Proposed Robert J. Kolker info pack
Friar Broccoli
I believe there is pretty general (but not universal)
agreement among those who are aware of him that Mr. Kolker's
constant restatement of his view that all Moslems should be
exterminated, presents a problem for this group at several
different levels.
I further believe that much of the harm he does could be
attenuated, if we as a group could minimize our replies to him
on topics other than the extermination of people, when I believe
we need to express active disagreement.
Getting people to stop replying to him is complicated by the
fact that new users who don't know about him are constantly
entering the group. I know it took me more than six months to
click. Other long time participants appear to have just given
up on the effort to isolate him.
The following short FAQ (really an Info package), may be able
help with both these problems:
/**************** Beginning of FAQ *************************/
Dear (Insert new poster's name);
This note is intended to make you aware that many (but not all)
users of Talk.Origins are strongly opposed to any replies to
posts from Robert J. Kolker.
The following recent posts by Mr Kolker should make it clear
why:
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/msg/2ce11bcaea90ae14
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e0e3072cfe580cb4
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/msg/1b565f8e66e7e067
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.battlestar-galactica/msg/b9d4a8c5fe44b9b9
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/9c77df1e57770423
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/d86efe66b23fb066
/********************** End of FAQ *************************/
A new user who has received this FAQ after posting to Mr Kolker
will be made immediately aware of what he is, and can then take
whatever action he sees fit.
Long time participants will thus be periodically reminded that
there is an active campaign on, and will be less inclined to
reply as well.
I think it is self evident that such a campaign can only work if
there are a large number of ACTIVE participants, so that it is
clear to new and regular users alike that providing this
information is a group effort.
Thus I would hope that the very first person to see an
unintentional reply to Mr. Kolker, would post this information
package. I believe it should also go to the creationists who
pop in from time to time.
If there is general acceptance of this type of action, I will be
happy to post a FAQ note similar to the above on the first of
every month so that people can find it easily. (Unless somebody
else would like the honor.)
Comments, suggestions, condemnations ... ?
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Tristan Miller
In article <1146443322.3...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Friar
Broccoli wrote:
> I believe there is pretty general (but not universal)
> agreement among those who are aware of him that Mr. Kolker's
> constant restatement of his view that all Moslems should be
> exterminated, presents a problem for this group at several
> different levels.
Perhaps, but his arguments against creationism are not one of them. As has
been repeatedly stated in this newsgroup, whether or not Darwin was
racist, and whether or not Hitler admired Darwin, are completely
immaterial to the truth of evolution. Likewise, whether or not Bob Kolker
is a genocidal bigot has no bearing on any reasonable argument of his
supporting evolution, or on the truth of evolution itself.
> The following recent posts by Mr Kolker should make it clear
> why:
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/msg/2ce11bcaea90ae14
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e0e3072cfe580cb4
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/msg/1b565f8e66e7e067
Please provide standard news: URIs instead of, or in addition to, these
Google Groups links. Not everyone reads their news online, and those that
do don't necessarily want to use Google Groups's hideously broken
interface.
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.battlestar-galactica/msg/b9d4a8c5fe44b9b9
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/9c77df1e57770423
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/d86efe66b23fb066
The final message should be deleted or replaced. Nothing in it implies
that Kolker advocates the incarceration or killing of Muslims. To me it
simply reads like a prediction.
Regards,
Tristan
--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you
r norman
wrote:
I most emphatically agree that many of Kolker's posts are extremely
racist and objectionable in content and we should find some way of
isolating him and telling him that his behavior is unacceptable. If
we can't change his opinions, we might be able to change his posting
behavior through social pressure.
However, in place of simply not responding at all, it might be better,
especially in view of many non-regulars who might not know what is
going on, to have a single reply stating that such behavior is not
appreciated and asking others not to reply further.
There is a second side, the carrot. Kolker often does have
substantive and sensible posts on a variety of questions and these
should be not be discouraged. The goal is not to eliminate Kolker,
but to eliminate the objectional posts.
Shane
I'm not sure about this one, Bob is indeed an unusual case in that his
science posts are, AFAICT, relevant, generally correct, and reasonably
stated. So at the very least this proposed FAQ would need to clearly
define the suggested non-response to just the posts where Bob's
monomania occurs.
To a certain extent this idea smacks of censorship, and I am not sure
it is the correct response. I suspect that Bob will never change his
ideas, but then again nor will Ray Martinez, and some of his ideas are
no less extreme or hateful. I would suggest that instead of a FAQ like
the one proposed, it is up to those who know of Bob's particular blind
spot to insert the relevant notice after the appropriate post, not as
an organised thing, but as a volunarty service to the uninitiated.
Lets not make Bob even more paranoid than he already feels on this
subject. I have gone a few rounds with Bob, and bear him no ill-will
for his baseless and senseless views of Moslems. My feeling is one of
sadness that a person can persist in such views against all evidence,
which is a betrayal of the science and reason he defends so staunchly
elsewhere. I could be wrong, but I suspect that being Bob is
punishment enough; people who hold such views are seldom, in my
limited experience, happy.
My 2c.
Shane
Robert J. Kolker
> The final message should be deleted or replaced. Nothing in it implies
> that Kolker advocates the incarceration or killing of Muslims. To me it
> simply reads like a prediction.
Oh, no, no, no. I mean what I wrote. I advocate what I wrote. It is
necessary for our survival culturally. The alternative is the death of a
thousand cuts and finally the Long Night in the Shadow of the Mosque. Is
that what you want?
Bob Kolker
dysfunction
bloodthirstiness." They are bloodthirsty because they believe acting in
such a manner defends their way of life, and because they are mislead
by their leaders. We are also mislead by our leaders into violence in
the name of defending our way of life, though to a smaller degree. If
we allow our leaders (or Robert J Kolker) to mislead us into matching
acts of violence, we become the same. There is NO difference. You're
talking about evil in the name of good- but evil is evil, in the name
of anything you care to choose. The only difference between us and
radical Islam is the degree of violence used- both sides believe they
fight for their freedom and ideals. Take away our restraint, and we
become them.
RAM
As unchristian as much of Ray's remarks are he has as yet suggested as
far as I'm aware genocide.
so they are less extreme and less consequentially hateful.
> and some of his ideas are
> no less extreme or hateful. I would suggest that instead of a FAQ like
> the one proposed, it is up to those who know of Bob's particular blind
> spot
Genocide qualifies as more than a blind spot.
> to insert the relevant notice after the appropriate post, not as
> an organised thing, but as a volunarty service to the uninitiated.
>
> Lets not make Bob even more paranoid
Bob is not paranoid. He appears to be sociopathic.
> than he already feels on this
> subject. I have gone a few rounds with Bob, and bear him no ill-will
> for his baseless and senseless views of Moslems. My feeling is one of
> sadness that a person can persist in such views against all evidence,
> which is a betrayal of the science and reason he defends so staunchly
> elsewhere. I could be wrong, but I suspect that being Bob is
> punishment enough; people who hold such views are seldom, in my
> limited experience, happy.
This may be true but his espousal of genocide should be derided for
what it is. Evil equal to the evil he perceives in Muslims. His
justification is, as I beleive he states, simple reciprocity.
What is of more relevance I believe is that Bob is like the creationist
he criticizes. He refuses to understand the Muslim world from a social
scientific perspective because that would require him to develop
understandings that are not based in a destructive ideology that he
celebrates. He clearly has the ability to understand science but
refuses to even begin to look and understand Muslim extremism from an
informed social scientific (anthropological, sociological and
psychological) perspective which would seem reasonable for a scientist
employ.
The profound failure of the present administration is in large part a
result of their failure to understand the fundamental concepts of the
social sciences. This is particularly true of the neocons and their
Straussian/Platoian view of politics and human behavior. The neocon
weltanschauung revolves around varied moral/value absolutes and no
shades of gray in the understanding of people and politics. Such a
decisive view of human events leads to serious distortions of empirical
reality. Bob shares their anti-social science view of the world. I
leads to fundamental misunderstandings about people.
This is not to assert or imply that the social sciences can provide a
resolution or complete understanding of the complexities that exist in
all cultures/societies, but only that it has some foundational insights
that let you know when you are dramatically misinterpreting
cultural/social behavior. Bob like the neocons appears to know truth
when he spouts it and if it fits his empirically unrealistic
understandings of Muslim culture.
RAM
>
> My 2c.
>
> Shane
Matthew Isleb
It is so amazing how well you represent the fictional inhabitants of the
planet Krikkit from Douglas Adams' "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
series who were all about "peace, justice, morality, culture, sport,
family life, and the obliteration of all other life forms." It would be
funny if it weren't so scary. Let's just hope we dont' have to lock you in
a time bubble.
