OT: Obama is Conservative

[gandalf]

From the New York Times, an article about Republican politics, McCain’s foreign policy positions, the trend within the Bush Administration towards a more pragmatic foreign policy, negotiations with Iran and North Korea, troop withdrawal from Iraq — and the waning influence of the neocons.

Enjoy!

* * *

Bush and McCain Seem to Diverge in Foreign Policy
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: July 26, 2008

WASHINGTON — President Bush and Senator John McCain have long been in agreement on major elements of American foreign policy, particularly in their approach to the “axis of evil” countries of Iran and North Korea, and their commitment to staying the course in Iraq.

But now the administration’s agreement to consider a “time horizon” for troop withdrawals from Iraq has moved it, at least in the public perception, in the direction of the policies of Senator Barack Obama. That has thrown Mr. McCain on the political defensive in his opposition to a timed withdrawal, Republicans in the party’s foreign party establishment say.

On Friday Mr. McCain went so far as to say that the idea of a 16-month withdrawal, which Mr. Obama supports, was “a pretty good timetable,” although he included the caveat that it had to be based on conditions on the ground.

Republicans also say the administration’s decision to authorize high-level talks with Iran and North Korea has undercut Mr. McCain’s skepticism about engagement with those countries, leaving the perception that he is more conservative than Mr. Bush on the issue.

Essentially, as the administration has taken a more pragmatic approach to foreign policy, the decision of Mr. McCain to adhere to his more hawkish positions illustrates the continuing influence of neoconservatives on his thinking even as they are losing clout within the administration.

Whether the perception of Mr. McCain as being at odds with the administration is politically advantageous for him is a matter of debate among his supporters, but many of his more conservative advisers do not think it is a bad thing.

“There’s no doubt, particularly as Bush has adopted policies in the direction of Obama, that that gives Obama bragging rights,” said John R. Bolton, the Bush administration’s former ambassador to the United Nations, who has sharply criticized the administration’s talks with Iran and North Korea. “But if you believe as I do that this administration is in the midst of an intellectual collapse, it doesn’t hurt McCain. Occasionally in politics it helps to be right.”

But other Republicans — the so-called foreign policy pragmatists, many of whom have come to view the Iraq war as a mistake — say the administration’s policy shifts highlight the more confrontational nature of Mr. McCain’s foreign policy, particularly in his approach toward Russia and his embrace on Friday of the Dalai Lama, whom the Chinese regard as the fomenter of a rebellion in Tibet. They say the meeting will only antagonize China before the Summer Olympics, and at a moment when the United States is seeking its cooperation on economic issues and negotiations with North Korea.

The divisions within the Republican foreign policy establishment continue at a time when Mr. Obama is trying to establish his own international credentials. Republicans worry that he is seizing the chance, helped with the boost from Mr. Bush, to command the American foreign policy stage.

“Bush and Obama seem to be setting the foreign policy agenda, and McCain seems to be reacting,” said Kenneth M. Duberstein, a chief of staff to President Ronald Reagan.

The McCain campaign disputes the idea that Mr. McCain has been left out on his own by the president.

“Does he feel he had the rug pulled out from under him by Bush?” said Randy Scheunemann, Mr. McCain’s chief foreign policy aide. “Absolutely not. John McCain has always said that he wanted the troops to come home. But he is opposed to an artificial date-driven timetable that ignores conditions on the ground and the advice of military commanders.”

In fact, Mr. Bush’s decision to accept a “general time horizon” for withdrawal from Iraq is still a long way from Mr. Obama’s proposal for a phased pullout, as the administration has not set any timeline.

Mr. McCain has on several recent occasions envisioned a date by when most American troops in Iraq would leave, although he has refused to call it a timetable. In a speech in Ohio in May, he declared that most American troops would be home by 2013. On Monday, in remarks at the side of the first President George Bush in Kennebunkport, Me., Mr. McCain embraced, if only in passing, the possibility of withdrawing most American troops by the end of 2010.

On Friday on CNN, under questioning by Wolf Blitzer, he called Mr. Obama’s 16-month proposal “a pretty good timetable.” But the McCain campaign declined to elaborate Friday night on whether this represented a change in his views.

Mr. McCain’s advisers also say that he is not opposed to talks with Iran and North Korea, and that he supported the administration’s decision to send the under secretary of state, William J. Burns, to Geneva last week for talks with Iran and European officials about Iran’s nuclear program. But Mr. McCain is against any president-to-president negotiations without preconditions, which Mr. Obama supports. (Mr. Obama’s advisers now say such talks would occur only if Mr. Obama deemed them potentially fruitful.)

Mr. McCain’s campaign continues to be a microcosm of the ongoing Republican foreign policy battles between the pragmatists and the neoconservatives like Mr. Bolton, and it is still not clear where the balance of power lies within Mr. McCain’s inner circle. So far, however, the divide between the two within the campaign does not appear as deep as it did within the Bush White House, and advisers say Mr. McCain has been able to chose when there is a policy difference.

Mr. McCain’s advisers were divided, for example, over a speech he gave on nuclear security policy in Denver in May. Two Republican pragmatists who advise Mr. McCain, the former secretaries of state Henry A. Kissinger and George P. Shultz, supported a call in the speech for a nuclear-free world, an idea they endorse as part of a “Gang of Four” of national security statesmen. But other McCain advisers, including John F. Lehman, a former Navy secretary, and Fred C. Ikle, a defense official in the Reagan administration, were opposed to the idea because, in their view, nuclear weapons act as a deterrent against an attack on the United States and its allies. In the end, Mr. Lehman said, Mr. McCain made the call in favor of a nuclear-free world.

“He wanted to do it,” Mr. Lehman said. “That position is McCain’s position. It’s not a cabal of Kissingerites or a cabal of neo-cons.”

But some of Mr. McCain’s pragmatist advisers remain uneasy that conservatives close to Mr. McCain — among them Mr. Scheunemann and Robert Kagan, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — will help him mold a more bellicose message than they would like on Iran and its threat to Israel, particularly at a time when there is widespread speculation in the Israeli news media that Israeli may bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Others who were once uneasy about the influence of conservatives on Mr. McCain say that their worries have not been realized, even as Mr. McCain has taken conservative positions.

“What I’ve seen in the campaign so far to me demonstrates that McCain is his own man, and he’s not being managed,” said Lawrence S. Eagleburger, a secretary of state under the first President Bush.

[urbanrealtor]

Sorry, I was doing actual real estate for a few days.

[quote=surveyor]hey, another 16 pager…

…I never said that muslims themselves were violent. I just stated that the koran requires them to commit violence. Trying to imply the bigotry is a “straw man” attack, also a very weak argument.
[/quote]

Bigotry:
I did not imply bigotry in your statements. I stated it explicitly. To make disdainful remarks about practitioners of religion (or the religion itself) is bigotry. You stated that muslims are required to kill or war against nonbelievers. That is not a straw man. I applied your specific statements to a definition.

Jihad.
While some level of struggle or fighting in service of God is a practice that is widespread, it is not one of the five pillars. While it (jihad) has been used as a rallying cry in political struggles, it is not a license to kill. Sharia has specific issues with this. Historically, its mostly been used for converting pagan cities (worshiped zues or mithra) or for defending other Muslims (eg: middle eastern involvment in Bosnia). It was typically not extended to Abramics (except in self defense). The Abramic were considered lesser believers. Kind of like how some Christian groups consider Jews to be wrong but not wicked.

Islam and religious tolerance:
How people practice their religion varies. Stating that Islam is homicidal is like stating that Christianity is homophobic. There are violent Muslims and homophobic Christians. I live and do business in Hillcrest in San Diego. The Church (in its various incarnations) is very active here. My wife grew up next to the Clairemont mosque (which is attached to a church). Those are devout Muslims and Christians. Some are certainly homophobic. Some are certainly violent. These qualities are not reflections on their relative piety. To state that violence or prejudice is a reflection on piety is a bigoted view of the subject religion.

[quote=surveyor]

Also, bringing up the death toll of major conflicts and noting muslim participation in only a few still does not refute the idea that the koran teaches muslims to kill unbelievers.
[/quote]

Since stating death toll was too complex for you, I will draw it out. The relative violence of a group is defined by its violent action, not its priests or books. This is why the Salvation Army does not show up on any warfare lists.

[quote=surveyor]

If I said that he was dumb, or just a lawyer, then that could have been classified as an ad hominem attack. However, I laid out the case, I brought evidence of my point, and then put analysis of that point. That is not ad hominem. It’s analysis. Now, that analysis is not definitive. It is evidence, not proof. You want proof. Good enough for me, but not you. Fine.
[/quote]

The problem here is that your evidence consists of misspeaks and not actual policy statements. When I speak about Bolton, it is because he is a professional in diplomatic discourse and I am addressing his specific statements about diplomacy. I am not interested in verbal errors. I find your criticism of Obama weak for this reason. If you can make a better argument about that (and you have lots of material to work with), It would go a long way to further discussion.
[quote=surveyor]

The Europeans are negotiating on the behalf of us.
[/quote]
They have their own interests at heart. Not ours. Again I do not see their negotiations as applicable.

[quote=surveyor]
While the Cuban missile crisis was solved with diplomacy, it was backed up forcefully. I do not see Obama having that much leverage.
[/quote]

So the speculation is that he does not have leverage to back up negotiations? Do you think being CIC of the most powerful military is leverage? How about having control over access to the worlds biggest market?
That sounds like a good carrot and a good stick.
[quote=surveyor]
Now, Bolton. So despite the fact that you claimed that he was not respected, is reviled by many diplomats, you were not able to dispute the thrust of his article?…
[/quote]

I think I made a pretty good counter-argument. And yes, I would like to see better (or at least less ignored)experts cited. I don’t think you proved a thing. I am open to the idea of negotiations having limited capabilities. However, I do not see that you have made this case at all.

[quote=surveyor]

And so with this thought, you bring up the “Spencer is not a widely credited expert.” …This is in the debating world called “weak sauce.” It doesn’t refute the points brought up in the debate.
[/quote]
Not a hole in your argument but, while you use words from the debating world, you don’t use them correctly.

My first point was that throwing fringe authors (especially one who suggests that a conspiracy keeps him from getting a PhD) is a waste of time. I could quote lots of liberal and left wing nuts but it would be a waste and a distraction to the argument. Stating my actual opinions and debating on that field is what I am about. Your arguments would be stronger if you did that.

My second point here is that if the basic point that “Islam is evil” is just being intellectualized, citing it is a waste of time. People, not foundations of belief, are evil.
[quote=surveyor]

I don’t know, it sounds to me a lot like when the Church put Galileo on trial for saying the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo was a whacko then.
[/quote]
Does that make me the pope?
Seriously, poor analogy.
[quote=surveyor]

I TOTALLY agree that my assertions do not square with most history courses. Does that mean the history courses are correct? No. I also do not claim to know more than accepted experts, but neither do I accept the claim of the experts. As I stated to gandalf, if you are just going to rely on the analyses of the established “experts” then you have forgotten the tenets of piggington. It is the belief of this website that you question the “experts” and do not rely on the “experts.”
[/quote]
My understanding was that sometimes the experts are limited and its fair to question them. Its also fair to test new theories based on evidence. I really don’t get that you have done anything here but cite poor sources. Comparing your approach (which appears to be picking a reading list and take it as an article of faith) to Rich’s (who focused on intuitive and observable phenomena) really seems to be more of an insult to the site.
[quote=surveyor]

And accusing me of being in Cheneyland, THAT is also an irrelevant, inaccurate, and weak argument (generally called the straw man argument). Also name-calling. Which means in the debate, your argument has no merit.
[/quote]
Sorry if I gave reference you found tough to follow. I was referencing someone who is considered to be unable to let go of theories when presented with heavy evidence to the contrary (also straw man is a weakened recapitulation, red herring is a distracting irrelevance, and inaccuracy is just a dispute about facts).
[quote=surveyor]
It is clear you are a learned individual and have been able to debate me better than most of the people on this board. However, here’s a hint on raising the leveling of the discussion: do not imply that the establishment’s word is gospel.[/quote]
I don’t take anyone’s word as gospel. However, I don’t fight with well researched models unless I have something better. When you have something better, please reply.

[urbanrealtor]

Sorry, I was doing actual real estate for a few days.

[quote=surveyor]hey, another 16 pager…

…I never said that muslims themselves were violent. I just stated that the koran requires them to commit violence. Trying to imply the bigotry is a “straw man” attack, also a very weak argument.
[/quote]

Bigotry:
I did not imply bigotry in your statements. I stated it explicitly. To make disdainful remarks about practitioners of religion (or the religion itself) is bigotry. You stated that muslims are required to kill or war against nonbelievers. That is not a straw man. I applied your specific statements to a definition.

Jihad.
While some level of struggle or fighting in service of God is a practice that is widespread, it is not one of the five pillars. While it (jihad) has been used as a rallying cry in political struggles, it is not a license to kill. Sharia has specific issues with this. Historically, its mostly been used for converting pagan cities (worshiped zues or mithra) or for defending other Muslims (eg: middle eastern involvment in Bosnia). It was typically not extended to Abramics (except in self defense). The Abramic were considered lesser believers. Kind of like how some Christian groups consider Jews to be wrong but not wicked.

Islam and religious tolerance:
How people practice their religion varies. Stating that Islam is homicidal is like stating that Christianity is homophobic. There are violent Muslims and homophobic Christians. I live and do business in Hillcrest in San Diego. The Church (in its various incarnations) is very active here. My wife grew up next to the Clairemont mosque (which is attached to a church). Those are devout Muslims and Christians. Some are certainly homophobic. Some are certainly violent. These qualities are not reflections on their relative piety. To state that violence or prejudice is a reflection on piety is a bigoted view of the subject religion.

[quote=surveyor]

Also, bringing up the death toll of major conflicts and noting muslim participation in only a few still does not refute the idea that the koran teaches muslims to kill unbelievers.
[/quote]

Since stating death toll was too complex for you, I will draw it out. The relative violence of a group is defined by its violent action, not its priests or books. This is why the Salvation Army does not show up on any warfare lists.

[quote=surveyor]

If I said that he was dumb, or just a lawyer, then that could have been classified as an ad hominem attack. However, I laid out the case, I brought evidence of my point, and then put analysis of that point. That is not ad hominem. It’s analysis. Now, that analysis is not definitive. It is evidence, not proof. You want proof. Good enough for me, but not you. Fine.
[/quote]

The problem here is that your evidence consists of misspeaks and not actual policy statements. When I speak about Bolton, it is because he is a professional in diplomatic discourse and I am addressing his specific statements about diplomacy. I am not interested in verbal errors. I find your criticism of Obama weak for this reason. If you can make a better argument about that (and you have lots of material to work with), It would go a long way to further discussion.
[quote=surveyor]

The Europeans are negotiating on the behalf of us.
[/quote]
They have their own interests at heart. Not ours. Again I do not see their negotiations as applicable.

[quote=surveyor]
While the Cuban missile crisis was solved with diplomacy, it was backed up forcefully. I do not see Obama having that much leverage.
[/quote]

So the speculation is that he does not have leverage to back up negotiations? Do you think being CIC of the most powerful military is leverage? How about having control over access to the worlds biggest market?
That sounds like a good carrot and a good stick.
[quote=surveyor]
Now, Bolton. So despite the fact that you claimed that he was not respected, is reviled by many diplomats, you were not able to dispute the thrust of his article?…
[/quote]

I think I made a pretty good counter-argument. And yes, I would like to see better (or at least less ignored)experts cited. I don’t think you proved a thing. I am open to the idea of negotiations having limited capabilities. However, I do not see that you have made this case at all.

[quote=surveyor]

And so with this thought, you bring up the “Spencer is not a widely credited expert.” …This is in the debating world called “weak sauce.” It doesn’t refute the points brought up in the debate.
[/quote]
Not a hole in your argument but, while you use words from the debating world, you don’t use them correctly.

My first point was that throwing fringe authors (especially one who suggests that a conspiracy keeps him from getting a PhD) is a waste of time. I could quote lots of liberal and left wing nuts but it would be a waste and a distraction to the argument. Stating my actual opinions and debating on that field is what I am about. Your arguments would be stronger if you did that.

My second point here is that if the basic point that “Islam is evil” is just being intellectualized, citing it is a waste of time. People, not foundations of belief, are evil.
[quote=surveyor]

I don’t know, it sounds to me a lot like when the Church put Galileo on trial for saying the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo was a whacko then.
[/quote]
Does that make me the pope?
Seriously, poor analogy.
[quote=surveyor]

I TOTALLY agree that my assertions do not square with most history courses. Does that mean the history courses are correct? No. I also do not claim to know more than accepted experts, but neither do I accept the claim of the experts. As I stated to gandalf, if you are just going to rely on the analyses of the established “experts” then you have forgotten the tenets of piggington. It is the belief of this website that you question the “experts” and do not rely on the “experts.”
[/quote]
My understanding was that sometimes the experts are limited and its fair to question them. Its also fair to test new theories based on evidence. I really don’t get that you have done anything here but cite poor sources. Comparing your approach (which appears to be picking a reading list and take it as an article of faith) to Rich’s (who focused on intuitive and observable phenomena) really seems to be more of an insult to the site.
[quote=surveyor]

And accusing me of being in Cheneyland, THAT is also an irrelevant, inaccurate, and weak argument (generally called the straw man argument). Also name-calling. Which means in the debate, your argument has no merit.
[/quote]
Sorry if I gave reference you found tough to follow. I was referencing someone who is considered to be unable to let go of theories when presented with heavy evidence to the contrary (also straw man is a weakened recapitulation, red herring is a distracting irrelevance, and inaccuracy is just a dispute about facts).
[quote=surveyor]
It is clear you are a learned individual and have been able to debate me better than most of the people on this board. However, here’s a hint on raising the leveling of the discussion: do not imply that the establishment’s word is gospel.[/quote]
I don’t take anyone’s word as gospel. However, I don’t fight with well researched models unless I have something better. When you have something better, please reply.

[urbanrealtor]

Sorry, I was doing actual real estate for a few days.

[quote=surveyor]hey, another 16 pager…

…I never said that muslims themselves were violent. I just stated that the koran requires them to commit violence. Trying to imply the bigotry is a “straw man” attack, also a very weak argument.
[/quote]

Bigotry:
I did not imply bigotry in your statements. I stated it explicitly. To make disdainful remarks about practitioners of religion (or the religion itself) is bigotry. You stated that muslims are required to kill or war against nonbelievers. That is not a straw man. I applied your specific statements to a definition.

Jihad.
While some level of struggle or fighting in service of God is a practice that is widespread, it is not one of the five pillars. While it (jihad) has been used as a rallying cry in political struggles, it is not a license to kill. Sharia has specific issues with this. Historically, its mostly been used for converting pagan cities (worshiped zues or mithra) or for defending other Muslims (eg: middle eastern involvment in Bosnia). It was typically not extended to Abramics (except in self defense). The Abramic were considered lesser believers. Kind of like how some Christian groups consider Jews to be wrong but not wicked.

Islam and religious tolerance:
How people practice their religion varies. Stating that Islam is homicidal is like stating that Christianity is homophobic. There are violent Muslims and homophobic Christians. I live and do business in Hillcrest in San Diego. The Church (in its various incarnations) is very active here. My wife grew up next to the Clairemont mosque (which is attached to a church). Those are devout Muslims and Christians. Some are certainly homophobic. Some are certainly violent. These qualities are not reflections on their relative piety. To state that violence or prejudice is a reflection on piety is a bigoted view of the subject religion.

[quote=surveyor]

Also, bringing up the death toll of major conflicts and noting muslim participation in only a few still does not refute the idea that the koran teaches muslims to kill unbelievers.
[/quote]

Since stating death toll was too complex for you, I will draw it out. The relative violence of a group is defined by its violent action, not its priests or books. This is why the Salvation Army does not show up on any warfare lists.

[quote=surveyor]

If I said that he was dumb, or just a lawyer, then that could have been classified as an ad hominem attack. However, I laid out the case, I brought evidence of my point, and then put analysis of that point. That is not ad hominem. It’s analysis. Now, that analysis is not definitive. It is evidence, not proof. You want proof. Good enough for me, but not you. Fine.
[/quote]

The problem here is that your evidence consists of misspeaks and not actual policy statements. When I speak about Bolton, it is because he is a professional in diplomatic discourse and I am addressing his specific statements about diplomacy. I am not interested in verbal errors. I find your criticism of Obama weak for this reason. If you can make a better argument about that (and you have lots of material to work with), It would go a long way to further discussion.
[quote=surveyor]

The Europeans are negotiating on the behalf of us.
[/quote]
They have their own interests at heart. Not ours. Again I do not see their negotiations as applicable.

[quote=surveyor]
While the Cuban missile crisis was solved with diplomacy, it was backed up forcefully. I do not see Obama having that much leverage.
[/quote]

So the speculation is that he does not have leverage to back up negotiations? Do you think being CIC of the most powerful military is leverage? How about having control over access to the worlds biggest market?
That sounds like a good carrot and a good stick.
[quote=surveyor]
Now, Bolton. So despite the fact that you claimed that he was not respected, is reviled by many diplomats, you were not able to dispute the thrust of his article?…
[/quote]

I think I made a pretty good counter-argument. And yes, I would like to see better (or at least less ignored)experts cited. I don’t think you proved a thing. I am open to the idea of negotiations having limited capabilities. However, I do not see that you have made this case at all.

[quote=surveyor]

And so with this thought, you bring up the “Spencer is not a widely credited expert.” …This is in the debating world called “weak sauce.” It doesn’t refute the points brought up in the debate.
[/quote]
Not a hole in your argument but, while you use words from the debating world, you don’t use them correctly.

My first point was that throwing fringe authors (especially one who suggests that a conspiracy keeps him from getting a PhD) is a waste of time. I could quote lots of liberal and left wing nuts but it would be a waste and a distraction to the argument. Stating my actual opinions and debating on that field is what I am about. Your arguments would be stronger if you did that.

My second point here is that if the basic point that “Islam is evil” is just being intellectualized, citing it is a waste of time. People, not foundations of belief, are evil.
[quote=surveyor]

I don’t know, it sounds to me a lot like when the Church put Galileo on trial for saying the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo was a whacko then.
[/quote]
Does that make me the pope?
Seriously, poor analogy.
[quote=surveyor]

I TOTALLY agree that my assertions do not square with most history courses. Does that mean the history courses are correct? No. I also do not claim to know more than accepted experts, but neither do I accept the claim of the experts. As I stated to gandalf, if you are just going to rely on the analyses of the established “experts” then you have forgotten the tenets of piggington. It is the belief of this website that you question the “experts” and do not rely on the “experts.”
[/quote]
My understanding was that sometimes the experts are limited and its fair to question them. Its also fair to test new theories based on evidence. I really don’t get that you have done anything here but cite poor sources. Comparing your approach (which appears to be picking a reading list and take it as an article of faith) to Rich’s (who focused on intuitive and observable phenomena) really seems to be more of an insult to the site.
[quote=surveyor]

And accusing me of being in Cheneyland, THAT is also an irrelevant, inaccurate, and weak argument (generally called the straw man argument). Also name-calling. Which means in the debate, your argument has no merit.
[/quote]
Sorry if I gave reference you found tough to follow. I was referencing someone who is considered to be unable to let go of theories when presented with heavy evidence to the contrary (also straw man is a weakened recapitulation, red herring is a distracting irrelevance, and inaccuracy is just a dispute about facts).
[quote=surveyor]
It is clear you are a learned individual and have been able to debate me better than most of the people on this board. However, here’s a hint on raising the leveling of the discussion: do not imply that the establishment’s word is gospel.[/quote]
I don’t take anyone’s word as gospel. However, I don’t fight with well researched models unless I have something better. When you have something better, please reply.

[urbanrealtor]

Sorry, I was doing actual real estate for a few days.

[quote=surveyor]hey, another 16 pager…

…I never said that muslims themselves were violent. I just stated that the koran requires them to commit violence. Trying to imply the bigotry is a “straw man” attack, also a very weak argument.
[/quote]

Bigotry:
I did not imply bigotry in your statements. I stated it explicitly. To make disdainful remarks about practitioners of religion (or the religion itself) is bigotry. You stated that muslims are required to kill or war against nonbelievers. That is not a straw man. I applied your specific statements to a definition.

Jihad.
While some level of struggle or fighting in service of God is a practice that is widespread, it is not one of the five pillars. While it (jihad) has been used as a rallying cry in political struggles, it is not a license to kill. Sharia has specific issues with this. Historically, its mostly been used for converting pagan cities (worshiped zues or mithra) or for defending other Muslims (eg: middle eastern involvment in Bosnia). It was typically not extended to Abramics (except in self defense). The Abramic were considered lesser believers. Kind of like how some Christian groups consider Jews to be wrong but not wicked.

Islam and religious tolerance:
How people practice their religion varies. Stating that Islam is homicidal is like stating that Christianity is homophobic. There are violent Muslims and homophobic Christians. I live and do business in Hillcrest in San Diego. The Church (in its various incarnations) is very active here. My wife grew up next to the Clairemont mosque (which is attached to a church). Those are devout Muslims and Christians. Some are certainly homophobic. Some are certainly violent. These qualities are not reflections on their relative piety. To state that violence or prejudice is a reflection on piety is a bigoted view of the subject religion.

[quote=surveyor]

Also, bringing up the death toll of major conflicts and noting muslim participation in only a few still does not refute the idea that the koran teaches muslims to kill unbelievers.
[/quote]

Since stating death toll was too complex for you, I will draw it out. The relative violence of a group is defined by its violent action, not its priests or books. This is why the Salvation Army does not show up on any warfare lists.

[quote=surveyor]

If I said that he was dumb, or just a lawyer, then that could have been classified as an ad hominem attack. However, I laid out the case, I brought evidence of my point, and then put analysis of that point. That is not ad hominem. It’s analysis. Now, that analysis is not definitive. It is evidence, not proof. You want proof. Good enough for me, but not you. Fine.
[/quote]

The problem here is that your evidence consists of misspeaks and not actual policy statements. When I speak about Bolton, it is because he is a professional in diplomatic discourse and I am addressing his specific statements about diplomacy. I am not interested in verbal errors. I find your criticism of Obama weak for this reason. If you can make a better argument about that (and you have lots of material to work with), It would go a long way to further discussion.
[quote=surveyor]

The Europeans are negotiating on the behalf of us.
[/quote]
They have their own interests at heart. Not ours. Again I do not see their negotiations as applicable.

[quote=surveyor]
While the Cuban missile crisis was solved with diplomacy, it was backed up forcefully. I do not see Obama having that much leverage.
[/quote]

So the speculation is that he does not have leverage to back up negotiations? Do you think being CIC of the most powerful military is leverage? How about having control over access to the worlds biggest market?
That sounds like a good carrot and a good stick.
[quote=surveyor]
Now, Bolton. So despite the fact that you claimed that he was not respected, is reviled by many diplomats, you were not able to dispute the thrust of his article?…
[/quote]

I think I made a pretty good counter-argument. And yes, I would like to see better (or at least less ignored)experts cited. I don’t think you proved a thing. I am open to the idea of negotiations having limited capabilities. However, I do not see that you have made this case at all.

[quote=surveyor]

And so with this thought, you bring up the “Spencer is not a widely credited expert.” …This is in the debating world called “weak sauce.” It doesn’t refute the points brought up in the debate.
[/quote]
Not a hole in your argument but, while you use words from the debating world, you don’t use them correctly.

My first point was that throwing fringe authors (especially one who suggests that a conspiracy keeps him from getting a PhD) is a waste of time. I could quote lots of liberal and left wing nuts but it would be a waste and a distraction to the argument. Stating my actual opinions and debating on that field is what I am about. Your arguments would be stronger if you did that.

My second point here is that if the basic point that “Islam is evil” is just being intellectualized, citing it is a waste of time. People, not foundations of belief, are evil.
[quote=surveyor]

I don’t know, it sounds to me a lot like when the Church put Galileo on trial for saying the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo was a whacko then.
[/quote]
Does that make me the pope?
Seriously, poor analogy.
[quote=surveyor]

I TOTALLY agree that my assertions do not square with most history courses. Does that mean the history courses are correct? No. I also do not claim to know more than accepted experts, but neither do I accept the claim of the experts. As I stated to gandalf, if you are just going to rely on the analyses of the established “experts” then you have forgotten the tenets of piggington. It is the belief of this website that you question the “experts” and do not rely on the “experts.”
[/quote]
My understanding was that sometimes the experts are limited and its fair to question them. Its also fair to test new theories based on evidence. I really don’t get that you have done anything here but cite poor sources. Comparing your approach (which appears to be picking a reading list and take it as an article of faith) to Rich’s (who focused on intuitive and observable phenomena) really seems to be more of an insult to the site.
[quote=surveyor]

And accusing me of being in Cheneyland, THAT is also an irrelevant, inaccurate, and weak argument (generally called the straw man argument). Also name-calling. Which means in the debate, your argument has no merit.
[/quote]
Sorry if I gave reference you found tough to follow. I was referencing someone who is considered to be unable to let go of theories when presented with heavy evidence to the contrary (also straw man is a weakened recapitulation, red herring is a distracting irrelevance, and inaccuracy is just a dispute about facts).
[quote=surveyor]
It is clear you are a learned individual and have been able to debate me better than most of the people on this board. However, here’s a hint on raising the leveling of the discussion: do not imply that the establishment’s word is gospel.[/quote]
I don’t take anyone’s word as gospel. However, I don’t fight with well researched models unless I have something better. When you have something better, please reply.

[urbanrealtor]

Sorry, I was doing actual real estate for a few days.

[quote=surveyor]hey, another 16 pager…

…I never said that muslims themselves were violent. I just stated that the koran requires them to commit violence. Trying to imply the bigotry is a “straw man” attack, also a very weak argument.
[/quote]

Bigotry:
I did not imply bigotry in your statements. I stated it explicitly. To make disdainful remarks about practitioners of religion (or the religion itself) is bigotry. You stated that muslims are required to kill or war against nonbelievers. That is not a straw man. I applied your specific statements to a definition.

Jihad.
While some level of struggle or fighting in service of God is a practice that is widespread, it is not one of the five pillars. While it (jihad) has been used as a rallying cry in political struggles, it is not a license to kill. Sharia has specific issues with this. Historically, its mostly been used for converting pagan cities (worshiped zues or mithra) or for defending other Muslims (eg: middle eastern involvment in Bosnia). It was typically not extended to Abramics (except in self defense). The Abramic were considered lesser believers. Kind of like how some Christian groups consider Jews to be wrong but not wicked.

Islam and religious tolerance:
How people practice their religion varies. Stating that Islam is homicidal is like stating that Christianity is homophobic. There are violent Muslims and homophobic Christians. I live and do business in Hillcrest in San Diego. The Church (in its various incarnations) is very active here. My wife grew up next to the Clairemont mosque (which is attached to a church). Those are devout Muslims and Christians. Some are certainly homophobic. Some are certainly violent. These qualities are not reflections on their relative piety. To state that violence or prejudice is a reflection on piety is a bigoted view of the subject religion.

[quote=surveyor]

Also, bringing up the death toll of major conflicts and noting muslim participation in only a few still does not refute the idea that the koran teaches muslims to kill unbelievers.
[/quote]

Since stating death toll was too complex for you, I will draw it out. The relative violence of a group is defined by its violent action, not its priests or books. This is why the Salvation Army does not show up on any warfare lists.

[quote=surveyor]

If I said that he was dumb, or just a lawyer, then that could have been classified as an ad hominem attack. However, I laid out the case, I brought evidence of my point, and then put analysis of that point. That is not ad hominem. It’s analysis. Now, that analysis is not definitive. It is evidence, not proof. You want proof. Good enough for me, but not you. Fine.
[/quote]

The problem here is that your evidence consists of misspeaks and not actual policy statements. When I speak about Bolton, it is because he is a professional in diplomatic discourse and I am addressing his specific statements about diplomacy. I am not interested in verbal errors. I find your criticism of Obama weak for this reason. If you can make a better argument about that (and you have lots of material to work with), It would go a long way to further discussion.
[quote=surveyor]

The Europeans are negotiating on the behalf of us.
[/quote]
They have their own interests at heart. Not ours. Again I do not see their negotiations as applicable.

[quote=surveyor]
While the Cuban missile crisis was solved with diplomacy, it was backed up forcefully. I do not see Obama having that much leverage.
[/quote]

So the speculation is that he does not have leverage to back up negotiations? Do you think being CIC of the most powerful military is leverage? How about having control over access to the worlds biggest market?
That sounds like a good carrot and a good stick.
[quote=surveyor]
Now, Bolton. So despite the fact that you claimed that he was not respected, is reviled by many diplomats, you were not able to dispute the thrust of his article?…
[/quote]

I think I made a pretty good counter-argument. And yes, I would like to see better (or at least less ignored)experts cited. I don’t think you proved a thing. I am open to the idea of negotiations having limited capabilities. However, I do not see that you have made this case at all.

[quote=surveyor]

And so with this thought, you bring up the “Spencer is not a widely credited expert.” …This is in the debating world called “weak sauce.” It doesn’t refute the points brought up in the debate.
[/quote]
Not a hole in your argument but, while you use words from the debating world, you don’t use them correctly.

My first point was that throwing fringe authors (especially one who suggests that a conspiracy keeps him from getting a PhD) is a waste of time. I could quote lots of liberal and left wing nuts but it would be a waste and a distraction to the argument. Stating my actual opinions and debating on that field is what I am about. Your arguments would be stronger if you did that.

My second point here is that if the basic point that “Islam is evil” is just being intellectualized, citing it is a waste of time. People, not foundations of belief, are evil.
[quote=surveyor]

I don’t know, it sounds to me a lot like when the Church put Galileo on trial for saying the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo was a whacko then.
[/quote]
Does that make me the pope?
Seriously, poor analogy.
[quote=surveyor]

I TOTALLY agree that my assertions do not square with most history courses. Does that mean the history courses are correct? No. I also do not claim to know more than accepted experts, but neither do I accept the claim of the experts. As I stated to gandalf, if you are just going to rely on the analyses of the established “experts” then you have forgotten the tenets of piggington. It is the belief of this website that you question the “experts” and do not rely on the “experts.”
[/quote]
My understanding was that sometimes the experts are limited and its fair to question them. Its also fair to test new theories based on evidence. I really don’t get that you have done anything here but cite poor sources. Comparing your approach (which appears to be picking a reading list and take it as an article of faith) to Rich’s (who focused on intuitive and observable phenomena) really seems to be more of an insult to the site.
[quote=surveyor]

And accusing me of being in Cheneyland, THAT is also an irrelevant, inaccurate, and weak argument (generally called the straw man argument). Also name-calling. Which means in the debate, your argument has no merit.
[/quote]
Sorry if I gave reference you found tough to follow. I was referencing someone who is considered to be unable to let go of theories when presented with heavy evidence to the contrary (also straw man is a weakened recapitulation, red herring is a distracting irrelevance, and inaccuracy is just a dispute about facts).
[quote=surveyor]
It is clear you are a learned individual and have been able to debate me better than most of the people on this board. However, here’s a hint on raising the leveling of the discussion: do not imply that the establishment’s word is gospel.[/quote]
I don’t take anyone’s word as gospel. However, I don’t fight with well researched models unless I have something better. When you have something better, please reply.

[urbanrealtor]

Sorry, I was doing actual real estate for a few days.

[quote=surveyor]hey, another 16 pager…

…I never said that muslims themselves were violent. I just stated that the koran requires them to commit violence. Trying to imply the bigotry is a “straw man” attack, also a very weak argument.
[/quote]

Bigotry:
I did not imply bigotry in your statements. I stated it explicitly. To make disdainful remarks about practitioners of religion (or the religion itself) is bigotry. You stated that muslims are required to kill or war against nonbelievers. That is not a straw man. I applied your specific statements to a definition.

Jihad.
While some level of struggle or fighting in service of God is a practice that is widespread, it is not one of the five pillars. While it (jihad) has been used as a rallying cry in political struggles, it is not a license to kill. Sharia has specific issues with this. Historically, its mostly been used for converting pagan cities (worshiped zues or mithra) or for defending other Muslims (eg: middle eastern involvment in Bosnia). It was typically not extended to Abramics (except in self defense). The Abramic were considered lesser believers. Kind of like how some Christian groups consider Jews to be wrong but not wicked.

Islam and religious tolerance:
How people practice their religion varies. Stating that Islam is homicidal is like stating that Christianity is homophobic. There are violent Muslims and homophobic Christians. I live and do business in Hillcrest in San Diego. The Church (in its various incarnations) is very active here. My wife grew up next to the Clairemont mosque (which is attached to a church). Those are devout Muslims and Christians. Some are certainly homophobic. Some are certainly violent. These qualities are not reflections on their relative piety. To state that violence or prejudice is a reflection on piety is a bigoted view of the subject religion.

[quote=surveyor]

Also, bringing up the death toll of major conflicts and noting muslim participation in only a few still does not refute the idea that the koran teaches muslims to kill unbelievers.
[/quote]

Since stating death toll was too complex for you, I will draw it out. The relative violence of a group is defined by its violent action, not its priests or books. This is why the Salvation Army does not show up on any warfare lists.

[quote=surveyor]

If I said that he was dumb, or just a lawyer, then that could have been classified as an ad hominem attack. However, I laid out the case, I brought evidence of my point, and then put analysis of that point. That is not ad hominem. It’s analysis. Now, that analysis is not definitive. It is evidence, not proof. You want proof. Good enough for me, but not you. Fine.
[/quote]

The problem here is that your evidence consists of misspeaks and not actual policy statements. When I speak about Bolton, it is because he is a professional in diplomatic discourse and I am addressing his specific statements about diplomacy. I am not interested in verbal errors. I find your criticism of Obama weak for this reason. If you can make a better argument about that (and you have lots of material to work with), It would go a long way to further discussion.
[quote=surveyor]

The Europeans are negotiating on the behalf of us.
[/quote]
They have their own interests at heart. Not ours. Again I do not see their negotiations as applicable.

[quote=surveyor]
While the Cuban missile crisis was solved with diplomacy, it was backed up forcefully. I do not see Obama having that much leverage.
[/quote]

So the speculation is that he does not have leverage to back up negotiations? Do you think being CIC of the most powerful military is leverage? How about having control over access to the worlds biggest market?
That sounds like a good carrot and a good stick.
[quote=surveyor]
Now, Bolton. So despite the fact that you claimed that he was not respected, is reviled by many diplomats, you were not able to dispute the thrust of his article?…
[/quote]

I think I made a pretty good counter-argument. And yes, I would like to see better (or at least less ignored)experts cited. I don’t think you proved a thing. I am open to the idea of negotiations having limited capabilities. However, I do not see that you have made this case at all.

[quote=surveyor]

And so with this thought, you bring up the “Spencer is not a widely credited expert.” …This is in the debating world called “weak sauce.” It doesn’t refute the points brought up in the debate.
[/quote]
Not a hole in your argument but, while you use words from the debating world, you don’t use them correctly.

My first point was that throwing fringe authors (especially one who suggests that a conspiracy keeps him from getting a PhD) is a waste of time. I could quote lots of liberal and left wing nuts but it would be a waste and a distraction to the argument. Stating my actual opinions and debating on that field is what I am about. Your arguments would be stronger if you did that.

My second point here is that if the basic point that “Islam is evil” is just being intellectualized, citing it is a waste of time. People, not foundations of belief, are evil.
[quote=surveyor]

I don’t know, it sounds to me a lot like when the Church put Galileo on trial for saying the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo was a whacko then.
[/quote]
Does that make me the pope?
Seriously, poor analogy.
[quote=surveyor]

I TOTALLY agree that my assertions do not square with most history courses. Does that mean the history courses are correct? No. I also do not claim to know more than accepted experts, but neither do I accept the claim of the experts. As I stated to gandalf, if you are just going to rely on the analyses of the established “experts” then you have forgotten the tenets of piggington. It is the belief of this website that you question the “experts” and do not rely on the “experts.”
[/quote]
My understanding was that sometimes the experts are limited and its fair to question them. Its also fair to test new theories based on evidence. I really don’t get that you have done anything here but cite poor sources. Comparing your approach (which appears to be picking a reading list and take it as an article of faith) to Rich’s (who focused on intuitive and observable phenomena) really seems to be more of an insult to the site.
[quote=surveyor]

And accusing me of being in Cheneyland, THAT is also an irrelevant, inaccurate, and weak argument (generally called the straw man argument). Also name-calling. Which means in the debate, your argument has no merit.
[/quote]
Sorry if I gave reference you found tough to follow. I was referencing someone who is considered to be unable to let go of theories when presented with heavy evidence to the contrary (also straw man is a weakened recapitulation, red herring is a distracting irrelevance, and inaccuracy is just a dispute about facts).
[quote=surveyor]
It is clear you are a learned individual and have been able to debate me better than most of the people on this board. However, here’s a hint on raising the leveling of the discussion: do not imply that the establishment’s word is gospel.[/quote]
I don’t take anyone’s word as gospel. However, I don’t fight with well researched models unless I have something better. When you have something better, please reply.

[urbanrealtor]

Sorry, I was doing actual real estate for a few days.

[quote=surveyor]hey, another 16 pager…

…I never said that muslims themselves were violent. I just stated that the koran requires them to commit violence. Trying to imply the bigotry is a “straw man” attack, also a very weak argument.
[/quote]

Bigotry:
I did not imply bigotry in your statements. I stated it explicitly. To make disdainful remarks about practitioners of religion (or the religion itself) is bigotry. You stated that muslims are required to kill or war against nonbelievers. That is not a straw man. I applied your specific statements to a definition.

Jihad.
While some level of struggle or fighting in service of God is a practice that is widespread, it is not one of the five pillars. While it (jihad) has been used as a rallying cry in political struggles, it is not a license to kill. Sharia has specific issues with this. Historically, its mostly been used for converting pagan cities (worshiped zues or mithra) or for defending other Muslims (eg: middle eastern involvment in Bosnia). It was typically not extended to Abramics (except in self defense). The Abramic were considered lesser believers. Kind of like how some Christian groups consider Jews to be wrong but not wicked.

Islam and religious tolerance:
How people practice their religion varies. Stating that Islam is homicidal is like stating that Christianity is homophobic. There are violent Muslims and homophobic Christians. I live and do business in Hillcrest in San Diego. The Church (in its various incarnations) is very active here. My wife grew up next to the Clairemont mosque (which is attached to a church). Those are devout Muslims and Christians. Some are certainly homophobic. Some are certainly violent. These qualities are not reflections on their relative piety. To state that violence or prejudice is a reflection on piety is a bigoted view of the subject religion.

[quote=surveyor]

Also, bringing up the death toll of major conflicts and noting muslim participation in only a few still does not refute the idea that the koran teaches muslims to kill unbelievers.
[/quote]

Since stating death toll was too complex for you, I will draw it out. The relative violence of a group is defined by its violent action, not its priests or books. This is why the Salvation Army does not show up on any warfare lists.

[quote=surveyor]

If I said that he was dumb, or just a lawyer, then that could have been classified as an ad hominem attack. However, I laid out the case, I brought evidence of my point, and then put analysis of that point. That is not ad hominem. It’s analysis. Now, that analysis is not definitive. It is evidence, not proof. You want proof. Good enough for me, but not you. Fine.
[/quote]

The problem here is that your evidence consists of misspeaks and not actual policy statements. When I speak about Bolton, it is because he is a professional in diplomatic discourse and I am addressing his specific statements about diplomacy. I am not interested in verbal errors. I find your criticism of Obama weak for this reason. If you can make a better argument about that (and you have lots of material to work with), It would go a long way to further discussion.
[quote=surveyor]

The Europeans are negotiating on the behalf of us.
[/quote]
They have their own interests at heart. Not ours. Again I do not see their negotiations as applicable.

[quote=surveyor]
While the Cuban missile crisis was solved with diplomacy, it was backed up forcefully. I do not see Obama having that much leverage.
[/quote]

So the speculation is that he does not have leverage to back up negotiations? Do you think being CIC of the most powerful military is leverage? How about having control over access to the worlds biggest market?
That sounds like a good carrot and a good stick.
[quote=surveyor]
Now, Bolton. So despite the fact that you claimed that he was not respected, is reviled by many diplomats, you were not able to dispute the thrust of his article?…
[/quote]

I think I made a pretty good counter-argument. And yes, I would like to see better (or at least less ignored)experts cited. I don’t think you proved a thing. I am open to the idea of negotiations having limited capabilities. However, I do not see that you have made this case at all.

[quote=surveyor]

And so with this thought, you bring up the “Spencer is not a widely credited expert.” …This is in the debating world called “weak sauce.” It doesn’t refute the points brought up in the debate.
[/quote]
Not a hole in your argument but, while you use words from the debating world, you don’t use them correctly.

My first point was that throwing fringe authors (especially one who suggests that a conspiracy keeps him from getting a PhD) is a waste of time. I could quote lots of liberal and left wing nuts but it would be a waste and a distraction to the argument. Stating my actual opinions and debating on that field is what I am about. Your arguments would be stronger if you did that.

My second point here is that if the basic point that “Islam is evil” is just being intellectualized, citing it is a waste of time. People, not foundations of belief, are evil.
[quote=surveyor]

I don’t know, it sounds to me a lot like when the Church put Galileo on trial for saying the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo was a whacko then.
[/quote]
Does that make me the pope?
Seriously, poor analogy.
[quote=surveyor]

I TOTALLY agree that my assertions do not square with most history courses. Does that mean the history courses are correct? No. I also do not claim to know more than accepted experts, but neither do I accept the claim of the experts. As I stated to gandalf, if you are just going to rely on the analyses of the established “experts” then you have forgotten the tenets of piggington. It is the belief of this website that you question the “experts” and do not rely on the “experts.”
[/quote]
My understanding was that sometimes the experts are limited and its fair to question them. Its also fair to test new theories based on evidence. I really don’t get that you have done anything here but cite poor sources. Comparing your approach (which appears to be picking a reading list and take it as an article of faith) to Rich’s (who focused on intuitive and observable phenomena) really seems to be more of an insult to the site.
[quote=surveyor]

And accusing me of being in Cheneyland, THAT is also an irrelevant, inaccurate, and weak argument (generally called the straw man argument). Also name-calling. Which means in the debate, your argument has no merit.
[/quote]
Sorry if I gave reference you found tough to follow. I was referencing someone who is considered to be unable to let go of theories when presented with heavy evidence to the contrary (also straw man is a weakened recapitulation, red herring is a distracting irrelevance, and inaccuracy is just a dispute about facts).
[quote=surveyor]
It is clear you are a learned individual and have been able to debate me better than most of the people on this board. However, here’s a hint on raising the leveling of the discussion: do not imply that the establishment’s word is gospel.[/quote]
I don’t take anyone’s word as gospel. However, I don’t fight with well researched models unless I have something better. When you have something better, please reply.

[urbanrealtor]

Sorry, I was doing actual real estate for a few days.

[quote=surveyor]hey, another 16 pager…

…I never said that muslims themselves were violent. I just stated that the koran requires them to commit violence. Trying to imply the bigotry is a “straw man” attack, also a very weak argument.
[/quote]

Bigotry:
I did not imply bigotry in your statements. I stated it explicitly. To make disdainful remarks about practitioners of religion (or the religion itself) is bigotry. You stated that muslims are required to kill or war against nonbelievers. That is not a straw man. I applied your specific statements to a definition.

Jihad.
While some level of struggle or fighting in service of God is a practice that is widespread, it is not one of the five pillars. While it (jihad) has been used as a rallying cry in political struggles, it is not a license to kill. Sharia has specific issues with this. Historically, its mostly been used for converting pagan cities (worshiped zues or mithra) or for defending other Muslims (eg: middle eastern involvment in Bosnia). It was typically not extended to Abramics (except in self defense). The Abramic were considered lesser believers. Kind of like how some Christian groups consider Jews to be wrong but not wicked.

Islam and religious tolerance:
How people practice their religion varies. Stating that Islam is homicidal is like stating that Christianity is homophobic. There are violent Muslims and homophobic Christians. I live and do business in Hillcrest in San Diego. The Church (in its various incarnations) is very active here. My wife grew up next to the Clairemont mosque (which is attached to a church). Those are devout Muslims and Christians. Some are certainly homophobic. Some are certainly violent. These qualities are not reflections on their relative piety. To state that violence or prejudice is a reflection on piety is a bigoted view of the subject religion.

[quote=surveyor]

Also, bringing up the death toll of major conflicts and noting muslim participation in only a few still does not refute the idea that the koran teaches muslims to kill unbelievers.
[/quote]

Since stating death toll was too complex for you, I will draw it out. The relative violence of a group is defined by its violent action, not its priests or books. This is why the Salvation Army does not show up on any warfare lists.

[quote=surveyor]

If I said that he was dumb, or just a lawyer, then that could have been classified as an ad hominem attack. However, I laid out the case, I brought evidence of my point, and then put analysis of that point. That is not ad hominem. It’s analysis. Now, that analysis is not definitive. It is evidence, not proof. You want proof. Good enough for me, but not you. Fine.
[/quote]

The problem here is that your evidence consists of misspeaks and not actual policy statements. When I speak about Bolton, it is because he is a professional in diplomatic discourse and I am addressing his specific statements about diplomacy. I am not interested in verbal errors. I find your criticism of Obama weak for this reason. If you can make a better argument about that (and you have lots of material to work with), It would go a long way to further discussion.
[quote=surveyor]

The Europeans are negotiating on the behalf of us.
[/quote]
They have their own interests at heart. Not ours. Again I do not see their negotiations as applicable.

[quote=surveyor]
While the Cuban missile crisis was solved with diplomacy, it was backed up forcefully. I do not see Obama having that much leverage.
[/quote]

So the speculation is that he does not have leverage to back up negotiations? Do you think being CIC of the most powerful military is leverage? How about having control over access to the worlds biggest market?
That sounds like a good carrot and a good stick.
[quote=surveyor]
Now, Bolton. So despite the fact that you claimed that he was not respected, is reviled by many diplomats, you were not able to dispute the thrust of his article?…
[/quote]

I think I made a pretty good counter-argument. And yes, I would like to see better (or at least less ignored)experts cited. I don’t think you proved a thing. I am open to the idea of negotiations having limited capabilities. However, I do not see that you have made this case at all.

[quote=surveyor]

And so with this thought, you bring up the “Spencer is not a widely credited expert.” …This is in the debating world called “weak sauce.” It doesn’t refute the points brought up in the debate.
[/quote]
Not a hole in your argument but, while you use words from the debating world, you don’t use them correctly.

My first point was that throwing fringe authors (especially one who suggests that a conspiracy keeps him from getting a PhD) is a waste of time. I could quote lots of liberal and left wing nuts but it would be a waste and a distraction to the argument. Stating my actual opinions and debating on that field is what I am about. Your arguments would be stronger if you did that.

My second point here is that if the basic point that “Islam is evil” is just being intellectualized, citing it is a waste of time. People, not foundations of belief, are evil.
[quote=surveyor]

I don’t know, it sounds to me a lot like when the Church put Galileo on trial for saying the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo was a whacko then.
[/quote]
Does that make me the pope?
Seriously, poor analogy.
[quote=surveyor]

I TOTALLY agree that my assertions do not square with most history courses. Does that mean the history courses are correct? No. I also do not claim to know more than accepted experts, but neither do I accept the claim of the experts. As I stated to gandalf, if you are just going to rely on the analyses of the established “experts” then you have forgotten the tenets of piggington. It is the belief of this website that you question the “experts” and do not rely on the “experts.”
[/quote]
My understanding was that sometimes the experts are limited and its fair to question them. Its also fair to test new theories based on evidence. I really don’t get that you have done anything here but cite poor sources. Comparing your approach (which appears to be picking a reading list and take it as an article of faith) to Rich’s (who focused on intuitive and observable phenomena) really seems to be more of an insult to the site.
[quote=surveyor]

And accusing me of being in Cheneyland, THAT is also an irrelevant, inaccurate, and weak argument (generally called the straw man argument). Also name-calling. Which means in the debate, your argument has no merit.
[/quote]
Sorry if I gave reference you found tough to follow. I was referencing someone who is considered to be unable to let go of theories when presented with heavy evidence to the contrary (also straw man is a weakened recapitulation, red herring is a distracting irrelevance, and inaccuracy is just a dispute about facts).
[quote=surveyor]
It is clear you are a learned individual and have been able to debate me better than most of the people on this board. However, here’s a hint on raising the leveling of the discussion: do not imply that the establishment’s word is gospel.[/quote]
I don’t take anyone’s word as gospel. However, I don’t fight with well researched models unless I have something better. When you have something better, please reply.

[urbanrealtor]

Sorry, I was doing actual real estate for a few days.

[quote=surveyor]hey, another 16 pager…

…I never said that muslims themselves were violent. I just stated that the koran requires them to commit violence. Trying to imply the bigotry is a “straw man” attack, also a very weak argument.
[/quote]

Bigotry:
I did not imply bigotry in your statements. I stated it explicitly. To make disdainful remarks about practitioners of religion (or the religion itself) is bigotry. You stated that muslims are required to kill or war against nonbelievers. That is not a straw man. I applied your specific statements to a definition.

Jihad.
While some level of struggle or fighting in service of God is a practice that is widespread, it is not one of the five pillars. While it (jihad) has been used as a rallying cry in political struggles, it is not a license to kill. Sharia has specific issues with this. Historically, its mostly been used for converting pagan cities (worshiped zues or mithra) or for defending other Muslims (eg: middle eastern involvment in Bosnia). It was typically not extended to Abramics (except in self defense). The Abramic were considered lesser believers. Kind of like how some Christian groups consider Jews to be wrong but not wicked.

Islam and religious tolerance:
How people practice their religion varies. Stating that Islam is homicidal is like stating that Christianity is homophobic. There are violent Muslims and homophobic Christians. I live and do business in Hillcrest in San Diego. The Church (in its various incarnations) is very active here. My wife grew up next to the Clairemont mosque (which is attached to a church). Those are devout Muslims and Christians. Some are certainly homophobic. Some are certainly violent. These qualities are not reflections on their relative piety. To state that violence or prejudice is a reflection on piety is a bigoted view of the subject religion.

[quote=surveyor]

Also, bringing up the death toll of major conflicts and noting muslim participation in only a few still does not refute the idea that the koran teaches muslims to kill unbelievers.
[/quote]

Since stating death toll was too complex for you, I will draw it out. The relative violence of a group is defined by its violent action, not its priests or books. This is why the Salvation Army does not show up on any warfare lists.

[quote=surveyor]

If I said that he was dumb, or just a lawyer, then that could have been classified as an ad hominem attack. However, I laid out the case, I brought evidence of my point, and then put analysis of that point. That is not ad hominem. It’s analysis. Now, that analysis is not definitive. It is evidence, not proof. You want proof. Good enough for me, but not you. Fine.
[/quote]

The problem here is that your evidence consists of misspeaks and not actual policy statements. When I speak about Bolton, it is because he is a professional in diplomatic discourse and I am addressing his specific statements about diplomacy. I am not interested in verbal errors. I find your criticism of Obama weak for this reason. If you can make a better argument about that (and you have lots of material to work with), It would go a long way to further discussion.
[quote=surveyor]

The Europeans are negotiating on the behalf of us.
[/quote]
They have their own interests at heart. Not ours. Again I do not see their negotiations as applicable.

[quote=surveyor]
While the Cuban missile crisis was solved with diplomacy, it was backed up forcefully. I do not see Obama having that much leverage.
[/quote]

So the speculation is that he does not have leverage to back up negotiations? Do you think being CIC of the most powerful military is leverage? How about having control over access to the worlds biggest market?
That sounds like a good carrot and a good stick.
[quote=surveyor]
Now, Bolton. So despite the fact that you claimed that he was not respected, is reviled by many diplomats, you were not able to dispute the thrust of his article?…
[/quote]

I think I made a pretty good counter-argument. And yes, I would like to see better (or at least less ignored)experts cited. I don’t think you proved a thing. I am open to the idea of negotiations having limited capabilities. However, I do not see that you have made this case at all.

[quote=surveyor]

And so with this thought, you bring up the “Spencer is not a widely credited expert.” …This is in the debating world called “weak sauce.” It doesn’t refute the points brought up in the debate.
[/quote]
Not a hole in your argument but, while you use words from the debating world, you don’t use them correctly.

My first point was that throwing fringe authors (especially one who suggests that a conspiracy keeps him from getting a PhD) is a waste of time. I could quote lots of liberal and left wing nuts but it would be a waste and a distraction to the argument. Stating my actual opinions and debating on that field is what I am about. Your arguments would be stronger if you did that.

My second point here is that if the basic point that “Islam is evil” is just being intellectualized, citing it is a waste of time. People, not foundations of belief, are evil.
[quote=surveyor]

I don’t know, it sounds to me a lot like when the Church put Galileo on trial for saying the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo was a whacko then.
[/quote]
Does that make me the pope?
Seriously, poor analogy.
[quote=surveyor]

I TOTALLY agree that my assertions do not square with most history courses. Does that mean the history courses are correct? No. I also do not claim to know more than accepted experts, but neither do I accept the claim of the experts. As I stated to gandalf, if you are just going to rely on the analyses of the established “experts” then you have forgotten the tenets of piggington. It is the belief of this website that you question the “experts” and do not rely on the “experts.”
[/quote]
My understanding was that sometimes the experts are limited and its fair to question them. Its also fair to test new theories based on evidence. I really don’t get that you have done anything here but cite poor sources. Comparing your approach (which appears to be picking a reading list and take it as an article of faith) to Rich’s (who focused on intuitive and observable phenomena) really seems to be more of an insult to the site.
[quote=surveyor]

And accusing me of being in Cheneyland, THAT is also an irrelevant, inaccurate, and weak argument (generally called the straw man argument). Also name-calling. Which means in the debate, your argument has no merit.
[/quote]
Sorry if I gave reference you found tough to follow. I was referencing someone who is considered to be unable to let go of theories when presented with heavy evidence to the contrary (also straw man is a weakened recapitulation, red herring is a distracting irrelevance, and inaccuracy is just a dispute about facts).
[quote=surveyor]
It is clear you are a learned individual and have been able to debate me better than most of the people on this board. However, here’s a hint on raising the leveling of the discussion: do not imply that the establishment’s word is gospel.[/quote]
I don’t take anyone’s word as gospel. However, I don’t fight with well researched models unless I have something better. When you have something better, please reply.

[urbanrealtor]

Sorry, I was doing actual real estate for a few days.

[quote=surveyor]hey, another 16 pager…

…I never said that muslims themselves were violent. I just stated that the koran requires them to commit violence. Trying to imply the bigotry is a “straw man” attack, also a very weak argument.
[/quote]

Bigotry:
I did not imply bigotry in your statements. I stated it explicitly. To make disdainful remarks about practitioners of religion (or the religion itself) is bigotry. You stated that muslims are required to kill or war against nonbelievers. That is not a straw man. I applied your specific statements to a definition.

Jihad.
While some level of struggle or fighting in service of God is a practice that is widespread, it is not one of the five pillars. While it (jihad) has been used as a rallying cry in political struggles, it is not a license to kill. Sharia has specific issues with this. Historically, its mostly been used for converting pagan cities (worshiped zues or mithra) or for defending other Muslims (eg: middle eastern involvment in Bosnia). It was typically not extended to Abramics (except in self defense). The Abramic were considered lesser believers. Kind of like how some Christian groups consider Jews to be wrong but not wicked.

Islam and religious tolerance:
How people practice their religion varies. Stating that Islam is homicidal is like stating that Christianity is homophobic. There are violent Muslims and homophobic Christians. I live and do business in Hillcrest in San Diego. The Church (in its various incarnations) is very active here. My wife grew up next to the Clairemont mosque (which is attached to a church). Those are devout Muslims and Christians. Some are certainly homophobic. Some are certainly violent. These qualities are not reflections on their relative piety. To state that violence or prejudice is a reflection on piety is a bigoted view of the subject religion.

[quote=surveyor]

Also, bringing up the death toll of major conflicts and noting muslim participation in only a few still does not refute the idea that the koran teaches muslims to kill unbelievers.
[/quote]

Since stating death toll was too complex for you, I will draw it out. The relative violence of a group is defined by its violent action, not its priests or books. This is why the Salvation Army does not show up on any warfare lists.

[quote=surveyor]

If I said that he was dumb, or just a lawyer, then that could have been classified as an ad hominem attack. However, I laid out the case, I brought evidence of my point, and then put analysis of that point. That is not ad hominem. It’s analysis. Now, that analysis is not definitive. It is evidence, not proof. You want proof. Good enough for me, but not you. Fine.
[/quote]

The problem here is that your evidence consists of misspeaks and not actual policy statements. When I speak about Bolton, it is because he is a professional in diplomatic discourse and I am addressing his specific statements about diplomacy. I am not interested in verbal errors. I find your criticism of Obama weak for this reason. If you can make a better argument about that (and you have lots of material to work with), It would go a long way to further discussion.
[quote=surveyor]

The Europeans are negotiating on the behalf of us.
[/quote]
They have their own interests at heart. Not ours. Again I do not see their negotiations as applicable.

[quote=surveyor]
While the Cuban missile crisis was solved with diplomacy, it was backed up forcefully. I do not see Obama having that much leverage.
[/quote]

So the speculation is that he does not have leverage to back up negotiations? Do you think being CIC of the most powerful military is leverage? How about having control over access to the worlds biggest market?
That sounds like a good carrot and a good stick.
[quote=surveyor]
Now, Bolton. So despite the fact that you claimed that he was not respected, is reviled by many diplomats, you were not able to dispute the thrust of his article?…
[/quote]

I think I made a pretty good counter-argument. And yes, I would like to see better (or at least less ignored)experts cited. I don’t think you proved a thing. I am open to the idea of negotiations having limited capabilities. However, I do not see that you have made this case at all.

[quote=surveyor]

And so with this thought, you bring up the “Spencer is not a widely credited expert.” …This is in the debating world called “weak sauce.” It doesn’t refute the points brought up in the debate.
[/quote]
Not a hole in your argument but, while you use words from the debating world, you don’t use them correctly.

My first point was that throwing fringe authors (especially one who suggests that a conspiracy keeps him from getting a PhD) is a waste of time. I could quote lots of liberal and left wing nuts but it would be a waste and a distraction to the argument. Stating my actual opinions and debating on that field is what I am about. Your arguments would be stronger if you did that.

My second point here is that if the basic point that “Islam is evil” is just being intellectualized, citing it is a waste of time. People, not foundations of belief, are evil.
[quote=surveyor]

I don’t know, it sounds to me a lot like when the Church put Galileo on trial for saying the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo was a whacko then.
[/quote]
Does that make me the pope?
Seriously, poor analogy.
[quote=surveyor]

I TOTALLY agree that my assertions do not square with most history courses. Does that mean the history courses are correct? No. I also do not claim to know more than accepted experts, but neither do I accept the claim of the experts. As I stated to gandalf, if you are just going to rely on the analyses of the established “experts” then you have forgotten the tenets of piggington. It is the belief of this website that you question the “experts” and do not rely on the “experts.”
[/quote]
My understanding was that sometimes the experts are limited and its fair to question them. Its also fair to test new theories based on evidence. I really don’t get that you have done anything here but cite poor sources. Comparing your approach (which appears to be picking a reading list and take it as an article of faith) to Rich’s (who focused on intuitive and observable phenomena) really seems to be more of an insult to the site.
[quote=surveyor]

And accusing me of being in Cheneyland, THAT is also an irrelevant, inaccurate, and weak argument (generally called the straw man argument). Also name-calling. Which means in the debate, your argument has no merit.
[/quote]
Sorry if I gave reference you found tough to follow. I was referencing someone who is considered to be unable to let go of theories when presented with heavy evidence to the contrary (also straw man is a weakened recapitulation, red herring is a distracting irrelevance, and inaccuracy is just a dispute about facts).
[quote=surveyor]
It is clear you are a learned individual and have been able to debate me better than most of the people on this board. However, here’s a hint on raising the leveling of the discussion: do not imply that the establishment’s word is gospel.[/quote]
I don’t take anyone’s word as gospel. However, I don’t fight with well researched models unless I have something better. When you have something better, please reply.

[surveyor]

hi, dan!

Well, like I told gandalf (and see, we are re-hashing a lot of ground that gandalf and I covered), you can call me a bigot or anything else all you like, but it doesn’t refute the argument that the koran teaches violence against unbelievers. That statement does not imply that I am disdainful of muslims, bigoted against muslims, or hate muslims. It is just a fact that I have learned – the koran does teach violence against unbelievers. What I mean by the “straw man” argument is that you are stretching my argument to include the belief that I am attributing all muslims to be violent (which I specifically said is not true). That is a correct usage of the straw man accusation.

Anyways, regarding fringe authors, and you stating that Spencer hates muslims, he commented on that a few days ago:

“I don’t hate Muslims. In fact, I like Muslims so much that I don’t want them to fall victim to the stonings and amputations and denial of the freedom of conscience mandated by Islamic law. As I said here, “I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc.” Is all that “anti-Muslim”?”.

Still, the idea that Spencer “hates” muslims is irrelevant in the light of refuting certain ideas about islam. Is he wrong just because he “hates” muslims? No. Is he wrong about Islam because he believes that a “conspiracy” is keeping him from getting a PhD? No.

Also, just because jihad is not one of the five pillars, that does not mean it is not preached as a requirement or that the koran does not teach violence against unbelievers. You also have a logical fallacy in stating that just because jihad has been used “mostly” in certain circumstances, that somehow it negates the idea that the koran preaches violence. There are differences between becoming more pious in Christianity and being more
pious in Islam. I was not implying that piety itself was a precursor to terrorism. I was saying when a person becomes more pious in ISLAM, that person starts examining the texts and those texts advocate violence. While certainly everyone introduced to those texts do not become violent, a sufficient number of them do.

Which brings me to the death count. Your comparing muslim participation in a world war is hardly a good analogy. Here’s a better analogy: the islamists have killed more people each year than in the entire 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition. By that analogy, it is pretty good proof that the koran teaches violence. Since you are relying on the “actions” of a group to define their violence, here is that evidence.

I did find this little gem that refutes what you said about how minorities were treated well in muslim societies in the past:

http://pnews.org/ArT/ZuLu/EmU.shtml.

[quote=urbanrealtor]I think I made a pretty good counter-argument. And yes, I would like to see better (or at least less ignored)experts cited. I don’t think you proved a thing. I am open to the idea of negotiations having limited capabilities. However, I do not see that you have made this case at all.[/quote]

Let me point you back to the theme of Bolton’s article: Obama has little knowledge of history and his lack of understanding hurts him. You were unable to refute that part of the article. You started arguing about Krushchev and Kennedy, and started to go into diplomacy, but the theme remains: Obama has little knowledge of history and his lack of understanding hurts him. You have been unable to refute Bolton, you have been unable to refute the article’s theme, there is precious little for me to prove to you. Having more respected (in your eyes) experts is irrelevant if the point has been proven. Credentials do not an argument make.

[quote=urbanrealtor]So the speculation is that he does not have leverage to back up negotiations? Do you think being CIC of the most powerful military is leverage? How about having control over access to the worlds biggest market? That sounds like a good carrot and a good stick.[/quote]

Obama has stated explicitly that he will not use the military option against many nations (specifically Iran). So no leverage there. All Obama can promise is access to the biggest market? I thought we weren’t going to go Neville Chamberlain on the Iranians.

[quote=urbanrealtor]Does that make me the pope?
Seriously, poor analogy.[/quote]

Let me see, the (authority at the time) church was fighting against the idea that the earth revolved around the sun, Galileo said the earth revolved around the sun, the church marked him a heretic and a whacko. Since the church said he was a whacko and a heretic, that his ideas were rubbish.

Hmmm, you said that the muslims treated minorities well, I said no, an author Spencer shows how the minorities weren’t treated well, you call him a “fringe” author, and that his ideas are rubbish because he’s a “fringe” author.

Hmmm, you also said that Bolton was “not respected” and so we shouldn’t count his analyses
or opinions.

The word “analogous” fits pretty well.

[quote=urbanrealtor]My understanding was that sometimes the experts are limited and its fair to question them. Its also fair to test new theories based on evidence. I really don’t get that you have done anything here but cite poor sources. Comparing your approach (which appears to be picking a reading list and take it as an article of faith) to Rich’s (who focused on intuitive and observable phenomena) really seems to be more of an insult to the site.[/quote]

And the Spencer book is evidence against your “respected” experts. Your assertion was that muslims treated their minorities well according to the “trusted experts”. I listed a few books (Spencer as one of them) as evidence your experts were wrong. If anyone is taking anything as an article of faith, it is your faith in your “trusted” and “respected experts”. By your rationale, hardly any authority can be questioned. It doesn’t matter how strong the argument, the “fringe” have to be approved by the authorities, they have to be vouched for by the authorities. That is intellectual slavery.

[quote=urbanrealtor]I was referencing someone who is considered to be unable to let go of theories when presented with heavy evidence to the contrary.[/quote]

You should really look up the word “projection.”

Honestly, your argument to all my assertions have been to paint me, Spencer, or Bolton as either bigoted, fringe, or not respected. That is hardly distinctive as an intellectual argument or effective as a counter-argument. You are asking me to respond with better material when the material I have is more than sufficient to prove my point.
Meanwhile, your inability to argue my points without name-calling or purporting the superiority of your “sources” is hardly indicative of your ability to raise the dialogue.

[surveyor]

hi, dan!

Well, like I told gandalf (and see, we are re-hashing a lot of ground that gandalf and I covered), you can call me a bigot or anything else all you like, but it doesn’t refute the argument that the koran teaches violence against unbelievers. That statement does not imply that I am disdainful of muslims, bigoted against muslims, or hate muslims. It is just a fact that I have learned – the koran does teach violence against unbelievers. What I mean by the “straw man” argument is that you are stretching my argument to include the belief that I am attributing all muslims to be violent (which I specifically said is not true). That is a correct usage of the straw man accusation.

Anyways, regarding fringe authors, and you stating that Spencer hates muslims, he commented on that a few days ago:

“I don’t hate Muslims. In fact, I like Muslims so much that I don’t want them to fall victim to the stonings and amputations and denial of the freedom of conscience mandated by Islamic law. As I said here, “I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc.” Is all that “anti-Muslim”?”.

Still, the idea that Spencer “hates” muslims is irrelevant in the light of refuting certain ideas about islam. Is he wrong just because he “hates” muslims? No. Is he wrong about Islam because he believes that a “conspiracy” is keeping him from getting a PhD? No.

Also, just because jihad is not one of the five pillars, that does not mean it is not preached as a requirement or that the koran does not teach violence against unbelievers. You also have a logical fallacy in stating that just because jihad has been used “mostly” in certain circumstances, that somehow it negates the idea that the koran preaches violence. There are differences between becoming more pious in Christianity and being more
pious in Islam. I was not implying that piety itself was a precursor to terrorism. I was saying when a person becomes more pious in ISLAM, that person starts examining the texts and those texts advocate violence. While certainly everyone introduced to those texts do not become violent, a sufficient number of them do.

Which brings me to the death count. Your comparing muslim participation in a world war is hardly a good analogy. Here’s a better analogy: the islamists have killed more people each year than in the entire 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition. By that analogy, it is pretty good proof that the koran teaches violence. Since you are relying on the “actions” of a group to define their violence, here is that evidence.

I did find this little gem that refutes what you said about how minorities were treated well in muslim societies in the past:

http://pnews.org/ArT/ZuLu/EmU.shtml.

[quote=urbanrealtor]I think I made a pretty good counter-argument. And yes, I would like to see better (or at least less ignored)experts cited. I don’t think you proved a thing. I am open to the idea of negotiations having limited capabilities. However, I do not see that you have made this case at all.[/quote]

Let me point you back to the theme of Bolton’s article: Obama has little knowledge of history and his lack of understanding hurts him. You were unable to refute that part of the article. You started arguing about Krushchev and Kennedy, and started to go into diplomacy, but the theme remains: Obama has little knowledge of history and his lack of understanding hurts him. You have been unable to refute Bolton, you have been unable to refute the article’s theme, there is precious little for me to prove to you. Having more respected (in your eyes) experts is irrelevant if the point has been proven. Credentials do not an argument make.

[quote=urbanrealtor]So the speculation is that he does not have leverage to back up negotiations? Do you think being CIC of the most powerful military is leverage? How about having control over access to the worlds biggest market? That sounds like a good carrot and a good stick.[/quote]

Obama has stated explicitly that he will not use the military option against many nations (specifically Iran). So no leverage there. All Obama can promise is access to the biggest market? I thought we weren’t going to go Neville Chamberlain on the Iranians.

[quote=urbanrealtor]Does that make me the pope?
Seriously, poor analogy.[/quote]

Let me see, the (authority at the time) church was fighting against the idea that the earth revolved around the sun, Galileo said the earth revolved around the sun, the church marked him a heretic and a whacko. Since the church said he was a whacko and a heretic, that his ideas were rubbish.

Hmmm, you said that the muslims treated minorities well, I said no, an author Spencer shows how the minorities weren’t treated well, you call him a “fringe” author, and that his ideas are rubbish because he’s a “fringe” author.

Hmmm, you also said that Bolton was “not respected” and so we shouldn’t count his analyses
or opinions.

The word “analogous” fits pretty well.

[quote=urbanrealtor]My understanding was that sometimes the experts are limited and its fair to question them. Its also fair to test new theories based on evidence. I really don’t get that you have done anything here but cite poor sources. Comparing your approach (which appears to be picking a reading list and take it as an article of faith) to Rich’s (who focused on intuitive and observable phenomena) really seems to be more of an insult to the site.[/quote]

And the Spencer book is evidence against your “respected” experts. Your assertion was that muslims treated their minorities well according to the “trusted experts”. I listed a few books (Spencer as one of them) as evidence your experts were wrong. If anyone is taking anything as an article of faith, it is your faith in your “trusted” and “respected experts”. By your rationale, hardly any authority can be questioned. It doesn’t matter how strong the argument, the “fringe” have to be approved by the authorities, they have to be vouched for by the authorities. That is intellectual slavery.

[quote=urbanrealtor]I was referencing someone who is considered to be unable to let go of theories when presented with heavy evidence to the contrary.[/quote]

You should really look up the word “projection.”

Honestly, your argument to all my assertions have been to paint me, Spencer, or Bolton as either bigoted, fringe, or not respected. That is hardly distinctive as an intellectual argument or effective as a counter-argument. You are asking me to respond with better material when the material I have is more than sufficient to prove my point.
Meanwhile, your inability to argue my points without name-calling or purporting the superiority of your “sources” is hardly indicative of your ability to raise the dialogue.

[surveyor]

hi, dan!

Well, like I told gandalf (and see, we are re-hashing a lot of ground that gandalf and I covered), you can call me a bigot or anything else all you like, but it doesn’t refute the argument that the koran teaches violence against unbelievers. That statement does not imply that I am disdainful of muslims, bigoted against muslims, or hate muslims. It is just a fact that I have learned – the koran does teach violence against unbelievers. What I mean by the “straw man” argument is that you are stretching my argument to include the belief that I am attributing all muslims to be violent (which I specifically said is not true). That is a correct usage of the straw man accusation.

Anyways, regarding fringe authors, and you stating that Spencer hates muslims, he commented on that a few days ago:

“I don’t hate Muslims. In fact, I like Muslims so much that I don’t want them to fall victim to the stonings and amputations and denial of the freedom of conscience mandated by Islamic law. As I said here, “I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc.” Is all that “anti-Muslim”?”.

Still, the idea that Spencer “hates” muslims is irrelevant in the light of refuting certain ideas about islam. Is he wrong just because he “hates” muslims? No. Is he wrong about Islam because he believes that a “conspiracy” is keeping him from getting a PhD? No.

Also, just because jihad is not one of the five pillars, that does not mean it is not preached as a requirement or that the koran does not teach violence against unbelievers. You also have a logical fallacy in stating that just because jihad has been used “mostly” in certain circumstances, that somehow it negates the idea that the koran preaches violence. There are differences between becoming more pious in Christianity and being more
pious in Islam. I was not implying that piety itself was a precursor to terrorism. I was saying when a person becomes more pious in ISLAM, that person starts examining the texts and those texts advocate violence. While certainly everyone introduced to those texts do not become violent, a sufficient number of them do.

Which brings me to the death count. Your comparing muslim participation in a world war is hardly a good analogy. Here’s a better analogy: the islamists have killed more people each year than in the entire 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition. By that analogy, it is pretty good proof that the koran teaches violence. Since you are relying on the “actions” of a group to define their violence, here is that evidence.

I did find this little gem that refutes what you said about how minorities were treated well in muslim societies in the past:

http://pnews.org/ArT/ZuLu/EmU.shtml.

[quote=urbanrealtor]I think I made a pretty good counter-argument. And yes, I would like to see better (or at least less ignored)experts cited. I don’t think you proved a thing. I am open to the idea of negotiations having limited capabilities. However, I do not see that you have made this case at all.[/quote]

Let me point you back to the theme of Bolton’s article: Obama has little knowledge of history and his lack of understanding hurts him. You were unable to refute that part of the article. You started arguing about Krushchev and Kennedy, and started to go into diplomacy, but the theme remains: Obama has little knowledge of history and his lack of understanding hurts him. You have been unable to refute Bolton, you have been unable to refute the article’s theme, there is precious little for me to prove to you. Having more respected (in your eyes) experts is irrelevant if the point has been proven. Credentials do not an argument make.

[quote=urbanrealtor]So the speculation is that he does not have leverage to back up negotiations? Do you think being CIC of the most powerful military is leverage? How about having control over access to the worlds biggest market? That sounds like a good carrot and a good stick.[/quote]

Obama has stated explicitly that he will not use the military option against many nations (specifically Iran). So no leverage there. All Obama can promise is access to the biggest market? I thought we weren’t going to go Neville Chamberlain on the Iranians.

[quote=urbanrealtor]Does that make me the pope?
Seriously, poor analogy.[/quote]

Let me see, the (authority at the time) church was fighting against the idea that the earth revolved around the sun, Galileo said the earth revolved around the sun, the church marked him a heretic and a whacko. Since the church said he was a whacko and a heretic, that his ideas were rubbish.

Hmmm, you said that the muslims treated minorities well, I said no, an author Spencer shows how the minorities weren’t treated well, you call him a “fringe” author, and that his ideas are rubbish because he’s a “fringe” author.

Hmmm, you also said that Bolton was “not respected” and so we shouldn’t count his analyses
or opinions.

The word “analogous” fits pretty well.

[quote=urbanrealtor]My understanding was that sometimes the experts are limited and its fair to question them. Its also fair to test new theories based on evidence. I really don’t get that you have done anything here but cite poor sources. Comparing your approach (which appears to be picking a reading list and take it as an article of faith) to Rich’s (who focused on intuitive and observable phenomena) really seems to be more of an insult to the site.[/quote]

And the Spencer book is evidence against your “respected” experts. Your assertion was that muslims treated their minorities well according to the “trusted experts”. I listed a few books (Spencer as one of them) as evidence your experts were wrong. If anyone is taking anything as an article of faith, it is your faith in your “trusted” and “respected experts”. By your rationale, hardly any authority can be questioned. It doesn’t matter how strong the argument, the “fringe” have to be approved by the authorities, they have to be vouched for by the authorities. That is intellectual slavery.

[quote=urbanrealtor]I was referencing someone who is considered to be unable to let go of theories when presented with heavy evidence to the contrary.[/quote]

You should really look up the word “projection.”

Honestly, your argument to all my assertions have been to paint me, Spencer, or Bolton as either bigoted, fringe, or not respected. That is hardly distinctive as an intellectual argument or effective as a counter-argument. You are asking me to respond with better material when the material I have is more than sufficient to prove my point.
Meanwhile, your inability to argue my points without name-calling or purporting the superiority of your “sources” is hardly indicative of your ability to raise the dialogue.

[surveyor]

hi, dan!

Well, like I told gandalf (and see, we are re-hashing a lot of ground that gandalf and I covered), you can call me a bigot or anything else all you like, but it doesn’t refute the argument that the koran teaches violence against unbelievers. That statement does not imply that I am disdainful of muslims, bigoted against muslims, or hate muslims. It is just a fact that I have learned – the koran does teach violence against unbelievers. What I mean by the “straw man” argument is that you are stretching my argument to include the belief that I am attributing all muslims to be violent (which I specifically said is not true). That is a correct usage of the straw man accusation.

Anyways, regarding fringe authors, and you stating that Spencer hates muslims, he commented on that a few days ago:

“I don’t hate Muslims. In fact, I like Muslims so much that I don’t want them to fall victim to the stonings and amputations and denial of the freedom of conscience mandated by Islamic law. As I said here, “I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc.” Is all that “anti-Muslim”?”.

Still, the idea that Spencer “hates” muslims is irrelevant in the light of refuting certain ideas about islam. Is he wrong just because he “hates” muslims? No. Is he wrong about Islam because he believes that a “conspiracy” is keeping him from getting a PhD? No.

Also, just because jihad is not one of the five pillars, that does not mean it is not preached as a requirement or that the koran does not teach violence against unbelievers. You also have a logical fallacy in stating that just because jihad has been used “mostly” in certain circumstances, that somehow it negates the idea that the koran preaches violence. There are differences between becoming more pious in Christianity and being more
pious in Islam. I was not implying that piety itself was a precursor to terrorism. I was saying when a person becomes more pious in ISLAM, that person starts examining the texts and those texts advocate violence. While certainly everyone introduced to those texts do not become violent, a sufficient number of them do.

Which brings me to the death count. Your comparing muslim participation in a world war is hardly a good analogy. Here’s a better analogy: the islamists have killed more people each year than in the entire 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition. By that analogy, it is pretty good proof that the koran teaches violence. Since you are relying on the “actions” of a group to define their violence, here is that evidence.

I did find this little gem that refutes what you said about how minorities were treated well in muslim societies in the past:

http://pnews.org/ArT/ZuLu/EmU.shtml.

[quote=urbanrealtor]I think I made a pretty good counter-argument. And yes, I would like to see better (or at least less ignored)experts cited. I don’t think you proved a thing. I am open to the idea of negotiations having limited capabilities. However, I do not see that you have made this case at all.[/quote]

Let me point you back to the theme of Bolton’s article: Obama has little knowledge of history and his lack of understanding hurts him. You were unable to refute that part of the article. You started arguing about Krushchev and Kennedy, and started to go into diplomacy, but the theme remains: Obama has little knowledge of history and his lack of understanding hurts him. You have been unable to refute Bolton, you have been unable to refute the article’s theme, there is precious little for me to prove to you. Having more respected (in your eyes) experts is irrelevant if the point has been proven. Credentials do not an argument make.

[quote=urbanrealtor]So the speculation is that he does not have leverage to back up negotiations? Do you think being CIC of the most powerful military is leverage? How about having control over access to the worlds biggest market? That sounds like a good carrot and a good stick.[/quote]

Obama has stated explicitly that he will not use the military option against many nations (specifically Iran). So no leverage there. All Obama can promise is access to the biggest market? I thought we weren’t going to go Neville Chamberlain on the Iranians.

[quote=urbanrealtor]Does that make me the pope?
Seriously, poor analogy.[/quote]

Let me see, the (authority at the time) church was fighting against the idea that the earth revolved around the sun, Galileo said the earth revolved around the sun, the church marked him a heretic and a whacko. Since the church said he was a whacko and a heretic, that his ideas were rubbish.

Hmmm, you said that the muslims treated minorities well, I said no, an author Spencer shows how the minorities weren’t treated well, you call him a “fringe” author, and that his ideas are rubbish because he’s a “fringe” author.

Hmmm, you also said that Bolton was “not respected” and so we shouldn’t count his analyses
or opinions.

The word “analogous” fits pretty well.

[quote=urbanrealtor]My understanding was that sometimes the experts are limited and its fair to question them. Its also fair to test new theories based on evidence. I really don’t get that you have done anything here but cite poor sources. Comparing your approach (which appears to be picking a reading list and take it as an article of faith) to Rich’s (who focused on intuitive and observable phenomena) really seems to be more of an insult to the site.[/quote]

And the Spencer book is evidence against your “respected” experts. Your assertion was that muslims treated their minorities well according to the “trusted experts”. I listed a few books (Spencer as one of them) as evidence your experts were wrong. If anyone is taking anything as an article of faith, it is your faith in your “trusted” and “respected experts”. By your rationale, hardly any authority can be questioned. It doesn’t matter how strong the argument, the “fringe” have to be approved by the authorities, they have to be vouched for by the authorities. That is intellectual slavery.

[quote=urbanrealtor]I was referencing someone who is considered to be unable to let go of theories when presented with heavy evidence to the contrary.[/quote]

You should really look up the word “projection.”

Honestly, your argument to all my assertions have been to paint me, Spencer, or Bolton as either bigoted, fringe, or not respected. That is hardly distinctive as an intellectual argument or effective as a counter-argument. You are asking me to respond with better material when the material I have is more than sufficient to prove my point.
Meanwhile, your inability to argue my points without name-calling or purporting the superiority of your “sources” is hardly indicative of your ability to raise the dialogue.

[Author]

Posts