Ayn Rand Institute's Binswanger: Von Brunn is "a Phenomenon of the Left"

[Reason]

YouTube - Ayn Rand Institute's Binswanger: Von Brunn is "a Phenomenon of the Left" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrqnU9GQYR0)

[iddo]

so those who ramble about the islamofacists are also left-wing collectivists?

[Objectivist]

so those who ramble about the islamofacists are also left-wing collectivists?

What rambling are you referring to?

[iddo]

good news, even Bill O’Reilly is now a right-wing libertarian and no longer a left-wing collectivist, at least as far as gay penguins are concerned: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/11/oreilly-fox-news-lgbt/

[iddo]

What rambling are you referring to?

So you agree with George Bush that Islam is a religion of peace and the Islamic terrorists are extremists that need to be isolated? Some of the left-wing collectivists like Rush Limbaugh and Leonard Peikoff would disagree.
Since you asked, here's one example:

For Paul to ridicule the term "Islamofascist" as propaganda and to insinuate that anyone who uses it is a warmonger seeking to spread conflict in the Middle East shows how wildly out of touch he is with the vast majority of the American public." (link (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/dr_pauls_malpractice.html))
How unfortunate it is that Ron Paul is so wildly out of touch with the vast majority of Americans who are left-wing collectivists that want to wipe out all the Muslims from the face of the earth, as Peikoff said.

[Objectivist]

So you agree with George Bush that Islam is a religion of peace and the Islamic terrorists are extremists that need to be isolated? Some of the left-wing collectivists like Rush Limbaugh and Leonard Peikoff would disagree.
Since you asked, here's one example:

How unfortunate it is that Ron Paul is so wildly out of touch with the vast majority of Americans who are left-wing collectivists that want to wipe out all the Muslims from the face of the earth, as Peikoff said.


Not sure how you jump off a bridge when I ask how the water is but here's where I stand with Islam, I use their own words to base my opinion. Ever read the Koran?

"Of the Unbelievers: Sura 4:89 “seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

Mohammed said, “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah” (Al Bukhari vol. 4:196).

SO you can stick that in a pipe and smoke it if ya like but Muslims are my enemies by THEIR own words. Here's a few more juicy bits that an associate put together.

http://www.letusreason.org/Islam12.htm

[iddo]

So George "religion of peace" Bush is part of the conspiracy to deprive us of the knowledge that all Muslims want to murder us? Therefore you want to wipe out George Bush too, along with all the Muslims? Or should his life be spared because he's not in on the conspiracy?
Out of about 1.3 billion Muslims, how many do you think want to murder you because you're a unbeliever? I would estimate that it's about 100 out of 1.3 billion (the extreme wing of the al-qaeda types:)), so because you want to wipe out 1.3 billion people due to 100 people among them, that makes you a paranoid collectivist, like Peikoff.
Besides, why single out Muslims? Ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition? Even heard of this Jewish Rabbi (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=195299) who thinks that "the only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle)." Why don't you advocate that we wipe out all religious people instead of just Muslims, after all they're all insane and might decide to murder you in the future because of some line found in their holy texts.

[Objectivist]

So George "religion of peace" Bush is part of the conspiracy to deprive us of the knowledge that all Muslims want to murder us? Therefore you want to wipe out George Bush too, along with all the Muslims? Or should his life be spared because he's not in on the conspiracy?
Out of about 1.3 billion Muslims, how many do you think want to murder you because you're a unbeliever? I would estimate that it's about 100 out of 1.3 billion (the extreme wing of the al-qaeda types:)), so because you want to wipe out 1.3 billion people due to 100 people among them, that makes you a paranoid collectivist, like Peikoff.
Besides, why single out Muslims? Ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition? Even heard of this Jewish Rabbi (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=195299) who thinks that "the only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle)." Why don't you advocate that we wipe out all religious people instead of just Muslims, after all they're all insane and might decide to murder you in the future because of some line found in their holy texts.

Not sure what your Bush hang-up is all about and I haven't made a comment to the effect of wiping out 1.3 billion Muslims, I stated that by their own words I am, and they are MY enemy.

WOuld you like to progress to "Oppressive Religions For A Thousand, Alex"?

If one professes o be a follower of a religion such as Islam, it is not for them to pick and choose which words they follow or believe, they are either students of that teaching or like the words I posted, enemies of Islam. It's as straight forward as it gets.

Mohammed said, “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah” (Al Bukhari vol. 4:196).

Of the Unbelievers: Sura 4:89 “seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

[iddo]

Not sure what your Bush hang-up is all about and I haven't made a comment to the effect of wiping out 1.3 billion Muslims, I stated that by their own words I am, and they are MY enemy.

You said "What part did you have a problem with?" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2149668#post2149668) in response to the Peikoff/O’Reilly interview about leveling Iran and wiping out their entire country (i have no idea why Peikoff chose Iran in particular, it makes much less sense compared even to the neocon preferred choice of Iraq). I took your comment to mean that you agree with Peikoff that we should level Iran and wipe it off the face of the earth, because you were asked to clarify further implied that you completely agree with Peikoff. Since I guess that there's nothing too special about Iran, I concluded that after you finish wiping out Iran you'd go on to take care of the rest of the 1.3 billion Muslims. But if I misunderstood then feel free to correct me.
Regarding Bush, since he decided to interfere with Peikoff's suggestion (and the text that you like to cite from the Koran) by saying that Islam is a religion of peace, I asked whether you think that his life should be spared once we start to carry out the Peikoff plan.
And again, what about the Catholics and what's written in their holy scripture? Aren't you afraid of the Spanish inquisition being repeated and you being tortured and murdered? Why not kill all Catholics too, just in case?

[Objectivist]

You said "What part did you have a problem with?" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2149668#post2149668) in response to the Peikoff/O’Reilly interview about leveling Iran and wiping out their entire country (i have no idea why Peikoff chose Iran in particular, it makes much less sense compared even to the neocon preferred choice of Iraq). I took your comment to mean that you agree with Peikoff that we should level Iran and wipe it off the face of the earth, because you were asked to clarify further implied that you completely agree with Peikoff. Since I guess that there's nothing too special about Iran, I concluded that after you finish wiping out Iran you'd go on to take care of the rest of the 1.3 billion Muslims. But if I misunderstood then feel free to correct me.
Regarding Bush, since he decided to interfere with Peikoff's suggestion (and the text that you like to cite from the Koran) by saying that Islam is a religion of peace, I asked whether you think that his life should be spared once we start to carry out the Peikoff plan.
And again, what about the Catholics and what's written in their holy scripture? Aren't you afraid of the Spanish inquisition being repeated and you being tortured and murdered? Why not kill all Catholics too, just in case?

There again because someone is my enemy does not mean I wish to kill them. If they attack me then I will defend myself. We were talking about "islamofascist" were we not?

If you want to know what I think, don't guess, ask.

My personal feeling is, people who wish that anyone that doesn't believe what they believe should be murdered, should not be allowed in the United States of America. But there again I only judge them by the words they follow, words or hate and murder.

[iddo]

If you want to know what I think, don't guess, ask.

OK, let's try. In response to what Peikoff said, Kludge asked you: "Not objecting to the hypothetical of murdering well over 60,00,000 people in the name of "standing up for what we believe in"." And your answer was: "Not when those 60 million people have a flawed oppressive ideology that says it is justified to murder non Muslims unless they convert to Islam."
So let me ask the question more directly: do you agree with Peikoff that we should level Iran and wipe out all of their people off the face of the earth?

[Objectivist]

OK, let's try. In response to what Peikoff said, Kludge asked you: "Not objecting to the hypothetical of murdering well over 60,00,000 people in the name of "standing up for what we believe in"." And your answer was: "Not when those 60 million people have a flawed oppressive ideology that says it is justified to murder non Muslims unless they convert to Islam."
So let me ask the question more directly: do you agree with Peikoff that we should level Iran and wipe out all of their people off the face of the earth?

Every time you post I've stated that I'm not saying I'm going to kill or want to kill anyone, what part of that have you missed? I said they are my enemy by THEIR own words and proclamations. Because one is my enemy does not mean that I want to murder anyone, they however by THEIR words want to murder me, I will defend against that.

