Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-04-2013, 06:08 PM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(22-04-2013 12:08 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(21-04-2013 11:00 PM)BryanS Wrote:  This moral equivalence through non-judgment of religion is precisely what Harris is accusing the left of doing.

I'd hope he wasn't making the error of not properly distinguishing and being specific. I hope he didn't mean, specifically, all people on the left, and not just a select group of liberals.

Even ignoring that, without even considering whether she was on the left, or not, that women seems like an ideological fool.

If course it is not 'all people on the left' who do this. Just like it is not true that 'all people on the right' in the US are racist. But, you are going to find racism on the right, and you will find appeasement on the left.

It's just so easy to find pundits and opinion leaders on the left trying to downplay Islam as a cause of the violence. Just this weekend--this is the kind of fatuous pap that passes for liberal commentary:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arch...so/275154/

The Tsarnaev brothers may have been Muslim, and that circumstance may have, in part, motivated them in their actions on Monday. They may have been Chechen. They may have been male. But that was not all they were. Their lives were like all of ours: full of small incongruities that build and blend to drive us in different directions. Another thing we think we know about the brothers is that they lived in the middle of one of America's richest cities, near a gas station. And a retirement home. And an auto-body shop. And a really good cafe that serves homemade ice cream. As a place it is tranquil and gritty, urban and not at all. It is messy and busy and real.

One day, the brothers left it for Boston. And to understand why they did that -- to have even a prayer of progressing towards a world where two more young men don't do that -- we have to embrace complexity.



Now, it is true we have more to learn about what motivated the bombers, but this is an appeal to look for anything other than religion being the cause.

And then there is this chestnut, emblematic of the hope on the left before we knew the identity of the terrorists that it was a white, right wing nutter:
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hop..._american/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2013, 08:28 AM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(22-04-2013 05:33 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(22-04-2013 04:16 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  A libertarian is a hick who hasn't evolved out of an agrarian society.

Oh, wait, that wasn't an aphorism. Or was it?

If when you are young you are not a liberal, you do not have a heart.
If when you are old you are not a conservative, you do not have a brain.

If you are a conservative, you are on the same side as Michelle Bachman, Anne Coulter, Ayn Rand, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Mike Huckabee.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUajZNfMKH_d2uysmjxFV...pHijIizjUg]

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2013, 09:35 AM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(22-04-2013 05:57 PM)BryanS Wrote:  I can say it is not the same thing because for real, it is not. Yes, religion is a threat in the more (classical) liberal western countries. The religious right gets their way often enough, and when they do it is a setback. But the religious right didn't kill people when Piss Christ was on display--ohh, it ticked them off something awful, and they protested and spoke out against the National Endowment for the Arts for funding it. As you point out, they try to get elected. But they didn't kill people or organize violent riots over their perceived insult. Just saying the wrong thing about Islam can put your life at risk.

I guess, I'll have to just quit trying to make the same point, over and over.

The acts obviously are not the same, apples to apples, when dealing with completely different societies and societal infrastructures.

The past hundred years in America has been "in God we trust", "God Bless America", "one nation under God", etc., president after president, governor after governor, representative after representative, a Christian nation, abuse of power, ignoring rights and principles, with basically little to no secular opposition, at all, making things dramatically worse than you could otherwise imagine things being, both at home and abroad, fuck ups and cover ups, a lot of which are, and were, directly or indirectly responsible for the problems that we are seeing in the very countries relevant to a discussions regarding Islamic, fascist extremism; and with that, I really can't accept as a viable point, that Islam is worse, because there are people, who were victims or parents were victims, directly or indirectly as a result of policies from this Christian, god blessed, country of America, who will get more pissed off when we make fun of Muhammad than others will when Jesus is mocked.

I recognize your point, and I accept that Islam, along with religion in general, is a huge threat the civilized society in this world; however, I'm not in any way going to strip away the context.

