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:
[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.
What do you make of the Bush Administration sending a representative to participate in discussions with Tehran? Isn’t that supposed to be off-limits? (They even quote Bolton, so you know this is relevant.)
The Bush Administration is tacking away from positions advocated for by Bolton and the neocon community and gravitating towards positions advocated for by Obama.
What do you make of the Bush Administration sending a representative to participate in discussions with Tehran? Isn’t that supposed to be off-limits? (They even quote Bolton, so you know this is relevant.)
The Bush Administration is tacking away from positions advocated for by Bolton and the neocon community and gravitating towards positions advocated for by Obama.
What do you make of the Bush Administration sending a representative to participate in discussions with Tehran? Isn’t that supposed to be off-limits? (They even quote Bolton, so you know this is relevant.)
The Bush Administration is tacking away from positions advocated for by Bolton and the neocon community and gravitating towards positions advocated for by Obama.
What do you make of the Bush Administration sending a representative to participate in discussions with Tehran? Isn’t that supposed to be off-limits? (They even quote Bolton, so you know this is relevant.)
The Bush Administration is tacking away from positions advocated for by Bolton and the neocon community and gravitating towards positions advocated for by Obama.
