[destroyerofsouls]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
You've argued with me, but never successfully. You only use crappy ad hominems which automatically make you lose the argument instantly and all credibility, such as above.

Who are these people who "actually know what they're on about" because it seems most human rights lawyers and political analysts seem to agree with me?
If you have any evidence against what I'm saying, please go ahead and prove me wrong. If not keep your trap shut

I have made very coherent arguments against you in the past, but unfortunately your sheer unfounded arrogance and lack of intellectual capacity prevent you from seeing the flaws in your way of thinking. I am referring to people with qualifications from and positions at world leading universities and are involved in relevant philosophical areas. Sure, there are plenty of other experts with similar credibility who disagree, but do you really think you are in any position to make any worthwhile contribution?

I'm not sure you quite get the meaning of "ad hominem" either. I don't attempt to disprove your argument by making my own "argument" in the form: "Stefan1991 has such and such unpleasant characteristic, therefore his arguments are invalid". I do dish out the occasional personal dig every now and then, because let's face it, you are an excessively arrogant yet unremarkable individual going through a phase in his life which you will look back on with embarrassment one day, and you need knocking down a peg or two. If I remember right, you are at a pretty crap uni doing some unremarkable degree. You are not the next Rene Descartes, Immanuel Kant or Ludwig Wittgenstein. I'm not claiming I am either, for the record (although I would confidently say my intellect vastly outweighs yours).

As for providing you with "evidence", could you perhaps explain what you would count as evidence and your reasons for counting that as evidence. I'm talking in general here, not about the Abu Qatada case. My view on that is that the guy is a douche and has no "right" to stay here. Why shouldn't he be kicked out?

[biggie]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
Where did I say "only certain views are worthy of such protections"?

Criticising a view isn't the same as saying that it shouldn't be protected under free speech. Because then you wouldn't be able to criticise it in the first place. It's not hypocritical in the slightest because they are completely different things...

You obviously haven't read all my posts.

Admittedly, I have not, and I apologise for that. It nonetheless still bemuses me that for all your criticisms of supposed ad hominem attacks on your opinions, you fail to realise that your own condescending attitude to those with alternate views is in itself an ad hominem attack. You might as well have said 'you're a neo-nazi/racist, so your opinions don't matter'

(Original post by Stefan1991)
No, opinions are only legitimate if they are actually backed up by facts. They have a right to be heard, and then be completely picked apart and destroyed by rational argument.

And yet, you have provided few, if any sources to back up your own opinions. You have not provided a source that proves that Qatada did assist MI6, for instance. If you fail to provide proof, then that assertion is as unjustified as the notion that others make that people have died because of Qatada.

(Original post by Stefan1991)
Of course, why would it matter what Qatada's political beliefs are?

It doesn't. But then again, it seemingly does to you; for example, I have seen no thread condemning the withdrawal of London mayoral candidates from a televised debate due to the presence of the BNP candidate, which surely constitutes totalitarian action on the part of the state, and is a clear violation of your strongly held beliefs.

[Pindar]

(Original post by biggie)
Admittedly, I have not, and I apologise for that. It nonetheless still bemuses me that for all your criticisms of supposed ad hominem attacks on your opinions, you fail to realise that your own condescending attitude to those with alternate views is in itself an ad hominem attack. You might as well have said 'you're a neo-nazi/racist, so your opinions don't matter'

No... being condescending to 21st century Nazis is not an ad hominem. They are clearly laughable. An ad hominem is using personal details to base your argument on. Something which I haven't done.

Obviously their opinion might matter less since they're unashamedly biased, they openly admit they want Britain to be white and are Islamophobes. How are they going to have a worthwhile opinion on Qatada which isn't steeped in prejudice?

(Original post by biggie)
And yet, you have provided few, if any sources to back up your own opinions. You have not provided a source that proves that Qatada did assist MI6, for instance. If you fail to provide proof, then that assertion is as unjustified as the notion that others make that people have died because of Qatada.

No, I never said Qatada assisted MI6. I said he worked for MI5. Just look at the court transcripts and released documents. It's barely mentioned in the mainstream-media, but it's documented.

"Why can't Abu Qatada be tried in Britain?" "The answer is that far too much embarrassing information about MI5 and the Met police would come out in court."

"MI5 tried to approach him to try and persuade him to tone down his jihadist rulings, at least insofar as they were addressed to a potential audience here"

"Hours before a new anti-terrorism law allowing foreign terrorism suspects to be held without charge or trial, Qatada left his London home. Mysteriously, MI5 and the police could not find him anywhere. Several months later, he was discovered in a council house in Bermondsey, south London"
[Yes a council house, not far from Scotland Yard.]

"While he remained on the run, one intelligence chief in Paris was quoted as saying, and reported by The Independent in the UK: "British intelligence is saying they have no idea where is, but we know where he is and, if we know, I'm quite sure they do."

"Whitehall officials suggested on Tuesday that the reason why Qatada had not been tried in a British court was there was insufficient evidence to convict him."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/j...-be-tried-here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...a-not-on-trial

"ONE of al-Qaeda's most dangerous figures has been revealed as a double agent working for MI5, raising criticism from European governments, which repeatedly called for his arrest.
Britain ignored warnings which began before the September 11 attacks from half a dozen friendly governments about Abu Qatada's links with terrorist groups and refused to arrest him. Intelligence chiefs hid from European allies their intention to use the cleric as a key informer against Islamic militants in Britain."

The Times, "Al-Qaeda cleric exposed as an MI5 double agent", 25 March 2005.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFr...050175,00.html

"On March 25, 2005, The Times of London, in an article, "Al-Qaeda cleric exposed as an MI5 double agent," 2005, said Abu Qatada works as a double agent for MI5, raising criticism from European governments"

http://www.nowpublic.com/strange/abu...#ixzz1t6XKeFFG

"A British resident now in Guantanamo Bay was approached to become an MI5 informant days before he was incarcerated, it has been reported.
Jamil el-Banna, 44, was seized by the CIA and flown secretly to Guantanamo Bay in 2002 when he embarked on a business trip to Gambia.
An MI5 document has revealed an intelligence officer detailing a visit to Banna's home to attempt to recruit him as an informer.
(R)
Banna knew Abu Qatada, a cleric accused of being al Qaida's spiritual leader in Europe."

"These cases reflect very badly on the British government who have used these men and their families as expendable pawns."