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
[+] 1 user Likes TrulyX's post
23-04-2013, 09:55 AM (This post was last modified: 23-04-2013 09:59 AM by TrulyX.)
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(22-04-2013 06:08 PM)BryanS Wrote:  If course it is not 'all people on the left' who do this. Just like it is not true that 'all people on the right' in the US are racist. But, you are going to find racism on the right, and you will find appeasement on the left.

It's just so easy to find pundits and opinion leaders on the left trying to downplay Islam as a cause of the violence. Just this weekend--this is the kind of fatuous pap that passes for liberal commentary:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arch...so/275154/

The Tsarnaev brothers may have been Muslim, and that circumstance may have, in part, motivated them in their actions on Monday. They may have been Chechen. They may have been male. But that was not all they were. Their lives were like all of ours: full of small incongruities that build and blend to drive us in different directions. Another thing we think we know about the brothers is that they lived in the middle of one of America's richest cities, near a gas station. And a retirement home. And an auto-body shop. And a really good cafe that serves homemade ice cream. As a place it is tranquil and gritty, urban and not at all. It is messy and busy and real.

One day, the brothers left it for Boston. And to understand why they did that -- to have even a prayer of progressing towards a world where two more young men don't do that -- we have to embrace complexity.



Now, it is true we have more to learn about what motivated the bombers, but this is an appeal to look for anything other than religion being the cause.

My problem is that a lot of those people are not even on the left; and even some of the ones who are, are being taken completely out of context, in order to make it seem as if they are advocating in support for, or weakness toward certain groups, when they are simply pointing out hypocrisy, mistakes and ignorance, in general.


Quote:And then there is this chestnut, emblematic of the hope on the left before we knew the identity of the terrorists that it was a white, right wing nutter:
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hop..._american/

I don't really care for reading the article, but I would have to say, I don't support the watering down of the word "terrorist" or "terrorism".

They were right-wing, white, America (I think might not have had citizenship), Muslim, fanatical, violent murders, or bombers.

Terrorism really isn't a good word to use to describe people, especially when the primary goal is contained within the act itself (e.g. killing people), with no alternative and/or separately defined goals or concerns about people being terrified.

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
23-04-2013, 11:13 AM
Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
The discussion morphed from the reason the state of Israel was founded to terrorism. At least there is a consistent strand in the flow of the conversation.


Now who was the idiot that earlier tried to deny that the state of Israel was founded on religion?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2013, 11:44 AM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(23-04-2013 09:35 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(22-04-2013 05:57 PM)BryanS Wrote:  I can say it is not the same thing because for real, it is not. Yes, religion is a threat in the more (classical) liberal western countries. The religious right gets their way often enough, and when they do it is a setback. But the religious right didn't kill people when Piss Christ was on display--ohh, it ticked them off something awful, and they protested and spoke out against the National Endowment for the Arts for funding it. As you point out, they try to get elected. But they didn't kill people or organize violent riots over their perceived insult. Just saying the wrong thing about Islam can put your life at risk.

I guess, I'll have to just quit trying to make the same point, over and over.

The acts obviously are not the same, apples to apples, when dealing with completely different societies and societal infrastructures.

The past hundred years in America has been "in God we trust", "God Bless America", "one nation under God", etc., president after president, governor after governor, representative after representative, a Christian nation, abuse of power, ignoring rights and principles, with basically little to no secular opposition, at all, making things dramatically worse than you could otherwise imagine things being, both at home and abroad, fuck ups and cover ups, a lot of which are, and were, directly or indirectly responsible for the problems that we are seeing in the very countries relevant to a discussions regarding Islamic, fascist extremism; and with that, I really can't accept as a viable point, that Islam is worse, because there are people, who were victims or parents were victims, directly or indirectly as a result of policies from this Christian, god blessed, country of America, who will get more pissed off when we make fun of Muhammad than others will when Jesus is mocked.

I recognize your point, and I accept that Islam, along with religion in general, is a huge threat the civilized society in this world; however, I'm not in any way going to strip away the context.

