Sam Harris on Orlando and the Response of Obama, Trump & Clinton

[nik-]

The irony of you claiming others have narrowly defined pre-conceptions when it was your just under the surface homophobia that got the actual thread about this shooting locked

[peter12]

Actually my views are wider than most people on this forum.

[nik-]

You're the greatest

[zamler]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Sorry correction on my last post. 28% of Americans think any gay or Lesbian relationship should be illegal, not only gay marriage.

Here is the poll. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx

What a sweet advanced democratic country.

Surely you are not equating a poll to the treatment of gay people in places like Saudi Arabia.

Homosexuality and transgenderism are widely seen as immoral and indecent activities, and the law punishes acts of homosexuality or cross-dressing with death, imprisonment, fines, corporal punishment, or whipping/flogging.
source

Characterizing things as a "little behind", really?

[rubecube]

I'd be curious to see where Muslim views on homosexuality were 50 years ago vs. now. Is it possible we are seeing a reformation of Islam? It's not like the Protestant reformation was exactly quick or without quite a bit of bloodshed.

[Delthefunky]

For the most part I agree with Sam Harris and Bill Maher about the fundamental intolerance of Islam, and I love how he made Ben Affleck look like a total knob. Sometimes though he can be a little off-putting. I don't like how he talks as if he's an expert on every subject. In the OP's video, he talked about the practical differences between the AR-15 and a handgun, and said that a handgun is more practical for a variety of reasons. He talks as if the AR-15 is some kind of long rifle, which it's not. It's a semi-automatic (easily made fully automatic) military rifle designed for mass killings. That's why the military uses it. Perfect for a crowded dance floor. Handguns are hard to aim, even at short distances. About the only thing that I would agree with him on is that a handgun is much more practical to sneak into a building. This wasn't really central to what he's saying but he builds the first part of his argument on this to deflect away from the issue being about gun control. To me this issue is largely about gun control. Yeah, he was Islamic and intolerant and he wanted to kill a bunch of gay people, but the FBI had him on the terrorist watch list. If he doesn't get a gun, this crime doesn't happen.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Delthefunky

For the most part I agree with Sam Harris and Bill Maher about the fundamental intolerance of Islam, and I love how he made Ben Affleck look like a total knob. Sometimes though he can be a little off-putting. I don't like how he talks as if he's an expert on every subject. In the OP's video, he talked about the practical differences between the AR-15 and a handgun, and said that a handgun is more practical for a variety of reasons. He talks as if the AR-15 is some kind of long rifle, which it's not. It's a semi-automatic (easily made fully automatic) military rifle designed for mass killings. That's why the military uses it. Perfect for a crowded dance floor. Handguns are hard to aim, even at short distances. About the only thing that I would agree with him on is that a handgun is much more practical to sneak into a building. This wasn't really central to what he's saying but he builds the first part of his argument on this to deflect away from the issue being about gun control. To me this issue is largely about gun control. Yeah, he was Islamic and intolerant and he wanted to kill a bunch of gay people, but the FBI had him on the terrorist watch list. If he doesn't get a gun, this crime doesn't happen.

Yeah that whole bit about the guns made me roll my eyes. Even if he was right on that point (which he wasn't), so what? The guy killed 49 people -- there can be more than one thing "wrong" with the act. We can blame religious nuttery and how easy it is for nuts to get guns.

The whole thing seemed like a way for him to just separate himself from the crowd, and not a real argument.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

His statements are often unclear and clumsy, he gets in his own way more than he bothers to be clear. His conclusions are interesting but his reasoning for them is at times incredibly weak.

He is an intellectual for the pseudo-intellectual age. His need to be inflammatory and make points for shock value are indicative of his desperation to be heard and to be known.

Harris can be brilliant. But he can also be the enormous joke that peter12 thinks he is, and that is his own doing. Harris is respectable but rarely admirable. Those who do truly admire him generally do out of a confirmation bias and cease to engage in any further intellectual thought pattern past "Harris must be defended or else my own views are suspect." It's no different than religious belief, in that sense. Harris is providing opinions and musing that vary greatly in their validity or substance.

I am honestly curious if you could point to some examples, as I am left wondering what you are taking from Harris' various works that I am missing.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The only issues I take with Harris directly regarding criticisms of Islam is when he does fall into the trap of bigotry. His desire, for instance, that every man in a turban aught to be screened carefully at the airport is an example. He doesn't omit white people from screening, but does specifically say that anyone who looks like they even COULD be Muslim should go through extra screening. White children and white elderly people appear fine to let through, but nobody that 'looks' Muslim, which we can gather the meaning behind. These turban wearing people should be thankful they're being profiled, of course.

