Hating crap

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

Richard did not post his last post to this thread. (He was quoting me.) I threw it here from another thread. I didn't want to start a whole new thread for the same old crap.

As I see that there are people who read this stuff enough to comment on it, and that they can get confused for lack of reference, I will make a comment in the future when it is not clear to let folks know where a post came from.

Ya' live and learn...

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

There's no "big lie technique", whatever that is, in saying that you're doing nothing but smearing. What you diminish is peoples concern about Mustafa Akyol's omissions in his stance on Israel. Many consider them important, but rather than explain why you consider them unimportant and trivial, you denounce those who raise their concerns as haters and bigots. There's no quest for truth in that, and certainly no intellectual integrity.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just in case anyone is interested, the above post was in answer to this one.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

On the contrary, I expose them.

Well, no one can say that you don't have a high opinion of yourself. So far as exposing "them" goes, all that I've seen is your bias and your lack of intellectual integrity. Ted, quite reasonably, calls you a hypocrite, so you suspend him. You dish out smearing labels left right and center, never addressing the arguments of those you smear, while accusing those you smear of being the smearers. That is indeed hypocritical. Ban me if you must for pointing that out, but if you do just be aware that you'll be banning me for my honesty. There's no games. I'm just stating what I see as I see it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The above post was in response to this one.

Richard knows the posting guidelines and he knows he is crossing them with this last post. He wants to play martyr, so he is now under moderation. I just spent some quality time thinking about the Atlas Shrugged movie and now there's this crap.

I'm tired of dealing with it. This shit doesn't ever get any better with haters. So moderation it is.

Notice that Richard says I suspended Ted and is goading me to ban him. It's the martyr ploy.

I did not suspend Ted. I moderated him and now I'm moderating Richard. This means that both can post to OL, but I simply will not let their disrespectful comments be posted on OL. I will read them before they get published. The ones that are disrespectful will be deleted and the ones that are within the posting guidelines will be published.

Frankly, this is a pain in the butt, but I prize the intellectual health and fertile emotional environment of this forum.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

I didn't realise that Ted was moderated. I thought he'd been suspended.

[Richard Wiig]

I excerpt some of Richard's judgements on Islam from the last link (and in which I told Richard he went on my ignore list). This is what he believes to be true:

Islam is a culture of death with world subjugation on its mind.

So long as the supremacist doctrines remain at its heart, then it is a culture of death. Death of liberty and of the human spirit. The likes of Mustafa Akyol do not represent Islam. They are the minority who would like to change Islam - a minority that has existed thoughout Islam, and been murdered for it - that is, reduce the impact of those destructive forces. If Islam is not a culture of death, then there's really no need for reform - and that long history of murdering reformers would never have happened.

The Jihadists with their bombs are visible for what they are, but the ongoing encroachment of Islam through peaceful means is not. The majority of muslims in the west might be peaceful (for now - if you ignore the rioting . . .), but they are working towards exactly the same ends that the violent Jihadists are working towards only by different means.

This is supposed to be self-evidently not true, but when you look at the polls at what muslims support, there is a large percentage who does support what the likes of the violent jihad groups support, they just don't support the violent means of achieving it. There is a muslim politician in the New Zealand labor party who is an example of that. He supports the putting to death of homosexuals. He says that as a muslim he must support Sharia, but he says that law shouldn't stand in a non-muslim country. He thinks that Islam should be arrived at through peaceful means. What does that mean though? It means, that although peaceful means might be the route, the death sentence for homosexuals is the goal. If the advancement of Islam through peaceful means comes at the neglect of studying it closely, merely because it seems peaceful, then it isn't going to help us, least of all will it help muslims.

Islam is contained in the Koran, Hadiths and Sunna, and that has NO commitment to individual rights. They are immutable for all time. Any individual Palestinians, or Syrians, or Iraqi's, or anyotheree's who are pushing for individual rights, are NOT part of Islam. They are apostates for which their punishment is death.

Islam is contained in the Koran Hadith and Sira is a statement of fact. No doubt where you disagree is in that it must be interpreted in a particular way - for instance, that it must be interpreted that death is the punishment for apostasy. Well, true, there are some who interpret, and who would like to see things interpreted, in a different way, such as Mustafa Akyol who would reinterpret in order to remove the death for apostasy ruling. Another fact is though, that no one has yet done that, and than many of the people who have have been murdered for it. Reinterpreting Islam is not an easy thing to do. Those who step outside the limits of Islam into individual rights, are indeed, so far as a strict interpretation of Islam goes, stepping into apostasy.

[Richard Wiig]

Osama Bin Laden, et al, are not separate from Islam. They are practicing Islam as Islam has always been practiced, and is meant to be practiced.

Osama Bin Laden, and his fellow co-religionists who have taken up the violent jihad path, have most certainly been shaped by Islam. Everything they do they endorse by reference to Islam. Perhaps what you disagree with in the above comment is that "mean't to be practiced" bit. Well, which parts of Islam are meant to be practiced which aren't?

Do you know that there is no separation between politics and religion in Islam? Islam is all encompassing upon every aspect of life.

In so far as Sharia is central to Islam, the it is all encompassing. Haram and Halal permeates all aspects of life, and one only need visit a few muslim website forums to see muslims putting a lot of time into discussing what is hala and what is haram. The more pious any one of them is, the more concerned they are with it.

The fact that some muslims don’t follow their teaching to the zenith, either because they don’t understand it, or because they are too lazy, or because they want to pretend that’s not really what Islam means, doesn’t alter the menace of what Islam is.

Muhammad said "those who leave their religion, kill them", or something to that effect. That quite plainly, is a menace, even if only a few hundred muslims take it seriously. The fact is, the numbers who do take that seriously is extremely large. If it wasn't, Mustafa Akyol would have no job to do. What exactly do you disagree with in my above statement?

[william.scherk]

Richard knows the posting guidelines and he knows he is crossing them with this last post.

I wonder if Richard will attempt to post here again. He has just posted a couple of videos from another Koran-burner at his usual lair. I put the second one here -- it is instructive: Apparently all Muslim boys don't escape childhood without being buggered, and most Muslim men are homosexuals and/or pedophiles. I despair at this kind of crazed commentary on the Koran. I guess that Richard doesn't quite go so far as this nutcase, but we shall see if his compadres raise an eyebrow at her stupidity and his stupidly passing her along for delectation.

She begins to get seriously deranged in her commentaries at 9 minutes in -- a tour-de-force. Blech.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I wonder if Richard will attempt to post here again...

William,

He has, but I can only get to them tomorrow. They're long and I'm tired right now.

Basically on a skim, it's the same old same old, so digging through that stuff with a critical eye to the guidelines is going to be a joy.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Basically on a skim, it's the same old same old, so digging through that stuff with a critical eye to the guidelines is going to be a joy.

Yikes.

It might be time to sell opportunities to moderate. I know several folks here who would pay for the opportunity to pre-clear or harry those under moderation . . . the guidelines are pretty straightforward, and if the moderators were reasonably sane and fair, you could eventually retire the Garbage pile.

[Brant Gaede]

Basically on a skim, it's the same old same old, so digging through that stuff with a critical eye to the guidelines is going to be a joy.

Yikes.

It might be time to sell opportunities to moderate. I know several folks here who would pay for the opportunity to pre-clear or harry those under moderation . . . the guidelines are pretty straightforward, and if the moderators were reasonably sane and fair, you could eventually retire the Garbage pile.

Ugh. Sounds like a way to get rid of the likes like me.

--Brant

how to destroy OL by hardly trying--bomb Canada!

[Richard Wiig]

Richard knows the posting guidelines and he knows he is crossing them with this last post.

I wonder if Richard will attempt to post here again. He has just posted a couple of videos from another Koran-burner at his usual lair. I put the second one here -- it is instructive: Apparently all Muslim boys don't escape childhood without being buggered, and most Muslim men are homosexuals and/or pedophiles. I despair at this kind of crazed commentary on the Koran. I guess that Richard doesn't quite go so far as this nutcase, but we shall see if his compadres raise an eyebrow at her stupidity and his stupidly passing her along for delectation.

She begins to get seriously deranged in her commentaries at 9 minutes in -- a tour-de-force. Blech.

Her derangedness, that is, her obvious belief in imaginary beings and her references to satanism, isn't what's most important. In the context, it's actually what's least important. Whatever you think of her wacko beliefs, the woman has courage, and she has stood up to Lindsey Graham far more than I have seen any Objectivist do. What's Lindsey Graham going to do? Go and arrest her?

[william.scherk]

Basically on a skim, it's the same old same old, so digging through that stuff with a critical eye to the guidelines is going to be a joy.

Yikes.

It might be time to sell opportunities to moderate.

Ugh. Sounds like a way to get rid of the likes like me.

I don't think you have ever been put on moderation, so Michael won't have the 'joy' of going through your held-back posts to see if they sail under the guidelines or not.

