Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-04-2013, 06:51 PM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(25-04-2013 11:16 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(24-04-2013 11:04 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Nothing but word salad up to this point. If you call just claiming something as bull an argument, I suppose you are great at doing that. But until this point, you have not been making any substantive points.

I see that you enclosed an actual response under a Spoiler button. So for anyone missing the content of TrulyX's post, I'll edit to make it more visible without the need to click.



OK, so finally you actually formulate a specific point of criticism. You don't quite explain how a straw man is being used, how I'm moving the goalposts, or how you can claim to know what I realize, so we'll continue.


So perhaps this is where you think I am injecting some sort of logical fallacy? It should be obvious to all but the most uninformed that social conservative is the term used to describe politicians who advocate faith (Christianity in particular) as part of politics. Social conservatives advocate things like school prayer, opposition to abortion, resistance to gay marriage, anti-science advocacy through opposition to evolution education, lament the 'war on christmas' nonsense, etc.

This is not in any way moving the goalposts or changing the group of people we were talking about. It should be very obvious to everyone (except you I guess) that social conservative is precisely the term one uses to describe individuals who tend to impose their religious views on others in the US.



What color is the sky in the world you live in. Social conservatives don't try to inject religion in politics? Really? Are you that uninformed or are you just trolling? At this point I'm not really sure. You really think both parties use religion the same? In American politics, I'm conservative but differ with the GOP on the social conservative policies and in particular pushing policies that appease the evangelical social conservative wing of the party. You really are uninformed if you think the Democrats advocate faith based laws like the GOP does.

Still no straw men burned or goal posts moved. On to the next section.


I am saying:
-executing gay people in Islam ≠ opposing gay marriage
-harassing and beating people for hair and dress ≠ stern lectures about the decay of morals
-executing people for apostasy ≠ advocating school prayer

Sam Harris describes his case for an objective morality, that if we define a measure of the level of suffering caused by the organization of a society, we can make a call that, for instance, executing gay people is worse than not letting them get married. If we take this one specific example, do you really want to rely on the context of the society and reserve judgement on whether one is worse than the other. You are the one who takes the extreme position of using context to excuse what would by by any objective standard a more objectionable behavior.

What I am saying is yes, I don't give one flying fuck what the context is, what the history is, what their faith says, when deciding we are morally superior when we decide not to execute gay people. I am agreeing with Sam Harris that if you want to see a great way to make women and children die, you would organize your society EXACTLY like the fundamentalists of Afghanistan want to organize their society.

OK, still no straw men, no goal posts moved, no demonstration of how you can claim that I realize I'm wrong.


OK, back to unsupported assertions and word salad. What am I making into scapegoats? What is the hypocrisy?


I can tell you are not used to defending your arguments. My replies might piss you off, but you do not back up your assertions with examples or clear points. You are obviously used to being surrounded by people who generally agree with you (or don't care to argue). You make unsupported assertions and think what is obvious to you should be understood by everyone else.

If for instance you are going to claim I am using a straw man argument, you might want to actually say what you think the straw man was in my argument. I think you might have meant my use of the word social conservative in place of Christian, but if that was the case, you don't actually understand the common meaning of the term social conservative. But moreover, you are misusing the characterization of straw man--if anything social conservative is actually a more difficult class of people to defend vis-a-vis their propensity to push religion on others. So I was actually describing something worse than just Christianity in general. That's not moving the goal posts or resorting to straw man at all--that's relying on the weakest possible support of my case that even the worst of offenders in the West are better than common offenses in Islam. You might disagree with my assertion, but there was no resort to logical fallacy.

I'm not going through all of that piece by piece, it's all nonsense that totally avoids the actually points of this discussion, and you didn't even attempt to fully substantiate your position.

My first post was me bashing Harris and questioning whether he was asking certain people to be hypocrites by ignoring the immorality and destruction that religion has on society, in Western society, mainly America and Christianity. Harris just isn't at all a Christopher Hitchens. He doesn't have any ground to stand on, from which to make bold claims, and he definitely doesn't have the skill to argue them and back it up.

