|
SedanChair posted:Islamophobia and spreading hatred and fear of others based on religion "doesn't matter" according to perfect rationalist GAINING WEIGHT... How many times can a person paraphrase another person so misleadingly without realizing what they're doing? SedanChair posted:He did, unless you believe that the threat of a nuclear Iran is real. Which it is not. Do you understand the concept of "hypothetical"?
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 12:02 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:claiming that i'm not capable of reading the words he wrote and understanding them correctly I am claiming you are currently not doing that, not that you aren't capable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:How many times can a person paraphrase another person so misleadingly without realizing what they're doing? I don't know, but I'm eager for you to tell me. Because we keep posting clear examples of Harris' bigotry and lust for killing innocents, and you keep trying to spin it. GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Do you understand the concept of "hypothetical"? Yeah, do you? SedanChair posted:Thought experiment: what if there were a people so money-grubbing that they forced nations into war for the sake of profiteering and usury? It would be a terrible crime to gas them in camps, but Explain to me how my example is any different from what Harris said about Iran.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't know, but I'm eager for you to tell me. Because we keep posting clear examples of Harris' bigotry and lust for killing innocents, and you keep trying to spin it. You conflate an extreme hypothetical with an actual, immediate advocacy for the actions contained within, and accuse me of spin?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:You conflate an extreme hypothetical with an actual, immediate advocacy for the actions contained within, and accuse me of spin? See my edit above.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I am claiming you are currently not doing that, not that you aren't capable. i am doing it, you're just choosing to believe otherwise to dismiss my argument in a less than rational way
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I can't tell if you're disagreeing with him. What did he say there that is objectionable? I find calling a talk "Who says science has nothing to say about morality?" objectionable when what is actually meant is "Who says philosophy has nothing to say about morality?", and I also object to that talk being 1hr+ long when it should just be the word "nobody" and curtains.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Woah, what? Why not? Do you not believe in self-defense? If someone is pointing a gun at you, but hasn't fired yet, and running/subduing isn't possible, do you kill them? this would be a good analogy if iran had nukes and were yellin about death to america and we detected an iminent launch the actual hypothetical presented is more like you hear someone who isn't lily white bought a gun, so you shoot them in the face preemptively
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Think ISIS or ISIS 2.0, not Iran.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
It's funny how not even Harris claims that science can tell us what's right and wrong, and that it takes philosophy can do that. Predictably, his philosophy is made up of racism, bigotry and colonialism. I wonder if he knows.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:Think ISIS or ISIS 2.0, not Iran. the bit im quoting is re: sam harris saying "if iran got nukes, we'd ahve to nuke iran. it's the only way to be safe" so no, let's not
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:the bit im quoting is re: sam harris saying "if iran got nukes, we'd ahve to nuke iran. it's the only way to be safe" so no, let's not i think you'll find if you take an objective and rational view of his words you'll see that if you swap out some concepts and take a less than textual reading of the passage then the true, logical meaning will become apparent. if you can sit still and concentrate that long, that is
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
When did he write it? Why are you nit picking semantics rather than debate about the dangers of the perversion of a believe in the afterlife?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Because that's what the loving thread is about.Literally The Worst posted:the bit im quoting is re: sam harris saying "if iran got nukes, we'd ahve to nuke iran. it's the only way to be safe" so no, let's not And specifically the sentence that begins the passage: quote:It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. How moronic. This is why Harris is such a harmful "public intellectual," because he encourages this kind of sloppy thinking. There is no "special Muslim problem" for nuclear deterrence, it's the same old problem of weapons falling into the hands of an irrational actor. Harris cannot see this because he is an idiot and a bigot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:When did he write it? Why are you nit picking semantics rather than debate about the dangers of the perversion of a believe in the afterlife? he literally wrote it in 2013, also saying "don't try to change the thing being discussed because you find the answer unpalatable unless you squint at the question funny" is not nit-picking also from the same article quote:Because I consider Islam to be especially belligerent and inimical to the norms of civil discourse, my views are often described as “racist” by my critics. i wonder why he thinks islam is that much worse
