|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Only if you have decided in advance to be uncharitable. There is a vast difference between "The Jews are responsible" and "The Jewish tendency to otherise themselves as a group probably contributed to their treatment as outsiders". Hey, pop quiz: when a woman is raped do you consider her outfit and the time of night relevant evidence worth entering into the analysis?
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:30 |
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Hey, pop quiz: when a woman is raped do you consider her outfit and the time of night relevant evidence worth entering into the analysis? I asked the same thing and I'm really curious whether he backpedals or doubles down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Hey, pop quiz: when a woman is raped do you consider her outfit and the time of night relevant evidence worth entering into the analysis? Nope, but on that same token would you not warn a female friend or family member that it's unsafe to go by certain places when its dark? Your comparison is dumb and is normal DnD chaff. One person says something, very clearly, with a particular narrow area of applicability and then posters start trying to generalize it over other stuff in order to try shut it down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Nope, but on that same token would you not warn a female friend or family member that it's unsafe to go by certain places when its dark? So if they do still go to those places, how much of what happens is their fault, percentage wise, would you say?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I asked the same thing and I'm really curious whether he backpedals or doubles down. Rakosi posted:Nope, but on that same token would you not warn a female friend or family member that it's unsafe to go by certain places when its dark? Your comparison is dumb and is normal DnD chaff. One person says something, very clearly, with a particular narrow area of applicability and then posters start trying to generalize it over other stuff in order to try shut it down. Yeah, frankly WhoWhatNow you know better and I think you're being obtuse on purpose, do you even want to contribute? It has been shown pretty clearly that a lot of you are using quotes not within the context of their arguments and are arguing in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
He still thinks I said religion is the one and only cause of bigotry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Yeah, frankly WhoWhatNow you know better and I think you're being obtuse on purpose, do you even want to contribute? It has been shown pretty clearly that a lot of you are using quotes not within the context of their arguments and are arguing in bad faith. In what context is it ok to victim blame?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So if they do still go to those places, how much of what happens is their fault, percentage wise, would you say? I don't think you understand the difference between blame and responsibility. Its almost like life is complicated; that somone can do something irresponsible that put themselves in harms way, while still being blameless for the outcome because it was the result of another persons action.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Hey, pop quiz: when a woman is raped do you consider her outfit and the time of night relevant evidence worth entering into the analysis? Well as the wise Richard Dawkins says she certainly shouldn't be getting drunk at parties.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
So according to you guys who have gone down this whole weird, unrelated victim-blaming route, any father who gives advice to his daughter about staying safe at night; what places to avoid, not to get into cars with strangers, etc. is victim blaming his daughter. Lmao that having a moral highroad over a rapist is more important than, y'know, taking steps to minimize the chances of being raped.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:In what context is it ok to victim blame? In what context is it wrong to point out cause and effect? It isn't the same as saying someone deserved what they got and you loving know it. Seriously, contribute or go poo poo up a different thread. You continue peddling this line that has been addressed pretty thoroughly and had the brassballs to accuse someone else of being pedantic earlier, it's like you are reading what is being typed but are programmed to interpret as something else like you know what you want to answer to be but can't accept it is something else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:In what context is it wrong to point out cause and effect? It isn't the same as saying someone deserved what they got and you loving know it. It's stupidly reductive to say that jewish cultural distinctiveness contributed to the holocaust. It is a claim that has zero predictive or explanatory power. "They were targets because they were there. If they had erased themselves through total assimilation 500 years beforehand then they wouldn't have been there to be victimized."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
twodot posted:I also think that generating lists of conservatives who display general misogyny is a stupid thing to do. That's pretty dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:So according to you guys who have gone down this whole weird, unrelated victim-blaming route, any father who gives advice to his daughter about staying safe at night; what places to avoid, not to get into cars with strangers, etc. is victim blaming his daughter. Hahahahahahahaha How The gently caress Is The Holocaust Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away From The Genocide Like Nigga Take My Post-Event Advice Haha -you
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:Hahahahahahahaha How The gently caress Is The Holocaust Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away From The Genocide Like Nigga Take My Post-Event Advice Haha what
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
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. Religious expression is only a reflection of what is inside of people already. If you're inhumane, you'll participate in the inhumane forms and aspects of religion. If you value human rights, you'll gravitate towards the religious teachings and practices which have been developed to promote human rights. It's no different than politics, and to lots of people nowadays the feelings they get from politics and religion are probably the same. Looking for the causes of brutality in the old ideologies people follow, or the words that come out of their mouths, is worthless. We're apes in terms of who we choose to fight or love. Our words are just an overlay that it's all too easy to get distracted by.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Really so you were not put off by obvious hypocrisy of some of faith or say Wahabist attacks? At the time of deconversion, I had been struggling for a bit with the effects of prayer (or lack thereof), and a number of personal crisis like my brother having his first bout with schizophrenia and my godmothers slow descent into an eventual death. I had started to accept that no matter what I asked for, big or small, to help me get through my issues , I probably would not get it. I started listening to philosophical (and some just funny) podcasts and audiobooks, some of which were recommended here on SA, to pass the time at work when I was doing manual labor. This was not done out of a desperate need for an answer but because I was so dang bored and tended to think a bunch about anything but work, so why not something interesting ? And so I came to the conclusion that the reason behind there being no answer was neither insufficient piety or a big plan, but simply that there was no God. After that, a whole bunch of other stuff started making sense and some of the things you mentioned, like the attacks, were put in a new light and I started to research their origins a bit more thoroughly to see if the same idea of the lack of a guiding God held up there. That is about the time I started being "put off" about them, because as a believer I had said and done some really dumb poo poo for what amounted to no reason, and here were people doing the same sorts of mistakes or taken in by really bad arguments ( to give an example of this, I was for the longest time semi-skeptical evolution was the answer to complexity of life because I had bought that dumb boeing/cola comparison our favorite creationists tended to spout. This was propagated by a church in secular Sweden which also read a translated transcript of that loving terrible "today my parents killed me" audio clip )
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Religious expression is only a reflection of what is inside of people already. Jesus loving Christ these opinions are contentious at best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Good point. There is, in fact, no good definition of "New Atheists", especially what differentiates them from "old" Atheists. As for its efficacy, I think that the biggest thing that it accomplished in the end was giving people in religious communities an exit, and not really creating a movement of its own as much as eroding support for political Christianity in the US. The religious right has lost a huge amount of influence, and Trump is partly the culmination of that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Have fundamentalists and mormons traditionally lost most of their young people as they grow up, or is that a big change for them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:I think the best definition of New Atheism is mostly "the God Is Not Great Book Tour." It's run into a ditch because Creationism flamed out, Harris has been off on his goofy tangent to scientifically disprove the is-ought gap, and Hitchens is dead. I think the scandals in both the protestant right and the RCC pedophile scandals did that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:There is no possible honest reading of Sure there is. The inability/unwillingness to integrate into the society of whatever nation a group of people emigrate to leads the incumbent population to view them with suspicion. It happened with the Jews in Europe after the first world war, as Jewish communities were often insular. It's happening in the UK now with Muslim communities. It's got nothing to do with their ethnic or even religious roots. It's more about multiculturalism and how it fosters intolerance. If a group fails to integrate, they will be met with suspicion and ultimately derision. Wrongly I might add but ignorance is a fact of life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Not a fan of participating in threads like this one, butjiggerypokery posted:Sure there is. The inability/unwillingness to integrate into the society of whatever nation a group of people emigrate to leads the incumbent population to view them with suspicion. It happened with the Jews in Europe after the first world war, as Jewish communities were often insular. It's happening in the UK now with Muslim communities. It's got nothing to do with their ethnic or even religious roots. Jews had higher per capita participation in the German WW1 war effort than ethnic Germans did. One of the big reasons why the holocaust was initially so drat effective is that Jews just refused to believe that the country that so many of them died for was genuinely executing them in horrific numbers. In short, you're talking poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