Oh please, the entire reason there was a rebirth in evangelical Christianity after World War II was because it was a tool in the containment of Communism. I do not honestly believe a lot politicians are actual Christians, but are rather pandering to their voting block.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
23-04-2013, 04:01 PM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(23-04-2013 11:44 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Oh please, the entire reason there was a rebirth in evangelical Christianity after World War II was because it was a tool in the containment of Communism. I do not honestly believe a lot politicians are actual Christians, but are rather pandering to their voting block.

That is why Bill Clinton was the greatest president of all time. He was extraordinarily gifted, with regard to being completely egotistical, immoral, especially dishonest, and he was an incredible actor.

The most admirable traits, that should leave any person thankful for living in a society, where extremely credulous individuals hold the responsibility of choosing leaders, without much contest.

First black president!

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
23-04-2013, 04:09 PM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(23-04-2013 04:01 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  That is why Bill Clinton was the greatest president of all time. He was extraordinarily gifted, with regard to being completely egotistical, immoral, especially dishonest, and he was an incredible actor.

I disagree with some of those sentiments, but I am actually rather unclear about what you mean. It is definitely the four hours of sleep in the past three days that is getting to me. It is clearly it, because it took me like ten minutes to get this typed out, god damn typos and shit.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2013, 07:59 PM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(23-04-2013 11:44 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(23-04-2013 09:35 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  I guess, I'll have to just quit trying to make the same point, over and over.

The acts obviously are not the same, apples to apples, when dealing with completely different societies and societal infrastructures.

The past hundred years in America has been "in God we trust", "God Bless America", "one nation under God", etc., president after president, governor after governor, representative after representative, a Christian nation, abuse of power, ignoring rights and principles, with basically little to no secular opposition, at all, making things dramatically worse than you could otherwise imagine things being, both at home and abroad, fuck ups and cover ups, a lot of which are, and were, directly or indirectly responsible for the problems that we are seeing in the very countries relevant to a discussions regarding Islamic, fascist extremism; and with that, I really can't accept as a viable point, that Islam is worse, because there are people, who were victims or parents were victims, directly or indirectly as a result of policies from this Christian, god blessed, country of America, who will get more pissed off when we make fun of Muhammad than others will when Jesus is mocked.

I recognize your point, and I accept that Islam, along with religion in general, is a huge threat the civilized society in this world; however, I'm not in any way going to strip away the context.

Oh please, the entire reason there was a rebirth in evangelical Christianity after World War II was because it was a tool in the containment of Communism. I do not honestly believe a lot politicians are actual Christians, but are rather pandering to their voting block.

Good point. A lot of the politics of religion post WWII was the fight the 'godless commies'. Pope John Paul II was seen as a major force for fighting communism through the church. The pledge of allegiance for instance added the words "under god" first int he 1950s.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2013, 08:09 PM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(23-04-2013 09:55 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  My problem is that a lot of those people are not even on the left; and even some of the ones who are, are being taken completely out of context, in order to make it seem as if they are advocating in support for, or weakness toward certain groups, when they are simply pointing out hypocrisy, mistakes and ignorance, in general.


Quote:And then there is this chestnut, emblematic of the hope on the left before we knew the identity of the terrorists that it was a white, right wing nutter:
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hop..._american/

I don't really care for reading the article, but I would have to say, I don't support the watering down of the word "terrorist" or "terrorism".

They were right-wing, white, America (I think might not have had citizenship), Muslim, fanatical, violent murders, or bombers.

Terrorism really isn't a good word to use to describe people, especially when the primary goal is contained within the act itself (e.g. killing people), with no alternative and/or separately defined goals or concerns about people being terrified.

Don't see how you can call the bombers right wingers?



Quote:I guess, I'll have to just quit trying to make the same point, over and over.

The acts obviously are not the same, apples to apples, when dealing with completely different societies and societal infrastructures.

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree that 'context' matters as much as you say it does. These bombers lived most their lives in the US, so I don't think the context argument applies to the recent attacks in Boston. With respect to societies that accept murdering people who insult Islam, I cannot bring myself to that level of moral relativism to accept that kind of act as on the same level as social conservatives trying to inject religion into politics. I don't feel the need to temper my judgement of acts of individuals in societies that have norms that I find reprehensible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: