Author Topic: Not enough Sam Harris.  (Read 4644 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Johnny Slick

  • "Goddammit, Slick."
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12767
  • Fake Ass Skeptic
Re: Not enough Sam Harris.
« Reply #45 on: May 24, 2015, 08:09:05 PM »
^ Yeah I don't think so. Popularity does not make you right. Contorvery does not make you wrong. And being neither does being abandoned or betrayed by large factions of people that should be your allies. I see history being very kind to Sam in the nearish future. He's revealed an ideological blind spot in a large section of the liberal skeptical community, and some people are just going to be late to the party, in realizing that.
Yeah, those libs who think that Chomsky wiped the floor with him will learn. THEY WILL LEARN!!!!
Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Offline SnarlPatrick

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8161
Re: Not enough Sam Harris.
« Reply #46 on: May 24, 2015, 08:33:57 PM »
You may recall that that was precisely not my view. He released it as an example of a FAILURE to communicate. A mutual failure. Chomsky was a belligerent cock, that made discussion needlessly difficult. Sam frankly, stuck around longer than he should, but he HARDLY wiped the floor with him. He did not properly address the argument of carelessly trampling people underfoot.

It seems blindingly obvious that intentions DO matter in criminal justice, as in distinguishing between degrees of homicide/manslaughter. But it seems equally obvious that great harm can be done without ill intentions, and that ethical rationale given for foreign policy is often not what is most relevant. Believing oneself to be righteous is not the bar one needs to clear for acceptable behavior. We have a duty as a nation, to not only INTEND well, but to DO well.

If they had been able to have a proper discussion like he wanted, we might have heard something more on the matter. Nobody is required to be condescended to in private, for longer than they wish. I hope they can pick up the discussion again, once someone gets Chomsky a Xanax.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2015, 08:39:43 PM by SnarlPatrick »
Quote from: materialist_girl
SnarlPatrick, you are a nazi apologist piece of shit. You're a coward who hides behind the internet   ....   and I can only imagine it's a good thing your Jewish ancestors are dead so they don't have to watch you grow into the bigoted nazi creep you've become.

Offline Johnny Slick

  • "Goddammit, Slick."
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12767
  • Fake Ass Skeptic
Re: Not enough Sam Harris.
« Reply #47 on: May 24, 2015, 08:39:38 PM »
Clearly, your viewpoint is not the only possible viewpoint that can be taken from the exchange, which tells me right there that your initial premise, that stupid libs r destroye merka get their dues, is flawed because a sizeable contingent simply does not read the exchange the way that you do. I thought Harris got beaten down and then decided to post the exchange online because he is immature. It's hardly the first time that Harris has behaved like an immature jackass, although I suppose that as long as he is properly Islamophobic he will find legions of quasi-atheist followers for whatever shit he wants to pull next month.
Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Online Shibboleth

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8649
Re: Not enough Sam Harris.
« Reply #48 on: May 24, 2015, 08:47:23 PM »

^ Yeah I don't think so. Popularity does not make you right. Contorvery does not make you wrong. And being neither does being abandoned or betrayed by large factions of people that should be your allies. I see history being very kind to Sam in the nearish future. He's revealed an ideological blind spot in a large section of the liberal skeptical community, and some people are just going to be late to the party, in realizing that.

I never said that it makes you right or wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

Offline SnarlPatrick

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8161
Re: Not enough Sam Harris.
« Reply #49 on: May 24, 2015, 08:49:50 PM »
Asset. Ass hat. Gotcha,
Quote from: materialist_girl
SnarlPatrick, you are a nazi apologist piece of shit. You're a coward who hides behind the internet   ....   and I can only imagine it's a good thing your Jewish ancestors are dead so they don't have to watch you grow into the bigoted nazi creep you've become.

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11859
Re: Not enough Sam Harris.
« Reply #50 on: May 24, 2015, 09:27:08 PM »

Clearly, your viewpoint is not the only possible viewpoint that can be taken from the exchange, which tells me right there that your initial premise, that stupid libs r destroye merka get their dues, is flawed because a sizeable contingent simply does not read the exchange the way that you do. I thought Harris got beaten down and then decided to post the exchange online because he is immature. It's hardly the first time that Harris has behaved like an immature jackass, although I suppose that as long as he is properly Islamophobic he will find legions of quasi-atheist followers for whatever shit he wants to pull next month.

Clearly your viewpoint is not the only possible view.  I've shown the exchange to people who have no idea who Chomsky or Harris is and they believe that it wasn't a debate where one wiped the floor with the other but rather that it was precisely the failure that Harris called it. 

