Ayn Marx wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 2:26pm:

Is this a philosophical point?

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 1^st, 2021 at 10:35am:


I asked Ayn Marx what he would say to the children of the murdered elderly couple and as yet, there's been no reply

I'll ask you now, what would you say to the elderly couple's children to console them?, keeping in mind there might also be grandchildren and possibly great-grandchildren

Ayn Marx previously posted the dictionary definition of "Philosophy", you do remember that don't you?

It seems that Ayn can't understand a simple easy to understand statement in that definition, "." and yet he posted it.

The guiding principle for muslim attackers is to attack people with knives and vehicles because of societal differencences, is it not? They attack for no other reason than to show their disdain for the way the rest of us live our lives, true or not?

Such a belligerent philosophy is in conflict with the general philosophy that us Aussies have of "Live and let live", and it's a shame and a disappointment that you and Ayn Marx can't seem to separate the two in your minds, because they are certainly separate philosophies acting within the broader community. Only a twisted and maligned sense of "multiculturalism" could rationalize bringing them together

Again, what would you say to the elderly couple? ... and what was the reason they had to die? what are your philosophical thought on that?

Ayn Marx wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2021 at 6:54pm:


Well if you can't understand a simple question like "What would you say to the children", and just reply with "I'm not in the habit of attempting to speak with the dead", then I'm not surprised you don't realize the philosophical difference between "good" and "evil"

Islam is not necessarily evil if it's benign, passive to the rule of Australian law, accepting the rights of others which includes the right to live. But it does become evil when it kills people for religious and for societal reasons, societal reasons that are grossly different to the well established societal norms and values of Australia

If you have your own philosophy on Islamic attacks, let's read it, why do they happen, what are they about, and who should take responsibility for them in a political sense, how are they in the National Interest?

That has nothing to do with philosophy and should not be in this forum

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 18^th, 2021 at 3:38pm:


Well, perhaps you'd now like to answer the question: "What would you say to the family survivors of the elderly couple who died at the hands of a muslim attacker in Qld some weeks ago?"

Would you say to them: "More people are killed in car accidents"

Or: "There's nothing we can do about Islamic attacks"

Or would you just chicken out and make sure you didn't have to say anything

Every muzzo is a potential terrorist.

Male or female it matters not

Child or adult, they are indoctrinated into hate of everyone not muzzo.

They are all cowards, attacking defenceless, attacking in numbers.

But never one on one, because they are cowards.

They will pretend to be placid

They will pretend to conform

They will pretend to be tolerant

But deep down they all want to kill everyone who is not a retarded muzzo.

When their numbers get large enough, they start demanding and taking over.

It is then too late to stop them and they start enforcing their sick standards on everyone, even those not retarded muzzo.

When the time is right, they wipe out all who are not retarded muzzo and drive out any who are stroke enough to fight back.

There is only one cure for this disease
Send them all somewhere where they can practice their sick, perverted, violent cult away from normal human beings

And never let them near civilization ever again.

How muslims gee themselves up to attack and kill people in the street ....

Religious Basis for Islamic Terrorism: The Quran and Its Interpretations

Extreme religious interpretations of the Quran and the movement of Islamic Revivalism influence the emergence and progression of violent Jihad in contemporary times. Islamic “terrorists” are able to legitimize their movement as an act of violent Jihad permitted by the Quran essentially because of religious sanctions that permit the use of violence as an act of defense and to preserve the will of God in Islamic communities.

The Quran systematizes this use and relates it to other aspects of the Shariat through its discourse on revivalism. Based on the Quranic principle of ijtihad, terrorists emphasize the Quran's tenets on violence and revivalism in their religious interpretations and present it as a legitimate premise for the use of excessive aggression. According to ijtihad Muslims can interpret and determine the extent of their Islamic practices individually as long as these are directed toward ensuring the will of God in an Islamic community.

Thus terrorists use ijtihad to emphasize Quranic clauses that sanction the use of violent Jihad as a method ordained by God to preserve the Shariat in an Islamic community. The manner in which terrorists use ijtihad to contextualize geopolitical factors as a cause for violent Jihad is determined by their extreme interpretations of the Quran.

---

In theory, while ever the Quran exists or not reformed, muslim terrorists will attack Aussies

According to our Govt, they are "Claytons" attacks, the attacks you're having when you're not having attacks