence either way. Islam is the perfect creed for every would be murderer and thug. That is the reality of it.

Richard, What a load of BS. You really should read before you make that kind of claim. I know it takes effort, but that's the way rationality works. What you just did is another example of judging, then claiming facts to fit it without any kind of verification. Here on OL, we actually did the contrary of what you claimed about the cartoons. We even posted the images. Robert Bidinotto was active at that time and the pertinent copy of The New Individualist was amply discussed. I've even discussed this issue with LM from a freedom of speech stance. Do you need to be baby-spoon-fed or can you look that stuff up on your own? Don't worry about any feelings of shame of being wrong. (That's what people normally feel when they are caught serving up BS to themselves, then loud-mouthing it to everyone else.) I don't expect a retraction, at least not until you start adopting a more correct thinking sequence. But I will expose incorrect crap for what it is. Michael I knew when I said "people like you" that I didn't know your stance on those who held the cartoons on high, but I took a wild stab that you probably would have. You come across as PC enough to be capable of it. I still put you in the league of those who are enabling Islam. P.S. The rest of it, btw, is not bs. The West did roll over. Very, very, very few people actually stood up to it. It's funny how you spend so much time on non-essentials, such as my off the cuff comment. By all means, deal with it, but not at the expense of what's truly important.

He may have done this somewhere other than this thread, I do not know, but where has he bashed anyone who is not devout in this thread? Where? I'm really at a loss as to where you are coming from. Justice is to judge someone objectively, but I don't see that from you when you judge Bob here. There's nothing but injustice.

This is a perfect example of normative before cognitive reasoning. And that's the root of bigotry. Michael How do you figure that? By what standard do you judge devout Islamic religiosity to equate to being a good person? You're essentially claiming that Bob hasn't studied Islam before he reached his conclusion. I don't know how you reached that conclusion from his post, because I certainly can't see it. I don't have a clue what Bob does or doesn't know about Islam. Micheal writes nonsense, quite regularly. Just have him answer this question: What can you say about the moral character of a person that is an ardent, devout communist? Being a devout anything means in the simplest terms that the moral teachings and conclusions of the body of thought in question are largely or completely in line with the person's own morality. What I can conclude, quite easily, is that a devout communist or muslim MUST have a moral code virtually directly opposed to my own. I think Michael (and certainly Rand without question) would be happy to make this conclusion wrt communism (in fact, Rand quite emphatically did on many occasions) but he denies the obvious conclusion wrt to Islam. "Normative before cognitive" - nonsense. He simply puts political correctness or some other distaste for the truth ahead of logic. He has demonstrated numerous times that he has no idea what bigotry is at all. He doesn't even understand the ideas behind Dr. Seuss's "Sneetches" - I've tried to explain it - no avail. Bob Nicely put, Bob.

Yes, I knew you'd say that. Well, it might have value to you, Michael, but it's a bit like fiddling while Rome burns. Richard, Zero value to whom?

This is another example of normative before cognitive reasoning. My words don't have to be explained from a filter of bias. Nobody will find what I am "essentially claiming" as given by you unless they adopt your bias and feel the need to push an oversimplified view of the Islamic world. On the contrary, as I consistently define my terms, my meaning is pretty clear to most of the readers. But, judging from your posts, I can see how you don't understand my meaning. The correct fundamental thinking sequence is identify, then evaluate. When you invert that, i.e., judge, then go about seeking facts to justify the judgment, you miss a lot. Rand called this blank-out, but that makes it sound like a conscious choice to not see. From what I observe (in general, not just in this case), it is more like a blindness imposed by an incorrect thinking sequence. It is impossible to rationally judge what you do not know. That goes for anywhere at any time. You just cannot refuse to identify and claim to be rational. But it is not impossible to judge haphazardly without knowing. People do that all the time. You just have to give up the need to correctly identify something, then bash away to your heart's content. If you find enough people who do the same so you can get some social proof, the judgment even feels good inside. Suddenly there's a good "us" to fight the evil "them." Just don't examine the premises too closely and you will be fine in that world. Er... unless you interact with people who think for themselves according to the identify, then evaluate system. Your pre-chewed memes (which Rand colorfully called "bromides") stop working with those folks. Michael Huh? You haven't actually answered any of my questions. In a long-winded way you've merely said that I don't know how to think properly. You haven't enlightened me one iota as to how you reached your conclusion about Bob from his post. In fact, when I think about it you havne't answered any of my questions. How about answering this one I asked earlier: What's wrong with hating a creed that leads to atrocities such as Beslan, Mumbai, and blowing people to pieces in airport baggage claim areas?

