Sam Harris about Trump
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-11-2016, 02:30 AM
RE: Sam Harris about Trump
(13-11-2016 01:49 AM)Alla Wrote:  But I don't need in court some liberal or conservative activists. I need those who would defend the Constitution.

Scalia was an activist judge who shat all over decades of precedent and jurisprudence. His replacement will likely be far worse.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
13-11-2016, 04:14 AM
RE: Sam Harris about Trump
(13-11-2016 02:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(13-11-2016 01:49 AM)Alla Wrote:  But I don't need in court some liberal or conservative activists. I need those who would defend the Constitution.

Scalia was an activist judge who shat all over decades of precedent and jurisprudence. His replacement will likely be far worse.

No, no, no. Scalia's activism isn't "activist" because it confirms modern Conservatives' prejudices. Only people who look at the Constitution and realize that it isn't 1789 anymore can be "activist". But people who look at the Constitution and think it's still 1954 are "originalists". Rolleyes

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
13-11-2016, 04:24 AM
RE: Sam Harris about Trump
(13-11-2016 04:14 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(13-11-2016 02:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Scalia was an activist judge who shat all over decades of precedent and jurisprudence. His replacement will likely be far worse.

No, no, no. Scalia's activism isn't "activist" because it confirms modern Conservatives' prejudices. Only people who look at the Constitution and realize that it isn't 1789 anymore can be "activist". But people who look at the Constitution and think it's still 1954 are "originalists". Rolleyes

Indeed, as only they have the psychic powers necessary to jump back into the minds of the Founding Fathers and extract from them the opinions they failed to write down or codify into law.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
13-11-2016, 10:23 AM (This post was last modified: 13-11-2016 04:02 PM by epronovost.)
RE: Sam Harris about Trump
(11-11-2016 09:53 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  He makes excellent points, especially about the whole Islam thing. It's even a common theme here. Anyone that says anything bad about Islam here is immediately attacked as a bigot. But the same people doing the attacking will disparage christians in the next breath. They use racist as a term to brow beat people into submission and people are absolutely sick of it. I've been called a racist more times than I can count on this website. My first wife was Indian/black and I have a daughter with her. Pisses me off more than I could explain.

You have been called a racist on these pages numerous times because you have said racist things numerous times. You defended Japanese internment camps as a reasonnable action during WWII, while it was recognise both as a war crime, completly useless and the product of war hysteria and racism (Germans and Italians were not imprisonned in a systematic fashion afterall). You have called for the deportation or incarceration of every single Muslim living in your country, no matter their beliefs or status and never clearly retracted those positions. Sam Harris faces similar critique. He argued for the uses of torture, war crimes (killing and arresting terrorist family members), the illegal detention conditions of war prisonners and an agressive and interventionist foreign policy toward Muslim countries. When you support those things someone can reasonnably claim that you have stepped from a reasonnable stance of critique of Islamism to plain good old racism/islamophobia.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like epronovost's post
22-11-2016, 09:34 AM (This post was last modified: 22-11-2016 09:55 AM by Velvet.)
RE: Sam Harris about Trump
(13-11-2016 10:23 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Sam Harris faces similar critique. He argued for the uses of torture, war crimes (killing and arresting terrorist family members), the illegal detention conditions of war prisonners and an agressive and interventionist foreign policy toward Muslim countries. When you support those things someone can reasonnably claim that you have stepped from a reasonnable stance of critique of Islamism to plain good old racism/islamophobia.

Sam Harris didn't argued for those things you said.

He argues about the moral implications and limits around those things, and he discuss his purely pragmatic views of those events as they are (not as he would like them to be or approves them to be).

While I disagree with some things Sam says, he, and I, are both equally tired of people like you, who so readily misunderstands his speech and call him a bigot out of sheer ignorance.

He goes a bit about what I'm talking about here, very quickly: Put in 5:35



That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Velvet's post
22-11-2016, 10:07 AM
RE: Sam Harris about Trump
The difference between arguing accepting/tolerating toture as a method of interrogation by necessity and arguing for the use of torture to respect carceral and judicial traditon is moot, especially for its victims. Torture is unanimously demonstrated as inefficient and cruel. Sam Harris critique Islamists, amongst other things for their use of violence and torture which makes him hypocritical at best. No, you do not fight violence by killing and bullying all the violent people that's elementary logic. If Mr. Harris intentions are so readily misunderstood (very unintentional, I normaly don't give a shit about him and would certainly like him much more if what you say is true), maybe he should change his prose for its easy to interpret it in this way. The context in which he calls for an analysis of the moral implication of torture or callin bombing civilians collateral damage doesn't really help him. The pen is mightier than the sword when you have a wide audience. You should use it with care.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2016, 10:24 AM
RE: Sam Harris about Trump
(11-11-2016 08:07 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(11-11-2016 11:57 AM)Vosur Wrote:  This short one is also pretty good:



Yeah, that is right on point. I'm exhausted from having to explain to my conservative friends and family (most of them on both counts) that I am a hard-left Liberal and yet I loathe all those elements of modern liberalism as much as they do.

Sadly, what he's leaving out is that the right doesn't want to hear the arguments. They see the world in fairly simple, black-and-white terms that don't really fit the real world's grayscale, and the nuanced arguments simply cannot reach them because they won't listen. They have an imaginary view of the world and you can't convince them that the "Leave It To Beaver" version of America never actually existed, and we can't return to it even if it had. So all they see is "real America" slipping away, and when they try to express that feeling, they're treated with derision. Many of the arguments the conservatives make are in favor of structural racism, but when lefties call them "racist", all they can think is "but I'm NOT racist, and couldn't care less what color a person is", which is true-- and it leads them to an angry response that denies the real issue and shuts down all conversation... a conversation that NEEDS to happen in this country more than any other.

As part of that backlash, though, there are labels that continue to be applied to the left that are equally unfair. I keep hearing the word "liberal elite", but I don't know what it means. As far as I can tell, it's utter bullshit, as though we're masses of commies getting our marching orders from a central committee.

I'm a poor white person and I think my party (or rather, my ideological side) stands for the poor-- including all those white, poor voters who support the hyper-wealthy ACTUAL elites (and upper-middle-class "gated community" types) who want GOP policies in place to protect their greedy self-interest. It's why I recommended the book, a few weeks ago, What's the Matter with Kansas?, which tries to explain why poor whites seem to think that the wealthy care about them and the poor minorities are their opposition rather than their natural allies.

The "old guard" DNC needs to go, especially the 60s-era ones like Clinton who have become almost indistinguishable from the RNC candidates of 20-30 years ago. I'm not sure that means a Bernie-like candidate; I just know that the current course of liberal thinking is not sustainable.

Current politics are not sustainable. ALL the people wanted change, something different. You had Sanders and Trump who fit that bill, albeit on different ends of the political spectrum. The dems made the mistake of not recognizing that and not allowing Sanders to run. So Trump won. Hopefully we will see some viable candidates next time around, and the parties will recognize them as such.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2016, 10:25 AM (This post was last modified: 22-11-2016 10:55 AM by Velvet.)
RE: Sam Harris about Trump
(22-11-2016 10:07 AM)epronovost Wrote:  The difference between arguing accepting/tolerating toture as a method of interrogation by necessity and arguing for the use of torture to respect carceral and judicial traditon is moot, especially for its victims. Torture is unanimously demonstrated as inefficient and cruel. Sam Harris critique Islamists, amongst other things for their use of violence and torture which makes him hypocritical at best. No, you do not fight violence by killing and bullying all the violent people that's elementary logic. If Mr. Harris intentions are so readily misunderstood (very unintentional, I normaly don't give a shit about him and would certainly like him much more if what you say is true), maybe he should change his prose for its easy to interpret it in this way. The context in which he calls for an analysis of the moral implication of torture or callin bombing civilians collateral damage doesn't really help him. The pen is mightier than the sword when you have a wide audience. You should use it with care.

Now, that's a fair critique that I can easily concede, Sam most often than not, choses ways of expressing his points that may be easily misunderstood, and while he says that he rathers not being misundestood, he remains very often setting the same kind of inflamatory examples.

He has a podcast with NDT in which Neil intelectually scolds him about that, and Sam humbly responds: "I'm trying, but I'm a slow learner"

About the hipocrisy that you pointed, I don't agree, Harris defends a morality ground on human well being (that I also don't agree), but a pragmatic approach in which the death of 9999 people is clearly desirable in face of the death of 10000 people, no need for excuses.

Using this kind of view, based of maximization of human well being, or "human flourishing" as he often says, becomes easy to justify fighting violence with "better", more focused, precise violence. (which seems to be the case he is defending)

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: