Support NeoGAF

[haxamin]

Sorry, but for me, at this point anybody who uses the phrase "regressive left" unironically is lumped in with Gamergators and people who think All Lives Matter.

That says more about you than those who use that phrase.

Its a perfectly appropriate term for those that champion progressive views yet somehow suspend them as soon as Islam is involved. E.g.: http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/muslim-students-from-goldsmiths-university-s-islamic-society-heckle-and-aggressively-interrupt-a6760306.html
^think about that. A woman gives a talk to address issues such as FGM, apostasy, and radicalisation. Its then disrupted by muslims, and their feminist society 'stands in solidarity with ISOC"

 

[BocoDragon]

Sorry, but for me, at this point anybody who uses the phrase "regressive left" unironically is lumped in with Gamergators and people who think All Lives Matter.

And in turn, by finding a way to dismiss someone so that you never have to listen to them again, it makes you a prime candidate for what they call regressive left. Brilliant.

For my part, I'm sure the term itself will become gauche over time. But the limits of langauge are the limits of our world, and it was inevitable that some term would come along to describe the feeling that people on the left have when they see other people on the left smearing people for failing to toe the party line in open dialogue.

 

[JesseEwiak]

That says more about you than those who use that phrase.

Its a perfectly appropriate term for those that champion progressive views yet somehow suspend them as soon as Islam is involved. E.g.: http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/muslim-students-from-goldsmiths-university-s-islamic-society-heckle-and-aggressively-interrupt-a6760306.html
^think about that. A woman gives a talk to address issues such as FGM, apostasy, and radicalisation. Its then disrupted by muslims, and their feminist society 'stands in solidarity with ISOC"

Obviously, this means both Muslims and feminists are terrible and the only people we can really trust to tell us the truth are (largely white and male) atheists.

As for Nawaz, from this article (https://newrepublic.com/article/128436/maajid-nawaz-really-believe), he largely sounds like a guy going wherever the money is.

And in turn, by finding a way to dismiss someone so that you never have to listen to them again, it makes you a prime candidate for what they call regressive left. Brilliant.

For my part, I'm sure the term itself will become gauche over time. But the limits of langauge are the limits of our world, and it was inevitable that some term would come along to describe the feeling that people on the left have when they see other people on the left smearing people for failing to toe the party line in open dialogue.

Let me guess, you also think only class matters, right?

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

That says more about you than those who use that phrase.

Its a perfectly appropriate term for those that champion progressive views yet somehow suspend them as soon as Islam is involved. E.g.: http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/muslim-students-from-goldsmiths-university-s-islamic-society-heckle-and-aggressively-interrupt-a6760306.html
^think about that. A woman gives a talk to address issues such as FGM, apostasy, and radicalisation. Its then disrupted by muslims, and their feminist society 'stands in solidarity with ISOC"

There is absolutely a regressive left. And it saddens me because it stands in stark contrast with so much of what I was taught to believe liberalism actually is.

We don't shout down or label those with differing opinions. We debate them with logic and fact.

We don't excuse butchery in the name of cultural or religious respect. We stand up and speak for the downtrodden and oppressed in society, even if doing so means speak out against someone's traditions or beliefs.

If you ask me whether I'd rather speak out against female genital mutilation and honor killings or stay quiet because I don't want to offend someone, I'm speaking out 100 times out of 100.

Obviously, this means both Muslims and feminists are terrible and the only people we can really trust to tell us the truth are (largely white and male) atheists.

Way to not address anything he actually said. You did beat the fuck out of a straw man though.

 

[cackhyena]

I guess I choose to believe Nawaz means what he says.

 

[haxamin]

Obviously, this means both Muslims and feminists are terrible and the only people we can really trust to tell us the truth are (largely white and male) atheists. Keep strawmanning my friend

As for Nawaz, from this article (https://newrepublic.com/article/128436/maajid-nawaz-really-believe), he largely sounds like a guy going wherever the money is.

Yeah, just check all his detailed reports. Its brimming with a vested interest in money(!)
http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/category/press/

 

[Muffdraul]

but he has consistently revealed a vast ignorance of what is actually happened in the islamic world, while repeatedly producing apologia for the hegemonic butchery of the US and israel

islam is disgusting because all life is sacred unless it's snuffed out by an american drone strike because that's just unfortunate necessity i guess

Again, maybe he's like me: Someone who eventually came to realize that the US's true original sin is that it failed to become the one and only "benevolent superpower" in the history of human civilization, i.e. a paradoxical oxymoron that may never be a thing that could actually exist in reality.

Superpowers need resources from around the globe, and they'll do anything to get them because if they don't they'll collapse. The US does business in dozens of countries around the globe, usually to mutual economic benefit. There are plenty of people in the Middle East who are more than happy to sell their oil to the US. But there is also a contingent of troglodytes in the region who are bitter that it isn't the 7th century anymore, and for ancient superstitious reasons they don't want "infidels desecrating our holy lands with their filthy footsteps." I don't think it's reasonable to expect the US to honor that when it would mean significant damage to their economy.

 

[beast786]

Obviously, this means both Muslims and feminists are terrible and the only people we can really trust to tell us the truth are (largely white and male) atheists.

As for Nawaz, from this article (https://newrepublic.com/article/128436/maajid-nawaz-really-believe), he largely sounds like a guy going wherever the money is.

Nice ad hominem attack on nawaz.

Let me guess because he isn't white or athiest and doesn't fit the narrative . Well then how about a practicing Muslim women http://youtu.be/pSPvnFDDQHk

 

[haxamin]

Nice ad hominem attack on nawaz.

Let me guess because he isn't white or athiest and doesn't fit the narrative . Well then how about a practicing Muslim women http://youtu.be/pSPvnFDDQHk

"Inb4 No true scotsman"

 

[beast786]

"Inb4 No true scotsman"

Depends if the Scotsman is white/athiest

 

[RustyNails]

Obviously, this means both Muslims and feminists are terrible and the only people we can really trust to tell us the truth are (largely white and male) atheists.

As for Nawaz, from this article (https://newrepublic.com/article/128436/maajid-nawaz-really-believe), he largely sounds like a guy going wherever the money is.



Let me guess, you also think only class matters, right?

I read that new republic article. Total indictment of Nawaz' fraud.

 

[gogosox82]

So how should I be judging his criteria? Based on what he's arguing for or based on the fact that Sam Harris likely wouldn't get profiled in an airport today?

I'm taking him at his word that this is his stance on profiling. What will or wont happen in an airport is irrelevant because the TSA isn't being advised by Sam Harris on airport security. I'll assume -- based on his blog and addendum -- that if they were to he may get profiled.

I agree his opinion may be pointless, many are. But the assertions was that it was racist and from reading the article his criteria for profiling wasn't race.The point he's making seems a lot like this old Lewis Black bit I've always liked. It didn't come off as racist to me.

You should think for yourself and don't just blindly take his word for it. If he says I would be profiled, think about how accurate of a statement that is. Your admitting yourself that it sounds like nonsense so why are you taking his word for it? To me, his "I should be profiled too" stuff is him saying that after he gets called out for calling for profiling.

 

[Duji]

Nice ad hominem attack on nawaz.

Let me guess because he isn't white or athiest and doesn't fit the narrative . Well then how about a practicing Muslim women http://youtu.be/pSPvnFDDQHk

I find it really interesting how the existence of ex-Muslims, secular Muslims, and gay Muslims confuses the hell out of knee-jerk-reaction-types who want to label everyone as racist or bigoted.

It's a shame that both the far left and far right think of Muslims as just one large monolithic group of people.

 

[Tesseract]

no, he's been saying that for years

 

[haxamin]

I find it really interesting how the existence of ex-Muslims, secular Muslims, and gay Muslims confuses the hell out of knee-jerk-reaction-types who want to label everyone as racist or bigoted.

It's a shame that both the far left and far right think of Muslims as just one large monolithic group of people.

ding ding ding.

As Nawaaz himself said:

"The Populist Right, the Islamists, and the ‪RegressiveLeft‬ share a bigotry: they insist Muslims & Islamists are one and the same, and they hate us for distinguishing between them."

 

[King Tubby]

Sam Harris is white af and he includes himself among those who would be profiled. In his own words he's saying his stance on profiling isn't merely on the basis of skin color.

Except of course in the real world people who look like Sam Harris would never be profiled to the extent and the scale at which others would be because of who it is that would be doing the profiling.

 

[adamYUKI]

In his latest podcast with Jonathan Haidt, Sam explains and releases audio of the buried discussion with Omar. Listening to it now.

https://soundcloud.com/samharrisorg

 

[uncelestial]

Its a shame Harris is such a bastard on immigration and world politics because I actually quite enjoyed The Moral Landscape and Free Will. Very interesting books that don't, ah, scapegoat and prosecute a massively disadvantage people and their culture. :/

 

[Rentahamster]

In his latest podcast with Jonathan Haidt, Sam explains and releases audio of the buried discussion with Omar. Listening to it now.

https://soundcloud.com/samharrisorg

Listened to about 30 minutes so far. Omer's not coming off well, in my opinion.

 

[dead souls]

In his latest podcast with Jonathan Haidt, Sam explains and releases audio of the buried discussion with Omar. Listening to it now.

Jonathan Haidt and Sam Harris on the same podcast? Have we reached peak douchebag?

 

[mentallyinept]

In his latest podcast with Jonathan Haidt, Sam explains and releases audio of the buried discussion with Omar. Listening to it now.

https://soundcloud.com/samharrisorg

Yeah, Omar does not look too good on the other side of this podcast.

 

[DrGonzo615]

Listened to about 30 minutes so far. Omer's not coming off well, in my opinion.

Yeah, Omar does not look too good on the other side of this podcast.

Yep, shocker that Salon is just confirmed as a rag publication in this whole fiasco.

 

[Tesseract]

Sam Harris impenetrable as always rekt

 

[Aristion]

Sam Harris' response to Omer Aziz:

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/evolving-minds

 

[FunkyMonk]

Pfft, regressive left? I prefer using the term "Fox News Liberals". The type that label and compartmentalize people so they can say to the world that they no longer have to listen to them while willfully ignoring any actual point in an argument.

JesseEwiak just tried this by attempting to label people who believe in a regressive left as gamergators so that everyone puts them away into the gamergate trashbin and he no longer has to listen to them.

I know right, it'd be just like calling people 'regressive left' and 'Fox News Liberals' so you can compartmentalise them and tell the world that you don't need to listen to them and ignore any points they make.

Good thing you didn't do that though, it'd be rather hypocritical if you did.

 

[Henkka]

He's really ramping up his podcast game lately. It's pretty good stuff, especially when he's interviewing someone interesting. You really get to the meat of disagreements, much better than in a book.

Listening to the latest one now.

 

[Tesseract]

He's really ramping up his podcast game lately. It's pretty good stuff, especially when he's interviewing someone interesting. You really get to the meat of disagreements, much better than in a book.

Listening to the latest one now.

being friends with joe rogan helps, but yeah. excellent discussions.

 

[Rentahamster]

He's really ramping up his podcast game lately. It's pretty good stuff, especially when he's interviewing someone interesting. You really get to the meat of disagreements, much better than in a book.

Listening to the latest one now.

Yeah, I like how he tries to drill down to the basic issues of disagreement, while also highlighting any common ground. It's a very constructive method.

 

[haxamin]

I know right, it'd be just like calling people 'regressive left' and 'Fox News Liberals' so you can compartmentalise them and tell the world that you don't need to listen to them and ignore any points they make.

Good thing you didn't do that though, it'd be rather hypocritical if you did.

The difference is that we argue with the regressive left. They refuse to argue on the notion that we are ignorant or something.

 

[Cronox]

I know right, it'd be just like calling people 'regressive left' and 'Fox News Liberals' so you can compartmentalise them and tell the world that you don't need to listen to them and ignore any points they make.

Good thing you didn't do that though, it'd be rather hypocritical if you did.

"Regressive left" vs "bigots, sexists, racists, islamophobes."

There's something to be said for the levels of discussion. "Regressive left" is about as polite a phrase as can be said in the climate of discourse we live in.

 

[BocoDragon]

Sam Harris' response to Omer Aziz:

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/evolving-minds

I've been active in this thread as a wait-n-see defender of Harris on this debate, so I don't expect that I'll come across as unbiased.....

But it really does seem like this Omer Aziz is an uncharitable pundit with an axe to grind - And very crudely so. He seems like an arrogant kid with tribalistic debate tactics. A person sharpening their half-witted knives to debate their hated enemy... which is a stance that shouldn't be taken in any mature discourse.

In fairness, he sounds young.. but even so I'm wondering if that's an excuse. A young pundit with ugly debate tactics, in training. I wouldn't have been so uncharitable at whatever age he is.

If you really believe the narrative of this Salon article or its follow up, you simply don't have the facts. This was a crude hit piece and the aftermath of a person (Harris) naively trying to reason with their attacker.

And again, this has little to do with how good Harris' views are. They remain half-and-half with me. But Harris at least aspires to fair and open debate, and Aziz, by contrast, is an irrational child.....

I feel that Omer Aziz has something in common with Reza Aslan. They are both western liberals from a Muslim background, who seem to cling to the hope that all religions are equal and potentialy liberal and all equally at home with Western society.... but if the specific doctrines of Islam are ever critiqued as problematic by liberal standards, than that short circuits the egalitarian co-existence that they are clinging to in hope that they can resolve their dual identities.

This explains why they attack. And in such a dishonest fashion, too. Why they are forced to find some way to make liberal critics of Islam into somehow "bad people" who are overreaching or bigoted or otherwise doing something fundamentally wrong. Liberal criticism of Islamic doctrine makes perfect liberal/Muslim congruency into question, and that's an identity issue for some people that they can't let stand.

 

[Audioboxer]

Sam Harris bingo, checks topic for racist and biggot, BINGO!

Anyway, the conversation with Dave Rubin does well to address the profiling and other criticisms normally thrown at Harris https://youtu.be/zQqxlzHJrU0

 

[Tertullian]

Good lord Harris is an embarrassment.


*Records a 4 hour long heated debate about Islam*

"It's, uhhhhhhh... too boring to release. Sorry guys. No, I can't let you hear it and decide for yourself."

"I would never edit Omer's contributions to the conversation, nor would any good journalist."

*Releases edited snatches of the conversation*



I used to think Sam Harris was maybe the least ridiculous of the New Atheists. But I just hadn't read enough about him. From his years bumming around Europe getting high on his mother's dime, to that shockingly inept experiment he conducted to get his neuroscience PhD, to his total lack of actual contributions to the field of neuroscience (at least Dawkins used to be an important biologist!), to his absolute ineptitude in philosophy, to his weird bastardization of Buddhism, to his bizarre unskeptical insistence that drugs, like, totally help us understand the world better, man, to his unbelievable bloodthirsty and gleeful discussions of killing, torturing, and nuking Muslims.

Sam Harris is the best argument for theism I'm aware of.

 

[Audioboxer]

Good lord Harris is an embarrassment.


*Records a 4 hour long heated debate about Islam*

"It's, uhhhhhhh... too boring to release. Sorry guys. No, I can't let you hear it and decide for yourself."

"I would never edit Omer's contributions to the conversation, nor would any good journalist."

*Releases edited snatches of the conversation*



I used to think Sam Harris was maybe the least ridiculous of the New Atheists. But I just hadn't read enough about him. From his years bumming around Europe getting high on his mother's dime, to that shockingly inept experiment he conducted to get his neuroscience PhD, to his total lack of actual contributions to the field of neuroscience (at least Dawkins used to be an important biologist!), to his absolute ineptitude in philosophy, to his weird bastardization of Buddhism, to his bizarre unskeptical insistence that drugs, like, totally help us understand the world better, man, to his unbelievable bloodthirsty and gleeful discussions of killing, torturing, and nuking Muslims.

Sam Harris is the best argument for theism I'm aware of.

Just what the fuck? Gleeful torturing of Muslims? It's crazy statements like this that make the internet look very dumb.

 

[Maxim726X]

Just what the fuck? Gleeful torturing of Muslims? It's crazy statements like this that make the internet look very dumb.

It's what every Harris conversation devolves into- knee jerk emotional reactions that never actually discuss the nuance of his positions, complete with ridiculous over simplifications and straw men.

 

[oneils]

Where did he get owned, exactly?

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse

 

[Audioboxer]

It's what every Harris conversation devolves into- knee jerk emotional reactions that never actually discuss the nuance of his positions, complete with ridiculous over simplifications and straw men.

I just find that incredibly distasteful. Even if you want to debate/disagree with positions Harris takes trying to say he is bloodthirsty and up for torturing Muslims, let alone anyone, is just... speechless.

Even the nuclear first strike topic was discussed quite clearly on that Rubin report video I posted above. I can't say his answer was all that dramatic either.... Certainly nothing like what people are posting saying Harris just blindly wants to nuke "Muslims".

 

[Maxim726X]

I just find that incredibly distasteful. Even if you want to debate/disagree with positions Harris takes trying to say he is bloodthirsty and up for torturing Muslims, let alone anyone, is just... speechless.

Even the nuclear first strike topic was discussed quite clearly on that Rubin report video I posted above. I can't say his answer was all that dramatic either.... Certainly nothing like what people are posting saying Harris just blindly wants to nuke "Muslims".

It's much easier to label him a bigot and racist than to actually listen and challenge your views on something. Again, a common tactic of the right.

 

[Aureon]

The Fox News liberals are those who condemn all types of things, unless they're part of a religion.
It's always useful to remind everyone - Data Hateful views in Islam aren't a minority.
Now, justifying christianity for it's shit during, basically, the entire middles ages and a pinch more too, i can't get behind that. However, among the causes of the crusades there's the fact that the Umayyad caliphate had just tried to conquer europe, and had conquered the entirety of spain before getting stopped in france.
But islam, as currently practiced by the majority of muslims, has no place in current modern society, much like any other theocracy, and it's shameful to pretend otherwise.

Good lord Harris is an embarrassment.


*Records a 4 hour long heated debate about Islam*

"It's, uhhhhhhh... too boring to release. Sorry guys. No, I can't let you hear it and decide for yourself."

"I would never edit Omer's contributions to the conversation, nor would any good journalist."

*Releases edited snatches of the conversation*



I used to think Sam Harris was maybe the least ridiculous of the New Atheists. But I just hadn't read enough about him. From his years bumming around Europe getting high on his mother's dime, to that shockingly inept experiment he conducted to get his neuroscience PhD, to his total lack of actual contributions to the field of neuroscience (at least Dawkins used to be an important biologist!), to his absolute ineptitude in philosophy, to his weird bastardization of Buddhism, to his bizarre unskeptical insistence that drugs, like, totally help us understand the world better, man, to his unbelievable bloodthirsty and gleeful discussions of killing, torturing, and nuking Muslims.

Sam Harris is the best argument for theism I'm aware of.

What the hell?

What's that hateful shit? If Sam Harris is the best argument for theism, want to highlight how he stands up against shit like Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, and Jihads?

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Where's the 4 hours?

I'll listen to his chat after but I need the 4 hours pls.

edit: first couple minutes, literally cussing him out.

Can we have evidence pls Mr Scientist pls

1. First excerpt from the "failed podcast" I think Omar says 4 sentences. Harris likes to conclude a lot without the supporting evidence there, as in, doesn't explain the why. I'm only 11 minutes in or so, will come back to this.

I'm not going to edit this so I won't release it.

Surely it being boring or not is up to the audience?

2. "Let me educate you" Harris framing the appearance of it in the conversation with an excerpt from Aziz. Give me the receipts.

Harris states that short book are money losing from publisher point of view, what about author point of view? How lucrative was it for him in comparison to other books etc?

He was charged, unfairly by Aziz in my opinion, for exploiting his views for cash. If you want to answer that charge, you dont talk about publishers, you talk about what goes into your pocket, how much did you make etc. If publisher and author are the same thing, then forget this comment, if they're not, he didn't answer the charge in that excerpt.

3. Final excerpt - so four hours summed up in about 7 minutes of clips, vast majority was Harris talking. Yeah mate Aziz got rekt/shrekt/etc

His summary of WW2 is horrible.

Collateral damage is to be expected. "standard phrase"

What is he on about? Rape of Nanking? What is he actually talking about?

Just release it mate, simple as that.

By the way, literally never read a piece by Aziz.

So original point was that it was boring.

Now it's changed to I don't want to give him a platform.

They were to read article and discuss, Aziz given chance to explain has now changed to Harris reads article, gives us a few minutes of the lost podcast and Harris gets to explain Aziz's view.

I thought the problem was that he ascribed intention or false beliefs to Harris' view without knowing/guessing/purposefully done to demonise.

Harris is now doing the same, with name calling and the like.

And this guy is your leader. Good luck mates.

HE'S TALKING ABOUT GREENWALD AGAIN. Allahu Akbar this guy is predictable.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Sam Harris' response to Omer Aziz:

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/evolving-minds

Wasn't there supposed to be 4 hours of discussion?

 

[Audioboxer]

It's much easier to label him a bigot and racist than to actually listen and challenge your views on something. Again, a common tactic of the right.

It just boggles my brain why making things up is seen as an honest tactic. Wouldn't it be much better to listen and disagree, and either walk away, or make a genuine counterargument? Versus coming out with outlandish remarks that anyone else with a brain can see are undoubtedly false? Without question torturing and blindly murdering is simply not something Harris ever condones, or says. He just doesn't. Blindly throwing racist and bigot at him is even less obnoxious IMO than going as far to say he is bloodthirsty. I genuinely do not think he is a racist at all, but accept that certain views he has are just going to carry that flag, but bloodthirsty? Just... WTF?

The games involved in politics... Never cease to amaze.

 

[ElFly]

Without question torturing and blindly murdering is simply not something Harris ever condones, or says. He just doesn'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html

!??!?

?!

 

[IndoAssassin]

Harris is an asshole, and pretty much always has been, for as long as I've been aware of him. Unsurprising to me that he'd try to engineer a favorable outcome for himself and then balk when things don't go his way regardless.

Every debate I listen to or watch ends up being one side resorting to name calling, or labeling the opponent in order to get the upper hand. Then it just turns into a back and forth name calling debate. I tend to see the left use the tactic more than the right. After all the debates, I've come to the conclusion that one side is just full of racists and bigots, and the other side is full of wimps and cowards.

 

[Audioboxer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html

!??!?

?!

Again you can disagree without extrapolating that piece to be "OMG Sam Harris wants to bloodthirstily torture Muslims".

I don't see anything wrong with writing a piece to discuss an argument for or against something and setting specific scenarios to discuss said argument.

I will now present an argument for the use of torture in rare circumstances

If anything I think you just poked a hole in my badly worded GAF post. In replying to Tertullian I was more shocked at the blanket "Muslim" statement, as if Harris just wants to kill Muslims indiscriminately or something along those lines. Hence my defence of torture, but as you've pointed out I didn't do myself any favours in my post.

With the article you posted I find it interesting to think about some of the potential situations Harris states, such as trying to find a bomb/prisoner on a timescale. Torture for an answer may always be immoral, but fail to get an answer with reasonable questioning, and then do nothing else, and it can be viewed as just as immoral if a bomb goes off/prisoners die and you failed to gain an answer to something potentially preventable. Something like that is undoubtedly one of the darkest positions human beings can ever be put in, and armchair critics living in a normal society can only imagine said situation.

Luckily it's not something I'll ever have to decide over, but it's still interesting to read different views on how to act, if act at all. Those situations seem like something out of a good guys vs bad guys movie, but I guess they'll happen in the real world as well (potentially during war) and why shouldn't we have debates over them?

 

[Arkeband]

I used to think Sam Harris was maybe the least ridiculous of the New Atheists. But I just hadn't read enough about him. From his years bumming around Europe getting high on his mother's dime, to that shockingly inept experiment he conducted to get his neuroscience PhD, to his total lack of actual contributions to the field of neuroscience (at least Dawkins used to be an important biologist!), to his absolute ineptitude in philosophy, to his weird bastardization of Buddhism, to his bizarre unskeptical insistence that drugs, like, totally help us understand the world better, man, to his unbelievable bloodthirsty and gleeful discussions of killing, torturing, and nuking Muslims.

Sam Harris is the best argument for theism I'm aware of.

Good lord, this post is an embarrassment.

Serious question, have you ever listened to Sam Harris in your life?

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

You do realise saying torture is permissible in exceptional circumstances makes you pro-torture.

It's an absolute rule. No derivations.

 

[Aureon]

You do realise saying torture is permissible in exceptional circumstances makes you pro-torture.

It's an absolute rule. No derivations.

There's no absolute rules.

Alien comes in: "Torture someone or your entire species gets wiped out".
It's extremely easy to construct hypotethical situations against absolute rules.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

You're right, in that reasonable example torture is permissible.

What about the times when aliens aren't about?

 

[Oppo]

Good lord Harris is an embarrassment

I used to think Sam Harris was maybe the least ridiculous of the New Atheists. But I just hadn't read enough about him. From his years bumming around Europe getting high on his mother's dime, to that shockingly inept experiment he conducted to get his neuroscience PhD, to his total lack of actual contributions to the field of neuroscience (at least Dawkins used to be an important biologist!), to his absolute ineptitude in philosophy, to his weird bastardization of Buddhism, to his bizarre unskeptical insistence that drugs, like, totally help us understand the world better, man, to his unbelievable bloodthirsty and gleeful discussions of killing, torturing, and nuking Muslims.

Sam Harris is the best argument for theism I'm aware of.

this post is like politics in a nutshell. no he hasn't read Harris I'm guessing, but no matter, look at that nuanced and balanced opinion, held so forthrightly. kinda takes your breath away. I wonder who the other "New Atheists" are.