humanities.philosophy.objectivism

"Potroast" wrote in message
news:559a385d-25b5-4b3d-a5e2-6bca4a047440@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 10, 8:15 pm, Bill C
> wrote:
>> "Potroast" wrote in message
>>
>> news:e019871a-d8cf-448e-8a7f-edb1ee5c662e@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Mar 7, 3:23 pm, Bill C
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> So you're on an Objectivist forum claiming Peikoff promoted nuclear
>> >> genocide
>> >> of Muslims in a 6 year old essay
>> >>http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2635.
>>
>> > Yes. Even though the word "nuclear" or "all muslim countries" didn't
>> > enter the article "mass deaths", "nation(S)" and talk of "culture
>> > clash" strongly suggest it.
>> > I don't think anything has changed
>> > considering ARI is also on record advocating the use of nuclear
>> > weapons. (at the general's discretion.... but mentions why risk
>> > American lives right?)
>>
>> >http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5407
>>
>> Peikoff didn't write that, and you've given no evidence that he fully
>> supports it.
>
> Are you saying there are positions on his own website he doesn't
> support? Come one dude. It's on ARI's own website.

It's not "his website", no more than Whitehouse.gov is the Bush's website.
And although I doubt any editorials posted to either that are antithetical
to either of their policies, I said that "you've given no evidence that he
fully supports" that one.
>
>> That essay promotes nuclear weapons use but doesn't argue for
>> nuclear genocide of Muslims, not by any widely accepted definition.
>> > for Rwanda, etc... The US military dictionary defines it as "the
>> > deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a
>> > particular ethnic group or nation". Mass killings + a fetish with
>> > muslims = genocide. It's not that hard to connect the dots.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions
>>
>> First, your charge that Peikoff has a "fetish with muslims" is nonsense.
>> Second, the US military dictionary does not define
>> genocide:http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/, and it's not on that
>> Wikipedia
>> page now.
>
> Military dictionary Genocide: http://www.answers.com/genocide&r=67

That's more of your unashamed dishonesty. You are proving to be incapable
of honest conversation. It's not the "Military dictionary" as you claim. I
just showed you the Military Dictionary (with no genocide definition). You
just pointed to a claim on answers.com. claiming it's in the Military
dictionary. I showed you the Military Dictionary, and showed you that it's
not there, but you're still telling me it is. Answers.com just copies
information from Wikipedia. Wikipedia allows activist like yourself to plant
anything they wish until someone cleans it up. Wikipedia took it down.
Answers.com hasn't updated their copy. I showed you the American standard
dictionary definitions of Genocide, and none remotely resemble the one
you're applying to Peikoff. I showed you Wikipedia's Genocide page, and
nothing even on it is marginally compatible with your definition. But you
ignore it and continue to promote this fraud.

There's no reason to have a discussion with you. Nothing productive can
come from a conversation with someone so contemptuous of reason.

There's no reason to read any more of you. You're just another mentally
disturbed newsgroup troll, now in my blocked senders list.

Bill Carson