Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Ben Affleck vs. Sam Harris & Bill Maher on Real Time

Options
12467…18

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    vibe666
    Registered Users Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    jank wrote: »
    Lots of evidence in this thread and one just have to look at the hostility that Ben Affleck showed towards Sam Harris.

    Let me remind you that YOU made the initial claim about the religious right in the US being MORE likely to harm homosexuals and women than Islamists and Jihad's in the Muslim world. Since you cannot prove this, your agreements is null and void and in my opinion has been easily dismantled. The statistics, the UN declaration of LGBT rights, the executions, Sharia law and so on prove Sam Harris and those who agree with him right.
    that is a feeble attempt at deflection by trying to misquote me, but thanks for trying.

    what I said was...
    vibe666 wrote: »
    if they did the same survey on christians in the US i wouldn't be at all surprised if there are more right wing extremists in christianity there than there are in islam, particularly looking at what is going on in the US at the moment.

    which bears absolutely fcuk all similarity to what you are claiming I said, but that's perfectly fine since your "opinion" carries no weight at all given how consistently misguided and/or factually incorrect your posts have been.

    If you stopped patting yourself on the back for a minute and actually read the entire article that goes with those statistics you mistakenly seem to think validate your views, you might actually learn something, but heaven forbid that should happen. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #93
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Dave! wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XduMMteTEbc


    There has been a pretty strong reaction to this discussion by lots of people online. On Twitter at least it seems to be overwhelmingly in support of Affleck and nods of approval at his calling Harris a racist.

    Anyone had any thoughts on it?
    2 bloodthirsty Zionists and Project Reason buddies vs Affleck. I'm glad Sam Harris got called out publically on his racism and hope it encourages people to delve further into his racism.


  • Options
    #94
    Virgil°
    Registered Users Posts: 1,194 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    2 bloodthirsty Zionists and Project Reason buddies vs Affleck. I'm glad Sam Harris got called out publically on his racism and hope it encourages people to delve further into his racism.

    What race is he stigmatizing?


  • Options
    #95
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Virgil° wrote: »
    What race is he stigmatizing?
    He is certainly an anti-Arab racist, and his racism possibly goes deeper. He said something along the lines of -- In terms of "intelligence" -- that "he would be surprised if there were no differences found between the races".


  • Options
    #96
    Standman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    I honestly believe that if Harris was of Middle Eastern/African descent - all other things being equal - nobody would be calling him a racist.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    He is certainly an anti-Arab racist, and his racism possibly goes deeper. He said something along the lines of -- In terms of "intelligence" -- that "he would be surprised if there were no differences found between the races".

    http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-strange-case-of-francis-collins
    Watson’s opinions on race are disturbing, but his underlying point was not, in principle, unscientific. There may very well be detectable differences in intelligence between races. Given the genetic consequences of a population living in isolation for tens of thousands of years it would, in fact, be very surprising if there were no differences between racial or ethnic groups waiting to be discovered. I say this not to defend Watson’s fascination with race, or to suggest that such race-focused research might be worth doing. I am merely observing that there is, at least, a possible scientific basis for his views. While Watson’s statement was obnoxious, one cannot say that his views are utterly irrational or that, by merely giving voice to them, he has repudiated the scientific worldview and declared himself immune to its further discoveries. Such a distinction would have to be reserved for Watson’s successor at the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins.

    A typically balanced and nuanced blog post by Harris reduced to a decontextualised soundbite to satisfy his dishonest and disingenuous detractors.

    Yep, sounds about right. A day in the life of Sam Harris. He must have the patience of a saint—I'd probably have retreated to a quiet life of academia if I was misrepresented by politically correct goons as frequently as he is.


  • Options
    #98
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    recedite wrote: »
    This is just an ad hominem type argument.
    A fascist might be very good at keeping his boots nicely polished, or making the trains run on time.
    .

    Or indeed have a nice uniform, well tended. However those aside, you'll pardon me if I treat their "insights" as regards minorities etc with a wee bit of salt.


  • Options
    #99
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    jank wrote: »
    I think Sam Harris is pointing out the irony of the situation, where in Secular Liberal Europe the people who are pointing out the dangers of Islamic extremism among new immigrants are in fact the extreme right. The reasons why has been discussed. There is nothing much controversial about that quote at all.

    I'd say you're wrong there, likewise with regard to his other bizarre notions.

    Michael O'Brien wrote:
    "Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be
    especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren’t."
    is in the paragraph above that one showing the context that the following
    paragraph refers to.

    ....I don't accept that it follows through to the next paragraph. If it did ("muslims = fundamentalists") its not exactly an improvement.


  • Options
    #100
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Standman wrote: »
    I honestly believe that if Harris was of Middle Eastern/African descent - all other things being equal - nobody would be calling him a racist.
    He is (in part) of semitic descent and he is still a racist. All Zionists are de-facto racists.


  • Options
    #101
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    All Zionists are de-facto racists.
    BB - for the second time in twenty minutes, can you PLEASE try to discuss something calmly for a change?

    Somebody with your sensitivity to insinuation is more than well aware of how unhelpful that kind of comment is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Dave! wrote: »
    http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-strange-case-of-francis-collins



    A typically balanced and nuanced blog post by Harris reduced to a decontextualised soundbite to satisfy his dishonest and disingenuous detractors.

    Yep, sounds about right. A day in the life of Sam Harris. He must have the patience of a saint—I'd probably have retreated to a quiet life of academia if I was misrepresented by politically correct goons as frequently as he is.
    ... Sooo my paraphrase from memory was accurate. Thanks for linking!


    Any comment on his anti-Arab racism?


  • Options
    #103
    Standman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    ... Sooo my paraphrase from memory was accurate. Thanks for linking!


    Any comment on his anti-Arab racism?

    Do you honestly believe that quoted passage displays racism towards Arabs?


  • Options
    #104
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Standman wrote: »
    Do you honestly believe that quoted passage displays racism towards Arabs?

    Of Course not, his comments there where in the context of africans being less intelligent than Whites. You can observe his anti-arab racism through his advocacy of racially profiling Arabs.


  • Options
    #105
    Standman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Of Course not, his comments there where in the context of africans being less intelligent than Whites. You can observe his anti-arab racism through his advocacy of racially profiling Arabs.

    You may be mistaken there. I have read his blog posts about the issue and I can't find any mention of racially profiling Arabs. Do you have a link to where he stated that?


  • Options
    #106
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....I don't accept that it follows through to the next paragraph. If it did ("muslims = fundamentalists") its not exactly an improvement.
    He never called all muslims fundamentalists. Its like you have selective visual reading ability or something. He refers to Islamists, those that are far more fundamental in their integration of Islam into their lives than more laid back muslims. I cannot see anything offensive in the article. He is simply saying that the far right in places like the USA can appreciate the danger presented by the far right in Islamic countries better than some Liberals do because they understand how important religious faith is to them.

    If anything Sam is far too easy going on religion in general.


  • Options
    #107
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Of Course not, his comments there where in the context of africans being less intelligent than Whites. You can observe his anti-arab racism through his advocacy of racially profiling Arabs.

    Having slightly different intelligence across the global human demographics is not racism or bigotry. If it is true, then it is simply a scientific observation. If its false then its something that can be disproven and also a valid point as it allows for it to be discredited. An 'ought' is not necessarily derived from an 'is'.


  • Options
    #108
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    He never called all muslims fundamentalists. Its like you have selective visual reading ability or something. He refers to Islamists, those that are far more fundamental in their integration of Islam into their lives than more laid back muslims. I cannot see anything offensive in the article. He is simply saying that the far right in places like the USA can appreciate the danger presented by the far right in Islamic countries better than some Liberals do because they understand how important religious faith is to them.

    If anything Sam is far too easy going on religion in general.

    He was referring specxifically to immigrants in Europe.

    So you agree with these statements -

    "The erection of a mosque upon the ashes of this atrocity will also be viewed by many millions of Muslims as a victory — and as a sign that the liberal values of the West are synonymous with decadence and cowardice."

    "The outrage that Muslims feel over US and British foreign policy is primarily the product of theological concerns"


  • Options
    #109
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Nodin wrote: »
    Or indeed have a nice uniform, well tended. However those aside, you'll pardon me if I treat their "insights" as regards minorities etc with a wee bit of salt.

    Who's the minority? Muslims who number in the billions?


  • Options
    #110
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Who's the minority? Muslims who number in the billions?

    If you read the post above yours....


  • Options
    #111
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    Nodin wrote: »
    He was referring specxifically to immigrants in Europe.

    So you agree with these statements -

    "The erection of a mosque upon the ashes of this atrocity will also be viewed by many millions of Muslims as a victory — and as a sign that the liberal values of the West are synonymous with decadence and cowardice."

    "The outrage that Muslims feel over US and British foreign policy is primarily the product of theological concerns"

    Can you provide me with the quote that demonstrates that?
    As far as the mosque is concerned, again I need to see the link to see his reasoning. 1. Its not a mosque, 2. Its not at ground zero. 3. I have had muslims act like that on YT, but I assume they are not representative of the group involved. 4. I can appreciate it is a sensitive subject on both sides. 5. As long as its legal for them to build their center, they have every right to do so. 6. The quran does make statements about its enemies that can be used to put that message across, in that it is a flag of victory, but then radical muslims have plenty of ammunition for fueling hate anyway so its largely a drop in an ocean.

    The other quote needs more context. From that alone I would not agree with him. What muslims is he referring to? Which policies? This sounds like a quotemine to me. I have heard Reza try to put words in Sam's mouth during his debate and Reza (much like Ben) is not listening to Sam at all. Religion fuels the conflict, but I doubt Sam believes it is the primary reason for it. It could be what sustains it however.

    You seem to think that I have to agree with Sam on everything he says if I agree with him on anything. No. Sam is far too forgiving to other religions outside of the abrahamic faiths in my opinion and he has other stances I don't agree with, but he does try to be as balanced as possible. Even when I don't agree, I don't see him as unreasonable, just mistaken.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    Can you provide me with the quote that demonstrates that?

    I already did.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92588125&postcount=85
    As far as the mosque is concerned, again I need to see the link to see his
    reasoning. 1. Its not a mosque, 2. Its not at ground zero. 3. I have had muslims
    act like that on YT, but I assume they are not representative of the group
    involved. 4. I can appreciate it is a sensitive subject on both sides. 5. As
    long as its legal for them to build their center, they have every right to do
    so. 6.

    Starts off with dragging in Satanism and gets all happy clappy from there....
    http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-mosque
    The other quote needs more context. From that alone I would not agree with him.
    What muslims is he referring to? Which policies? This sounds like a quotemine to me. I have heard Reza try to put words in Sam's mouth during his debate and Reza (much like Ben) is not listening to Sam at all. Religion fuels the conflict, but
    I doubt Sam believes it is the primary reason for it. It could be what sustains it however.


    Another nasty, vile piece of work here. Internet biscuit if you can spot the glaring ommissions.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions_b_8615.html

    You seem to think that I have to agree with Sam on everything he says if I agree with him on anything. .............


    I'd suggest that the odd nugget of sense is taken out of context as far as Harris goes.


  • Options
    #113
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    Nodin wrote: »
    He was referring specxifically to immigrants in Europe.
    No he included those concerns. The majority of the article is dealing with radical Islamists in muslim countries. Seriously do you just see one sentence in isolation or what?

    Yes in the 2nd last paragraph of the article he refers to European situation and the issue with religious immigrants and the failure of multiculturalism.

    The proof that the article covers more than just europe should be "The SAME failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe." Again his points are repeated across the spectrum, not just Europe and not just religious immigrants.

    Now let me ask a few questions.
    Have you read the quran? If so, do you not agree that it has some truly awful passages throughout the many surahs that affect how Muslims practice their faith?
    How is seeking acknowledgement of these passages as problems a bad thing for reform? The first step to recovery is to stop denying the problem.


  • Options
    #114
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    No he included those concerns. The majority of the article is dealing with radical Islamists in muslim countries. Seriously do you just see one sentence in isolation or what?

    Yes in the 2nd last paragraph of the article he refers to European situation and the issue with religious immigrants and the failure of multiculturalism.
    .

    Yes, he is referring to immigrants.

    I'm all for acknowledging problems. However there are too many problems with Harris for him to be any guide to them, or a solution.
    Have you read the quran?

    Nope, though in my defence I never got through more than a few pages of the Bible the few times I tried. The effort wasn't helped by the fact I thought it was bit of a pointless exercise, given that - like all religous texts - many readings of it are possible.


  • Options
    #115
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    That article on the mosque was interesting. Here are my thoughts.
    1. He was over the top on the issue with the mosque somewhat, and the laughable inclusion of satanism or truthers seem uncalled for and frankly fluff.
    2. He agrees that they can build it and no one should stop them, however he sees it in bad taste. But that is just his opinion, which he acknowledges.
    3. The German mosque was shut down as a hotbed for sedition? Interesting. Its not the first time I have heard of radical preachers being brought into mosques in europe. There have been complaints from young muslim themselves about this, and it has lead to some leaving the faith in disgust after joining it.
    4. The same point about the quran is raised and is valid.
    5. The issue with apologists is valid.
    6. The issue with Ayaan Hirsi Ali is certainly true in regard to the hate Muslims have towards her. You can check any article, interview or video that has her name on it and the comments below are almost entirely filled with hate, threats and abuse from muslims or support from non muslims of many types wishing her well.

    Conclusion: I think we can only wait to see what fruit the cultural center bears in NY. If its good, promoting tolerance and reform, then wonderful, if its the same cover for propaganda and seeks to spread lies about 9/11, then it will deserve to be shut down.


  • Options
    #116
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    Nodin wrote: »
    Yes, he is referring to immigrants.

    I'm all for acknowledging problems. However there are too many problems with Harris for him to be any guide to them, or a solution.



    Nope, though in my defence I never got through more than a few pages of the Bible the few times I tried. The effort wasn't helped by the fact I thought it was bit of a pointless exercise, given that - like all religous texts - many readings of it are possible.

    Thanks for that response. It certainly makes a lot more sense in how you view Islam if you never read their sacred text. It is a boring read, I grant you, although not as bad as all that begatting in the bible. I do recommend reading it, at least to get a feel for it. It might give you insight to why we worry so much when apologists deny any action by Muslims that cause harm has anything to do with Islam and anything they do positively is entirely to do with Islam.


  • Options
    #117
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    Thanks for that response. It certainly makes a lot more sense in how you view Islam if you never read their sacred text. It is a boring read, I grant you, although not as bad as all that begatting in the bible. I do recommend reading it, at least to get a feel for it. It might give you insight to why we worry so much when apologists deny any action by Muslims that cause harm has anything to do with Islam and anything they do positively is entirely to do with Islam.


    As I stated before, one can read anything into that sort of text, and it appears that's more or less what goes on. And then theres the Hadiths etc.
    Michael OBrien wrote:
    The issue with Ayaan Hirsi Ali.......

    Bit of a chancer. Given the elements she hangs round with in the states, she wouldn't be on my Christmas list either.


  • Options
    #118
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    Nodin wrote: »
    As I stated before, one can read anything into that sort of text, and it appears that's more or less what goes on. And then theres the Hadiths etc.



    Bit of a chancer. Given the elements she hangs round with in the states, she wouldn't be on my Christmas list either.

    There is a fundamental difference between the hadiths and the quran.
    All hadiths are acknowledged as written by men and after Muhammed had died (so no way to double check their claims). There are muslims that have abandoned ALL of them. They can be argued as being "of that time" and interpretation is certainly possible and reform along with it.

    The quran is a different beast. If however you refuse to read it then you cannot understand what it means, and how truly awful it is. It is the Mein Kamf or Malleus Maleficarum of the 7th Century that people want to see applied in the 21st century. As I have said before, it is believed to be WRITTEN by the creator of the universe and revealed through an angel, recited and perfect for 1400 years by fanatics. Its adherence is drummed into every practicing muslim as they pray 5 times a day. Parents breath quotes from it into newborns ears so its the first thing they hear. Its authority is unquestioned and unquestionable by nearly every muslim that practices their faith. Those that try to place anything above it face accusations of Shirk, one of the greatest crimes a muslim can commit.

    You seem to judge by association. I have never had any reason to dislike her. But then you don't understand her at all do you or the cause she fights. Have you read her book Infidel?


  • Options
    #119
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    Nodin wrote: »
    As I stated before, one can read anything into that sort of text, and it appears that's more or less what goes on.
    You might wish to grasp another aspect of Islam that is often misunderstood.
    The aspect of lying AND the aspect of double speak.
    Lying is generally forbidden in Islam, except under 3 circumstances (you will generally not hear about them).
    1. If a muslim considers themselves at war, they are allowed to lie.
    2. If a muslim seeks to reach peace with someone over their religion they may lie.
    3. If it deals with marriage, for instance an argument between a husband and wife, lying is allowed to make peace.

    Again in Islam there is a division of the world, those that submit to Islam, and those that don't. An apologist can justify lying if he feels he is talking with an enemy, or if he seeks to make peace in a debate by soothing his opponent with falsehoods.
    The double speak is far more insidious as it relies on the gullibility of the listener. I have again read Muslim forums where this is recommended to young
    men in tricking parents of girls into believing they are not really religious to gain their permission to marry. They explain how to tell half truths, let the parent believe what they will, and afterwards, welllll, its too late then.

    The rules are simple, don't outright lie. This is allowed in defence of the faith or the promotion of it. Muhammed himself allowed this to occur and since Muhammed cannot do wrong (at least after he started his revelations), this is how it is justified.

    If someone says Islamic states have a death sentance (or something similar) for apostates due to scriptures.
    So an apologist can say "you cannot find a verse in the quran that demands the death of apostates" knowing that the hadiths call for it, and the quran has passages that deal with severe punishment of apostates and the awful faith that awaits them in the next life that give authority to those same hadiths. But the quran does not have a verse calling for the death of apostates so the apologist is technically not lying, but its misleading. However it might make 'peace' with his audience and show Islam in a good light.

    Another one would be saying that Islam does not encourage suicide (as in suicide bombings). This is true, suicide is a sin in Islam. However martydom is a virtue. Its a half truth, since technically the apologist is right, but the audience has been misinformed again.

    IF you don't read the quran you cannot grasp this properly.


  • Options
    #120
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Has Sam Harris said anything about Islam the we would have wished to but were unable to express about Catholicism in 1950/60's Ireland ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Michael OBrien wrote: »

    The quran is a different beast. If however you refuse to read it then you cannot understand what it means, and how truly awful it is. It is the Mein Kamf or Malleus Maleficarum of the 7th Century that people want to see applied in the 21st century. As I have said before, it is believed to be WRITTEN by the creator of the universe and revealed through an angel, recited and perfect for 1400 years by fanatics. Its adherence is drummed into every practicing muslim as they pray 5 times a day. Parents breath quotes from it into newborns ears so its the first thing they hear. Its authority is unquestioned and unquestionable by nearly every muslim that practices their faith. Those that try to place anything above it face accusations of Shirk, one of the greatest crimes a muslim can commit.

    ..................?

    You were reasonable up to this.....

    Ye see, its the above kind of fear mongering crap that really gets down. There are over a Billion muslims. They are, the majority of them, clearly not disposed as you would have them.
    Michael OBrien wrote:
    You might wish to grasp another aspect of Islam that is often misunderstood.The aspect of lying AND the aspect of double speak.....................

    Ahh yes. No muslim baiter has ever, ever thrown that at me before. Not a one. And no way would somebody ever keep on with 'But you haven't read the Koran...' to give themselves an assumed authority.


Advertisement