<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Tomasz Rola wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008012116390.18063@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite"><br>
<pre wrap="">
On the other hand, one could hardly disagree with these Hitler's words:
"I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that
the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But
the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an
agent of the State ..."
</pre>
</blockquote>
I disagree vehemently with this! The "community" is only a collection
of individuals. It has no special rights that trump those of the
individuals it is composed of. The widespread belief that it does is
precisely what makes horrors such as Nazism possible. It is what is
destroying even that one time symbol of deepest appreciation of the
individual and individual rights, America. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008012116390.18063@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Sounds like good presidential candidate, isn't he?
</pre>
</blockquote>
I hope this is sarcasm.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008012116390.18063@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> [ <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism</a> ]
Now, the problem is, every Nazi individual could implement this ideology
in slightly different way. Even in some cases, he could only pay lip
service to it. While this is not freeing him from guilt, such cases must
be treated differently from cases of active supporters of Nazism. And I
see nothing unusual in this approach.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Mr. Rola, if your philosophy is so nambe-pambe that you're too squeamish
to even condemn the Nazis then something is seriously wrong!
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Mr Clark, my philosophy is, everybody should get what he deserves. But
before I tell what he deserves, his case should be examined. Otherwise I
am no better than a mob.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Unless given your adulation for the above the mob says he deserves X in
which case you think your individual opinion is not relevant, no?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008012116390.18063@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
It is nothing like being weak minded. Quite the contrary, I think it is
weak thing to go by, flow with the current, without questioning things and
agree with everybody around without objection, just because "everybody
does so".</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
You sound like a healthy individualist there.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008012116390.18063@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> To be a good man, good human, means to me actively researching
and making decisions. I mean, to be good, one has to be active, not
passive. To make decisions is to actually do some mental work, not simply
accepting being told (or suggested, like the news do) what to think.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yep.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008012116390.18063@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
There is nothing wrong with it. I can be either right or wrong or between.
If I am right, I am right. In other cases, I should learn and understand,
so I can correct myself.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> writer Naguib Mahfouz who's novel is banned in most of the Islamic
world for
blasphemy.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Well, Nobel Prize wouldn't be worth much if it wasn't controversial.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I'm not talking about being controversial, I'm talking about using force
to prevent someone from reading a novel from a Nobel Prize winner. Are
you really sure you want to defend this?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
No. I am sure that I am for allowing people to choose by themselves. I
consider this to be an error on the part of Islamic authorities. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
The first error is even allowing such "authorities" in the first
place. But by the Hitler quote above that you admire I suppose you are
in principle find with any claimed "voice for the community or
collective" "authorities".<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008012116390.18063@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">As I have
mentioned in one earlier post, such overreaction is a sign of weakness or
lack of confidence. This might be connected with possible cultural shock,
that Islamic world experienced after WW2.</pre>
</blockquote>
Are you making excuses for an inexcusable breach of human rights?
Why? <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008012116390.18063@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">the very fact that Islam is dysfunctional shouldn't stop me from
analysing it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">But it should stop you from defending it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I am not defending it. I refuse to attack it before I find good reason for
this. That's a big difference. But it does not prevent me from condemning
terrorists (of all kinds), for example.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Have you looked at it much at all? Irrational religion (is there
another kind?)? Check. Militantly intolerant? In many parts of the
world, Check. Anti-individual rights? Mostly, Check. What exactly
do you need to examine beyond this? <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008012116390.18063@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This last part is aimed at the apologists for all religions not just
Islam, when they preach about the wonderful things these organizations
have done they always ignore one little fact, it's all based on a
colossal lie. Doesn't the truth count for something?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">If you mean lie about God's existence, this had not been proved yet. Truth
would count much more if you could prove it. Before that, "lie" is true in
50%... or more.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Mr. Rola, regarding Christian or Islamic philosophy, did you really find
it necessary to put the word lie into weasel quotation marks, and is
this really a direction you want this debate to move in?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I have no intention of moving this debate anywhere. Mr Clark, if you want
to escape from belief, you cannot use belief-based arguments. So, if you
would like to prove that God does not exist, you should use rational
arguments.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
*sputter* It is up to asserters to prove God does exist. Not the other
way around. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008012116390.18063@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> So, like in math books, we start with A, B, C, and go on using
logic until we arrive to Z which states "God does not exist".</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Also I would hope you know that proving a negative is scarcely
possible. You can show contradictions or that necessary consequences
of the truth of a proposition do not occur. The first is not that
difficult with most notions of "God". The second is not doable as
"God's Will" is always claimed to be mysterious and beyond our puny
understanding. Not to mention that the priesthoods go through pains
usually to make no predictions. When one of their member does and it
falls flat generally no one changes their belief one iota.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1008012116390.18063@tau.ceti.pl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> And after
that, "quod erat demonstrandum" (which was to be proved), but this last
sentence is optional. For a good example of how they do this, I remember
group theory from my algebra course. This is what would satisfy me.
</pre>
</blockquote>
What? That leads me to think I am wasting my time typing this.<br>
<br>
<br>
- s<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>