|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Scorching wildfires that are raging throughout the American south-west are being fueled by climate change and require new strategies from states to prevent ever-greater destruction of people’s lives and property, a group of experts have warned.
High temperatures, drought and wind have combined to create a number of fires that have caused at least two deaths in California. The first large wildfire of the summer has this week broken out in northern California, burning through more than 1,200 acres and threatening thousands of homes in an area around 50 miles north-east of Sacramento.
Wildfire experts said there are numerous indicators that warming temperatures have contributed to the fires by drying out vegetation and soils and causing an earlier spring melt of snow. Trees are also less resilient to fire due to infestations of beetles, which thrive in warmer weather.
Over the past 30 years there has been a fourfold increase in the number of large forest fires in the American west, while the fire season has grown by 84 days to 220 days in this time. The amount of area burned has ballooned by 1,200%, with areas such as the northern Rockies and the north-west particularly badly hit.
“Wildfire in forested areas is increasing dramatically, there are more opportunities for large fires,” said Dr LeRoy Westerling, associate professor at the University of California-Merced.
“In a lot of places the climate restricted fires, but now it’s all about fuel availability and we are seeing very large burned patches in areas that aren’t used to it. Each decade since the 1980s has seen a big increase in fire activity, and we don’t expect that trend to stop any time soon.”
The fire now raging in northern California follows several outbreaks in the south of the state, including blazes on the outskirts of Los Angeles, which were battled by more than 600 firefighters and causing smoke to billow across the city. A state of emergency has been declared in both California and New Mexico to deal with blazes that have consumed tens of thousands of acres and hundreds of homes.
Source
|
On July 01 2016 05:54 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2016 02:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 30 2016 12:33 oBlade wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Sam Harris had some interesting things to say about this. The administration's response, focusing on guns, would have no application in any other context (for example, a bombing, like the Boston marathon attack, or an airplane hijacking). We've now got Boston, Charlie Hebdo, Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino, Orlando, plus failed attacks in Texas and on the train in Belgium; this is a bad pattern. Now, if talking about Islamic terrorism were something that caused terrorists to multiply, that in itself would be a fucking alarming proposition warranting further discussion. We're constantly told Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam - if that's true, then we should be able to talk about the former without this silly worry, for the benefit of all members of our species. These questions are either uncomfortable or controversial, which is why the US left wants to sweep them under the rug. Or they can't turn the ship around, too. + Show Spoiler +Like the president missed the point here. He thinks, or he's representing, basically that the right wants people to talk about radical Islam because talking about it is a quick fix. That's not it at all, people want to talk about problems in the open so we can understand them, then move to fix them, rather than pretend everything's fine. But now I'm being told that not talking about the problem, or having leaders who don't openly address it, is a viable strategy...?  though its efficacy remains doubtful. However, only when there's an attack against civilization, apparently, does this strategy apply - it's fine to tout your supposed achievements drone striking someone in Yemen in a State of the Union speech, for example. If this were about magically saving lives by not "jinxing" more terrorism into existence by talking about it, the president should be able to look the American people (figuratively) in the face and present that case, rather than just being patronizing and dismissing it like it's just the other side of the aisle throwing a fit. To me, it's transparent: people in power don't want to accept criticism on how they handle this issue, so they insist that talking about it makes us less safe, and they also don't want to actually do things, or rather take chances, because that could also invite criticism, and therefore not be politically expedient. On no other issue would anyone for a moment buy this. Rising heroin abuse? Let's all just pretend everything's hunky-dory, because saying the word "heroin" might cause further addiction as people start to hear about heroin and decide to try it who wouldn't have been exposed otherwise, but oh, I can still brag about sending a helicopter full of highly trained people wearing uniforms to rescue someone who was overdosing once and fly him to the hospital in just 40 minutes. That Sam Harris video gave me hope that rationality still exists in the world. I was going to say something but then I remembered that "moral clarity" was like the first word in this video... Do you know what moral clarity is? It's the ability to continue to understand who the bad guy is when your side is doing fucked up shit as well. It's what you substitute for actual morality when you would still like to pretend you are the good guys, even though reality doesn't seem to demonstrate that. It works something like this: sure, I disagree with some of Israel's actions, but because I have moral clarity I get to say Palestinians are worse and so I get to dismiss the fact that I disagree with some of Israel's actions. Before Sam Harris was popular, the only time I had been confronted with moral clarity was in fucking Goodkind's rightwing fetishist fantasy, when the hero kills a bunch of unarmed pacifists because they don't want to fight for him (I'm not even kidding): "Men behind Richard hit the line of evil's guardians with unrestrained violence. People armed only with their hatred for moral clarity fell bloodied, terribly injured, and dead. The line of people collapsed before the merciless charge. Some of the people, screaming their contempt, used their fists to attack Richard's men. They were met with swift and deadly steel." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_clarity)
Not sure what any of this has to do with his criticisms or U.S. Politics.
Also I would say it's a straw-man to interpret his argument as 'since terrorists are wrong then our government is immune to criticism'. Did you even listen to the video or just turn it off after you heard 'moral clarity' because it sounds like the latter if you have beef with it because you think it's analogous to that israel/palestine example of yours.
|
On July 01 2016 06:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2016 05:54 Nebuchad wrote:On July 01 2016 02:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 30 2016 12:33 oBlade wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Sam Harris had some interesting things to say about this. The administration's response, focusing on guns, would have no application in any other context (for example, a bombing, like the Boston marathon attack, or an airplane hijacking). We've now got Boston, Charlie Hebdo, Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino, Orlando, plus failed attacks in Texas and on the train in Belgium; this is a bad pattern. Now, if talking about Islamic terrorism were something that caused terrorists to multiply, that in itself would be a fucking alarming proposition warranting further discussion. We're constantly told Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam - if that's true, then we should be able to talk about the former without this silly worry, for the benefit of all members of our species. These questions are either uncomfortable or controversial, which is why the US left wants to sweep them under the rug. Or they can't turn the ship around, too. + Show Spoiler +Like the president missed the point here. He thinks, or he's representing, basically that the right wants people to talk about radical Islam because talking about it is a quick fix. That's not it at all, people want to talk about problems in the open so we can understand them, then move to fix them, rather than pretend everything's fine. But now I'm being told that not talking about the problem, or having leaders who don't openly address it, is a viable strategy...? though its efficacy remains doubtful. However, only when there's an attack against civilization, apparently, does this strategy apply - it's fine to tout your supposed achievements drone striking someone in Yemen in a State of the Union speech, for example. If this were about magically saving lives by not "jinxing" more terrorism into existence by talking about it, the president should be able to look the American people (figuratively) in the face and present that case, rather than just being patronizing and dismissing it like it's just the other side of the aisle throwing a fit. To me, it's transparent: people in power don't want to accept criticism on how they handle this issue, so they insist that talking about it makes us less safe, and they also don't want to actually do things, or rather take chances, because that could also invite criticism, and therefore not be politically expedient. On no other issue would anyone for a moment buy this. Rising heroin abuse? Let's all just pretend everything's hunky-dory, because saying the word "heroin" might cause further addiction as people start to hear about heroin and decide to try it who wouldn't have been exposed otherwise, but oh, I can still brag about sending a helicopter full of highly trained people wearing uniforms to rescue someone who was overdosing once and fly him to the hospital in just 40 minutes. That Sam Harris video gave me hope that rationality still exists in the world. I was going to say something but then I remembered that "moral clarity" was like the first word in this video... Do you know what moral clarity is? It's the ability to continue to understand who the bad guy is when your side is doing fucked up shit as well. It's what you substitute for actual morality when you would still like to pretend you are the good guys, even though reality doesn't seem to demonstrate that. It works something like this: sure, I disagree with some of Israel's actions, but because I have moral clarity I get to say Palestinians are worse and so I get to dismiss the fact that I disagree with some of Israel's actions. Before Sam Harris was popular, the only time I had been confronted with moral clarity was in fucking Goodkind's rightwing fetishist fantasy, when the hero kills a bunch of unarmed pacifists because they don't want to fight for him (I'm not even kidding): "Men behind Richard hit the line of evil's guardians with unrestrained violence. People armed only with their hatred for moral clarity fell bloodied, terribly injured, and dead. The line of people collapsed before the merciless charge. Some of the people, screaming their contempt, used their fists to attack Richard's men. They were met with swift and deadly steel." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_clarity) Not sure what any of this has to do with his criticisms or U.S. Politics. Also I would say it's a straw-man to interpret his argument as 'since terrorists are wrong then our government is immune to criticism'. Did you even listen to the video or just turn it off after you heard 'moral clarity'?
That's literally the meaning of the expression "moral clarity". If he doesn't want people to interpret his argument as saying this, he shouldn't use the words that mean it. But you do score two harrisite points for using "strawman" randomly regardless of what is being discussed...
|
On July 01 2016 06:20 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2016 06:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 01 2016 05:54 Nebuchad wrote:On July 01 2016 02:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 30 2016 12:33 oBlade wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Sam Harris had some interesting things to say about this. The administration's response, focusing on guns, would have no application in any other context (for example, a bombing, like the Boston marathon attack, or an airplane hijacking). We've now got Boston, Charlie Hebdo, Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino, Orlando, plus failed attacks in Texas and on the train in Belgium; this is a bad pattern. Now, if talking about Islamic terrorism were something that caused terrorists to multiply, that in itself would be a fucking alarming proposition warranting further discussion. We're constantly told Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam - if that's true, then we should be able to talk about the former without this silly worry, for the benefit of all members of our species. These questions are either uncomfortable or controversial, which is why the US left wants to sweep them under the rug. Or they can't turn the ship around, too. + Show Spoiler +Like the president missed the point here. He thinks, or he's representing, basically that the right wants people to talk about radical Islam because talking about it is a quick fix. That's not it at all, people want to talk about problems in the open so we can understand them, then move to fix them, rather than pretend everything's fine. But now I'm being told that not talking about the problem, or having leaders who don't openly address it, is a viable strategy...? though its efficacy remains doubtful. However, only when there's an attack against civilization, apparently, does this strategy apply - it's fine to tout your supposed achievements drone striking someone in Yemen in a State of the Union speech, for example. If this were about magically saving lives by not "jinxing" more terrorism into existence by talking about it, the president should be able to look the American people (figuratively) in the face and present that case, rather than just being patronizing and dismissing it like it's just the other side of the aisle throwing a fit. To me, it's transparent: people in power don't want to accept criticism on how they handle this issue, so they insist that talking about it makes us less safe, and they also don't want to actually do things, or rather take chances, because that could also invite criticism, and therefore not be politically expedient. On no other issue would anyone for a moment buy this. Rising heroin abuse? Let's all just pretend everything's hunky-dory, because saying the word "heroin" might cause further addiction as people start to hear about heroin and decide to try it who wouldn't have been exposed otherwise, but oh, I can still brag about sending a helicopter full of highly trained people wearing uniforms to rescue someone who was overdosing once and fly him to the hospital in just 40 minutes. That Sam Harris video gave me hope that rationality still exists in the world. I was going to say something but then I remembered that "moral clarity" was like the first word in this video... Do you know what moral clarity is? It's the ability to continue to understand who the bad guy is when your side is doing fucked up shit as well. It's what you substitute for actual morality when you would still like to pretend you are the good guys, even though reality doesn't seem to demonstrate that. It works something like this: sure, I disagree with some of Israel's actions, but because I have moral clarity I get to say Palestinians are worse and so I get to dismiss the fact that I disagree with some of Israel's actions. Before Sam Harris was popular, the only time I had been confronted with moral clarity was in fucking Goodkind's rightwing fetishist fantasy, when the hero kills a bunch of unarmed pacifists because they don't want to fight for him (I'm not even kidding): "Men behind Richard hit the line of evil's guardians with unrestrained violence. People armed only with their hatred for moral clarity fell bloodied, terribly injured, and dead. The line of people collapsed before the merciless charge. Some of the people, screaming their contempt, used their fists to attack Richard's men. They were met with swift and deadly steel." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_clarity) Not sure what any of this has to do with his criticisms or U.S. Politics. Also I would say it's a straw-man to interpret his argument as 'since terrorists are wrong then our government is immune to criticism'. Did you even listen to the video or just turn it off after you heard 'moral clarity'? That's literally the meaning of the expression "moral clarity". If he doesn't want people to interpret his argument as saying this, he shouldn't use the words that mean it. But you do score two harrisite points for using "strawman" randomly regardless of what is being discussed...
Oh if we're keeping score
+1 for strawman
+1 for hating on a video without watching it
+1 for ad hominem
+1 for using wikipedia as your primary source
+1 for not knowing what a strawman is
+1 for failure to apply principle of charity
+1 for wasting two paragraphs in this thread writing about some fetish fantasy no one cares about
|
Lol, fallacious use of fallacies seems rampant these days.
|
I think everyone's opinion of Sam Harris has been fleshed out in this thread. Continuing to cite him in any discussion about Islam is a dubious decisions given the audience. If the goal of the discussion is to change someones mind, citing him is likely not the best way to do it.
And again, no one should be expecting anyone in this thread to watch a 20 minute video. Especially of a static image of the guy's face. Post an article they can read and review. Reading is cool.
On July 01 2016 06:38 farvacola wrote:
Lol, fallacious use of fallacies seems rampant these days.
The fallacy fallacy is strong.
|
On July 01 2016 06:32 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2016 06:20 Nebuchad wrote:On July 01 2016 06:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 01 2016 05:54 Nebuchad wrote:On July 01 2016 02:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 30 2016 12:33 oBlade wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Sam Harris had some interesting things to say about this. The administration's response, focusing on guns, would have no application in any other context (for example, a bombing, like the Boston marathon attack, or an airplane hijacking). We've now got Boston, Charlie Hebdo, Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino, Orlando, plus failed attacks in Texas and on the train in Belgium; this is a bad pattern. Now, if talking about Islamic terrorism were something that caused terrorists to multiply, that in itself would be a fucking alarming proposition warranting further discussion. We're constantly told Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam - if that's true, then we should be able to talk about the former without this silly worry, for the benefit of all members of our species. These questions are either uncomfortable or controversial, which is why the US left wants to sweep them under the rug. Or they can't turn the ship around, too. + Show Spoiler +Like the president missed the point here. He thinks, or he's representing, basically that the right wants people to talk about radical Islam because talking about it is a quick fix. That's not it at all, people want to talk about problems in the open so we can understand them, then move to fix them, rather than pretend everything's fine. But now I'm being told that not talking about the problem, or having leaders who don't openly address it, is a viable strategy...? though its efficacy remains doubtful. However, only when there's an attack against civilization, apparently, does this strategy apply - it's fine to tout your supposed achievements drone striking someone in Yemen in a State of the Union speech, for example. If this were about magically saving lives by not "jinxing" more terrorism into existence by talking about it, the president should be able to look the American people (figuratively) in the face and present that case, rather than just being patronizing and dismissing it like it's just the other side of the aisle throwing a fit. To me, it's transparent: people in power don't want to accept criticism on how they handle this issue, so they insist that talking about it makes us less safe, and they also don't want to actually do things, or rather take chances, because that could also invite criticism, and therefore not be politically expedient. On no other issue would anyone for a moment buy this. Rising heroin abuse? Let's all just pretend everything's hunky-dory, because saying the word "heroin" might cause further addiction as people start to hear about heroin and decide to try it who wouldn't have been exposed otherwise, but oh, I can still brag about sending a helicopter full of highly trained people wearing uniforms to rescue someone who was overdosing once and fly him to the hospital in just 40 minutes. That Sam Harris video gave me hope that rationality still exists in the world. I was going to say something but then I remembered that "moral clarity" was like the first word in this video... Do you know what moral clarity is? It's the ability to continue to understand who the bad guy is when your side is doing fucked up shit as well. It's what you substitute for actual morality when you would still like to pretend you are the good guys, even though reality doesn't seem to demonstrate that. It works something like this: sure, I disagree with some of Israel's actions, but because I have moral clarity I get to say Palestinians are worse and so I get to dismiss the fact that I disagree with some of Israel's actions. Before Sam Harris was popular, the only time I had been confronted with moral clarity was in fucking Goodkind's rightwing fetishist fantasy, when the hero kills a bunch of unarmed pacifists because they don't want to fight for him (I'm not even kidding): "Men behind Richard hit the line of evil's guardians with unrestrained violence. People armed only with their hatred for moral clarity fell bloodied, terribly injured, and dead. The line of people collapsed before the merciless charge. Some of the people, screaming their contempt, used their fists to attack Richard's men. They were met with swift and deadly steel." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_clarity) Not sure what any of this has to do with his criticisms or U.S. Politics. Also I would say it's a straw-man to interpret his argument as 'since terrorists are wrong then our government is immune to criticism'. Did you even listen to the video or just turn it off after you heard 'moral clarity'? That's literally the meaning of the expression "moral clarity". If he doesn't want people to interpret his argument as saying this, he shouldn't use the words that mean it. But you do score two harrisite points for using "strawman" randomly regardless of what is being discussed... Oh if we're keeping score +1 for strawman +1 for hating on a video without watching it +1 for ad hominem +1 for using wikipedia as your primary source +1 for not knowing what a strawman is +1 for failure to apply principle of charity +1 for wasting two paragraphs in this thread writing about some fetish fantasy no one cares about
I'm fairly sure I've watched more Harris than you. I have watched more Harris than most people.
I haven't used ad hominem here.
As for wikipedia, well do you disagree with the definition here? Do you think moral clarity means something else than what they say? Do you have another more elite source that you would like to bring to the table? No? I guess your criticism is random then.
As for Goodkind, well I think it's relevant to know what kind of people use moral clarity and why they use the term. Don't you?
|
On July 01 2016 06:41 Plansix wrote:I think everyone's opinion of Sam Harris has been fleshed out in this thread. Continuing to cite him in any discussion about Islam is a dubious decisions given the audience. If the goal of the discussion is to change someones mind, citing him is likely not the best way to do it. And again, no one should be expecting anyone in this thread to watch a 20 minute video. Especially of a static image of the guy's face. Post an article they can read and review. Reading is cool. Show nested quote +On July 01 2016 06:38 farvacola wrote:
Lol, fallacious use of fallacies seems rampant these days. The fallacy fallacy is strong.
I don't like linking long videos for that reason either.
When I see one though, I'm not going to go about bashing it if I haven't seen it.
It makes no difference if it's an article. If you bash an article you didn't bother to read it's just as idiotic as bashing a video you didn't watch.
We can all agree on one thing at least - the misunderstanding of fallacies and arguments is strong here.
|
On July 01 2016 06:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2016 06:41 Plansix wrote:I think everyone's opinion of Sam Harris has been fleshed out in this thread. Continuing to cite him in any discussion about Islam is a dubious decisions given the audience. If the goal of the discussion is to change someones mind, citing him is likely not the best way to do it. And again, no one should be expecting anyone in this thread to watch a 20 minute video. Especially of a static image of the guy's face. Post an article they can read and review. Reading is cool. On July 01 2016 06:38 farvacola wrote:
Lol, fallacious use of fallacies seems rampant these days. The fallacy fallacy is strong. I don't like linking long videos for that reason either. When I see one though, I'm not going to go about bashing it if I haven't seen it. It makes no difference if it's an article. If you bash an article you didn't bother to read it's just as idiotic as bashing a video you didn't watch. We can all agree on one thing at least - the misunderstanding of fallacies and arguments is strong here.
Please explain very factually and very precisely how I strawmanned Harris in that situation, where I said that he used the term "moral clarity", and then described what I thought of the term.
|
On July 01 2016 06:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2016 06:41 Plansix wrote:I think everyone's opinion of Sam Harris has been fleshed out in this thread. Continuing to cite him in any discussion about Islam is a dubious decisions given the audience. If the goal of the discussion is to change someones mind, citing him is likely not the best way to do it. And again, no one should be expecting anyone in this thread to watch a 20 minute video. Especially of a static image of the guy's face. Post an article they can read and review. Reading is cool. On July 01 2016 06:38 farvacola wrote:
Lol, fallacious use of fallacies seems rampant these days. The fallacy fallacy is strong. I don't like linking long videos for that reason either. When I see one though, I'm not going to go about bashing it if I haven't seen it. It makes no difference if it's an article. If you bash an article you didn't bother to read it's just as idiotic as bashing a video you didn't watch. We can all agree on one thing at least - the misunderstanding of fallacies and arguments is strong here.
Do you know how many articles I can read in 20 minutes? A lot. I read faster than people talk. Everyone does. That is why people skip dialogue in video games if it is subtitled. Which is why no one should post 20 minute videos to cover ideas that can be summed up in like a 3 page article.
And people should just stop citing Sam Harris. The folks they are normally arguing with do not find his arguments compelling.
|
On July 01 2016 06:44 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2016 06:32 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 01 2016 06:20 Nebuchad wrote:On July 01 2016 06:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 01 2016 05:54 Nebuchad wrote:On July 01 2016 02:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 30 2016 12:33 oBlade wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Sam Harris had some interesting things to say about this. The administration's response, focusing on guns, would have no application in any other context (for example, a bombing, like the Boston marathon attack, or an airplane hijacking). We've now got Boston, Charlie Hebdo, Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino, Orlando, plus failed attacks in Texas and on the train in Belgium; this is a bad pattern. Now, if talking about Islamic terrorism were something that caused terrorists to multiply, that in itself would be a fucking alarming proposition warranting further discussion. We're constantly told Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam - if that's true, then we should be able to talk about the former without this silly worry, for the benefit of all members of our species. These questions are either uncomfortable or controversial, which is why the US left wants to sweep them under the rug. Or they can't turn the ship around, too. + Show Spoiler +Like the president missed the point here. He thinks, or he's representing, basically that the right wants people to talk about radical Islam because talking about it is a quick fix. That's not it at all, people want to talk about problems in the open so we can understand them, then move to fix them, rather than pretend everything's fine. But now I'm being told that not talking about the problem, or having leaders who don't openly address it, is a viable strategy...? though its efficacy remains doubtful. However, only when there's an attack against civilization, apparently, does this strategy apply - it's fine to tout your supposed achievements drone striking someone in Yemen in a State of the Union speech, for example. If this were about magically saving lives by not "jinxing" more terrorism into existence by talking about it, the president should be able to look the American people (figuratively) in the face and present that case, rather than just being patronizing and dismissing it like it's just the other side of the aisle throwing a fit. To me, it's transparent: people in power don't want to accept criticism on how they handle this issue, so they insist that talking about it makes us less safe, and they also don't want to actually do things, or rather take chances, because that could also invite criticism, and therefore not be politically expedient. On no other issue would anyone for a moment buy this. Rising heroin abuse? Let's all just pretend everything's hunky-dory, because saying the word "heroin" might cause further addiction as people start to hear about heroin and decide to try it who wouldn't have been exposed otherwise, but oh, I can still brag about sending a helicopter full of highly trained people wearing uniforms to rescue someone who was overdosing once and fly him to the hospital in just 40 minutes. That Sam Harris video gave me hope that rationality still exists in the world. I was going to say something but then I remembered that "moral clarity" was like the first word in this video... Do you know what moral clarity is? It's the ability to continue to understand who the bad guy is when your side is doing fucked up shit as well. It's what you substitute for actual morality when you would still like to pretend you are the good guys, even though reality doesn't seem to demonstrate that. It works something like this: sure, I disagree with some of Israel's actions, but because I have moral clarity I get to say Palestinians are worse and so I get to dismiss the fact that I disagree with some of Israel's actions. Before Sam Harris was popular, the only time I had been confronted with moral clarity was in fucking Goodkind's rightwing fetishist fantasy, when the hero kills a bunch of unarmed pacifists because they don't want to fight for him (I'm not even kidding): "Men behind Richard hit the line of evil's guardians with unrestrained violence. People armed only with their hatred for moral clarity fell bloodied, terribly injured, and dead. The line of people collapsed before the merciless charge. Some of the people, screaming their contempt, used their fists to attack Richard's men. They were met with swift and deadly steel." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_clarity) Not sure what any of this has to do with his criticisms or U.S. Politics. Also I would say it's a straw-man to interpret his argument as 'since terrorists are wrong then our government is immune to criticism'. Did you even listen to the video or just turn it off after you heard 'moral clarity'? That's literally the meaning of the expression "moral clarity". If he doesn't want people to interpret his argument as saying this, he shouldn't use the words that mean it. But you do score two harrisite points for using "strawman" randomly regardless of what is being discussed... Oh if we're keeping score +1 for strawman +1 for hating on a video without watching it +1 for ad hominem +1 for using wikipedia as your primary source +1 for not knowing what a strawman is +1 for failure to apply principle of charity +1 for wasting two paragraphs in this thread writing about some fetish fantasy no one cares about I'm fairly sure I've watched more Harris than you. I have watched more Harris than most people. I haven't used ad hominem here.
It doesn't matter that you've watched more Harris than me. This isn't a Harris-watching contest. I don't even particularly like Harris but he made rational points in that video which was linked. The fact that you've watched more of him elsewhere doesn't entitle you to commentate on positions of his you don't bother watching.
Trying to take away from someone's point by calling them 'harrisite' is ad hominem. You are devaluing an argument not based on the argument itself, which again, you refused to even listen to before bashing it, but based on insulting where it is coming from. If you did not intend to do this then that's a failure of communication but it very-much looked like this was your intention and it is in fact ad hominem.
|
On July 01 2016 06:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2016 06:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 01 2016 06:41 Plansix wrote:I think everyone's opinion of Sam Harris has been fleshed out in this thread. Continuing to cite him in any discussion about Islam is a dubious decisions given the audience. If the goal of the discussion is to change someones mind, citing him is likely not the best way to do it. And again, no one should be expecting anyone in this thread to watch a 20 minute video. Especially of a static image of the guy's face. Post an article they can read and review. Reading is cool. On July 01 2016 06:38 farvacola wrote:
Lol, fallacious use of fallacies seems rampant these days. The fallacy fallacy is strong. I don't like linking long videos for that reason either. When I see one though, I'm not going to go about bashing it if I haven't seen it. It makes no difference if it's an article. If you bash an article you didn't bother to read it's just as idiotic as bashing a video you didn't watch. We can all agree on one thing at least - the misunderstanding of fallacies and arguments is strong here. Do you know how many articles I can read in 20 minutes? A lot. I read faster than people talk. Everyone does. That is why people skip dialogue in video games if it is subtitled. Which is why no one should post 20 minute videos to cover ideas that can be summed up in like a 3 page article.
You're arguing that you can read articles faster than listen to a video. I agree with this. I don't think anyone disagrees with it.
I didn't even post the video. I listened to it and commented on it.
I think it's pretty silly of you to say no one should ever post 20-minute videos though. It was in a spoiler; if you don't want to watch it ignore it. If someone wants to watch it they can. I think you should stop backseat moderating; if the mods want to make a rule then they'll do it. This is like the 5th time I've seen you whine about it.
If you want to talk about fallacies, continuing to bash the source of something based purely on the location the source is coming from and not the actual content itself is a legitimate fallacy in arguments.
|
On July 01 2016 06:41 Plansix wrote:I think everyone's opinion of Sam Harris has been fleshed out in this thread. Continuing to cite him in any discussion about Islam is a dubious decisions given the audience. If the goal of the discussion is to change someones mind, citing him is likely not the best way to do it. And again, no one should be expecting anyone in this thread to watch a 20 minute video. Especially of a static image of the guy's face. Post an article they can read and review. Reading is cool. Show nested quote +On July 01 2016 06:38 farvacola wrote:
Lol, fallacious use of fallacies seems rampant these days. The fallacy fallacy is strong.
My friend, it's a podcast; there is no video. Put it in another tab and listen to it while you do something else. We're on an website that champions multitasking. I also gave cliffs for the audio clip that you could pick up from. You shouldn't feel any obligation to post about material if you don't want to digest it, there's nothing wrong with that. But pretty soon you will already have spent more than 20 minutes just telling us how awful you think the speaker is.
|
He provided a detailed breakdown of moral clarity and the history of the term. Pointing out that people have use the term use it to justify horrific acts. And you said he was stawmanning because he didn't watch the video, when those words are teh first words out of Harris's mouth when he is praising Trump.
He is praising Trump for having the "moral clarity" to promote amoral things in the fight against Islam.
If you are going to complain about strawmaning, it would help if you understood what it was.
On July 01 2016 07:03 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2016 06:41 Plansix wrote:I think everyone's opinion of Sam Harris has been fleshed out in this thread. Continuing to cite him in any discussion about Islam is a dubious decisions given the audience. If the goal of the discussion is to change someones mind, citing him is likely not the best way to do it. And again, no one should be expecting anyone in this thread to watch a 20 minute video. Especially of a static image of the guy's face. Post an article they can read and review. Reading is cool. On July 01 2016 06:38 farvacola wrote:
Lol, fallacious use of fallacies seems rampant these days. The fallacy fallacy is strong. My friend, it's a podcast; there is no video. Put it in another tab and listen to it while you do something else. We're on an website that champions multitasking. I also gave cliffs for the audio clip that you could pick up from. You shouldn't feel any obligation to post about material if you don't want to digest it, there's nothing wrong with that. But pretty soon you will already have spent more than 20 minutes just telling us how awful you think the speaker is.
To be honest, I got through about 2 minutes of it before I had to turn it off. The man is a hack and I find his uneducated, poorly informed ideas about Islam to be churlish and puerile. He is the modern day version of the dude who stood on a soap box yelling about the dangers of the invading Irish/Italian/Swedish/Chinese Hoards from over seas.
|
On July 01 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:
And you said he was stawmanning because he didn't watch the video
If you are going to complain about strawmaning, it would help if you understood what it was.
That is not why I said he was strawmanning his position.
You thinking that it is explains your confusion.
|
On July 01 2016 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:
And you said he was stawmanning because he didn't watch the video
If you are going to complain about strawmaning, it would help if you understood what it was. That is not why I said he was strawmanning his position. You thinking that it is explains your confusion.
I read your post, he never said what you claimed he did. Which is why you got the snarky response that started all of this. Just like always.
|
On July 01 2016 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:
And you said he was stawmanning because he didn't watch the video
If you are going to complain about strawmaning, it would help if you understood what it was. That is not why I said he was strawmanning his position. You thinking that it is explains your confusion.
Which is why I asked a few posts ago that you describe very precisely how I strawmanned Harris.
|
On July 01 2016 07:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2016 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 01 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:
And you said he was stawmanning because he didn't watch the video
If you are going to complain about strawmaning, it would help if you understood what it was. That is not why I said he was strawmanning his position. You thinking that it is explains your confusion. I read your post, he never said what you claimed he did. Which is why you got the snarky response that started all of this. Just like always.
I stood to criticize the fact that he was judging the argument from the podcast without even listening to it.
This is an independent criticism I had:
He sees 'x' bad argument
In the future, he sees surface of 'y' argument that has similarity to 'x' so he dismisses 'y' for the same reasons he dismissed 'x'
This was my criticism which had nothing to do with his strawman.
It works something like this: sure, I disagree with some of Israel's actions, but because I have moral clarity I get to say Palestinians are worse and so I get to dismiss the fact that I disagree with some of Israel's actions.
This is what he claimed Sam Harris's argument was (from the video he didn't watch) based purely on his past experiences with the term 'moral clarity' and how he has seen it used in the past. This is a strawman interpretation of Harris's position (in the podcast he didn't even listen to). Harris never claims in the podcast that we should dismiss any concerns of islamophobia, but that it ought not be the priority because innocents are not being slaughtered in the name of islamophobia but they are being slaughtered in the name of radical islam.
This was how I rephrased his strawman
'since terrorists are wrong then our government is immune to criticism'
The basic understanding of his form of the argument is that 'the bad guys are worse than any crimes we commit, therefore we can dismiss any criticism of our crimes'. This is not the argument Harris presented. This is a poor argument no one in their right mind would make. That is why it is a strawman. He has failed to capture his point (probably something to do with not listening to the podcast) and instead is arguing with a weak, mutilated form of it.
Your failure to apply basic reading comprehension to analysis of the oppositions argument is the source of the problem. Just like always.
To be honest, I got through about 2 minutes of it before I had to turn it off. The man is a hack and I find his uneducated, poorly informed ideas about Islam to be churlish and puerile. He is the modern day version of the dude who stood on a soap box yelling about the dangers of the invading Irish/Italian/Swedish/Chinese Hoards from over seas.
You have failed to demonstrate your ability to talk to someone you disagree with without resorting to various fallacies and insults time and time again in this thread it just never ends does it?
You can't even restrain yourself from insulting positions you refuse to listen to just based on the knowledge that they contradict what you believe on some level. It's really just an ignorance and closed-mindedness I'm not used to seeing so much of here.
|
On July 01 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:
He provided a detailed breakdown of moral clarity and the history of the term. Pointing out that people have use the term use it to justify horrific acts. And you said he was stawmanning because he didn't watch the video, when those words are teh first words out of Harris's mouth when he is praising Trump.
He is praising Trump for having the "moral clarity" to promote amoral things in the fight against Islam.
No, Sam Harris is not a "fan" of Trump at all. He also doesn't like torture, killing people's family, and so on. What he's saying is in Trump's speech, when he said "America must unite the whole civilized world in the fight against Islamic terrorism," he's the only one to get it right so far among the president and two nominees. He later goes on to say it's not surprising that people would turn to the political right, and to populism, given the left's failure to engage with the citizenry on this.
|
On July 01 2016 07:32 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:
He provided a detailed breakdown of moral clarity and the history of the term. Pointing out that people have use the term use it to justify horrific acts. And you said he was stawmanning because he didn't watch the video, when those words are teh first words out of Harris's mouth when he is praising Trump.
He is praising Trump for having the "moral clarity" to promote amoral things in the fight against Islam.
No, Sam Harris is not a "fan" of Trump at all. He also doesn't like torture, killing people's family, and so on. What he's saying is in Trump's speech, when he said "America must unite the whole civilized world in the fight against Islamic terrorism," he's the only one to get it right so far among the president and two nominees. He later goes on to say it's not surprising that people would turn to the political right, and to populism, given the left's failure to engage with the citizenry on this.
Literally in that very podcast he spends a minute or two talking about how much of a demagogue and bigot Trump is and advises Hillary on how to make her campaign stronger against him.
It doesn't take away from the other points he actually makes and substantiates though, or at least it shouldn't for any rational individual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
