Tomorrow's U.K. Front Pages.

[Telepathic]

Oh...but you forget: radical Islam, is not Islam, if we are to take what Obama, and everybody else on the left, says seriously.

 

So, in fact, per their definition, I am NOT declaring war on Islam in any way.

How will your lawsuit differentiate between the two? What guidlines are you using to determine what constitutes a radical extremist? I'm interested in your well reasoned and detailed answer to this query.

 

I am declaring war on something, that is supposedly, NOT Islam.

 

Put that in your pipe.....and remember that if radical Islam is Islam, then, the KKK "religion" they espouse is Christianity.

And how exactly did the FBI go about combatting the KKK at their height of power? Did they sue and illegally monitor every Christain? Or did they focus their investigations on the criminal actions taken by the ones who strayed from the flock?

 

Interesting choice of example for you to use considering the obvious answer...

 

Edit: and, since radical Islam is not Islam, my principals values stay intact.

Your values are meaningless in this discussion as they are subjective. You should be focused on your principles in this matter, things that are qualitatively objective. If you truly believe in the freedom of religion as a constitutional tenent, then your principles should not allow you to wage war on any one religion. Just my opinion of course.

[OCinBuffalo]

How will your lawsuit differentiate between the two? What guidlines are you using to determine what constitutes a radical extremist? I'm interested in your well reasoned and detailed answer to this query.

Perhaps we should just look to those enlightened fellows on the left, who make that distinction on a daily basis? They have no problem issuing their expert opinions on this matter, so, let's simply let their standards be the guide.

 

And, it's lawsuits.

 

And, they will be specific to the things I already cited, and take care not to overreach and create an opening for the idiots to cry "persecution"

 

It's simple, really: Human rights violations, or the conspiracy to deprive others of their human/civil rights, that contravene all laws and treaties in the nation in question, are the guide. Just use the very same case law that the SPLC created. Example: If you say you support a Caliphate, or the imposition of Sharia law, then by definition you support, and are conspiring to deprive, violation of Civil rights of all people, not just women. Again, using precedents set by SPLC, we ALL have standing to sue.

 

I don't have to do a lot of work here, I just need to modify the arguments that have already been made, and supported in court, by the SPLC. I am aware of what they have done, how, and why. If you want to learn about it, google is your friend.

And how exactly did the FBI go about combatting the KKK at their height of power? Did they sue and illegally monitor every Christain? Or did they focus their investigations on the criminal actions taken by the ones who strayed from the flock?

 

Interesting choice of example for you to use considering the obvious answer...

But this is where you FAIL. The FBI has much less to do with the eradication of the KKK, than does the SPLC. You need to read up on the history of this. The SPLC is a great triumph of liberal thought, just ask any liberal. No, I'm being serious actually. The SPLC literally destroyed the organization, and therefore the capability to spread KKK ideology. You could not do the same with the TEA party, for example, because the TEA party is not violent, nor does it support the use of violence, nor does it conspire to violate civil rights.

 

Are you getting the sense that the word "conspire" matters here, yet? Again, read the material, you will see exactly what I am saying.

 

Your values are meaningless in this discussion as they are subjective. You should be focused on your principles in this matter, things that are qualitatively objective. If you truly believe in the freedom of religion as a constitutional tenent, then your principles should not allow you to wage war on any one religion. Just my opinion of course.

Looks like somebody doesn't understand the difference between a principle and a value. EDIT: (Bah! I will be eternally cursed by the principal vs principle spelling problem, and that is probably due to the principal NEVER being my friend)

 

Human principles are something we all share instinctively. Do not murder, lie, cheat, steal...these are things that we find, over and over, without exception, in every culture, throughout history. This is no coincidence. We are born with principles, and nobody needs to tell us to have them. Those that aren't born that way? We have words to define them: sociopath, psychopath.

 

Values, on the other hand, are a choice, and are subject to change. How much value we place on each is also, a choice. When the worth of one of our values, necessitates violating a principle? Then you have trouble, or dare I say: sin? Every time.

 

Values can be qualitatively objective. Principles are morality, they are absolute, and aren't subject to personal interpretation, objective or otherwise. In fact, anyone who does try to belie the absolute nature of principles, and says they can interpret them personally? They are, by definition, being immoral.

 

Now that we have that out of the way: this is a value judgement. Do the values and tenets of radical Islam merit anything other than contempt, especially when they so often proscribe violations of principles? Of course not.

 

So, we can easily seek the suppression of these values, or their outright destruction, and, as long as we don't violate any principles in doing that, then there is nothing immoral, or even, unseemly, about proceeding.

Edited May 28, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[Telepathic]

Perhaps we should just look to those enlightened fellows on the left, who make that distinction on a daily basis?

Why? I was asking for your opinion, not someone else's. How would you go about enacting this? More specifically, how would you go about doing this without violating freedom of religion in a constitutional sense? If you have an answer, you might have a winning idea here.

 

But this is where you FAIL. The FBI has much less to do with the eradication of the KKK, than does the SPLC. You need to read up on the history of this.

 

Point of fact, I do not need to read up on this. I have done my share of work in this field and am well aware of the rise and fall of the Klan's influence. I was merely pointing out how the Klan was legally (and sometimes illegally) combatted by the federal government. They did so without violating the first amendment. Your proposed solution seems to violate the first amendment on a fundamental level, which is why I find it strange you used the KKK as an example to help your case.

 

Looks like somebody doesn't understand the difference between a principle and a value.

 

Point of fact, I defined the two the same way you did. Only I did so with less bloviating. Principles are OBJECTIVE. Personal values, by definition, are SUBJECTIVE.

 

In this particular case, if your principles dictate freedom of religion, then declaring war on Islam in any sense fundamentally undercuts your principle. It doesn't matter if you value Islam less than Joe-Schmoe, your principles should be your guiding force in this topic. Now, if you have a way to sort the wheat from the chaffe when it comes to building a law suit in such a way that does not violate that principle, I'm listening as it's a novel approach to the problem.

[Nanker]

Principles are only valid if you stick with them when they're a burden as well as a benefit. Declaring war on a religion is fundamentally anti-American; which is why your proposal shouldn't be considered seriously in my opinion.

 

Then how did the DNC get away with its 2012 war on Mormonism, and for that matter the media's war on Christianity?

Edited May 28, 2013 by Nanker

[Telepathic]

Then how did the DNC get away with its 2012 war on Mormonism, and for that matter the media's war on Christianity?

If you want a defense of the DNC you're asking the wrong person.

[OCinBuffalo]

Why? I was asking for your opinion, not someone else's. How would you go about enacting this? More specifically, how would you go about doing this without violating freedom of religion in a constitutional sense? If you have an answer, you might have a winning idea here.

No, you are trying to duck the logic here. Specifically using the left's own logic against them. It's merely a side argument/hilarious benefit, though.

 

To the point, the SPLC did a fine job of creating the template for going after those who actually do, or conspire to, deprive others of their civil rights. Why do I need to re-invent the wheel? I don't see a need. In fact, I think not using the SPLC template is foolish. We already have case law that has passed Constitutional muster. Why would we want to risk some technicality being missed, when we already have the method defined?

 

Radical Islam, Jihad, whatever...is a political movement, not a religion. Especially not when what it espouses violates Constitutional amendments. So, it's simple: anything, a pamphlet, a speech, a meeting where this stuff is discussed, that is in violation of civil rights law, and is by definition, political? Open season. Anything that doesn't concern itself with violence, or doesn't refer to changing the secular law, or is by definition: spiritual, is not only left alone, but is protected.

Point of fact, I do not need to read up on this. I have done my share of work in this field and am well aware of the rise and fall of the Klan's influence. I was merely pointing out how the Klan was legally (and sometimes illegally) combatted by the federal government. They did so without violating the first amendment. Your proposed solution seems to violate the first amendment on a fundamental level, which is why I find it strange you used the KKK as an example to help your case.

Then start posting like it.

 

Again, I am not entitled to First Amendment rights, when, by definition, my behavior, my speech, or more importantly, my organization conspires to violate civil rights. This much has been proven, specifically by the KKK battle. If you've done the work you say you have, then you know the KKK tried specifically to hide behind religious protection, and FAILed.

 

How is radical Islam any different? Other than PC idiocy, how are they any different than the KKK, using religion to hide, just like the KKK?

 

In fact, they are not. And, if we were to attack them the same way SPLC attacked the Klan, using the same method, then I would expect the same results.

Point of fact, I defined the two the same way you did. Only I did so with less bloviating. Principles are OBJECTIVE. Personal values, by definition, are SUBJECTIVE.

I wouldn't have had to do any of that had you used either term properly, and hadn't implied that I have to check my principles to see if they are objective.

 

Which you did.

In this particular case, if your principles dictate freedom of religion, then declaring war on Islam in any sense fundamentally undercuts your principle. It doesn't matter if you value Islam less than Joe-Schmoe, your principles should be your guiding force in this topic. Now, if you have a way to sort the wheat from the chaffe when it comes to building a law suit in such a way that does not violate that principle, I'm listening as it's a novel approach to the problem.

Principles, by definition, dictate no such thing. So, now we are back to you no not knowing the difference between the two...only one sentence later? If a group of people all agree that we should allow for many religions, and not hold one above the other, that is called: "sharing a value". That sharing can be traditional, and, it can even be written down in a document that is put on display in a glass case

 

But, it is not a principle, never was, and never will be.

 

The value I place, on values like free speech, free religion, and free trade, are so high, that yes, I would gladly resist/sue/fight anybody who tries to destroy them. However, I would never consider violating a principle to get that done, unless there is imminent threat to life/limb. (I wouldn't say the same about property. This is the USA, and these Fs have another thing coming if they think we can get new property, any time we want.) That's why we use words like "imminent threat". It doesn't mean we can investigate these people eternally, and secretly, without due process.

 

It does mean that if I am walking down the street, and you hand me a pamphlet with the words "(Radical) Islam is the Answer" at the top, followed by your reasons for why, I can sue the hell out of you for conspiring to deprive me of my civil rights.

 

And the reason? If Islam was the Answer, you could have me executed for suing you, and that would be done with due process, according to Sharia law.

 

Pushing for a society that executes dissenters like me...is by definition, conspiring to deprive me of my civil rights. Period.

Edited May 29, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[Telepathic]

Principles, by definition, dictate no such thing. So, now we are back to you no not knowing the difference between the two...only one sentence later? If a group of people all agree that we should allow for many religions, and not hold one above the other, that is called: "sharing a value". That sharing can be traditional, and, it can even be written down in a document that is put on display in a glass case

 

But, it is not a principle, never was, and never will be.

Our definitions of what being an American stands for are evidently very different if you feel the right to freely worship or freely speak your mind is anything other than a natural right given to every person on this planet.

 

So, agree to disagree.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Individual citizen actors can't violate Constitutional amendments in the way being proposed. Only government can.

 

A private citizen, or group of citizens, using the court system violates no Constitutional principle what-so-ever.

[OCinBuffalo]

Our definitions of what being an American stands for are evidently very different if you feel the right to freely worship or freely speak your mind is anything other than a natural right given to every person on this planet.

 

So, agree to disagree.

I am sorry, I cannot. If this were a matter of opinion, I could, and gladly would. This is not. This is a matter of truth vs. its bastardization. I am not accusing you of anything, and I most certainly will explain:

 

Saying we have different opinions of what America stands for is both irrelevant and erroneous. We probably share many of the same values to the letter, in all likelihood. We'll see.

 

The concept of a natural right was something somebody(um, Paine for example) had to think up, and write down. Specifically it defines what man is allowed to do, unhindered. Principals, and attempts to define them, such as the Ten Commandments, define what man is not allowed to do. There are many such attempts at documentation of principles, however, none of them were necessary, because we know them when we are born. The real advantage to the documentation, and the reason for its popularity, whether it's the Bible, or anything, is that each person can learn these lessons quickly, and without having to go through them personally. (The wisdom of the Constitution, is that it defines what government is not allowed to do. Thus it creates a "morality" for government)

 

Don't like semantic approach, how about the logical?

 

Consider: do we have a treaty with any other country that says "murder is bad, and we both agree that it must be punished"(not what happens if one of yours murders one of mine/extradition, etc. No, the act of murder itself)? Why not? Murder is bad, isn't it? How about stealing? Cheating? Lying? Given the obvious nature of these things, why wouldn't they be the very first thing we put in a treaty with another country?

 

Simple: Everybody at the table already knows. Principles do not require written definition, they are both absolute, and universally, inherently accepted.

 

However, we have all sorts of treaties, and are working diplomatically with many countries, getting them to see the value of religious freedom. That is because: while religious freedom may be a right, as defined by Paine, the Founding Fathers, or whoever, it is still merely: a value.

 

Conclusion: Free Religion is clearly not inherent, or even obvious, to "every person on this planet", otherwise, the diplomacy would not be required, would it?

 

Consider 2: I go deep in the jungle, find some guy running around with in a loin cloth, and ask him if he agrees that murder, lying, cheating, etc. is bad. Of course he does. How long would it take, especially given the fact that the words I would need to use probably don't exist in his language, to explain Freedom of Religion, and it's usefulness/superiority? How can he be aware of a principal, that for him, doesn't exist, and is in fact incomprehensible? Even if he does comprehend, what are the chances he's going to let some of his people start practicing Scientology? (Or, what is the likelihood that those that do, after a few weeks of "Do you sometimes feel sad? Well then..." end up as dinner?)

 

Conclusion: He is aware of principles, because we all are, from birth. Values must be explained. Values are political. Values are opinion. Principles are morality.

 

 

Why am I making such a big deal about this?

 

I have grown extremely tired of people(not necessarily you) putting Principles and Values on the same linear scale, thus pretending that they are the same, and merely moving up and down that scale, whenever it is convenient for them. This is how they attempt to avoid the pesky nature of morality, especially when it threatens to expose them as the immoral people that the are.

 

This is why being a "Global Warming Denier" , or for traditional marriage, can never be immoral. Those who say otherwise are being immoral themselves, by denying the true definition of principles, and inserting a patently false equivalency between them and their values.

[4merper4mer]

 

Consider 2: I go deep in the jungle, find some guy running around with in a loin cloth, and ask him if he agrees that murder, lying, cheating, etc. is bad.

 

I read your entire post, and surprisingly I understood most of it. I don't agree with all of it but won't get into that.

 

Anyway, two things:

 

1. Why go deep into the Jungle to find a guy in a loin cloth when you've already said you're going to the Blue Oyster tomorrow?

 

2. This one has two answers. You know when you'll know that not everyone thinks murder is wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. When your head is rolling down a flight of stairs, that's when or

 

B. When that guy in a loin cloth shrinks your head and mounts it on top of a stick by the front door of his hut, that's when.

[DC Tom]

Consider 2: I go deep in the jungle, find some guy running around with in a loin cloth, and ask him if he agrees that murder, lying, cheating, etc. is bad. Of course he does. How long would it take, especially given the fact that the words I would need to use probably don't exist in his language, to explain Freedom of Religion, and it's usefulness/superiority? How can he be aware of a principal, that for him, doesn't exist, and is in fact incomprehensible? Even if he does comprehend, what are the chances he's going to let some of his people start practicing Scientology? (Or, what is the likelihood that those that do, after a few weeks of "Do you sometimes feel sad? Well then..." end up as dinner?)

 

Conclusion: He is aware of principles, because we all are, from birth. Values must be explained. Values are political. Values are opinion. Principles are morality.

 

Conclusion: you've never even heard of Papua New Guinea.

[4merper4mer]

Conclusion: you've never even heard of Papua New Guinea.

 

I liked it better when I said:

 

B. When that guy in a loin cloth shrinks your head and mounts it on top of a stick by the front door of his hut, that's when.

[OCinBuffalo]

Conclusion 3: I am disappointed, because what I had planned to do with this didn't happen. However, I am also encouraged, because the 2 posters I knew would show up to consume this "product", performed exactly as expected.

 

 

I mean really...."loin cloth"? Is there a better bait in this world for Crayonz, or Tom?

 

 

I was sitting there last night, drunk as I am right now, thinking "how do I deal with Telepathic on a linear level, but also bait the trap with raw chicken? I know, anthropology, for Tom, and anything that has loin cloth in it is almost certain to attract Crayonz, how could it not?"

 

I say again: I've had your number, for years.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: (And that is 7 emoticons, which is the appropriate # for a post this size) All glory to me, all FAIL for you!

 

This requires another beer....and those of you watching? Please draw a beer for yourselves...and put it on my tab, if we ever meet.

[4merper4mer]

Conclusion 3: I am disappointed, because what I had planned to do with this didn't happen. However, I am also encouraged, because the 2 posters I knew would show up to consume this "product", performed exactly as expected.

 

 

I mean really...."loin cloth"? Is there a better bait in this world for Crayonz, or Tom?

 

 

I was sitting there last night, drunk as I am right now, thinking "how do I deal with Telepathic on a linear level, but also bait the trap with raw chicken? I know, anthropology, for Tom, and anything that has loin cloth in it is almost certain to attract Crayonz, how could it not?"

 

I say again: I've had your number, for years.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: (And that is 7 emoticons, which is the appropriate # for a post this size) All glory to me, all FAIL for you!

 

This requires another beer....and those of you watching? Please draw a beer for yourselves...and put it on my tab, if we ever meet.

 

So you were sitting there last night thinking about how do you bait the trap with raw chicken and loin cloths so that everyone thinks you baited the chicken with loin cloths but it was really Tom or me but Tom didn't make his prediction until after he made his prediction which was made after the original post but before your trip to the Blue Oyster. Or something.

 

You and Mr. Wawwwrowwrworow should start a thread where only the two of you are allowed to post and only when you're drunk. We could call it "Incoherent".

[Telepathic]

I am not afraid to say that the last few posts in this thread have left me baffled...

[OCinBuffalo]

So you were sitting there last night thinking about how do you bait the trap with raw chicken and loin cloths so that everyone thinks you baited the chicken with loin cloths but it was really Tom or me but Tom didn't make his prediction until after he made his prediction which was made after the original post but before your trip to the Blue Oyster. Or something.

 

You and Mr. Wawwwrowwrworow should start a thread where only the two of you are allowed to post and only when you're drunk. We could call it "Incoherent".

No, I'm saying that I put loin cloth in the post for the sole purpose of seeing you respond to it.

 

I am not afraid to say that the last few posts in this thread have left me baffled...

Yeah...it's ok though, given what I've seen so far, you'll learn.

 

And, that's too bad. I'd rather that you didn't, as it is more fun that way.

[DC Tom]

I liked it better when I said:

 

B. When that guy in a loin cloth shrinks your head and mounts it on top of a stick by the front door of his hut, that's when.

 

They wear them on necklaces in Papua New Guinea.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Conclusion: you've never even heard of Papua New Guinea.

Or Borneo

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exhoKS3F1Qo