-matthew
Shane
> Shane wrote:
<snip for brevity>
>> I'm not sure about this one, Bob is indeed an unusual case in that his
>> science posts are, AFAICT, relevant, generally correct, and reasonably
>> stated. So at the very least this proposed FAQ would need to clearly
>> define the suggested non-response to just the posts where Bob's
>> monomania occurs.
>>
>> To a certain extent this idea smacks of censorship, and I am not sure
>> it is the correct response. I suspect that Bob will never change his
>> ideas, but then again nor will Ray Martinez,
>
> As unchristian as much of Ray's remarks are he has as yet suggested as
> far as I'm aware genocide.
> so they are less extreme and less consequentially hateful.
IIRC, Ray actually has suggested genocide.
>> and some of his ideas are
>> no less extreme or hateful. I would suggest that instead of a FAQ like
>> the one proposed, it is up to those who know of Bob's particular blind
>> spot
>
> Genocide qualifies as more than a blind spot.
Genocide is not his blind spot. His blind spot is in not seeing how
his views on Moslems are not supported by evidence, something he takes
religions in general and creationism in particular, to task for.
>> to insert the relevant notice after the appropriate post, not as
>> an organised thing, but as a volunarty service to the uninitiated.
>>
>> Lets not make Bob even more paranoid
>
> Bob is not paranoid. He appears to be sociopathic.
Yeah, but officially dumping on him just for one thing is not going to
make him less of either, and it may make him more of either. And we
are singling him out, which can easily turn into the thin edge of the
wedge.
>> than he already feels on this
>> subject. I have gone a few rounds with Bob, and bear him no ill-will
>> for his baseless and senseless views of Moslems. My feeling is one of
>> sadness that a person can persist in such views against all evidence,
>> which is a betrayal of the science and reason he defends so staunchly
>> elsewhere. I could be wrong, but I suspect that being Bob is
>> punishment enough; people who hold such views are seldom, in my
>> limited experience, happy.
>
> This may be true but his espousal of genocide should be derided for
> what it is. Evil equal to the evil he perceives in Muslims. His
> justification is, as I beleive he states, simple reciprocity.
This is in effect what I say when I respond to his genocidal rants. If
he were not a hypocrite, he would commit suicide, for he is everything
he irrationally hates about the Moslems.
> What is of more relevance I believe is that Bob is like the creationist
> he criticizes. He refuses to understand the Muslim world from a social
> scientific perspective because that would require him to develop
> understandings that are not based in a destructive ideology that he
> celebrates. He clearly has the ability to understand science but
> refuses to even begin to look and understand Muslim extremism from an
> informed social scientific (anthropological, sociological and
> psychological) perspective which would seem reasonable for a scientist
> employ.
Indeed, that is his blind-spot, which I have already mentioned.
Andre G. Isaak
"Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Proposal:
>
> I believe there is pretty general (but not universal)
> agreement among those who are aware of him that Mr. Kolker's
> constant restatement of his view that all Moslems should be
> exterminated, presents a problem for this group at several
> different levels.
>
> I further believe that much of the harm he does could be
> attenuated, if we as a group could minimize our replies to him
> on topics other than the extermination of people, when I believe
> we need to express active disagreement.
>
> Getting people to stop replying to him is complicated by the
> fact that new users who don't know about him are constantly
> entering the group. I know it took me more than six months to
> click. Other long time participants appear to have just given
> up on the effort to isolate him.
>
> The following short FAQ (really an Info package), may be able
> help with both these problems:
<snip>
While I agree that some of Mr. Kolker's views are rather odious, I don't
think that it is reasonable to single out a specific individual poster
for a FAQ on a newsgroup, especially not a group with such a, um, shall
we say 'varied' selection of participants. It would probably be easier
to just post the entire DSM-IV.
Andre
--
Andre G. Isaak
n.b. there are no monotremes in my email address
Robert Carnegie
> On 30 Apr 2006 17:28:42 -0700, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> > Proposal:
> >
> > I believe there is pretty general (but not universal)
> > agreement among those who are aware of him that Mr. Kolker's
> > constant restatement of his view that all Moslems should be
> > exterminated, presents a problem for this group at several
> > different levels.
> >
> > I further believe that much of the harm he does could be
> > attenuated, if we as a group could minimize our replies to him
> > on topics other than the extermination of people, when I believe
> > we need to express active disagreement.
> >
> > Getting people to stop replying to him is complicated by the
> > fact that new users who don't know about him are constantly
> > entering the group. I know it took me more than six months to
> > click. Other long time participants appear to have just given
> > up on the effort to isolate him.
>
> science posts are, AFAICT, relevant, generally correct, and reasonably
> stated. So at the very least this proposed FAQ would need to clearly
> define the suggested non-response to just the posts where Bob's
> monomania occurs.
>
> To a certain extent this idea smacks of censorship, and I am not sure
> it is the correct response. I suspect that Bob will never change his
> ideas, but then again nor will Ray Martinez, and some of his ideas are
> no less extreme or hateful. I would suggest that instead of a FAQ like
> the one proposed, it is up to those who know of Bob's particular blind
> spot to insert the relevant notice after the appropriate post, not as
> an organised thing, but as a volunarty service to the uninitiated.
I haven't reviewed the article, but instead of posting the entire "FAQ"
which would be tediously repetitive (I'm not sure that "Is Bob Kolker
crazy or what" /is/ a frequently asked /question/, merely an
observation), you could simply drop in a link to (suggested)
http://www.talkorigins.org/kolker-is-a-whacko.faq
Right to reply would of course be in effect.
And I agree that this strictly applies only to expressions of genocidal
mania (and it isn't just Muslims, he doesn't like /anyone/), and not to
discussions of science. Having said that, if it's just a URL, then you
may as well drop it in anyway. Having said /that/, if Bob sets forth a
concise, accurate, well-argued scientific position, a reply from the
science side isn't necessarily called for. He said it.
Nor are Bob's critics necessarily saying that we aren't as much or more
concerned about Muslim terrorists and Muslim militia as we are about
Christian, Jewish, Maoists, etc., around the world, with similar
methods and goals, being a force not altogether for good. We just
aren't so, um, old-testament about it...
John Wilkins
I don't think that is appropriate for the archive. If someone wants to put it
up on their own site, so be it. But that's not what the Archive is for.
>
> And I agree that this strictly applies only to expressions of genocidal
> mania (and it isn't just Muslims, he doesn't like /anyone/), and not to
> discussions of science. Having said that, if it's just a URL, then you
> may as well drop it in anyway. Having said /that/, if Bob sets forth a
> concise, accurate, well-argued scientific position, a reply from the
> science side isn't necessarily called for. He said it.
>
> Nor are Bob's critics necessarily saying that we aren't as much or more
> concerned about Muslim terrorists and Muslim militia as we are about
> Christian, Jewish, Maoists, etc., around the world, with similar
> methods and goals, being a force not altogether for good. We just
> aren't so, um, old-testament about it...
>
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos,
puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
NashtOn
Why not post a FAQ for every individual who disagrees with the majority
of the posters in this forum? Every time let's say a "creationist" posts
a post containing his point of view, POP, a FAQ appears as a response.
In this manner, you'll probably be able to shut up all dissidents,all
diverging views.
Back in the USSR, you don't know how lucky you are, back in the US..,
back in the USSR...
--
Nicolas
"The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is
the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn
that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more
about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the
product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural
selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture,
and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a
purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that
these claims go far beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson,
The Church Of Darwin
Robert Carnegie
>
> Why not post a FAQ for every individual who disagrees with the majority
> of the posters in this forum? Every time let's say a "creationist" posts
> a post containing his point of view, POP, a FAQ appears as a response.
>
> In this manner, you'll probably be able to shut up all dissidents,all
> diverging views.
Someone usually takes the trouble to point out what a kook /you/ are.
I haven't noticed any shutting up yet. I believe you like it.
Ken Shaw
I'm more than a little puzzled by this proposal. I abhor Bob's
positions on genocide but after reading a lot of his posts I'm sure
that quite often he takes extreme positions for the shock value.
Contrast that with the unwavering evil of Matt Giwer who is rarely
engaged even though his sig almost always includes direct holocaust
denial or antisemetic statements and links. Before we start handing out
scarlet letters to those whose statements you find objectionable why
don't we all start condemning the actually evil posters around here
rather than getting ourselves all wound up over the equivalent of a
shock jock.
Ken
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Proposal:
Rejected.
--
Bob.
chris.li...@gmail.com
If new arrivals cannot figure out that Bob has a..umm, let's call it a
slight idiosyncracy where Islam is concerned, hitting them with a
bigger brick isn't gonna help.
Chris
Marc
I still think we should all vote for NashtOn to have a new
quote as a sig file. Or maybe a FAQ about that sig file.
Evolution of that quote is needed here.
(signed) marc
Inez
Friar Broccoli wrote:
> Proposal:
>
> I believe there is pretty general (but not universal)
> agreement among those who are aware of him that Mr. Kolker's
> constant restatement of his view that all Moslems should be
> exterminated, presents a problem for this group at several
> different levels.
>
> I further believe that much of the harm he does could be
> attenuated, if we as a group could minimize our replies to him
> on topics other than the extermination of people, when I believe
> we need to express active disagreement.
I am against that spooky form of thought-policing where we try to
remove "bad influences" before they taint the minds of... I don't know
who..."today's youth" I suppose. I believe people can be trusted to
form their own opinions of Mr. Kolker's posts, and that we are not
required to do it for them.
rev.goetz
You are calling for saltation, not evolution. Or what small shnge of
the quote would make you happy?
James Goetz
Marc
First, it should be smaller or should be in the Google Group Profile
(where my letter about George Bush is). It is also so completely
wrong - "Church of Darwin" my ass - God is as much a product
of evolution as anything else to do with life is, and there is no
sense in the quote that Nic has except to shit-stir. He doesn't
really care but is forever posting one line comments with a 10
line quote. It's also a pain to delete each time. I've found him
a shorter, better one (below) but how do I get him to swap them?
I guess I'll just have to keep adding _my_ quote whenever a
post I make is a reply to or concerns our dear dude. (To be fair.)
(signed) marc
"Siding with evolution does not really pose a serious problem
for many deeply religious people, because one can easily
accept evolution without doubting the existence of a non-material
being. On the other hand, the truly radical and still maturing view
in the neuroscience community that the mind is entirely the product
of the brain presents the ultimate challenge to nearly all religions."
... Kenneth S. Kosik (Nature vol 439, p138)
Josh Miles
> Proposal:
>
> I believe there is pretty general (but not universal)
> agreement among those who are aware of him that Mr. Kolker's
> constant restatement of his view that all Moslems should be
> exterminated, presents a problem for this group at several
> different levels.
This is just plain bizarre. No offense, but this makes you sound like
one of those crazy net stalkers.
Also, I think most people would like to think for themselves and make
their own judgments.
silver...@gmail.com
by screaming "racist" and forcing Political Correctness on people, now
the liberals are going for the Thought Police angle as well.
Orwell would be proud of you, F.B.
catshark
Friar Broccoli wrote:
> Proposal:
[...]
> Comments, suggestions, condemnations ... ?
The last sums it up neatly.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Remember all men would be tyrants if they could.
- Daniel Defoe -
John Bode
Friar Broccoli wrote:
> Proposal:
>
> I believe there is pretty general (but not universal)
> agreement among those who are aware of him that Mr. Kolker's
> constant restatement of his view that all Moslems should be
> exterminated, presents a problem for this group at several
> different levels.
>
[snip remainder]
If Bob Kolker wants to be an ignorant fuckwit in public, that's *his*
problem, not the group's.
Your proposal to "isolate" him in order to silence him is, to me, every
bit as offensive as Bob's calls for genocide. There are plenty of days
when I wish Bob would kindly shut his piehole forever, but
orchestrating a thoughtcrime campaign against him is the *wrong*
solution.
I want you to seriously think about what it is you are proposing, and
why it's much, much scarier than calling for the extermination of all
Muslims (or Jews, or atheists, or DINKs, whatever).
Deadrat
<silver...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146494825.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Not content with trying to shut down any dissenting politicial opinions
> by screaming "racist"
Please provide examples whereby calling someone a racist shuts down
dissent. Please provide a plan whereby you would stop this "screaming."
> and forcing Political Correctness on people,
Please define Political Correctness and provide examples wherein this
concept has been forced on people.
> now the liberals are going for the Thought Police angle as well.
Please provide examples of "Thought Police" actions. (Presumably,
this would involve punishing people for thinking the "wrong" things.)
> Orwell would be proud of you, F.B.
I'll bet you haven't read Eric Blair since you enjoyed Animal Farm
for its husbandry.
Deadrat
AC
I had some experience with Bob on the Tolkien newsgroups. He's a troll. He
gets a kick out of saying outrageous things.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
John Bode
Deadrat wrote:
> <silver...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1146494825.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
I'm a liberal and I strongly disapprove of F.B.'s proposal.
>
> Please provide examples of "Thought Police" actions. (Presumably,
> this would involve punishing people for thinking the "wrong" things.)
Basically, "silencing" Kolker by isolating him. F.B. is proposing an
organized campaign to single out and ostracize Bob Kolker because of
Kolker's statements regarding Muslims. While not quite of Orwellian
magnitude, it *is* an example of a thoughtcrime approach, and as such
his proposal should be rejected.
Friar Broccoli
My suggestion has been almost universally condemned. Therefore I have
little doubt that I must be wrong. I therefore drop my proposal and
apologize
to the group for posting it.
Deadrat
"John Bode" <john...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1146499215....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Deadrat wrote:
>> <silver...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1146494825.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > now the liberals are going for the Thought Police angle as well.
>
> I'm a liberal and I strongly disapprove of F.B.'s proposal.
>
>>
>> Please provide examples of "Thought Police" actions. (Presumably,
>> this would involve punishing people for thinking the "wrong" things.)
>
> Basically, "silencing" Kolker by isolating him.
As you can tell from my request for examples, I think this view is nonsense.
And I think you too have an inkling that it is, since you put "silencing" in quotes.
Nothing that F.B. proposes stops Bob from continuing to try to be provocative.
> F.B. is proposing an
> organized campaign to single out and ostracize Bob Kolker because of
> Kolker's statements regarding Muslims.
While I prefer ridicule as the more useful tool, others are as free to use
organized silence on their own parts to express disapproval.of Bob's attempts
to get attention.
> While not quite of Orwellian magnitude,
What you mean to say is, "While not Orwellian in the slightest, ...."
> it *is* an example of a thoughtcrime approach,
You may use any form of emphatic punctuation that you want, but that
won't change the fact that thoughtcrime is an instrument of the state and
backed by the punitive actions of the state police.
> and as such his proposal should be rejected.
For the purposes of this discussion, I'm not taking a position on
the disposition of the proposal.
Deadrat
Deadrat
"Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146501783.4...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> John Bode wrote:
>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> > Proposal:
>> >
>> > I believe there is pretty general (but not universal)
>> > agreement among those who are aware of him that Mr. Kolker's
>> > constant restatement of his view that all Moslems should be
>> > exterminated, presents a problem for this group at several
>> > different levels.
>> >
>>
>> [snip remainder]
>>
>> If Bob Kolker wants to be an ignorant fuckwit in public, that's *his*
>> problem, not the group's.
>>
>> Your proposal to "isolate" him in order to silence him is, to me, every
>> bit as offensive as Bob's calls for genocide. There are plenty of days
>> when I wish Bob would kindly shut his piehole forever, but
>> orchestrating a thoughtcrime campaign against him is the *wrong*
>> solution.
>>
>> I want you to seriously think about what it is you are proposing, and
>> why it's much, much scarier than calling for the extermination of all
>> Muslims (or Jews, or atheists, or DINKs, whatever).
>
> My suggestion has been almost universally condemned.
So what?
> Therefore I have little doubt that I must be wrong.
Really? Didn't you mean to say, "Therefore, I have little doubt that
I should give my proposal some more thought"?
Perhaps with a little more thought, you can convince yourself that
your proposal is impractical or wrong-spirited. Or not. When
two people tell you you're drunk, lie down. From a recumbent
position, you'll be able to figure out whether they're right.
> I therefore drop my proposal
Your choice, of course.
> and apologize to the group for posting it.
Apologize for what? For suggesting something that others don't
like?
Apologize to whom? To people who actually think that private,
noncoercive opposition to calls for genocide is actually worse than
calling for genocide?
> Cordially;
Less cordiality and more spine, please.
>
> Friar Broccoli
> Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
> Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
>
> --------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
You might recast your sig. How about this?
--------- I accede to ALL arguments in opposition to of my views ---------
chris.li...@gmail.com
Wowsa, Deadrat. Bad hemorrhoid day or something?
Chris
Friar Broccoli
Thanks for shoving a little iron up my spine.
I will take a bit of time to reflect, and then cast of my sea squirt
heritage
to defend my proposal.
Cordially;
Greg G.
silver...@gmail.com wrote:
> Not content with trying to shut down any dissenting politicial opinions
> by screaming "racist" and forcing Political Correctness on people, now
> the liberals are going for the Thought Police angle as well.
Here is an example of the Thought Police screaming "liberal".
>
> Orwell would be proud of you, F.B.
Proud? Orwell's novels were to expose Thought Police tactics in the
real world, not to promote them.
--
Greg G.
Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy.
--Margaret Thatcher
catshark
Friar Broccoli wrote:
> Deadrat wrote:
> > "Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1146501783.4...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> > > John Bode wrote:
> > >> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > >> > Proposal:
> > >> >
[...]
>
> I will take a bit of time to reflect, and then cast of my sea squirt
> heritage
> to defend my proposal.
When you do, you may want to consider DIG's past rulings concerning
repetative posting of the same material as constituting "spam" and what
action he may take in that regard.
Frankly, I don't see this detering people from responding to Kolker in
the least and if your faq starts showing up dozens of times a day,
there will be complaints.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Nunc Id Vides, Nunc Ne Vides
- Unseen University Motto -
Friar Broccoli
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > Deadrat wrote:
> > > "Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1146501783.4...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> > > > John Bode wrote:
> > > >> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > > >> > Proposal:
> > > >> >
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > I will take a bit of time to reflect, and then cast of my sea squirt
> > heritage
> > to defend my proposal.
>
> When you do, you may want to consider DIG's past rulings concerning
> repetative posting of the same material as constituting "spam" and what
> action he may take in that regard.
What/who is the DIG?
>
> Frankly, I don't see this detering people from responding to Kolker in
I think we need to try and find something that will work. If you have
a
better idea, I will go with it. At least with my proposal some of us
will
be doing something. Hiding under my bed isn't good for my self-esteem.
> the least and if your faq starts showing up dozens of times a day,
> there will be complaints.
*_My_* intent is NEW or unrecognized responders to Mr. Kolker only.
Not sure how many people that would be, but I doubt if it would exceed
one a day, and probably a lot less.
In addition, I have no intention of acting alone. Others will be free
to
modify the post as they see fit.
J. J. Lodder
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > Proposal:
> >
> > I believe there is pretty general (but not universal)
> > agreement among those who are aware of him that Mr. Kolker's
> > constant restatement of his view that all Moslems should be
> > exterminated, presents a problem for this group at several
> > different levels.
> >
>
> [snip remainder]
>
> If Bob Kolker wants to be an ignorant fuckwit in public, that's *his*
> problem, not the group's.
It is, for he is -in this kind of posting-
obviously off-topic,
Jan
catshark
Friar Broccoli wrote:
> catshark wrote:
> > Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > > Deadrat wrote:
> > > > "Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1146501783.4...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > John Bode wrote:
> > > > >> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > > > >> > Proposal:
> > > > >> >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >
> > > I will take a bit of time to reflect, and then cast of my sea squirt
> > > heritage
> > > to defend my proposal.
> >
> > When you do, you may want to consider DIG's past rulings concerning
> > repetative posting of the same material as constituting "spam" and what
> > action he may take in that regard.
>
> What/who is the DIG?
David Iain Greig, t.o.'s beloved benevolent dictator, otherwise known
to the outside world as "the moderator".
>
> >
> > Frankly, I don't see this detering people from responding to Kolker in
>
> I think we need to try and find something that will work. If you have
> a
> better idea, I will go with it. At least with my proposal some of us
> will
> be doing something. Hiding under my bed isn't good for my self-esteem.
Why not let Kolker's ideas speak for themselves? It's not like *he* is
trying to organize any such genocide, AFAIK. If he was, then
organizing to oppose him would be worthwhile. But he is just a kook
proclaiming his kookiness for all to hear. He may merely be like a
three-year old saying naughty words just because they get a reaction
but without any real understanding of what they mean.
>
> > the least and if your faq starts showing up dozens of times a day,
> > there will be complaints.
>
> *_My_* intent is NEW or unrecognized responders to Mr. Kolker only.
> Not sure how many people that would be, but I doubt if it would exceed
> one a day, and probably a lot less.
Perhaps I misunderstood but it seemed from the original post that you
intended to post it everytime there was an "unintended" reply to Kolker
and to "remind" the regulars not to reply to him. Be that as it may,
organizing repeat posts even once a day or less might bring DIG's
displeasure.
>
> In addition, I have no intention of acting alone. Others will be free
> to
> modify the post as they see fit.
It's not like there has been an outpouring of support for the idea,
however.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.'
And God granted it.
- Voltaire -
NashtOn
> NashtOn wrote:
>
>>Why not post a FAQ for every individual who disagrees with the majority
>>of the posters in this forum? Every time let's say a "creationist" posts
>>a post containing his point of view, POP, a FAQ appears as a response.
>>
>>In this manner, you'll probably be able to shut up all dissidents,all
>>diverging views.
>
>
> Someone usually takes the trouble to point out what a kook /you/ are.
It's that divergence of opinion issue. You're catching on.
> I haven't noticed any shutting up yet. I believe you like it.
I don't scare easily.
>
--
Nicolas
"The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is
the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn
that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more
about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the
product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural
selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture,
and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a
purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that
these claims go far beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson,
The Church Of Darwin
Shane
> John Bode wrote:
>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>> Proposal:
>>>
>>> I believe there is pretty general (but not universal)
>>> agreement among those who are aware of him that Mr. Kolker's
>>> constant restatement of his view that all Moslems should be
>>> exterminated, presents a problem for this group at several
>>> different levels.
>>>
>>
>> [snip remainder]
>>
>> If Bob Kolker wants to be an ignorant fuckwit in public, that's *his*
>> problem, not the group's.
>>
>> Your proposal to "isolate" him in order to silence him is, to me, every
>> bit as offensive as Bob's calls for genocide. There are plenty of days
>> when I wish Bob would kindly shut his piehole forever, but
>> orchestrating a thoughtcrime campaign against him is the *wrong*
>> solution.
>>
>> I want you to seriously think about what it is you are proposing, and
>> why it's much, much scarier than calling for the extermination of all
>> Muslims (or Jews, or atheists, or DINKs, whatever).
>
> My suggestion has been almost universally condemned. Therefore I have
> little doubt that I must be wrong.
Not really, you asked for comment because you wanted to guage the
feelings of the group, you got said comment. How were you wrong? Can a
suggestion be wrong? You are correct in one aspect, we would all be
better off without Bob's genocidal monomania.
> I therefore drop my proposal and
> apologize
> to the group for posting it.
Please don't apologise. What you did got me, and undoubtedly others,
to take time to think about the issue, that is commendable rather than
something to apologise for.
Robert Carnegie
> "John Bode" <john...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1146499215....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Deadrat wrote:
> >> <silver...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1146494825.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> > now the liberals are going for the Thought Police angle as well.
> >
> > I'm a liberal and I strongly disapprove of F.B.'s proposal.
> >
> >> Please provide examples of "Thought Police" actions. (Presumably,
> >> this would involve punishing people for thinking the "wrong" things.)
> >
> > Basically, "silencing" Kolker by isolating him.
>
> As you can tell from my request for examples, I think this view is nonsense.
> And I think you too have an inkling that it is, since you put "silencing" in quotes.
> Nothing that F.B. proposes stops Bob from continuing to try to be provocative.
I think that a constructive intervention (which seems however to come
under the heading of the proposal withdrawn, although if you yourself
want to execute a version of it, I'm not the man to stop you) would
have an indirect effect of stopping Bob from being provocative, by
innoculating newsgroup users against being provoked by him.
I don't think Robert Kolker trolls about hating all Muslims, as well as
nearly everyone else in the world. I think he's sincere, and, as
suggested, there's something about it in DSM-IV.
A casual user of the newsgroup may be under a couple of
misapprehensions that it would be gracious and time-saving to dispel,
pre-emptively, when the occasion arises:
1. That folks here don't see that some of Bob's views would be widely
objected to.
2. That Bob himself isn't aware that some of his views would be widely
objected to.
I suppose you could start a Wikipedia article, but they're quite strict
now about new article content, citation of sources, and editorial
neutrality - which of course are good things. Nevertheless, personal
criticism, even in editorial neutrality, is not flavour of the month
there.
AC
NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> NashtOn wrote:
>>
>>>Why not post a FAQ for every individual who disagrees with the majority
>>>of the posters in this forum? Every time let's say a "creationist" posts
>>>a post containing his point of view, POP, a FAQ appears as a response.
>>>
>>>In this manner, you'll probably be able to shut up all dissidents,all
>>>diverging views.
>>
>>
>> Someone usually takes the trouble to point out what a kook /you/ are.
>
> It's that divergence of opinion issue. You're catching on.
Actually, the notion that you are a kook is almost universal around here.
>
>> I haven't noticed any shutting up yet. I believe you like it.
>
> I don't scare easily.
Sadly, you don't learn easily either.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Robert J. Kolker
>
> A casual user of the newsgroup may be under a couple of
> misapprehensions that it would be gracious and time-saving to dispel,
> pre-emptively, when the occasion arises:
> 1. That folks here don't see that some of Bob's views would be widely
> objected to.
> 2. That Bob himself isn't aware that some of his views would be widely
> objected to.
I am perfectly aware.
Wait until the next big Moslem attack right here in the U.S.A. Then you
will sing a different song.
Here is a good rule to follow. Cherish and protect your friends. Destroy
your enemies. Very simple.
Bob Kolker
Augray
<I2w5g.1607$A26....@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca> :
>Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> NashtOn wrote:
>>
>>>Why not post a FAQ for every individual who disagrees with the majority
>>>of the posters in this forum? Every time let's say a "creationist" posts
>>>a post containing his point of view, POP, a FAQ appears as a response.
>>>
>>>In this manner, you'll probably be able to shut up all dissidents,all
>>>diverging views.
>>
>>
>> Someone usually takes the trouble to point out what a kook /you/ are.
>
>It's that divergence of opinion issue. You're catching on.
>
>> I haven't noticed any shutting up yet. I believe you like it.
>
>I don't scare easily.
In fact, you do, and you know it.
Friar Broccoli
> Greetings.
>
> In article <1146443322.3...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Friar
> Broccoli wrote:
> > I believe there is pretty general (but not universal)
> > agreement among those who are aware of him that Mr. Kolker's
> > constant restatement of his view that all Moslems should be
> > exterminated, presents a problem for this group at several
> > different levels.
>
> been repeatedly stated in this newsgroup, whether or not Darwin was
> racist, and whether or not Hitler admired Darwin, are completely
> immaterial to the truth of evolution. Likewise, whether or not Bob Kolker
> is a genocidal bigot has no bearing on any reasonable argument of his
> supporting evolution, or on the truth of evolution itself.
This is primarily a fight against evil, which the advocacy of
mass murder surely is. It seems to me that today the ground is
fertile for ideas like Kolker's. At the very least he could
incite real people (young white males) to take real action
against other real people (ethnic arabs living in America).
We will almost certainly never know if innocent people die, but
if they do, we who could have acted easily and at no cost to
ourselves, are just as guilty as he is.
I believe I have a responsibility to stand against evil.
Do you?
> > The following recent posts by Mr Kolker should make it clear
> > why:
> >
> >
> http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/msg/2ce11bcaea90ae14
> > http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e0e3072cfe580cb4
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/msg/1b565f8e66e7e067
>
> Please provide standard news: URIs instead of, or in addition to, these
> Google Groups links. Not everyone reads their news online, and those that
> do don't necessarily want to use Google Groups's hideously broken
> interface.
Frankly, I don't have the slightest idea how to do this. If
you can help in this regard I would be grateful.
>
> >
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.battlestar-galactica/msg/b9d4a8c5fe44b9b9
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/9c77df1e57770423
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/d86efe66b23fb066
>
> The final message should be deleted or replaced. Nothing in it implies
> that Kolker advocates the incarceration or killing of Muslims. To me it
> simply reads like a prediction.
My post needs many revisions. I'll take a look at this.
Thanks;
Lee Jay
> Here is a good rule to follow. Cherish and protect your friends. Destroy
> your enemies. Very simple.
I'm just curious. Did you advocate a preemptive nuclear strike by
America against USSR during the cold war?
Lee Jay
Robert J. Kolker
Against Cuba. I figure five one megaton nukes would finish Cuba and most
of the fall out would fall on Mexico (a two-fer). Please recall that the
U.S.S.R. had a counterstrike capability so it wouldn't do to start a war
in which everyone dies. However a nuke strike against Cuba most likely
would not be answered by the U.S.S.R. by an attack against the U.S.
In any case the U.S.S.R. died of natural causes, as will Fidel Castro.
Once he goes the communist system in Cuba will dissolve. All's well that
ends well.
Bob Kolker
Tom McDonald
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
<snip>
> Here is a good rule to follow. Cherish and protect your friends. Destroy
> your enemies. Very simple.
How very Islamist terrorist of you.
Lee Jay
So, in that case, following the rule you posted above, even if it had
been successful (no counterstrike) wouldn't have led to as good a
result as actually occurred, right?
I'm having a hard time believing that a preemptive strike against about
1/6th of the world's population could result in a positive outcome for
anyone, even given the current threat against our country.
Lee Jay
Friar Broccoli
> On 30 Apr 2006 17:28:42 -0700, "Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Proposal:
>>
>> I believe there is pretty general (but not universal)
>> agreement among those who are aware of him that Mr. Kolker's
>> constant restatement of his view that all Moslems should be
>> exterminated, presents a problem for this group at several
>> different levels.
[....]
> I most emphatically agree that many of Kolker's posts are
> extremely racist and objectionable in content and we should
> find some way of isolating him and telling him that his
> behavior is unacceptable. If we can't change his opinions, we
> might be able to change his posting behavior through social
> pressure.
> However, in place of simply not responding at all, it might be
> better, especially in view of many non-regulars who might not
> know what is going on, to have a single reply stating that
> such behavior is not appreciated and asking others not to
> reply further.
If I understand your position correctly, you are suggesting
that we should reply only to Kolker's mass murder advocacy
messages with some type of form letter, and we should reply
normally to all his other posts.
The many people here (including me) who have gone up against
Kolker can tell you that this will not have the slightest
effect on his behavior. I completely demolished his argument,
and I'm sure others must have done the same, and all that
happened was that he stopped replying to my posts.
On top of that there is absolutely no way you will be able to
prevent other readers from attacking his obscenities.
In short, your counter proposal, would I submit, change
absolutely nothing.
> There is a second side, the carrot. Kolker often does have
> substantive and sensible posts on a variety of questions and
> these should be not be discouraged. The goal is not to
> eliminate Kolker, but to eliminate the objectional posts.
There are two clear problems with this position:
First, if Kolker was simply another nut, we wouldn't have
a problem. He could simply be dismissed. It is precisely
because his other posts are "substantive and sensible" (and
often clear and compelling) that he is a problem. "If an
intelligent man like that thinks that exterminating all arabs
is a good idea, then maybe I should consider it too."
There is also the problem that he provides compelling support
for the fundamentalist position that evolutionary thought leads
to self interested animal like behaviour devoid of human
compassion. In this respect he is at least as effective in
support of creationism as Ray Martinez is in support of
evolution.
Second, isolating him, only on the mass murder issue simply
won't work. He is already isolated on that, and his behaviour
remains unchanged. Only by depriving him of ALL social
reinforcement can we hope to change his behaviour.
As one of the groups senior and most respected members, your
support would be extremely useful. I hope you will take a
meaningful stand.
Cordially;
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> So, in that case, following the rule you posted above, even if it had
> been successful (no counterstrike) wouldn't have led to as good a
> result as actually occurred, right?
Yes. Now do you see Islam moderating any time soon? They have been crazy
since 622 c.e. You cannot reason with a Muslim fanatic.
>
> I'm having a hard time believing that a preemptive strike against about
> 1/6th of the world's population could result in a positive outcome for
> anyone, even given the current threat against our country.
It is a lot of damage, but consider the alternative. The death of a
thousand cuts over decades. I would rather go for a resolution now.
Better them than us.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Not really. It is all about self defense. I am not going to go after
someone just because they have a silly religion. The real extreme
Muslims see the world as a war between the dar al Sala'am and the dar al
Harb. We are the dar al Harb. We are kaffirs and we allow Jews to live
freely in our country. These son's of bitches are after our pale asses.
Bob Kolker
>
r norman
wrote:
Thank you for your kind comments. Unfortunately, I am at a total loss
to know what even to suggest as a meaningful stand. And I am as torn
as many of your other respondents who find that censorship in an open
forum to be an unacceptable solution even to an unacceptable
situation.
For my part, I read only very selective threads so I probably miss
much of Kolker's worst. When I do see things, I sometimes do write
back commenting to the effect that such views or unacceptable
specifically because I think that bigotry, when expressed in public,
should be fought rather than just let pass.
As for Kolker's "ordinary" posts, I try not to look at the author of a
post when I respond. Perhaps this is a result of too many years
grading student papers -- I want to respond to what I see written
before me and not let my impressions of the individual doing the
writing influence my opinion. True, after a substantial exchange it
is impossible to ignore the author as a person, but in an ordinary
discussion of actual scientific ideas (or silly puns) I am likely to
respond only to the material, hence cannot "banish" him the way you
suggest.
Lee Jay
> Not really. It is all about self defense. I am not going to go after
> someone just because they have a silly religion. The real extreme
> Muslims see the world as a war between the dar al Sala'am and the dar al
> Harb. We are the dar al Harb. We are kaffirs and we allow Jews to live
> freely in our country. These son's of bitches are after our pale asses.
So now it's "the real extreme Muslims" whereas before it was all
Muslims. Which group are you advocating be eliminated?
Lee Jay
Robert J. Kolker
>
> So now it's "the real extreme Muslims" whereas before it was all
> Muslims. Which group are you advocating be eliminated?
Since there is no practical way of separating the bad ones from the good
ones, we should kill them all. I suggest you look up the history of the
Cathars. That is the first known isntance of "kill then all and let God
sort out the bodies".
If there were a practical method of separation, I would surely attempt
that first. Fanatic Moslems live in societies that -tolerate- them and
even -encourage- them. So the ones that do not strap on the bomb are
complicit in the acts of those that do. Now how do you propose we deal
with the problem. Forget about reaonsing with the fanatics. It just will
not work. Can you reason with the rest? Maybe, but I just do not see
how. In the mean time the political leadership of countries like Iran
use anti-American and anti-Jewish sentiment to stir up their populations
to irrational extremes. Can we manage a "regime change" in Iran short of
ethnocide? I don't see how, but if you have some constructive proposal
along those lines pray do put it forth. But make it specific and concrete.
Bob Kolker
Tom McDonald
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> > Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>Here is a good rule to follow. Cherish and protect your friends. Destroy
> >>your enemies. Very simple.
> >
> >
> > How very Islamist terrorist of you.
>
> Not really.
Yes, really. Your 'rule' is precisely that of those who flew planes
into buildings.
That 'rule', that mindset, is *my* enemy in the fight against
terrorism. I'm too much of an American patriot to let you get away with
doing to us what the terrorists want us to do to ourselves: become what
they think we are.
I understand you are bitter, and think you have the right way to
approach the bad things that were done to us. However, 'an eye for an
eye, and the whole world is blind.' You might like that; I like the
light.
<snip>
Friar Broccoli
> On 30 Apr 2006 17:28:42 -0700, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
>> Proposal:
>>
>> I believe there is pretty general (but not universal)
>> agreement among those who are aware of him that Mr. Kolker's
>> constant restatement of his view that all Moslems should be
>> exterminated, presents a problem for this group at several
>> different levels.
As I understood it, the reasoning in your post was
substantially the same as that found in Dr. Norman's, so from
my point of view you're in the best of company.
> I'm not sure about this one, Bob is indeed an unusual case in
> that his science posts are, AFAICT, relevant, generally
> correct, and reasonably stated. So at the very least this
> proposed FAQ would need to clearly define the suggested
> non-response to just the posts where Bob's monomania occurs.
I covered this to the best of my ability in my post to Dr.
Norman. Would you read that for your reply please.
> To a certain extent this idea smacks of censorship, and I am
> not sure it is the correct response.
All I am proposing is that we withdraw ALL social reinforcement
from Mr. Kolker until he stops advocating for mass murder in
Talk.Origins. Calling it censorship seems a bit over the top,
but if it is, it is by far the lesser evil.
> I suspect that Bob will never change his ideas, but then again
> nor will Ray Martinez, and some of his ideas are no less
> extreme or hateful. I would suggest that instead of a FAQ like
> the one proposed, it is up to those who know of Bob's
> particular blind spot to insert the relevant notice after the
> appropriate post, not as an organised thing, but as a
> volunarty service to the uninitiated.
I believe this is one of those differences that makes no
difference: voluntary or organised, if the job gets done ...
> Lets not make Bob even more paranoid than he already feels on
> this subject. I have gone a few rounds with Bob, and bear him
> no ill-will for his baseless and senseless views of Moslems.
I was going to say: Bob is a model of good behaviour except
that he advocates for the extermination of all Moslems, but
somehow it didn't sound quite right.
Nevertheless at a personal level, I too have no ill will toward
the man, and that, as I described in my Norman post is part of
the reason why he is so very dangerous.
> My feeling is one of sadness that a person can persist in such
> views against all evidence, which is a betrayal of the science
> and reason he defends so staunchly elsewhere. I could be
> wrong, but I suspect that being Bob is punishment enough;
> people who hold such views are seldom, in my limited
> experience, happy.
Do you think his personal suffering justifies his evil?
Even if it does, does it justify our inaction?
> My 2c.
While I really appreciate your 2c's what I'd really like is a
commitment to meaningful action. You don't actually have to
say anything just insert a notice (with links as evidence) the
next time you see a Newbee replying to Mr. Kolker.
Just for the record, I already did a test (with some
variations to suite the circumstances) here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/msg/73243c9190bac36b
and although there was a bit of confusion, it appears to have
had precisely the desired consequences.
> Shane
Note that I saw your reply to my initial withdrawal, and I am
grateful for your moral support. It helped to push me forward.
Friar Broccoli
I cannot understand how anyone, can stand by and witness evil,
without taking any action, when the action needed is so
minimal.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I understand you are bitter, and think you have the right way to
> approach the bad things that were done to us. However, 'an eye for an
> eye, and the whole world is blind.' You might like that; I like the
> light.
I prefer killing the bastards. My father taught me, never get mad.
Rather, get even. It is now time to sink below the level of our enemies
so we can attack them from beneath.
Bob Kolker
Tom McDonald
How many have you personally killed? When are you going to get around
to the rest of the 1.2 billion?
Or are you one of those chickenhawks like Cheney and Bush that couldn't
be bothered to put their own skins on the line, but are just fine with
others dying for their twisted views?
NB: I am not suggesting you kill anyone. I am only wondering who you
want to do the dirty work; or whether you just want to spew this red
masturbatory fantasy on the ngs.
Lee Jay
I'm afraid it's a tough problem and there are no easy solutions. I'm
probably a bit more draconian than most but I don't recommend what you
do since I don't think it will help and since I think it's basically
wrong. I think our opportunity to win the war was lost by Bush in the
way we went into Afghanistan and by simply going into Iraq at all.
Now, all that's left is assimilation and MAD. I'm not sure these folks
will respond to MAD though they do have things they value more than
their own lives.
Lee Jay
John Wilkins
> r norman wrote:
>> On 1 May 2006 18:31:58 -0700, "Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> hence cannot "banish" him the way you suggest.
>
> I cannot understand how anyone, can stand by and witness evil,
> without taking any action, when the action needed is so
> minimal.
>
and views on a personal website, and then just point each Kolker-respondent to
that when he makes some terrible and immoral comment. Be careful not to
regurgipost, but to actually compose each message, lest ye invoke the Almighty
[Moderator]. I canot see how that offends anyone (but Kolker - you may need to
review it carefully for any possible defamation. Make sure that all you do is
in the FAQ is link to contextually valid quotations and you should be right).
I agree with r norman that it is a matter for personal shunning, and not - as
it were - "corporate" action.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos,
puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
arachnophilia
> your enemies. Very simple
Mat 5:43-48
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them
that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which
despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of
your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the
evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even
the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye
more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore
perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
a little less simple.
Josh Hayes
news:4bnv1pF...@individual.net:
> Lee Jay wrote:
>>
>> So now it's "the real extreme Muslims" whereas before it was all
>> Muslims. Which group are you advocating be eliminated?
>
> Since there is no practical way of separating the bad ones from the
> good ones, we should kill them all.
Gosh, Bob, there's no practical way of separating bad people from good
people in general. Shall we just kill them all?
-JAH
it would certainly solve all those silly religious squabbles
John Wilkins
Josh Miles
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> NashtOn wrote:
>>
>>> Why not post a FAQ for every individual who disagrees with the majority
>>> of the posters in this forum? Every time let's say a "creationist" posts
>>> a post containing his point of view, POP, a FAQ appears as a response.
>>>
>>> In this manner, you'll probably be able to shut up all dissidents,all
>>> diverging views.
>>
>> Someone usually takes the trouble to point out what a kook /you/ are.
>
> It's that divergence of opinion issue. You're catching on.
Get over yourself. Having an uninformed (i.e. worthless) opinion doesn't
make you some sort of dissenting intellectual. It makes you an idiot.
>> I haven't noticed any shutting up yet. I believe you like it.
>
> I don't scare easily.
Which is why you shy away from any challenges to your arguments and
resort to name calling, right?
David Ewan Kahana
And equally complicated Gen. 18.22-33:
And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward
Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.
And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy
the righteous with the wicked?
Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou
also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous
that [are] therein?
That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the
righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should
be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the
Judge of all the earth do right?
And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within
the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.
And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have
taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which [am but]
dust and ashes:
Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt
thou destroy all the city for [lack of] five? And he said, If I
find there forty and five, I will not destroy [it].
And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure
there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do [it]
for forty's sake.
And he said [unto him], Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I
will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there.
And he said, I will not do [it], if I find thirty there.
And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak
unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found
there. And he said, I will not destroy [it] for twenty's sake.
And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak
yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there.
And he said, I will not destroy [it] for ten's sake.
And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left
communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto
his place.
Dogma Discharge
news:dc2c52dbabg64iufd...@4ax.com...
> On 30 Apr 2006 17:28:42 -0700, "Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >Proposal:
>
> Rejected.
I wholeheartedly second your rejection to Friar Broc's proposal. What a
crock of shit.
--
Kind Regards
Cameron
Tristan Miller
In article <1146530510.6...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, Friar
Broccoli wrote:
> This is primarily a fight against evil,
No it isn't. This (talk.origins) is a Usenet newsgroup dedicated to the
discussion of biological and physical origins.
> I believe I have a responsibility to stand against evil.
> Do you?
No, I don't. I don't believe evil exists. Evil is a religious term, and
using it denies the materialistic causes of violence and hatred.
>> Please provide standard news: URIs instead of, or in addition to, these
>> Google Groups links. Not everyone reads their news online, and those
>> that do don't necessarily want to use Google Groups's hideously broken
>> interface.
>
> Frankly, I don't have the slightest idea how to do this. If
> you can help in this regard I would be grateful.
Ask your newsreader to show the full headers of the article. Every article
will include a unique Message-ID header of the form x...@yyy.zzz. The
unique URI identifying the article is <news:x...@yyy.zzz> (without the
angle brackets, but in plain text you should always surround URIs with
angle brackets to make it clear you're referencing a URI).
Regards,
Tristan
--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you
Friar Broccoli
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > r norman wrote:
> >> On 1 May 2006 18:31:58 -0700, "Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> hence cannot "banish" him the way you suggest.
> >
> > I cannot understand how anyone, can stand by and witness evil,
> > without taking any action, when the action needed is so
> > minimal.
> I agree with r norman that it is a matter for personal shunning, and not - as
> it were - "corporate" action.
Thanks for stepping in. I know for certain that your judgement here
is better than mine. My harassement ends here, and will not begin
again.
My apologies to Dr Norman.
> Might I make a suggestion - put up your revised "FAQ" on Kolker's character
> and views on a personal website, and then just point each Kolker-respondent to
> that when he makes some terrible and immoral comment. Be careful not to
> regurgipost, but to actually compose each message, lest ye invoke the Almighty
> [Moderator]. I canot see how that offends anyone (but Kolker - you may need to
> review it carefully for any possible defamation. Make sure that all you do is
> in the FAQ is link to contextually valid quotations and you should be right).
It is obvious that my original post was far less clear than I thought.
I see no
need for, or even point in having a web page. Kolker's words speak for
themselves. A very few polite words followed by 5 or 6 links to his
recent
posts advocating mass murder is all that should ever be needed. If
there was
ever a case of less is more, this is it.
Unless Kolker directly replies to one of my messages, I will be making
no
further statements on this subject before the coming weekend, when I
will
probably post some type of revised proposal.
David Iain Greig
> catshark wrote:
>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> > Deadrat wrote:
>> > > "Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:1146501783.4...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> > > > John Bode wrote:
>> > > >> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> > > >> > Proposal:
>> > > >> >
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >
>> > I will take a bit of time to reflect, and then cast of my sea squirt
>> > heritage
>> > to defend my proposal.
>>
>> When you do, you may want to consider DIG's past rulings concerning
>> repetative posting of the same material as constituting "spam" and what
>> action he may take in that regard.
>
> What/who is the DIG?
L'etat, c'est moi.
--D.
--
david iain greig dgr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~dgreig arbor plena alouattarum
David Iain Greig
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>
>> A casual user of the newsgroup may be under a couple of
>> misapprehensions that it would be gracious and time-saving to dispel,
>> pre-emptively, when the occasion arises:
>> 1. That folks here don't see that some of Bob's views would be widely
>> objected to.
>> 2. That Bob himself isn't aware that some of his views would be widely
>> objected to.
>
> I am perfectly aware.
>
> Wait until the next big Moslem attack right here in the U.S.A. Then you
> will sing a different song.
>
> Here is a good rule to follow. Cherish and protect your friends. Destroy
You would have made a good camp guard in Treblinka. You might want to
think about that.
--D.
Tom McDonald
David Iain Greig wrote:
> Friar Broccoli <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > catshark wrote:
> >> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> >> > Deadrat wrote:
> >> > > "Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > > news:1146501783.4...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> >> > > > John Bode wrote:
> >> > > >> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> >> > > >> > Proposal:
> >> > > >> >
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I will take a bit of time to reflect, and then cast of my sea squirt
> >> > heritage
> >> > to defend my proposal.
> >>
> >> When you do, you may want to consider DIG's past rulings concerning
> >> repetative posting of the same material as constituting "spam" and what
> >> action he may take in that regard.
> >
> > What/who is the DIG?
>
> L'etat, c'est moi.
Apre's vous, le deluge?
Walter Bushell
r norman <NotMyRealEmail@_comcast.net> wrote:
> I most emphatically agree that many of Kolker's posts are extremely
> racist
Muslims are not a race in any sense of the term.
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any
charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his
peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totali-
tarian government whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Gosh, Bob, there's no practical way of separating bad people from good
> people in general. Shall we just kill them all?
>
Not if we are in the line of fire. That only works overseas. For
domestic situations there are other approaches.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> We should certainly kill all Americans, right?
No. The kill them all approach only works were the Cathars are
indistinguishable from everyone else. Domestically we can use a more
discriminating hands on approach, where we have control over things.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
>>Here is a good rule to follow. Cherish and protect your friends. Destroy
>>your enemies. Very simple
>
>
> Mat 5:43-48
>
> Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
> and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them
> that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which
> despitefully use you,
Jesus was a nut. No wonder he got nailed to two boards.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> You would have made a good camp guard in Treblinka. You might want to
> think about that.
Not really. You see, the Jews ere not really enemies of the Germans.
Bob Kolker
r norman
wrote:
>In article <2coa52p4ibfe5ji4c...@4ax.com>,
> r norman <NotMyRealEmail@_comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I most emphatically agree that many of Kolker's posts are extremely
>> racist
>
>Muslims are not a race in any sense of the term.
Poor choice of words. The general notion of how repugnant is that
attitude is still valid.
Robert J. Kolker
> And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left
> communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto
> his place.
And then Yaweh zorched Sodom and Gommrah. That is because a separation
could be made. Lot and his family were removed from the city.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
> In article <2coa52p4ibfe5ji4c...@4ax.com>,
> r norman <NotMyRealEmail@_comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I most emphatically agree that many of Kolker's posts are extremely
>>racist
>
>
> Muslims are not a race in any sense of the term.
That is correct. That is why I lable my Modest Proposal ethnocide.
Bob Kolker
>
AC
So your father is responsible for your psychopathic tendencies.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
David Iain Greig
No more than Muslims are really enemies of yours. Hence the obvious
comparison, Standartenfuehrer Kolker. You're both happy to commit
genocide on masses of people who haven't done a thing to you.
I don't expect you to *like* the comparison, but you might at least
have the balls to admit the moral consequences of your position.
--D.
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> So your father is responsible for your psychopathic tendencies.
No. I am. I did not have to take my father's advice. It so happens he
was right. Getting even trumps getting angry.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> No more than Muslims are really enemies of yours. Hence the obvious
> comparison, Standartenfuehrer Kolker. You're both happy to commit
> genocide on masses of people who haven't done a thing to you.
Ethnocide. And yes. Because I can't separate the Bad guys from the
other. The Allies did that in WW2. A million civillians bombed to
smithereens. The necessities of war and all that.
If our enemies stood alone and apart from the others, we could be more
discriminating.
Bob Kolker
AC
>
>>
>> No more than Muslims are really enemies of yours. Hence the obvious
>> comparison, Standartenfuehrer Kolker. You're both happy to commit
>> genocide on masses of people who haven't done a thing to you.
>
> Ethnocide. And yes. Because I can't separate the Bad guys from the
> other. The Allies did that in WW2. A million civillians bombed to
> smithereens. The necessities of war and all that.
The Allieds made no attempt to wipe out every German, Hungarian, Italian and
Japanese from the planet. The collateral damage was there, yes, but I get
no impression from any of the writings of the main movers and shakers that
there was any desire to destroy every member of these populaces.
That's not quite true. There were apparently some who advocated the
extermination of the Japanese, but a more prudent (and ultimately much more
beneficial plan for both nations) plan was formulated that transformed Japan
from militaristic and expansionist empire into a peaceful ally.
So, you see, there is no resemblance at all between Allied actions against
the Axis powers and your proposal.
>
> If our enemies stood alone and apart from the others, we could be more
> discriminating.
You're not advocating collateral damage. You're advocating the destruction
of an entire religious group of over a billion people. Dispensing for a
moment with the demonstration of just how monstrous you may very well be,
the plan itself is unobtainable, and what's more, it's very likely that the
attempt would turn allies and those like Russia and China who are at least
friendly and turn them into enemies. You start major nuking of Iran and
Pakistan, and these guys will get involved.
The US is not a hyperpower. It is not in possession of infinite capacity.
Wise heads understood even in the Cold War that nuclear bombs will not win a
war. Yes, blowing up Iran is certainly feasible, but entering an era where
the world, and in particular, other nuclear states, are now pointing their
warheads at you, is a recipe for the downfall of the US, if not through a
fallout fog, then because the very key to American success for two
centuries; international trade, would halt.
Your plan is simply not obtainable, and if someone as psychotic as yourself
were to gain power, it's pretty likely that only a small part of the plan
would be carried out before you would be removed (probably bloodily) from
power.
Islam is here to stay. It's survived other attempts to wipe it out. The
wiser course is to try to encourage the moderate elements, which, despite
your beliefs, do exist.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
John Harshman
> David Iain Greig wrote:
>
>
>>No more than Muslims are really enemies of yours. Hence the obvious
>>comparison, Standartenfuehrer Kolker. You're both happy to commit
>>genocide on masses of people who haven't done a thing to you.
I can't believe so many people are responding in this thread. But I
suppose people can't resist poking you to see what happens. Me too.
> Ethnocide.
Since Muslims aren't an ethnicity either, you need another word.
Religiocide?
> And yes. Because I can't separate the Bad guys from the
> other. The Allies did that in WW2. A million civillians bombed to
> smithereens. The necessities of war and all that.
Many people are morally troubled by that, but apparently not you. Still,
it does raise a question: How many innocent people is it OK to kill to
get at one enemy? Does it make any difference whether they're your
innocents or their innocents?
> If our enemies stood alone and apart from the others, we could be more
> discriminating.
Or if we had any concern for human life.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Islam is here to stay. It's survived other attempts to wipe it out. The
> wiser course is to try to encourage the moderate elements, which, despite
> your beliefs, do exist.
The Arabic world for moderate Muslim is "corpse". There are no active
moderate Muslims. The few their are hide the fact and are scared for
their lives.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Many people are morally troubled by that, but apparently not you. Still,
> it does raise a question: How many innocent people is it OK to kill to
> get at one enemy? Does it make any difference whether they're your
> innocents or their innocents?
Yes. It is -their- innocents that are at risk. How many? As many as it
takes to destroy the bad guyes.
>
> Or if we had any concern for human life.
Our concern should be for our human life, not theirs.
If it is a choice between Us and Them, I vote for Us.
Bob Kolker
Hieros Gamos
"Shane" <remarcs...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:696uklll5ycm.8yhcoi9frbwx$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On 1 May 2006 09:43:03 -0700, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> > John Bode wrote:
> >> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> >>> Proposal:
> >>>
> >>> agreement among those who are aware of him that Mr. Kolker's
> >>> constant restatement of his view that all Moslems should be
> >>> exterminated, presents a problem for this group at several
> >>> different levels.
> >>>
> >>
> >> [snip remainder]
> >>
> >> If Bob Kolker wants to be an ignorant fuckwit in public, that's *his*
> >> problem, not the group's.
> >>
> >> Your proposal to "isolate" him in order to silence him is, to me, every
> >> bit as offensive as Bob's calls for genocide. There are plenty of days
> >> when I wish Bob would kindly shut his piehole forever, but
> >> orchestrating a thoughtcrime campaign against him is the *wrong*
> >> solution.
> >>
> >> I want you to seriously think about what it is you are proposing, and
> >> why it's much, much scarier than calling for the extermination of all
> >> Muslims (or Jews, or atheists, or DINKs, whatever).
> >
> > My suggestion has been almost universally condemned. Therefore I have
> > little doubt that I must be wrong.
>
> Not really, you asked for comment because you wanted to guage the
> feelings of the group, you got said comment. How were you wrong? Can a
> suggestion be wrong? You are correct in one aspect, we would all be
> better off without Bob's genocidal monomania.
>
> > I therefore drop my proposal and
> > apologize
> > to the group for posting it.
>
> Please don't apologise. What you did got me, and undoubtedly others,
> to take time to think about the issue, that is commendable rather than
> something to apologise for.
>
I agree. There is nothing wrong with raising an issue for group discussion.
That's a good thing.
neverbetter
The problem with this approach is that once you start killing people
indiscriminately then pretty soon everybody will be your enemy and one
of them might get you before you get the rest of humankind.
David Iain Greig
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
>> David Iain Greig wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No more than Muslims are really enemies of yours. Hence the obvious
>>>comparison, Standartenfuehrer Kolker. You're both happy to commit
>>>genocide on masses of people who haven't done a thing to you.
>
> I can't believe so many people are responding in this thread. But I
> suppose people can't resist poking you to see what happens. Me too.
>
>> Ethnocide.
>
> Since Muslims aren't an ethnicity either, you need another word.
> Religiocide?
Genocide in international law applies to religious groups.
The "Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide" defines it as (from Wikipedia):
The Convention (in article 2) defines genocide as "any of the following
acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:"
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated
to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
So 'genocide' is the correct term for what Kolker is advocating.
--D.
David Iain Greig
The problem being that 'us' don't want 'you' among 'us'.
You're morally vacant, and a simple cowardly thug.
--D.
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>Many people are morally troubled by that, but apparently not you. Still,
>>it does raise a question: How many innocent people is it OK to kill to
>>get at one enemy? Does it make any difference whether they're your
>>innocents or their innocents?
>
>
> Yes. It is -their- innocents that are at risk. How many? As many as it
> takes to destroy the bad guyes.
Let's be clear on this. If it takes killing a million innnocent Muslims
in order to get one terrorist, you are perfectly OK with that. Right?
>>Or if we had any concern for human life.
>
> Our concern should be for our human life, not theirs.
People who actually have a concern for human life tend not to make the
distinction.
> If it is a choice between Us and Them, I vote for Us.
Define "Us". What makes you think that you, personally, are part of
"Us"? What if, for example, you happened to be captured by terrorists in
a minivan, and I had an antitank missile on me. Should I shoot the
minivan, sacrificing your life to get the terrorists?
If yes, now suppose that there are 8 American hostages in the van with
one terrorist. Do I fire the missile now?
And one more question. Do you realize that everyone around you would
consider you criminally insane if you actually told them what you think?
John Harshman
Thanks. That simplifies the language. And in fact I think his policy is
not strictly aimed only at killing all Muslims. After all, there are
(even now, after a bit of genocide all their own) sizeable non-Muslim
minorities in Iran, not to mention any foreigners who happen to be there
at the time. It's not clear just how he divides "Us" from "Them". "Them"
may include all swarthy non-Americans, or perhaps all non-Americans,
plus American Muslims. Once you decide that you can kill any number of
innocents to get at an enemy, it's not clear from his statements which
groups it's acceptable to exterminate as "collateral damage", and which,
if any, it's not.
We can only hope he's alone.
David Iain Greig
The title Kolker aspires to is indeed 'hostis humanis generis'.
--D.
Robert Carnegie
> > Here is a good rule to follow. Cherish and protect your friends. Destroy
> > your enemies. Very simple
>
> Mat 5:43-48
>
> Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
> and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them
> that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which
> your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the
> evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
> For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even
> the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye
> more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore
> perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
>
> a little less simple.
I was under the impression Bob Kolker is an American Jewish atheist,
and not especially interested in incunabula of any sort, but I'm
wondering now if I inferred that from my own set of predjudices.
Regardless, allow me to point out that we all now seem to be debating
whether or not his programme of mass extermination - Muslims,
Communists, immigrants - is a good idea, and the original proposition
was to avoid talking about it at length any more. (I might be wrong
about the immigrants, too. I didn't make a list.)