QuoteOriginally posted by: MarsdenOnce again, your obliqueness has failed you, Hamilton.The correct answer for why the comment from Case 1 is ridiculous is that, in the Method of Inquiry known as debate, each participant makes his argument about what the truth of a situation is, and then in turn addresses the shortcomings in the arguments of other participants with opposing viewpoints.Case 1 basically goes like this:Z: "Dhimmitude is bad because the Dhimmis had to pay taxes to the Islamic government and obey Islamic law."Y: "But I have to pay taxes to the US government and obey US law. Does that make my situation equivalent to dhimmitude and therefore bad?"X: "But Dhimmitude is bad for other reasons, and you know it!"Now, if we are trying to identify what makes dhimmitude bad (or even if it is particularly bad at all), the contribution of X is just noise. Z at least makes a proposition about what makes dhimmitude bad; Y notes that according to this proposition, living in the US is bad as well, so the proposition is probably false because it leads to absurd conclusions. X, however, makes no argument whatever, nor any criticism of any argument made; he's just braying.Hamilton, perhaps you can provide the Latin name for such nonsense. I was thinking in might include "ex argumento," given that it insists on drawing in facts outside of the argument (without, however, even presenting any such facts). It's sort of a "red herring" fallacy, but it doesn't make as clean a change in subject as "red herring" generally involves.Marsden, the original post was mine, so I am X. Dhimmiditude is bad not just because extra taxes paid by the Dhimmi but because is a discriminatory regime that creates first class and second class citizens, where the Dhimmi is highly humilliated and has to accept the superiority of any muslim under Islamic law.Therefore your statement in Y "Does that make my situation equivalent to dhimmitude" is wrong because compliance with US law is not equivalent to compliance with Islamic law. In western legal systems everybody is equal in front of the law, with independance of gender, religion, ethnic, etc... That's not the case under Islamic law.Therefore trying to reduce the whole issue to a tax question and law obedience is simply a lame try because omits the real meaning of Dhimmitude.Regading misspelling on the original post, if you are troubled by that, we can continue this discussion in Spanish. Let me know, is your call.
Last edited by mencey
on October 31st, 2006, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.