As far as the idiots in Iran go, I'd be building 500 nuclear power plants here and moving towards the use of our own abundant supply of Natural Gas to power vehicles. Then Iran could do whatever moronic thing they want, we have Trident Submarines, they don't.

If Iran launches a nuke, then they as a matter of defense should be destroyed completely. If that means laying waste to the entire population of Iran then I'd support that reaction.

[iddo]

You're giving conflicting answers because you also said "Not when those 60 million people..." in response to a question about whether you have a problem with going over there and wiping them all out, and you refuse to clarify by answering directly whether you agree with Leonard Peikoff that we should do it (Peikoff certainly doesn't have a problem with giving straight answers).

Saying that "by their words" all Muslims (I assume you didn't mean just Iranians) want to murder you is a false and paranoid statement I think. If we go by the words of someone like, say, Ahmadinejad, all he ever talks about is how he wants to live in peace with you (even after your collective orchestrated a coup in Iran in 1953, and encouraged Iraq to invade Iran in 1980 etc.). If we go by the words in the Koran, George Bush (or his puppeteers) arrived at the conclusion that Islam is a religion of peace by reading other parts of it. And we could also arrive at the conclusion that, say, all Catholics according to their own words want to murder you by reading some parts of their holy text (they certainly arrived at that conclusion when they tried to force you to convert during the Spanish inquisition etc.). You would be much better off arriving at the conclusion that all religious people are insane and that their holy text is self-contradictory, though the first part of this conclusion is also collectivist.

[Objectivist]

You're giving conflicting answers because you also said "Not when those 60 million people..." in response to a question about whether you have a problem with going over there and wiping them all out, and you refuse to clarify by answering directly whether you agree with Leonard Peikoff that we should do it (Peikoff certainly doesn't have a problem with giving straight answers).

Saying that "by their words" all Muslims (I assume you didn't mean just Iranians) want to murder you is a false and paranoid statement I think. If we go by the words of someone like, say, Ahmadinejad, all he ever talks about is how he wants to live in peace with you (even after your collective orchestrated a coup in Iran in 1953, and encouraged Iraq to invade Iran in 1980 etc.). If we go by the words in the Koran, George Bush (or his puppeteers) arrived at the conclusion that Islam is a religion of peace by reading other parts of it. And we could also arrive at the conclusion that, say, all Catholics according to their own words want to murder you by reading some parts of their holy text (they certainly arrived at that conclusion when they tried to force you to convert during the Spanish inquisition etc.). You would be much better off arriving at the conclusion that all religious people are insane and that their holy text is self-contradictory, though the first part of this conclusion is also collectivist.

Would you link to my statement from whichever thread you pulled it from, the "60 million one"?

Religious people are insane. That was easy.

Then it is easy to say when the people I'm talking about follow the doctrine of a child rapist and I still don't see how you don't understand my statement about Islam being my enemy by there own words. They are either followers of Islam or they are the enemies of Islam, by the words they follow. Not my words, their words.

[TGGRV]

iddo, Islam isn't a religion of peace. Stop drinking the multiculturalist Kool Aid. Islam actually means submission and if you read the Quran, it's not at all about peace. It's more like a way to attract men to some power hungry idiot's - who was also a slave trader, rapist and paedophile - wars by promising pussy. That pretty much sums it up about Islam. If you read the Hadith, Sunnah and Quran, you will realize this.

And out of European experience on this one. The northern European countries are some of the biggest Muslim importers in Europe and they account for most of their immigrants. 60 to 70% of their rapes are committed by Muslims. For gang rapes the figure is even higher. And they just make ghettoes around cities where they live by Sharia and honour kill their daughters while their sons go to rape white Christian women because they're asking for it. By the way, about the European Parliament elections... Due to this shit they're doing, even white only parties won seats in it and the anti-immigration ones won the majority.

And not only Catholics forced their religion on everyone. Muslims did it way before Catholics started doing it. And if you read both the Bible and the Quran, you realize that the latter is a lot worse. And I'm an atheist so I could care the less.

Ron Paul is right that US' foreign policy is wrong, but religion has a HUGE part in it.

[idiom]

If Iran launches a nuke, then they as a matter of defense should be destroyed completely. If that means laying waste to the entire population of Iran then I'd support that reaction.

Because religious people are the crazy ones.

[Objectivist]

Because religious people are the crazy ones.

If they launch a nuke they're crazy, especially if they do it the name of a make believe character. I wouldn't chance waiting for two or three more nuclear weapons before unleashing a reasonable response.

[idiom]

And killing 70,000,000 people is a reasonable response?

That's like something God would do. Except, more so. And with less restraint.


So the Lord sent a plague upon Israel from the morning till the appointed time. From Dan to Beersheba seventy thousand men of the people died. And when the angel stretched out His hand over Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord relented from the destruction, and said to the angel who was destroying the people, "It is enough; now restrain your hand."

[iddo]

Would you link to my statement from whichever thread you pulled it from, the "60 million one"?

I already linked to it, but here it is again: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2149668#post2149668


iddo, Islam isn't a religion of peace. Stop drinking the multiculturalist Kool Aid.

I have never said and never meant to imply that I think that Islam is a religion of peace. George Bush (by reading some parts of the Koran) said that Islam is a religion of peace, and Objectivist (by reading other parts of the Koran) said that all the 1.3 billion Muslims say that they want to murder all the unbelievers, and I think that both George Bush and Objectivist are wrong.


If they launch a nuke they're crazy, especially if they do it the name of a make believe character.

I wasn't asking you whether you want to wipe out Iran after they launch a nuclear attack. All that I asked is whether you agree with Leonard Peikoff that we should wipe out Iran now, i.e. before they did anything at all. You implied that you want to wipe out Iran now by not having any problems with Peikoff saying that he wants to level Iran in the O’Reilly interview.

[Objectivist]

I already linked to it, but here it is again: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2149668#post2149668



I have never said and never meant to imply that I think that Islam is a religion of peace. George Bush (by reading some parts of the Koran) said that Islam is a religion of peace, and Objectivist (by reading other parts of the Koran) said that all the 1.3 billion Muslims say that they want to murder all the unbelievers, and I think that both George Bush and Objectivist are wrong.



I wasn't asking you whether you want to wipe out Iran after they launch a nuclear attack. All that I asked is whether you agree with Leonard Peikoff that we should wipe out Iran now, i.e. before they did anything at all. You implied that you want to wipe out Iran now by not having any problems with Peikoff saying that he wants to level Iran in the O’Reilly interview.

If they act aggressively then they should be destroyed as their own ideology promotes the death of those that do not follow their teaching. They launch, they end as a people. Is that simple enough for you?

In his first few words he stated "if they act aggressively towards you." Or along those lines. "IF" If they do they die. You want to sit around and wait for morons with a religious agenda to send nukes around the world because you don't believe what they believe? Then you die.

Yeah I agree with him, Iran is the crux of the problem as they fund many of these nutcase militant organizations.

[anaconda]

Not sure how you jump off a bridge when I ask how the water is but here's where I stand with Islam, I use their own words to base my opinion. Ever read the Koran?

"Of the Unbelievers: Sura 4:89 “seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

Mohammed said, “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah” (Al Bukhari vol. 4:196).

SO you can stick that in a pipe and smoke it if ya like but Muslims are my enemies by THEIR own words. Here's a few more juicy bits that an associate put together.

http://www.letusreason.org/Islam12.htm

But don't we cut many Christians slack for omitting certain biblical statements, admonishments, & directives for the purpose of reconciling their religion with real world functionality? To hold Muslims to every letter of the Koran seems unfair and misguided. Clearly, the vast majority of Muslims are not plotting or committing murders of non-Muslims.

[Objectivist]

But don't we cut many Christians slack for omitting certain biblical statements, admonishments, & directives for the purpose of reconciling their religion with real world functionality? To hold Muslims to every letter of the Koran seems unfair and misguided. Clearly, the vast majority of Muslims are not plotting or committing murders of non-Muslims.

I treat christians with the same disdain.

If one lived in a house full of convicted child molesters would you assume the one was or wasn't a child molester?

[InterestedParticipant]

I treat christians with the same disdain.

If one lived in a house full of convicted child molesters would you assume the one was or wasn't a child molester?
Fascinating... they are flipping Nazis from Right wing to Left wing right in front of our eyes. That's to make sure that they get all of the politician spectrum included in this attack.

[Objectivist]

Fascinating... they are flipping Nazis from Right wing to Left wing right in front of our eyes. That's to make sure that they get all of the politician spectrum included in this attack.

Click on the "wimp" video in my sig and get a clarification on where Nazis fall into line. I can list 20+ similar ideals held by Nazis and the Liberal Progressive Democrats.

[anaconda]

I treat christians with the same disdain.

If one lived in a house full of convicted child molesters would you assume the one was or wasn't a child molester?

This does not follow logically from my comment. I am saying that it is not rational to ascribe a couple of lines of the Koran to an overwhelming majority of Muslims who are clearly not on a murderous jihad. If they took those two quotes seriously then they obviously would be. Your scenario presupposes the condition of a house "full" of child molesters, so that this is the overwhelming majority condition.

[torchbearer]

Any country that launches a nuke, shall perish by the nuke.
Mutual Assured Destruction.

[Objectivist]

This does not follow logically from my comment. I am saying that it is not rational to ascribe a couple of lines of the Koran to an overwhelming majority of Muslims who are clearly not on a murderous jihad. If they took those two quotes seriously then they obviously would be. Your scenario presupposes the condition of a house "full" of child molesters, so that this is the overwhelming majority condition.

By the very words I posted if you are a muslim then you conform or die, I didn't see a chapter on "pick-and-choose your muslim identity" Feel free to post the part that counters the words I posted about Islam.

Of the Unbelievers: Sura 4:89 “seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

Mohammed said, “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah” (Al Bukhari vol. 4:196).

http://www.letusreason.org/Islam12.htm

[Objectivist]

Any country that launches a nuke, shall perish by the nuke.
Mutual Assured Destruction.

Yep, warriors of yore would kill the offspring of their enemies so they wouldn't come back to haunt them later in life. Then the Italian Mafia would kill the sons in certain circumstances as well.

[Andrew-Austin]

If they launch a nuke they're crazy, especially if they do it the name of a make believe character. I wouldn't chance waiting for two or three more nuclear weapons before unleashing a reasonable response.

Your posts in this thread regarding the nuclear annihilation of "them bad guys" over in the middle east is the reason a lot of people laugh at the term Objectevist.

Who would be responsible in Iran for the detonation of this hypothetical nuke, the one person who pushed the button, the government who decided to use the bomb, or the random civilians who had nothing to do with the decision yet would undoubtedly be eradicated by your retaliatory nuke? Your objective analysis has not concluded that 'the people' are their government has it?

What makes you think all those who subscribe to the Islamic faith, do not have dismissive interpretations for the quotes you listed? I suppose a religion can not evolve over time, and that its members always must have a purely literal and "consistent" interpretation of its primary texts. Its certainly rational to base your judgments on a religion's followers from the interpretations of those who only seek to bash it, instead of looking at the interpretations of actual Islamic peoples and the practices of its majority. If you think all Muslims have it out for, you are just delusional.

[Objectivist]

Your posts in this thread regarding the nuclear annihilation of "them bad guys" over in the middle east is the reason a lot of people laugh at the term Objectevist.

Who would be responsible in Iran for the detonation of this hypothetical nuke, the one person who pushed the button, the government which who decided to use the bomb, or the random civilians who had nothing to do with the decision yet would undoubtedly be eradicated by your retaliatory nuke? Your objective analysis has not concluded that 'the people' are their government has it?

SO those suffering psychosis can launch as many weapons as they like and you'd sit on your hands and let the population of your country die? I wouldn't, I'd protect my people from any and all attacks with the full force available to me.

They are "them bad guys" based on their immoral position and religious ideology. They seek to oppress where I seek freedom, therefor they are immoral and unjust.

Then I'm not the one calling for a first strike just an immediate and massive response.

Religion evolves? Then which branch of the Islamic faith uses different wording?

[Andrew-Austin]

SO those suffering psychosis can launch as many weapons as they like and you'd sit on your hands and let the population of your country die? I wouldn't, I'd protect my people from any and all attacks with the full force available to me.

They are "them bad guys" based on their immoral position and religious ideology. They seek to oppress where I seek freedom, therefor they are immoral and unjust.

Then I'm not the one calling for a first strike just an immediate and massive response.

Religion evolves? Then which branch of the Islamic faith uses different wording?

Reading comprehension, give it a go.

I'm differentiating between the mass slaughter of the Iranian people through nuclear retaliation, and actually bringing those responsible to justice. Do you not realize how much of a collectivist you sound like right now?

And I'm also saying Islamic peoples do not have to believe and have a literal interpretation of something, just because you say they must. Reality vastly disagrees. A person can disregard (in any number of ways from inaction to dismissive interpretation) certain passages from their religion's text, and still can call themselves a follower of that religion. Religion evolves in that the interpretations and emphasis given to certain passages changes over time.

If you can't see the ignorance in proclaiming that: Islamic peoples = inherently immoral enemies... -Then I don't think I have the patience to break it down for you any further. Suffice it to say that in a sane court of law, establishing someone to be a believer in Islam does not mean that they have or think they should impose their religion violently upon others.

[anaconda]

By the very words I posted if you are a muslim then you conform or die, I didn't see a chapter on "pick-and-choose your muslim identity" Feel free to post the part that counters the words I posted about Islam.

Of the Unbelievers: Sura 4:89 “seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

Mohammed said, “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah” (Al Bukhari vol. 4:196).

http://www.letusreason.org/Islam12.htm

If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)

If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10)

etc. etc.

[angelatc]

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/06/04/they-all-look-the-same-to-me/

[Objectivist]

Reading comprehension, give it a go.

I'm differentiating between the mass slaughter of the Iranian people through nuclear retaliation, and actually bringing those responsible to justice. Do you not realize how much of a collectivist you sound like right now?

And I'm also saying Islamic peoples do not have to believe and have a literal interpretation of something, just because you say they must. Reality vastly disagrees. A person can disregard (in any number of ways from inaction to dismissive interpretation) certain passages from their religion's text, and still can call themselves a follower of that religion. Religion evolves in that the interpretations and emphasis given to certain passages changes over time.

If you can't see the ignorance in proclaiming that: Islamic peoples = inherently immoral enemies... -Then I don't think I have the patience to break it down for you any further. Suffice it to say that in a sane court of law, establishing someone to be a believer in Islam does not mean that they have or think they should impose their religion violently upon others.

If they don't believe then they are not Islamic people as you suggest. WHat part of their words didn't you understand? They hold the Koran then that is what I base my opinion of them by. Islam is immoral based on the teaching from their writings.

Pick and choose religion is worse than full blown religions. At least I know where someone stands if they profess they believe in the Koran or the teachings of Islam. What you describe are people afraid of putting more than one foot in the pool, what makes them jump in?

It's bullshit to suggest someone only professes the good of a religion and not the religion in its entirety. That's how religion ends up controlling the masses, it tells them all the good altruistic bullshit and then springs the rest on you later or like catholics doesn't really want you to read the words.

[Objectivist]

If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)

If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10)

etc. etc.

Bunch of loopy bullshit there too. But they can feel free to live among themselves as long as they leave me alone. OT

[iddo]

If they act aggressively then they should be destroyed as their own ideology promotes the death of those that do not follow their teaching. They launch, they end as a people. Is that simple enough for you?

In his first few words he stated "if they act aggressively towards you." Or along those lines. "IF" If they do they die. You want to sit around and wait for morons with a religious agenda to send nukes around the world because you don't believe what they believe? Then you die.

Nope, it's not clear enough for me, you're contradicting yourself by saying two statements that imply the exact opposite of each other, and when I asked you a very simple and direct question you refuse to answer it. Your first statement is "They launch, they end as a people" which implies that you want to attack Iran after they first launch an attack against you. You second statement is "You want to sit around and wait for morons with a religious agenda to send nukes around the world because you don't believe what they believe? Then you die" which implies that you want to attack Iran now, like Leonard Peikoff wants. The simple and direct question that I asked you is: do you want to attack Iran now, by using the most effective military means possible, which might be nuclear, in order to exterminate the enemy there? That is exactly what Peikoff wants to do now, i.e. his exact words, I'm not misrepresenting what he said in any way, and I'm asking you if that's also what you want to do. Are you willing to answer this simple and direct question?
BTW, most of the people in the world would think that an objective assessment of your statement "You want to sit around and wait for morons with a religious agenda to send nukes around" describes best the U.S. and not Iran, because Iran doesn't have nukes and even if they did they wouldn't be able launch them without facing annihilation immediately afterwards, unlike the U.S. which can launch nukes with impunity (as they have already done in Japan).


Yeah I agree with him, Iran is the crux of the problem as they fund many of these nutcase militant organizations.

That is ignorant, Leonard Peikoff is more delusional than the neocons. It's a pity that you listen to him. Iran supports Hezbollah and Hamas, which are militant organizations that fight in their local territory against Israel. Iran doesn't support al-Qaeda because al-Qaeda are Sunnis, and in fact offered to share intelligence and turn in al-Qaeda members after 9/11, as well as offering a peace deal (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/grandbargain.html), that was rejected.

[Objectivist]

Nope, it's not clear enough for me, you're contradicting yourself by saying two statements that imply the exact opposite of each other, and when I asked you a very simple and direct question you refuse to answer it. Your first statement is "They launch, they end as a people" which implies that you want to attack Iran after they first launch an attack against you. You second statement is "You want to sit around and wait for morons with a religious agenda to send nukes around the world because you don't believe what they believe? Then you die" which implies that you want to attack Iran now, like Leonard Peikoff wants. The simple and direct question that I asked you is: do you want to attack Iran now, by using the most effective military means possible, which might be nuclear, in order to exterminate the enemy there? That is exactly what Peikoff wants to do now, i.e. his exact words, I'm not misrepresenting what he said in any way, and I'm asking you if that's also what you want to do. Are you willing to answer this simple and direct question?
BTW, most of the people in the world would think that an objective assessment of your statement "You want to sit around and wait for morons with a religious agenda to send nukes around" describes best the U.S. and not Iran, because Iran doesn't have nukes and even if they did they wouldn't be able launch them without facing annihilation immediately afterwards, unlike the U.S. which can launch nukes with impunity (as they have already done in Japan).



That is ignorant, Leonard Peikoff is more delusional than the neocons. It's a pity that you listen to him. Iran supports Hezbollah and Hamas, which are militant organizations that fight in their local territory against Israel. Iran doesn't support al-Qaeda because al-Qaeda are Sunnis, and in fact offered to share intelligence and turn in al-Qaeda members after 9/11, as well as offering a peace deal (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/grandbargain.html), that was rejected.

You missed something. By the way it's the first time I ever heard Peikoff speak, thank you very much and you still missed something.

Answer again, if they attack with a nuke then they die with many nukes, I'm not willing to sit around and wait for more nukes if they launch one nuke. Then I know that we can take out a ICBM with our technology, they still die though.

[iddo]

what did i miss?
let's try one last time:
i wasn't asking what you want to do if iran attacks, i asked what you want to do now, i.e. before iran attacked.
are you willing to answer the question that i put in bold text, or not?
peikoff doesn't have any problems expressing himself and answering questions, you're giving bad rep to objectivists by having such difficulties to answer a simple question.

[Objectivist]

what did i miss?
let's try one last time:
i wasn't asking what you want to do if iran attacks, i asked what you want to do now, i.e. before iran attacked.
are you willing to answer the question that i put in bold text, or not?
peikoff doesn't have any problems expressing himself and answering questions, you're giving bad rep to objectivists by having such difficulties to answer a simple question.

Oh fuck off with the banter I don't represent anyone but myself.

Reality in regards to Iran is that they are a country run by religious nutjobs that should have been dealt with when they started sending weapons into Iraq to kill OUR troops.

He did say "IF we hit the right country" so the question before him was a hypothetical one.

I have no problem taking Iran off the map for the actions they have already openly supported against the United States. They should have been handed their asses in the early 80s when they had taken people hostage, then their continued support for militant groups that kill other human beings from any country is enough to retaliate against the psychos that base their position on Islam. I take the words they speak seriously and remember we are the "Great Satan" that should be destroyed, bring it!

I wouldn't let them build a reactor when Russia could build one for them on the Caspian and wire the energy via transmission lines. I would also blow the hell out of any attempt at building a reactor or spinning up of high speed vacuum centrifuges that we can pick up until they change their tune.

The citizens of Iran are cannon fodder if they continue to support Islamist wackjobs, that is their undoing not ours. Maybe they should pick up a better religion in the future, not one that demonizes people that think differently than themselves. Rather immoral they are, calling for the death of anyone that doesn't follow their god.

I seem to remember another group that worshiped a deity that we nuked the moment we had the ability, that turned out pretty well and millions of our people were spared the inconvenience of having their work place hit by airplanes for no reason other than being people living in America.

Maybe you're thinking we should play games with insane people like we did in Vietnam ? If Iran sent another fastboat out to our ships in the Gulf or near Hormuz, I'd blow them out of the water for starters, they seem to understand force.

Then you've been held hostage by a government that should have developed it's own resources and been done and gone from the ME decades ago.

[Objectivist]

In regards to the collectivist comment being directed at me, read Ayn Rand , even she states that one has the right to defend against aggression from others, it is morally just to defend against those that would do you harm. Too bad we have better technology huh?

[iddo]

I have no problem taking Iran off the map for the actions they have already openly supported against the United States.

Progress at last:) You still refuse to answer whether you want to take Iran off the map, but saying that you have no problem with doing it gives a very good indication of what your answer would be. You're still welcome to give a straight answer if you'd like.


In regards to the collectivist comment being directed at me, read Ayn Rand , even she states that one has the right to defend against aggression from others, it is morally just to defend against those that would do you harm.

Yes, even she is a collectivist when it comes to paranoid delusions about supposed enemies in foreign countries: "If we go to war with Russia, I hope the "innocent" are destroyed along with the guilty. There aren't many innocent people there -- those who do exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps." (link (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_america_at_war_morality_ and_civilian_casualties))


He did say "IF we hit the right country" so the question before him was a hypothetical one.

No idea what you're talking about. He said exactly what I mentioned, i.e. that he wants to attack the "right country" which is Iran, the sooner the better, by using the most effective military means possible, which might be nuclear, in order to exterminate the enemy there. Anyone is free to watch the interview and see.


Reality in regards to Iran is that they are a country run by religious nutjobs that should have been dealt with when they started sending weapons into Iraq to kill OUR troops.

But why are the troops in Iraq in the first place? And stop with the collectivist statements, they're not your troops, my guess is that most of them don't want anything to do with someone like you.


I seem to remember another group that worshiped a deity that we nuked the moment we had the ability, that turned out pretty well and millions of our people were spared the inconvenience of having their work place hit by airplanes for no reason other than being people living in America.

Without nuking Japan in 1945 millions of people living in America would have been hit by Japanese airplanes and thus their lives wouldn't be spared? I think that this is a good place to end this discussion.

[South Park Fan]

In regards to the collectivist comment being directed at me, read Ayn Rand , even she states that one has the right to defend against aggression from others, it is morally just to defend against those that would do you harm. Too bad we have better technology huh?

Yes, but how does the average unarmed Iranian civilian pose any threat to you?

[idiom]

Any country that launches a nuke, shall perish by the nuke.
Mutual Assured Destruction.

America has already launched two.

Who should we send the M.A.D. bill to?

[torchbearer]

America has already launched two.

Who should we send the M.A.D. bill to?

Wild Card. No one else held an Ace at the time.
Get out of Jail Free card.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Objectivist...so...you have disdain for muslims and christians...but jews are just fine? I've noticed your posts defending them. Hypocrite. tones