But, yeah, bombing Canada would solve a few problems, that's for sure.

[Brant Gaede]

Basically on a skim, it's the same old same old, so digging through that stuff with a critical eye to the guidelines is going to be a joy.

Yikes.

It might be time to sell opportunities to moderate.

Ugh. Sounds like a way to get rid of the likes like me.

I don't think you have ever been put on moderation, so Michael won't have the 'joy' of going through your held-back posts to see if they sail under the guidelines or not.

But, yeah, bombing Canada would solve a few problems, that's for sure.

I'm talking about a culture of moderation. Michael owns this site and he has his thing and there are no surprises and only one on moderation is now trying to post. There is, in short, not even a problem you are trying to address. Several people--who are they?--doing his job and you'll never know if the fellow you're dealing with trading posts won't next month be pre-posting examining yours. And who decides who's going to be moderated? Or, you do know who's a moderator. Automatically he gets moderator gravitas. Michael already has that type of gravitas as the owner. He's more than tolerable based on past performance, but one is enough.

--Brant

it's the way to get rid of me, guaranteed

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

I just watched that video.

I wonder what the young lady's reaction would be if a person using, say, small inverted crosses with 666 and pentagrams stamped on them for bookmarks, read the "evil" pages of the Bible, made derogatory comments about them, ripped them out and burned them.

Ya' think she'd be peaceful?

Heh.

To me, this thing is the essence of hatred qua hatred. She is antagonizing some nasty folks who will end up antagonizing her--all in the name of religious warfare.

Big friggin' deal.

They deserve each other.

My vision of life and the things I support do not include people like that, nor the folks who think that stuff is admirable.

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, not when such a person is a hater like that young woman. (Imagine a person like that with real power in her hands. Now that is a taste of evil. You think she would be any better than a repressive Islamist?)

I stand against some of the things she stands against, but I also stand against her. I don't want to be nowhere near her. Her hatred qua hatred is just as evil as any of the things she ranted about. (And I do not mean to imply that I agree with her interpretation of what she read in the Qu'ran. I don't.)

I live by principles, not spiritual sellout.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

About moderation, as my attitude stands right now, if someday the forum gets so big I actually need some help, I will hire an assistant--preferably one from outside the Objectivist-libertarian subculture who seems reasonable, but I will not let such a person moderate under his or her own name or persona.

Maybe I'll change later, but that's where I'm at right now.

Actually people who have Corners of Insight normally get moderation privileges for their specific corner so they can present their works in the manner they see fit. (If I have left anyone out in this, it's because of me not caring for the topic all that much, not because I have any objection against such person being able to do that.) I suppose I could extend that to blogs some day...

(yawn...)

I really, really, really don't like this whole moderation thing. Talk about a necessary evil, with emphasis on the evil.

Michael

[william.scherk]

I just watched that video.

I wonder what the young lady's reaction would be if a person using, say, small inverted crosses with 666 and pentagrams stamped on them for bookmarks, read the "evil" pages of the Bible, made derogatory comments about them, ripped them out and burned them.

I have read enough of the Koran to find it repulsive, frankly. And she is well within her rights to burn whatever personal property she wants. And she is within her rights to rant on Youtube and march and whatever else she cares to do with herself. That is not an issue for me and never was.

What disturbed me was her interpretation and her generalizations. I give but one example -- she read the Sura verse 52:24 (here is a side-by-side transliteration; the entire chapter on that page). The chapter concerns heaven and hell, and reads rather like the King James version in its sketch -- you burn in hell for your sins and you meet the glorious faithful in heaven and blah blah blah glory to gawd yadda yadda (as in the christian bible, this is not the only discursion on hellfire and glorious heaven, of course).

The yadda yadda she quoted concerns the boys who will serve you meats and drinks. That was it. One line.

What does she do with it? Well, she lets the viewer know that this means Islam is about pedophiles, buggery, fellatio -- that muslim boys cannot get to adulthood without penises being jammed into them.

I stand against some of the things she stands against, but I also stand against her. I don't want to be nowhere near her. Her hatred qua hatred is just as evil as any of the things she ranted about. (And I do not mean to imply that I agree with her interpretation of what she read in the Qu'ran. I don't.)

Yeah.

-- by the way, Michael, I probably should have inserted a smiley face in my previous post commenting on the joy of examining Richard's post(s) in the moderation queue. I was being puckish, which poor old Brant missed. I thought it was obvious that only the censorious here would sign up for that job -- and that only the worst of the censorious would pay money to do the job.

