The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. (The End of Faith, by Sam Harris)
:Gathers jaw back up: I’ve never read any of Harris’s books, it’s exasperating enough to read his writing on various blogs. I’m sitting here rather stunned by this little excerpt. Apparently, there’s no limit to what Harris can manage to rationalize, all the while being a person there simply is no talking to. Pity he doesn’t see himself in that, given that he seems to be constantly writing a mirror he should be looking into, and thinking about what it reflects.
@caine you think you can talk IS nutters out of beheading people? you think you can talk the talibans into a school reform that allows girls to get an education too?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Aanthanur DC#2
@caine you think you can talk IS nutters out of beheading people? you think you can talk the talibans into a school reform that allows girls to get an education too?
You think you don’t sound like an Islamophobe like Harris? You have a problem here with that attitude, same as Harris. Save us your irrationalizations.
chigau (違う)says
I know a few people who were raised as fundmentalist Christians.
They changed their minds before I was Forced™ to kill them.
“You think you don’t sound like an Islamophobe like Harris? You have a problem here with that attitude, same as Harris. Save us your irrationalizations.”
i made it clear that i talk about IS and Taliban, you think those fucktards are representing islam?
most of their victims ARE moslems. i have alot of kurdish moslem friends that have family fighting those fuckers.
i have never said, kill all moslems, but i am sorry, i see no diplomatic way to deal with groups like the Taliban or IS.
To Aanthanur DC: it is not that hard to understand. What you are talking about is not belief but intentions and actions. So yes, you cannot kill someone because he believes exactly in the same thing that Taliban does but he is not going to kill based on that. In other words, mere beliefs are not enough for a license to kill, and when they are accompanied by actions they are no longer mere beliefs. It is not like people are only driven by one belief. Human mind is a complex entity. This is the reason why Sam Harris is such a sophist.
And by the same token, Sam Harris himself should be killed because of things like this:
“Zakaria has persuasively argued that the transition from tyranny to liberalism is unlikely to be accomplished by plebiscite. It seems all but certain that some form of benign dictatorship will generally be necessary to bridge the gap. But benignity is the key and if it cannot emerge from within a state, it must be imposed from without. The means of such imposition are necessarily crude: they amount to economic isolation, military intervention (whether open or covert), or some combination of both.”
Yep. He literally supports subjugating other people.
zaratoothbrushsays
By rights, Harris should volunteer himself before a firing squad, for believing something so incredibly disgusting. What a thinker…
@caine you think you can talk IS nutters out of beheading people? you think you can talk the talibans into a school reform that allows girls to get an education too?
You think it’s okay to murder people for what they think? See, I don’t think that’s okay, and it’s quite interesting, to say the fucking least, that Harris has the gall to bring up people there is no talking to, seeing as Harris is a person there is no talking to. FFS, it’s rapidly become an axiom that those who follow / defend Harris are as lousy at thinking as he is.
belief alone is not enough, i agree. but expressing intention of joining the IS, is reason enough for me to have that person arrested at least.
are we supposed to let the m join up with IS and wait untill they start killing?
that is not how war works. and IS has choosen war. an enemy soldier does not have to have killed anyone, him merely wearing the enemy unifom is enough to get him killed in a war.
i do not follow Harries or any other atheist, i know atheists i agree with on some things, and disagree with on other things, i have never found any person on this planet i agree on everything.
i don’t regard anyone as a leader anyway.
but i do happen to agree with harries that there are groups there is no talking to. but most likely i would not agree on his list of such groups.
and i wonder if people really think that we can talk to the IS and find a diplomatic way to stop them beheading people, blowing up people etc etc.
i don’t think so.
clevehickssays
(see minute 46 on)
clevehickssays
Sorry, my last comment refers to the Greenwald comments on Sam Harris which I posted the link to above … it is from minute 46 on.
Please don’t use ableist slurs, okay? If you have an actual argument, please present it. Before that, you need to get back on track – this is not who does or doesn’t represent Islam, this isn’t about the Taliban. This post (and Mano’s) is about Sam Harris, and his continual contortions to rationalize bigotry, and now, murder. While Harris does generally contort himself in the direction of the Middle East, let’s talk about Christian fundamentalists – any of them, pick a sect. Let’s say that some of these fundamentalists often think about planting bombs or gunning certain people down. They think about the glories of a proper, Christian country, a theocracy run with an iron eye on the morals of everyone else. Should they be murdered? Who gets to decide who is thinking what, and therefor deserves to be murdered?
asbizarsays
Aanthanur DC
“him merely wearing the enemy unifom is enough to get him killed in a war.”
Exactly. But that is one or two stages after belief. It is intention or even action (because you “Acted to join forces with ISIS”). These are different concepts. When Sam Harris talks about beliefs but he means intention or actions, maybe that is his problem. There are some ultra-urthodox nonviolent people that will never kill or even act to do so. You cannot kill them “because of their beliefs”. You only kill when it turns to something more than a belief (which by definition will no longer be a belief)
In a simple flowchart sense:
Belief (Harris thinks you should kill here)——> Intention (I think we should act here)——-> Action
These are different
“If you have an actual argument, please present it.”
i did.
my argument is that there are indeed groups that can not be talked to. i gave two examples. IS and Taliban
” this is not who does or doesn’t represent Islam, this isn’t about the Taliban. ”
for me it is about groups like Taliban and IS. those are groups i think one cannot talk to.
“let’s talk about Christian fundamentalists – any of them, pick a sect. ”
there are no christian sects i would put in the same category or not being able to talk to like the taliban and IS.
maybe the LRA? but not sure.
“Let’s say that some of these fundamentalists often think about planting bombs or gunning certain people down. They think about the glories of a proper, Christian country, a theocracy run with an iron eye on the morals of everyone else. Should they be murdered?”
the difference is, there is no group that actually make true on those ideas in a maner that would require a response like we give to IS.
Taliban and IS have shown that theiy do not merely have the ideas, but that they actually go an kill innocent people for their goals. over and over again.
” Who gets to decide who is thinking what, and therefor deserves to be murdered?”
@asbizar
good point. im not sure what Harries exactly means.
i for one do need that a person shows intend of joining one of those groups i would consider ok to be killed. and even then, when its some 16 year old kids joining them because they got radicalized over the internet. i would not considering killing them.
i just joined into the debate because i do agree that there are groups that we cannot talk to. but for me, such a group must have shown clearly that they are willing to kill innocent people en masse for their goals, and must have shown unwillingness to have any talks.
chigau (違う)says
PSA
Doing this
<blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
Results in this
how is the politically correct FTB approved word i may use to describe them and their behavior?
poor misunderstood still suffering from colonialism freedomfighters?
Well, you’re certainly invested in painting them in the most bigoted light possible. You can start by thinking first, and realizing that people and the situation they find themselves in is far from black and white, no matter how much you want it that way.
I’ve already asked you to refrain from using ableist slurs. There are a great many people on this planet who have one of many mental illnesses, and there’s no need to use language which cause splash damage to them. Instead of going for the low hanging fruit, fucking think, and then write accurately.
Anton Matessays
Aanthanur DC,
my argument is that there are indeed groups that can not be talked to. i gave two examples. IS and Taliban
Of course the Taliban can be talked to. They’ve had diplomatic recognition with three states, including Pakistan, which basically created them in the first place with US assistance. India successfully negotiated a hostage release with them in 1999. Since 2009, the Taliban have offered to enter into formal negotiations with the United States; this offer was supported by the UN, the UK and the Afghan government, but the US has so far refused. In other words, we are the ones in this conflict who can’t be talked to.
That doesn’t mean that the Taliban would give us everything we want if we did talk to them, of course. But they might give us something, and we haven’t tried.
Taliban can be talked to. Part of the problem is the US’ tendency to declare things like “We won’t talk to the Taliban” and blowing up anyone they can identify as a spokesperson. That’s one way of shutting down dialogue.
Negotiations with the Taliban would probably be difficult, of course. It’s hard to talk someone with a winning hand into discarding it.
You can start by thinking first, and realizing that people and the situation they find themselves in is far from black and white, no matter how much you want it that way.
i know almost nothing is black and white. and i am happy that way.
and i surely agree that our western politics and wars are mainly to blame that there is so much hatred towards the west.
but all my empathy for their situation ends when they blow up civilians , targeting civillians. where it collateral damage, that they accidently kill civillians because they atacked a military convoy or so.
that would all be fine for me and would see that as a justified resistance.
but they are targeting civillians, reporters, aid workers etc.
and the sadest part is, they target the civillians that already have suffered most in those conflicts.
i don0t try to paint them in the most bigoted light possible, i paint them in the worst possible light i can imagine because they set the standard for that.
this has nothing to do with people from the middle east in general, or with moslems in general.
would i be racist or so, i would actually like them. they mostly kill people in the middle east, they kill almost no people from the west when you compare the numbers.
and i always try to make it very clear who i am talking about, and i was talking about the taliban and the IS. not moslems in general, not about a single nation in general and not the middle east in general.
IS and Taliban, and when my hatred for those 2 groups make me a bigot , well then i am a proud bigot.
I’ve already asked you to refrain from using ableist slurs. There are a great many people on this planet who have one of many mental illnesses, and there’s no need to use language which cause splash damage to them.
i don’t call people with mental illnes cray, nor tards. but i do it with people liek IS and Taliban, whose behaviour i find crazy. if that offends you, so be it, that is your right.
those diplomatic agreements were, we give you weapons and money, close both eyes for your human rights violations aslong you do not get in conflict with our financial and special interests.
that is not the kind of talking i was thinking.
we already have enough such partners, like SA for example. we give you money and instructors for your special troops, so you can opress your people more efficiently, and you give good deals to our oil companies.
no thanks. i find human rights more important than fossil fuels.
you mean paying them off and closing our eyes for their human right violations.
Lady Mondegreensays
@asbizar #15
When Sam Harris talks about beliefs but he means intention or actions, maybe that is his problem
That always seems to be his damn problem. He says something ridiculous, then when people call him on it, he rationalizes and adds qualifications until what’s left is an empty truism (well, if the bad guys were going to blow up the whole world, it might be worth while to torture one of them if we were out of other options, but torture would still be bad) or a half-assed restatement of the original proposal that fools nobody (he doesn’t want to profile anybody! He just wants to not profile certain people!)
you mean paying them off and closing our eyes for their human right violations.
That whooshing sound was the goalposts moving from “won’t negotiate” to “are for sale…”
You’re new at this thinky stuff, aren’t you?
PS – we also helped arm them. One of the dirty secrets about both IS and the Taliban is that, at various times, people who are now their members, were recipients of US weapons, training, or intelligence data. That doesn’t fit neatly under “negotiate with” but it’s certainly a form of “engagement with” …
those diplomatic agreements were, we give you weapons and money, close both eyes for your human rights violations aslong you do not get in conflict with our financial and special interests.
Wake-up call, champ: all interactions between any country and the United States require at least one party to close their eyes at human rights violations. It’s a human rights violation to deny people access to water, as is happening in parts of Michigan. It’s a human rights violation to deny people access to basic healthcare, which is happening all over the country. It’s a human rights violation to house people in solitary confinement. It’s a human rights violation to imprison people for excessively long sentences in inhumane conditions for nonviolent crimes. It’s a human rights violation to allow police officers to kill unarmed civilians without punishment. It’s a human rights violation to imprison people without access to counsel or trial on the mere suspicion of being a terrorist. It’s a human rights violation to torture people. It’s a human rights violation to allow people to be gunned down day after day after day and do nothing to restrict access to firearms or ammunition. It’s a human rights violation to allow children to starve when food is abundant. It’s a human rights violation to allow people to be homeless when empty dwellings are plentiful.
You don’t get to be on a high horse when you’re riding the moral equivalent of a My Little Pony action figure.
I’m sure the next stop for your goalposts would be to argue that the Taliban and IS are worse, and that’s probably true. It might even matter if not for the fact that a major reason either group exists or has power at all is because of our meddling in the Middle East for the last seventy-odd years. Toppling regimes, backing groups out of political expediency, looking the other way for some countries (Saudi Arabia) and not others (Iraq), playing both sides of internal conflicts (Iran-Contra), and generally destabilizing and impoverishing and bombing the ever-loving shit out of the region, those actions are the fertilizer that allow fundamentalism to grow. When you’ve been living in poverty and fear for decades and a group says “we have the weapons and the will to stop the people who keep bombing your families, your weddings, your hospitals, your funerals” it is entirely rational to side with those people. Sure, they might be hella backwards in terms of religious beliefs and politics, and if they were in power, it’d probably be pretty terrible for everyone. But it’s already pretty terrible for everyone, and hopefully if they were in power, they wouldn’t be bombing your hospitals with robot planes.
It is, in fact, exactly the same kind of calculated decision we made every time we supported one of those groups. Sure, they might be awful, but they’re willing to point their guns at the right enemy, so we might as well throw in with them. If that’s “crazy,” then negotiating with the IS is going to be exactly as “crazy” as negotiating with the US.
