humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 11, 1:02 pm, Bill C
wrote:
> "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.

Check again dude.

Answers.com provides definitions from multiple sources not only
Wikipeida (political dictionary, military dictionary ,US history,
etc.. etc..) One reason I like use it is because it offers a wide
variety of sources in one place. The definition I provided you in
quotes (and the link) is pulling directly from section called "Home >
Library > Military > US Military"

If you were interested in anything other than perpetuating your
obviously superficial knowledge of middle east politics, you would
have spent a moment to check.

> There's no reason to read any more of you. You're just another mentally
> disturbed newsgroup troll, now in my blocked senders list.
> There's no reason to have a discussion with you. Nothing productive can
> come from a conversation with someone so contemptuous of reason.

Information that doesn't fit neatly into your thought process gets
edited out I guess. Reminds me a bit of fundamentalist Muslims when
you present them evidence that indicates something contrary to their
beliefs might be true. Peikoff Ackbar!!! Brooke Ackbar!!!

You can run and hide from unpleasant facts on HPO (pretty common on
this forum to not address difficult issues unflattering to the US or
Israel).... but in the real world I think the vast majority of people
on this planet view people like you as trolls (and if polls mean
anything....including most Americans my guess is ashamed of violent
bullies like you).

What's ironic here is many ARI supporters are ruthless couch potato
generals online....quick to advocate the mass murder of potentially
millions of innocent men. woman, and children....but when it comes to
putting their own lives on the line and joining the army (when they
know their are troop shortages)...... they are too cowardly to match
their actions to where their mouth is at.