Syria

[toonotl 2415]

Disclaimer: I don't necessarily accept, or agree with, all of the views represented above.

 

Just in case there is any 'confusion' from anybody.

[Park Life 70]

Who the fuck is Sam Harris? I started looking up Robert Harris just in case.

 

Wiki: Qaker father and Jewish mother.

 

Next.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Park Life

[Happy Face 29]

On The Maintenance of Civilization

 

For those interested in what Sam Harris' views actually are from arguably the best source on the matter.

 

It's an interesting podcast shining a light on the dishonest bullshit which some leftists are engaging in.

 

Also, here is an example of exactly this sort of dishonesty from salon.com:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sam-harris-the-salon-interview

 

20 minutes in and it's a poor listen so far. Nothing of substance, lots of complaining about having their views misrepresented. I can see where you get your technique from

 

The stuff from the Daily Mail writer about charges of racism against his "black friends", and the rage he feels about transgender politics or the politically correct Yale students is barely worth commenting on, having no relevance whatsoever, but it is illuminating in terms of his perception of having his free speech curtailed even while he insists these other people saying what they want just "shut up".

 

The defence against charges from Greenwald amounts to saying "I could call him a paedophile, but I don't" well no, because you have no evidence for that, you're just making a grotesque link rather than engaging points Greenwald actually raises. The evidence for criticism of Harris comes from his own statements, whether misconstrued or not. Statements such as early in this podcast where Harris correctly states that 0% of christians want to be jihadists or live under Sharia law. What does that prove? It's a carefully worded sentence because obviously terrorism comes in many forms and christian terrorism is widespread. For me, he's hiding behind semantics because there are christians that want to change the laws of their country and are willing to kill for it.

[Happy Face 29]

The thing that frustrates me about these people whining about misrepresentation as a form of argument is that surely one would want to highlight the differences between the truth and where critics of these ideas have got it wrong.

 

Complaining about quote mining and misrepresentation only goes as far as suggesting that your views are actually more closely alligned to the person doing the criticising - "No I don't think what you say I think at all, so we have no disagreement on that matter".

 

It's strange to bill yourself as in opposition to other liberals who are too soft on Islam and helping Islamism grow as a result, but then when those liberals you oppose write about those disagreements to be outraged and claim much more common ground actually exists.

[Dr Gloom 19824]

cameron's case for the uk to join the bombing of syria has been entirely unconvincing

[Kid Dynamite 5908]

Cameron's rhetoric is disgusting. It's one thing for me to call J69 a terrorist apologist on toontastic, but another for Cameron to accuse the leader of the opposition a terrorist sympathiser. What a shit head.

It's exactly the same tbh what makes it different?

[Park Life 70]

The thing that frustrates me about these people whining about misrepresentation as a form of argument is that surely one would want to highlight the differences between the truth and where critics of these ideas have got it wrong.

 

Complaining about quote mining and misrepresentation only goes as far as suggesting that your views are actually more closely alligned to the person doing the criticising - "No I don't think what you say I think at all, so we have no disagreement on that matter".

 

It's strange to bill yourself as in opposition to other liberals who are too soft on Islam and helping Islamism grow as a result, but then when those liberals you oppose write about those disagreements to be outraged and claim much more common ground actually exists.

He's pro gun.

[Happy Face 29]

He's pro gun.

 

So is Killer Mike doesn't make them bad people.

[Park Life 70]

cameron's case for the uk to join the bombing of syria has been entirely unconvincing

We'll be bombing climate change next.

[Renton 17777]

It's exactly the same tbh what makes it different?

Well, Cameron is saying Corbyn is a terrorist SYMPATHISER for not wanting to bomb Syria, whreas you (imo) acted as an APOLOGIST for the Paris terrorists by your first thought being to blame Cameron for the attacks on Paris (the logic of which is only known to you since Cameron at the time had Fuck all to do with French foreign policy).

 

That's a clear difference but it's not what I was getting at. I find both yourself and Cameron's comments extremely distasteful for ironically similar reasons. But I said what I said to a stranger on an obscure message board. Cameron said what he said to the leader of the opposition in full public. Can you see a difference here?

[toonotl 2415]

 

20 minutes in and it's a poor listen so far. Nothing of substance, lots of complaining about having their views misrepresented. I can see where you get your technique from .