Duncsays
If you want to make peace, there are exactly two options:
1. Negotiate with human rights abusers.
2. Kill everybody.
Without peace, or at least some semblance of stability, there will never be respect for human rights. If you make respect for human rights a pre-condition for peace, there will never be anything other than endless war – and there is nothing which destroys respect for human rights like war. How the hell do you expect to persuade somebody to respect human rights while you’re killing his friends and family?
unclefrogysays
by the “implied logic” given here just a guess I admit the steps are it is not the thinking of all Muslims it is IS and the Taliban that can not be talked to and it is OK to kill. They are distinguished by declaring themselves as such and fighting or attempting to join such groups or participating in acts of violence in aid of such groups. As such they would now seem to have moved out of the realm of just thought and into the realm of action. So I am not sure what the argument or disagreement is here. Or maybe I just find it hard to believe that anyone who claims to be rational (I think) would advocate that mere thoughts should condemn you to death or that once a thought has occurred it can never be changed and shall always be a death warrant.
If thoughts can be changed as is a reasonable hypothesis are they not changed by dialog and further thinking? They surely can not be changed at the point of a gun or a nose.
uncle frogy
pointinlinesays
So let’s take a hypothetical. You find yourself marooned on a desert island alone. You could be there for months or even years. Then you find you’re not alone but your only companion is Sy Ten Brugencate. You have a gun. Watcha gonna do?
No rational answer so resort to abuse. Clever. Not.
I gave you a rational answer to a very stupid question. Do you need to read it again? Here you are: I’d throw the gun in the ocean. I’m not a gun fondler. I don’t much care for guns. I would not commit murder because I disagree with someone’s beliefs, and I’d prefer it if they returned the courtesy. That enough?
As for abuse, what abuse? You came trolling into this thread with an idiotic hypothetical, which was completely unnecessary, as you can see for yourself upon reading the comments, there are more than enough actual situations which are pertinent to the topic, right there for discussion. You didn’t address any of that, did you? No. You thought you’d try yanking a chain. Alas, the only thing you yanked is yourself, a position I’m sure you’re more than familiar with already. If you don’t wish to be called an idiot, try not acting like one.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
No rational answer so resort to abuse. Clever. Not.
No rational question was asked. Just a stupid asshole “gottcha” try, which is abusive in its own right.
Apparently, pointinline’s point is that we’re suppose to want to murder a creationist?
I’ve met Sye Ten Bruggencate. He’s ignorant, obnoxious, completely impervious to reason, but I never considered killing him until YOU brought it up…and I reject your suggestion.
So let’s take a hypothetical. You find yourself marooned on a desert island alone. You could be there for months or even years. Then you find you’re not alone but your only companion is Sy Ten Brugencate. You have a gun. Watcha gonna do?
This question could be read in two ways: either as a flippant suggestion that, given sufficiently dire and annoying circumstances, any of us would eventually agree that someone deserves to be killed for their beliefs; or as a rebuttal to Aanthanur that we all occasionally need to look past what would normally be apparently insurmountable differences to accomplish a greater common goal, namely survival (both in this case and in the larger diplomatic one).
If it’s the former. I suspect it says a lot more about pointinline than it does about anyone else if he thinks that the mere fact of being an annoying presuppositionalist apologist warrants murder, even in a desert island scenario.
What would I do in that situation? I’d work out a plan with Sye, agree to disagree about God and presuppositional logic (assuming it even comes up) and focus on practical problems: getting off the island and surviving until we can do so. The gun is a potentially useful tool, so I wouldn’t go throwing it into the ocean, but I would suggest splitting it up so neither person has to trust the other with a lethal weapon. I get the gun, you get the bullets and the firing pin, or something like that.
Society is built on compromises, even ones we often find distasteful, made for the sake of mutual survival.
unclefrogysays
Society is built on compromises, even ones we often find distasteful, made for the sake of mutual survival.
that is a fact that seems to pass many right by mostly extremest of all stripes; racial and cultural bigots, ultra-conservatives, libertarians oh and 40 republican members of congress to name just a few
uncle frogy
Apparently, pointinline’s point is that we’re suppose to want to murder a creationist?
A creationist might drive me to the other side of the island, but that’s assuming they’d have nothing better to think on or do than constantly preach. I suspect that being marooned and survival might be more on their mind than giving a sermon. People tend to be pragmatic in such circumstances.
laurentweppesays
If you want to make peace, there are exactly two options:
1. Negotiate with human rights abusers.
2. Kill everybody.
Wasn’t that the essence of Hitchen’s “modest proposal“, by the way? Muslims fundies are human rights abusers, ergo let’s start slaughtering Muslims until the survivors are so frightened that they’ll capitulate and start aping us just to make us stop genociding them.
You find yourself marooned on a desert island alone. You could be there for months or even years. Then you find you’re not alone but your only companion is Sy Ten Brugencate. You have a gun. Watcha gonna do?
Try to kill a few birds with it, or small game, while we tried to figure out better ways to supply food.
If I were going to spend a long time on the island I’d welcome having another human around in case I hurt myself or got sick. Having had pneumonia while snowed in out in the back-country I can tell you that being solitary is much more dangerous; it’s why we humans are social animals. It’d also be great to have someone to talk to. Who knows, the horse might learn to sing?
PS – the gun might come in really handy if one of us had an inoperable cancer or gangrene or something. Or maybe we wanted to make a really loud noise to get some attention from that ship over there?
vaiytsays
Muslims fundies are human rights abusers, ergo let’s start slaughtering Muslims until the survivors are so frightened that they’ll capitulate and start aping us just to make us stop genociding them.
How do you kill an idea? You murder people suspected of holding it indiscriminately! It worked wonders with Judaism and Christianity!
So let’s take a hypothetical.
Let’s not! Why waste our time with outlandish scenarios when we could just discuss the very real situations Harris is talking about directly?
Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopiasays
pointinline>/b>, what is wrong with you?
You have to laugh at the idea that anyone could consider something that mindbogglingly stupid and immoral to be a “rational”, not to mention even remotely apropriate, question. It’s also telling that while shooting Sye Ten Bruggencate in the face for being an idiot is apparently what “rational” people would do, giving any other answer to one of the most ridiculous questions imaginable, constitutes “abuse”. I’m starting to realise just how amazingly fragile these “rationalists” are…but then again that’s the thing with shitty thinking, it crumbles down with the touch of a feather.
Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopiasays
Shit, sorry…my brain is working at minimum capacity…
Saganite, a haunter of demonssays
In the linked comment thread, somebody “defends” Harris by pointing out that Harris isn’t just referring to conscious beliefs that may or may not result in actions, but also to deeply held, unconscious beliefs that affect actions without necessarily being a direct choice to be made. Which sounds worse, actually: Not just thought crime, but even unconscious thought crime. I’d prefer sticking with actions as the determiner of their treatment, everything else just seems like a fuzzy, unkowable, unprovable mess.
Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopiasays
Euthoughtnetics….nah, doesn’t work…
laurentweppesays
Euthoughtnetics….nah, doesn’t work…
Mentanics? That sounds kinda Ron-Hubbardesque… which is rather appropriate for Harris’ brand of pseudo-intellectualism
Harris:
:Gathers jaw back up: I’ve never read any of Harris’s books, it’s exasperating enough to read his writing on various blogs. I’m sitting here rather stunned by this little excerpt. Apparently, there’s no limit to what Harris can manage to rationalize, all the while being a person there simply is no talking to. Pity he doesn’t see himself in that, given that he seems to be constantly writing a mirror he should be looking into, and thinking about what it reflects.
@caine you think you can talk IS nutters out of beheading people? you think you can talk the talibans into a school reform that allows girls to get an education too?
Aanthanur DC#2
You think you don’t sound like an Islamophobe like Harris? You have a problem here with that attitude, same as Harris. Save us your irrationalizations.
I know a few people who were raised as fundmentalist Christians.
They changed their minds before I was Forced™ to kill them.
“You think you don’t sound like an Islamophobe like Harris? You have a problem here with that attitude, same as Harris. Save us your irrationalizations.”
i made it clear that i talk about IS and Taliban, you think those fucktards are representing islam?
most of their victims ARE moslems. i have alot of kurdish moslem friends that have family fighting those fuckers.
i have never said, kill all moslems, but i am sorry, i see no diplomatic way to deal with groups like the Taliban or IS.
Glenn Greenwald addresses Sam Harris’ annoying habit of lashing out at anyone criticizing his arguments by calling them a liar here: http://wn.com/Glenn_Greenwald_On_New_Atheism,_The_Nsa_Edward_Snowden
To Aanthanur DC: it is not that hard to understand. What you are talking about is not belief but intentions and actions. So yes, you cannot kill someone because he believes exactly in the same thing that Taliban does but he is not going to kill based on that. In other words, mere beliefs are not enough for a license to kill, and when they are accompanied by actions they are no longer mere beliefs. It is not like people are only driven by one belief. Human mind is a complex entity. This is the reason why Sam Harris is such a sophist.