How does it distort the story if it actually was considered the most salient point by the actors involved? Libertarian Muslim has told you that it was the most salient point to them. He knows the actors involved, and you don't, so why do you step in and tell him he's got it all wrong when you don't even know the people he's talking about? Your focus on the slap distorts the story for those who do not know any other details of the events in Tunisia.

You expect people to accept those ideas just as you have? What makes you think that the devoutly religious will accept them? One consequence I've noticed from the Islamic crackdown on freedom of speech in the West - that is through such things as rioting and murdering - is that the devoutly Christian are becoming more emboldened to speak out against freedom of speech themselves. They're beginning to push more and be more accepting of the idea of a ban on blasphemy, and most people don't give a damn about that. What did the West do in the face of the cartoon fracas? It rolled over and stuck its arse in the air. Those who actually didn't stick their arse in the air were denounced as bigots by people such as yourself. If there is a movement for freedom then it's only a glimmer of a movement.

This is a perfect example of normative before cognitive reasoning. And that's the root of bigotry. Michael How do you figure that? By what standard do you judge devout Islamic religiosity to equate to being a good person? You're essentially claiming that Bob hasn't studied Islam before he reached his conclusion. I don't know how you reached that conclusion from his post, because I certainly can't see it. I don't have a clue what Bob does or doesn't know about Islam.

Of course I need to give a damn about accuracy, and I do. I don't think that's what really concerns you though. You don't need to give a damn about truth or accuracy.

You know, I really don't give a damn. I don't need to get every thing exactly right all of the time. There is a mountain of incontrovertible evidence that there's a global jihad underway, and it is murderous and destructive and heinous and evil, yet you prefer to spend your time picking holes in people who take that seriously, as if the people you are picking holes in are the ones who are murderous, heinous and evil. Good show to you, dude. Good show, dude. Good luck in finding the exit from your intellectual cul de sac.

Richard: Let us try this, if you had that "magic wand" in the what if scenario world, how would you re-make Islam in a manner that you would be comfortable with? I mean this question, in an open-handed manner. Believe me, I am not naive and I see the threat, but I also am a person who believes that constructive change is possible. Adam All that Islam needs (in terms of it not being a threat to us, but only to its followers) is to be rid of the Jihad imperative, but for that to happen the Qur'an must be seen in an interpretive light and not as the literal word of God. Trouble is, so far as Islam is concerned, it is firmly entrenched as the literal word of god. I don't know how Islam can be reformed. I'm really not sure that it can be. As lovers of freedom, we have to simply protect ourselves from it.

Richard, It doesn't "keep me happy." It fills me with sadness and pity. It really does. Michael Well, you shouldn't waste your time on it, because I am not a spiteful bigot. It's what you see, or think you see, but you are wrong. There's are far more important things to focus on. The recent bombing in the airport in Moscow and what it is is what's important. Whether or not I am a bigot is of zero value.

Tribal would be the right word for that. If someone slaps my brother and humiliates him, I dont' feel humiliated too, least of all my entire family, or my entire town. We are more individualist in our thinking than that. If that mentality (and it's a distinctively Islamic flavoured mentality) is indicative of the broader Tunisian mentality, then it's truly difficult to see how freedom will arise. Perhaps tribe isn't the correct word, his family yes, and his town were all humiliated by it.

I know you judged me, Michael. I was simply saying you are off in your judgement. Really, I don't care. Think of me as a spiteful bigot if that keeps you happy.

A repetition of left-wing tripe, Brant.

So there's a small tribe in Tunisia that treats women as inferiors by virture of being women, but all the rest of them treat women as equals? You're referring to a small tribe,

Michael: You think I post out of spite, but you don't know it. You don't know me one iota, yet you act as if you do. I know that spite doesn't drive, so that's all that matters. You haven't answered my questions.