kalm wrote:Oh yeah? Well I don't think you know what that meme means!Chizzang wrote:
CID1990 wrote:kalm wrote:
Oh yeah? Well I don't think you know what that meme means!
Clitz is incorrect, klam.
If there is anyone in the entire world who has a complete understanding of what it means, it would be you
And your turd throwing buddy hotdog
Okee dokee, fanboy!CID1990 wrote:kalm wrote:
Oh yeah? Well I don't think you know what that meme means!
Clitz is incorrect, klam.
If there is anyone in the entire world who has a complete understanding of what it means, it would be you
And your turd throwing buddy hotdog
Thanks for the thoughtful response!Chizzang wrote:kalm wrote:
Right, so what's Sam's solution to keep us safe?
Me thinks you might be the one that is actually "butt hurt"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... lim-animus" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Indeed. And the same is true of the US and the West generally. Harris' self-loving mentality amounts to this: those primitive Muslims are so tribal for reflexively siding with their own kind, while I constantly tout the superiority of my own side and justify what We do against Them. How anyone can read any of these passages and object to claims that Harris' worldview is grounded in deep anti-Muslim animus is staggering. He is at least as tribal, jingoistic, and provincial as those he condemns for those human failings, as he constantly hails the nobility of his side while demeaning those Others.
Perhaps the most repellent claim Harris made to me was that Islamophobia is fictitious and non-existent, "a term of propaganda designed to protect Islam from the forces of secularism by conflating all criticism of it with racism and xenophobia". How anyone can observe post-9/11 political discourse in the west and believe this is truly mystifying. The meaning of "Islamophobia" is every bit as clear as "anti-semitism" or "racism" or "sexism" and all sorts of familiar, related concepts. It signifies (1) irrational condemnations of all members of a group or the group itself based on the bad acts of specific individuals in that group; (2) a disproportionate fixation on that group for sins committed at least to an equal extent by many other groups, especially one's own; and/or (3) sweeping claims about the members of that group unjustified by their actual individual acts and beliefs. I believe all of those definitions fit Harris quite well, as evinced by this absurd and noxious overgeneralization from Harris:
The only future devout Muslims can envisage — as Muslims — is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed."
That is utter garbage: and dangerous garbage at that. It is no more justifiable than saying that the only future which religious Jews - as Jews - can envision is one in which non-Jews live in complete slavery and subjugation: a claim often made by anti-semites based on highly selective passages from the Talmud. It is the same tactic that says Christians - as Christians - can only envisage the extreme subjugation of women and violence against non-believers based not only on the conduct of some Christians but on selective passages from the Bible. Few would have difficultly understanding why such claims about Jews and Christians are intellectually bankrupt and menacing.
Worse still, these claims from Harris about how Muslims think are simply factually false. An AFP report on a massive 2008 Gallup survey of the Muslim world simply destroyed most of Harris' ugly generalizations about the beliefs of Muslims:
"A huge survey of the world's Muslims released Tuesday challenges Western notions that equate Islam with radicalism and violence. . . . It shows that the overwhelming majority of Muslims condemned the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 and other subsequent terrorist attacks, the authors of the study said in Washington. . . .
"About 93 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates and only seven percent are politically radical, according to the poll, based on more than 50,000 interviews. . . .
"Meanwhile, radical Muslims gave political, not religious, reasons for condoning the attacks, the poll showed. . . .
"But the poll, which gives ordinary Muslims a voice in the global debate that they have been drawn into by 9/11, showed that most Muslims -- including radicals -- admire the West for its democracy, freedoms and technological prowess.
"What they do not want is to have Western ways forced on them, it said."
Indeed, even a Pentagon-commissioned study back in 2004 - hardly a bastion of PC liberalism - obliterated Harris' self-justifying stereotype that anti-American sentiment among Muslims is religious and tribal rather than political and rational. That study concluded that "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies": specifically "American direct intervention in the Muslim world" — through the US's "one sided support in favor of Israel"; support for Islamic tyrannies in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; and, most of all, "the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan".
kalm wrote:Thanks for the thoughtful response!Chizzang wrote:
Me thinks you might be the one that is actually "butt hurt"
It's not impossible to 1) be liberal, 2) recognize the dangers of radical islam, 3) understand the role our own foreign policy has played, and 4) support military action to take out the bad guys.
Again, what's Sam's solution to keep us safe?
So Harris isn't anti-muslim he's just anti-the religion that defines people as muslims?Chizzang wrote:kalm wrote:
Thanks for the thoughtful response!
It's not impossible to 1) be liberal, 2) recognize the dangers of radical islam, 3) understand the role our own foreign policy has played, and 4) support military action to take out the bad guys.
Again, what's Sam's solution to keep us safe?
Firstly:
The Guardian article you quote: in the opening paragraph blatantly misrepresents Harris' perspective
by saying Anti-Muslim... He is not Anti-Muslim
He is quite clearly stated: Anti-Islam
The difference is HUGE and the fact that a 1500 word article about "New Atheists" misses that right out of the gate should be completely embarrassing... is there no shame or honesty in this discussion..?
Sam Harris has several Muslim co-workers on his staff who also go to great lengths s to help the confused Liberal who does not actually know the difference between a "Published Doctrine" and a Human Being
It's like working with special needs kids
and Greenwald spends 500 words back pedaling because he took a Harris quote completely out of context and used it as his primary evidence that Harris is a Racist... Ywan
and then spends another paragraph backing away from that claim... jeezus what a fruit cake
Towards his glorious finale' Greenwald says that Harris comments about Fascists being the only Europeans who intrinsically understand Islam is taken as Harris being an enthusiastic supporter of "The Fascists"
So any time Harris uses and observation to make a point Greenwald ALWAYS overstates the point and misunderstand the conclusion - The End
The difference between a published doctrine and those who in varying degrees "follow the Doctrine" is a huge point too understand...kalm wrote:So Harris isn't anti-muslim he's just anti-the religion that defines people as muslims?Chizzang wrote:
Firstly:
The Guardian article you quote: in the opening paragraph blatantly misrepresents Harris' perspective
by saying Anti-Muslim... He is not Anti-Muslim
He is quite clearly stated: Anti-Islam
The difference is HUGE and the fact that a 1500 word article about "New Atheists" misses that right out of the gate should be completely embarrassing... is there no shame or honesty in this discussion..?
Sam Harris has several Muslim co-workers on his staff who also go to great lengths s to help the confused Liberal who does not actually know the difference between a "Published Doctrine" and a Human Being
It's like working with special needs kids
and Greenwald spends 500 words back pedaling because he took a Harris quote completely out of context and used it as his primary evidence that Harris is a Racist... Ywan
and then spends another paragraph backing away from that claim... jeezus what a fruit cake
Towards his glorious finale' Greenwald says that Harris comments about Fascists being the only Europeans who intrinsically understand Islam is taken as Harris being an enthusiastic supporter of "The Fascists"
So any time Harris uses and observation to make a point Greenwald ALWAYS overstates the point and misunderstand the conclusion - The End
There's a distinction between the two alright, it's a distinction evidently Harris has invented. But I'm happy he has several black friends!
Harris = an atheistic Dick Cheney.
I would argue that it cannot be about "defeating" Islam...LeadBolt wrote:I see the red herring of only x% of Muslims are radical has been introduced. The survey quoted says 7%, with is much less than the 15-20% of of Muslims being radicalized I see elsewhere.
Even if you accept the figure of 7% of Muslims are radicalized, that is approximately 1.2 x's the population of Germany in the 1934 census. I highly doubt if the total population of Germany were radical Nazi's at the beginning of WWII.
The % of radical Nazi's to the total German population might be closer to that of Islamic population, only the base has expanded from 76 million to 1.2 billion and the base is dispersed rather than being concentrated.
One of the problems with the new, ideological, non-state opposition we face to our way of life is that there is no obvious enemy organization to defeat and put the rational humans in the organization in charge as there was 75 years ago.
I'm not trying to "kick his ass" I'm trying to change his mindCluck U wrote:klean, you are getting your azz kicked...and not even houndpuppy is coming to your aid.
Throw in the towel or continue looking ignorant and stupid.
Good luck with thatChizzang wrote:I'm not trying to "kick his ass" I'm trying to change his mindCluck U wrote:klean, you are getting your azz kicked...and not even houndpuppy is coming to your aid.
Throw in the towel or continue looking ignorant and stupid.
And CID accuses me of nuance...Chizzang wrote:The difference between a published doctrine and those who in varying degrees "follow the Doctrine" is a huge point too understand...kalm wrote:
So Harris isn't anti-muslim he's just anti-the religion that defines people as muslims?
There's a distinction between the two alright, it's a distinction evidently Harris has invented. But I'm happy he has several black friends!
Harris = an atheistic Dick Cheney.
For example:
The Spanish Inquisition vs. The Books of the New Testament
These are two different things that can be discussed without assuming all Spaniards behave in a specific way
It's subtle I know...
but I think you can grasp it
and I see you've adopted Greewalds Dick Cheney stance on Harris
Ummmm yeah! I see what you mean!"While the other major world religions have been fertile sources of intolerance, it is clear that the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization." He has insisted that there are unique dangers from Muslims possessing nuclear weapons, as opposed to nice western Christians (the only ones to ever use them) or those kind Israeli Jews: "It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of devout Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence."
He has also decreed that "this is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims, but we are absolutely at war with millions more than have any direct affiliation with Al Qaeda." "We" - the civilized peoples of the west - are at war with "millions" of Muslims, he says. Indeed, he repeatedly posits a dichotomy between "civilized" people and Muslims: "All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology that now threatens to destabilize much of the earth."
("In their analyses of US and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. . . . there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah")
("We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it")
"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."
Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies."
"The outrage that Muslims feel over US and British foreign policy is primarily the product of theological concerns. Devout Muslims consider it a sacrilege for infidels to depose a Muslim tyrant and occupy Muslim lands — no matter how well intentioned the infidels or malevolent the tyrant. Because of what they believe about God and the afterlife and the divine provenance of the Koran, devout Muslims tend to reflexively side with other Muslims, no matter how sociopathic their behavior."
Chizzy is simply more persuasive, less partisan, and more rational in his arguments than you and BaldyCID1990 wrote:Good luck with thatChizzang wrote:
I'm not trying to "kick his ass" I'm trying to change his mind
The best you'll do is box him in and then he'll go smug and "nuanced" on you
I was trying to take the religious argument out of play and point to the fact that the small % of those who profess radical Islam are quite a large number and very dangerous, not just to be dismissed by using a % to diminish that fact.Chizzang wrote:I would argue that it cannot be about "defeating" Islam...LeadBolt wrote:I see the red herring of only x% of Muslims are radical has been introduced. The survey quoted says 7%, with is much less than the 15-20% of of Muslims being radicalized I see elsewhere.
Even if you accept the figure of 7% of Muslims are radicalized, that is approximately 1.2 x's the population of Germany in the 1934 census. I highly doubt if the total population of Germany were radical Nazi's at the beginning of WWII.
The % of radical Nazi's to the total German population might be closer to that of Islamic population, only the base has expanded from 76 million to 1.2 billion and the base is dispersed rather than being concentrated.
One of the problems with the new, ideological, non-state opposition we face to our way of life is that there is no obvious enemy organization to defeat and put the rational humans in the organization in charge as there was 75 years ago.
The entire angle of approach should be about "exposing Islam"
and assuring that ALL Muslims know - that we know - whats inside their published doctrine
That is the KEY position in the beginning phases of awakening Muslims to "The Reality of the New World"
Christianity passed through the same phase as a wider range of humans became literate
The ability to READ THE BIBLE and understand the OLD TESTAMENT vs. THE NEW
That differentiation and global Christian understanding was a huge deflation in Christian violence
Islam will have to go through the same process
Dude,kalm wrote:And CID accuses me of nuance...Chizzang wrote:
The difference between a published doctrine and those who in varying degrees "follow the Doctrine" is a huge point too understand...
For example:
The Spanish Inquisition vs. The Books of the New Testament
These are two different things that can be discussed without assuming all Spaniards behave in a specific way
It's subtle I know...
but I think you can grasp it
and I see you've adopted Greewalds Dick Cheney stance on Harris
So is the difference "huge" as you initially said or is it now "subtle"?
Ummmm yeah! I see what you mean!"While the other major world religions have been fertile sources of intolerance, it is clear that the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization." He has insisted that there are unique dangers from Muslims possessing nuclear weapons, as opposed to nice western Christians (the only ones to ever use them) or those kind Israeli Jews: "It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of devout Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence."
He has also decreed that "this is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims, but we are absolutely at war with millions more than have any direct affiliation with Al Qaeda." "We" - the civilized peoples of the west - are at war with "millions" of Muslims, he says. Indeed, he repeatedly posits a dichotomy between "civilized" people and Muslims: "All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology that now threatens to destabilize much of the earth."
("In their analyses of US and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. . . . there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah")
("We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it")
"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."
Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies."
"The outrage that Muslims feel over US and British foreign policy is primarily the product of theological concerns. Devout Muslims consider it a sacrilege for infidels to depose a Muslim tyrant and occupy Muslim lands — no matter how well intentioned the infidels or malevolent the tyrant. Because of what they believe about God and the afterlife and the divine provenance of the Koran, devout Muslims tend to reflexively side with other Muslims, no matter how sociopathic their behavior."
Next time, try reading the article in it's entry rather than skimming and cherry picking. It will help us avoid such unnecessary detours that lead us astray from the core of the issue…
Which is that Sam Harris is a butt hurt, atheistic John Bolton/Richard Pearle.
Kind of like how the bible condones the smiting of ones neighbors when their burning of a bull at the altar creates an unpleasant smell?Chizzang wrote:Dude,kalm wrote:
And CID accuses me of nuance...
So is the difference "huge" as you initially said or is it now "subtle"?
Ummmm yeah! I see what you mean!
Next time, try reading the article in it's entry rather than skimming and cherry picking. It will help us avoid such unnecessary detours that lead us astray from the core of the issue…
Which is that Sam Harris is a butt hurt, atheistic John Bolton/Richard Pearle.
We both already read that article
and highlighting the word Muslim doesn't really change the written doctrine of Islam
And Greenwald is the master of shifting the context of his quotes (mostly from 2004-2006 post 9/11)
In one misquote quote by Greenwald Harris was specifically talking about Muslims targeting the Red Cross and was really adamant about it... and now that very specific quote is thrown around 10 years later - and completely out of context
And Yes,
Islam as a doctrine condones the killing of Red Cross service workers
If you take a strict reading of the Koran and it's dealings with apostates and infidels
I ain't here to deny that. kalm wrote:Kind of like how the bible condones the smiting of ones neighbors when their burning of a bull at the altar creates an unpleasant smell?Chizzang wrote:
Dude,
We both already read that article
and highlighting the word Muslim doesn't really change the written doctrine of Islam
And Greenwald is the master of shifting the context of his quotes (mostly from 2004-2006 post 9/11)
In one misquote quote by Greenwald Harris was specifically talking about Muslims targeting the Red Cross and was really adamant about it... and now that very specific quote is thrown around 10 years later - and completely out of context
And Yes,
Islam as a doctrine condones the killing of Red Cross service workers
If you take a strict reading of the Koran and it's dealings with apostates and infidels
I'm just glad Harris makes a distinction between the two words.
Islam and some of its followers (I think they're referred to as Muslims?) are backwards, 7th century douchebags.
I know, which is why I used the green smiley.Chizzang wrote:kalm wrote:
Kind of like how the bible condones the smiting of ones neighbors when their burning of a bull at the altar creates an unpleasant smell?
I'm just glad Harris makes a distinction between the two words.
Islam and some of its followers (I think they're referred to as Muslims?) are backwards, 7th century douchebags.
You're just pointing out ^ what you don't understand... Thank you
Leviticus and Deuteronomy = The Old Testament
Two formerly major books of both Judaism and Christianity
have been largely "discarded" by both faiths
This is a HUGE point and is mostly misunderstood by defenders of Islam
There is no part of the Koran that is equivalent to the Old Testament
Specific Ideas have Specific consequences
There is no longer a functional Sanhedrin in Judaism
(Sanhedrin is an elder body that rules on the laws of the old Testament)
Judaism and Christianity both
have successfully moved AWAY from and all but discarded Leviticus and Deuteronomy
As soon as Muslims successfully "Throw away" sections of the Koran that suggest brutality
Then - at that point - you will have a legitimate comparison to Christianity and Judaism
but don't stop there - Muslims will also then (like Judaism) nullify their ruling class of elders
Let me know when they get that done Okay...
You do realize that you following up a rather lengthy post, with an additional, even longer explanation and example reminds of threads where JSO's "logic" gets taken to the cleaners.Chizzang wrote:As I explain in my posts above: Here it is in practice - on demand
There is no clearer example of a blanket dismissal of the Old Testament than Right Now in Boston
From HIGH ranking church officials - quite literally telling society to "Ignore the old Testament"
And place modern societies values over the Fundamental church tenants
"Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley and Massachusetts Roman Catholic bishops said this week in a statement that it would be against church teaching to execute Tsarnaev. "The defendant in this case has been neutralized and will never again have the ability to cause harm. Because of this, we, the Catholic Bishops of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, believe that society can do better than the death penalty," the statement said."
So...................!!!!
Even though the Old Testament clearly would demand the Death Penalty here Both Leviticus and Exodus clearly define the straight forward penalty for his behavior
Yet,
In the Islamic world
Is there an equivalent Imam in any Islamic clergy (Shia or Sunni) that would defy the plain old reading of the Koran such as these Bishops did - Literally these Bishops defy the Old Testament and reference "Society" as a better judge of how to proceed - over their Holy Books Leviticus and Exodus
Holding Society as a system over the fundamental religious tenants is something Catholics practice regularly
even at the HIGHEST LEVELS of the organization
