« View From A Hilltop Near Jerusalem | Main | View From Vegas at the World Series of Poker »

July 02, 2005


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


implied it; your inference inovvles an especially crude confusion of metaphysical and epistemic claims (as a brief reminder, If P, then it is permissible for Smith to do V does not imply If Smith believes that P, then it is permissible for Smith to do V ).you see no connection between rhetoric like yours and someone who decides to assassinate their Congressman. Well, I didn't say anything about rhetoric like mine. You started talking about the Kochs and I (among others) answered and then decided to change the topic to me. That said, I am pretty confident that the contents and the rhetoric of Liberty, Equality, Solidarity: Toward a Dialectical Anarchism played more or less no causal role in the Loughner's decision to shoot up a supermarket in Tucson. If it did, I have a much broader readership than I imagined.However, if it did, I will also simply say that someone who reads the essay and comes away thinking It's time for me to shoot a member of Congress, they have not read the essay carefully or honestly, and while I am perfectly happy to take intellectual responsibility for the conclusions that people might reasonably draw from things that I write, I think it is fundamentally absurd to expect anyone to take intellectual let alone legal responsibility for admittedly irrational reactions that admittedly irrational people might independently decide to take after reading something that they did not understand.Ie28099ve already addressed why ite28099s not correct to shoot Congressmen in the face.Not at the link you just pointed to. That's a discussion of the gold standard and government regulation of hedge funds. Did you mean to point to something else? Or is this yet another example of you throwing shit around and expecting people not to read what you link to?I asked you for an argument for your position. You haven't, as yet, given one.


Well, the Muslim philosopher was making both a metaphorical point as well as an observation, meaning the areas conquered by Muslims tended to be poorly managed ie. turned into deserts. This is not a debate over the deep desert but the edges of it where most people live. Much of the area of North Africa was cultivated in Roman times - ruins of former farms and irrigation systems have been found. When Islam swept across this area in the 7th Century, it probably still was being cultivated somewhat as it had been. If you read the full Gibbons "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," you'll also see that Islam cut off the remaining trade across the Mediterranean, throwing the remnants of the Western Empire into even deeper economic distress - the nail in the coffin so to speak, and plunging the area into the depths of the Dark Ages. Even as late as the 14th Century when this observation was made, distressingly little had changed. Christendom pulled out of the economic desert of the Dark Ages via the Renaissance, but Islam seems to have little progressed since then. Islam almost conquered Europe, finally being repelled at Vienna as recently as 1683. It grates their leaders to have fallen behind by so much since then.


Interesting... although, for example, the Sahara and Arabian deserts existed in their present ecological state before human migration to those areas.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Tip Jar

Change is good

Tip Jar


  • googletoo

search travel

  • Google