It has gone all a bit  yeah. And it wasn't just the jews who didn't believe it. The suggestion that it was a myth persists to this day. It was the definition of unbelievable. But you are way, way off the mark with the point of this discussion. WW1 participation couldn't have less to do with it. The point is, rightly or wrongly, Sam Harris (not me) is arguing multiculturalism is a fragile ideal and (sadly) anything short of total assimilation is ammo for bigotry. The entire concept of whether a point is 'victim blaming' or not isn't helpful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:Sure there is. The inability/unwillingness to integrate into the society of whatever nation a group of people emigrate to leads the incumbent population to view them with suspicion. It happened with the Jews in Europe after the first world war, as Jewish communities were often insular. It's happening in the UK now with Muslim communities. It's got nothing to do with their ethnic or even religious roots. Garbage. Just as an easy example, Jews made numerous efforts to integrate into French culture. They were in particular great lovers of Napoleon and were some of his most enthusiastic supporters. Alfred Dreyfus also comes to mind, the archetypical example of the Jew who did everything in his power to serve his country whilst retaining his religious identity and got nothing for it. Integration is a two way street and the ones failing to make the connection from at least 1800 on was pretty consistently "not the Jews".
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 09:15
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:Garbage. Just as an easy example, Jews made numerous efforts to integrate into French culture. They were in particular great lovers of Napoleon and were some of his most enthusiastic supporters. Alfred Dreyfus also comes to mind, the archetypical example of the Jew who did everything in his power to serve his country whilst retaining his religious identity and got nothing for it. Integration is a two way street and the ones failing to make the connection from at least 1800 on was pretty consistently "not the Jews". I'm not saying debating whether the passage in the book is factually accurate, merely that interpreting it as bluntly "i fink it woz der joos fault" is obtuse and strawmanning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:The point is, rightly or wrongly, Sam Harris (not me) is arguing multiculturalism is a fragile ideal and (sadly) anything short of total assimilation is ammo for bigotry. This is exactly the point that Sam Harris was making and half of this thread didn't think this far into it- they got as far as the word 'Jew' and threw all their toys out. The rape victim-blaming comparison was pure cognitive failure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:No one is defending homophobia, you dipshit, we're saying religion is not the root cause, but rather a contributing one. And that's a stupid opinion. The religion may be not be causal in a deterministic sense but it is the primary and central one when it comes to doing things like stoning women to death for adultery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:The religion may be not be causal in a deterministic sense but it is the primary and central one when it comes to doing things like stoning women to death for adultery. Rakosi posted:This is exactly the point that Sam Harris was making and half of this thread didn't think this far into it- they got as far as the word 'Jew' and threw all their toys out. The rape victim-blaming comparison was pure cognitive failure. Do you guys even know what the fancy words you keep using mean?  I kinda feel bad for atheists in academia, like my brother, for ending up having to make an effort to distance themselves from cargo cultists of science like you, just because you happen to use the same word to describe an aspect of yourselves despite having almost no similarities otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
my dad posted:Do you guys even know what the fancy words you keep using mean? What the poo poo are you even talking about? If you didn't understand what I wrote I think you just need to read it again, or go back and see how it was relevant in the fallout of the victim-blaming derail. Apparently your brother got the smart genes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 10:38
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:I'm not saying debating whether the passage in the book is factually accurate, merely that interpreting it as bluntly "i fink it woz der joos fault" is obtuse and strawmanning. So, charitably, he's a loving idiot, uncharitably, he's a loving holocaust apologist. In neither case am I inclined to give his opinion much credence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:So, charitably, he's a loving idiot, uncharitably, he's a loving holocaust apologist. If by uncharitably, you mean "wrongly, if I deliberately misrepresent what he said and meant", then yes. This is one of the instances with which I disagree with Harris. Harris is guilty of grossly oversimplifying his point, so that it becomes ridiculous. If we're down with sweeping everything someone says under the rug because of one ill-conceived comment, then why are you still posting here OwlFancier, on the back of your "I don't see a direct link between religion and homophobia" comment. Makes you wonder if there's more than one apologist in this thread huh
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
my dad posted:Do you guys even know what the fancy words you keep using mean? What the actual gently caress. Maybe highlight sum der fancy wurds purdner? Da resta us would sure liken to know da meanin! Anyway, the main sticking point of disagreement I've consistently seen come up in these threads and with opponents of Hitchens and his cohorts has been over the claim that religious belief has a hand in molding behavior. If anything I think we can agree this is a central tenet of what we would term New Atheism that would help set it apart from other non believers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:If by uncharitably, you mean "wrongly, if I deliberately misrepresent what he said and meant", then yes. This is one of the instances with which I disagree with Harris. Harris is guilty of grossly oversimplifying his point, so that it becomes ridiculous. I require you to demonstrate to me that he has value, show me an argument that has worth and I will critique it properly, but otherwise I'm going to assume he's an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:32
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Anyway, the main sticking point of disagreement I've consistently seen come up in these threads and with opponents of Hitchens and his cohorts has been over the claim that religious belief has a hand in molding behavior. If anything I think we can agree this is a central tenet of what we would term New Atheism that would help set it apart from other non believers. Religious belief doesn't necessarily affect behavior. Most, if not all, religious institutions clearly seek to control behavior.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
Anos posted:Religious belief doesn't necessarily affect behavior. Most, if not all, religious institutions clearly seek to control behavior. Do you disagree that religion has been a core component of tradition, culture and society for thousands of years; the very same three things which drive human social development? When a child is born, are they born as homophobes or are they socialized into being them? OwlFancier posted:I require you to demonstrate to me that he has value, show me an argument that has worth and I will critique it properly, but otherwise I'm going to assume he's an idiot. Here's one, though I'm summarizing from memory and may not have it exactly; 9 million children under the age of 5 die every year (and the majority of these are not western, hospital deaths with painkillers); a 2004 Asian tsunami that kills only kids under 5, every 10 days. The parents of these 9 million children, most of whom are religious, were praying and begging for their child to be spared to no avail. Believing in a personal God, in this context, centered only on personal experiences, is compromised in both its honestly and intellectualism. The strengthening and encouragement of faith in God because your prayers to get promoted at work were answered, your sister had a healthy baby and your cat recovered from ball cancer is obscene in comparison to all of the death any misery which outweighs your own personal joys. The belief that satisfies many people is reliant on ignoring all the terrible things that go on in the world. TL;DR; when good things happen, God is real. When bad things happen, God is MYSTERIOUS. Intellectual dishonesty writ large. Rakosi fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Jul 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Here's one, though I'm summarizing from memory and may not have it exactly; 9 million children under the age of 5 die every year (and the majority of these are not western, hospital deaths with painkillers); a 2004 Asian tsunami that kills only kids under 5, every 10 days. The parents of these 9 million children, most of whom are religious, were praying and begging for their child to be spared to no avail. Believing in a personal God, in this context, centered only on personal experiences, is compromised in both its honestly and intellectualism. The strengthening and encouragement of faith in God because your prayers to get promoted at work were answered, your sister had a healthy baby and your cat recovered from ball cancer is obscene in comparison to all of the death any misery which outweighs your own personal joys. The belief that satisfies many people is reliant on ignoring all the terrible things that go on in the world. Ok, and?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:And that's a stupid opinion. But not for Judaism obviously.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Ok, and? OwlFancier posted:I require you to demonstrate to me that he has value, show me an argument that has worth and I will critique it properly
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:30 |
|
|
Yes faith is not rational. You don't need to write a book to say that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:59
|
|