Good call by you to quit. You really dug yourself a big hole.
Quit? There was nothing more to argue - your points were hairsplitting on the one hand and purely fallacious misunderstanding on the other. But you can keep trolling if you really want - after all you’re a moderator.
If you feel that being corrected or called out on bad posts is trolling, then you’re going to have a rough time of posting on this forum because nonsense gets called out whether it is you or it is me.
Precision is not hairsplitting, and avoiding epistemic errors and applying a consistent framework is not “fallacious misunderstanding”.
If you need me to recap your errors in this thread, I would be happy to do so.
Whatever you think of Islam, the original post is nonsensical.
He’s saying that Michael Sheuer is wrong to oppose an aggressive foreign policy, because Muslims are statists. But then that should mean we should go to war against Europe and everyone else. Each state in the US should go to war against all others. And how might we fight them but through the state itself? You think the foreign policy of Bush/Obama has anything to do with libertarianism in that region contra to their supposed statist revolution?
Imagine if we started bombing and occupying Germany. “Well they are social democrats. And that is incompatible with libertarianism. So libertarians need to get real about their threat to the US constitution and Rothbard. They’re not victims. Because they have their own police force who may or may not also kill people. So we might as well do it. Given the random outcome that they might derive libertarian principles from this bombing.”
As if they’ll learn good and hard about libertarianism if we use the state against them.
We could also be less esoteric and say that Islamic jihad is not half the threat United States’ imperialism is. Strangely, in my experience, it is precisely the people who are soft on US imperialism that can not stop talking about what a grave threat represent people named Abdullah.
Because we all know not being Muslim (or having no religion at all) means your against the state.
I was going to post about imperialism, but I thought I would make an anti-state statement instead of an anti-nationalism one.
There are a lot of people in [sic] libertarian circles who hate muslims more than imperialism, and fear shariah law more than predator drones. It’s insane, but if we had sane people a lot of the world’s problems would go away.
when he pronounced the word muslim, he pronounced is “mooslem” instead of “muzlim”. Sorry for the spelling but you get the idea. Most what I meant was that these libertarians who rant about the middle east take the stand that muslims are always victims against the west and it is none of their fault. They are brainwashed by their governments, as well as by karl marx, lenin and others. Do I need to say more.
I didn’t know that Scheuer revered anybody who was a muslim. He is a clown and will always be one. Why do libertarians listen to these people even though they are clearly facist in nature. I understand the concept of blowback, but their solution is overtly simplistic at best.
No, he is saying, in a sense, that is what Islam is, and your criticizing it is pointless.
Yes, and even a simple sentence like “Islam is following the Qur’an” doesn’t quite fit into any social science narrative well.
This would also dovetail more into what Merlin said. But more to the point, I think John Ess has it down
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
I obviously haven’t looked through the entire site, so don’t hold me accountable for anything on it. However, if only half of the items on the front page were true, then it would be a cause for concern.
I, for one, remain a skeptical hippo about Islam and freedom, especially since Islam has literally catapulted Christianity to the status of most persecuted religion in the world because of Islam’s propensity to engender significant rates of violence.
And I am going to say you are going to fulfill a self-fulfilled prophecy, to conform to your subjective narratives that you wish to project on an objective realm.
I can turn any form of Zoroastrians, Christians, Buddhist, Atheist, artist, political group or whatever non existant bogey man you want into a monster to watch out for.
EDIT
Life looks a little different when you deal with things on an actual material basis rather than in some “meta” form of intellectual speculation. You give ghosts substance and turn substance to ghosts.
“Once you label me you negate me”
- Kirkegaard
“If God, if mankind, as you affirm, have substance enough in themselves to be all in all to themselves, then I feel that I shall still less lack that, and that I shall have no complaint to make of my “emptiness**.**” I am not nothing in the sense of emptiness, but I am the creative nothing, the nothing out of which I myself as creator create everything.”
- Max Stirner
“τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ ἅμα ὑπάρχειν τε καὶ μὴ ὑπάρχειν ἀδύνατον τῷ αὐτῷ καὶ κατὰ τὸ αὐτό”
- Aristotle
“Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned”
- Muslim phliosopher, Ibn Sina
As a former Muslim, I would say religion had a strong influence on my political ideology. There’s a bit of individualism in Islamic philosophy. Most Muslims want to be left alone, just like most people.
And what solution would you prefer?
MrSchnapps, you need to read less propaganda and more history, as well as talk to more Muslims and reflect more on human nature, and how motivations that are at bottom about politics, economics, predation, and survival often take on a religious surface garb.
My favorite is listening to conservative talk show hosts demanding that Muslims need to show public outrage at certain Imams and apologize for 9/11. It’s cute, as if in everyday life, Muslims must have these certain political subjects on their mind. Clearly they couldn’t possibly be thinking about their work, hobbies, television, etc; they must be thinking 24/7 about the fact that they are Muslim. Of course, there are Muslims who do make their life about the fact that they are Muslim, but what about those that are more liberal in their religious beliefs? It’s amazing how there are people who just lump people into a category and deny the individuals’ of the group beliefs and values.
I think you are right about religion being a vehicle for oppression. I don’t mean that there can’t be religious people who value liberty, but that religion is often a tool for oppression. One only needs to look at the segment of American society that wants to hide homosexuality or institute prayer in public schools. Sure, these things are not nearly as bad as stoning adulterers, but it stems from a similar thought process.
Ultimately, people who desire power will wield whatever tools they can to control others. If it is Islam, it is Islam. If it is Christianity, it is Christianity. If it is socialism, it is socialism. If it is nationalism, it is nationalism. It is irrelevant what specific tool is used. It only matters to the tyrant that he has power.
As far as Islam goes, is this universally true or mostly just a fringe thing? I’ve always assumed it was the latter.
ALL religions support some form of coercion. Islam has some statist ideas within it (ideas of laws), but it promotes a lot of noncoercion. All in all though when I have compared Islam with other religions, it’s pretty light when it comes to compulsion when it compared to Jewish and Christian texts.
There’s stuff like this:
2:256: “There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.”
then there’s stuff like this:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/guestessays/islam_compulsion.html
Actually that’s a misconception. All peaceful verses in the Koran were made null and void with the verse of the sword. This is because in Islam what was revealed later supersedes that which came before it. This verse is considered the last revealed by Muslim Scholars and thus is of great importance. It’s the call to Jihad and subjugation of the Infidel wherever he is.
9:5 When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.
Not Compatible with the Non-Agression Principle, not compatible with Libertarianism.
According to who?