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/44105-mi...guantanamo-man

"Qatada Promises to Look after British Interests - In his meetings with the MI5 agent he claims to “wield powerful, spiritual influence over the Algerian community in London.” He says he does not want London to become a center for settling Islamic scores, and that he will report anyone damaging British interests. He says the individuals he has influence over pose no threat to British security, and promises that “he would not bite the hand that fed him.” He also promises to “report anyone damaging the interests of [Britain].” The MI5 agent records that “surprisingly enough—[Abu Qatada] revealed little love of the methodology and policies pursued by Osama bin Laden. He certainly left me with the impression that he had nothing but contempt for bin Laden’s distant financing of the jihad.” [SPECIAL IMMIGRATION APPEALS COMMISSION, 1/2004 ; CHANNEL 4 NEWS (LONDON), 3/23/2004; GUARDIAN, 3/24/2004; LONDON TIMES, 3/25/2004] "

http://www.channel4.com/news/ftp_ima...3_document.pdf
http://www.channel4.com/news/2004/03...23_qatada.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...176538,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFr...050175,00.html

"Meetings Apparently Continue - Reportedly, after Qatada’s February 1997 meeting with the British agent, no further such meetings occur. [SPECIAL IMMIGRATION APPEALS COMMISSION, 1/2004 ] However, some French officials later allege that Qatada continues to be an MI5 agent, and this is what allows him to avoid arrest after 9/11 (see Early December 2001). [OBSERVER, 2/24/2002] It will later emerge that Bisher al-Rawi, a friend of Qatada, served as an informant and a go-between MI5 and Qatada in numerous meetings between late 2001 and 2002, when Qatada is finally arrested (see Late September 2001-Summer 2002). Furthermore, al-Rawi says he served as a translator between MI5 and Qatada before 9/11, suggesting that Qatada never stopped being an informant. [OBSERVER, 7/29/2007]"
http://www.observer.co.uk/islam/stor...656212,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...usa.guantanamo

"Late September 2001: Friend of Imam Abu Qatada Agrees to Become British Informant
"Several weeks after the 9/11 attacks, two agents of MI5, the British equivalent of the FBI, meet with Bisher al-Rawi at his London house and try to recruit him to work as an informant. By one account, the meeting takes place one day after 9/11. Al-Rawi is an ideal candidate because he is well-educated, fluent in English, and a long-time friend of London imam Abu Qatada. [INDEPENDENT, 3/16/2006; WASHINGTON POST, 4/2/2006] Qatada himself has been working as an informant for MI5 since 1996 (see June 1996-February 1997). Al-Rawi will later claim that MI5 asked him to serve as an interpreter between MI5 and Arabic speakers several times before 9/11. He did so, including interpreting for Qatada. He will later comment, ‘On two occasions I asked the officers in private, “Is it OK to have a relationship with Abu Qatada? Is this a problem?’ And they always said, ‘No, it’s fine, it’s OK.’” Al-Rawi agrees to become an informant and begins regularly meeting with the two agents in hotel rooms around London. [INDEPENDENT, 3/16/2006] For the next year, he will mostly work as a go-between between MI5 and Qatada. Presumably, it would be dangerous for the well-known imam to be seen meeting directly with British agents (see Late September 2001-Summer 2002)."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...in-470074.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101465_pf.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...in-470074.html

"Late September 2001-Summer 2002: British Intelligence Uses Other Informant to Stay in Contact with Informant Abu Qatada While He Pretends to Go into Hiding "

"Bisher al-Rawi. [Source: Public domain]
In late September 2001, Bisher al-Rawi, a long-time friend of London imam Abu Qatada, agrees to become an informant for the British intelligence agency MI5 (see Late September 2001). Al-Rawi mainly works as an intermediary between MI5 and the high-profile imam. He will later explain that he agreed to work as an informant as an attempt to help ease tensions between the government and the Muslim community. Abu Qatada had begun working as an informant for MI5 in 1996 (see June 1996-February 1997), and contrary to some reports, his relationship with that agency had not yet ended. In December 2001, Abu Qatada reportedly disappears just before a new law passes that would allow his indefinite detention (see Early December 2001). British officials claim to have no idea where Abu Qatada is, and at first apparently they really do not. But al-Rawi soon finds out where he is, tells MI5, and begins passing messages back and forth between MI5 and Abu Qatada. [OBSERVER, 7/29/2007] The Independent will later report, “Abu Qatada was completely aware of Mr al-Rawi’s relationship with MI5. Mr al-Rawi carried questions and answers between the parties, served as a translator, and participated in negotiations with Abu Qatada.” Al-Rawi himself will later say, “All I did in Britain was try to help with steps necessary to get a meeting between Abu Qatada and MI5. I was trying to bring them together. MI5 would give me messages to take to Abu Qatada, and Abu Qatada would give me messages to take back to them.” [INDEPENDENT, 3/16/2006] According to his family members and his lawyer, soon the MI5 agents are coming to his house and calling him so frequently that his relatives complain. As a result, MI5 gives him a cell phone and agrees to meet with him elsewhere. The British government will later acknowledge that al-Rawi served as an unpaid informant in a court document. [WASHINGTON POST, 4/2/2006] In the summer of 2002, al-Rawi begins to have doubts about his role and is fired (see Summer 2002). Abu Qatada is arrested in late October 2002, just after coming out of hiding in an attempt to morally justify the 9/11 attacks (see October 23, 2002). In early November, al-Rawi will fly to Gambia and be detained there (see November 8, 2002-December 7, 2002). [WASHINGTON POST, 4/2/2006]"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...usa.guantanamo
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...in-470074.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101465_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101465_pf.html

"Summer-Early November 2002: Second Informant Helps British Intelligence Communicate with Informer Abu Qatada "

"Jamil al-Banna. [Source: Public domain]
Jamil al-Banna is friends with Bisher al-Rawi, who is working as an informant for the British intelligence agency MI5. Al-Rawi is mostly helping MI5 communicate with imam Abu Qatada, who also is an MI5 informant but is pretending to be in hiding (see Late September 2001-Summer 2002 and Early December 2001). Al-Banna is aware of al-Rawi’s work and begins to help him. Sometimes al-Banna also serves as a go-between for MI5 and Abu Qatada. Al-Rawi stops working for MI5 in the summer of 2002 (see Summer 2002), but al-Banna does not. For instance, when Abu Qatada is arrested in late October 2002 (see October 23, 2002), al-Banna takes his wife and child home at the request of the British officials on the scene. [INDEPENDENT, 3/16/2006] But in early November 2002, al-Banna will go to Gambia with al-Rawi on business, and MI5 will turn the two of them over to the CIA to be interrogated (see November 8, 2002-December 7, 2002)."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...in-470074.html

"Summer 2002: Informant Helping British Intelligence Communicate with Abu Qatada Has Doubts and Is Fired
"Bisher al-Rawi, an informant for the British intelligence agency MI5, begins to have doubts about his informant work. He is mostly helping MI5 communicate with imam Abu Qatada, another MI5 informant who is pretending to be hiding from the authorities (see Late September 2001-Summer 2002). Al-Rawi is concerned that he might incriminate himself by talking to people who have links to terrorism, and is also concerned that his role as an informant could be publicly exposed. He suggests holding a meeting between his MI5 handlers and a private attorney, and specifically suggests using human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce. However, his MI5 handlers refuse and instead have him meet with an MI5 lawyer known only by the alias “Simon.” Simon assures him that MI5 would come to his aid if he is compromised or has other problems. Al-Rawi will later recall: “[Simon] gave me very solid assurances about confidentiality. He promised they would even protect me and my family if they had to. He said that, if I was ever arrested, I should cooperate with the police. If a matter got to court, he would come as a witness and tell the truth.” Some agents are beginning to have doubts that he is carrying out all their orders, and he brings up the idea of ending the relationship. Then one day one of his MI5 handlers calls him and terminates his MI5 work. [INDEPENDENT, 3/16/2006; OBSERVER, 7/29/2007] Several months later, MI5 will betray him and turn him over to the CIA to be interrogated in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo (see December 8, 2002-March 2003 and March 2003-November 18, 2007)."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...in-470074.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...usa.guantanamo

"Al-Rawi and al-Banna had recently worked as informants for MI5, helping them communicate with the radical imam Abu Qatada, who was said to be in hiding but was really an MI5 informant himself (see Late September 2001-Summer 2002 and Summer-Early November 2002). However, MI5 has given the CIA the impression that they were not informants but were plotting with Qatada. Al-Rawi will later say, “From the beginning, the questions made it plain that the Americans had been given the contents of my own MI5 file, which was supposed to be confidential. Lee even told me the British were giving him information. I had agreed to help MI5 because I wanted to prevent terrorism, and now the information I had freely given them was being used against me in an attempt to prove that I myself was some kind of terrorist.” [OBSERVER, 7/29/2007] "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...usa.guantanamo
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/st...995989,00.html

"After about a month, all but Bisher al-Rawi and al-Banna are freed and allowed to return to Britain. The two of them, however, are flown to the US prison in Bagram, Afghanistan, where harsher interrogation methods can be used on them. [WASHINGTON POST, 4/2/2006] Before they leave Gambia, one of their US interrogators tells al-Rawi that they now realize the two of them were MI5 informants, but they will be sent to Bagram anyway. “He told me: ‘We know you were working for MI5’, and said if I told the truth I would get out.” [OBSERVER, 7/29/2007]"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101465_pf.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...usa.guantanamo

"According to Amnesty International, one of them is warned that if he does not cooperate he will be turned over to the Gambian police who will “beat and rape him.”
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index...pen&of=ENG-381

(Original post by biggie)
It doesn't. But then again, it seemingly does to you; for example, I have seen no thread condemning the withdrawal of London mayoral candidates from a televised debate due to the presence of the BNP candidate, which surely constitutes totalitarian action on the part of the state, and is a clear violation of your strongly held beliefs.

I didn't even know that had happened, do you want me to make a thread every single time someone's free speech is trampled upon? I supported Nick Griffin going on QT. I'm not the one with the double standards here.

[Pindar]

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
I have made very coherent arguments against you in the past, but unfortunately your sheer unfounded arrogance and lack of intellectual capacity prevent you from seeing the flaws in your way of thinking. I am referring to people with qualifications from and positions at world leading universities and are involved in relevant philosophical areas. Sure, there are plenty of other experts with similar credibility who disagree, but do you really think you are in any position to make any worthwhile contribution?

Yaaawn. You have never once attacked my arguments in ANY of your posts. All you do is spout how you are qualified somehow and know it all, but you don't actually SAY anything.

You'd just prefer to make fallacious appeals to authority and say "DER R PPL HU DISAGREE WT U SO U R RONG!1" but not say who and why. Basically the rantings of a mental case.

If there are flaws in my ways of thinking please go ahead and point them out. Just bleating "UR RONG" doesn't mean anything... it just points out how much of an idiot you are.

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
I'm not sure you quite get the meaning of "ad hominem" either. I don't attempt to disprove your argument by making my own "argument" in the form: "Stefan1991 has such and such unpleasant characteristic, therefore his arguments are invalid". I do dish out the occasional personal dig every now and then, because let's face it, you are an excessively arrogant yet unremarkable individual going through a phase in his life which you will look back on with embarrassment one day, and you need knocking down a peg or two. If I remember right, you are at a pretty crap uni doing some unremarkable degree. You are not the next Rene Descartes, Immanuel Kant or Ludwig Wittgenstein. I'm not claiming I am either, for the record (although I would confidently say my intellect vastly outweighs yours).

Erm... all you do is post a huge ad hominem, and then say you are "attacking my argument". No.... all you are posting is one big ad hominem. If you have posted anything resembling an argument, I have yet to see it.

Let's have a look at your posts. These are the type of great arguments you like to put forward:
Your first post: "You are wrong. I go to a top uni and i'd know. And all my professors love me."
second post "you are unqualified. I know ppl hu are qualfiied. And they disagree with you"
third post "Andrew Lansley is a politician, therefore he is right and you are automatically wrong."
Fourth post "traditional morality says its wrong, so it is." GOOD POINT
Fifth "its sick, its disgusting, theres no scientific law which says this, its just traditional, God-given MORALITY."

Another deluded Bible-basher who thinks they know it all, but knows nothing.

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
the head of Philosophy at my rather prestigous university writes down what I say during discussions and approves of my arguments.

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
God is by definition a perfect being, therefore God's rulings are not merely arbitrary, but by definition, truth.

Care to prove that hypothesis? Thought not.

Whenever I pose a too difficult question for you to answer, you simply run away and refuse to answer Probably praying to God and asking him what to think and how to live your life?

[Laozi]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
Being sent to a third world country to be tortured and then have a trial in a politicised corrupt court with no judicial independence using evidence gained from torture, is NOT justice. No matter how you try and spin it, it's not.

How do you know this is going to happen? Jordan obviously want him for some crimes he commited in their country - he broke their soverign laws. If I broke laws in China I would expect to face a Chinese jury and judge.

(Original post by Stefan1991)
You live in China so justice is probably not a familiar word in your vocabulary. I suggest you look it up before claiming to know what it is. It would include something called a 'fair open trial'.

Wow, a staunch anti-racist being racist against the Chinese people? Are you saying the Chinese people don't champion justice? Well, just look at terrorists attacks in China in the last 20 year - not many, because they come down hard on foreign aliens who want to blow up their citizens and destroy their way of life, culture, values and laws.

Recognise both beauty and ugliness is born.
Recognise both good and evil is born.

(Original post by Stefan1991)
And I'm afraid, unlike you, we British are put in severe danger because of our severe maltreatment of this elderly religious man. Al Quaeda's leadership has personally vowed to attack British citizens because of Abu Qatada's treatment. And this is supposed to be making us safer?

This 'eldery religious man'. Oh, sir, spare me your sorrow. Go and weep tears over the hundreds of eldery religious Christian men killed in Islamic countries. I'm sure you won't - because your so-called compassion for this man is one-sided, and that's not compassion at all.

Well, if the British government had a back-bone and came down hard on any Islamists who threatended to kill any British person or take down our laws, values or democractic systems i'm sure we wouldn't have a problem. It's people like you who confuse strength for racism/ignorance that has brought this country to its knees.

[for_healing_only]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
Who wants to live in a world where you can't say what you think for threat of imprisonment? The very forum you are speaking on would likely be banned.
You are so ignorant and take your rights completely for granted. You really wouldn't like to live in a 1984 totalitarian dystopia, believe me. You are deluded if you think you would, because its very unlikely to be of benefit to you.

Haha, okay let me have a go at answering your points,

1) Not really no. Everything we do should be for the good of the many. So if they were locked up because the goverment believed they were a credible threat who am I to question that with my "status quo" following attitude. Plus there is no way I can no they are truly innocent just becuase they are my family. Everyone is equally accountable regardless of relationship to you (albeit for family most people would try to turn a blind eye)

2) This comment made me laugh and remember that film "englorious *******" where at the end they carve the swastika into the guys forehead (I didn't approve of that in the film and hoped there would be a sequel where the jew hunter finds Brad Pitts characters family and does something similar (prisoners of war, fair treatment and all that).


3) But for the most part if you follow the law you are fine. Most people I seriously doubt believe everything they read or see. For the most part they just do not care.

4) By that I didn't mean not speakign about opression at all. I meant causing problems in general, if no one-one made relligious/ Racist / hateful comments outside of the confines of their place of worship or there home there would be far less problems. Also people who want to speak out against the government should lodge a formal protest and do it this way. Not stage sit-ins etc... which disrupt oridinary people who again just don't care about your cause and resent you more for it. Plus again I have no problem with towing the line and obeying the laws of the land, also in 1984 there wouldn't have been a forum like this anyway so I wouldn't have to worry about it and so wouldn't know what I was missing out on (Have you seen teh film equilibrium, we definately need to introduce those pills to society or just add something to the water).

[Pindar]

(Original post by Laozi)
How do you know this is going to happen? Jordan obviously want him for some crimes he commited in their country - he broke their soverign laws. If I broke laws in China I would expect to face a Chinese jury and judge.

Because they are renowned for their torture. Qatada was a political activist who proposed abolishing the monarchy. Jordan has a hideous track record of external intervention in its courts and maltreatment of political activists. There is no real evidence that he has committed any crime, except speaking out.

Now he is under the jurisdiction of the British, and they don't have to obey Jordan's "sovereign laws" if they don't have to.

(Original post by Laozi)
Wow, a staunch anti-racist being racist against the Chinese people? Are you saying the Chinese people don't champion justice? Well, just look at terrorists attacks in China in the last 20 year - not many, because they come down hard on foreign aliens who want to blow up their citizens and destroy their way of life, culture, values and laws.

How did you interpret that as "racist"? China is an authoritarian state with a terrible human rights record. Notice how I'm referring to the state, not it's people. I'm sure a lot of Chinese people would like justice if it was on offer. Jailing dissidents isn't really my idea of justice, is it yours?

"One of the foremost areas of concern is a lack of legal rights, for want of an independent judiciary, rule of law, and due process"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_r...ublic_of_China

Explain to me how you can have 'justice' without due process, the rule of law and an independent judiciary? Hmm?

(Original post by Laozi)
Recognise both beauty and ugliness is born.
Recognise both good and evil is born.

There's no such thing as "good" and "evil" it's just overly simplified black and white dichtonomy. This black and white thinking which reduces everything to "good" and "evil" and ignores the real causes of why things happen.

(Original post by Laozi)
This 'eldery religious man'. Oh, sir, spare me your sorrow. Go and weep tears over the hundreds of eldery religious Christian men killed in Islamic countries. I'm sure you won't - because your so-called compassion for this man is one-sided, and that's not compassion at all.

Oh i'm sorry, how is it my fault that it isn't reported anywhere in the media?
It's not compassion, it's common sense. The fact that someone in Britain can be treated this way means that ANY OF YOU can be treated this way.

(Original post by Laozi)
Well, if the British government had a back-bone and came down hard on any Islamists who threatended to kill any British person or take down our laws, values or democractic systems i'm sure we wouldn't have a problem. It's people like you who confuse strength for racism/ignorance that has brought this country to its knees.

No because then we'd have an even more serious problem. An totalitarian country with many little freedoms. The Islamists in many ways will have won. I'm sure most British people do not really aspire to living under a China style government, but unfortunately little they know that is what they are basically asking for. If they do they are seriously deluded.

[Pindar]

(Original post by for_healing_only)
Haha, okay let me have a go at answering your points,

1) Not really no. Everything we do should be for the good of the many. So if they were locked up because the goverment believed they were a credible threat who am I to question that with my "status quo" following attitude. Plus there is no way I can no they are truly innocent just becuase they are my family. Everyone is equally accountable regardless of relationship to you (albeit for family most people would try to turn a blind eye)

I disagree. Everything the state does should be for the good of the many. The individual doesn't have any responsibility for anyone but themself. But that is just a difference in values. You are a collectivist, such as Hitler, Stalin or Mao who say the interest of the state is superior to the interest of the individual. I am an individualist because that gives the most happiness, protection and freedom.

I agree, someone who is a credible threat should be locked up, but who is a credible threat should decided by the courts and there should be evidence for it. Not on the whim of a government official.

This is very basic separation of powers and liberalism. What you're suggesting is a system where one man can be judge, jury and executioner, and imprison people for being "credible threats" on no basis but simply because they feel like it.

(Original post by for_healing_only)
2) This comment made me laugh and remember that film "englorious *******" where at the end they carve the swastika into the guys forehead (I didn't approve of that in the film and hoped there would be a sequel where the jew hunter finds Brad Pitts characters family and does something similar (prisoners of war, fair treatment and all that).

That's a good film.

(Original post by for_healing_only)
3) But for the most part if you follow the law you are fine. Most people I seriously doubt believe everything they read or see. For the most part they just do not care.

But how far will you go in just "following the law" "doing what they say" "i'll be fine"? You'll follow the law no matter what the laws are? Even when there is a law to ban you protesting the law?

Yes I agree, most people do not care. Just like the people in Germany in the early thirties. Everything was dandy, Hitler came into power, brought in oppressive laws which dismantled the liberal state, and everything was just fine.... until it was too late.

(Original post by for_healing_only)
4) By that I didn't mean not speakign about opression at all. I meant causing problems in general, if no one-one made relligious/ Racist / hateful comments outside of the confines of their place of worship or there home there would be far less problems. Also people who want to speak out against the government should lodge a formal protest and do it this way. Not stage sit-ins etc... which disrupt oridinary people who again just don't care about your cause and resent you more for it. Plus again I have no problem with towing the line and obeying the laws of the land, also in 1984 there wouldn't have been a forum like this anyway so I wouldn't have to worry about it and so wouldn't know what I was missing out on (Have you seen teh film equilibrium, we definately need to introduce those pills to society or just add something to the water).

Yes I've seen equilibrium, though that just removed all your emotions and made you more like a robot or machine who'd just follow orders without emotions getting in the way. That wouldn't be good because we are already fairly detached from our humanity as it is, nobody is in touch with themselves. The way society has been organised is designed to alienate you from your true self as much as possible.

I have no problem following laws if they actually exist for a proper reason instead of just strengthening the government's power over it's people. And since when has 'lodging a formal protest' solved anything? You think race equality was won through 'lodging formal protests'? You think female equality was won that way? No. Protests have to cause a disruption otherwise they don't get noticed.

[FranticMind]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
In October 2002, the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, detained Abu Qatada indefinitely without trial under Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA), which at that time provided for such detention.

He has spent over 10 years in prison without ever being charged or convicted of any crime.


This is a huge miscarriage of justice.

Sounds fair to me. Stop preaching hate and maybe karma won't **** you over.

[Alvrae]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
Wow, people exercising their freedom of speech to criticise the government shouldn't be allowed to live in Britain? Sounds just like a liberal democracy that does. Doesn't sound like Nazi Germany at ALL....

I think there is a massive difference between openly critising a country and its government using your freedom of speech over preaching to the young to justify, promote and activly increase the amount of terror attacks happening world wide. This is just about the safety of us here in the UK, some of the people he was preaching to have joined terrorist groups that have attacked America, UK, Spain, ect from the west alone and continue to attack in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. If he was that opposed to the british government why didn't he run for election?

If i was the British governement i'd have followed suit with france and germany, **** the EU and the human rights laws, he's hiding behind. It's all just delays, stick him on the bloody plane and send him to Jordon. Failing that send him to america where he can face life imprisonment in solitary confinement and if they don't want him, well there not restricted by the EU so they can send him anyway . I'm pro fredom of speech, but you have to ask, is it really good to promote young people to blow themselves up to terroize a population into submission, hell then we'll all end up like Iran! How's their Fredom of Speech doing?

[Pindar]

(Original post by FranticMind)
Sounds fair to me. Stop preaching hate and maybe karma won't **** you over.

What does "preaching hate" even mean?

[Pindar]

(Original post by Alvrae)
I think there is a massive difference between openly critising a country and its government using your freedom of speech over preaching to the young to justify, promote and activly increase the amount of terror attacks happening world wide. This is just about the safety of us here in the UK, some of the people he was preaching to have joined terrorist groups that have attacked America, UK, Spain, ect from the west alone and continue to attack in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. If he was that opposed to the british government why didn't he run for election?

What's better? To openly criticise and attack ideas so people can see they're ridiculous or not, or attempt to censor them at all costs by throwing people in prison, try to pretend like these ideas don't exist and look like you've got something to hide?

Why do you think these people are calling for terror attacks? Does anyone not question ANYTHING at all anymore?

(Original post by Alvrae)
If i was the British governement i'd have followed suit with france and germany, **** the EU and the human rights laws, he's hiding behind. It's all just delays, stick him on the bloody plane and send him to Jordon. Failing that send him to america where he can face life imprisonment in solitary confinement and if they don't want him, well there not restricted by the EU so they can send him anyway . I'm pro fredom of speech, but you have to ask, is it really good to promote young people to blow themselves up to terroize a population into submission, hell then we'll all end up like Iran! How's their Fredom of Speech doing?

What's this guy ever done to you? So much hate.

[Pindar]

(Original post by Joe909)
Piss off you Islamist extremism supporter.

I wouldn't have expected anything more intelligent from you Joe. You don't even know what Islamic extremism means.

[destroyerofsouls]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
Yaaawn. You have never once attacked my arguments in ANY of your posts. All you do is spout how you are qualified somehow and know it all, but you don't actually SAY anything.

You'd just prefer to make fallacious appeals to authority and say "DER R PPL HU DISAGREE WT U SO U R RONG!1" but not say who and why. Basically the rantings of a mental case.

If there are flaws in my ways of thinking please go ahead and point them out. Just bleating "UR RONG" doesn't mean anything... it just points out how much of an idiot you are.



Erm... all you do is post a huge ad hominem, and then say you are "attacking my argument". No.... all you are posting is one big ad hominem. If you have posted anything resembling an argument, I have yet to see it.

Let's have a look at your posts. These are the type of great arguments you like to put forward:
Your first post: "You are wrong. I go to a top uni and i'd know. And all my professors love me."
second post "you are unqualified. I know ppl hu are qualfiied. And they disagree with you"
third post "Andrew Lansley is a politician, therefore he is right and you are automatically wrong."
Fourth post "traditional morality says its wrong, so it is." GOOD POINT
Fifth "its sick, its disgusting, theres no scientific law which says this, its just traditional, God-given MORALITY."

Another deluded Bible-basher who thinks they know it all, but knows nothing.





Care to prove that hypothesis? Thought not.

Whenever I pose a too difficult question for you to answer, you simply run away and refuse to answer Probably praying to God and asking him what to think and how to live your life?

I think actually I have provided arguments against you in the past, and what's more, it you who runs away when you don't know how to reply. The following is a post from a discussion about your views on the world, to which you did not respond:

"Re: My beliefs on how the world is and how we should be



LOL at nihilism xD

I do not see how you have defined "harm", you leave far too much ambiguity for this premise to actually be of any worth.

I am "harming" a tree when I pick a leaf off it. Hitler harmed the Jewish race by rounding a load of them up and gassing them to death. Where do you draw the line of "what is acceptable" between these two examples? How do you even quantify harm?

If someone shoots a gun in the air in the middle of a desert there is a minute chance it will fall and hit a nomadic goat herder on the head and kill him. If someone shoots a gun at a person's head from point blank range, there is an extremely high chance they will kill him. At what probability of harm being caused do you draw the "what is acceptable" line?

The harm principle sounds like a nice idea, but unless you can find some way of actually defining "harm" in a non-arbitrary way, then it is meaningless, and hence any moral ideas drawn up from it are undermined by the very fact that wherever you draw the "what is acceptable" line, someone else could draw it at a totally different point to suit their purposes, and then it's really a case of who has the greater power. In fact, this is something you say yourself...





"there really isn't any reason why people should follow arbitrary moral codes (unless they are compelled to by the law *assuming this is in keeping with their individual purpose*). There is no reason why people shouldn't be egoistical rationalists (which for the most part they are)."

which is all well and good as far as being non-contradictory goes, because your moral code is arbitrary, for the reasons I have outlined above.

The next thing you say though is



"for the good of everyone we should have a system protecting all individuals from each other and the state"

as if you are putting some value on "the good of everyone". You also say



"individually there's not really any reason to obey the system if you can get away with it"

. Surely you can see that your way of thinking leads to only the individual's purpose being of any importance to their moral views? Your moral views are tailored to suit your individual purpose in life (although since you are a nihilist it is hard to see what that might be...), and as such amount to no more than a personal code of "What I Can Get Away With". Exactly what this code permits will vary from individual to individual, depending on how much power they have access to and what their individual purpose is. What reason do you have to bitch and cry about the actions of someone who is in power? The fact you were useless enough to not acheive any significant level of power over others? If that is the case, be all nihilist about it and accept that is the way it is, and it couldn't have been any other way. Quit moaning about not being allowed to sodomise your dead grandmother's corpse or shag your uncle and move on.

Hopefully you will have realised the issues that an arbitrary moral code leads to. Whatever moral code someone draws up, it will have some arbitrary judgements within it. These judgements are made to suit the purpose of whoever happens to have the most power at any given moment, and as a result, are redundant if the purpose concerned is anything less than perfect.

So how do we define the absolute perfect purpose imaginable? Whatever that purpose may be, it is by definition the purpose of a perfect being with - unlimited freedom of will - whose judgments are by definition, absolute truth, as opposed to abitrary. Whether or not you believe in the existence of such a being really depends on your definition of "what it is to exist". Once you've cracked that one convincingly, do let me know..."


You also seem to be overly reliant on "science! science! science!" and the pursuit of a 100% materialist world view. This is a rather foolish and naive position to take, and that is coming from a science student at a top university. Materialism is so engrained in your way of thinking that you use it as your sole perspective for judging other reasoning, which prevents you from judging materialism from any perspective other than itself. Your position is basically "materialsim is the sole truth because it is compatible with materialism and non-materialism isn't", which is a tautological and therefore redundant statement. It is this fallacy from which all your others stem.

Any world view requires some sort of framework which supplies some sort of reference point. The reference point of the traditional materialist framework is the 16th century concept of unconscious, inanimate matter. This definition prevents questions such as "what exactly is consciousness?" or "what is a fundamental particle made of?" because to do so is akin to asking "what is north of north?". A fundamental particle just is, and the reason we reach this conclusion is because our method for arriving there presupposes this to be the case. Don't get me wrong, materialist science has done a lot in the last few centuries, and I'm as good a science student as any. But to simply accept it as the sole framework of any worth based on its own reference points is daft. It's like defining the Citroen Picasso as the best looking car in production, and then running a car design contest - is it any wonder the Citroen Picasso (which you set as your reference point) wins first prize?

Since you make this first fundamental fallacy, it is from then on that others arise as you try to stretch your framework to include things it neccesarily excludes due to their intimate association with the reference points of materialism - things such as morality (you have previously tried referring to a non-arbitrary moral system by referring to a "harm principle", which shows you accept moral systems cannot be arbitrary, yet it is obvious that such a principle leaves far too much ambiguity (no clear definitions or cut-off points) to be of any merit).

A more complete worldview is necessary to tackle all the biggest questions in life, such as the true nature of the self, the existence of free will, the existence of God, the nature of morality. Until you open your mind to other frameworks and their respective reference points, it is little wonder we will always be on different pages. In order to compare different frameworks, you need a framework by which to judge frameworks, leading to the need for another framework by which to judge frameworks that judge frameworks, leading towards an infinite progression of frameworks. Try conceiving of such "higher" frameworks, and also of other questions that lead to an infinite progession of gradually greater answers - that ought to keep you thinking.

Do read this reponse properly, don't just skim read it and run away (like I suspect you do often).

[Alvrae]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
What's better? To openly criticise and attack ideas so people can see they're ridiculous or not, or attempt to censor them at all costs by throwing people in prison, try to pretend like these ideas don't exist and look like you've got something to hide?

Why do you think these people are calling for terror attacks? Does anyone not question ANYTHING at all anymore?



What's this guy ever done to you? So much hate.

Openly talking is good, constructive criticism is great; censorship can be useful at times as long as it’s not used to warp the truth. Ideas are great whether you agree or not with the idea. These people call for terrorist attacks because they are either un-willing or stupid enough to assume violence is the answer. We have systems in place to voice these opinions and discuss them. He’s not even from this country and he’s sat here preaching to people to go out and kill others simply because they do not agree with him. I don’t entirely agree with the way the government is running the country and I’ll be using my vote to show it. As a countries government you can’t please everyone all the time. The majority of the rest of the world seem to be able to grasp that.

This guy has plotted against MY country, to kill MY people, MY friends and MY family. This guy actively supports terror, which brings misery to so many. I find it difficult to understand why any reasonable human being would defend such a person. Whether or not I agree or disagree with his ideology is irrelevant, he deserves everything he gets simply for the means in which he brings them across to everyone. I would say the same about anyone whose opinions I did agree with if they were doing the same. Evil begets evil. I for one would love to show that piece of scum how evil I can be!

[Joe909]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
I wouldn't have expected anything more intelligent from you Joe. You don't even know what Islamic extremism means.

Well of course you would assume instantly because I chose not to exasperate my point endlessly with sophisticated language that I didn't know what I was talking about, just shows your naivety.

In my mind, Islamist extremism and terrorism have been bred by resentment of Western power. The military dominance of Israel, the roots of the Kashmir dispute, the megalomania of the Shah of Iran, and Suez are all seen to be examples of Western hubris and ill-will towards the Muslim world. Of course, hate towards the west will have been born, however we cannot tolerate people preaching this hate in the Uk. Now unfortunately, the way he has conducted himself towards the citizens of the United Kingdom has led me to not feel sorry for him in the slightest, an envelope in his home labelled "For the mujaheddin in Chechnya" would indicate that he supports violence in the name of religion, something I would see as "Extremism".


So in other words he can **** OFF.

[Pindar]

(Original post by Alvrae)
He’s not even from this country and he’s sat here preaching to people to go out and kill others simply because they do not agree with him.

Evidence please?

(Original post by Alvrae)
This guy has plotted against MY country, to kill MY people, MY friends and MY family.

I'm trying not to laugh but, paranoia delusions much? Evidence please? p.s no need to get hysterical.

(Original post by Alvrae)
This guy actively supports terror, which brings misery to so many.

What do you even mean by "terror"? It's all very well using this Orwellian newspeakesque terms, but can you actually explain what you even mean?

There's no such thing as "terror" in Islam so I doubt Qatada would use such a term.

(Original post by Alvrae)
I find it difficult to understand why any reasonable human being would defend such a person.

Where have I defended his beliefs? I'm defending his right to speak.

(Original post by Alvrae)
Whether or not I agree or disagree with his ideology is irrelevant, he deserves everything he gets simply for the means in which he brings them across to everyone.

What means are you talking about? So it's not what he says but the means?

Try explaining one iota of what you're talking about because it's all steeped in vagueness and riddles preventing anyone from actually understanding what the hell you're on about.

[Pindar]

(Original post by Joe909)
Well of course you would assume instantly because I chose not to exasperate my point endlessly with sophisticated language that I didn't know what I was talking about, just shows your naivety.

In my mind, Islamist extremism and terrorism have been bred by resentment of Western power. The military dominance of Israel, the roots of the Kashmir dispute, the megalomania of the Shah of Iran, and Suez are all seen to be examples of Western hubris and ill-will towards the Muslim world. Of course, hate towards the west will have been born, however we cannot tolerate people preaching this hate in the Uk.

So you understand why people would hate the west... you understand that it's completely justified.... but you just can't have people speaking the truth about what's going on and criticising it! i.e. censorship.

Because then people might actually know what they're government gets up to? And be able to exercise their vote and make a fully informed decision? You don't want that to happen?

(Original post by Joe909)
Now unfortunately, the way he has conducted himself towards the citizens of the United Kingdom has led me to not feel sorry for him in the slightest, an envelope in his home labelled "For the mujaheddin in Chechnya" would indicate that he supports violence in the name of religion, something I would see as "Extremism".

What "conduct" are you talking about? Again, please elaborate. That's not a point, that's just vague complaining.

And no... that suggests he supports violence in the name of politics if you are to believe that's what they found on him. That he believes in Chechen self-determination and freedom. From your logic, the American founding fathers were all terrorists simply because they wanted to fight for independence, as were the Libyan people fighting Gaddafi.

Or do you just prefer to use the word "terrorist" when it suits you and your agenda?

(Original post by Joe909)
So in other words he can **** OFF.

You are letting your emotions take over again Joe... just calm down and try and think rationally. If that's possible.

[Pindar]

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
I do not see how you have defined "harm", you leave far too much ambiguity for this premise to actually be of any worth.

I am "harming" a tree when I pick a leaf off it. Hitler harmed the Jewish race by rounding a load of them up and gassing them to death. Where do you draw the line of "what is acceptable" between these two examples? How do you even quantify harm?

Wow, you really had to go to the trouble of writing a huge rebuttal.

Btw, it's physical injury, one that significantly damages value or function.
No... picking a leaf off a tree is not harm. Only an idiot would think that. A leaf will grow back again.

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
If someone shoots a gun in the air in the middle of a desert there is a minute chance it will fall and hit a nomadic goat herder on the head and kill him. If someone shoots a gun at a person's head from point blank range, there is an extremely high chance they will kill him. At what probability of harm being caused do you draw the "what is acceptable" line?

When harm occurs, that is "unacceptable".

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
The harm principle sounds like a nice idea, but unless you can find some way of actually defining "harm" in a non-arbitrary way, then it is meaningless, and hence any moral ideas drawn up from it are undermined by the very fact that wherever you draw the "what is acceptable" line, someone else could draw it at a totally different point to suit their purposes, and then it's really a case of who has the greater power. In fact, this is something you say yourself...

Better than your idea of traditional God-given morality based off a tatty old book written by men!

It's the principle... that is the point. You can't rationally attack the principle, so you'll just start nitpicking about what you might consider is "harm" or not. Maybe if I punched you in the face it would become more obvious?

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
"there really isn't any reason why people should follow arbitrary moral codes (unless they are compelled to by the law *assuming this is in keeping with their individual purpose*). There is no reason why people shouldn't be egoistical rationalists (which for the most part they are)."

which is all well and good as far as being non-contradictory goes, because your moral code is arbitrary, for the reasons I have outlined above.

The next thing you say though is


"for the good of everyone we should have a system protecting all individuals from each other and the state"

as if you are putting some value on "the good of everyone". You also say

"individually there's not really any reason to obey the system if you can get away with it"

. Surely you can see that your way of thinking leads to only the individual's purpose being of any importance to their moral views? Your moral views are tailored to suit your individual purpose in life (although since you are a nihilist it is hard to see what that might be...), and as such amount to no more than a personal code of "What I Can Get Away With". Exactly what this code permits will vary from individual to individual, depending on how much power they have access to and what their individual purpose is. What reason do you have to bitch and cry about the actions of someone who is in power? The fact you were useless enough to not acheive any significant level of power over others? If that is the case, be all nihilist about it and accept that is the way it is, and it couldn't have been any other way. Quit moaning about not being allowed to sodomise your dead grandmother's corpse or shag your uncle and move on.

Wow. For someone who apparently thinks they're pretty smart, that was goddamn awful. Where to begin?

Yes, i'm putting some value on the good of everyone. It's called utilitarianism. It's not a new concept. I thought you were smart?

You keep claiming i'm making up some new philosophy and that I'm the new Wittengstein or something. No... these are widely known, very old ideas. Look up J.S Mill. You might learn something. For someone who apparently studies philosophy at a "top prestigious university" , you are very ignorant of your subject.

You can be a nihilist and still give meaning and purpose to your life. It only refers to the lack of objective meaning to life and the universe. You talk as if they're contradictory ideas. Newsflash, they're not. Please study more before submitting an opinion. You come off very amateurish.

The state should be structured, effective checks and balances, to prevent egotists from running amok, it should not have too much power so it can't be abused in the first place. I fail to see how there's any contradictions here... type "liberalism" into your search engine. Again, not a new concept.

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
Hopefully you will have realised the issues that an arbitrary moral code leads to. Whatever moral code someone draws up, it will have some arbitrary judgements within it. These judgements are made to suit the purpose of whoever happens to have the most power at any given moment, and as a result, are redundant if the purpose concerned is anything less than perfect.

You've not made an compelling argument for this.

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
So how do we define the absolute perfect purpose imaginable? Whatever that purpose may be, it is by definition the purpose of a perfect being with - unlimited freedom of will - whose judgments are by definition, absolute truth, as opposed to abitrary. Whether or not you believe in the existence of such a being really depends on your definition of "what it is to exist". Once you've cracked that one convincingly, do let me know...[/I]"

No... "we" do not define the absolute perfect purpose. The individual decides that for themselves. Not some invisible deity.

There's no such thing as a being whose judgements are "absolute truth". You don't know what you're talking about. As you've just said, just because someone is in power, they are not arbiters of the absolute truth. I.e God. But keep indulging yourself in your web of delusions.

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
You also seem to be overly reliant on "science! science! science!" and the pursuit of a 100% materialist world view. This is a rather foolish and naive position to take, and that is coming from a science student at a top university. Materialism is so engrained in your way of thinking that you use it as your sole perspective for judging other reasoning, which prevents you from judging materialism from any perspective other than itself. Your position is basically "materialsim is the sole truth because it is compatible with materialism and non-materialism isn't", which is a tautological and therefore redundant statement. It is this fallacy from which all your others stem.

WOW, i'm overly reliant on SCIENCE. How terrible of me, I actually rely on empirical evidence and proof for claims! Instead of subscribing to any old bull****!

No... a tautological statement is one that is closest to the truth. Any statement which isn't tautological is inaccurate and far from the truth.

If you really believe that some mumbo jumbo ghost world exists, please enlighten me to the truth! Oh enlightened one!

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
Any world view requires some sort of framework which supplies some sort of reference point. The reference point of the traditional materialist framework is the 16th century concept of unconscious, inanimate matter. This definition prevents questions such as "what exactly is consciousness?" or "what is a fundamental particle made of?" because to do so is akin to asking "what is north of north?". A fundamental particle just is, and the reason we reach this conclusion is because our method for arriving there presupposes this to be the case. Don't get me wrong, materialist science has done a lot in the last few centuries, and I'm as good a science student as any. But to simply accept it as the sole framework of any worth based on its own reference points is daft. It's like defining the Citroen Picasso as the best looking car in production, and then running a car design contest - is it any wonder the Citroen Picasso (which you set as your reference point) wins first prize?

And that really does prove anything doesn't it?

That's like saying "oh no, you can't have a special theory of relativity! You haven't considered the possibility if elves have something to do with this!!!11"

Please tell me what is your scientific evidence for a spiritual world?
Oh that's right. NONE.

Sorry if i'm "overly reliant" on science and I don't believe your BS.

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
Since you make this first fundamental fallacy, it is from then on that others arise as you try to stretch your framework to include things it neccesarily excludes due to their intimate association with the reference points of materialism - things such as morality (you have previously tried referring to a non-arbitrary moral system by referring to a "harm principle", which shows you accept moral systems cannot be arbitrary, yet it is obvious that such a principle leaves far too much ambiguity (no clear definitions or cut-off points) to be of any merit).

So instead of trying to define and specify something, you just reject it completely? GOOD ONE.

And relying on science is a fallacy? That's got to be a new one. Sorry, i'll be taking my new beliefs from the pixies at the end of my garden!

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
A more complete worldview is necessary to tackle all the biggest questions in life, such as the true nature of the self, the existence of free will, the existence of God, the nature of morality. Until you open your mind to other frameworks and their respective reference points, it is little wonder we will always be on different pages. In order to compare different frameworks, you need a framework by which to judge frameworks, leading to the need for another framework by which to judge frameworks that judge frameworks, leading towards an infinite progression of frameworks. Try conceiving of such "higher" frameworks, and also of other questions that lead to an infinite progession of gradually greater answers - that ought to keep you thinking.

You're talking about a framework which DOESN'T EXIST apart from your little world of pseudoscience and crackpot theories about ghosts and reptilians from the 9th dimension

Come back to me when you have something substantive. If it's any more woo woo or mumbo jumbo I don't want to know. You have wasted my time once again.

[Wilzman]

I think little good is going to come of the discussion this has now become, therefore I am now closing this thread.

I really must point out that the UK Politics forum is not the place to discuss the philosophy of tautology and empirical evidence, or the existence or otherwise of a deity. Those questions and debates are better suited to the Philosophy or Religion forums.

Thanks.