You were confusing 'liberal' with 'left', generalizing, stereotyping, misinterpreting positions and basically doing any thing that you could do to make sense out of the claim that certain people being against certain immoral actions taken by Christians in America, was equal to (and you were implying large numbers of people) ignoring Islamic fascism, or something similar. That mistake, yet even further, with regard to your OP, was pointed out many times by many people in this thread, including myself.

In my second post, I responded to you using Mahr, which was a blatant appeal to authority. In that thread I brought up basically all relevant information regarding any discussion to be had about this topic. The reification fallacy being made, the context being blatantly left out, intentionally, in support of an already baseless claim and the only actual good argument toward showing how and why Islam can be considered on a different level of dangerous. By the end of that I made the broad point that religion, in general, is dangerous and destructive to society and the world, and that religion in the US is the cause of massive amounts of destruction, turmoil, immorality, irrational, and any other problems one could think of, all over the entire union that is the United States, as well as across the entire world. The point that it is blatantly hypocritical to ignore, or try to put on a lesser level, the amount of negativity that is caused by religion in our society, as compared to the rest of the world. That immoral is immoral, religion and irrationality is always destructive, and that is the case regardless of who is committing the acts and what random ideology that is arbitrarily attributed to being responsible for their own personal thoughts, desires, intentions and actions. And, that no person, with me around to say otherwise, will load up the proverbial goat, by pushing off all or most of the blame on another group, ignoring all historical immorality and nailing Jesus to the cross to wipe themselves clean of any responsibility, current immorality or future immorality. And, that no person will see me being of the position of a hypocrite or one who resorts to scapegoating.

You then objected, further, for whatever reason, apparently given that you are claiming that there is some sort of objective standard from which to say that certain immoral actions by a certain groups can be judged differently than immoral actions taken by others. You then appealed to authority by simply saying that Bill Mahr said this, Hitchens thought that, Sam Harris was proposing this, Neil Degrasse Tyson had this video, while none of that at all substantiated your point. You appealed to emotion, by simply stating certain immoral actions, while you were intentionally moving goalposts and building straw men, by taking different groups of people, different immoral actions, demanding that societal situation that directly or indirectly affect course for action shall be deemed irrelevant to a discussion regarding course of action, setting up a set of specific actions intentionally more violent (which brings thoughts about blood, death, pain, etc; things that appeal emotionally) across from things that aren't very emotionally appealing, exciting, reflecting the case in reality and that ignored the broad, general, point I was discussing. You tried something similar with the equivocation of the word 'same' as a 'same' more in line with your point of view. And more, but ultimately, none of that logically lead to the conclusion that you were trying to make for yourself, against my argument and/or in line with the discussion we were having-- thus all fallacy.

So, when you want to substantiate that religion poisons everything, but when you are a different set of people, with a different name to the same kind of bullshit, it poisons things more extremely and makes irrationality, specifically immorality, somehow different, you can do than.


Meh...I think I've made my points and nothing you've stated here rises to the level of requiring a response that would be any different than my previous replies in this thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2013, 08:52 PM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(25-04-2013 05:30 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(24-04-2013 06:19 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Stop trolling me, this is getting annoying.

Originally, I thought you were being sarcastic.

Were you not joking?

It was a jab at you not addressing ByranS's points.

So as opposed to providing any thing positive to the thread or to the forum, you jump in randomly with a preformed, ideological view, jump behind the first thing that looks close to your position and proceed to make random, uninformative, unfunny comments?

If you are going to troll at least be provocative and/or funny.

(25-04-2013 06:51 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Meh...I think I've made my points and nothing you've stated here rises to the level of requiring a response that would be any different than my previous replies in this thread.

I told you what was going to happen on page 7. Why did you even feel the need to post again?

I shouldn't have even wasted my time from the beginning.

I responded that way just to see if you would ever try to substantiate your position, or if you would rely on the fact that I would keep responding to claims that unnecessarily dragged on the topic, with irrelevant, distracting minor points, never addressing the major point.

After a while running around in circles gets extremely annoying, when the topic is sort of uninteresting and not very contentious. For correctness, or simply for entertainment (right or wrong), I find it nice to, every once and a while, see if people will simply think and reason. Usually, it always ends with a no. They will just go on holding to their original position, ideologically, with no substantiation of the claim, dogmatically sticking to the original position. Leaving the discussion as if nothing happened. When doing this on a site called, "The Thinking Atheist Forum", one, for whatever reason, might think there would be a lot lower chance that it would actually be possible for that to happen-- you would think it would be that they would either not believe something, or have the fundamentals down completely.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2013, 09:57 PM
Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
The romans didnt expel Jews, this is a myth that is in the bible which there is no historical evidence for. There were Jewish people in the bc era but like any other religion they intermarried, conquered, got conquered and conversion to or from Judaism was common. Which means that there is no distinct ethnic or racial group known as jews, they are like any other religion, mixed with all kinds of cultures all throughout history. Christians like nazis too believe in the Jewish race myth so of course they used this to blame them for all the problems during ww2. Just because Christians, nazis and Jews believe that Jews are a distinct race does t make it true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2013, 10:48 PM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(25-04-2013 09:57 PM)I and I Wrote:  The romans didnt expel Jews, this is a myth that is in the bible which there is no historical evidence for. There were Jewish people in the bc era but like any other religion they intermarried, conquered, got conquered and conversion to or from Judaism was common. Which means that there is no distinct ethnic or racial group known as jews, they are like any other religion, mixed with all kinds of cultures all throughout history. Christians like nazis too believe in the Jewish race myth so of course they used this to blame them for all the problems during ww2. Just because Christians, nazis and Jews believe that Jews are a distinct race does t make it true.

Got any proof of this (and btw it is not actually in the bible so not sure where you got that from) Oh and you forgot the rest of the world except for you in the believes Jews are a race or at least a tribe.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 01:06 AM
Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(25-04-2013 10:48 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(25-04-2013 09:57 PM)I and I Wrote:  The romans didnt expel Jews, this is a myth that is in the bible which there is no historical evidence for. There were Jewish people in the bc era but like any other religion they intermarried, conquered, got conquered and conversion to or from Judaism was common. Which means that there is no distinct ethnic or racial group known as jews, they are like any other religion, mixed with all kinds of cultures all throughout history. Christians like nazis too believe in the Jewish race myth so of course they used this to blame them for all the problems during ww2. Just because Christians, nazis and Jews believe that Jews are a distinct race does t make it true.

Got any proof of this (and btw it is not actually in the bible so not sure where you got that from) Oh and you forgot the rest of the world except for you in the believes Jews are a race or at least a tribe.

You made a claim that Romans expelled Jews or that Jews were a distinct race or culture at one point in history. You have provided no proof of this. And yes most people believe that Jews are a race because the three main religions in that have influenced the western world preach this in their religions. FUCKING AGAIN I wrongly assume people on here are atheists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 02:51 AM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(26-04-2013 01:06 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(25-04-2013 10:48 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Got any proof of this (and btw it is not actually in the bible so not sure where you got that from) Oh and you forgot the rest of the world except for you in the believes Jews are a race or at least a tribe.

You made a claim that Romans expelled Jews or that Jews were a distinct race or culture at one point in history. You have provided no proof of this. And yes most people believe that Jews are a race because the three main religions in that have influenced the western world preach this in their religions. FUCKING AGAIN I wrongly assume people on here are atheists.

Why do I ever bother arguing with someone with no grasp of reality. Get back to me when you lose the tinfoil hat kid.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 04:15 AM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(25-04-2013 08:52 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(25-04-2013 05:30 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It was a jab at you not addressing ByranS's points.

So as opposed to providing any thing positive to the thread or to the forum, you jump in randomly with a preformed, ideological view, jump behind the first thing that looks close to your position and proceed to make random, uninformative, unfunny comments?

If you are going to troll at least be provocative and/or funny.

(25-04-2013 06:51 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Meh...I think I've made my points and nothing you've stated here rises to the level of requiring a response that would be any different than my previous replies in this thread.

I told you what was going to happen on page 7. Why did you even feel the need to post again?

I shouldn't have even wasted my time from the beginning.

I responded that way just to see if you would ever try to substantiate your position, or if you would rely on the fact that I would keep responding to claims that unnecessarily dragged on the topic, with irrelevant, distracting minor points, never addressing the major point.

