Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Is it a trap? Or defense?

A few weeks ago, it was all the rage among some libertarians to yap about throat-punching Nazis for their vile beliefs, or tossing commies out of helicopters because... well, because they are commies.

Principled people pointed out that this behavior would violate the Zero Aggression Principle. Yes, it might be satisfying- I won't deny that- but still wrong, unless the person in question were violating person or property, or making a credible threat to do so.

However, that placed another scenario in my head.

Say you are out in public, in a crowd, and someone started screaming "Allahu Akbar!" Is it right to shoot that individual in that situation? Probably. I would say he is announcing his intention to harm the innocent, and by doing so has become a credible threat. Shooting him would be defensive even if he hasn't yet triggered his suicide bomb, shot, or beheaded anyone. The ZAP isn't about sacrificing the innocent to thugs.

It's possible I am wrong. For example, what if it were some mentally lacking person hoping to cause a scene by screaming "Admiral Ackbar!" in a crowd? Shooting him might be an ethical mistake (but would probably still improve the gene pool).


-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

75 comments:

  1. "Say you are out in public, in a crowd, and someone started screaming 'Allahu Akbar!' Is it right to shoot that individual in that situation? Probably. I would say he is announcing his intention to harm the innocent"

    Then you need to educate yourself before going out in public and getting into a situation where your ignorance leads you to murder someone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. stopping murder is responsible.

      or do you propose to wait until tens of people are killed before some authority has the power to ask the initiator of violence to please stop?

      Delete
    2. "The ZAP isn't about sacrificing the innocent to thugs."
      -from the article

      Delete
    3. the point of the article, i thought, was to THINK about when a threat becomes imminent; and when does the initiation of violence require a response.

      so let me ask you: How many of your family members around you would need to be killed, before you would cross the threshold and be willing to take action to protect others??

      Delete
    4. ZAP
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXkydzqPC6M

      Looking forward to reasoned discussions where you help me think as much as Kent does.

      Delete
    5. "so let me ask you: How many of your family members around you would need to be killed, before you would cross the threshold and be willing to take action to protect others??"

      Zero.

      "Allahu Akbar" neither kills any of my family members nor threatens to kill any of my family members. More than a billion people say it out loud in public at least five times a day, every day. If everyone who said it then killed someone else, we'd be out of everyone but Muslims in a week and down to one person left on earth not long after that.

      Delete
    6. big "L" or little "l" ?

      Delete
    7. so apparently "Mecca" and not "Medina".
      consider reading the later parts of the koran (which abrogate the Mecca portions) and the hadiths, and read some history of the ring of fire, and consider exhultations before each action of violence.
      Data is.

      Delete
    8. I've read the entire Quran more than once, and much of the hadith, and quite a bit of history.

      I've also lived among Muslims both abroad and in the US. They're people. They get out of their religion precisely what they WANT to get out of their religion, just like everyone else.

      Delete
    9. Tom- I understand there might, theoretically, be a case where someone is screaming "Allahu Akbar!" in public, while not intending to convey the message "I'm going to attack infidels now!", but is there any evidence that this occurs in the real world? Or, is it similar to someone saying "Prepare to die!"? If someone says they intend to kill you (or others), do you have to wait for them to actually begin? To me it's different than some Bubba talking big on the internet about how he's going to get me (yes, it has happened to me), but without having the actual ability to do anything. That's where the "credible threat" comes in. And, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

      Delete
    10. would you let them construct the guillotine for your execution in it's entirety?
      or stop it once construction began?
      or only after the lever is pulled?

      when is the time to act? when is the threat "imminent"?

      Delete
    11. Kent,

      Not only is there evidence that it occurs in the real world, it probably happens somewhere on the order of a trillion times as often as it does in a "prepare to die" manner.

      EVERY Muslim says "Allahu Akbar" out loud a minimum of five times a day. Many of them do so in public.

      EVERY mosque loudly broadcasts "Allahu Akbar" out loud, in public, a minimum of five times a day.

      The only thing you can conclude merely from hearing someone yell "Allahu Akbar" in public is that there's probably a Muslim nearby. Absent any actual evidence to the contrary, assuming that it is the prelude to a violent act is, well, fucking stupid.

      Delete
    12. "I've also lived among Muslims both abroad and in the US. They're people. They get out of their religion precisely what they WANT to get out of their religion, just like everyone else."
      -Thomas

      cool. me too.
      good to have knowledgeable discussion, then.

      is the threat imminent when they declare what they will do?
      or when the publish plans?
      or when the mosques gve money to suport construction?
      or when they start building?
      or when they atsrt training executioners?
      or when executioners start killing others in droves around the world?
      or when they start building your own personal guillotine specifically?
      or when they complete construction?
      or when the specific executioner shows up?
      or when he sasy he is about to pull the lever?
      or after?

      i struggle with this also.

      and do those funding and planning and helping with construction share any part in the threat?

      Delete
    13. The threat is imminent when there is an actual threat, which is a damn sight west of one of more than a billion people, very few of whom have ever killed or attempted to kill anyone, saying something that's said billions of times a day as a precursor to prayer or as an expression of belief in a deity.

      One of the problems with Muslim Derangement Syndrome, of which you seem at first blush to be a textbook case, is that those suffering from it tend to view Islam as some kind of unitary thing. It isn't.

      In fact, Muslims begin to disagree with one another in the first sentence of the Shahada (profession of belief), the tawhid (the oneness of God), and there are probably more sects of Islam than of Christianity, with wildly divergent beliefs and only very limited areas of agreement. Not all Muslims are Salafists and/or Wahhabis. In fact, very few of them are. And of the ones who are, very few comport themselves violently.

      Delete
    14. those who are not an imminent threat, are not.

      Delete
    15. killing a billion was your strawman.
      which was not the question.


      "The threat is imminent when there is an actual threat"
      -Thomas

      when is that (for example in the guillotine example)??

      Delete
    16. and, why was a german in ww2 europe ever a threat to you here in the usa?
      when is that "an actual threat"?

      topic of the day.
      kent brought it up.
      rare to have thoughtful folks to reason things through

      Delete
    17. "The guillotine example" is not an example. It's a set of false assumptions designed to preclude any answer except the one you want.

      You must be mistaking me for someone else. Since I never asserted that a German in World War Two Europe was ever a threat to me here in the USA, I have no reason to explain why a German in World War Two Europe was ever a threat to me.

      Delete
    18. sorry, i was asking a question.

      i have family members who went to europe in ww2 to kill other family members.
      each group was 'good folks'. one group just 'wanted to make the trains run on time'. the other group used b17s to fire bomb families in their homes.

      so why was that right? (i think it was, and think it informs discussion here today).

      Delete
    19. Allahu Akbar (Arabic: الله أكبر) is an Islamic phrase, called Takbir in Arabic, meaning "Allah is Greater" or "Allah is [the] greatest"

      So because *some* suicide bombers utter this phrase just before letting 'er rip, someone shouting this phrase in public proves beyond a doubt that the shouter IS going to blow up?

      Normally your logic is inescapable. Not today though.
      Kent, WTF man??

      Delete
    20. ...assumptions designed to have stimulating conversation
      (what i hope for)

      Delete
  2. communism, islam, statism.
    evil needs killin', root and branch. imho.

    evil openly plans, organizes, trains, funds, builds organizations, takes action again and again- when is that a threat?
    Long time ago.

    if you ain't wacking the weeds down frequently to keep things under control, then at some point you need round-up to kill the whole garden- and that will make you feel bad.
    or your garden is no longer a garden, and you starve and die.

    regular weed control is less work and keeps everything healthy. it's just that people have to get off their ass and do their chores, to keep the weeds from getting established- and "pajama boy" generations been indoctrinated to let the weeds grow, to celebrate the weeds even. And now, where have all the flowers gone?

    sadly, past irresponsibility means that soon, we'll never have flowers/crops again unless we vigorously weed, or use round-up and start over from scratch. continued hand wringing means that the weeds will choke off the few remaining flowers, overtaking the fertile ground which we prepared for the purpose of giving OUR family sustenance.

    irresponsible generations failed to do their chores.
    And thieves and commies and islam over-run our garden because such evils destroy their own places and eat out the substance, and now they must come to infest and overtake the fruitful garden that was western civilization.

    self-avoid marxists, statists, mohamedans- deliberately empower evil.
    in each case, the orginizing priciples state the intent. and there is history and mountains of data on the continued action of such evils: weeds, come to steal sustenance from your garden and destroy your flowers/family/crop.

    people who choose to empower evil, have chosen to join the active ongoing violence of those cults; and chose to support and be part of that imminent threat openly aimed at you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ... self-avowed marxists ...

      Delete
  3. to the question "when does it become a credible threat?"...

    i suggest that it is when a deliberate choice is made to support violence/theft against others.

    communism, statism, and islam have documented goals clearly stating that; and organize and fund and build infrastructure and train to do so. And have "done so" frequently, and have a long butchers bill of history.

    deliberate support of such violence specifically directed at me and mine- makes the specific individual a credible threat.

    or maybe explain/reason why not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I already did explain why not, but to re-state it:

      You are operating from your own personally constructed understanding of Islam, and that personally personally constructed understanding does not correspond to reality as exemplified by most (99.9x%) Muslims.

      When your definition does not correspond to reality, it is your definition which should yield since reality isn't going to.

      Delete
    2. does that experience include muslims coming to the west having been such shining examples of love and understanding and rainbows and skittles? how their immigrant communities are shining beacons on a hill for the kafirs to emulate?

      i've lived in amongst several different branches and see barbarism, slavery, mutilation of women, child rape- things in the koran.
      experiences vary.

      "peace be unto you"


      btw- the koran states it is a political system overarching all aspects of society (much more than a reiligion), that must overtake and enslave all other societies.
      history is.
      the koran is.
      actions are.
      Data is.

      are you trying to make the point that those who support statism aren't responsible for statism?
      that those who support communism are not responsible for communism?
      that those who support islam are not responsible for islam?

      i argue that ignorance,youth,slavery are factors that preclude such responsibility.
      but that the deliberate choice to support communism,islam,statism makes the individual responsible.

      Delete
    3. experience?
      how about Hirsi Ali?
      does she know anything about islam?

      (my experiences were consistent with Hirsi Ali.)

      the Data is.

      Delete
    4. Police rape woman in Tunisia, then charge her with indecency
      http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/02/world/africa/tunisia-rape-protest/index.html

      British woman who says she was gang raped arrested on 'extra-marital sex' charges in Dubai as attackers go free
      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-woman-tourist-arrested-charged-jail-dubai-gang-rape-extra-marital-sex-hotel-uae-police-a7420616.html

      It's in the Koran!!
      Koran= form of government organizing a society

      different branches of islam.
      different people.
      (places Thomas must not have visited in his vast experiences)
      different parts of the world.
      same results.
      Per the Koran.

      Delete
    5. Muslim Male "Refugees" Are Gang Raping Women in Europe
      https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/01/07/muslim-male-refugees-are-raping-women-in-europe-n2100918

      Sydney gang rapes
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_gang_rapes

      Muslims Gang Rape American Woman In Colorado, In Rare And Horrific Ways
      http://shoebat.com/2014/01/19/muslims-gang-rape-elderly-american-woman-colorado-rare-horrific-ways/

      different branches of islam.
      different parts of the world.
      (more places Thomas doesn't visit)
      same outcomes.
      It's in the Koran.
      Koran = organizing principles for a society

      Delete
    6. Youg Woman was Gang Raped, So her Muslim Family made her Clean
      http://madworldnews.com/young-woman-gang-raped-clean/

      Mob of Muslims Abduct Christian Nurse, Repeatedly Gang Rape Her
      http://madworldnews.com/muslims-abduct-christian-nurse-rape/

      different branches of islam.
      different places around the world (not visited by Thomas).
      same outcomes.

      "It's in the Koran!"

      When does an individual, or a group of muslims become an imminent threat for a kefir?

      Consult the Koran.

      Delete
    7. The Islamic Genocide of Christians: Past and Present
      http://humanevents.com/2015/04/27/the-islamic-genocide-of-christians-past-and-present/

      Muslim Persecution of Christians — Call it what it is: GENOCIDE
      https://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/12/muslim-persecution-of-christians-call-it-what-it-is-genocide


      Muslim Genocide of Christians Throughout Middle East
      https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1685/muslim-genocide-of-christians

      Islam in Africa: The Invisible Genocide of Christians
      http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11609

      different branches of islam.
      different parts of the world.
      same outcomes.

      "It's in the Koran!"

      Delete
    8. When does an individual, or a group of muslims become an imminent threat for a kefir?

      Consult the Koran.

      How/when does ZAP apply?

      Delete
    9. "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
      -internet (falsely attributed to Volatire, and others)

      Why is it that many are incapable of speaking of questions about islam?
      Do the kefirs already kneel?
      Have you all accepted dhimmitude?
      http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dhimmitude_(definition)

      Anybody: When does an individual, or a group of muslims become an imminent threat for a kefir who will not accept dhimmitude?
      Per the Koran: If they are Muslim.

      So how/when does ZAP apply?

      Delete
    10. and when people quote the Koran, ask them "Mecca or Medina". Why?
      Verses ("surah") written earlier, during the time Mohammed was in Mecca, are SUPERCEDED by later verses- "abrogated" by the later Medina verses.
      In Mecca Mohammed was in the minority. Later, he moved to Medina as a caravan pirate, and thereby achieved wealth and a majority following, and preached violence and brutality and domination over all others.

      Many dishonest people, knowingly lie by quoting verses from the Mecca portion of the Koran; knowing full well that the uninformed do not understand the principle of "abrogation" and what is clearly stated in the Medina verses.

      Which Quran, Mecca or Medina?
      https://beyondthecusp.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/which-quran-mecca-or-medina/

      video: WHICH QURAN, MECCA OR MEDINA? THE TALE OF TWO CONTRADICTORY QURANS
      http://www.worldviewweekend.com/tv/video/which-quran-mecca-or-medina-tale-two-contradictory-qurans

      the videos are concise and eye opening if you have not studied islam before.
      and it explains the system underlying muslim societies.

      Per the koran: a muslim's duty is to be an imminent threat always. ALWAYS.

      Apologists can cite Mecca surahs, as Thomas did, for the naive and the suicidal.
      But of course, later Medina surahs supercede those, and are quite different.

      Knowledge. Data.
      Numerous sources.
      Well documented.
      1400 years of application.
      And the evidence is that the Koran is what it says.
      Islam is what the Koran says. (not what any of us internet clowns say it is)
      The Data, is.

      Train accordingly.

      Delete
    11. What makes islam so different?
      http://thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx

      Muslims are instructed/trained in how to interface with non believers; the Koran is filled with tactics, techniques and procedures. Deception, Lying
      and Taqiyya are not a "bug", but rather a prominent feature of 1400 years of islam.

      Taqiyya is what apologists are doing when they quote surah from the Mecca portions of the Koran. It is their duty to lie and misdirect the kefirs. It is an obligation of the sharia societal code.

      "It's in the Koran!"
      Yet another prominent feature of those societies.

      Delete
    12. Interesting link. Its definition of taqiyya:

      "Saying something that isn't true as it relates to the Muslim identity."

      That is, strictly speaking, correct in that it is half of the definition.

      The other half is that it is only allowed to save one's life or limb if one reasonably fears physical harm for admitting one is a Muslim.

      Since the site you link to lies by omission concerning Islam, I have to ask whether you are lying yourself, or just ignorant and gullible.

      Delete
    13. from that educational website: "It's far easier to act as if critics of Islam have a problem with Muslims as people than it is to accept the uncomfortable truth that Islam is different."

      It is an uncomfortable truth.
      Yet the data is.

      http://thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx

      Jihad Report
      Mar 11, 2017 -
      Mar 17, 2017

      Attacks 39
      Killed 288
      Injured 395
      Suicide Blasts 11
      Countries 13

      The Religion of Peace

      Jihad Report
      February, 2017

      Attacks 166
      Killed 1008
      Injured 1345
      Suicide Blasts 22
      Countries 21
      List of Attacks


      1400 years of data supporting that muslim individuals behave in accordance with the Koran.

      -----
      more from that website
      http://thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx

      The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it "has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization." In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas. At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.

      The notorious Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is so well known for shamelessly lying about its ties to terror and extremism that books have been written on the subject. They take seriously the part of Sharia that says "it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory". The goal being the ascendency of Islam (and Sharia itself) on the American landscape.

      ----

      Ignorance is blisters.
      And ignoring imminent threats, is suicidal.

      That site documents the breadth and depth of the ongoing "uncomfortable truth",
      and includes the Koranic philosophies which create such societies and citizens, always, by design.
      http://thereligionofpeace.com/

      Ignorance, is blisters.
      As the people of London are waking up with that uncomfortable feeling... that they may have to think, and (dare we think it?) act.
      Dhimmitude or self-preservation? It's a choice.
      Respond to end the imminent threat, or pretend it's not there?

      Delete
    14. You write:

      -----
      From that educational [sic] website: "It's far easier to act as if critics of Islam have a problem with Muslims as people than it is to accept the uncomfortable truth that Islam is different."
      -----

      And it's far easier for you to pretend that I don't acknowledge that Islam is different, and that I am in fact a critic of it, than to accept the uncomfortable truth that you have constructed a fantasy version of Islam and Muslims and are cherry-picking the "data" you keep referring to so as to reinforce that fantasy.

      If the 1.x billion Muslims on Earth were at war with you because of their religious beliefs, you'd know it. Your government fucked around in the Middle East for half a century, toppling governments and killing thousands. Then Osama bin Laden finally gave it a taste of its own medicine and ever since it's been constant "they HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS!" whining.

      Delete
    15. Islam’s Massacre of Hindus: Largest GENOCIDE in History
      https://viewsnewsblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/13/islams-massacre-of-hindus-largest-genocide-in-history/

      Non-Stop slaughter of Africa and Hindus

      Over 670 million non-Muslims massacred since the birth of Islam
      https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/muslims-have-killed-over-590-million-non-muslims-since-the-birth-of-mohammed/

      "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
      -internet (falsely attributed to Volatire, and others)

      The data is overwhelming.
      It is uncomfortable.
      To ignore it is suicidal.

      Delete
    16. The koran says islam is at war with me.
      1400 years of overwhelming data supports that.

      Supposing to be more informed than the Koran? Hahahahahaha.
      Supposing one experience supercedes 1400 years of history. roflmao.

      Once known, the methods of Taqiyya identify apologists.

      Delete
    17. https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/countering-political-islamism-a-must-read-assessment-by-ayaan-hirsi-ali-via-the-hoover-instituti/

      Hirsi Ali writes about people confused or deliberately lying about islam

      http://www.hoover.org/research/how-counter-political-islam


      COUNTERING POLITICAL ISLAMISM: A “must read” assessment by Ayaan Hirsi Ali (via the Hoover Institution).

      Insisting that radical Islamists have “nothing to do with Islam” has led US policy makers to commit numerous strategic errors since 9/11. One is to distinguish between a “tiny” group of extremists and an “overwhelming” majority of “moderate” Muslims. I prefer to differentiate among Medina Muslims, who embrace the militant political ideology adopted by Muhammad in Medina; Mecca Muslims, who prefer the religion originally promoted by Muhammad in Mecca; and reformers, who are open to some kind of Muslim Reformation.

      These distinctions have their origins in history. The formative period of Islam can be divided roughly into two phases: the spiritual phase, associated with Mecca, and the political phase that followed Muhammad’s move to Medina.

      MORE:

      By not fighting a war of ideas against political Islam (or “Islamism”) as an ideology and against those who spread that ideology, we have made a grave error.

      If Islamism is the ideology, then dawa encompasses all the methods by which it is spread. The term “dawa” refers to activities carried out by Islamists to win adherents and enlist them in a campaign to impose sharia law on all societies. Dawa is not the Islamic equivalent of religious proselytizing, although it is often disguised as such by blending humanitarian activities with subversive political activities.

      Dawa as practiced by Islamists employs a wide range of mechanisms to advance the goal of imposing Islamic law (sharia) on society. This includes proselytization, but extends beyond that. In Western countries, dawa aims both to convert non-Muslims to political Islam and to bring about more extreme views among existing Muslims. The ultimate goal of dawa is to destroy the political institutions of a free society and replace them with strict sharia. Islamists rely on both violent and nonviolent means to achieve their objectives.

      Dawa is to the Islamists of today what the “long march through the institutions” was to twentieth-century Marxists. It is subversion from within, the use of religious freedom in order to undermine that very freedom. After Islamists gain power, dawa is to them what Gleichschaltung  (synchronization) of all aspects of German state, civil, and social institutions was to the National Socialists.

      Read the whole thing.

      Delete
    18. the information is there.
      the truth may be uncomfortable to contemplate.

      knowledge is good.
      ignorance is easier (until it's terminal)

      Delete
    19. liberty not compatible with muslim society driven to control and enslave.

      so at what point is islam an imminent threat to liberty? when they invade communities and start the dawa? build sharia infrastructure? start attacks? systematically strategic attacks? or when the hoard finally comes to your door?

      america is "the last place to go". where will you retreat to? or when is the threat confronted?

      when are the individual soldiers who choose to follow creed finally an imminent threat?

      Dawa is a challenge for western concept of ZAP. beyond philosophical. but life and death of you and your children. learn, and think it though. innaction is suicide.

      your choice.

      Delete
  4. would you let them construct the guillotine for your execution in it's entirety?
    or stop it once construction began?
    or only after the lever is pulled?

    is the threat imminent when they declare what they will do?
    or when the publish plans?
    or when the mosques gve money to suport construction?
    or when they start building?
    or when they start training executioners?
    or when executioners start killing others in droves around the world?
    or when they start building your own personal guillotine specifically?
    or when they complete construction?
    or when the specific executioner shows up?
    or when he sasy he is about to pull the lever?
    or after?

    i struggle with this also.

    and do those funding and planning and helping with construction share any responsibility or role in this threat?

    when is the time to act? when is the threat "credible" or "imminent"?

    related: ww2 firebombing of german families in their homes, because they were an imminent threat to american people in the midwest. needed doing. but square that with "credible" and "imminent".

    "just doing their job" has not been an accepted defense in war crimes trials. individuals are held responsible for deliberate choice to support the aggressor.

    isnt that the topic: when do commies,muslims,individuals become responsible for supporting evil,violence,tbeft,aggression?


    hoping these examples raise some realworld complexities, draw out philosophical reasoning, and help promote reasoned discussion. can you guys think of other/more related examples to further inform the "credible" and "imminent discussion?



    ReplyDelete
  5. Rarely do I end up regretting expressing an opinion, but...

    "More than a billion people say it out loud in public at least five times a day, every day."
    In my defense, I specified screaming it, not simply uttering it out loud. And if it is blared from loudspeakers, I would find that highly annoying, but not threatening in any way.

    If someone walks past me and says "Allahu Akbar" in a calm and friendly manner, I would accept it just like I accept "God bless you" or "Merry Christmas"- a good will greeting from someone who is part of a religion I don't share. But, someone screaming it? I am not going to take that as a friendly greeting. Someone screaming anything in public is going to get me into "Condition Orange", at least- maybe Condition Red, depending on what I then notice. It is a sign something isn't right- either with the person screaming, or something they are upset by. Either way, yeah, I'm going to watch and be ready to respond, and while it may not be fair, "Allahu Akbar" is going to set off more alarms in my head than "Wahoo, Pikachu!" would.

    And, as I have pointed out recently, my bar is set higher for myself than for others, so it would take a lot to make me shoot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, yes, anyone screaming anything in public in a way that sounds hostile or afraid or whatever is going to immediately focus my attention on the possible existence of a threat.

      But I don't see how "Allahu Akbar!" is inherently more threatening than "Jesus Christ!" or "Oh My God!" or "Holy shit!" In fact, in the US in particular I'd say you're far more likely to be attacked by a pro forma Christian or by a Batman fan than by a Muslim.

      Delete
  6. and, if one hears it and fails to act, then that innaction also involves responsibility.
    that inaction is the goal of apologists.

    more acts every day, day after day, year after year; data confirming your initial statement.

    apologists (folks like obama and some fellow travellers here) for the innocence of islam, are just like apologists for statism, and communism- who choose to supporter the evil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody here has argued for "the innocence of Islam." I've simply pointed out that there are thousands of versions of Islam and more than a billion Muslims, only a handful of each corresponding to your unitary definition.

      If you described Christianity and Christians, the way you described Islam and Muslims, you would insist that all us Christians are snakehandling communists because the Bible requires us to be. But in fact, 99.9% of us read the Bible for ourselves instead of letting you decide what it demands of us. Just as Muslims do with the Quran.

      Delete
    2. Q? Aren't all democracies alike, except where they are different?
      Yet they have the same organizing principle for their society.
      And very similar outcomes for the same fundamental reasons.
      Organizing principles drive outcomes in certain directions.

      Q? Are all communist countries alike, except where they are different?
      Yet they have the same organizing principle for their society.
      And very similar outcomes for the same fundamental reasons.
      And communism has apologists who dwell on difference, nuanace, wordplay, and positive experiences (for example, Walter Duranty and FDR enabling and supporting Stalin's Russia). http://orwelltoday.com/stalinliar.shtml

      Q? Any kindergartner knows there are many sects and branches within islam.
      Yet, all of islam shares the same organizing principle for their society: it's the Koran (the religion is only a part of the structure islamic societies).
      And each and every branch has similar outcomes for the same fundamental reasons.
      And islam has apologists who dwell on difference, nuanace, wordplay, and positive experiences (for example, Thomas and Obama enabling and supporting islam).


      Apologizing and and even proselytizing for islam is your choice. And having chosen- you share individual responsibility (just like Obama, FDR, and Walter Duranty).
      "Peace be unto you."

      Delete
    3. More on Walter Duranty
      http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/us/times-should-lose-pulitzer-from-30-s-consultant-says.html

      Delete
    4. supporting/enabling aggression,
      is aggression.

      to the point of Kent's post: When SHOULD communists be thrown from the helicopter? When does their choice to support that aggression 'cross the line'?


      in the "guillotine example" proposed for the sake of discussion: At which increment does the threat become an actual threat?

      And the other example offered to stimulate reasoned discussion: WW2 americans, under not direct physical danger, went to europe&japan and fire bombed families asleep in their homes. Most consider that to have been difficult yet correct choices. How does that square with ZAP?

      Simple ZAP examples, are simple. Complications explore the rationale for realworld use of ZAP, and buttress the philosophical rigor.

      Delete
    5. Since you're comparing me to Obama, I'll steal one of his phrases. Let me be perfectly clear: I do not "support" Islam. I do not believe its doctrines, nor do I particularly like what I've seen of its practice.

      But as to what I've seen of Islam and Muslims, I choose to believe my own eyes instead of making up a fantasy version of it and them and running around trying to get people to screw their eyes shu, ignore the real world, and play Ooga Booga There's A Killer Muslim Under The Bed with me.

      Delete
    6. Please stop hijacking this thread- which is about ZAP
      (and not your misinformation, lack of experience with islam).

      http://blog.kentforliberty.com/2017/03/is-it-trap-or-defense.html?showComment=1490239621806#c4216510176743991627



      This is about ZAP.
      Got any reasoned points to make about ZAP and it's application?

      Delete
  7. "Got any reasoned points to make about ZAP and its application?"

    Sure.

    ZAP prohibits the initiation of force.

    Reading a book, praying to a deity, publicly praising said deity, etc. are not initiations of force.

    An overt act with/demonstrating the intent to harm or coerce another IS an initiation of force. And that, as your leading "examples" demonstrate, gets complicated, because:

    We're all responsible for what we do.

    If you come running at me yelling "I'm going to kill you," that's an overt act and, in old-time legal parlance, an "offer to do harm" and no reasonable person is going to hold that I am the one who initiated force by pulling my pistol and putting you down.

    If I walk by a mosque and hear a bunch of people saying "Allahu Akbar!" and pull my pistol and put one or more of them down, no reasonable person is going to hold that I was acting in defense of self or others. I am clearly the aggressor in that case.

    We're responsible for what WE DO, not for what someone we admire SAID.

    I find your focus on rape odd. Up until the 1990s (1991 in Missouri, where I grew up and got married), many states specifically exempted married men and women from the rape laws because God had decreed that women owed their husbands submission and it was therefore impossible for a husband to rape his wife. Which was how the matter had been treated in Christendom for nearly 2,000 years, including the thousand years or so when the Holy Roman Catholic Church ruled western civilization with an iron hand, murdering any found dissenting from its doctrines.

    Christendom and most of of Islam are starting to get past their eras of barbarism in spite of the fact that they can both find approval in their holy books for that barbarism.

    It seems to me that Islam lags Christendom in that respect; but then Islam is 600 years younger than Christendom. 600 years ago Christendom was just wrapping up the Western Schism, was in the middle of the Hundred Years War', and still had 200 years to go until the Thirty Years' War (the last big Christian religious war, with 8 million casualties). Seeing as how Christendom only excelled Islam on the matter of rape in the last 25 years or so, it seems that Islam may actually be catching up with Christendom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once known, the methods of Taqiyya quickly identify apologists.

      "Peace be unto you"

      "Have a nice day"

      Delete
  8. "Once fantasized, the fantasized version of Taqiyya allows me to pretend that anyone who doesn't agree with me is an apologist."

    Fixed, no charge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thread Hijacked. oh well.

      Taqiyya Thomas Troll is more authoritative than the Koran, and more informative than 1400 years of genocide.


      Q? Does responsibility/guilt confer to people who deliberately choose and act to support genocide? Does ZAP include the bomb maker, or just the guy initiating the trigger? Does ZAP include the guy funding it, and the guy running dissimformation and enabling it?
      ZAP questions that we were prevented from discussing by the method of Taqiyya.

      Delete
    2. not all commies are bad, right; they have families. but communism is evil.
      not all mohammedans are bad, right; they have families. but islam is evil.
      not all statists are bad, right; they have families. but statism is evil.

      Delete
    3. "Thread Hijacked. oh well."

      Why oh well? Nobody forced you to hijack the thread and try to make it about your apocalyptic fantasies. You did that because you decided to do it. Own it.

      Delete
    4. and those who deliberately choose to enable, support, defend, missinform, and lie about evil- well, they embrace that evil and share responsibility.

      Delete
  9. Yep, but don't worry, there's still hope for you. You can extract your cranium from your rectum, straighten up and fly right any time you choose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reason and data are against you, so you ...
      claimed authority, and declared contrary data to be fantasy.
      failed to support any of your claims with data, facts, links.
      made no reasoned arguments, beyond "appeal to authority".
      avoided the topic of ZAP, to perform Taqiyya in support of islam.
      All deliberate choices.

      And now that brilliant bit of reasoning.

      "Peace be unto you"

      Delete
    2. still laughing about your claim to be more authoritative on islam than 1400 years of data and the koran itself.

      Delete
    3. And I'm laughing at your pretense that I've made any such claim. One of us is claiming to be authoritative on Islam. That person is you.

      Delete
    4. As has been said (by who the first time being a murky question), the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

      Delete
    5. Reasoning and data fails... so continued "personal attacks" and "claims of authority".

      Boring.

      Delete
    6. Agreed. Feel free to stop the personal attacks and claims of authority any time you get tired of making them.

      Delete
  10. How about this example: Suppose you lived in Venezuela, and had a family and a small business, like a bakery. At what point do/did the socialists become an imminent threat?

    When a soldier comes to your door and kills you for not selling bread at the state mandated (not economically viable) price?
    Or when, before then?

    Is the soldier the one consideration within the ZAP framework?
    How about the general who sent him?
    Lawmaker who passed the law dictating this individual outcome?
    The campaign manager who enabled the lawmaker to get elected to do this system into place?
    The people providing money contributions to help get this system installed?
    Others who chose/choose to actively support this system?

    And who not?
    uninformed, ignorant, mentally deficient?
    those who have to "go along" to earn enough to feed their families??
    those who "go along" enough to enrich themselves through use of the system?

    ZAP questions, to reason through "gray areas" that might not be so gray after all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. point being that the systems attract folks who make choices to join.
      different systems attract different types, and bring out different behavior patterns.

      at what point does actively help build the guillotine, and train, and fund, and prepare, and proselytize actually cross the line into imminent threat?

      Horrible to contemplate, what is necessary to end the imminent threat in such cases. WW2 firebombings in europe and japan are examples.

      NOT discussing such things, means they happen without reasoned discussion.
      One of the best features of my western civilization, is reasoned discussion and philosophical hand wringing BEFORE action, to shape the proportional response. Real life situations can be bad (Venezuela, Cuba, Eastern Europe under communism, the aggression of islam and statism in particular). Running away and pretended are not always available options.

      Sticking to simple scenarios does not do much for ZAP.
      Deliberations on more complex scenarios would tease out the crux of the reasoning.

      anyone care to discuss the topic?
      (or is the internet hopeless for that sort of thing?)

      Delete
    2. when do you throw the commie out of the helicopter?

      Delete
    3. I've dealt with your questions regarding the ZAP in general above, but as to this specific one:

      I don't. In order to throw the commie out of the helicopter, I'd have to first capture the commie and force him into the helicopter. If I need to kill him, I'll do it on the ground instead of fucking around.

      Delete
    4. Hypothesis: that communism,islam,statism systems are successful and grow specifically BECAUSE they explore and push the boundaries of when/where/how ZAP gets applied. People retreat from gray areas, and then new gray areas are constructed.
      And, eventually there is nowhere else to retreat to: That's called "too late".

      Delete
    5. reason/philosophy debate, or death

      seems to be one of the choices

      Delete
  11. failing to plan, is planning to fail

    ReplyDelete