 

I did mention it was for people interested in what Harris' views actually are from the person most qualified to comment. Sam Harris. All due respect, but I don't think you're interested in hearing what Sam Harris' views actually are:

The bigotry of Harris ... is more nuanced and needs to be if it's going to convince the liberal class to keep applauding the global war as a noble act.

Harris is on record as saying he was against the war in Iraq. If you were interested in Harris' views you would know that. If you knew what Harris' views were you would realise just how stupid you sound with the comment about Harris supposedly attempting to 'convince the liberal class to keep applauding the global war as a noble act'. You maniac. Harris' comments on the wars in the Middle East are simply based in the current reality of the situation, not some political popularity contest.

Anyway, you're suggestion based on this apparent 'nuanced' approach to manipulating 'liberal atheists' into 'supporting the global war' is spectacularly stupid.

Your 'argument', if we could even call it that, is tantamount to suggesting that Harris, Dawkins, and any other atheist criticising Islamic ideas is part of a conspiracy to build popular support for the war in the Middle East. A conspiracy focusing on the most politically irrelevant group in the US, liberal atheists. Unbelievable. Tell me you don't believe this. I know you have to come up with some crackpot explanation for why Harris, Dawkins, Hitch (from beyond the grave no less), and whoever else, is secretly a racist against brown people. I just didn't expect a bonafide conspiracy theory to be your explanation. Mind blowing.

I'm embarrassed for you. I'm embarrassed for myself really that I actually tried to treat you seriously for so long.

As for my tendency for not liking having my views misconstrued. It's not that I'm adopting Harris' position. It's that I'm arguing with somebody who's basis for argument is the misrepresentation of other people's views. Followed by furiously providing salon.com links railing against those invented views. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? That I, like Harris, don't like people calling me a bigot, as though they have identified in me an underlying motivation, borne out of a subconscious hatred for brown people, that leads me to criticise the ideas of a barbaric religion? Yeah. I think its you who is adopting someone else's position here. Not me. I'm simply trying to avoid having my position being deliberately misinterpreted as bigotry.

 

The stuff from the Daily Mail writer about charges of racism against his "black friends", and the rage he feels about transgender politics or the politically correct Yale students is barely worth commenting on, having no relevance whatsoever, but it is illuminating in terms of his perception of having his free speech curtailed even while he insists these other people saying what they want just "shut up".

It is relevant in that it provides an example of the broad cacophony of shrill nonsense emanating from regressive leftists. For an actual example of something not worth commenting on: your suggestion that Douglas Murray was actually arguing for the 'curtailing of free speech' to be brought upon people he disagrees with. That's something not worth commenting on.

 

The defence against charges from Greenwald amounts to saying "I could call him a paedophile, but I don't" well no, because you have no evidence for that, you're just making a grotesque link rather than engaging points Greenwald actually raises. The evidence for criticism of Harris comes from his own statements, whether misconstrued or not. Statements such as early in this podcast where Harris correctly states that 0% of christians want to be jihadists or live under Sharia law. What does that prove? It's a carefully worded sentence because obviously terrorism comes in many forms and christian terrorism is widespread. For me, he's hiding behind semantics because there are christians that want to change the laws of their country and are willing to kill for it.

 

Whether misconstrued or not.

 

Harris should address the 'evidence' Greenwald has for Harris' position even if Greenwald has misconstrued Harris' position? You believe a person should have to defend a position they themselves don't adhere to because someone else says so? What? Are you serious? Wow. Harris rejects Greenwalds interpretation of his position. That's all the 'defence' that is required.

 

Here's an example you may be able to follow: If you ask me the time, and I say, 'It's 12 o'clock', but you think I said, 'It's 2 o'clock'. Then 10 minutes later, you find out its 12:10. I don't then have to explain to you why I said it was 2 o'clock. That's your problem because you misinterpreted what I said. All I have to say is, 'I said it was 12 o'clock'. You misconstruing the information is your own problem. Does that make sense? Does any of this make sense to you?

 

Statements such as early in this podcast where Harris correctly states that 0% of christians want to be jihadists or live under Sharia law. What does that prove?

 

This relates to the lack of 'jihadist' concept in Christianity. The basis of this argument is that Islam gives rise to more dangerous forms of extremism, generally, than other religions. A sound, and honest, explanation that accounts, in large part, for the current reality in the Middle East.

 

For me, he's hiding behind semantics because there are christians that want to change the laws of their country and are willing to kill for it.

 

But that would be against the Christian scripture. That is the point. Harris is very clear on what he means when he addresses 'terrorism' and 'Islamic extremism'. It's nothing to do with semantics, or hiding behind interpretation. The only one relying on interpretation here is you.

 

You rely on the dishonest interpretation of other people's views to propagate the idea of a crackpot conspiracy theory for the approval of 'global war'.

 

That will always be funny to me. Especially since I know you're deadly serious.

 

 

[Gemmill 34461]

The correct answer to "what time is it?" is always to adopt a black accent and say "Oh you KNOW what time it is." That way you can never be misconstrued.

[Park Life 70]

The correct answer to "what time is it?" is always to adopt a black accent and say "Oh you KNOW what time it is." That way you can never be misconstrued.

[toonotl 2415]

The thing that frustrates me about these people whining about misrepresentation as a form of argument is that surely one would want to highlight the differences between the truth and where critics of these ideas have got it wrong.

 

Complaining about quote mining and misrepresentation only goes as far as suggesting that your views are actually more closely alligned to the person doing the criticising - "No I don't think what you say I think at all, so we have no disagreement on that matter".

 

It's strange to bill yourself as in opposition to other liberals who are too soft on Islam and helping Islamism grow as a result, but then when those liberals you oppose write about those disagreements to be outraged and claim much more common ground actually exists.

 

Just to be clear everyone. Sam Harris is 'whining' about being called racist.

 

The critics of Harris, Dawkins, etc., argue that they hold x,y,z position because they are racist bigots.

 

I don't believe that anybody who is honestly engaging in a serious rational discussion should be expected to engage seriously with people who make accusations of racism against them.

 

I find this conversation pointless, because HF clearly thinks that new atheist criticism, and by association, my criticism, of Islamic ideas is racist. I find that deeply offensive to be honest. I know it's probably boring to everyone else at this point. It's clearly boring to me.

 

I am not a bigot.

 

I believe in open honest rational discussion. I believe that the debate over extremist Islam is an important one for our culture. And we shouldn't shy away from it simply because it's a touchy subject. Accusations of racism, bigotry, Islamophobia or whatever against those making an honest attempts to address the issues with Islam are only making things worse. It's time for honesty, not bullshit arguments from conspiracy theorist nutjobs, or baseless accusations from amateur political hobbyists.

 

You can fuck off. I'm done with conversation. HF, you're a dickhead.

[Gemmill 34461]

Oh you KNOW what time it is!

[Park Life 70]

Cor looking forward to this one.

[Renton 17777]

 

Just to be clear everyone. Sam Harris is 'whining' about being called racist.

 

The critics of Harris, Dawkins, etc., argue that they hold x,y,z position because they are racist bigots.

 

I don't believe that anybody who is honestly engaging in a serious rational discussion should be expected to engage seriously with people who make accusations of racism against them.

 

I find this conversation pointless, because HF clearly thinks that new atheist criticism, and by association, my criticism, of Islamic ideas is racist. I find that deeply offensive to be honest. I know it's probably boring to everyone else at this point. It's clearly boring to me.

 

I am not a bigot.

 

I believe in open honest rational discussion. I believe that the debate over extremist Islam is an important one for our culture. And we shouldn't shy away from it simply because it's a touchy subject. Accusations of racism, bigotry, Islamophobia or whatever against those making an honest attempts to address the issues with Islam are only making things worse. It's time for honesty, not bullshit arguments from conspiracy theorist nutjobs, or baseless accusations from amateur political hobbyists.

 

You can fuck off. I'm done with conversation. HF, you're a dickhead.

Very well articulated and fully agree, except the last sentence which is harsh. Think like many on here HF is probably just being a contrarian. I've been labelled as a racist, Nick Griffin, and even Leazes mag on here for criticising Islam, although the latter had better be a joke. Meanwhile Gemmill gets off Scot free with his disgusting sterotyping of black people and his barely concealed disgust at Indian people using their native tongue.

 

Interesting stuff though, think HF has been metaphorically beaten to a pulp and is in need of CPR.

[Meenzer 14055]

I've been labelled as a racist, Nick Griffin, and even Leazes mag on here for criticising Islam, although the latter had better be a joke.

 

[Gemmill 34461]

@@Renton I labelled you the new LeazesMag for this practically word perfect impression of the man himself in the Politics thread.

 

 

McDonnell and Corbyn are virtually unelectable, that's the sad truth of the matter. Fact is, most on this board supported the selection of Corbyn, even if it meant another 10 years of Tory governance. Well done, you got your wish.

Replace Corbyn with Ashley and it's uncanny.

[Happy Face 29]

I did mention it was for people interested in what Harris' views actually are from the person most qualified to comment. Sam Harris. All due respect, but I don't think you're interested in hearing what Sam Harris' views actually are:

I'm interested enough to listen to the podcast you posted. Like I say, there was very little substantive of his view in the first 20 minutes before I got to work. Will listen to the rest later, but I've listened to him use his own words on the Dan Carlin podcast and read his side of the Greenwald argument on his site.

Harris is on record as saying he was against the war in Iraq. If you were interested in Harris' views you would know that. If you knew what Harris' views were you would realise just how stupid you sound with the comment about Harris supposedly attempting to 'convince the liberal class to keep applauding the global war as a noble act'. You maniac. Harris' comments on the wars in the Middle East are simply based in the current reality of the situation, not some political popularity contest.

Anyway, you're suggestion based on this apparent 'nuanced' approach to manipulating 'liberal atheists' into 'supporting the global war' is spectacularly stupid.

Your 'argument', if we could even call it that, is tantamount to suggesting that Harris, Dawkins, and any other atheist criticising Islamic ideas is part of a conspiracy to build popular support for the war in the Middle East. A conspiracy focusing on the most politically irrelevant group in the US, liberal atheists. Unbelievable. Tell me you don't believe this. I know you have to come up with some crackpot explanation for why Harris, Dawkins, Hitch (from beyond the grave no less), and whoever else, is secretly a racist against brown people. I just didn't expect a bonafide conspiracy theory to be your explanation. Mind blowing.

You're spot on here. Maher too was dead against Iraq and it was an idiotic stretch I never thought out. I shouldn't attribute nefarious motives to anyone expressing genuine opinion. I also later cringed at my suggestion that it's a position that sells books and TV shows. I should do better than that.

As for my tendency for not liking having my views misconstrued. It's not that I'm adopting Harris' position. It's that I'm arguing with somebody who's basis for argument is the misrepresentation of other people's views. Followed by furiously providing salon.com links railing against those invented views. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? That I, like Harris, don't like people calling me a bigot, as though they have identified in me an underlying motivation, borne out of a subconscious hatred for brown people, that leads me to criticise the ideas of a barbaric religion? Yeah. I think its you who is adopting someone else's position here. Not me. I'm simply trying to avoid having my position being deliberately misinterpreted as bigotry.

We have no disagreement that the barbaric ideas of a religion should be criticised. Think the disagreement is that one religion is entirely more barbaric than all the others and should be singled out as such. That the miniscule fraction of extremists should define our response to one religion but not any other.

It is relevant in that it provides an example of the broad cacophony of shrill nonsense emanating from regressive leftists. For an actual example of something not worth commenting on: your suggestion that Douglas Murray was actually arguing for the 'curtailing of free speech' to be brought upon people he disagrees with. That's something not worth commenting on.

I didn't say Douglas argued for curtailing free speech at all. He was just telling them to shut up, which strikes me as odd. I'd defend the right of a racist prick to be as racist a prick as they like.

 

 

Harris should address the 'evidence' Greenwald has for Harris' position even if Greenwald has misconstrued Harris' position? You believe a person should have to defend a position they themselves don't adhere to because someone else says so? What? Are you serious? Wow. Harris rejects Greenwalds interpretation of his position. That's all the 'defence' that is required.

 

 

No, they shouldn't have to defend any position they don't adhere to. It's quite simple to say "No, let me clarify for you, I said 12 o'clock"

 

Statements such as early in this podcast where Harris correctly states that 0% of christians want to be jihadists or live under Sharia law. What does that prove?

This relates to the lack of 'jihadist' concept in Christianity. The basis of this argument is that Islam gives rise to more dangerous forms of extremism, generally, than other religions. A sound, and honest, explanation that accounts, in large part, for the current reality in the Middle East.

For me, he's hiding behind semantics because there are christians that want to change the laws of their country and are willing to kill for it.

But that would be against the Christian scripture. That is the point. Harris is very clear on what he means when he addresses 'terrorism' and 'Islamic extremism'. It's nothing to do with semantics, or hiding behind interpretation. The only one relying on interpretation here is you.

 

Against the re-branded scripture, not the original Deuteronomy shit about stoning non-believers or those that prey to other gods. Or the exodus bollocks about giving your life for hurting a woman with child that many fuck heads still follow.

 

[Renton 17777]

By rebranded scripture, you mean the New Testament, right?

 

Perhaps Islam could do with a messiah. I'm not keen on this prophet chap.

[Happy Face 29]

 

Just to be clear everyone. Sam Harris is 'whining' about being called racist.

 

The critics of Harris, Dawkins, etc., argue that they hold x,y,z position because they are racist bigots.

 

I don't believe that anybody who is honestly engaging in a serious rational discussion should be expected to engage seriously with people who make accusations of racism against them.

 

I find this conversation pointless, because HF clearly thinks that new atheist criticism, and by association, my criticism, of Islamic ideas is racist. I find that deeply offensive to be honest. I know it's probably boring to everyone else at this point. It's clearly boring to me.

 

I am not a bigot.

 

I believe in open honest rational discussion. I believe that the debate over extremist Islam is an important one for our culture. And we shouldn't shy away from it simply because it's a touchy subject. Accusations of racism, bigotry, Islamophobia or whatever against those making an honest attempts to address the issues with Islam are only making things worse. It's time for honesty, not bullshit arguments from conspiracy theorist nutjobs, or baseless accusations from amateur political hobbyists.

 

You can fuck off. I'm done with conversation. HF, you're a dickhead.

 

I don't hold that they're racist bigots, I hold that some views they express are bigotted. Said it in the Saudi thread, I'm not calling anyone here racist either. That discussion to me is tedious. I thought the discussion with Renton and NJS yesterday was interesting, honest and open, found common ground and differences without any of the "you're a racist so your views are worthless" or "You called me racist, I'm not listening any more" nonsense. For some reason whenever you partake it departs from the interesting subject towards the name calling and arguing about the method of argument. I've tried to ignore any of that stuff.

 

Sorry you feel so offended.

[Kid Dynamite 5908]

Well, Cameron is saying Corbyn is a terrorist SYMPATHISER for not wanting to bomb Syria, whreas you (imo) acted as an APOLOGIST for the Paris terrorists by your first thought being to blame Cameron for the attacks on Paris (the logic of which is only known to you since Cameron at the time had Fuck all to do with French foreign policy).

 

That's a clear difference but it's not what I was getting at. I find both yourself and Cameron's comments extremely distasteful for ironically similar reasons. But I said what I said to a stranger on an obscure message board. Cameron said what he said to the leader of the opposition in full public. Can you see a difference here?

What I see is that as an islamaphobe and self confessed Corbyn hater you are essentially David Cameron

 

Nothing I have ever posted could be misconstrued by a rational person as me being an apologist for terrorists. I was an apologists for the Muslims as a whole and the fact that they get lumped together. Can YOU see a difference?

Edited December 2, 2015 by StraightEdgeWizard

[Renton 17777]

What I see is that as an islamaphobe and self confessed Corbyn hater you are essentially David Cameron

 

Nothing I have ever posted could be misconstrued by a rational person as me being an apologist for terrorists. I was an apologists for the Muslims as a whole and the fact that they get lumped together. Can YOU see a difference?

There's an interesting discussion going on between HF and toontotl about why it is probably best to avoid calling me an islamaphobe. Interesting you are also calling Cameron one. As for Corbyn hater, grow up ffs.

 

I'm not going over this again. Whilst the killing in Paris was actually going on, you specifically blamed Cameron and Obama whilst absolving "Muslims" of blame. You've never really explained the logic to that claim and tbh I'm not interested in hearing it because it's just an idiotic thing to say.

 

I don't hate anyone. I dislike Cameron a lot more than I dislike Corbyn as it happens, I just think Corbyn is in the wrong job. What Cameron said about Corbyn was something only a shit head would say. But to blame Paris on Cameron? Yeah, that's pretty shitty too.

[Park Life 70]

Some talk of the oil deals between Isis and Turkey at last.