That's more indicative of islamophobia than reason, logic, or intelligence,I think, given the regularity of non-Muslims who wear turbans, the amount of people who aren't Muslim that might 'look the part,' and the incredibly low likelihood of terrorist acts on a plane.

From what I understand of Harris' mind, is that he doesn't give much value to the role of Religion. He appears to value reason and is attempting to define universal moral truth, if you disagree, I would like to hear your interpretation. The above example, in my mind, would be his attempt at playing the probabilities rather than being a bigot.

Even when discussing his corner cases, he always seems to come back to the middle on so many issues. In the sense that he doesn't seem to overly sympathize with the "left" or "right", only what he views as logical. For example, his work with Maajid Nawaz pretty clearly shows me that Harris is perfectly capable of existing with a self identified Muslim.

Is there such a thing as selective bigotry? If he dislikes all of Islam would he also not have an issue with Mr. Nawaz?

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

The entire fear of radical Islamic terrorists is a complete joke. Never before have I witnessed so much fear and division over such a tiny risk to the average person.

If Harris and his ilk were true intellectuals they would be calling out the media and government's fear mongering and bed wetting. These people aren't a real threat to us or our way of life. They are illiterate, small minded band of cultists that live in destitute countries.

We've created this fear monster and given rise to the lone wolf terrorist losers with our cowardice and overboard reactions. What better way to make your mark than shoot up a night club and end up on CNN for weeks after. Think of the trillions spent since 911 on security and the war on terror. People are getting rich off this racket and they will perpetuate it forever.

It really isn't a joke. I recall a thread on this forum, where a user who is a friend of mine from way back in elementary school relayed a story of his friend who was at a Mosque where the Imam was teaching intolerance and violence against those who do not believe in Islam. There are documented cases of young men being radicalized in Calgary. The influence of the dangerous ideas are everywhere, so don't think it can't effect you.

Even with that said, to me the issue is not the risk of death to the average person in the west at the hands of a crazed and armed Jihadist.

Instead, the issue is that there are a great number of reformers inside Islam, attempting to bring their belief system into modernity, but they face a tremendously violent backlash against working to distribute basic human rights and freedoms to a HUGE percentage of the population in their community. Hundreds of millions of people denied basic rights and face a non-zero risk of death of maiming for attempting to even hold a belief that they hold these rights. That's NOT a joke.

How can "the west" ignore this? Why does this get framed as us vs them situation? Does the west not want a reformed muslim world to be counted as part of our existence? Are these people not our brothers and sisters? The world is small and getting smaller. If Christian theocracy were running amok in our modern society, would those leaders also not being criticized? Do neo-nazis not also get ostracized in our culture?

The entire debate confuses the hell out of me because it seems pretty damn clear that this is a major issue and not one to be ignored. Groups like ISIS/ISIL will come and go and thousands of people will die in the crusade, but when hundreds of millions are marginalized and denied basic human rights for generations, that needs to stop. This is not a problem unique to Islam, but it is a problem Islam has at the moment. To me that problem is a morally bankrupt, prehistoric interpretation of ancient text, done so outside of context of modern civilization and technology.

Originally Posted by peter12

In his book "Waking Up," he says that his goal is to provide a Buddhism shorn of its miracles and irrational assumptions."

Originally Posted by jammies

Buddhism without miracles and irrational assumptions is remarkably like atheism.

I missed that line in the book Peter, but when I think about the balance of the book that conclusion does not make much sense. Maybe his interpretation of the idea of "no such thing as self" did come out of his deep personal experiences with meditation and Buddhism, but maybe also it came from his study of neurology and the human brian. What I believe Sam was trying to do in Waking Up was discuss the metaphysical needs of human beings in order to achieve happiness, how that can all be satisfied outside of the often wonky pretense of a prescriptive religious framework. It was a really interesting book.

Originally Posted by rubecube

I actually think a big disconnect between the "regressive left" and Islamic reformers is in largely due to the perceived attack on Muslims in the West and their lack of political or social clout in Western society. The Islamic reformer tend to be speaking out with a more global frame of mind, whereas Western leftists are worried about the possibility of hate crimes and violence against Muslims living in the Western countries as a result of the rhetoric.

If we're talking about a threat to homosexuals and women in the West, then capitalism, Christianity, and uncontrolled access to fierarms pose far greater threats to their rights and well-being than violent jihadists or socially-conservative Muslims. I realize it doesn't have to be an either or debate, but if you're going to allocate resources to a cause, it makes sense to allocate them against the most immediate threats to your cause.