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:When did he write it? Why are you nit picking semantics rather than debate about the dangers of the perversion of a believe in the afterlife? i agree, why are we discussing the context and meaning of words on a page when we could just be using that as a springboard to complain about other people's beliefs anyway it should be pretty rational that he's talking about a non-state bandit regime when he's talking about an islamist state gaining long range nuclear weapons and not a well known, stable theocracratic state with active rocketry and nuclear engineering development programs. thats just logical, and objective
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
an actual quote from sam harris, from pre-that article:quote:The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists edit that's from 2006 here's another quote about that quote explaining why no its totally okay guys quote:The whole purpose of that essay (written in 2006) was to express my concern that the political correctness of the Left has made it taboo to even notice the menace of political Islam, leaving only right-wing fanatics to do the job. lmao
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i agree, why are we discussing the context and meaning of words on a page when we could just be using that as a springboard to complain about other people's beliefs I like the idea that all the professionals and industrialists who have been working on this for decades finally ship the missile and high-five each other like "yes bro we're all about to be annihilated!" And then the supreme leader is in a meeting about rural education then somebody runs in like "it's ready!!!" and they all drop their laptops and ululate while he gets out the nuclear football
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I like the idea that all the professionals and industrialists who have been working on this for decades finally ship the missile and high-five each other like "yes bro we're all about to be annihilated!" this sounds like a great death cult tbh
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:it's the same old problem of weapons falling into the hands of an irrational actor. The irrationality of whom is caused by religious precepts. That is the point. If you wanna debate just how much religious beliefs play into a person's actions - one of the few fruitful lines of discussion in this thread, sadly curtailed in its infancy - I very much encourage you to do so. But trying to skip over that discussion by labeling all discussion of Islamic doctrine as bigoted is going to get us fuckin nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:But trying to skip over that discussion by labeling all discussion of Islamic doctrine as bigoted isn't actually what happened
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:The irrationality of whom is caused by religious precepts. That is the point. It's a stupid and wrong point, and if Harris wasn't such a bigot he wouldn't have started from this proposition in the first place
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I like the idea that all the professionals and industrialists who have been working on this for decades finally ship the missile and high-five each other like "yes bro we're all about to be annihilated!" Are you implying that people smart enough to build a bomb would never be simultaneously deranged enough to use it? Because that is demonstrably untrue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's a stupid and wrong point, and if Harris wasn't such a bigot he wouldn't have started from this proposition in the first place Yes, it is. That they believe they will survive their own death is a prime motivator for being willing to die.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Most people in this country believe that too. Somehow they don't seem too eager to die, though.GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Are you implying that people smart enough to build a bomb would never be simultaneously deranged enough to use it? Because that is demonstrably untrue. No, but it doesn't let us off the hook any more than it does Iran
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Are you implying that people smart enough to build a bomb would never be simultaneously deranged enough to use it? Because that is demonstrably untrue. i'm implying that you're smart enough to type words in the english language but not smart enough to actually use it coherently, if that helps
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Yes, it is. That they believe they will survive their own death is a prime motivator for being willing to die. cool so why are we singling out islam it's not like any religions that are popular in america have a concept of martyrdom or anything
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:it's not like any religions that are popular in america have a concept of martyrdom or anything Not nearly to the same extent that Islam does. Here again we find the old canard of "all our religions really are the same, at their core."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Not nearly to the same extent that Islam does. Here again we find the old canard of "all our religions really are the same, at their core." Utterly baseless assertion fueled by your fedora kings
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Not nearly to the same extent that Islam does. Here again we find the old canard of "all our religions really are the same, at their core." You should try responding to the words o say and not the words I don't You should also try backing up your bullshit and explaining why you think Islam is a singularly awful religion
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Utterly baseless assertion fueled by your fedora kings please, i can barely read and i can't think my own thoughts through, i'm more of a porkpie baron
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Not nearly to the same extent that Islam does. Here again we find the old canard of "all our religions really are the same, at their core." also what i was implying was that the reason you and sam harris have this virulent hatred of islam and think it is truly THe Worst even compared to the scourge of religion in general is because it's mostly brown people, namaste
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:also what i was implying was that the reason you and sam harris have this virulent hatred of islam and think it is truly THe Worst even compared to the scourge of religion in general is because it's mostly brown people, namaste Hey look, it only took 16 pages for him to admit what he was driving at. Let's see if I called it: SedanChair posted:Let me go ahead and respond to the OP since it struck me as having value. It may have been revealed as a stalking horse for "how can we be polite about calling Islam a subhuman ideology" but let me put that to the side. Why shucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Harris' whole deal is to pose as a thoughtful, soft-spoken humanist and find loopholes for vile poo poo regarding the biggest 'Other' boogeyman of the day. Torture is terrible, but look, the good guys can't always follow the rulebook when facing these monster here. Ethnic profiling is abhorrent, but we can't afford to be weak with civilization hanging in the balance. Nuclear genocide of whole populations is unspeakable, except for this scenario I cooked up to justify it. He didn't even justify what the hell an 'Islamist' is. Is it just practicing muslims? Wahhabi muslims? Which side was Islamist in the Iran/Iraq war? Do you need to have a kill count under your belt or is just the risk of a future one enough? Do your atrocities have to go beyond a certain threshold, like say, more than the Vietnam killcount in Vietnam, the soviest in Ukraine, or Germans in ww2? It says a lot that he doesn't think that, say, a fascist genocidal western country would also fall under that sanction. --- Speaking as someone who was a strong catholic, had a gradual but quick deconversion in my early teens, the whole New Atheist thing was a colossal disappointment. After a decade or so of having to keep my lack of faith in the closet, it suddenly felt like there were smart, respectable, accomplished people throwing their hats in the ring and saying that nonbelievers also deserved to have a voice in current affairs. Dawkins was the biggest letdown. His book was quite good, and bizarrely enough given his later statements, it even held up feminism as a positive example of conscience-raising for a more humanist platform. Then he clarified that apparently western women can't feel bad about poor treatment while one muslim girl is being circumcised out there, and started letting his inner Pat Condell show. Hitchens was a known quantity when I came to him, so I wasn't really bummed. Polemicists will always step on a landmine given enough time, and eventually the only people who will keep following them are fanboys and those who find a particular angle of his screeds useful. Harris seemed weak and pandering from the get-go. It could be his style just never meshed with me, but when he started throwing his lot with much of the worst of political/internet culture, I had already written him off as a John Yoo figure with a different angle. The amazing Atheist was a bullet i dodged from moment one. He always came across as a whiny loser who cared far more about getting back at others for all the real or imagined slights he ever suffered than anyone honestly trying to build a better worldview to benefit everyone. The fact that he stayed big (and arguably got bigger) after his early attacks on rape victims should have been an early sign of how shot through with bitter misanthropes the whole thing was. Youtube celebrity Thunderf00t...now THAT was a disappointment. Science booster, antiwar advocate, humorous stomper of creationists and libertarians! What more could a young secular lefty want? Then the whole Elevatorgate thing revealed that he'd much rather defend his privileges and pride than anyone else's rights or dignity. He became such an oily poo poo that even some of his old stuff now felt like opportunistic bullying. The one person I feel bad for of the big 'New Atheist' bigshots (even though he refuses the term) is PZ Myers. He's always been abrasive and never the best of writers, but he's always been consistent in his positions, willing to give the other side a proper say, and careful about enabling his own side's shitlords. He could easily have stayed big by making common cause with The amazing Atheist and other MRA/Dark Enlightenment wankers who came out in the aftermath of ElevatorGate/Gamergate, but he stuck to his guns and called them out on their filth. And his blog (and network) is a desolate shadow of its former scope due to it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Basically for 15 pgs OP has defended Harris' e-honor. Sam Harris does no wrong and so long as needs defending, OP will be there. His guardian, his protector. His dark knight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:also what i was implying was that the reason you and sam harris have this virulent hatred of islam and think it is truly THe Worst even compared to the scourge of religion in general is because it's mostly brown people, namaste Right, and I'm the one reading into statements ideas that aren't there. SedanChair posted:Stated beliefs are nothing more than a cover for our animal instincts. Within Christianity you have Fred Phelps and Martin Luther King Jr. Within Islam you have ISIS and the Zakat Foundation. In those places where ISIS is operating, there are always civilians who deplore their actions and cite verses to show their hypocrisy. Most religions are broad enough to encompass the entire spectrum of human values, and people segregate themselves to different points on that spectrum. Do they teach their children humanity or brutality using religious frameworks? Of course. But to get hung up on the religion itself is foolish. They'd be deploring gays and beheading people, or housing the homeless and building schools, with different frameworks. What really drives people is individual relationships. One of many posts I meant to respond to but missed earlier. I think we have a genuine disagreement over the bolded part; I really don't understand how you can think this is true. Without a doctrine they believe to be issued from the creator of the universe telling them to, religious people would want to kill gays just as much? With just the same alacrity? Again, it seems that you think religious beliefs somehow aren't actionable in the way that conventional beliefs are. Maybe you don't think beliefs are actionable ever? Surely this won't be the case. If you believe the statement "your child is in danger" that will cause you to act in certain ways you otherwise wouldn't. It's not like "oh I was predisposed to be someone who would jump and run and fight Fred over there whether I believed he had my kid hostage or not". The belief has consequences. Why is it that you think religious belief is exempt from this? I will of course concede that there is a variety of stances even within the same belief system, but this does not mean those beliefs have zero effect on the person who holds them. How about a different example, one that gets away from all of these useless and obstructive charges of bigotry: Catholics eating the Eucharist. Are they motivated to eat their weekly wafer and drink their weekly sip of wine because they're just the sort of people who would want to do that anyway? It's just that the fans of wafers found Catholicism and thought, "this is the one for me!"? Or is it that they are taught a ritual, which is spiritually important, and continue that ritual based on that belief?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Okay, well, his situation included the analogous action to "pointing the gun" so I guess you're arguing against no one. You may just not be aware of the terminology "Islamist Regime" and all the baggage that comes with it; think of Al-Quada, not [the Muslim population within] Egypt. "Islamist" means someone who advocates for the creation of a state which operates by the rules set forth in Islam, it does not include a requirement for violence any more than being an individual who lives their life by the rules set forth in Islam does. So unless you think that Muslims are inherently violent that isn't at all what the word means. I should also point out that Mr Harris apparently includes the potential for intelligence inaccuracy in his statement, so, I am forced to conclude, he recommends an overwhelming and immediate nuclear strike on any country that he reasonably suspects of being a) governed according to the tenets of Islam and b) possibly in the possession of nuclear weapons. I would have loved to watched the cold war with him in charge, albeit ideally from the moon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Are you implying that people smart enough to build a bomb would never be simultaneously deranged enough to use it? Because that is demonstrably untrue. I suppose a curious counter-example to raise is the Kargil War. The Republic of India was in an armed conflict with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, both of whom possessed nuclear weapons. Pakistan was ruled by an Islamist and India by the Hindu nationalist party. Why do you think these two countries, one of the few instances of nuclear powers directly engaging in armed conflict, didn't lead to a nuclear attack?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Yes, it is. That they believe they will survive their own death is a prime motivator for being willing to die. That doesn't seem to be the case... They do it because think it creates meaning in their life and that they will help make the world a better place. http://www.npr.org/2015/12/15/459697926/the-psychology-of-radicalization-how-terrorist-groups-attract-young-followers "Among those mindsets: A belief that the world is a disaster, that peaceful change is not possible, that self-sacrifice is honorable, that noble ends justify immoral means, and that it is possible to create a utopia."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 12:02 |
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Basically for 15 pgs OP has defended Harris' e-honor. Sam Harris does no wrong and so long as needs defending, OP will be there. Right, the discussion that's been happening for the last few pages, happened in all of the pages. I honestly don't really want to be talking about Harris, I want to be talking about, you know, the stuff I outlined in the OP. Interesting that you didn't phrase it "15 pages of people wanting to hate Harris for false charges of racism". The discussion has two sides, yet I'm the one to blame? Course.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 22:31
|
|