[ExI] riots again

Mirco Romanato painlord2k at libero.it
Fri Sep 28 16:33:02 UTC 2012


Il 28/09/2012 15:29, Omar Rahman ha scritto:

> Why should someone be embarrassed by someone else's actions?

> Justin Beiber and I both come from Canada do I need to apologize for
> his songs?

Justin Beiber doesn't claim all Canadian love and support and sing his song.
If he did, you should reassure any interested party that he is 
bullshitting around and you would see him drop dead before singing or 
listening his songs.

> Presumption of innocence is a core value that most societies share.

Do this is true for Islam?

> Guilt by association is currently being used to
> reclassify civilian casualties of drone strikes as militants unless
> post facto they prove their innocence. Post facto they are all
> usually post mortem so they rate of successful defense is rather
> low.

This is what newspapers and MSM write and tell.
But the Geneva Conventions allow the right to strike enemies even if 
they are near civilians or use civilians as shields or cover.
If a anti-aircraft gun is placed over or near a school full of children, 
there is no liability if the enemy shell the gun and hit the school and 
kill the children. The liability is on the shoulders of the people 
placing the anti-aircraft gun there.

It is a battlefield, it is a war, not a police action. There is no 
trial, lawyers, etc. in war.

> The fact is that we are not applying many of our core principles to
> these people.

The fact is that it is wrong to apply the wrong rules to the wrong case.
On a battlefield the rules are different from the rules on a peaceful 
albeit crime filled neighborhood.

> We are treating them as less than us. In this way we
> are tearing apart our own social fabric as we have a clear dichotomy
> between the rights we believe are inalienable and the rights we
> ascribe to them.

The tearing of the social fabric is happening from a long time.
The simple fact the US (and other western countries) didn't formally 
declared war to al-Qaeda is a tear on the social fabric.
Then we have a situation more like a civil war, where laws are done and 
undone, respected and disrespected at the whims of the government. And 
all is justified for "necessity".

>> Being anti-Muslim does not make one a Nazi, I make no apologies in
>> condemning Nazi ideology and Communist ideology and Islamic
>> ideology.

> John, do you mean anti-Muslim as against the person who holds the
> belief, or against the belief itself. The difference is that people
> have rights and belief systems don't. You confuse the two in your
> sentence. And, once you become 'anti' to a group of people for a
> behavior of some or possibly none of them have, it actually does
> make you some type of fascist.

I  must not and will not speak for others, but I want to point out to 
PUNISHMENT AND PROPORTIONALITY: THE ESTOPPEL APPROACH
N. Stephan Kinsella
http://mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf

When you see these photos:
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/fjordman/muslim-offenses-are-about-power-not-words/
like many other online from reputable MSM.

When they write and argue for "beheading who insult the prophet" they 
are arguing their right to behead anyone not sharing their opinions.

Now, some could discount their words as empty rants, but some take their 
words at face value and think they are not words.

My understanding of the estoppel is they can not argue against anyone 
beheading/killing them for their opinions.

Any third party could argue about the opportunity to do so or the proper 
way to do so without causing further problems with unrelated 
groups/individuals.

Hume, in his writings, talk about acting against people planning to 
enslaving or killing you when there is no recourse to higher authority 
(because there is no higher authority or the authority is not helping). 
He make a distinction between harsh words told during the heat of the 
moment and cold, deliberations to do so.

Mirco







More information about the extropy-chat mailing list