[urbanrealtor]

I have heard (though not independently verified) that Sandicor will grant (read only) access to real estate students. The person who told me this was Lowell Knapp of Cuyamaca College. He was my real estate law professor at the time. I do not know if it was for his class only or what exactly.

[urbanrealtor]

I have heard (though not independently verified) that Sandicor will grant (read only) access to real estate students. The person who told me this was Lowell Knapp of Cuyamaca College. He was my real estate law professor at the time. I do not know if it was for his class only or what exactly.

[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.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Aecetia]Here is another suggestion from bubbletracking:

http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/07/mighty-mike-to-rsf-triumvirates-rescue.html%5B/quote%5D

I clicked thru.
I am not sure its the right link.

Looked like an article on the same stuff and not a new suggestion.

Did I click it wrong or something?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Aecetia]Here is another suggestion from bubbletracking:

http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/07/mighty-mike-to-rsf-triumvirates-rescue.html%5B/quote%5D

I clicked thru.
I am not sure its the right link.

Looked like an article on the same stuff and not a new suggestion.

Did I click it wrong or something?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Aecetia]Here is another suggestion from bubbletracking:

http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/07/mighty-mike-to-rsf-triumvirates-rescue.html%5B/quote%5D

I clicked thru.
I am not sure its the right link.

Looked like an article on the same stuff and not a new suggestion.

Did I click it wrong or something?

[Author]

Posts