Ezra Levant Makes Sense
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
But how do you define extremist. So far the impression I got is that you define it according to popularity. If it's not a widely held belief, it's extremist. If it's widely held, it's centrist. That what we refer to as a democratic conception of knowledge which assumes that the majority is necessaily correct and that the minority is necessarily wrong. Democracy certainly has its merits, but not when it comes to determining the turth of a matter. Scientists especially know that well. They reqire logic, proof, and couldn't care less what others believe.Knowledge isnot democratically determined.
You haven't seen the moderate Muslims do the things I have Gh.
Then you haven't actually read the Quran Machjo. I have and it is no a religion of peace. But then you go on below, to lightly touch on the problems with the religion. If you were being honest here, you would note that the religion, beit directly quoted from the Quran or manipulated by an Imam, is not peaceful.
How would you know, you refuse to read 'extremists' works?
Yes I would, then I would go about taking it apart and/or supporting it. Depends on what they had to say. Sometimes the wrong people have the right ideas.
We know, you're the wrong person with the wrong idea.
Then by your logic, no one should read your posts. ;-)
As you shouldn't, but to negate it because it comes from somewhere you don't like, is idiotic.
What if that nutritionist was a Nazi?
And your responce reenforces ours...;-)
Gerry H
You then agree as I earlier stated fundraising for a legal defense – just as the article states – I was correct would you say?
The Canadian Constitution Foundation is a non-profit organization that protects Canadians' constitutional freedoms through education and public interest litigation. The Foundation has agreed to help Fulton raise funds for his defence, expected to cost as much as $100,000. Members of the public can donate on-line directly to the Fulton legal defence fund on the CCF website
OK, so I used a bad example there. Then let's try something else here. If you were a British officer in WWII, don't you think reading Mein Kampf might be a good move to better understand the mindset of the Nazis, to see if you could somehow use that mindset against them?
Or what about the Blitzkrieg. Though the Nazis did not invent it, Hitler was the first politician to adopt it. Both the French and the Russians rejected such proposals from their military command. Turns out Hitler the extremist was right, while the moderate French and the Stalinist extremist Russia was wrong. So one extremist was right about this strategy, not one moderate was. In the end, the allies, after having observed the effectiveness of the Blitzkrieg strategy, adopted it themselves, and it continues to be a part of Nato military strategy today. The Warsaw Pact had adopted it too. My God, they were all copying Hitler's lead. Yet how did they know it could work. They observed the Nazi war machine and saw that they were wrong and that the extremist was right. So are you suggesting that he was not worth studying because he was a Nazi, and extremist? That it would have been preferable to just let the Nazis win because we wouldn't want to admit to having learnt something form an extremist?
The Prophet Muhammad too by the way had learnt of the advantages of defensive trenches from his enemies.
So when an extremist comes up with a new idea that works, we should not learn from it?
Scrap the human rights commissions.
If people have a legal problem, let them take it through the legal system, not some quasi-judicial kangaroo court where the onus and costs are borne by the accused.
If people have a legal problem, let them take it through the legal system, not some quasi-judicial kangaroo court where the onus and costs are borne by the accused.
Machjo, it's hard to believe that I don't see eye to eye with at all times...and by the way, this is the reason you are not a fringe candidate, you understand the nature of objectivity. Of which you are trying to argue, with someone who has none.
Or at the very least read, listen to or watch, to gain a broader perspective.
To Care Bear. I assume you're referring to the Qur'anic teaching of Holy War. Remember though that such wars were not to be started by the Muslims, but were intended to defend Muslims against oppression. If you look at the history of Islam, the Muslims were persecuted from the get go. So it's natural that the Qur'an would have made reference to this. The Qur'an also says that if they surrender, to stop fighting. If we compare this to Jesus, let's rememebr that as persecuted as he was, there was still a Roman government maintianing some form of law and order. Islam was born in the midst of anarchy and tribal warfare. We do have to be fair in reading a book within its context, and considering its nuances, such as to stop fighting if the enemy does, and to always try to build peaceful relations whenever others are willing to do so. The Quran guarantees freedom of religion too,if you've read it.
Let's not judge Islam by what it's followers have become.
Let's not judge Islam by what it's followers have become.
But Bear, unless your ideas are supported by a majority of the population, they must be wrong. Certainly knowledge is democratic, isn't it?
When did any great man ever challenge the established order. Of course none did. They all folowed in lock step with the majority like sheep. That's what made them so great.
When did any great man ever challenge the established order. Of course none did. They all folowed in lock step with the majority like sheep. That's what made them so great.
I took nothing out of context. I actually read it hoping to get a better understanding of Islam. Having seen it at its absolute worst. That's that objectivity sjp lacks. I came away feeling even more phobic.
That's truly easier said then done. But just so you know, I view all organised religions the same way. Islam takes a front seat on the bus at this time though. Seeing as the followers of Christ and Moses aren't strapping suicide vests to mentally challenged children. But this is a topic for another thread.
That's how I took it.
Challenge is good Machjo, is forces change when it is needed. Gay rights, the rights of women, civil liberties, and so on.
All these changes were monumental and all the persons at the forefront were deemed fringe or subversives by the establishment in their time. But these people were screaming for the heads of some other group, in place of theirs. They wanted to be equal and held accountable equally.
That is the major difference between the radical fringe and a radical movement.
Machjo
NATO tactics are right out of the USSR manual – except we do it better – Independent thinking -
Be careful with the word radical, Bear. I view it as a positive label. Radical, from Latin radicalis, of or having roots, from Latin radix, root, meaning going to the origin or essential. in its political sense, it was first used in the sense of change from the roots, which shows us how it might have evolved to have eventually suggested the negative connotation of uprooting.
I prefer its sense of having roots, which I can also take to mean going to the roots, or dealing with the root of a problem or an issue, as opposed to dealing with just the superficial aspect of a problem as the mainstream do. We could even reverse the connotations thus:
radical: dealing with the root of a problem.
mainstream: flowing leisurely along the main stream of ideas.
Looking at it that way, there's no contradiction in the label moderate radical, which I could refer to myself as.
I prefer its sense of having roots, which I can also take to mean going to the roots, or dealing with the root of a problem or an issue, as opposed to dealing with just the superficial aspect of a problem as the mainstream do. We could even reverse the connotations thus:
radical: dealing with the root of a problem.
mainstream: flowing leisurely along the main stream of ideas.
Looking at it that way, there's no contradiction in the label moderate radical, which I could refer to myself as.
But goober, the Soviets were extremists. Certainly there was nothing worthy of learning from such a manual, Who decided to waste his time and read that manual;-)
Machjo – Only an idiot refuses to study the enemy – a good idea is a good idea regardless of where it originated – Yes?
