XBOX 360 2664
 |
snip "Their goal is to limit economic freedom" sounded to me like an imputation of malice; if that's not what you meant, okay, never mind. I...
snip You know, I started to write an indignant reply here (beginning something like "how cynical of you to think that any notion of equality leads inevitably to ...."), but I think you might have a...
Hm. I would not by default interpret "equality", in a political context, to mean "equality of result", which is how I think you're using it. I would think "equality of opportunity" or "equality before the law" or some such, and neither of those seems especially anbreasthetical to liberty, except insofar as any kind of rules are anbreasthetical to each individual's freedom to do exactly as he-she pleases.
But anyway. That's about what I thought you meant, actually -- dumping the Consbreastution to ensure what I might call "equality of result" -- and I'm asking about specific examples.
Now that I think about it, though, it's kind of a nitpick -- I'll agree that Democrats are apt to think it's fine to restrict people's freedom (especially economic freedom) in order to promote equality of result; I just don't think calling that "dump the Consbreastution" is quite justified. YMMV, maybe.
snip
"Is" or "is not"? typo? otherwise, doesn't seem to make sense.
It sounds like you have read translations anyway, which I have not, but ....
I had the impression that there is some disagreement about exactly how to translate some pbuttages, so there are people who say, as you do, that the Koran states that infidels are to be end, and others who say "well, no, that's a mistranslation, what it really says is .... " This kind of disagreement seems to happen with parts of the Christian Bible too -- for some words in the original languages there are multiple possible translations into English, each leading to a different interpretation.
Mythology?
It seems equally likely to me that "blame the Jews" might be attractive because Israel makes a good focus for resentment, occupying territory that some Muslims could regard as rightfully theirs.
I don't understand why you say "do not have the ability", but we may be venturing into "more heat than light" territory there.
Whether a direct promise to destroy someone is something to concern oneself with -- I guess it depends on how credible one thinks the threat is, or the scope of the destruction is, or something. I'm pretty sure this has been argued here before, though.
-- B. L. Mbuttingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.