|
SedanChair posted:But that's all true It isn't. Popular Thug Drink posted:nobody's going to watch a thirty minute video just to gain the celestial grace to continue to be in your conversational favor. if you can't even make your own arguments and rely on someone else to make them for you then there's not much point to you, is there? I gave you a nice 4 minute window to consider. Why would you come into a thread and then overtly admit that you don't want to take the time to consider the views being expressed? Just...don't post. It's very easy. Also: the discussion was about what Harris said. Posting a video of things Harris said is about the most direct way to address the arguments possible.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
Actually posting a video of Harris to disprove that he said something is meaningless because it does not comprise all the things he has ever said
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I gave you a nice 4 minute window to consider. Why would you come into a thread and then overtly admit that you don't want to take the time to consider the views being expressed? Just...don't post. It's very easy. i have considered them, long before this thread existed. this thread is not my first exposure to the blood lust of sam harris. really the point here is to see what others have to say about sam harris and his fear of muslims, to which the reposnse is apparently "watch this video" - which doesn't refute a literal textual reading of his published works, in which he absolutely thinks humanity would be better off if we nuked the islamic world i mean these guys - harris, dawkins, hitchens - have long been laughingstocks, and for good reason
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Harris does not lust for war; try again. You mean like how he supported the war in Iraq? Or his bellicose nature towards Iran?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:he absolutely thinks humanity would be better off if we nuked the islamic world He doesn't. Crowsbeak posted:You mean like how he supported the war in Iraq? He didn't. He has overtly stated that he didn't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:He doesn't. well if sam harris disagrees with a literal reading of his own texts i think we can ignore sam harris with a camera pointed at him in favor of sam harris in his writing studio, because these two sam harrises do not agree and if we know anything about books it's that they can always be read literally
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:well if sam harris disagrees with a literal reading of his own texts i think we can ignore sam harris with a camera pointed at him in favor of sam harris in his writing studio, because these two sam harrises do not agree and if we know anything about books it's that they can always be read literally It is not a literal reading of his texts. The word you're thinking of is "disingenuous". A disingenuous reading. Quote me somethin to prove me wrong. Then acknowledge that you cannot find an example when indeed you can't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:It is not a literal reading of his texts. The word you're thinking of is "disingenuous". A disingenuous reading. quote:What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. here he literally says "we would have to nuke islamists because they will destroy us". did you even read the book you're defending? the point i'm trying to make here is that you're willing to take a nuanced reading of sam harris's "we will have to nuke the muslims" but you flatly reject the literal reading of the quran saying "it's wrong to kill" - in fact, you try to inject doubt into the literal reading of the quran by insisting on your own, unsupported nuance (aka opinion). why do you insist on this double standard over whether or not it's possible to literally interpret a text, he asked rhetorically boner confessor fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Jul 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:here he literally says "we would have to nuke islamists because they will destroy us". did you even read the book you're defending? Did you even read the passage you're quoting? "Here is a hypothetical situation where using a nuke would be our only option" is hardly "we should exercise this option now." Remember, the paraphrase you gave was "he absolutely thinks humanity would be better off if we nuked the islamic world". You can see how this is disingenuous, yes? That he not only doesn't think we'd be better off, but wasn't even advocating it in the first place. e: was responding before you added that edit quote:the point i'm trying to make here is that you're willing to take a nuanced reading of sam harris's "we will have to nuke the muslims" but you flatly reject the literal reading of the quran saying "it's wrong to kill" - in fact, you try to inject doubt into the literal reading of the quran by insisting on your own, unsupported nuance (aka opinion). why do you insist on this double standard over whether or not it's possible to literally interpret a text, he asked rhetorically I am taking a literal reading of both texts. Also, I hold the Quran to a higher standard because it is supposed to have come from the mind of God. An omnipotent God would be aware of every flavor of nuance people would ever draw from certain injunctions and be able to phrase them in a way that they are understood as they are supposed to be. If Sam says something incompetently, he is a bad writer. If God does so, he isn't God. GAINING WEIGHT... fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Jul 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
This would be an unthinkable crime, but let me think about it for a minute 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Did you even read the passage you're quoting? "Here is a hypothetical situation where using a nuke would be our only option" is hardly "we should exercise this option now." Remember, the paraphrase you gave was "he absolutely thinks humanity would be better off if we nuked the islamic world". You can see how this is disingenuous, yes? That he not only doesn't think we'd be better off, but wasn't even advocating it in the first place. i read it. did you read it? he said our only option would be to nuke an islamist nation. why are you being dishonest? super hint: it's almost like textual literalism is just a really dumb way to assert that you are the most rational which should be the absurdly obvious gist of my last few posts boner confessor fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Jul 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