Totally agree with you, great points. There is a massive disconnect and that is as much on the West as anyone. It is not useful to ignore the problems that Islamic reformers are facing, and instead lash out at Western Neighbours who are pointing to the same things that the reformers are pointing to under labels like bigotry, or ______ophobia. Why not bridge the gap instead and assist in any way possible?

The point about Muslims lacking political or social clout is an interesting one. I feel that Brexit has a lot to do with Leavers wanting to shut down the open immigration policy that is put forward by the left and largely supported by a rapidly growing muslim population. A legacy of Blair if I am not mistaken.

I am not sure I agree with capitalism, christianity, open access to firearms are a GREATER threat to marginalized populations than jihadists or capital C conservative muslims.. maybe statistically in our country because there are just fewer of the latter than the former, but to me those are all ingredients of the same problem: morally unjustifiable restrictions on another human beings BASIC UNIVERSAL rights.

Originally Posted by Thor

Because one "half arsed" philosophy, aka a deeply held religious belief which is held by an alarmingly large portion of the followers of Islam treats homosexuality, apostates, womens rights, among st other issues with disdain.

If you think an attack on a gay club has nothing to do with Islam, his father's religion, HIS religion, then I do not know what else to say.

Islam has a problem with modernity, the Christians had their own reformation 100's of years ago, Islam is now desperately in need of the same.

Sadly, the western liberals want to hug and forgive them because our right wing is super mean to them, and therefore everyone who criticizes this religion is an ignorant person.

It says a lot, when the reformers of this religion, the ones who have escaped Islam as reformers, apostates, gays, all in UNISON speak out against Islam and are overwhelmingly frustrated at the west for not speaking the name of the problem.

Preach.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

What does any of this have to do with a conflicted gay guy from Brooklyn who apparently had just contracted HIV going on a rampage? If you don't think this didn't have so much more import then I don't know what to say.

He was taught from a young age that such an action was morally justifiable, in the framework of his family's belief systems. Has the fact that he contracted HIV been confirmed?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah that whole bit about the guns made me roll my eyes. Even if he was right on that point (which he wasn't), so what? The guy killed 49 people -- there can be more than one thing "wrong" with the act. We can blame religious nuttery and how easy it is for nuts to get guns.

This is where I think he goes off the rails on this one as well - the gun control stuff. It's clearly a multifaceted event, with Islamism / religious motivation being just one of the important facets that led to 50 dead people.

Harris has a fairly unique outlook on gun control that seems destined to be rejected by everyone down south: https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/...dle-of-the-gun

I think there's a lot in there that makes sense, particularly regarding the impracticalities associated with addressing the current situation in the USA, and I think I might be able to get on board with requiring a licensing program to own a gun not unlike being licensed to fly a plane. But his conclusions on the morality of self-defense, justified by police response times and the like, seems obviously wrong.

[rubecube]

And here's where I get annoyed with the crowd that says Islamaphobia isn't a real thing. If you want to argue the linguistics of the term, then fine, but it seems pretty trivial when we're all basically speaking about anti-Islamic sentiment and its impact on Western Muslims.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/w...tack-1.3647211

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It's a tough one because it's obvious that anti-Muslim bigotry is a thing. So when people oppose the term "Islamophobia" on the basis that such bigotry doesn't exist, or worse, is acceptable somehow... that's awful, obviously. Such people exist.

However, the main opposition to it is that it conflates anti-Muslim bigotry with criticism of Islam itself, which is a totally legitimate thing to criticize. That's why it's a bad term that would be better discarded.

As I said earlier though, it seems like most people, regardless of what your politics or ideological leanings may be, are incapable of thinking in a nuanced fashion and see the world in this frustrating intellectual low-resolution.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's a tough one because it's obvious that anti-Muslim bigotry is a thing. So when people oppose the term "Islamophobia" on the basis that such bigotry doesn't exist, or worse, is acceptable somehow... that's awful, obviously. Such people exist.

However, the main opposition to it is that it conflates anti-Muslim bigotry with criticism of Islam itself, which is a totally legitimate thing to criticize. That's why it's a bad term that would be better discarded.

As I said earlier though, it seems like most people, regardless of what your politics or ideological leanings may be, are incapable of thinking in a nuanced fashion and see the world in this frustrating intellectual low-resolution.

Yeah, like I said earlier, I think a lot of it has to do with whether your focus is global or domestic. If it's domestic, then the concerns with anti-Muslim bigotry probably outweigh the concerns with Islamic conservatism because honour-killings, mistreatment of homosexuals by Muslims, etc., are few and far between compared with the mistreatment of Muslims in Canada and the U.S., largely because Muslims do not occupy positions of power and privilege in these countries. Globally, it's obviously a different story.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, like I said earlier, I think a lot of it has to do with whether your focus is global or domestic. If it's domestic, then the concerns with anti-Muslim bigotry probably outweigh the concerns with Islamic conservatism because honour-killings, mistreatment of homosexuals by Muslims, etc., are few and far between compared with the mistreatment of Muslims in Canada and the U.S., largely because Muslims do not occupy positions of power and privilege in these countries. Globally, it's obviously a different story.

I don't even know that that's the case though. I'm not aware of some epidemic of anti-Muslim hate crimes, though they obviously do happen. When they do, they make for very high-profile news, and so are rightly covered, and everyone basically decries them. But I'm not aware of there being some disproportionately high rate of hate crimes against Muslims as opposed to other groups.

On the flip side, it would be a rather large mistake to fail to recognize the impacts of conservative Muslim teaching even in Western countries on people in those communities. I can't imagine it's a walk in the park to realize you're gay as a young Muslim whose whole family and much of whose social group are conservative Muslims who think homosexuality is an abomination. Similarly, while it's much easier to get out from under the thumb of an ideology that attempts to control women in multiple ways in a country like Canada, that doesn't mean there aren't challenges (it's going to be much harder to get out an abusive marriage due to social pressures, for example). And these problems aren't subject to much scrutiny (certainly not media scrutiny), because people feel they should stay out of others' business, and don't want to be culturally insensitive, and so forth. It's not much talked about.

These issues are not unique to Islam among religions or cultures, of course. It's also a much bigger problem in the UK or Europe than here. And you're right, there's less of an issue with outright murder in the form of honor killings and the like. But I'm not sure it's right to say that this is less of an issue than anti-Muslim bigotry in Canada.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't even know that that's the case though. I'm not aware of some epidemic of anti-Muslim hate crimes, though they obviously do happen. When they do, they make for very high-profile news, and so are rightly covered, and everyone basically decries them. But I'm not aware of there being some disproportionately high rate of hate crimes against Muslims as opposed to other groups.

I don't think anti-Muslim bigotry has to take the form of actual violence against Muslims to be problematic. I know a few small-business owners for instance who have straight up told me that they would never hire a Muslim, one even went so far as to say he wouldn't even serve a Muslim at his business. Fortunately my sister doesn't speak to my dad anymore, but I can only imagine what his outrage would have been like if he'd known his daughter married a Muslim. We could also get into the various anti-terrorism practices which are likely to infringe upon the rights of Muslims, vandalism of Mosques, etc.

Each of these things individually might not be more problematic than the issues you've mentioned, but I think taken together they probably are.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Certainly true that there's non-violent prejudice of the sort you describe, though I guess I must be hanging out with the right people because I never hear about it. That said, I don't doubt there's some of that out there. Maybe the right way to look at it is that it's not a competition between which is the bigger problem, so let's just oppose both at the same time.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Certainly true that there's non-violent prejudice of the sort you describe, though I guess I must be hanging out with the right people because I never hear about it. That said, I don't doubt there's some of that out there. Maybe the right way to look at it is that it's not a competition between which is the bigger problem, so let's just oppose both at the same time.

But if we're talking about allocating resources including the amount of time people are willing to dedicate to a cause, then prioritization tends to happen as a matter of pragmatism.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Fair point. What sort of resources are you thinking about?

[rubecube]

I'm not really speaking so much in terms of government resources but more in terms of personal capacity. Something as simple as speaking out against something or engaging in a debate about it takes time and energy and then you can go from there to include community support, activism, etc.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't think anti-Muslim bigotry has to take the form of actual violence against Muslims to be problematic. I know a few small-business owners for instance who have straight up told me that they would never hire a Muslim, one even went so far as to say he wouldn't even serve a Muslim at his business. Fortunately my sister doesn't speak to my dad anymore, but I can only imagine what his outrage would have been like if he'd known his daughter married a Muslim. We could also get into the various anti-terrorism practices which are likely to infringe upon the rights of Muslims, vandalism of Mosques, etc.

Each of these things individually might not be more problematic than the issues you've mentioned, but I think taken together they probably are.

Do these owners state a reason? I know of a fairly large business owner who won't anymore because they refuse to do their prayer times when the 20+ other employees were on break because the sun wasn't in position or something.

[rubecube]

Thought this was an interesting chart regarding the acceptance of homosexuality in the U.S. by various denominations.

Spoiler!