tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post3820384454386175868..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: GMU campus coverage of the John Lewis eventUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-36629871837619618632007-05-06T15:46:00.000-04:002007-05-06T15:46:00.000-04:00Nick,I sent you an email regarding the Broadside a...Nick,<BR/><BR/>I sent you an email regarding the Broadside article.<BR/><BR/>Did you get it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-58409958826609449522007-05-02T08:35:00.000-04:002007-05-02T08:35:00.000-04:00"madmax" says: "It was sarcasm, not a logical argu..."madmax" says: "It was sarcasm, not a logical argument."<BR/><BR/>We agree on the latter half. If the original statement was sarcasm alone then why did the author reformulate it as an argument, and in a more elaborate form?<BR/><BR/>If, however, you are convinced the original statement was sarcasm, would you explain how you arrived at your conclusion? In other words, what is your proof that the original statement was meant only as sarcasm?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-53483654550115561972007-05-01T23:29:00.000-04:002007-05-01T23:29:00.000-04:00To all those interested, Dr. John Lewis' lecture i...To all those interested, Dr. John Lewis' lecture is now available from The Objective Standard's <A HREF="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/events.asp" REL="nofollow">events page</A>.<BR/><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://abandoncaution.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Abandon Caution</A>Michael Cautionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02915960777917930497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-83924833019720814862007-05-01T23:24:00.000-04:002007-05-01T23:24:00.000-04:00"Is generalizing about the nature of a group -- su..."Is generalizing about the nature of a group -- such as "the students at GMU" -- based on the behavior of one or a few members of that group a logical generalization?"<BR/><BR/>Burgess,<BR/><BR/>It was sarcasm, not a logical argument.madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-65276151002485855262007-05-01T17:46:00.000-04:002007-05-01T17:46:00.000-04:00>Is generalizing about the nature of a group -- su...>Is generalizing about the nature of a group -- such as "the students at GMU" -- based on the behavior of one or a few members of that group a logical generalization?<BR/><BR/>We only know of Jasper because he and his friends effectively shouted down a voice that they disagreed with, which is an act of thuggery that runs counter to the mission of any institution of higher learning. To my knowledge, neither Jasper or his fellow students have been sanctioned by the university for their conduct. That can only mean that such students "fit in" and are accepted despite their repugnant and disruptive their behavior. <BR/><BR/>As an institution, GMU appears to be quite conflicted over just what academic freedom is and why it is important to its faculty, students and guests. This is a philosophic deficit that speaks to the character of both the university and those in it. As such, my opinion of the GMU and its students has lessoned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-75059159055757808142007-05-01T17:17:00.000-04:002007-05-01T17:17:00.000-04:00On May 01, 2007 1:22 PM, Anonymous said... "My opi...On May 01, 2007 1:22 PM, Anonymous said... "My opinion of the students at GMU is decreasing every day."<BR/><BR/>Is generalizing about the nature of a group -- such as "the students at GMU" -- based on the behavior of one or a few members of that group a logical generalization?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-86265951125361983872007-05-01T15:13:00.000-04:002007-05-01T15:13:00.000-04:00Comments and debate are welcome on the Center for ...Comments and debate are welcome on the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism’s blog, but the following comments will be removed by our administrator: <BR/><BR/>- Potentially libelous comments. <BR/>- Obscene or racist comments. <BR/>- Personal attacks, insults, or threatening language. <BR/>- Plagiarized material. Private, personal information published without consent. Comments totally unrelated to the topic of the post. <BR/>- Commercial promotions or spam. <BR/>- Hyperlinks to material that is not directly related to the discussion.<BR/><BR/>To review CAC's comments policy in full, please visit: http://www.capitalismcenter.org/Terms/Comments_Policy.htmNicholas Provenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10926131141263622350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-49243130338434621662007-05-01T13:22:00.000-04:002007-05-01T13:22:00.000-04:00Jasper wrote:>. . . so says wikipedia.And that's y...Jasper wrote:<BR/><BR/>>. . . so says wikipedia.<BR/><BR/>And that's your evidence? An encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone? That's the best that you could muster in defense of your view? <BR/><BR/>Wow. My opinion of the students at GMU is decreasing every day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-79762904091482184242007-05-01T13:12:00.000-04:002007-05-01T13:12:00.000-04:00A sundry leftist wrote:>Lewis was calling for us t...A sundry leftist wrote:<BR/><BR/>>Lewis was calling for us to attack another country based on the idea that it would serve our self-interest.<BR/><BR/>That's half right. Lewis is calling for us to attack a threatening totalitarian regime based on the idea that it would serve our self-interest, i.e. our desire to live our own lives free of their violence and tyranny. If the Iranian government would act like Turkey (that is, show no desire for blood in the name of jihad) it would be treated and respected as such. Instead, Iran is the fountainhead of religious war and it inspires—if not outright supports—all religious warriors by showing that you can wage this war and not pay the appropriate penalty. Lewis is correct to argue that such conduct is unacceptable; he is correct in identifying that the rational owe nothing to the irrational. <BR/><BR/>>This is an ethnocentric view, as it values the lives and culture of our country more than other countries.<BR/><BR/>No. This is a rational view. It values the lives of the free and otherwise peaceful more than it values the lives of the would-be enslavers. And notice that the leftists never see the Islamic totalitarians as being guilty of "ethnocentrism." That slur is reserved only for the free peoples of this earth.<BR/><BR/>>His devaluation of Islamic law, not to mention is outright bigoted views (he claimed that its typical for Muslim men to beat their wives!) are racist and ethnocentric.<BR/><BR/>Tell that to the female Afghani doctor who was stoned to death for daring to practice medicine in defiance of the Taliban. Tell that to the Saudi schoolgirls who were allowed to burn to death in their school rather than be seen without their veils. Tell that to the victims of "honor killings" because they refused their arranged marriages and dared to take a lover of their own choosing. Tell them the value of this Islamic law that they must submit to—even if they reject the creed of Islam and wish to live their lives for themselves.<BR/><BR/>> You should understand that such calls for violence against Islamic states can and do make many Muslim students feel unsafe.<BR/><BR/>If they choose to cast their lot with the totalitarianists, I suppose that's true, just as a Nazi living in the US would feel "unsafe" at speeches decrying the evils of Nazism. I say tough luck for them if that's the stand they choose to take.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-91604931426811597492007-05-01T12:44:00.000-04:002007-05-01T12:44:00.000-04:00Jasper,Thank you for defining your terms and citin...Jasper,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for defining your terms and citing sources; it provides an insightful view of your confusion.<BR/><BR/>The definition you cite for ethnocentric is from the muddle of Sociology, as opposed to common and clear usage of the word. This confusion in Sociology, yourself and your ilk of ethnicity and culture in the definition derives from a racism descendent from Germanic philosophy (See Peikoff‘s _Ominous Parallels_ for elaboration).<BR/><BR/>Dr. Lewis's argument is not ethnic but ideological in that the purpose of government is the protection of individual rights. This idea is what you protested, and that is the antithesis of the Islamic totalitarianism that you choose to support.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03294929174237823914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-85727787949036545472007-05-01T12:07:00.000-04:002007-05-01T12:07:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.The Gregorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13290237567186809131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-77238264244432867052007-05-01T11:17:00.000-04:002007-05-01T11:17:00.000-04:00Although your obsession with me is really flatteri...Although your obsession with me is really flattering, you really need to think before you post things. Lewis is ethnocentric, as is your entire capitalist organization. I'm not sure how you could deny that. Ethnocentrism is the tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of your own culture(so says wikipedia). Lewis was calling for us to attack another country based on the idea that it would serve our self-interest. This is an ethnocentric view, as it values the lives and culture of our country more than other countries. His devaluation of Islamic law, not to mention is outright bigoted views(he claimed that its typical for Muslim men to beat their wives!) are racist and ethnocentric. <BR/>I'm not sure who you think my instructors are. My radical professors at GMU, please, I have one marxist professor who doesn't even advocate revolution. <BR/>You folks should get over yourselves, even the head republican(read: facist) at mason was quoted as saying that he only agreed with half of what lewis said. <BR/>As far as the comment that we should have stayed home, do you understand the point of a protest? Our goal was to show our tremendous distaste for what was said. Our goal was also to stand in solidarity with the muslim community which is still outraged that the college supported this hate speech directed at them. You should understand that such calls for violence against islamic states can and do make many muslim students feel unsafe. However, I would suggest that this capitalist cult probably isn't concerned with their feelings, unless of course it hampers your profit margin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-7976172907034310932007-04-30T18:43:00.000-04:002007-04-30T18:43:00.000-04:00I had a little laugh when they claimed that Lewis ...I had a little laugh when they claimed that Lewis believed Islam as a religion is peaceful. It's amazing how people just make things up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-61878033081867169922007-04-30T18:29:00.000-04:002007-04-30T18:29:00.000-04:00I say Conner is an idiot and I'm sure his instruct...I say Conner is an idiot and I'm sure his instructors are proud of their handiwork. To frame the defeat of Islamic <I>totalitarianism</I> as a call to "violence" is patently absurd; one (barely) wonders then if Conner would decry <I>any</I> form of self-defense merely on the grounds that it is violent. <BR/><BR/>And to call Lewis an "intolerant ethnocentric" is similarly idiotic. Lewis clearly argues against a specific form of thinking and action and <I>not</I> against anyone's race (even the college paper was able to make this point clear). <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, Conner and his ilk can't have it both ways—they can's attack Lewis' ideas against intolerance and bigotry without revealing themselves to be bigots themselves, albeit of the anti-west, anti-individualism, anti-freedom ilk.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com