Moderator: Community Team
BigBallinStalin wrote:If I had more time, I'd love to delve into their works because I wonder how they controlled for other relevant factors in determining that Islam is more dangerous and violent than other religions.
Question: if an organization didn't intend on causing harm to a lot of people, but its policies have resulted in great harm, then how much do intentions matter?
Metsfanmax wrote:It is actually a fairly common position among public atheist intellectuals to single out Islam as more dangerous/violent than other major religions. Christopher Hitchens took a similar stance. Richard Dawkins is known for making similar comments as well.
Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Sam Harris: Why Don't I Criticize Israel?The charter of Hamas is explicitly genocidal. It looks forward to a time, based on Koranic prophesy, when the earth itself will cry out for Jewish blood, where the trees and the stones will say “O Muslim, there’s a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.” There is every reason to believe that the Palestinians would kill all the Jews in Israel if they could.
An incredibly uninformed screed. Hamas controls the only armed apparatus capable of resistance in Gaza at this time, it is not the representative of the Palestinian people.
As he pointed out, Hamas is the representative of the Palestinian people, if we take their election several years back as counting what the Palestinian people want. And also as he pointed out, it doesn't matter if Hamas doesn't represent all of the Palestinian people; it represents enough of them to make the threat credible.
Metsfanmax wrote:I think he was arguing this as a matter of realism. It is never in Israel's interest to kill innocent civilians unless its policy is that of outright extermination of all Palestinians (which it is clearly not). Every time it does so, it loses international credibility.
saxitoxin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:It is actually a fairly common position among public atheist intellectuals to single out Islam as more dangerous/violent than other major religions. Christopher Hitchens took a similar stance. Richard Dawkins is known for making similar comments as well.
While that may be true, only Harris uses "Muslim" as a synonym for "Palestinian." That's why he's a racist. In Harris' mind, every single Palestinian is an obeisant Muslim who prays five times a day and wears a beard. The fact of Islam as a unifying community value, instead of a fanatically observed philosophy, among the vast majority of people is not one Harris accepts.
- First, Palestine has not been able to hold elections that meet international norms so the fact that they have a slim majority in the legislative branch, while not controlling the executive branch, is relatively meaningless.
- Second, who people vote for during the middle of a war is not necessarily whom they would vote for during peace.
- Fifth, and most important, by this logic attacks against Israeli civilians (attacks that aren't happening) are completely justified because the Israeli government was elected by Israeli civilians.
Metsfanmax wrote:I think he was arguing this as a matter of realism. It is never in Israel's interest to kill innocent civilians unless its policy is that of outright extermination of all Palestinians (which it is clearly not). Every time it does so, it loses international credibility.
Again, an article of faith unsupported by any shred of evidence.
It is mind-boggling to me that you are actually considering the rants of someone who is sitting in judgement on a class of people characterized by race. "This race is guilty, because ..." Astonishing.
Metsfanmax wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:If I had more time, I'd love to delve into their works because I wonder how they controlled for other relevant factors in determining that Islam is more dangerous and violent than other religions.
This is largely missing the point. If anything, you are proving the point they are making. Even if it is largely historical factors and not anything intrinsic to belief in Allah that led Islam to become "more violent," nevertheless those historical events did occur and did lead to the current state of affairs. It is true that in particular the Palestinians are physically oppressed and so we perhaps cannot extrapolate from their current actions what they would do if they were in power, but I think that his point that we should take the threat of genocide seriously is a valid one. Similarly, if a large segment of slavery abolitionists or civil rights activists said their goal was the complete destruction of all white people in America, that would have been something to seriously consider*. However, that is not what happened.Question: if an organization didn't intend on causing harm to a lot of people, but its policies have resulted in great harm, then how much do intentions matter?
Well, if you attribute the current state of affairs to be all Israel's fault, then sure, this is meaningful. But the large number of civilian deaths could be attributed at least in large part to the fact that Hamas seems to want more civilians to die as a PR measure, and is taking active steps to ensure that this happens in response to Israeli military actions (as has been discussed in this thread before).
*Note the religion of the obvious counterexample.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Israel is constrained by international opinion to some degree on explicitly eliminating all Palestinians, but that constraint is not as strong on other margins. People don't see deadweight losses from embargoes and from treating a group of people like second class citizens, but people readily jump at death counts (not so much at injuries). So, that constraint only goes so far. Politicians and bureaucrats can implement policies that are on the margin of many people's indifference (e.g. voter group A wants a war but doesn't really care on how it should be implemented, so the pols and burs can fill in the blanks). In other words, his 'international public opinion' argument only goes so far.
Besides, who wouldn't say, "f*ck government X" after it has committed decades of oppression against you? I wouldn't imagine black people loving the USG if they were forced into certain areas, required to have their papers and bodies regularly checked, and were treated as second-class citizens within US proper, which would continue to confiscate black people's land and give it to white settlers. Sam Harris' out-of-context argument overlooks the history and the ongoing injustice which has led to this. Any reasonable person would find Israel disgusting if he or she was treated like a Palestinian.
Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:It is actually a fairly common position among public atheist intellectuals to single out Islam as more dangerous/violent than other major religions. Christopher Hitchens took a similar stance. Richard Dawkins is known for making similar comments as well.
While that may be true, only Harris uses "Muslim" as a synonym for "Palestinian." That's why he's a racist. In Harris' mind, every single Palestinian is an obeisant Muslim who prays five times a day and wears a beard. The fact of Islam as a unifying community value, instead of a fanatically observed philosophy, among the vast majority of people is not one Harris accepts.
How do you know this?
Metsfanmax wrote:- First, Palestine has not been able to hold elections that meet international norms so the fact that they have a slim majority in the legislative branch, while not controlling the executive branch, is relatively meaningless.
- Second, who people vote for during the middle of a war is not necessarily whom they would vote for during peace.
OK, so we don't know who Palestinians would now vote for in a peacetime election. That's hardly relevant. (Although the state of affairs in 2006 was a bit different from the state at this moment.) Hamas is in power now and they aren't being overthrown by the Palestinian people, so they are the de facto representatives. Remember, Harris' point is not that Hamas actually represents the views of Palestinians in some abstract sense; it is that Hamas carries enough actual power (democratically enabled or otherwise) to make its threats of genocide credible.
Well, his whole point is that Israel is not intentionally engaging in a campaign against Palestinian civilians. From their perspective, the point of view has to be to stop Hamas at all costs.
Metsfanmax wrote:Israel has complete military superiority over the Gaza strip. They could bomb the Palestinians into oblivion with relative ease if they wanted to. They haven't. That's all the evidence that is necessary.
Metsfanmax wrote: Still, saxi's position does indeed seem to be that we should assume Israel intends to commit genocide against the Palestinians despite no stated intention to do so
BigBallinStalin wrote:Mets, because the American Indians have been successfully subjugated.
The outcome between the Am. Indians and the Americans is most probably the outcome which Israel desires with the Palestinians. The Israeli government need not say this explicitly, but judging from its decades of actions, it seems obvious enough.
Metsfanmax wrote:
OK, so let's say that they started streaming out of the reservations and suicide bombing NYC and LA -- would they be justified in doing so?
Mets wrote: What would an appropriate response be on the part of the US government?
Metsfanmax wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Mets, because the American Indians have been successfully subjugated.
The outcome between the Am. Indians and the Americans is most probably the outcome which Israel desires with the Palestinians. The Israeli government need not say this explicitly, but judging from its decades of actions, it seems obvious enough.
OK, so let's say that they started streaming out of the reservations and suicide bombing NYC and LA -- would they be justified in doing so?
Metsfanmax wrote:What would an appropriate response be on the part of the US government?
saxitoxin wrote:1. They are not "stopping Hamas at all costs" when they've actually been enabling Hamas so that Hamas can kneecap Fatah. This is like the third time I've brought this up, you've said "oh yeah, I know!" and then made some boneheaded statement that indicates you really don't know.
2. No, their point of view doesn't have to be "stop Hamas at all costs." What law of nature says that has to be their point of view? From the perspective of the gay community, must their view be "stop the Westboro Baptist Church at all costs?" Is it okay if a gay activist group lets off a nuclear bomb in Topeka, Kansas? That would stop the Westboro Baptist Church with no regard for the cost.
There have been so many stated intentions to do so by senior members of the Israeli government that I simply can't recite them all here. Most recently, Ayelet Shaked - a member of the Knesset in the ruling coalition - called for the destruction of "the entire Palestinian nation ... including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure." I could cite another dozen examples of this coming from senior Israeli government officials up to, and including, Netanyahu.
the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.
patches70 wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:
OK, so let's say that they started streaming out of the reservations and suicide bombing NYC and LA -- would they be justified in doing so?
I guess that depends on who you ask, don't you think?
Mets wrote: What would an appropriate response be on the part of the US government?
Yes, what would be the appropriate response to a foreign power bombing your cities, towns, villages and killing 100's and 1000's of your troops and civilians?
Hmmmm.
Metsfanmax wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Mets, because the American Indians have been successfully subjugated.
The outcome between the Am. Indians and the Americans is most probably the outcome which Israel desires with the Palestinians. The Israeli government need not say this explicitly, but judging from its decades of actions, it seems obvious enough.
OK, so let's say that they started streaming out of the reservations and suicide bombing NYC and LA -- would they be justified in doing so? What would an appropriate response be on the part of the US government?
Metsfanmax wrote:A friend of mine has likened this to "mowing the grass" -- while I despise the terminology, it's not a bad analogy for what Israel is doing.
saxitoxin wrote:"I don't like this analogy but I like this analogy"
Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:"I don't like this analogy but I like this analogy"
No -- "I don't like that this is actually a fair assessment of what Israel thinks it is doing, but it is a fair assessment." I don't know why you think I disagree with you on what Israel's dehumanizing view of the Palestinians is. I have said before in this thread that it is apparent to me that Israel does not value the lives of Palestinians in comparison to the lives of its own citizens. Your fanatical obsession with painting people as either entirely pro-Palestinian or otherwise cheerleaders for the Israeli government is leading you to ridiculous conclusions about what people are saying and thinking. Apparently you are the only one who gets to point just how disgusting the Israeli policy is.
Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:"I don't like this analogy but I like this analogy"
No -- "I don't like that this is actually a fair assessment of what Israel thinks it is doing, but it is a fair assessment."
Metsfanmax wrote:A friend of mine has likened this to "mowing the grass" -- while I despise the terminology, it's not a bad analogy
saxitoxin wrote:Dukusaur wrote:Saxitoxin wrote:You're wrong about number 3. One out of four statements that I made are true, therefore I'm not the liar, you're the liar, na na na na na!
Disgusting. Aside from the misattributed quote, you posted an image designed to denigrate, demean, and humiliate Muslims. I would never in a million years post an image of someone with a large nose, wearing a kippah and screaming when I make fun of someone like Gweedo. But you, somehow, think the picture you just used is perfectly acceptable. The level of Islamaphobia and anti-Arab hate you've been working overtime to try to stir up is completely astonishing.
saxitoxin wrote: TURKEY (supported by Gabby)
"A woman without a headscarf resembles a house without curtains. A house without curtains is either for sale or for rent."- Naim Köse, J&D Party (Turkey)
some Turk - probably the chief justice of the Turkish Supreme Court
Dukasaur wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Dukusaur wrote:Saxitoxin wrote:You're wrong about number 3. One out of four statements that I made are true, therefore I'm not the liar, you're the liar, na na na na na!
Disgusting. Aside from the misattributed quote, you posted an image designed to denigrate, demean, and humiliate Muslims. I would never in a million years post an image of someone with a large nose, wearing a kippah and screaming when I make fun of someone like Gweedo. But you, somehow, think the picture you just used is perfectly acceptable. The level of Islamaphobia and anti-Arab hate you've been working overtime to try to stir up is completely astonishing.
Oh, of course. You would never do something like that to make fun of Gweedo.
But you would to make fun of Turks.
Subject: Russia Mobilizes Against Turkey, Hizballah Reinforces Assadsaxitoxin wrote: TURKEY (supported by Gabby)
"A woman without a headscarf resembles a house without curtains. A house without curtains is either for sale or for rent."- Naim Köse, J&D Party (Turkey)
some Turk - probably the chief justice of the Turkish Supreme Court
saxitoxin wrote:Dukasaur wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Dukusaur wrote:Saxitoxin wrote:You're wrong about number 3. One out of four statements that I made are true, therefore I'm not the liar, you're the liar, na na na na na!
Disgusting. Aside from the misattributed quote, you posted an image designed to denigrate, demean, and humiliate Muslims. I would never in a million years post an image of someone with a large nose, wearing a kippah and screaming when I make fun of someone like Gweedo. But you, somehow, think the picture you just used is perfectly acceptable. The level of Islamaphobia and anti-Arab hate you've been working overtime to try to stir up is completely astonishing.
Oh, of course. You would never do something like that to make fun of Gweedo.
But you would to make fun of Turks.
Subject: Russia Mobilizes Against Turkey, Hizballah Reinforces Assadsaxitoxin wrote: TURKEY (supported by Gabby)
"A woman without a headscarf resembles a house without curtains. A house without curtains is either for sale or for rent."- Naim Köse, J&D Party (Turkey)
some Turk - probably the chief justice of the Turkish Supreme Court
So what? That's a Turk at a J&D rally, just like my caption and topic described. Here's more typical wild-eyed lunatics at rallies of the anti-Syria/pro-Israel Justice & Development Party:
http://static4.demotix.com/sites/defaul ... 447141.jpg
http://theislamicnews.com/wp-content/up ... 00x216.jpg
I wasn't making fun of Turks, I was making fun of the religious fundamentalist Justice & Development Party as the verbiage of my post, without editing by you, shows. You, no the other hand, just hate brown people.
BigBallinStalin wrote:At the very least, he compares Palestinians to Nazis. Either way, Dukasaur has been acting very hateful in this thread and has yet to apologize for his behavior. This is very unbecoming of a representative of CC.
BigBallinStalin wrote:At the very least, he compares Palestinians to Nazis. Either way, Dukasaur has been acting very hateful in this thread and has yet to apologize for his behavior. This is very unbecoming of a representative of CC.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users