He didn't even explain why killing 70 million people would be preferable to letting Iran nuke somebody, which would likely result in far fewer casualties. Why are our innocent civilians to be preferred over theirs? After all, we have our own people who get "dewy eyed at the mention of paradise." And talk about nuking people to achieve that paradise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i read it. did you read it? he said our only option would be to nuke an islamist nation under certain circumstances that are not the situation in reality
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:under certain circumstances that are not the situation in reality i can construct a thought experiment in which the only inexorable conclusion is not to nuke millions of muslims. is this because i am weak, and not rational?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:under certain circumstances that are not the situation in reality Man no wonder you like him. You're completely blind to implications.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Did you even read the passage you're quoting? "Here is a hypothetical situation where using a nuke would be our only option" is hardly "we should exercise this option now." Remember, the paraphrase you gave was "he absolutely thinks humanity would be better off if we nuked the islamic world". You can see how this is disingenuous, yes? That he not only doesn't think we'd be better off, but wasn't even advocating it in the first place. He seems to be relying on the assumption that we absolutely need to kill muslims to begin with. Like, the very concept of an Islamic state with nuclear weapons necessitates immediately killing all of them with nukes, as opposed to... killing them normally otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Man no wonder you like him. You're completely blind to implications. Spell them out for me, oh sighted one. Popular Thug Drink posted:i can construct a thought experiment in which the only inexorable conclusion is not to nuke millions of muslims. is this because i am weak, and not rational? No?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:here he literally says "we would have to nuke islamists because they will destroy us". did you even read the book you're defending? Given that it is a hypothetical scenario, he isn't literally saying anything. I'm sorry if these concepts take more effort than you are willing to give them, perhaps thinking about them isn't for you. Note the 'given what Islamists believe' in the context of paradise. Try and convince someone to strap themselves up with a suicide vest who doesn't believe it will result in paradise. It is unquestionably going to be a much harder sell. Now imagine the pretext for it taken to a national scale, consider the similarities between putting on a suicide vest and the entering the post cold-war game of mutually assured destruction as a means of maintaining peace? It doesn't play out well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
it is important that we maintaned a nuanced view of the context of writings, except for the quran, which leads inevitably to an islamist ideology of death and destruction that must be logically put to the sword
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:He seems to be relying on the assumption that we absolutely need to kill muslims to begin with. I'm sorry it seems that way to you, you will be happy to know that's not what he is doing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
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
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I'm sorry it seems that way to you, you will be happy to know that's not what he is doing. that is what he is doing
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:He seems to be relying on the assumption that we absolutely need to kill muslims to begin with. No, he is simply stating a hypothetical consequence of the beliefs that rationalise suicide vests.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:No, he is simply stating a hypothetical consequence of the beliefs that rationalise suicide vests. the belief that rationalizes suicide vests can only be defeated by the belief that rationalizes preemptive nuclear strikes. this is objective, and rational
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I'm sorry it seems that way to you, you will be happy to know that's not what he is doing. Could you explain the apparent antipathy he possesses towards Islamic states at the start of the passage? Because I don't personally see an increased need to kill people purely based on their capacity to kill me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:the belief that rationalizes suicide vests can only be defeated by the belief that rationalizes preemptive nuclear strikes. this is objective, and rational Please, if you can't be bothered to take the time to think though your argument at least take the time to type in sentences.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:Please, if you can't be bothered to take the time to think though your argument at least take the time to type in sentences. i am typing in sentences
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:Please, if you can't be bothered to take the time to think though your argument at least take the time to type in sentences. Those are sentences, and Harris lusts for war. He literally engaged in a pointless thought experiment about problems that aren't real so he could masturbate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
I could have sworn Sam Harris the ever rational said something about the war in iraq being the civilized nations trying to bring civilization to barbarians.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because I don't personally see an increased need to kill people purely based on their capacity to kill me. 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?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I could have sworn Sam Harris the ever rational said something about the war in iraq being the civilized nations trying to bring civilization to barbarians. "I swear I can recall a terrible thing said by someone I don't like" yeah, please just stop posting, you don't know how to talk honestly about Things or Ideas
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I could have sworn Sam Harris the ever rational said something about the war in iraq being the civilized nations trying to bring civilization to barbarians. yeah, he did quote:The war in Iraq, while it may be exacerbating the conflict between Islam and the West, is a red herring. However mixed or misguided American intentions were in launching this war, civilized human beings are now attempting, at considerable cost to themselves, to improve life for the Iraqi people. The terrible truth about our predicament in Iraq is that even if we had invaded with no other purpose than to remove Saddam Hussein from power and make Iraq a paradise on earth, we could still expect tomorrow’s paper to reveal that another jihadi has blown himself up for the sake of killing scores of innocent men, women, and children. The outrage that Muslims feel over U.S. and British foreign policy is primarily the product of theological concerns. Devout Muslims consider it a sacrilege for infidels to depose a Muslim tyrant and occupy Muslim lands—no matter how well intentioned the infidels or malevolent the tyrant. Because of what they believe about God and the afterlife and the divine provenance of the Koran, devout Muslims tend to reflexively side with other Muslims, no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This is solidarity born of religious delusion, and it must end—or a genuine clash of civilizations will be unavoidable. note also that harris believes all violence re: islam is directed from islamist towards totally innocent, civilized westerners who never did violence at islam first except when it is rationally necessary for the defense of the western world, so it's not even violence really boner confessor fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Jul 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:He literally engaged in a pointless thought experiment about problems that aren't real so he could masturbate. No he didn't also it doesn't matter. You and several others keep throwing poo poo like this out as a way of trying to win the argument without substance of any sort. The thing you don't apparently realize is that even if you were dead on about Harris, it is a non-sequitor. If his arguments are bad, they can be shown to be so divorced from the person that made them. They are not bad arguments. You just don't like them because you begin from the assertion "Harris is a racist warmongerer" and color everything from there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
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? Someone pointing a gun at me is indicative of intent to shoot me, immediately, somebody possessing a gun is not. Capacity to kill is not intent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:No he didn't also it doesn't matter. You and several others keep throwing poo poo like this out as a way of trying to win the argument without substance of any sort. The thing you don't apparently realize is that even if you were dead on about Harris, it is a non-sequitor. If his arguments are bad, they can be shown to be so divorced from the person that made them. They are not bad arguments. You just don't like them because you begin from the assertion "Harris is a racist warmongerer" and color everything from there. i dont see how people could start from the assumption that harris is a racist warmonger without reading his words. you're putting the conclusion before the evidence to win an argument without substance of any sort. this is not rational, comrade
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Just so y'all know, there is a part of that Sam Harris video that is worth watching. Specifically, it's the 5 or so seconds where he explicitly outlines how he can call what he's doing scientific: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2Jrr0tRXk&t=2751s
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Someone pointing a gun at me is indicative of intent to shoot me, immediately, somebody possessing a gun is not. 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. Popular Thug Drink posted:i dont see how people could start from the assumption that harris is a racist warmonger without reading his words. By being told a mangled, strawman version of his views by those who dislike him? C'mon, you're just not thinking this through.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:By being told a mangled, strawman version of his views by those who dislike him? C'mon, you're just not thinking this through. i am thinking it through. your argument has no substance so you're trying to remove my agency by claiming that i'm not capable of reading the words he wrote and understanding them correctly. that is not rational
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:No he didn't He did, unless you believe that the threat of a nuclear Iran is real. Which it is not. quote:also it doesn't matter. You and several others keep throwing poo poo like this out as a way of trying to win the argument without substance of any sort. The thing you don't apparently realize is that even if you were dead on about Harris, it is a non-sequitor. If his arguments are bad, they can be shown to be so divorced from the person that made them. They are not bad arguments. You just don't like them because you begin from the assertion "Harris is a racist warmongerer" and color everything from there. It doesn't matter huh? Islamophobia and spreading hatred and fear of others based on religion "doesn't matter" according to perfect rationalist GAINING WEIGHT...
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
Bryter posted:Just so y'all know, there is a part of that Sam Harris video that is worth watching. I can't tell if you're disagreeing with him. What did he say there that is objectionable?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:40
|
|