Music Banter - Last Bought

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- The Lounge (https://www.musicbanter.com/lounge/)

- - Last Bought (https://www.musicbanter.com/lounge/44362-last-bought.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls (Post 1807074)

Huh? Are you also against Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz?

Ayaan >>>

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qwertyy (Post 1807080)

he has also clarfied hundreds of times (literally) that he is not discussing every muslim, but he cannot make the distinction every time it comes up. people should be able to understand that he does not mean every single muslim.

.

Doesn't matter how many times you repeat this though, he's gross! He's racist!

i've spent a lot of time defending him just because it seems if you're on the left you hate for his thoughts on islam and if you're on the right you hate him for his thoughts on christianity. i personally agree with a lot of what he says, and even when i don't i just enjoy seeing his perspective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qwertyy (Post 1807080)

no. if you listen to him speak he makes a clear distinction between the different religious groups under the umbrella. he never says that all muslims are the enemy or anything along those lines, but i do also think that there are some right-wing no minds who spin his words to help them prech their anti-muslim rhetoric.

he has also clarfied hundreds of times (literally) that he is not discussing every muslim, but he cannot make the distinction every time it comes up. people should be able to understand that he does not mean every single muslim.

no

you listen to him speak

Quote:

Most important of all - to me - is the fact that Harris has used his views about Islam to justify a wide range of vile policies aimed primarily if not exclusively at Muslims, from torture ("there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like 'water-boarding' may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary"); to steadfast support for Israel, which he considers morally superior to its Muslim adversaries ("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"); to anti-Muslim profiling ("We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it"); to state violence ("On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right. This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that 'liberals are soft on terrorism.' It is, and they are").

he is vile

torture is disgusting, profiling is disgusting, israel, if you look at its history and at the facts INTENTIONALLY targets civilians and is ethnically cleansing an entire population and is the farthest thing from being a moral state. criticizing muslim countries is absolutely fine but doing so just to try and make excuses for israel is disgusting. there is NO excuse for murder.

i dislike him because he has ****ty views and opinions

i mean idc this won't change my opinion of u but i didn't take u for a sam harris cock sucker tbh :/

ok but that article you quoted is doing exactly what i mentioned, ignoring context and manipulating his quotes ro fit their narritive. in fact he addressed this exact issue on his blog. i don't expect you to read it all but here's a snippet on the torture quote.

Quote:

In one section of the book (pp. 192−199), I briefly discuss the ethics of torture and collateral damage in times of war, arguing that collateral damage is worse than torture across the board. Rather than appreciate just how bad I think collateral damage is in ethical terms, some readers have mistakenly concluded that I take a cavalier attitude toward the practice of torture. I do not. Nevertheless, there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like “water-boarding” may be not only ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary. This is not the same as saying that they should be legal (Crimes such as trespassing and theft may sometimes be ethically necessary, though everyone has an interest in keeping them illegal).

I am not alone in thinking that there are potential circumstances in which the use of torture would be ethically justifiable. The liberal Senator Charles Schumer has publicly stated that most U.S. senators would support torture to find out the location of a ticking time bomb. Such scenarios have been widely criticized as unrealistic. But realism is not the point of these thought experiments. The point is that unless your argument rules out torture in idealized cases, you don’t have a categorical argument against torture. As nuclear and biological terrorism become increasingly possible, it is in everyone’s interest for men and women of goodwill to determine what should be done if a person appears to have operational knowledge of an imminent atrocity (and may even claim to possess such knowledge), but won’t otherwise talk about it.

My argument for the limited use of coercive interrogation (“torture” by another name) is essentially this: If you think it is ever justifiable to drop bombs in an attempt to kill a man like Osama bin Laden (and thereby risk killing and maiming innocent men, women, and children), you should think it may sometimes be justifiable to water-board a man like Osama bin Laden (and risk abusing someone who just happens to look like him). It seems to me that however one compares the practices of water-boarding high-level terrorists and dropping bombs, dropping bombs always comes out looking worse in ethical terms. And yet, most people tacitly accept the practice of modern warfare while considering it taboo to even speak about the possibility of practicing torture. It is important to point out that my argument for the restricted use of torture does not make a travesty like Abu Ghraib look any less sadistic or stupid. I consider our mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib to be patently unethical. I also think it was one of the most damaging blunders in the last century of U.S. foreign policy. Nor have I ever seen the wisdom or necessity of denying proper legal counsel (and access to evidence) to prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay. Indeed, I consider much of what occurred under Bush and Cheney—the routine abuse of ordinary prisoners, the practice of “extraordinary rendition,” etc.—to be a terrible stain upon our nation.

Some people believe that while collateral damage may be worse than torture, they are independent evils, and one problem sheds no light upon the other. However, they are not independent in principle. In fact, it is easy to see how information gained through torture might mitigate the risk of collateral damage. If one found oneself with an apparent choice between torturing a known terrorist and bombing civilians, torturing the terrorist should seem like the more ethical option. But most people’s intuitions seem to run the other way. In fact, very few critics of my collateral-damage argument even acknowledge how strangely asymmetrical our worries about torture and collateral damage are. A conversation about the ethics of torture can scarcely be had, and yet collateral damage is often reported in the context of a “successful” military operation as though it posed no ethical problem whatsoever. The case of Baitullah Mehsud, killed along with 12 others (including his wife and mother-in-law), is a perfect example: Had his wife been water-boarded in order to obtain the relevant intelligence, rather than merely annihilated by a missile, we can be sure that torrents of outrage would have ensued.

im not even saying i necessarily agree with him, im just trying to clarify here. if you disagree with him that's fine but it's clear some of the reasons you dislike him stem from the media's misrepresentation of him, which i dont believe is very fair.

the problem with him justifying torture for men who are 'like osama bin laden' is the fact that many of the men that america tortures for being 'like osama bin laden' are in fact NOT 'like osama bin laden' and get held without any evidence and without even a trial but because they look like dirty muzzies and were probably in the wrong place at the wrong time but hey i guess lifes not fair

still nothing justifies him making excuses for racial profiling or for being so defensive of israel and its war crimes

read a book

sam harris is a pseudo intellectual

sure but i think he definitely has a point regarding dropping bombs. how many casualities died during obama's presidency through drone strikes? whenever i bring that up people call me a right-winger and an obama hater but if 1/4 of the casualties had of been tortured, everyone would care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qwertyy (Post 1807248)

i never said dropping bombs wasn't wrong

dropping bombs on people = wrong

torturing people especially those who you have arrested with no evidence and without a trial = wrong

its not that complicated

you know that you can be against dropping bombs AND against torturing innocent people, yeah?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qwertyy (Post 1807241)

im not even saying i necessarily agree with him, im just trying to clarify here.

Got this gem in the free bin at Sorry State

http://i.imgur.com/hR1MBTT.jpg?1

Got this for $7 at Sorry State

http://i.imgur.com/aGCWlwm.jpg

Got these for a dollar each at Sorry State (minus the Melvins and Bad Brains, I made those myself)

http://i.imgur.com/LEKjZ7m.jpg