Check mate neo-con. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#non-belief denialist

Offline Johnny Slick

  • "Goddammit, Slick."
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12767
  • Fake Ass Skeptic
Re: Not enough Sam Harris.
« Reply #51 on: May 24, 2015, 09:36:12 PM »

Clearly, your viewpoint is not the only possible viewpoint that can be taken from the exchange, which tells me right there that your initial premise, that stupid libs r destroye merka get their dues, is flawed because a sizeable contingent simply does not read the exchange the way that you do. I thought Harris got beaten down and then decided to post the exchange online because he is immature. It's hardly the first time that Harris has behaved like an immature jackass, although I suppose that as long as he is properly Islamophobic he will find legions of quasi-atheist followers for whatever shit he wants to pull next month.

Clearly your viewpoint is not the only possible view.  I've shown the exchange to people who have no idea who Chomsky or Harris is and they believe that it wasn't a debate where one wiped the floor with the other but rather that it was precisely the failure that Harris called it. 

Check mate neo-con.
It's true. I voted for the war in Iraq before I voted against it. :(
Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Offline Shadow Of A Doubt

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1788
  • Talk to the whiskers
Re: Not enough Sam Harris.
« Reply #52 on: May 24, 2015, 10:33:09 PM »
I voted against the war before it was cool. Now all these johnny slicks wanna come and join the pacifism party.
"What, are you also proposing some magical colour midway between black and white?  Shall we call it "whack", maybe, or "blite"?  Nice imagination there, buddy."
amysrevenge

Offline matt_g

  • Doesn't Panic
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • my site
Re: Not enough Sam Harris.
« Reply #53 on: May 27, 2015, 03:00:49 AM »
"I was in the rather unenviable position of being FOR the war, but AGAINST the troops..."


"...and I'm all out of bubblegum."

Offline andy o

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 245
Re: Not enough Sam Harris.
« Reply #54 on: May 31, 2015, 05:26:25 AM »
I've shown the exchange to people who have no idea who Chomsky or Harris is and they believe that it wasn't a debate where one wiped the floor with the other but rather that it was precisely the failure that Harris called it.

(Emphasis added.) (No further comment.)

Offline andy o

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 245
Re: Not enough Sam Harris.
« Reply #55 on: May 31, 2015, 05:31:28 AM »
As for Harris...

There's probably a very good reason he's a good Intro to Atheism course, and that is what some have already said. He's simplistic to a fault (but very clear). I liked The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, and I was annoyed when Scott Attran dared (DARED!) to vehemently disagree with him in the mostly atheist-circlejerk that was the Beyond Belief 2006 conference, but with time one realizes the Islam thing is likely (way) more complicated than Harris makes it out to be (imagine that!).

Offline SkinnerBox

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 6
  • Clinician and researcher; sleep and circadian
Re: Not enough Sam Harris.
« Reply #56 on: May 31, 2015, 06:56:53 AM »
>2015
>not understanding the need and historical value of Iraq war and conflict
> :rebecca:

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5003
Re: Not enough Sam Harris.
« Reply #57 on: May 31, 2015, 07:38:15 AM »
I'm probably missing something, but where did Harris promote the Iraq War? It was Hitchens who did.
"I’m a member of no party. I have no ideology. I’m a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that’s all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

Offline Johnny Slick

  • "Goddammit, Slick."
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12767
  • Fake Ass Skeptic
Re: Not enough Sam Harris.
« Reply #58 on: May 31, 2015, 07:47:20 PM »
Yeah, his viewpoints on the Iraq war are typically Islamophobic, and it's frankly hard to see how you can have the beliefs that he has and *not* be for it (according to his site, his reason for being against it at the time came down to "it was a distraction from Afghanistan", which is rather more tepid than "I am completely against the idea of this war"*), but I don't think that means that you get to just connect the proverbial dots and draw in an opinion for Harris that he doesn't have. You can feel free to criticize Harris for thinking that the reason it was a morass was because the people there were even more fundamentalist than President Bush had anticipated (I mean, rather than, you know, "as shitty as a dictator is, anarchy is worse", or "armies are designed to prosecute wars, not be police"), but no, he is a proper anti-war liberal on the specific point of whether or not the US ought to have invaded Iraq in 2003.

*http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-controversy

Quote
The truth is, I have never known what to think about this war, apart from the obvious: 1) prospectively, it seemed like a very dangerous distraction from the ongoing war in Afghanistan; 2) retrospectively, it was a disaster. Much of the responsibility for this disaster falls on the Bush administration, and one of the administration’s great failings was to underestimate the religious sectarianism of the Iraqi people.
Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

personate-rain
personate-rain