The OL blogs already give the blog-starter the means to moderate or block or edit or expunge commentary.

Edited April 18, 2011 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

The young lady is obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed. Her whole premise is that Allah is Satan in disguise.

I find it instructive to note that when people hate to excess, they find evil where it does not exist and make weird generalizations, like the ones you mentioned. How on earth does a woman like that know what she claims about "all Muslim men"? I don't know anything about her, but I don't imagine her as well traveled or very communicative with Muslim men.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

-- by the way, Michael, I probably should have inserted a smiley face in my previous post commenting on the joy of examining Richard's post(s) in the moderation queue. I was being puckish, which poor old Brant missed. I thought it was obvious that only the censorious here would sign up for that job -- and that only the worst of the censorious would pay money to do the job.

I didn't miss that possibility. I just went with my hating--hating moderation, necessary evil or not. I also hate being referred to as "poor old." Now I'll have to get rich just to get even. Whippersnapper.

--Brant

hater (here comes Michael to get me!)

[william.scherk]

I put the second one here -- it is instructive: Apparently all Muslim boys don't escape childhood without being buggered, and most Muslim men are homosexuals and/or pedophiles. I despair at this kind of crazed commentary on the Koran. I guess that Richard doesn't quite go so far as this nutcase . . .

Her derangedness, that is, her obvious belief in imaginary beings and her references to satanism, isn't what's most important.

I hear what you are saying, Richard, but bear in mind that I put the necessary qualifier on all statements like this:

-- "Her derangedness [ . . . ] isn't what's most important [to me/in my opinion]"

In the context, [ her derangedness is ] actually what's least important.

-- "In the context, [ her derangedness is ] actually what's least important [to me/in my opinion]"

What I don't hear from you, Richard, is any reaction to her interpretation of and commentary on the verse I noted above. All I can do, given the context, is think that you either agree with her, or consider her interpretations of the Koran verse least important. You also seem to believe that this courageous-yet-deranged woman has made some kind of blow against Senator Graham that outweighs what any Objectivish person has done.

Whatever you think of her wacko beliefs, the woman has courage, and she has stood up to Lindsey Graham far more than I have seen any Objectivist do.

Let's unpack your opinion.

1) not really important: wacko beliefs (including wacko interpretations noted by MSK and me)

2) quite important; she courageously 'stood up' to Lindsey Graham's comments

3) she 'stood up' far more than any Objectivist (that you have seen)

Now, I agree she stood up; I disagree that she did so far more than any Objectivist. Did you read Ed Cline's 'Ashes for Allah'? at the Rule Of Reason? In my opinion his is a far better 'standing up.' In any case, Graham's musings (further musings here) have been condemned across the board, from within his own party, on the left, in libertarian circles, and so on.

I think I understand that you believe Barnhardt's interpretations and commentary (the pedophile Muslims/buggery/fellatio) are not as important as her reaction to Graham.

But I believe her interpretations and commentary are also important, and I would like to hear what you have to say on that count.

One other thing: I would like to 'reset' my relations with you on this list. I want you out of moderation. I want you to contributed to reasoned and in-depth discussion of issues that are important to you.

With that in mind, I unreservedly apologize for and would like to retract each and every ad hominem remark I have published on this site about you. I am sorry -- those remarks did not advance argument.

I ask for nothing in return, no quid pro quo, but I do propose that you and I have a discussion or debate. Moreover, I would like to have a discussion that is more like a conversation -- in realtime. I will set up a clean chat interface for this purpose, and agree to any conditions or quidelines you propose. You can set the topic if you like, and any parameters of discussion that seem reasonable to you.

As another sign of good faith, I will first answer each of the questions you put to me in this earlier post.

[Richard Wiig]

Having just read Williams post, as opposed to reacting to a bit that I saw, I see he's refering to her buggery beliefs. I still have the same response. Whether she's right or wrong, 100% or part and part, it isn't the issue. William shifts the goal posts. It's as if you focus on whether or not she's 100% Objectivist, and if not then she's not worthy. That seems to the be issue here, a kind of elitism. I posted it though for her courage and resolve to stand up for freedom of speech in the face of a fascist evil that aims to take it away. It seems that kind of thing does not matter to you guys.

[Selene]

Memo:

To: Senator Graham

From: SCOTUS History

Re: Falsely quoting Schenck v. U.S. [1919]

"You can’t FALSELY yell 'fire' in a theater. There are a lot of things that you can’t do under the guise of free speech. I just hate it when somebody here, some crazy person, acts in a way that puts our troops in jeopardy. I really feel the need to condemn that. To me, that is not a responsible use of free speech."

That is all.

Adam

[Richard Wiig]

What I don't hear from you, Richard, is any reaction to her interpretation of and commentary on the verse I noted above. All I can do, given the context, is think that you either agree with her, or consider her interpretations of the Koran verse least important.

I consider it less important than her actual stand. Go ahead and point out where she's wrong, if it concerns you enough to do so, but don't shift the goal posts from the actual point.

You also seem to believe that this courageous-yet-deranged woman has made some kind of blow against Senator Graham that outweighs what any Objectivish person has done.

I see a lot of people nit-picking in the Objectivist world, and very little actual action.

Whatever you think of her wacko beliefs, the woman has courage, and she has stood up to Lindsey Graham far more than I have seen any Objectivist do.

Let's unpack your opinion.

1) not really important: wacko beliefs (including wacko interpretations noted by MSK and me)

I haven't said they are not important. Of course they are important, but as the song goes: "There's a time for every purpose under heaven." By all means criticise her religion, criticise her rationality, point our any hypocrisy (real, not imagined), criticise the Bible, but don't toss out her strong resolve to stand for freedom of speech. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

2) quite important; she courageously 'stood up' to Lindsey Graham's comments

She has, literally. She puts him, and all his supporters, on a spot.

3) she 'stood up' far more than any Objectivist (that you have seen)

Tell me which Objectivist has ever stood up and put anyone on the spot while putting themselves on the line like she has?

Now, I agree she stood up; I disagree that she did so far more than any Objectivist. Did you read Ed Cline's 'Ashes for Allah'? at the Rule Of Reason? In my opinion his is a far better 'standing up.' In any case, Graham's musings (further musings here) have been condemned across the board, from within his own party, on the left, in libertarian circles, and so on.

I haven't read Ed Cline's article. I know there is plenty of Objectivist criticism of Islam, and Socialism, and Marxism, and a lot of other things, but it's all on paper - there's nothing wrong with that of course, it's obviously essential - but this woman has taken action in her own way. She's not an Objectivist, she's Catholic, so she's going to have her head full of unObjectivist ideas, but so what. She's angry at the likes of Lindey Graham for their wanting to oppress freedom of speech. In my view, that should be applauded. That doesn't rule out criticising her for where she is wrong, or knocking her irrational Catholism, but it does mean giving credit where credit is due.

I think I understand that you believe Barnhardt's interpretations and commentary (the pedophile Muslims/buggery/fellatio) are not as important as her reaction to Graham.

But I believe her interpretations and commentary are also important, and I would like to hear what you have to say on that count.

I agree with you. It's important to be accurate(and that goes for critical examinations of the Bible too - elevating

"jesus came to bring a sword" to a call to militancy just doens't cut it) so I suggest that if it concerns you greatly that you write an essay and send it to her, or to American Thinker where she is now writing articles. That's something constructive you could do.

One other thing: I would like to 'reset' my relations with you on this list. I want you out of moderation. I want you to contributed to reasoned and in-depth discussion of issues that are important to you.

With that in mind, I unreservedly apologize for and would like to retract each and every ad hominem remark I have published on this site about you. I am sorry -- those remarks did not advance argument.

Thankyou.

I ask for nothing in return, no quid pro quo, but I do propose that you and I have a discussion or debate. Moreover, I would like to have a discussion that is more like a conversation -- in realtime. I will set up a clean chat interface for this purpose, and agree to any conditions or quidelines you propose. You can set the topic if you like, and any parameters of discussion that seem reasonable to you.

It's easy enough to make it like a conversation here, William. All it takes is cutting out the ad hominems.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Whether she's right or wrong, 100% or part and part, it isn't the issue. William shifts the goal posts.

I disagree with this.

This is a false dichotomy: i.e., you either hate Islam and applaud the young lady, or you are supporting Islam.

The correct metaphysical standard is freedom and sanity, not hate Islam versus support Islam.

Just as I don't stand with Islamists, I cannot stand with a lady like the one in the video. She's a kook.

Charles Manson, the Sharon Tate massacre dude, now supports global warming. He's preaching about it in the mainstream press. (See here for instance.) I seriously doubt Al Gore and the global warming crowd will be embracing support coming from a person like that.

The young lady is no Manson, but give her someone she thinks is a for-real witch, a little power to move mobs and some kindle-wood, I'm fairly sure that gap will start closing.

When you know what someone like that is and you stand with him or her on a specific issue you both agree on--or partially agree on, you deserve what you get later.

Michael