Sam Harris: Why I am a fucking dick with goggles the size of Texas

[Watser?]

Sam Harris: Why don’t I criticize Israel? - Salon.com

[Ari]

Answer: "because I'm an anti-muslim racist."

[davidm]

Jerry Coyne babbles about Sam Harris's piece

Why, why, Coyne laments, do so many atheists hate Harris? Well, it's because Harris makes them think, don't you know?

Originally Posted by Coyne

Really, is it that hateful to ask people to think about whether torture or ethnic profiling might be justified?

Nice strawman there, Jerry, you idiot.

Oh, and liberals tend to give a "a pass" to Muslims, whatever the fuck that racist comment is supposed to mean.

Finally, if you feel like commenting at his courageous blog, just remember, Jerry tells you upfront he doesn't like to hear comments he doesn't like to hear! Really, Jerry Coyne, is it asking too much to let people comment freely without your censorship, so that you might have to think about whether you are a great big bigoted ass just like your pal Sam? Hmm?

[Ari]

Not to go all godwin but he's right, all of you horrible people condemn Hitler out of hand but have you ever stopped to think whether his torture and racial profiling of the Jews is justified, I think not! You're as bad as Hitler for not considering Hitler could be right and the Jews need to be exterminated.

The comments section be like:

Edit to add: I didn't know who this Sam Harris guy was so I looked him up, seems like somewhere in his rambling screed he could have mentioned "Oh and I was raised Jewish, so that might have something to do with it."

[Clutch Munny]

When last I heard of Sam Harris, he was making a big deal out of something he understood very little about, and confusing his own nearly complete lack of understanding for other people's blinkered ignorance.

So, you know. Still at it.

[Watser?]

I didn't know he was. Anyway, I was raised Catholic, doesn't mean I endorse the fracking IRA.

ETA: poasting in-betweeners!

[Ari]

I believe that's called a Mini
(I bet 10 internets he's a libertarian).

Originally Posted by Watser?

I didn't know he was. Anyway, I was raised Catholic, doesn't mean I endorse the fracking IRA.

Well sure, but if you denied the validity of the IRA state while supporting their cause of genocide, it could possibly be due in part to your upbringing. At the very least I would hope you would acknowledge that upbringing when supporting a religious extremist group's extremist actions.

It's still no excuse but part of his argument seems to be, 'I'm an atheist and thus impartial and I still support Israel' when that impartial bit is clearly a lie.

ETA: Getting a bit off track there seems to be a commonality of published atheist activists to act high and mighty that they have questioned religion that they are now free thinkers who have thrown off the shackles of brainwashing unlike the average pleb, and then fall right into the trap of other brainwashed and bigoted views, in part because they now think they are too mighty and logical to ever be taken in such a way. Case in point is good ol Dawkins, who exists as a pure logic being now that he has questioned the church, but Women in science?! Never! Not with all those lady parts confusing their tiny brains.

[LadyShea]

OMG Sam Harris could be a cool atheist spokesmodel- neuroscientist kinda young and clean cut- but instead he is just a raging asshole that needs to fuck off!

[lpetrich]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

OMG Sam Harris could be a cool atheist spokesmodel- neuroscientist kinda young and clean cut- but instead he is just a raging asshole that needs to fuck off!

Spokesmodel? That's unexplored territory, it must be pointed out. But I think that Hemant Mehta and Richard Carrier could provide formidable competition in that department.

[Dingfod]

I lean toward Jim Wright's take on the conflict, I'm tired of it.
Stonekettle Station: An Eye For An Eye In The Country Of The Blind

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

I lean toward Jim Wright's take on the conflict, I'm tired of it.
Stonekettle Station: An Eye For An Eye In The Country Of The Blind

Everybody has a historical claim, no matter whose history you believe.

Both sides are right.

Both sides are wrong.

Both sides are guilty of atrocities, both sides are aggrieved, both sides are convinced that the other side are terrorists, and both sides are positive they’re justified in their bloody violence.

That sums it up for me.

So, why would I take sides? Well, everything else being equal, I prefer governments with a measure of democracy to those based on theocratic and/or venal dictatorships.

As for Sam Harris, the best that can be said about him is that he is not quite as bad as the tabloid loudmouth from Minnesota.

Generally speaking, the public figureheads of atheism tend to suffer quite severely from foot-in-mouth disease whenever they stray beyond the topic of atheism or their area of expertise. All of them, although Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the late Christopher Hitchens somewhat less so than others.

[Watser?]

Less? Eh no.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a selfish POS who fucked over her family and everyone she ever met worse than Aynus Rand. And Hitchens was almost as bad. Warmongering asshole.

And why take sides? Dunno, why take sides in Bosnia? Because a modern army is bringing all of its heavy artillery and airpower to bear on a helpless population?

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by Watser?

And why take sides?

Because everything else being equal, I prefer governments with a measure of democracy to those based on theocratic and/or venal dictatorships.

What do you think will happen once Palestine becomes a nation?

[Dingfod]

I would say my sympathies lie with the innocent Palestinians who have the misfortune of being in the crossfire. As for the conflict, I don't think it will end until one or both sides is dead and gone. These Semites (Jews and Arabs alike) hold grudges for hundreds of years, if not thousands.

[Hermit]

Same here. It just doesn't take me long to make up my mind what sort of government and society I prefer to survive when faced with a choice between capitalist democracy and feudal theocracy.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

I would say my sympathies lie with the innocent Palestinians who have the misfortune of being in the crossfire.

Well, yeah. But apart from that it makes me sick that a) we are paying for the repair of everything that Israel is destroying, as we paid for most of it in the first place and b) our politicians are going out of their way to defend actions that they were condemning when Assad did them to his own people. And not just condemning, they were actively supporting his opponents instead of him. So c) I think we are on the wrong side here. Not even saying we should support the Palestinians like we do the Syrian rebels (or that we should support those rebels), just saying we shouldn't be supporting Israel. Don't have an opinion, fine by me, but we are not neutral right now and THAT is my beef.

Originally Posted by Hermit

Same here. It just doesn't take me long to make up my mind what sort of government and society I prefer to survive when faced with a choice between capitalist democracy and feudal theocracy.

I think you still have weird ideas about Israel that don't correspond with reality, same about the Palestinians. Unless you meant Israel when you referred to a feudal theocracy.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by Watser?

I think you still have weird ideas about Israel that don't correspond with reality, same about the Palestinians. Unless you meant Israel when you referred to a feudal theocracy.

I keep saying semblance of democracy when I refer to the Israeli government because the parties representing orthodox Jews have more power than the number of voters they represent. As such there is an element of theocracy in Israel's government, but it is by no means a dominant one. Looking at the Palestinian Covenant, however, the situation is quite clear: Secularism is explicitly and totally rejected. From section 27: "...we are unable to exchange the present or future Islamic Palestine with the secular idea." It seems it is you who entertains weird ideas.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Hermit

Looking at the Palestinian Covenant, however, the situation is quite clear: Secularism is explicitly and totally rejected. From section 27: "...we are unable to exchange the present or future Islamic Palestine with the secular idea." It seems it is you who entertains weird ideas.

I could be wrong, but I think what you quote above is from the Hamas Charter, and not the Palestinian Covenant. Big difference.

[Clutch Munny]

How does that quoted passage tell you anything other than that the PC does not countenance a strictly secular government? You already noted that the Israeli state doesn't.

But even if the trend among Palestinians were toward strongly religious government, so what? Assassinating and jailing the secular leadership and then claiming that the remaining leadership isn't secular is not a form of moral virtue -- and favouring it is not a form of moral insight.

[Clutch Munny]

Yeah, I figured H meant the Palestinian Charter, not Covenant, but it says nothing of the sort. So it must be the Hamas Charter that justifies this civilian butchery. Of course Israeli government officials are forever getting caught saying in public that their aim is to obliterate or exile the Palestinian population in Gazans, but, like the theocratic elements of the Israeli state and the fact that Hamas was democratically elected, that stuff doesn't quite count. The term "semblance" will be folded, spindled and mutilated until Israel is one small but entirely decisive centi-semblance superior.

[Hermit]

It's the Hamas Covenant. Easy enough to look up, really.

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

How does that quoted passage tell you anything other than that the PC does not countenance a strictly secular government?

It does not say "the PC does not countenance a strictly secular government." It says "we are unable to exchange the present or future Islamic Palestine with the secular idea." That is an unambiguous, unqualified rejection of secularism.

[davidm]

The Hamas Charter, or Covenant, is not the same thing as the Palestinian Charter, or Covenant. You attributed the passage you quoted to the PC, but it's not there. It's in the HC. Since they are different, your working assumption seems to be that any future Palestinian state will be indistinguishable from Hamas. I see no basis for this assumption. But even if the Palestinian people, in a united state, installed Hamas as the government, so what? Why is democracy OK except when people vote in governments that the U.S. doesn't like?

The entire bit about destroying Israel strikes me as a huge red herring. The Palestinian people, united or not, will never have the ability to destroy Israel. Only Israel can destroy Israel, and for the long term anyway, it seems to be doing a good job of working toward that goal.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by davidm

You attributed the passage you quoted to the PC

The passage I quoted is s direct copy-paste job from the Hamas Covenant. The second is a copy-paste job from a Clutch Munny post above mine.

Originally Posted by davidm

But even if the Palestinian people, in a united state, installed Hamas as the government, so what? Why is democracy OK except when people vote in governments that the U.S. doesn't like?

Firstly, you seem to assume that the Hamas Covenant contains a democratic element. Let's have a look at what we can find, shall we? A quick way of doing that is to search for words the Covenant contains.

136 islamic/islam
92 allah/allah's
57 moslem/moslems
11 jihad
0 democracy/democratic
0 vote
0 election/elections

Looks like a lot of theocracy to me and no democracy at all.

Secondly, there is no doubt that US governments have supported dictatorships when it suited and likewise actually terminate democratically elected governments when they perceived their existence to be contrary to their interests. What exactly has that anything to do with my opinion?

Originally Posted by davidm

The entire bit about destroying Israel strikes me as a huge red herring. The Palestinian people, united or not, will never have the ability to destroy Israel.

It's not a red herring at all. Palestinians have never been in a position to obliterate Israel. That is true, but while the intention to do so is expressed in both the Hamas Convention as well as the Palestinian National Charter I do understand Israel's military actions to nib the feeble attempts by Palestinians to endanger its existence in the bud lest they develop to become a realistic threat.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Hermit

The passage I quoted is s direct copy-paste job from the Hamas Covenant.

Yes, that's what davidm explained to you after you got it wrong. Not the "Palestinian Covenant", and not even the Palestinian Charter. So why assimilate future Gazan/Palestinian governance to some lines from one party's manifesto (irrespective of the question of that document's permanence)?

And why support the side that seems to be doing the most to keep that party in power in Gaza? As I understand it, Hamas, for all their dimwittedness, garner some goodwill because they build some helpful infrastructure in a place where blockades prevent civil society from doing so, and periodic indiscriminate attacks by the people Hamas reify as the enemy destroy that infrastructure. The blockade and the attacks (and the general degradation and humiliation that Israel inflicts on Palestinians) amount to boxes of votes for Hamas.

Firstly, you seem to assume that the Hamas Covenant contains a democratic element.

Why would you say this? I took davidm to be pointing out only that they were democratically elected. You and I are of course free to sit in safety ruminating on the theocratic (and more generally wing-nut, misogynist and conspiracy-theoretic) elements of the Hamas Covenant. But they were elected. A thoughtful perspective might pay attention instead to the criticisms of Israel in the HC as evicting and dispossessing civilians, and indiscriminately attacking and killing young and old, women and men. Huh! I wonder why people in Gaza might vote for a party who calls that stuff out? I wonder what Israel might be doing right now, what you are supporting right now, that might incline people to hold their noses and vote for Hamas? But never mind that -- something something semblance, plus here's a word count.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Hermit

The passage I quoted is s direct copy-paste job from the Hamas Covenant.

Yes, from the Hamas Covenant! Not from the Palestinian one, which predates the latter by some 25 years, I believe. The line you quote does NOT appear in the Palestinian document.

At this point I can only conclude that you are deliberately trying to conflate Palestine with Hamas. The two are not the same, and nor are their charters.