|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
 Posted - 08/25/2010 : 02:13:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
More from Harris. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sam_harris/2010/08/silence_is_not_moderation.html
He is saying much more eloquently something I was trying to get across yesterday.
| As many have pointed out, the controversy over the "ground zero mosque" |
It's not a mosque is a false one. The project is legal to build, and it should remain legal. That does not mean, however, that any concern about building a mosque so close to ground zero is synonymous with bigotry. The true scandal here is that Muslim moderates have been so abysmally lacking in candor about the nature of their faith and so slow to disavow its genuine (and growing) pathologies--leading perfectly sane and tolerant people to worry whether Muslim moderation even exists. |
[/quote]
Sorry, but I'm underwhelmed. Moderate muslims are not criticizing militant islam as much as I would like, therefore the community center (it's not a mosque, fucker!) should not be built? Wake me up when Sam actually has a point to make. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
 |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 03:05:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
| Ebone, sounds like Hitches is using a slippery-slope. We will oppose Islamic calls to censorship and the like when and if they happen. |
By then it is too late. Sometimes for practical purposes you have to use the slippery slope. Fuck those fuckers. We've got enough God damn problems with all of the Christians running around...we don't need to accomodate an even crazier bunch of fuckheads.
...and I'm not about to get into a 30 page point-counterpoint either.
|
Okay, the reason I have a problem with this line of reasoning is that, to me, you're basically saying: "Allowing muslims to build this community center might lead, in the faraway future, to a situation where our principles are forced overboard. So let's not wait until that happens and throw them overboard right now by ourselves."
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 04:11:38 [Permalink]
|
Something of interest...
Bottom line (for those of you who want to read the meaty bits):
1.Saudi Prince al-Waleed bin Talal ("the world's 22nd richest person") is the second-largest owner of Fox News.
2.Billionaire Prince al-Waleed also funds the Kingdom Foundation.
3.Fox says that the Kingdom Foundation "funds terror groups."
4.The Prince also funds Imam Rauf, the man behind the Park 51 Muslim community center.
5.Bonus: Fox & Friends announces points 2–4 without ever naming al-Waleed.
For Fox, this means Imam Rauf is financed by terror-funders. For Stewart, this means that Fox is either Stupid or Evil.
|
Follwing the money can take you into the damnedest places. I think that FOX is Evil in a really Stupid sort of way. I am not alone in this opinion.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 05:31:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Hey, we can't all be running around thinking it's all about tolerance and love and good happiness shit. |
It's not, it's about maintaining the constitutional principles that ensure that those Christian fuckers don't turn this country into a theocracy, either. If we make exceptions for one group of fuckers, then the other fuckers in power will decide that it's okay to get rid of any group they don't like. Like gun-toting, loud-mouth atheists from Wisconsin. 
|
Hey! I resemble that remark! Shit, there ain't enough of me around to even warrant an extermination. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 06:11:49 [Permalink]
|
Since Dave likes to re-post my Facebook writings here, I shall save him the effort this time:
In an ideal world, people are not unduly influenced by dogma. In an ideal world everyone is rational, freethinking and immune to the command force of language. In an ideal world dogma is subject to change and revision. In an ideal world...
This is not an ideal world.
It is an "interesting" perspective that can just ignore billions of examples and thousands of years of evidence, and then demand "evidence" for the influence of dogma on people. Sounds rather like creationists at a museum just ignoring the fossils.
There are people out there who think all influences are one way. This is different from saying that influences "should" be one way. For these people dogma is meaningless, determined as we go along by people and having no influence itself. This is an error - again with billions of examples and thousands of years of evidence to back the understanding that this is an error.
It is much more likely that the relationship between people and dogma is an example of interlocked positive feedback loops, each reinforcing the other. Of course I am interested is trying to raise or uplift people above or beyond mere dogma, but that doesn't mean I am foolish enough to think that dogma has no influence. In fact, this interest in uplifting past dogma is precisely why I am intensely interested in the function prescriptive morality has in reinforcing dogma in people.
In a way, this is analogous to social welfare policies and public sympathy. It is not a one way relationship. As social policies change, so do the attitudes towards social polices, and as attitudes change so do the social policies (interlocked positive feedback loops). This, I think, is why the religious right is so terrified of universal health care. A general rise in human sympathy is not consistent with the predator-prey consciousness the rich rely on to bleed the public.
Similarly, an uplifting of people beyond dogma is not consistent with the prescriptive force of the dogma, which then results in more uplifting beyond dogma. This terrifies people who use dogma as a control over people.
I don't fault people for wanting to break the loops, but I do fault them for refusing to recognize they are there.
Now, the astute will notice that the last several of my posts have been attempts to actually begin to approach the subject matter, as opposed to trying to conduct painfully amateur diagnoses of people's "problems.". Before we can get to that point, however, we have to get past this "no evidence of fossils in a museum" mentality exhibited here. The responses for my uncontroversial claim that dogma influences people have been the typical nonsense akin to demanding evidence of transitional states inside a museum. To these I can only respond - the evidence is right in front of you (see bolded above); you are letting your ideology and polarized emotionalism blind you to the obvious.
And the real kicker, as far as the "conversation" in this thread is concerned, is that people here are treating the Constitution as if it were absolute, changeless - much like the christians who are against "the mosque at ground zero" (in quotes for a reason, fucker), and the islamists treat their respective dogmas. People seem to think the Constitution magically provides some sort of absolute protection against change. The Constitution is built for, and has mechanisms associated with it, precisely for change. That's why you have the first amendment (or any amendments) to begin with. That is the strength of America - it is built for change, to be adaptive. If you think the Constitution can never change, that it is absolute, the evidence of history begs to differ with you - much like the fossils in the museum beg to differ with creationist misconceptions.
And change versus stagnation is the real battleground. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
| Edited by - dglas on 08/25/2010 06:17:57 |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 06:19:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
I think that FOX is Evil in a really Stupid sort of way. I am not alone in this opinion.
|
If Faux News said that the sky was blue I would walk outside to check.
|
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 06:27:49 [Permalink]
|
dglas, when are you going to stop erecting strawmen?
Now, the astute will notice that the last several of my posts have been attempts to actually begin to approach the subject matter, as opposed to trying to conduct painfully amateur diagnoses of people's "problems.". Before we can get to that point, however, we have to get past this "no evidence of fossils in a museum" mentality exhibited here. The responses for my uncontroversial claim that dogma influences people have been the typical nonsense akin to demanding evidence of transitional states inside a museum. To these I can only respond - the evidence is right in front of you (see bolded above); you are letting your ideology and polarized emotionalism blind you to the obvious. |
Strawman. Nobody in this thread has claimed that dogmas do not have influence. So, try again, this time responding to the actual arguments people make.
| And the real kicker, as far as the "conversation" in this thread is concerned, is that people here are treating the Constitution as if it were absolute, changeless - much like the christians who are against "the mosque at ground zero" (in quotes for a reason, fucker), |
No quotes necessary if you just call it what it is, idiot. You know the whole polarizing you want to rail against? If you're serious about that (which I doubt), than don't do it yourself.
| and the islamists treat their respective dogmas. People seem to think the Constitution magically provides some sort of absolute protection against change. The Constitution is built for, and has mechanisms associated with it, precisely for change. That's why you have the first amendment (or any amendments) to begin with. That is the strength of America - it is built for change, to be adaptive. If you think the Constitution can never change, that it is absolute, the evidence of history begs to differ with you - much like the fossils in the museum beg to differ with creationist misconceptions. |
And again, noone here has said that the constitution is written in stone and cannot be changed. Why do you claim they did?
I seriously don't understand this dglas. Are the positions we have so hard to understand that you cannot come to grips with them? Where has anyone in this thread ever said anything that even approaches the positions you ascribe to them above? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 06:57:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
Since Dave likes to re-post my Facebook writings here... |
And here we see dglas' own insipid hyperbole in action once again: I did something once, and now he claims I "like" to do it.| It is an "interesting" perspective that can just ignore billions of examples and thousands of years of evidence, and then demand "evidence" for the influence of dogma on people. |
Here's dglas using the Mooney-Kirshenbaum-Plait strategy of not actually providing any examples of his claims, just building a boogeyman to be slain.| Sounds rather like creationists at a museum just ignoring the fossils. |
Here's dglas insulting the boogeyman, whoever it is.| There are people out there who think all influences are one way. This is different from saying that influences "should" be one way. For these people dogma is meaningless, determined as we go along by people and having no influence itself. This is an error - again with billions of examples and thousands of years of evidence to back the understanding that this is an error. |
Once again, who are these mysterious "people out there?" dglas doesn't say.| It is much more likely that the relationship between people and dogma is an example of interlocked positive feedback loops, each reinforcing the other. Of course I am interested is trying to raise or uplift people above or beyond mere dogma, but that doesn't mean I am foolish enough to think that dogma has no influence. In fact, this interest in uplifting past dogma is precisely why I am intensely interested in the function prescriptive morality has in reinforcing dogma in people. |
And again: the "people" dglas is talking about are fools. dglas rises above them, whoever they are.
Snip some irrelevancies...| Now, the astute will notice that the last several of my posts have been attempts to actually begin to approach the subject matter, as opposed to trying to conduct painfully amateur diagnoses of people's "problems.". |
The astute notice that the last several of dglas' posts have been outright attacks on other, unnamed people.| Before we can get to that point, however, we have to get past this "no evidence of fossils in a museum" mentality exhibited here. |
"Here?" Does dglas mean SFN? If so, he's simply in denial of what's gone on here.| The responses for my uncontroversial claim that dogma influences people have been the typical nonsense akin to demanding evidence of transitional states inside a museum. |
This is simply false, since nobody "here" has denied that dogma influences people. dglas is still battling his boogeyman, though, as should be obvious by his failure to quote anyone doing what he claims has been done.| To these I can only respond - the evidence is right in front of you (see bolded above); you are letting your ideology and polarized emotionalism blind you to the obvious. |
Who are "these?" dglas is still too cowardly to say. Note that he also insists that whoever they are must go find the evidence to prove dglas's hypothesis correct, another classic Mooney-Kirshenbaum-Plait failure, and also a well-worn creationist tactic.| And the real kicker, as far as the "conversation" in this thread is concerned, is that people here are treating the Constitution as if it were absolute, changeless - much like the christians who are against "the mosque at ground zero" (in quotes for a reason, fucker), and the islamists treat their respective dogmas. |
dglas here displays his vast ignorance of what's actually been said in this thread. Apparently, it's too much for him to read, but he disagrees anyway.| People seem to think the Constitution magically provides some sort of absolute protection against change. The Constitution is built for, and has mechanisms associated with it, precisely for change. That's why you have the first amendment (or any amendments) to begin with. That is the strength of America - it is built for change, to be adaptive. If you think the Constitution can never change, that it is absolute, the evidence of history begs to differ with you - much like the fossils in the museum beg to differ with creationist misconceptions. |
dglas continues to battle his boogeyman (note the unreferenced "people" and "you"), but doesn't have the imagination to come up with a better (or just different) insult than comparing it to a creationist. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 07:07:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
I seriously don't understand this dglas. Are the positions we have so hard to understand that you cannot come to grips with them? Where has anyone in this thread ever said anything that even approaches the positions you ascribe to them above? |
Since dglas is following the Mooney-Kirshenbaum-Plait playbook, he has to create an army of horrifically bad strawmen (or at least one big boogeyman) to battle in order to try to plant himself firmly in the "reasonable middle" of just trying to have a discussion about some ideas. dglas is Tom Johnsoning this discussion (and any discussion he might get into on Facebook, too). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 07:13:10 [Permalink]
|
What is possibly even more interesting, is that dglas's last paragraph is in fact completely opposite to what has been claimed by others.
Nobody is claiming that it is impossible to remove, say, the first amendment right to free speech from the constitution. However, what people realize is that as soon as we do that when we are in power, it can be used as a stick to beat us as soon as a different group comes into power. Not so long ago Christopher Hitchens still seemed to understand this.
A similar thing applies to whether you are principally in favor of free speech, or whether you are a hypocrite. If you are principalled and in favor of free speech, you realize that free speech includes the freedom to say things that you may not like. If you are a hypocrite, than you want free speech only to apply to those who agree with you. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 07:30:47 [Permalink]
|
This is what it looks like when someone tries to advance the subject matter amongst the howling mob.
Dave's "critiques" are really getting an air of desperation about them. possibly because he is beginning to realize I won't let him dictate the course of conversation with me along his pre-calculated course. I am not interested in your contrived steel corridor, Dave.
"Since dglas is following the Mooney-Kirshenbaum-Plait playbook, he has to create an army of horrifically bad strawmen (or at least one big boogeyman) to battle in order to try to plant himself firmly in the "reasonable middle" of just trying to have a discussion about some ideas. dglas is Tom Johnsoning this discussion (and any discussion he might get into on Facebook, too)."
No polarizing there. There are no possible matter for discussion except the two polar opposites Dave petulantly demands. Not buying, Dave.
Well, no one can say I didn't try. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 07:34:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
This is what it looks like when someone tries to advance the subject matter amongst the howling mob.
Dave's "critiques" are really getting an air of desperation about them. possibly because he is beginning to realize I won't let him dictate the course of conversation with me along his pre-calculated course. I am not interested in your contrived steel corridor, Dave.
"Since dglas is following the Mooney-Kirshenbaum-Plait playbook, he has to create an army of horrifically bad strawmen (or at least one big boogeyman) to battle in order to try to plant himself firmly in the "reasonable middle" of just trying to have a discussion about some ideas. dglas is Tom Johnsoning this discussion (and any discussion he might get into on Facebook, too)."
No polarizing there. There are no possible matter for discussion except the two polar opposites Dave petulantly demands. Not buying, Dave.
Well, no one can say I didn't try.
|
Where did you actually try to understand our critiques of your position dglas? Seriously, all you have provided so far are strawman of them.
Don't you think that to advance the discussion, the first thing you should do is accurately reflect the position of those opposing your argument? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 07:43:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
What is possibly even more interesting, is that dglas's last paragraph is in fact completely opposite to what has been claimed by others. |
Reality no longer matters to dglas. He's trying to portray himself as a lone voice of reason in a sea of dogmatists.
One will also notice that he still hasn't presented any sort of decent argument relating the pure dogma of Islam to the decision to allow the construction of Cordoba House. I don't think he has one that would withstand scrutiny, and so he's fallen back on railing vaguely against dogma and some fabricated "people" who don't understand dogma. It's a face-saving tactic, but dglas seems to have forgotten "the First Rule of Holes." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 08:19:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
This is what it looks like when someone tries to advance the subject matter amongst the howling mob.
Dave's "critiques" are really getting an air of desperation about them. possibly because he is beginning to realize I won't let him dictate the course of conversation with me along his pre-calculated course. I am not interested in your contrived steel corridor, Dave. |
Note that dglas doesn't actually criticize anything I've said, he just waves his hands at some sort of plan he's fabricated for me and says he's "not interested." He claims he's trying to "advance the subject matter," but hasn't actually done so in any of his recent messages. Plus, the boogeyman has now magically become a "howling mob," without any additional evidence of bad behavior described or cited. This stuff is all straight out of the M&K playbook on middling oneself into ridiculousness."Since dglas is following the Mooney-Kirshenbaum-Plait playbook, he has to create an army of horrifically bad strawmen (or at least one big boogeyman) to battle in order to try to plant himself firmly in the "reasonable middle" of just trying to have a discussion about some ideas. dglas is Tom Johnsoning this discussion (and any discussion he might get into on Facebook, too)."
No polarizing there. There are no possible matter for discussion except the two polar opposites Dave petulantly demands. Not buying, Dave. |
Note that dglas can't actually point to any "two polar opposites" that I "demand," because I'm not actually demanding any such thing. Pointing out dglas' transparent tactics and insults in this thread is not a demand that he pick one of two positions on any subject. dglas is, instead, engaged in projecting his own failures onto me, since he's the one who is trying to polarize this into a him-vs-everyone venom-fest. I want to learn what dglas' position actually is (I can neither agree nor disagree with it until then), but he refuses to say, and somehow that makes me a bad guy. It seems that dglas doesn't like being asked to stick to reality any longer. The fictions that he is creating are ludicrous, I think he knows it, and so...| Well, no one can say I didn't try. |
...dglas now signals his intent to run away, having not really tried much at all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 08:33:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Plus, the boogeyman has now magically become a "howling mob," without any additional evidence of bad behavior described or cited. |
Well, I did call him an idiot.  |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I… WTF…?
