• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 2410 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I’d prefer you quoted him rather than paraphrasing him, as he’s never said anything as dumb as your suggestion. There are varying degrees of adherence in the Muslim world to the violent ideas in the Koran. For example, here are percentages of adherents to the idea that adulterers should be stoned. It varies of course, but the numbers are shocking.



More here: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

The facts are that many millions of Muslims hold beliefs which are entirely incompatible with our values, and in fact are antithetical to them. ISIS is obviously the worst, but many millions hold anti democratic ideas which spawn directly from the Koran and the Hadith. That’s what it has to do with 22% of the worlds population.
 
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/texas-bogus-noncitizen-voter-list-included-naturalized-elections-staffer
Texas’ list of suspected noncitizen voters was so sloppy that among the people it flagged was an El Paso County elections staffer, whose naturalization party the county’s elections administrator recalled attending a couple of years ago.

The staffer’s presence on the list — which Texas Republicans and President Trump have baselessly touted as showing tens of thousands of noncitizen voters — was highlighted in a lawsuit filed Monday alleging that state elections officials violated the constitution and the Voting Rights Act.
...
Local election officials in Texas have been scrambling since Texas Secretary of State David Whitley put out on advisory on Jan. 25 indicating that the state — by comparing voter registration records to the records kept by Texas Department of Public Safety, which issues driver’s licenses and other IDs — had found 95,000 potential noncitizens on the voter rolls, 58,000 having cast a ballot in the last 22 years of elections.

Civil rights advocates and election policy wonks quickly noted that such an approach is ripe for false positives, particularly among naturalized citizens who may have applied for a driver’s license before their naturalization.

Nonetheless, the secretary of state instructed local officials to vet the list themselves by sending notices to suspected noncitizen voters requiring they show proof of citizenship. Those who don’t respond to the notice within 30 days can then be removed from the voter rolls, under the secretary of state’s guidance.
Trump still trying to find those millions of illegal Hillary voters.
 
Re:

red_flanders said:
I’d prefer you quoted him rather than paraphrasing him, as he’s never said anything as dumb as your suggestion. There are varying degrees of adherence in the Muslim world to the violent ideas in the Koran. For example, here are percentages of adherents to the idea that adulterers should be stoned. It varies of course, but the numbers are shocking.



More here: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

The facts are that many millions of Muslims hold beliefs which are entirely incompatible with our values, and in fact are antithetical to them. ISIS is obviously the worst, but many millions hold anti democratic ideas which spawn directly from the Koran and the Hadith. That’s what it has to do with 22% of the worlds population.
You should read the small print. "Based on Muslims who favour making Sharia the law of the land".

Without that contextual data you cannot comment on the views of the 22%

And here it is:


So definitively NOT the views of the 22%

Want some more contextual data?

Out of all those countries, only TWO have conducted stoning (Iran and Somalia) and even there not for adultery. (there have been murders by stoning)

How do we know that those Muslims who expressed support for stoning for adultery were doing so on the basis of Islam? By the way, did you know there is no mention of stoning as a punishment for crime in the Koran? ;)

The facts are that many millions of Muslims hold beliefs which are entirely incompatible with our values
Our values????

You come from a country that executes mentally ill people, and people who were children at time of offence. Do you guys kill mentally ill people on the basis of the Bible?

I come from a country that has no death penalty. Who exactly are you referring to when you say "our values"?
 
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
The Hitch said:
macbindle said:
(*Not specically US Politics related, but here is a great Peterson interview where he gets skewered repeatedly by his interviewer, who won't let him get away with his bully boy tactics and isn't at all intimidated by his intellectual superiority schtick:

https://youtu.be/yZYQpge1W5s

(I cant decide which is my favourite bit. It might be where he's talking about his Lobster analogy and she points out that he's just using an animal that fits his argument and asks why he doesn't use Killer whales who live in matriachal family structures....he doesn't respond :lol: or where she kicks the Lobster schitt into the bin with the words "“Lobsters don’t get depressed. I think you’re anthropomorphising to a ridiculous degree. These are creatures that urinate out of their faces.”)

And here is Peterson whining about it later, back home with acolyte Joe Rogan:

https://youtu.be/lG7ynbKhYX4 )

Seems you came out of it with a different interpretations than most people did.


But that's ok. At least its introducing you to Peterson's work. I would suggest some of his earlier stuff. His psychology lectures or talks/ confronting struggle etc. It shouldn't just be about catching him out.
she points out that he's just using an animal that fits his argument and asks why he doesn't use Killer whales who live in matriachal family structures....he doesn't respond
I'm surprised you think the "he's just using an animal that fits his argument" point is strong. First of all Peterson doesn't just talk about Lobsters, she happened to decide to grill him on that animal. He talks probably more about chimpanzees and other primates. He's had entire lectures on rats. I remember him analysing studies on monkeys. And this is just what I can remember and I have watched maybe 3 Peterson interviews in the last year.

Secondly its not like Lobsters are the only animal with a patriarchal structure is it? There are so many animals that happen to have a patriarchal structure. If Peterson had chosen any of them instead of Lobsters she would still have accused him of "using an animal that fits his argument". If there was 1 animal that had a patriarchal structure and he chose that, maybe you can use that accusation. When its like half the animal kingdom (figure of speech - lots of animals), it seems more like she is searching for something to pick up.

i hope you aren't on the both genders are the exact same bandwagon, because that seems to me like a a loser

And here is Peterson whining about it later, back home with acolyte Joe Rogan:

Why wouldn't you believe Peterson here?


Not specically US Politics related, but here is a great Peterson interview where he gets skewered repeatedly by his interviewer, who won't let him get away with his bully boy tactics and isn't at all intimidated by his intellectual superiority schtick
The main take away I remember from this interview was that the interviewer disgraced herself by saying she thought Count Dankula is an actual Nazi.

If you are not familiar with the case, its the comedian who made a video, of his dog doing a "nazi salute" (lifting up its paw) to the words "gas the jews". He explicitly lays out before the act, the intention - to piss his gf off for fun. He is making fun of Nazis, but got a fine and is facing jail in the UK for doing this.

Its not like he has a schwastika tatoo, or had any links to far right groups, or had any political stuff on his channel at all. Not that that needs to be said, people do jokes at the expense of Nazis like that all the time.

For some reason elements of the far left decided to adopt him as an example of an actual Nazi.

And in the 2 years since he has moved from someone who had left wing opinions to joining UKIP and befriending Tommy Robinson.

Which brings up beautifully to the point of how someone can be made to move to the right by accusations of racism (though of course Dankula is not remotely a racist person, but I know to some crazies, joining UKIP may be intepreted that way)
First bolded:

How can you possibly claim to know what "most people's" interpretation of the interview was?

Think about that for a moment and consider the implications it has for pretty much anything you say

Second bolded:

Chimpanzees are cannibalistic. Did you know that? Still want to use chimpanzee behaviour as analogous to humans, and if you do where does it leave the notion of ethics?

Third bolded:

Both genders aren't the same? Do you subscribe to the view that gender is, at least in part, socially constructed? And if you do, are you open to the possibility that it can be re-constructed?

If no is the answer to both, do you sit in the Functionalist camp with regards to your understanding of gender?

Fouth bolded:

I don't believe Peterson because I think he is disingenuous at best, and possibly dishonest. You regard him as some sort of great thinker de nos jours I view him as an ephemeral chancer who, by sheer fortune, has realised he can cleverly surf the wave of right-wing blowback against "identity politics", and in so doing quadruple his income for the brief moment in which he is an internet celebrity. He is a professional controversialist. Look at his great body of works. A mere two books, one of which is airport bookstore staple. This isn't Bertrand Russell we are talking about. :lol:

I note he refutes claims that his audience is composed of angry men by claiming they aren't angry when they come to his lectures. Of course they won't be...he's telling them what they want to hear. He's affirming their self-justifications.

Frankly his whining in that Joe Rogan interview is hardly in keeping with his own prescription for admirable noble male behaviour. Boo hoo the horrid feminist was mean to me.

The truth? She challenged him very effectively because she was both well-prepared and in possession of the arguments. She didn't allow him to engage in his usual tactics. He claims he was "more impatient" as a result of her behaviour, the implication being that he was somehow dealing with a stupid person who either didn't understand the genius of his arguments or was unable to engage in rational debate at his level.

The truth? He wasn't impatient. He was angry and frustrated that she was exposing him.

Ah you didn't respond to any of the main points of my post. Especially not how Count Dankula was moved to the right by you guys including that woman, falsely attacking an innocent man of being a Nazi.

You just bolded a handful of random sentences, to make some random points. Some quite bizarre actually.

Like this:

You regard him as some sort of great thinker de nos jours .
No I don't. You've sunken into just strawmanning now,

And
Chimpanzees are cannibalistic. Did you know that? Still want to use chimpanzee behaviour as analogous to humans, and if you do where does it leave the notion of ethics?
The conversation was:
You: The woman who challenged Peterson was so clever because she pointed out that he only chose Lobsters because they are patriarchal
Me: Actually, Peterson didn't only choose Lobsters, she did, he talks about lots of different animals
You: Chimps are cannibalistic.

Err ok.

But she was still in the wrong, and not some hero like you portray her, for attacking Peterson as only choosing Lobsters because they are patriarchal, as no he didn't just choose lobsters. She did.


Then there is this

I don't believe Peterson because I think he is disingenuous at best, and possibly dishonest.
Just as I thought. 4 Pages ago you stated as a fact what the Native Indian said i]despite[/i] him being proven as lying about other things and there being no evidence of what he claimed.

Here, when it comes to Peterson, you suddenly don't believe anything the man says. Kind of a double standard no?

Believe people against all evidence when it suits the politics. Baselessly attack Peterson as lying and whining when he gives an account of something, as you don't like him. And Peterson has been under scrutiny from you types - the Guardians and the buzzfeeds, for so long, if he was actually the type to make up lies like that he would probably be caught out
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
macbindle said:
I'm thinking of Harris in terms of his participation in a movement that led to hate, rather than as a direct purveyor of hatred. Yes, of course, we should criticise religious views but we have to be careful that in so doing we aren't furthering somebody else's malign agenda. I'm not sure what Harris's involvement did in terms of benefit to the people of the Middle East suffering under religiously justified oppression, but it is possible that it has contributed towards making life very uncomfortable for Muslims in the US.

I haven't watched your clip yet, but I will later, thank you. Admittedly, it is a while since I've read or listened to Sam Harris's ideas.
Personally I think that's far too vague a critique to stamp the word hate upon. I don't know what "movement" he's a part of, so maybe that's where my misunderstanding is centered. I take his comments for what they are, in the context he gives them, and react to specifically what he's saying.

The issues are too nuanced to lump a certain speaker or their comments into a larger whole without being very, very specific about what we're saying.

I wonder if you're referring to this article by the SLPC: https://www.splcenter.org/20180419/mcinnes-molyneux-and-4chan-investigating-pathways-alt-right

The “skeptics” movement — whose adherents claim to challenge beliefs both scientific and spiritual by questioning the evidence and reasoning that underpin them — has also helped channel people into the alt-right by way of “human biodiversity.” Sam Harris has been one of the movement’s most public faces, and four posters on the TRS thread note his influence.

Under the guise of scientific objectivity, Harris has presented deeply flawed data to perpetuate fear of Muslims and to argue that black people are genetically inferior to whites. In a 2017 podcast, for instance, he argued that opposition to Muslim immigrants in European nations was “perfectly rational” because “you are importing, by definition, some percentage, however small, of radicalized people.” He assured viewers, “This is not an expression of xenophobia; this is the implication of statistics.” More recently, he invited Charles Murray on his podcast. Their conversation centered on an idea that lies far outside of scientific consensus: that racial differences in IQ scores are genetically based. Though mainstream behavioral scientists have demonstrated that intelligence is less significantly affected by genetics than environment (demonstrated by research that shows the IQ gap between black and white Americans is closing, and that the average American IQ has risen dramatically since the mid-twentieth century), Harris still dismissed any criticism of Murray’s work as “politically correct moral panic.”
Pretty amazing stuff, really. He cited facts from Pew Research in the case of immigration (the context of his comments and his actual position on immigration are not cited), and he had a conversation with Charles Murray where he also firmly states that he finds Murray's answers on why he's done such research rather unsatisfying and that he thinks the research is essentially pointless.

For this he's lumped in with absolute whackjobs on the alt-right. I think that's a perfect example of what Hitch is objecting to. It's crazy.

I would STRONGLY urge people to listen to the full context of what he says about immigration and to listen to his entire podcast with Murray, along with his discussion with Ezra Klein on the topic. Thoughtful, stimulating, well-considered discussions on difficult topics facing us in these times.

Summary of his positions on these topics here: https://samharris.org/response-to-controversy/
Yeah I listened to the conversation with Charles Murray. That SPLC article is just pure fiction.

I wonder if its the same SPLC who Sam's close friend and Muslim Maajid Nawaz, sued for 4 million dollars last year because they accused him of being an anti muslim extremist. With pretty much the same backward made up logic as we see in the above about Sam.
 
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
red_flanders said:
I’d prefer you quoted him rather than paraphrasing him, as he’s never said anything as dumb as your suggestion. There are varying degrees of adherence in the Muslim world to the violent ideas in the Koran. For example, here are percentages of adherents to the idea that adulterers should be stoned. It varies of course, but the numbers are shocking.



More here: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

The facts are that many millions of Muslims hold beliefs which are entirely incompatible with our values, and in fact are antithetical to them. ISIS is obviously the worst, but many millions hold anti democratic ideas which spawn directly from the Koran and the Hadith. That’s what it has to do with 22% of the worlds population.
You should read the small print. "Based on Muslims who favour making Sharia the law of the land".

Without that contextual data you cannot comment on the views of the 22%

And here it is:


So definitively NOT the views of the 22%

Want some more contextual data?

Out of all those countries, only TWO have conducted stoning (Iran and Somalia) and even there not for adultery. (there have been murders by stoning)

How do we know that those Muslims who expressed support for stoning for adultery were doing so on the basis of Islam? By the way, did you know there is no mention of stoning as a punishment for crime in the Koran? ;)

The facts are that many millions of Muslims hold beliefs which are entirely incompatible with our values
Our values????

You come from a country that executes mentally ill people, and people who were children at time of offence. Do you guys kill mentally ill people on the basis of the Bible?

I come from a country that has no death penalty. Who exactly are you referring to when you say "our values"?
Well how about these values for example.

I deliberately chose the Guardian since its your Pravda

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed. Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population.
I don't know about you but my values (and I assume red's as well) are that homosexuality is perfectly ok.

But half is a big number. And some are quite passionate about it. I remember this on the bbc:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05YuF73FRG8

Shows perfectly how some Muslims can be very good people, but the religion is giving at the very least justification to bullies who want to make cause pain to others based only on their identity.

There are some other troubling stats in that article. And that is Britain so should be quite moderate compared to many other countries.

The realfunny thing is Sam criticizes all religion. His second book was only about christianity. And it seems that when Sam's on that train you guys support him.
Not just with Sam but more generally, mockery etc at the expense of those stupid Christians is encouraged.

But the second he switches to Islam (not really a switch, its all religion to him), suddenly he is a racist.

The way you guys behave is perfectly summed up here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CABAJ7ZjP_s
 
Re:

macbindle said:
What does ISIS have to do with 22% of the world's population?????

Don't fixate on the word 'knobber. I put it in there for a bit of light relief, not as the mainstay of my argument against Harris. Although, from the section I read of his posting I would say that it is a reasonable assessment. Let me paraphrase Harris:

"Islam is a religion of violence because I read it in the Koran".

Really.

We are up to Tommy Robinson levels of intellectual incisiveness here. It's on a par with suggestion that Christianity is a religion of infanticide because of the passages in Deuteronomy and Leviticus that offer some rather harsh advice on parenting.

Again, what we know of ISIS is that it is/was not composed of devout Muslims, either in the Middke-East nor in Western nations. What we also know is that it has nothing to do with 22% of the world's population. If it did, the world would be in perpetual flames.
So since you can't find any example of Sam saying anything actually wrong, you just make something bigoted up and say you are "paraphrasing"?

"Islam is a religion of violence because I read it in the Koran".

Yeah, Sam never that.

Never said anything remotely like that. that's not his position at all.

This isn't going anywhere.
 
@ The Hitch

Not with your line of argument, no, especially when you repeatedly refer to "you guys", attributing to me opinions which are not mine. Too many nested quotes to respond to on a phone with a 5" screen, sorry.

The statements I bolded were far from "random". They were crucial to the discussion between us. But, I suppose you just don't want to address them. I think I know why not.

Nathan Philips a proven liar? Not so fast, there. The media have been saying he is a Vietnam vet. It is unclear whether he has made his claim. Besides, you are into Armstrong's "We don't like Floyd's credibility...he is a proven liar" territory with that argument. How did that one play out? ;)

I didn't respond to your remarks about "Count Dankula" because I know little about him and his views. Of course, what I do know is that a decision was made in a court of Law, and therefore if you disagree with the decision you are disagreeing with the jury's understanding of the relationship between charge and evidence, as well as the judge's interpretation of the law. We are into Tommy Robinson territory again, aren't we. Not everything revolves around what is said on social media.
 
It's Tuesday and another example of trump being stupid in public. Another unscripted comment that shows his ignorance and incompetence. ..Another mentioned there is only one thread holding trump's administration together, the economy..and that is in a bit of trouble..
trump's gotta go..
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/04/politics/trump-iraq-iran-comments/index.html

Another tidbit about this weak and incompetent idiot.
The basic problem, Glassman told me, is that Trump, despite the talents he displayed in whipping up his supporters during the 2016 campaign, lacks the skill set to be a successful President. “He’s an amateur in the White House,” Glassman said. “He doesn't have a lot of experience in governing, and I don’t see a lot of learning going on. He looks hideously weak.”
A similar dynamic has been evident within the executive branch, where Trump’s tendency to make unilateral declarations, coupled with his inability to follow up on policy details, has allowed White House officials, Cabinet members, and career bureaucrats to operate behind the President’s back. Publicly, they express support for Trump’s edicts, such as his decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria. Out of sight, they try to figure out how to work around him. Meanwhile, outsiders with access to the President are constantly trying to push their own agendas, calling him at night or during executive time. “Every one of those people on the phone know this is their opportunity to influence the President of the United States,” Glassman said.
The result is that, even within the Trump Administration, it’s often not clear what the policy is or whether it might be reversed at any moment. One of the few areas where Trump has stood firm is in his demand for funding for a wall on the border with Mexico. But, with Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats blocking his way despite a five-week partial government shutdown, his insistence on the wall has only highlighted his larger predicament. Yes, he could still try to go around Congress by declaring a national emergency. “But that would just show everyone in Washington how weak he is,” Glassman said. “He can’t persuade anyone in D.C. to go along with him, so he has to resort to these autocratic powers.”
 
Not just Trump needs to really look at the American reality. Most of the mainstream keeps reporting that the economy is robust,some kind of juggernaut that has growth on its mind and won't be stopped.
Then the government shutdown and lots of ugliness exposed,@58% of American households wo $1000 bucks in savings. People w advanced degrees standing in bread !ines,the government drafting letters scripting canned statements for landlords about painting and sweeping up in trade for rent or late payments.
So which is it? Are we the best that we have been? Are things great? The mountains of disastrous stories about economic fragility don't seem to fit the narrative.
and for all non Americans here..in NYC they have revolutionary legislation proposed..mandates for a 2 week paid vacation for every worker. So for those who don't know, very very very few Americans have a @6 week vacation allocation. Lots of people in the "new economy" have no paid sick days or vacation. There are no national normal Christmas bonuses..
Trump will give the state of the union and not mention much about workers their rights,benefits or protection. He probably won't talk about General Motors and the 1000's of job cuts and factory closures. And for all of you that have some form of health insurance coverage thru your government..not in the US. During the government shut down people were rationing medications, insulin,heart and blood pressure and medicine and care for children because of the uncertainty.
 
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
You should read the small print. "Based on Muslims who favour making Sharia the law of the land".

Without that contextual data you cannot comment on the views of the 22%

And here it is:


So definitively NOT the views of the 22%
Yes, I get that the one chart has that fine print, but you do understand I linked an entire article with multiple charts and data. This is but one example. Please read the rest.

Want some more contextual data?

Out of all those countries, only TWO have conducted stoning (Iran and Somalia) and even there not for adultery. (there have been murders by stoning)

How do we know that those Muslims who expressed support for stoning for adultery were doing so on the basis of Islam? By the way, did you know there is no mention of stoning as a punishment for crime in the Koran? ;)
This is why I referred to the Hadith.

Our values????

You come from a country that executes mentally ill people, and people who were children at time of offence. Do you guys kill mentally ill people on the basis of the Bible?

I come from a country that has no death penalty. Who exactly are you referring to when you say "our values"?
Yes, our values. We don't cut off people's hands, desire to kill people for adultery, or have religious law of any kind. We specifically forbid the government making religious laws in our country. Our values.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
I don't know about you but my values (and I assume red's as well) are that homosexuality is perfectly ok.

But half is a big number. And some are quite passionate about it. I remember this on the bbc:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05YuF73FRG8

Shows perfectly how some Muslims can be very good people, but the religion is giving at the very least justification to bullies who want to make cause pain to others based only on their identity.

There are some other troubling stats in that article. And that is Britain so should be quite moderate compared to many other countries.

The realfunny thing is Sam criticizes all religion. His second book was only about christianity. And it seems that when Sam's on that train you guys support him.
Not just with Sam but more generally, mockery etc at the expense of those stupid Christians is encouraged.

But the second he switches to Islam (not really a switch, its all religion to him), suddenly he is a racist.
Yes, thank you. Don't have much time today, I appreciate the clarifications.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
macbindle said:
You should read the small print. "Based on Muslims who favour making Sharia the law of the land".

Without that contextual data you cannot comment on the views of the 22%

And here it is:


So definitively NOT the views of the 22%
Yes, I get that the one chart has that fine print, but you do understand I linked an entire article with multiple charts and data. This is but one example. Please read the rest.

Want some more contextual data?

Out of all those countries, only TWO have conducted stoning (Iran and Somalia) and even there not for adultery. (there have been murders by stoning)

How do we know that those Muslims who expressed support for stoning for adultery were doing so on the basis of Islam? By the way, did you know there is no mention of stoning as a punishment for crime in the Koran? ;)
This is why I referred to the Hadith.

Our values????

You come from a country that executes mentally ill people, and people who were children at time of offence. Do you guys kill mentally ill people on the basis of the Bible?

I come from a country that has no death penalty. Who exactly are you referring to when you say "our values"?
Yes, our values. We don't cut off people's hands, desire to kill people for adultery, or have religious law of any kind. We specifically forbid the government making religious laws in our country. Our values.
Way to duck his point. You can’t define US values by saying what they aren’t. Nor by referring to some abstract statements of idealized intent. It’s a question of practice. With a few exceptions, not many US posters are capable of being honest about the realities of the country.
 
Re: Re:

aphronesis said:
Way to duck his point. You can’t define US values by saying what they aren’t. Nor by referring to some abstract statements of idealized intent. It’s a question of practice. With a few exceptions, not many US posters are capable of being honest about the realities of the country.
No one's ducking a point. I don't have time today to list the differences between the values expressed in the Pew research article and what I consider American values. We could debate around the corners of what American values are for a long time, we're all going to have somewhat different priorities and interpretations. I would have thought the fundamental differences around religious law were obvious enough that not a ton of explanation was needed.

If you have examples about specific cases of dishonest debate by specific posters, we can have that (very different) conversation. I'm satisfied it's not relevant as stated, as a very broad generalization and a subjective assertion. As for idealized intent, I'm relatively sure that many of those countries are not fully expressing the will of their people. To say the least.

I guess we can start with our 8th amendment banning cruel and unusual punishment and move out from there. And yes, we can define part of the value system by defining what we won't do. Or if you must, we believe in secular law rather that religious law. This is quite different than the rather large number of muslims who want religious law.

Yes, I read the fine print. Pretty amazing numbers.



This is a fundamentally (pun intended) different view of the world than we have in the west, not just America. This isn't just about the U.S.
 
Wars and rumours of wars. Meh …

As Hitch and Red have observed … accusations of fascist! and racist! … are thrown like cardboard rings toward a coke bottle. Maybe it's the best we can expect when cycling banteristas seek out fulfilling political gigs in the down season.

Harken back to the accused sociopaths, psychopaths, and narcissists of summer. A quick word search on the forum will remind you of the accuseds and accusers … as if you need to be reminded. BTW, you also know that any bona fide 30 day psychiatric examination would clear all of them of such spittle laced faux diagnoses. Or is such hyperbole OK in a sports banter tirade?

And the Nouveau Marxists. You treat Marxism in the context of "Marxist Eye for The Capitalist Guy."

The end is not near … at least in the U.S. Keep it real.
 
@red, cruel and unusual punishment can be spun many ways.

@alpe, if you can show some posts of yours that.”keep it real”. People in the Roman Empire didn’t think it was collapsing either. So it is for those on the 24 news cycle. The world is changing and the past dies hard for good old white boys. AmIrite? Best you go fire up the grill and neck a few cheap beers as you’re not bringing much here. The breezy posting style doesn’t cover for lack of strength in deep waters.

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/01/capitalist-realism-mark-fisher-k-punk-depression
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
I wonder if its the same SPLC who Sam's close friend and Muslim Maajid Nawaz, sued for 4 million dollars last year because they accused him of being an anti muslim extremist. With pretty much the same backward made up logic as we see in the above about Sam.
The very same. They have since admitted to being wrong, which is a very good thing. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/maajid-nawaz-v-splc/562646/

Given our understanding of the views of Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam, it was our opinion at the time that the Field Guide was published that their inclusion was warranted,” Cohen said in a statement. “But after getting a deeper understanding of their views and after hearing from others for whom we have great respect, we realize that we were simply wrong to have included Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam in the Field Guide in the first place.
 
You might want to read some of Nawaz's work if you want to better understand the difference between Islam and Islamism ;)

Nawaz may well be friends with Harris, and they may well have written a joint book...

...but he doesn't agree with Harris at all about the nature of Islam.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
You might want to read some of Nawaz's work if you want to better understand the difference between Islam and Islamism ;)
I'm pretty sure I do, and hope I used it correctly previously. I think that difference is key to his work, key to what Harris is talking about, and what I'm hoping you can glean from them.

I think it boils down to, "Not all muslims are Islamists. A minority are, but that minority is still a large number, and an even larger number support Islamist ideas." It's this issue that concerns a lot of people when statements from public officials like "Islam is a religion of peace" are made. It's a blanket statement that misses some rather glaring and obvious problems. There are ideas embedded in Islam which are worth examining and should not be glossed over. The same with every other religion. But not all religions have so many alarming ideas in conflict with western values. Bhuddism isn't perfect but it's very different than Islam in its core tenets with regard to violence, for example.

Religions put really freaking crazy ideas in people's heads.
 
Well, I'd agree with you in that respect.

If I have understood correctly, Harris's views Islam in the same way as somebody might view Christianity if they didn't realise that the horrific parts of the Old Testament had been circumvented through tradition.

As a final comment from me on this, and with regards to the Pew data, I think it is important to view it on a case by case basis with an understanding of the socio-political histories of those individual states. Context is everything.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
Well, I'd agree with you in that respect.

If I have understood correctly, Harris's views Islam in the same way as somebody might view Christianity if they didn't realise that the horrific parts of the Old Testament had been circumvented through tradition.

As a final comment from me on this, and with regards to the Pew data, I think it is important to view it on a case by case basis with an understanding of the socio-political histories of those individual states. Context is everything.
I think that's close, and more pointedly, he's concerned that the moderating influences which have softened both Judaism and Christianity, as well as many adherents of Islam, are not as fully realized in too many parts of the muslim world. That Islam, possibly in part due to its being a younger religion, has not evolved as far as Judaism and Christianity have, maybe in part because the moderating influences have had 700 fewer years to affect the tradition.

This is not to say Judaism and Christianity don't have fundamentalist wingnuts bent on destruction, no one can deny that. Just that it's much less a mainstream issue and less a part of the core tenets of the faiths.

To wrap it back around, it's hard for me to see how this view is bigoted. I use that term as some (Ben Affleck et. al.) may use the term "racist" which is inaccurate given the breadth of races who adhere to Islam. I disagree that his comments are bigoted or racist. I find them actually a way forward where left and right can have a reasonable dialog about the problems.
 
Well I've used neither the words 'racist' nor 'bigoted' in relation to Harris, nor Peterson for that matter. We won't agree, however, on my view that both of these people are intellectual shock-jocks capitalising on the zeitgeist. Neither of these people generated the debates in which they participate...They just seem to have appeared at an opportune moment, Harris in the US at the height of an islamophobic upsurge, and Peterson at what I hope is the height of a right-wing reaction to moderating forces in society. They are both divisive rather than unifying figures.

In a decade we can come back and evaluate what they have added to the sum of human understanding.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS