Sam Harris Wrestling the trolls.

[colubridae]

I’m more motivated to discuss with Harris about the circumstances where he considers torture appropriate. There’s a very good chance that I would disagree with him absolutely, but there is also a chance that I may also learn something about myself and my values that I was previously unaware of. I can’t launch a blanket condemnation of Harris because I have no grounds for doing so. I can continue to disagree with him though.

Back in the late Triassic there was a film made called ‘Dirty Harry’, it spawned a genre all of its own.

Basic hard-nosed cop versus loonie-tune sociopath. The hunt is on. During the story sociopath kidnaps female teenager and tells cops to ‘lay off’ or he will let her die in the dungeon where she is stashed.

Cop then tracks down sociopath in a chase scene during which sociopath is shot in the leg. Knowing the victim’s clock is ticking hard-nosed cop tortures sociopath (using fresh leg-wound). Unfortunately kidnap victim dies.

As story unfolds sociopath is released ‘evidence obtained under duress inadmissible etc.’
During mandatory DA/cop argument scene, legal expert says something like:-
“The evidence obtained is clearly inadmissible. The court would, of course, recognise the legitimate concerns of the police officer for the safety of the kidnap victim”

Does this suit your requirements for torture use?

[Coito ergo sum]

PZed -- lol -- http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... am-harris/

This bit says it all about ass-douche PZ Myers-

OK, I’m going to stop here. I had a few bits of respect for Harris going into reviewing the debate closely and now I see that not only is he wrong, he knows it and is dodging the topic and playing debaters’ games rather than arguing in good faith. That’s pathetic. And Bruce is too nice to slam him for it.

Oh, really, PZ -- tell us more about the "respect" you don't have for Sam Harris, after losing the "few bits" that you had before....are you fucking kidding? Sam Harris' work far outstrips yours, PZ, and his books are excellent, well researched, and well-written.

This is so typical of PZ and the other ass-douches like Skepchicks and such. They find something they avidly disagree with about someone, and suddenly they can't even have "respect" for that person anymore.

Fuck the fuck off, PZ Myers. What total tool you are. Fucking idiot.

[Coito ergo sum]

LOL - and PZMyers had an article yesterday about how he "cheesed off" Sam Harris: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... am-harris/

Note the differences in how PDouche presents his argument, and how Sam Harris presents his. In PDouche's article, it's full of snark and sarcasm, and he immediately sets this up as a schoolyard fight. In Harris' article, he states his concerns as to what was alleged about him, and demonstrates how he thinks what was said about him were flat wrong.

PZ makes, as point number 1 in his article, the astounding argument that Harris said that PZ had "gleefully" agreed with Harris' detractor. PZ points out that he didn't do it "gleefully." Wow, PZ. Remarkable!

Hmmm. I think Harris’s reputation as an illiberal advocate for atrocious policies long preceded any of my criticisms of his positions, and I suspect that the commenters here could make a far better indictment of Harris than he can a defense. But what do I know? You guys have destroyed my integrity!

- Key word here "illiberal." He attacks Sam Harris because Sam doesn't tow the Liberal line on all issues. Sam is pretty liberal in general, but on the issue of Islam, he is more Ayaan Hirsi Ali than traditional Liberal. So, that makes Sam "illiberal" and he must be subjected to scorn and derision.

[SteveB]

PZ turning into Queen of Snark, Rebecca Watson. Try to read one of her articles or watch her videos, you can't go by 5 seconds without encountering cosmic levels of snark. It's really..

Being snarky is like really smart, guys.

The disgusting mix of bad sarcasm, bad faith and "moral" superiority.

[Audley Strange]

Yeah bad sarcasm and bad faith should be the domain of us Amoralists. Those who claim the high-ground should act a lot fucking better than they do.

[Robert_S]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali might be off the rails in her neo-con stance, but if she is, the blame lies at the liberals' door. Before the skeptic movement: everyone had to be very very careful, walking on eggshells careful, in their criticism of Islam lest they be called a racist. There ARE racists who's primary motivation for their dislike of Islam is that they see it as a brown person's religion. There are also liberals who defend it for the same reason.

As a liberal, I find that shameful. I've seen so many women, many who identify as feminists, who said "I wouldn't want to live like that but if I was raised in that culture..." So they were willing to sacrifice the dignity of humans on the altar of "tolerance" and expect to be seen as champions of the downtrodden?

I was there. I remember. The fear of being labeled racist meant that this extraordinary mind works at the Heritage Foundation. To my shame, I was part of that. I associated every criticism of Islam with the most bigoted racist who ever spoke out. I'm trying to do better now though.

Now the labeling goes on. Step out of line on gender issues and you're a misogynist, rape apologist, or hopeless loser who'll never get laid.

History repeats. Maybe time is circular after all.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali might be off the rails in her neo-con stance,

I wonder...what of her views would you consider to be "off the rails?"

[Robert_S]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali might be off the rails in her neo-con stance,

I wonder...what of her views would you consider to be "off the rails?"

I'm not going to make a case for that right now as I'm not wanting to derail this thread with a liberal/neocon debate. I will modify my stance instead: "Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not a liberal and the blame lies at the liberals' door".

[Coito ergo sum]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali might be off the rails in her neo-con stance,

I wonder...what of her views would you consider to be "off the rails?"

I'm not going to make a case for that right now as I'm not wanting to derail this thread with a liberal/neocon debate. I will modify my stance instead: "Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not a liberal and the blame lies at the liberals' door".

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 22&t=38804

Not a liberal =/= off the rails - and would you really think that her actual views changed by virtue of the miserable way Liberals treated her? I mean -- is she such a low and detestable person that she would change her views because some douches don't want to associate with her? That seems decidedly craven and contemptible, if it is true about her. You can answer in the other thread i created, if you like.

[Pappa]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali might be off the rails in her neo-con stance, but if she is, the blame lies at the liberals' door. Before the skeptic movement: everyone had to be very very careful, walking on eggshells careful, in their criticism of Islam lest they be called a racist. There ARE racists who's primary motivation for their dislike of Islam is that they see it as a brown person's religion. There are also liberals who defend it for the same reason.

As a liberal, I find that shameful. I've seen so many women, many who identify as feminists, who said "I wouldn't want to live like that but if I was raised in that culture..." So they were willing to sacrifice the dignity of humans on the altar of "tolerance" and expect to be seen as champions of the downtrodden?

I was there. I remember. The fear of being labeled racist meant that this extraordinary mind works at the Heritage Foundation. To my shame, I was part of that. I associated every criticism of Islam with the most bigoted racist who ever spoke out. I'm trying to do better now though.

Now the labeling goes on. Step out of line on gender issues and you're a misogynist, rape apologist, or hopeless loser who'll never get laid.

History repeats. Maybe time is circular after all.

Yar, too true. Any time I show a person my tattoo I have to be aware that I may need to explain to them that my problem is with the religion, not the "race". A while back, I went to a local skeptics meeting... a place you'd expect to find reasonable, rational atheists. But even there, a guy who had just been championing Draw Mohammed day suddenly looked at me like I was some horrific, racist arab-hater when I showed him my Mohammed tattoo.

[cowiz]

Yar, too true. Any time I show a person my tattoo I have to be aware that I may need to explain to them that my problem is with the religion, not the "race". A while back, I went to a local skeptics meeting... a place you'd expect to find reasonable, rational atheists. But even there, a guy who had just been championing Draw Mohammed day suddenly looked at me like I was some horrific, racist arab-hater when I showed him my Mohammed tattoo.

Did you rape him?

[Jaygray]

I’m more motivated to discuss with Harris about the circumstances where he considers torture appropriate. There’s a very good chance that I would disagree with him absolutely, but there is also a chance that I may also learn something about myself and my values that I was previously unaware of. I can’t launch a blanket condemnation of Harris because I have no grounds for doing so. I can continue to disagree with him though.

Back in the late Triassic there was a film made called ‘Dirty Harry’, it spawned a genre all of its own.

Basic hard-nosed cop versus loonie-tune sociopath. The hunt is on. During the story sociopath kidnaps female teenager and tells cops to ‘lay off’ or he will let her die in the dungeon where she is stashed.

Cop then tracks down sociopath in a chase scene during which sociopath is shot in the leg. Knowing the victim’s clock is ticking hard-nosed cop tortures sociopath (using fresh leg-wound). Unfortunately kidnap victim dies.

As story unfolds sociopath is released ‘evidence obtained under duress inadmissible etc.’
During mandatory DA/cop argument scene, legal expert says something like:-
“The evidence obtained is clearly inadmissible. The court would, of course, recognise the legitimate concerns of the police officer for the safety of the kidnap victim”

Does this suit your requirements for torture use?

To be honest I try not to take ethics instruction from Hollywood if I can help it.

[Pappa]

Yar, too true. Any time I show a person my tattoo I have to be aware that I may need to explain to them that my problem is with the religion, not the "race". A while back, I went to a local skeptics meeting... a place you'd expect to find reasonable, rational atheists. But even there, a guy who had just been championing Draw Mohammed day suddenly looked at me like I was some horrific, racist arab-hater when I showed him my Mohammed tattoo.

Did you rape him?

Well, I kept dropping bars of soap all over the place, but I think he was wise to my ruse.

[Audley Strange]

@ Pappa I didn't know you had a Mohammed tattoo. I just commented to the good Lady Strange and her reply was simply a laconic "that'll really help matters."

@Robert. Excellent post, I sympathise. I feel most our lives we've been told what utter privileged horrible shits men are have been expected just to accept that without question or we are one of them. In that atmosphere it is actually hard to question without feeling such.

[Drewish]

What an excellent article.

An eye-opener. Harris gets my sympathy, as does anyone whose views are distorted by an overly emotional, politically correct, politically motivated horde who have nothing but knee-jerk reactions to sound bytes and don't even bother to take the time to reason out the ideas for themselves before slinging shit at them.

Quoted and pointed out to a certain subset of posters here who should read this, and reread this VERY CAREFULLY.