Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
Steersman wrote: ↑
Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
Steersman wrote: ↑
LoL. "And believe me, you don't want to"? Sounds like a threat, like "nice society you have, sure wouldn't want it to turn into a shithole like most Muslim countries, now would you" ....
You're thicker than usual if you believe that it was a threat rather than a warning not to go down the Nazi path.
LoL. "You keep saying that word (Nazi) ...." Why doncha double-down and call me a misogynist and racist to boot - add pedophile & "anti-disestablishmentarianist" as cherries on top ... And I DID say "sounds like ...."
But rather some distance between removing people who don't subscribe to the laws of the land - whose values are "flatly incompatible with democracy and human rights", and putting them into ovens. A distinction that seems lost on you; wonder why that might be ...
You make some credible observations about the nature of Islam in the West, and the support it finds among extremist nutcases (most of them, one might reasonably suggest - your relatives excepted of course ...) But you seem rather remarkably unwilling to consider that your suggested policies are little better than pissing against the wind, than trying to bail out the sinking Titanic with a tea cup.
Islam won't EVER reform if we turn a blind eye to the egregrious barbarism and savagery, and manifest psychosis that it entails. And challenging or threatening Muslims with deportation may actually precipitate a rather necessary and very public "full and proper discussion of Islam"
; may even help precipitate a general and equally necessary discussion on religion as well.
Dude, your solutions to barbarism and savagery is more barbarism and savagery.
LoL - you should try your hand at stand-up comedy since you clearly have some great lines ... ;)
So we should NEVER go to war because of the possibility of "collateral damage"? Methinks you've been living in Switzerland too long - long time since y'all have had to sacrifice blood and treasure for survival.
However, while it is, of course, a rather sad commentary on the state of human "civilization" that recourse to that is all too frequently a necessity, the brute fact of the matter is that it is, and that it tends to result in some of the all too regretable consequences.
And I certainly don't think it's much of a stretch to argue that Western civilization - such as it is - has been at war with Islam - with some few interregnums of what passes for peace - for some 1400 years:
): In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST : TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.
Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man's hand against him.
And, more credibly:
Wikipedia wrote:The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.
Amen to that. Maybe something we should be keeping in the forefronts of our minds. And consider that those who wish to sweep that rather stark though entirely accurate summary under the table might reasonably be construed as little better than traitors. Apropos of, you might consider reading Paul Berman's Flight of the Intellectuals
, a theme that Ibn Warraq used to good effect ("Trahison des Clercs") in his Why I'm Not a Muslim
Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
Are you familiar with the Nietzsche aphorism "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster"? You immerse yourself in the worst of religious extremism, of theocracy. You read about all the nuts and the hateful ones. But you haven't been careful, and when you stared into the abyss, the abyss stared into you.
You're on a very dark path, Steers. I can't even say I'm angry at you. You're trapped inside your clichés, inside your mind. You've become a caricature of yourself.
Yea; think I've run across that aphorism a time or two in the past ... But I'll readily concede that while "fighting the impossible fight; fighting the unbeatable foe, righting the unrightable wrong" does have its charms - its "arrow in the blue", it also does have it's potential flaws and pitfalls - all too easy for the tail to wind up wagging the dog. But I think I'm rather some distance from being "one toke over the line" ...
As for "cliches", they of course become that way by repetition. But that hardly precludes their having, periodically at least, some utility and value - your vaunted liberal precepts for example ...
Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
You love looking for precise meaning and for the limits of the rational mind and the beginning of irrationality.
Well, I'm certainly glad that you at least noticed; gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that not all of my time here has been wasted ... ;)
But somewhat apropos of which, you might take a look at the Wikipedia article on Lewis Carroll's, "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles
". Don't think many people really realize that what passes for logic and reason in their supposed "arguments" is frequently riven with spurious assumptions, and untenable if not demented rules of inference. Paraphrasing some Greek (?) philosopher, an unexamined argument isn't worth peddling, much less championing.
Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
Perhaps you should take a pause from spamming your links, and instead direct your search for meaning and irrationality to yourself. What is that drives you, Steers? What is the dictionary definition of your deep emotional attachment to your ideas? Anger? Hate?
LoL. I'd go, somewhat sardonically, with an aphorism of (I think) Pascal who said our mono-manias can drive us like clockwork.
But I suppose all of that might qualify as a case-in-point where ad hominems
might not be "fallacious", and where "questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue". So maybe a fair question as to "what drives me", what is the "deep emotional attachment to my [?] ideas". Although one might reasonably suggest that they're hardly just my ideas - nothing new under the sun, and all that - and I sure haven't been reluctant to give quite explicit, if not verbose (or pedantic), answers to that question - a salient one of which is my signature quote of Francis Bacon.
However, I might argue that I'm hardly unique in that regard - you might reflect on a phrase from the Desiderata: "many people strive for high ideals" - even you and Brive ... ;) Both of whom, I will readily concede, probably have more than a grain of truth on their sides. Although I also think you're both barking up SOME of the wrong trees, at least to some extent, and that largely due to some "unexamined assumptions", and a reluctance to face some "inconvenient truths". And, in your case, that seems to manifest itself in a reluctance to address my argument that your "solution" to the "Muslim problem" is little better than to counsel bailing out a sinking Titanic with a teacup; all you can manage, apparently - for all of your cogent analysis of the problem itself, is to move the goal posts and throw out some red herrings by questioning my motives: