Heavy's Sandvich
Member
I'm just coming to the end.
I've been in a philosophy seminar.
In fact, my degree is in it. Sam Harris pls.
I've been in a philosophy seminar.
In fact, my degree is in it. Sam Harris pls.
I find your post far more ironic.
Not to mention the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda.
Or the Christian groups acting in Nigeria.
Or anti-abortion sentiment in Ireland.
Or the bomb attacks and "assassinations" of abortion doctors in the US.
Edit: my point isn't to denigrate Christianity by bringing these up. Just examples to make him reconsider the pacifying nature of Christ's message.
I need to be clearer. I don't agree with his formulation. But say if I did, those would serve as an example his formulation is, at best, undercooked.
Is criticism 'punishment' now?Smh... seriously? you are buying into this Fox News level talking point?
I don't even know what the purpose of it is? even if 90% of Muslims supported the action I don't think we are justified in generalizing to the point where we punish the 10% that don't. doing so is the definition of bigotry
Been watching this for a half hour and surprisingly I was with Sam, until around the 33:00 mark where he debates that the Old Testament isn't as bad as the Quran. His interpretation is of the end game of both texts if quite inaccurate. It's like he entirely forget about the crusades, baptism by the sword, or early Christianity in the Roman empire.
Is criticism 'punishment' now?
Criticism is a ploy now? Come on.you are hiding behind the veil of criticism. there is something called criticism and something call hatred. yours is not criticism, yours is hate for a belief and a criticism of those who are moderates as why are they even following it when they have done nothing to you. .
Been watching this for a half hour and surprisingly I was with Sam, until around the 33:00 mark where he debates that the Old Testament isn't as bad as the Quran. His interpretation is of the end game of both texts if quite inaccurate. It's like he entirely forget about the crusades, baptism by the sword, or early Christianity in the Roman empire.
Been watching this for a half hour and surprisingly I was with Sam, until around the 33:00 mark where he debates that the Old Testament isn't as bad as the Quran. His interpretation is of the end game of both texts if quite inaccurate. It's like he entirely forget about the crusades, baptism by the sword, or early Christianity in the Roman empire.
Yeah, this is where he lost me too. He was struggling to come up with valid reasons to explain why Islam, and the Quran, is worse than its Abrahamic counterparts. And any explanations he gave to justify his claims were easily and firmly rebutted by Cenk Uygur.
What? He definitely does not say the Old Testament isn't as bad. I think there's a point where he contends the Old Testament is actually worse.
Interesting conversation. Sort of surprised by Sam's failure to properly understand and appreciate the socio-economics, poverty and lack of education fueling this shit. Look throughout the history of the world and you see a 1:1 relationship between extreme behavior and lack. Usually socio-economic lack and the impressionability of people living under poor conditions. Take American terrorism, for example, in the form of the Ku Klux Klan. That was a movement fueled by poverty and anger. Christianity was simply the vessel they used to excuse their behavior.
I am sorry, but why are you so snoopy about my beliefs? Is the discussion related to me? It does not matter what I individually believe in, and you have not proven how its related at all to the discussion at all. You do not have knowledge of anything you have spoken so far.Yes, hypocrite. This is why i asked what your belief was. If you believe as others do that this is the word of god then interpretation shouldn't be a factor. If it is then either your god was poor at picking a prophet or your prophet was bad at communication and you have a bigger problem. Your god is a buffoon.
If you don't then who is to say your interpretation is anymore justified than fundamental Muslims' interpretation of the text? You're both right. You may take the passage I quoted as self-defense, radical islamist may even take it as self-defense as well, but their interpretation of who is offending them can be vast, and they can claim jihiad on anyone. Who are you to say they are wrong? Insult the prophet by drawing a cartoon? Death. Slander? Death. Promote democracy and equality for all? Death. Jihad therefore can be justified very loosely.
Is criticism 'punishment' now?
broad criticism that generalalizes diverse groups and promotes hatred? Yes that is punishment.
every time someone makes a generalizing and stereotyping comment about say black people that might even be true for a certain fraction of the group we are punishing those that it doesn't apply to.
I am complete atheist and I despise religion but to say that it is other Muslims who have a responsibility to criticize bad actions by other Muslims it's simply stupid. It might make sense as a PR move given that There are bigots out there making the argument that they should and criticize them when they wont and make them complicit by association.
You shouldn't be. If he acknowledged those things, there would be no excuse for his anti-muslim bigotry. Anyone who understands that poor, oppressed, brutalized people adopt brutal behavior - that it is the oppressor who radicalizes the oppressed - would waste no time isolating a specific marginalized group for their unique flavor of brutality. Especially a group that has some of the most powerful nations on Earth constantly "bombing them back to the stone age".
But here's my problem with Sam Harris:
Let's say that everything he says about Islam is true. The fact that he refuses to acknowlege that it is Muslims who are in a uniquely vulnerable position, and not the rest of the world, highlights his extrame racism and irresponsibility.
Look at the facts of the current geopolitical situation. The United States has an unmatched nuclear arsenal with the ability to annihilate all life on the planet 17 times over. The U.S. has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined, giving it the unimpeded ability to strike any nation with a coastline. It's got more tonnage of more advanced bombs than any other nation. And it is backed by a coalition of semi-willing former empires in Western Europe with their own formidable powers, and a client state in Israel that is eager for any opportunity to unleash devastation on nearby Muslim populations.
That coalition of nations is responsible for more death over the previous century than any every other nation, kingdom, and empire in human history combined. Moreover, the U.S., UK, and Israel have killed at least one million Muslims in just the last fifteen years. Is Sam Harris really going to look straight into a camera and say ISIS is the bigger threat? When you talk about Islam and barbarism, the only honest and rational point you can make is that the followers of Islam have been on the receiving end of more barbarism in the form of cluster bombs, shock and awe, night raids, targeted assassinations, and starvation by sanction than any other peoples over the last fifteen years. That's not debatable, all you have to do is count the bodies.
So yea, Sam, Islam sucks. It's a shitty religion and if we're trying to write a comprehensive list, it might be the shittiest. But when you live in the most powerful empire the world has ever seen - an empire that has already demonstrated an impressive hardon for killing all things brown-skinned - maybe it's a bad fucking idea to talk about one group being a special problem. Maybe you're adding ideas to an already bigoted culture that Muslims are a special class that deserve the extra wariness they've received. Maybe people will start debating if more aggressive solutions are required to deal with the 'Muslim problem'. That's an ugly place to go, and Sam Harris is already way to far down that road.
Harris has no grounds to complain about Salon calling him a "douchebag".
Wilful blindness goes further though. Not only have they been denounced by a broad range of members of the community and fatwas written to utterly reject it - the people on the front line combating this are fellow Muslims.
Sam's stance on using nuclear weapons is most alarming and ridiculous.
What I didn't understand how being the good guys wouldn't be transformed when committing such acts.
Like intention alone appears to be enough to exonerate one from their actions.
Hatred? Yeah . . . I hate persecution of homosexuals. I hate the subjugation of women. I hate the attacks on the Yazidi people. I hate the fighting between Sunni & Shia. I hate the land grabs by the Israelis. I hate the beheading of aid workers by ISIS.you are hiding behind the veil of criticism. there is something called criticism and something call hatred. yours is not criticism, yours is hate for a belief and a criticism of those who are moderates as why are they even following it when they have done nothing to you. The fact that you are not joining forces with these moderates to fight those that the moderates hate too shows you don't really care about moderates and will often as shown in this discussion throw them under the bus while making the point.
That is not criticism, that is being ignorant to whole situation.
I feel like every time I hear about Sam Harris it involves someone else trying to explain what he "really meant."
Harris himself does it all the time as well. Invariably, the follow-ups to articles he writes are filled with caveats, qualifications, and empty rationalizations.
You'd think he'd strive to make himself come off as clear and lucid the first time around, yet this appears to consistently pose great difficulties for him.
Hatred? Yeah . . . I hate persecution of homosexuals. I hate the subjugation of women. I hate the attacks on the Yazidi people. I hate the fighting between Sunni & Shia. I hate the land grabs by the Israelis. I hate the beheading of aid workers by ISIS.
And I will always speak out against them.
And I hope you hate these things too. But instead of speaking out against them, you direct your anger at me! Why?
I appreciate your efforts to push a moderate interpretation of Islam and I hope you have great success with them. However, I cannot join you in that effort as I am not a Muslim and to me it is all a bunch of fairy tales. (No offense intended . . . and you basically believe the same thing of all religions other than Islam.) So I can't help propagate that moderate view. And if I did, that would probably do more harm than good . . . what Muslim is going to believe the atheist that is trying to get them to change their view on Islam?
I also think that effort is doomed to failure. I bring this up all the time and get no response so I presume you agree with it somewhat . . . . The Koran is supposed to be the perfect word of god and completely true/right/just. Yet, it has a lot of hateful stuff in it that causes problems. This creates a logical problem because you either have to admit it is not perfect, follow the hateful stuff, or ignore the logical problem with cognitive dissonance (I'm guessing that is your approach). I just don't think a solution that relies on cognitive dissonance is a good one that will work with everyone. It has been more than a decade since the stupid act of 9/11 yet every day new Muslims join the jihad over at ISIS (yes, it is a small percentage but they are still very dangerous).
So I provide an alternative path that others can adopt. A path of science, logic, pragmatism, enlightenment, and freedom. It is alternative path that people can take instead of getting trapped into believing dogmas that may push a person toward violence and persecution of others. It is my way of fighting against the things I hate listed in the first paragraph.
Now just as I appreciate your efforts if trying to guide people away from those things, I hope you can appreciate my efforts in trying to provide another path to guide people away from those hateful things. So instead of attacking me . . . attack those terrible things.
You shouldn't be. If he acknowledged those things, there would be no excuse for his anti-muslim bigotry. Anyone who understands that poor, oppressed, brutalized people adopt brutal behavior - that it is the oppressor who radicalizes the oppressed - would waste no time isolating a specific marginalized group for their unique flavor of brutality. Especially a group that has some of the most powerful nations on Earth constantly "bombing them back to the stone age".
But here's my problem with Sam Harris:
Let's say that everything he says about Islam is true. The fact that he refuses to acknowlege that it is Muslims who are in a uniquely vulnerable position, and not the rest of the world, highlights his extrame racism and irresponsibility.
Look at the facts of the current geopolitical situation. The United States has an unmatched nuclear arsenal with the ability to annihilate all life on the planet 17 times over. The U.S. has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined, giving it the unimpeded ability to strike any nation with a coastline. It's got more tonnage of more advanced bombs than any other nation. And it is backed by a coalition of semi-willing former empires in Western Europe with their own formidable powers, and a client state in Israel that is eager for any opportunity to unleash devastation on nearby Muslim populations.
That coalition of nations is responsible for more death over the previous century than any every other nation, kingdom, and empire in human history combined. Moreover, the U.S., UK, and Israel have killed at least one million Muslims in just the last fifteen years. Is Sam Harris really going to look straight into a camera and say ISIS is the bigger threat? When you talk about Islam and barbarism, the only honest and rational point you can make is that the followers of Islam have been on the receiving end of more barbarism in the form of cluster bombs, shock and awe, night raids, targeted assassinations, and starvation by sanction than any other peoples over the last fifteen years. That's not debatable, all you have to do is count the bodies.
So yea, Sam, Islam sucks. It's a shitty religion and if we're trying to write a comprehensive list, it might be the shittiest. But when you live in the most powerful empire the world has ever seen - an empire that has already demonstrated an impressive hardon for killing all things brown-skinned - maybe it's a bad fucking idea to talk about one group being a special problem. Maybe you're adding ideas to an already bigoted culture that Muslims are a special class that deserve the extra wariness they've received. Maybe people will start debating if more aggressive solutions are required to deal with the 'Muslim problem'. That's an ugly place to go, and Sam Harris is already way to far down that road.
Harris has no grounds to complain about Salon calling him a "douchebag".
He explicitly does:I could give so many examples of the misrepresentations in the media or in the recent threads on this board. He explicitly doesn't support racist profiling despite the drive by posts claiming that he does,
After much preparation, the couple proceeded toward the body scanner, only to encounter resistance. It seems that they had neglected to take off their shoes. A pair of TSA screeners stepped forward to prevent this dangerous breach of security—removing what appeared to be orthopedic footwear from both the woman in the wheelchair and the man now staggering at her side. This imposed obvious stress on two harmless and bewildered people and caused considerable delay for everyone in my line. I turned to see if anyone else was amazed by such a perversion of vigilance. The man behind me, who could have played the villain in a Bollywood film, looked unconcerned.
I don't give a fuck how he chooses to dress it up -- if he advocates for ethnicity to be used as an indicator for terrorism, that's racial profiling by definition. Unless you can point me to an article or passage from his book where he clearly defines what the fuck "someone that looks like a muslim" is supposed to mean, and he explicitly excludes "has brown skin" as an indicator -- I'm going to continue treating him the same way on this issue I treat a fox news host talking about "thugs".
I don't even know what your qualification means when white skin would also be an indicator. I mean, this is probably the one issue where I think Harris is the most unequivocally wrong because there is no good proxy based on the factors he is articulating. But calling it racial profiling is just disingenuous.
Hatred? Yeah . . . I hate persecution of homosexuals. I hate the subjugation of women. I hate the attacks on the Yazidi people. I hate the fighting between Sunni & Shia. I hate the land grabs by the Israelis. I hate the beheading of aid workers by ISIS.
And I will always speak out against them.
And I hope you hate these things too. But instead of speaking out against them, you direct your anger at me! Why?
I appreciate your efforts to push a moderate interpretation of Islam and I hope you have great success with them. However, I cannot join you in that effort as I am not a Muslim and to me it is all a bunch of fairy tales. (No offense intended . . . and you basically believe the same thing of all religions other than Islam.) So I can't help propagate that moderate view. And if I did, that would probably do more harm than good . . . what Muslim is going to believe the atheist that is trying to get them to change their view on Islam?
I also think that effort is doomed to failure. I bring this up all the time and get no response so I presume you agree with it somewhat . . . . The Koran is supposed to be the perfect word of god and completely true/right/just. Yet, it has a lot of hateful stuff in it that causes problems. This creates a logical problem because you either have to admit it is not perfect, follow the hateful stuff, or ignore the logical problem with cognitive dissonance (I'm guessing that is your approach). I just don't think a solution that relies on cognitive dissonance is a good one that will work with everyone. It has been more than a decade since the stupid act of 9/11 yet every day new Muslims join the jihad over at ISIS (yes, it is a small percentage but they are still very dangerous).
So I provide an alternative path that others can adopt. A path of science, logic, pragmatism, enlightenment, and freedom. It is alternative path that people can take instead of getting trapped into believing dogmas that may push a person toward violence and persecution of others. It is my way of fighting against the things I hate listed in the first paragraph.
Now just as I appreciate your efforts if trying to guide people away from those things, I hope you can appreciate my efforts in trying to provide another path to guide people away from those hateful things. So instead of attacking me . . . attack those terrible things.
The way he is describing it, white skin simply would not get you disqualified. That is not remotely the same thing as using it as an indicator.
You shouldn't be. If he acknowledged those things, there would be no excuse for his anti-muslim bigotry. Anyone who understands that poor, oppressed, brutalized people adopt brutal behavior - that it is the oppressor who radicalizes the oppressed - would waste no time isolating a specific marginalized group for their unique flavor of brutality. Especially a group that has some of the most powerful nations on Earth constantly "bombing them back to the stone age".
But here's my problem with Sam Harris:
Let's say that everything he says about Islam is true. The fact that he refuses to acknowlege that it is Muslims who are in a uniquely vulnerable position, and not the rest of the world, highlights his extrame racism and irresponsibility.
Look at the facts of the current geopolitical situation. The United States has an unmatched nuclear arsenal with the ability to annihilate all life on the planet 17 times over. The U.S. has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined, giving it the unimpeded ability to strike any nation with a coastline. It's got more tonnage of more advanced bombs than any other nation. And it is backed by a coalition of semi-willing former empires in Western Europe with their own formidable powers, and a client state in Israel that is eager for any opportunity to unleash devastation on nearby Muslim populations.
That coalition of nations is responsible for more death over the previous century than any every other nation, kingdom, and empire in human history combined. Moreover, the U.S., UK, and Israel have killed at least one million Muslims in just the last fifteen years. Is Sam Harris really going to look straight into a camera and say ISIS is the bigger threat? When you talk about Islam and barbarism, the only honest and rational point you can make is that the followers of Islam have been on the receiving end of more barbarism in the form of cluster bombs, shock and awe, night raids, targeted assassinations, and starvation by sanction than any other peoples over the last fifteen years. That's not debatable, all you have to do is count the bodies.
So yea, Sam, Islam sucks. It's a shitty religion and if we're trying to write a comprehensive list, it might be the shittiest. But when you live in the most powerful empire the world has ever seen - an empire that has already demonstrated an impressive hardon for killing all things brown-skinned - maybe it's a bad fucking idea to talk about one group being a special problem. Maybe you're adding ideas to an already bigoted culture that Muslims are a special class that deserve the extra wariness they've received. Maybe people will start debating if more aggressive solutions are required to deal with the 'Muslim problem'. That's an ugly place to go, and Sam Harris is already way to far down that road.
Harris has no grounds to complain about Salon calling him a "douchebag".
I dont mistake Mohammad Mossadegh for some sort of perfect politician., nor can I say what would have happened had he retained power. What I do recognize, in this history, is that the United States has no principle that it adheres to as blindly as it does its jealous control of the Muslim worlds resources, and that no matter how moderate you are, if you stand in the way of the United States getting what it wants, we will invade your country, kill your children, destroy your government, and steal your resources. Were Bill Maher and Sam Harris actually dedicated to building a less violent world, rather than their own cult of personality, they might ask themselves how, in those conditions, moderation could ever survive.
Been watching this for a half hour and surprisingly I was with Sam, until around the 33:00 mark where he debates that the Old Testament isn't as bad as the Quran. His interpretation is of the end game of both texts if quite inaccurate. It's like he entirely forget about the crusades, baptism by the sword, or early Christianity in the Roman empire.
But it might help.While I agree that religion can be bad. Humans are inherently greedy, rude, angry, etc. Even if we were to take the path you preach there would be massive problems like we see today. Getting rid of religion will not solve racism, tribalism, etc.
Related to some of the points you're making, Freddie DeBoer's post on The United States and the "moderate Muslim" is great.
I think that's a fantastic paragraph distilling another perspective. Harris wants reformation and moderation to win the war of ideas in Islam, but the US actively contributes to the other side by its actions, some of which Harris has supported. That's a problem I don't see him address, instead he often does this 'let's just suppose we are the good guys here' thing.
You are not addressing the point I made. He allows for the possibility that white skinned terrorists exist, yes, and he does say they should be searched as well. But nowhere in that piece does he imply that whiteness can be used as an indication for anything. He does imply the opposite when he talks about the "bollywood villain" standing behind him or when he cries about "political correctness" getting in the way of ~*reason*~(btw, he quite clearly lists ethnicity as an example here, so i'm not sure why we're even having this conversation. )He said he would qualify, and he said (I think in the TYT interview as well, but I may be mistaken as to where I heard it) that we wouldn't be able to let white skinned people off the hook (my wording was poor here, I meant as a defensive response, not like he is the security or logic czar of the world) since there have been white fundamentalists.
If that logic sounds like it renders a lot of what he is advocating meaningless regarding the efficacy of profiling, I would completely agree, but it's still wholly different from 'brown people in this line and then everyone else.'
He actually doesn't want moderates to win. In Islam Moderates are those who are adherent to their faith and dont harm anyone. he wants people like Irshad manji to win who are casual Muslims and are not adherent to their faith. In fact he has in many ocassions called people like Irshad Manji as a moderate while anyone in their right mind would call her a liberal muslim
While I agree that religion can be bad. Humans are inherently greedy, rude, angry, etc. Even if we were to take the path you preach there would be massive problems like we see today. Getting rid of religion will not solve racism, tribalism, etc.
Related to some of the points you're making, Freddie DeBoer's post on The United States and the "moderate Muslim" is great.
I can't make sense of this. Try again.You 'HOPE' I hate these things too? What a disingenuous remark that hopefully I am against hate as if there is doubt.
For the upteenth time, I am no judge as to whether it is a 'legitimate ideology' nor are you. And whether it is 'legitimate' or not is completely irrelevant . . . what matters is that it exists and that it continues to exist.the incorrect notion in your argument is that by somehow using the ISIS ideology as a legitimate ideology,
The endless parade of strawmen continues . . . ugh. Create doubt that a moderate ideology in Islam exists? I just thanked you for your efforts that I'm saying does not exist? I find it increasingly difficult to talk to you because you make wildly illogical assertions.you are trying to create a doubt that a moderate ideology in Islam exists, its the same strategy Sam Harris uses, disavow Moderates as not relevant in the grand scheme of things and the minority of fundamentalists is a greater idea than the moderate idea.
Of course what I said is:By portraying the radical view as the primary view of Islam in your argument you immediately say Islam says this, thus by proxy,
yet every day new Muslims join the jihad over at ISIS (yes, it is a small percentage but they are still very dangerous).
Can't parse this. You may want to slow down and gather your thoughts. You seem to be melting down.If the moderates present their view, why is the response well ISIS believes this, why do you care what ISIS believes in when the purpose is overcome ISIS fundamentalism with moderate views among ALL Muslims.
I just explained to you why I cannot make the moderate argument. What part of that did you fail to understand?Why do you care what the fundamentalists view, that care is what Muslims who are moderates are countering, if anything you should be saying the best way to resolve this is for the radicalist ideas to be overcome by moderate ideas as a whole but instead the moderate view is nowhere in the argument presented by you. Its non-existent.
Neither of us "invalidate the view of Moderates" and in fact we both explicitly say we want to support them. However, neither Sam or I are Muslims. We both think Islam (and all other religions) are all nonsense. You have to accept that. You think the same of all other religions. Get over it already.People like Sam harris invalidate the view of Moderates because they only seem to showcase the extremist view because only that seems to present their case.
Why? I think there is are a couple different eminently logical answers:How many times has Sam Harris said that the moderate view should be the majority view, I am not refering to the left liberal view who are casual muslims like Irshad Manji I am refering to the view held by Majority of Muslims who are adherent to their faith, he has never done it. Why?
You really are impossible to communicate with. You just contradicted YOURSELF wherein you admitted that he is working with Irshad Manji.The only reform he views is to eradicate it, thats it.
Related to some of the points you're making, Freddie DeBoer's post on The United States and the "moderate Muslim" is great.
Again, this argument is a great oversimplification of the divide between the two peopleand betrays an ignorance of history. Israel/Palestine is about much more than religion. If everyone in the region became an atheist, they wouldn't suddenly live in piece. Palestinians would still be angry over being forced off their ancestral homeland. Israelis would still distrust Palestinians. A one state solution would have the exact same barriers without religion. This is not a conflict over thousand year old religions, it's about a far more recent example of colonialism. What's preventing the Israelis and Palestinians from cohabiting peacefully in a single state is not their religion, it's recent history. I feel like you're fundamentally misunderstanding important issues about the role of religion in the Israeli state and what it means to be a Jewish state.You completely miss the point. Democracy IS A SOLUTION to conflicts when the sides are rational. The sides present their views, run their candidates, and a majority votes. This is repeated regularly to ensure the government continues to reflect the will of the people.
But we can't use that system here because the sides are deeply divided with irrational religious dogma.
Are you about to call me a bigot?
You are not addressing the point I made. He allows for the possibility that white skinned terrorists exist, yes, and he does say they should be searched as well. But nowhere in that piece does he imply that whiteness can be used as an indication for anything. He does imply the opposite when he talks about the "bollywood villain" standing behind him or when he cries about "political correctness" getting in the way of ~*reason*~(btw, he quite clearly lists ethnicity as an example here, so i'm not sure why we're even having this conversation. )
If having brown skin or looking middle-eastern gets you a +1 on the terrorist score sheath, that's racial profiling. It doesn't need to involve a line for brown people only.
I don't think you implied it here. But it should be mentioned that getting rid of religion not solving x, y, and z is not an argument for the contrary.
New problems would certainly crop up, or existing problems may now be seen with unencumbered clarity. People will still draw non sequiturs to justify there actions, essentially bastardizing a belief. But that already happens with all beliefs. One thing seems clear is that religions hold attrocious beliefs that need to be bastardized just to convince yourself that the religion is intrinsically entirely moral and objectively good.