After a while running around in circles gets extremely annoying, when the topic is sort of uninteresting and not very contentious. For correctness, or simply for entertainment (right or wrong), I find it nice to, every once and a while, see if people will simply think and reason. Usually, it always ends with a no. They will just go on holding to their original position, ideologically, with no substantiation of the claim, dogmatically sticking to the original position. Leaving the discussion as if nothing happened. When doing this on a site called, "The Thinking Atheist Forum", one, for whatever reason, might think there would be a lot lower chance that it would actually be possible for that to happen-- you would think it would be that they would either not believe something, or have the fundamentals down completely.

The point of responding was to solicit this kind of response. Irrational adherence to political points of view is precisely what Sam Harris fears has developed on the left. Your posts have demonstrated his point nicely. It is clear you have the reading comprehension and debate skills of a turnip--those on the left who are not so limited may come to realize that support for Islamists doesn't actually help their cause. Feel free to continue serving out your role as useful idiot, but your service is on display for all to see on this thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 08:23 AM
Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(26-04-2013 02:51 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(26-04-2013 01:06 AM)I and I Wrote:  You made a claim that Romans expelled Jews or that Jews were a distinct race or culture at one point in history. You have provided no proof of this. And yes most people believe that Jews are a race because the three main religions in that have influenced the western world preach this in their religions. FUCKING AGAIN I wrongly assume people on here are atheists.

Why do I ever bother arguing with someone with no grasp of reality. Get back to me when you lose the tinfoil hat kid.

The atheists on here are truly dumber than shit. You guys are seriously taking parts of religious teachings that fit your political views and accepting these religious teachings as fact. There was never a Jewish race or ethnic group that differentiated them from other people in the past or the present. If you guys believe in this religious notion of a Jewish race then how in the mother fucker are Israelis white? Oh yeah, they are white because like any other religion, through intermarriage/conversion/and conquering, they have no pure race. And like any other religion that spans over different cultures, there is no pure ethnic Jewish communities.


This shit is fucking amazing. Any questioning of papa gov and the mainstream media.....ridiculed and made fun of and now certain criticisms of religious teachings are now ridiculed and made fun of. The pretend atheists of this forum are amazing to watch. The religious ideas of a Jewish race are just as fucking dumb shit as any other religious belief.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 09:35 AM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(26-04-2013 04:15 AM)BryanS Wrote:  The point of responding was to solicit this kind of response. Irrational adherence to political points of view is precisely what Sam Harris fears has developed on the left. Your posts have demonstrated his point nicely. It is clear you have the reading comprehension and debate skills of a turnip--those on the left who are not so limited may come to realize that support for Islamists doesn't actually help their cause. Feel free to continue serving out your role as useful idiot, but your service is on display for all to see on this thread.

Yeah, you can't support the blatantly bigoted, irrational, nonsensical and completely full of bull-fucking-shit view that immorality with regard to actions by Christian Americans is, somehow (by some magical, hidden, only known to you, too good to share, basis), not as immoral as immorality with regard to actions by Muslims.

So you come back with: Another completely unrelated, irrelevant mentioning of Sam Harris, an obvious ad hominem attack and another, obvious, misrepresentation of views (like somehow I was supporting Islamist).

How am I, at all representing an, "irrational adherence to political points of view"?

Who has been going around this thread talking about: "liberals this", "the left that"? Who has had the same point of view since that beginning of the thread? Who has not properly responded to any thoughts on the subject in a way that reflected something other than someone sticking to dogma? Who has been responding with talking points, rhetoric and fallacy? Who has been responding by naming or posting videos to people with similar views, and not backing up the claims? Who has been misrepresenting the views of their opponents? Who hasn't been, at all, trying to ask for, get familiar with and/or understand the view(s) of others, while ranting on as if they understood it perfectly?

What you have said throughout the entire thread, in response to me, including in that post, has not been, at all, following any objective, rational and/or thoughtful line of reasoning, and it definitely hasn't looked as if it came from someone who was objectively, rationally and thoughtfully understanding and concerning themselves with what I was saying-- in your first three responses to me, I had to mention that you (intentionally or not) were not understanding my position, yet you still went on as if you were perfectly familiar with it.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 10:59 AM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(25-04-2013 08:52 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  It was a jab at you not addressing ByranS's points.

Not at all. I do not even know or care what you are arguing about. I just read your arguments and noticed you did not address his points.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: