ragnarpirate ([info]ragnarpirate) wrote in [info]aynrandforum,
@ 2007-09-25 10:14:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Ahmadinejad the laughable islamo-Nazi: free speech works?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070924225252.klmczhdo&show_article=1

When I heard that Ahmadinejad was speaking at Columbia I thought it was very wrong to give him a forum. But, I think that it has back-fired. His evil nature seems to have been exposed. I was disgusted by statements by Columbia that they would have allowed Hitler to speak in 1939. I now wonder whether the world would have acted differently sooner if the general public had a better understanding of Hitler's intentions. (Although he had already pretty much laid it out in his book and speeches).

Some of the comments about how well Jews are treated in Iran, his denial of a homosexual community in Iran, and his denial of any wish for aggressive offensive weapons for Iran such as nuclear bombs sound eerily familiar to pre-WW2 Hitler. He is a very scary man and the sooner the world learns, the better.

(Post a new comment)

Iranian repression of homosexuality
[info]ragnarpirate
2007-09-25 02:47 pm UTC (link)
In pre-WW2 Nazi Germany I expect many Germans were indifferent towards the persecuted. After all they were not Jewish, gay, or gypsy. In addition, those who recognized the incredible immorality, saw that significant resistance was unlikely to help the persecuted and likely to bring them great suffering at the hands of the Nazi's due to the incredible power of the totalitarian state.

I'm not homosexual, but I will not idly tolerate the repression by the state of any group. What those that look away do not recognize is that it IS against their own interest to allow the state to control or destroy any human. It is morally despicable and your turn will be next. The seekers of power over people have insatiable appetites.

(Reply to this)


[info]rinku
2007-10-12 10:56 am UTC (link)
This doesn't have anything to do with Ayn Rand or Objectivism, really -- I know this is late so there's no point, but try to keep topics related to the community.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]ragnarpirate
2007-10-12 09:15 pm UTC (link)
Are you kidding me? Incoherent rants about integration of incommeasurables are permitted, but discussing the political merits of unfettered free-speech earns an admonishment from the moderator? Objectivist politics endorse laissez-faire capitalism and complete political freedom. This is clearly germane to the issue of objectivist politics. The point that I was trying to convey is that free speech is self-correcting in the sense that others have the ability to assess the rationality of the speech.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]rinku
2007-10-12 09:38 pm UTC (link)
Those posts are related to the philosophy, I don't think they're incoherent if you've studied Objectivist epistemology. I don't often agree with them, but they're at least focused on the philosophy.

I don't think this is really a case of "discussing the political merits of unfettered free-speech", first because it's full of arguable premises which aren't necessarily true (that it backfired, that he's a scary man), and second because Ayn Rand was not for unfettered free speech in the sense you mean -- of every individual or group having to give a forum to anyone and everyone else. She was against government censorship of speech, not in favor of inviting everyone in the world to speak and giving equal time and so on.

Anything can be tied to Objectivism if you stretch it enough of course, but some things are more related and some things are more unrelated. As an example, just posting pictures of trains would make little sense here, even though Atlas Shrugged has a lot of trains so it is indirectly related.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ragnarpirate
2007-10-17 02:00 pm UTC (link)
It is my opinion that some of your admonitions are heavy handed.

I am quite aware that objectivist politics endorses free speech and does not support coercion of the means of disseminating speech. I expect that when I say free speech on an objectivist forum readers understand that I mean it in the objectivist sense. I never suggested otherwise.

Columbia was not coerced into providing a forum for him to speak. The president of Columbia felt that providing the forum would highlight the irrational nature of Ahmadinejad's views. My comments related to whether this decision was based on sound reasoning by the president of Columbia.

The news coverage that I read portrayed the public and intellectual response to the speech in a uniformly negative fashion. If you think this is an arguable premise maybe you should back that up with some examples of positive reporting on the speech (other than Iranian state media).

I find it hard to fathom that you believe that the statement that Ahmadinejad is a scary man is an "arguable premise" (the fundamentalist leader of an theocratic state with nuclear ambitions and the desire to wipe countries from the face of the map). Was Hitler a scary man in 1939?

And, even if both are arguable, since when are arguable premises forbidden from this forum? I could support every premise with factual data. However, in an objectivist forum one should expect that a theocratic leader who has expressed his desire for a worldwide islamic caliphate is scary without footnotes documenting each instance supporting this premise.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]rinku
2007-10-17 02:12 pm UTC (link)
There's are other Objectivist communities which are more like soapboxes if you prefer that way; [info]objectivists and [info]objectivism.

That still isn't what Objectivism means by free speech, but regardless, the entry itself doesn't even mention free speech or refer to the idea of it, so you can't really claim it's related to Objectivism because of free speech. The entry has nothing to do with the topic of this community unless you invent indirect ways in which it is connected.

I don't wish to discuss Ahmadinejad here. Suffice to say I believe he is not any real threat and that claims otherwise are exaggerated, that he is not theocratic, that he has not expressed a desire for a worldwide Islamic caliphate, and that those statements are propaganda with no evidence in favor of them.

Arguable premises are fine, but you also shouldn't assume others agree with them, especially when they're as contentious as this one.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ragnarpirate
2007-10-17 02:52 pm UTC (link)
He is not theocratic? WOW! He has not expressed a desire for a worldwide islamic caliphate? Are you knowledgeable about Ahmadinejad? If you are and you are an apologist for Ahmadinejad, was that your reason for objecting to my post?

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/BDACA9EF-E91C-436F-9E8A-715397398C1D/

[
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Tuesday that rule of Islam on mankind is the only way for salvation of human beings.
"There is no truth on earth but monotheism and following tenets of Islam and there is no way for salvation of mankind but rule of Islam over mankind,"
"Nations today have no haven but religion," the Iranian president announced, cautioning Muslim nations against enemies' divisive plots.
The president said Islam belongs to all generations and Muslims should get ready for global mission of Islam.
]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1902372/posts

http://analysis.threatswatch.org/2005/11/understanding-ahmadinejad/

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]rinku
2007-10-17 03:01 pm UTC (link)
I'm not an apologist for him in the sense that I'm not apologizing for anything he does that's immoral. He's done some bad things, like any leader of any Islamic nation.

He is certainly a fundamentalist, but Iran is not a theocracy. He is serving a limited term, like the presidents before him. He has limited power, he's not a dictator. There is a parliament which has most of the power, there's even a Jew in the parliament. He is moderate on some issues -- he believed women should have the right to go unveiled in public places in Iran and worked for that cause.

He wants to spread Islam around the world, but he has said nothing about a global Caliphate and said nothing about spreading Islam through force. If you can point to him mentioning something like that, that'd back up your statements.

This wasn't the reason for objecting to your post. I objected because it has nothing to do with Objectivism or Ayn Rand -- you know, the *topic* of this community?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ragnarpirate
2007-10-17 03:13 pm UTC (link)
Directly from Iranian State News:
*
* Headlines
* General
* Politic
* Economic
* Sport
* World
* Photo


فارسي عربي Русский 中文 Français Srpski Español Türkçe Today: Wednesday October 17, 2007
President: Rule of Islam only way for salvation of mankind
Kabul, Aug 14, IRNA

Iran-Afghanistan-Ahmadinejad
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Tuesday that rule of Islam on mankind is the only way for salvation of human beings.

"There is no truth on earth but monotheism and following tenets of Islam and there is no way for salvation of mankind but rule of Islam over mankind," said Ahmadinejad in a meeting with Afghan Sunni and Shiite ulama at Iranian Embassy in Kabul.

President Ahmadinejad said nations are today distancing themselves from culture of materialism and selfishness and look for a new way for their prosperity, that is the path of Islam.

He said that the world is on verge of a great upheaval and ulama at this juncture shoulder a heavy responsibility that is introducing genuine Islam as it is.

"Nations today have no haven but religion," the Iranian president announced, cautioning Muslim nations against enemies' divisive plots.

He said, "All of us have the duty to resist the enemy by closing our ranks."
He said that the Iranian nation today feels more than ever the need to stand beside the Afghan nation.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran has kindly received their Afghan brothers and will continue to do so in future. Minor issues will cannot affect Iran's policies on Afghanistan," he added.

The president said Islam belongs to all generations and Muslims should get ready for global mission of Islam.






News sent: 17:38 Tuesday August 14, 2007

When I say that he endorses a worldwide Islamic caliphate I never addressed the means (violence or acquiescence).

What other conclusion could you draw from the following statement than a desire for the rule of Islam over mankind:

"There is no truth on earth but monotheism and following tenets of Islam and there is no way for salvation of mankind but rule of Islam over mankind,"

Regarding Iran being a theocracy (from wikipedia [theocracy]):

Current states with theocratic aspects

[edit] Iran
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (tagged since May 2007)

Most observers would consider Iran a theocracy,[citation needed] since the elected president and legislature are constitutionally subject to the supervision of two offices reserved for Shia clerics: the Supreme Leader of Iran (Rahbar) and the Guardian Council, which even decide who may run for office.


However, Iranian authorities themselves consider Iran a theo-democracy or religious democracy.[2] The Supreme Leader is considered as the ultimate head of state and government, whereas the President is granted as the prime executor of policy. However, in the recent years Mohammad Khatami has called Iranian political system as an alternative democratic model so called religious democracy.[citation needed]

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]rinku
2007-10-17 03:27 pm UTC (link)
Yes, it has some theocratic leanings but I think it's correct to call it a religious democracy, an Islamic nation.

A theocracy is where the clergy have the highest power, and where offices of state are also offices of religion, where religion and state are one and the same. That is not entirely true of Iran; the clergy do have political power there, but there are also secular politicians (and most politicians in Iran are not clergy).

It's true that there's no separation of church and state there, but it's also true that they are not identical. Maybe this is squabbling over terms, but historic theocracies, and even current theocracies (such as the Vatican), operate much differently than Iran does.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ragnarpirate
2007-10-17 03:20 pm UTC (link)
rink wrote:
"the entry itself doesn't even mention free speech or refer to the idea of it"

the title of the post was:
"Ahmadinejad the laughable islamo-Nazi: free speech works?"

what are the last 3 words?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]rinku
2007-10-17 03:32 pm UTC (link)
I didn't notice the title when I said that, sorry. But I still think the connection is minor at best. You could have made it relevant to the community in a number of ways, but it wasn't as is. Free speech isn't even a particularly important or notable topic in Objectivism. Objectivism also supports the right of abortion, is any news story about abortion relevant, if it has "abortion works" in the title?

I don't see the use of arguing over it though, whether it fits the community or not is a dead issue since it's an old entry.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…