And by the same token, Sam Harris himself should be killed because of things like this:
“Zakaria has persuasively argued that the transition from tyranny to liberalism is unlikely to be accomplished by plebiscite. It seems all but certain that some form of benign dictatorship will generally be necessary to bridge the gap. But benignity is the key and if it cannot emerge from within a state, it must be imposed from without. The means of such imposition are necessarily crude: they amount to economic isolation, military intervention (whether open or covert), or some combination of both.”
Yep. He literally supports subjugating other people.
By rights, Harris should volunteer himself before a firing squad, for believing something so incredibly disgusting. What a thinker…
Aanthanur DC @ 2:
You think it’s okay to murder people for what they think? See, I don’t think that’s okay, and it’s quite interesting, to say the fucking least, that Harris has the gall to bring up people there is no talking to, seeing as Harris is a person there is no talking to. FFS, it’s rapidly become an axiom that those who follow / defend Harris are as lousy at thinking as he is.
@ asbizar
belief alone is not enough, i agree. but expressing intention of joining the IS, is reason enough for me to have that person arrested at least.
are we supposed to let the m join up with IS and wait untill they start killing?
that is not how war works. and IS has choosen war. an enemy soldier does not have to have killed anyone, him merely wearing the enemy unifom is enough to get him killed in a war.
@ Caine
i do not follow Harries or any other atheist, i know atheists i agree with on some things, and disagree with on other things, i have never found any person on this planet i agree on everything.
i don’t regard anyone as a leader anyway.
but i do happen to agree with harries that there are groups there is no talking to. but most likely i would not agree on his list of such groups.
and i wonder if people really think that we can talk to the IS and find a diplomatic way to stop them beheading people, blowing up people etc etc.
i don’t think so.
(see minute 46 on)
Sorry, my last comment refers to the Greenwald comments on Sam Harris which I posted the link to above … it is from minute 46 on.
Aanthanur DC:
Please don’t use ableist slurs, okay? If you have an actual argument, please present it. Before that, you need to get back on track – this is not who does or doesn’t represent Islam, this isn’t about the Taliban. This post (and Mano’s) is about Sam Harris, and his continual contortions to rationalize bigotry, and now, murder. While Harris does generally contort himself in the direction of the Middle East, let’s talk about Christian fundamentalists – any of them, pick a sect. Let’s say that some of these fundamentalists often think about planting bombs or gunning certain people down. They think about the glories of a proper, Christian country, a theocracy run with an iron eye on the morals of everyone else. Should they be murdered? Who gets to decide who is thinking what, and therefor deserves to be murdered?
Aanthanur DC
“him merely wearing the enemy unifom is enough to get him killed in a war.”
Exactly. But that is one or two stages after belief. It is intention or even action (because you “Acted to join forces with ISIS”). These are different concepts. When Sam Harris talks about beliefs but he means intention or actions, maybe that is his problem. There are some ultra-urthodox nonviolent people that will never kill or even act to do so. You cannot kill them “because of their beliefs”. You only kill when it turns to something more than a belief (which by definition will no longer be a belief)
In a simple flowchart sense:
Belief (Harris thinks you should kill here)——> Intention (I think we should act here)——-> Action
These are different
@caine
“If you have an actual argument, please present it.”
i did.
my argument is that there are indeed groups that can not be talked to. i gave two examples. IS and Taliban
” this is not who does or doesn’t represent Islam, this isn’t about the Taliban. ”
for me it is about groups like Taliban and IS. those are groups i think one cannot talk to.
“let’s talk about Christian fundamentalists – any of them, pick a sect. ”
there are no christian sects i would put in the same category or not being able to talk to like the taliban and IS.
maybe the LRA? but not sure.
“Let’s say that some of these fundamentalists often think about planting bombs or gunning certain people down. They think about the glories of a proper, Christian country, a theocracy run with an iron eye on the morals of everyone else. Should they be murdered?”
the difference is, there is no group that actually make true on those ideas in a maner that would require a response like we give to IS.
Taliban and IS have shown that theiy do not merely have the ideas, but that they actually go an kill innocent people for their goals. over and over again.
” Who gets to decide who is thinking what, and therefor deserves to be murdered?”
the same way we do now with IS and Taliban.
@asbizar
good point. im not sure what Harries exactly means.
i for one do need that a person shows intend of joining one of those groups i would consider ok to be killed. and even then, when its some 16 year old kids joining them because they got radicalized over the internet. i would not considering killing them.
i just joined into the debate because i do agree that there are groups that we cannot talk to. but for me, such a group must have shown clearly that they are willing to kill innocent people en masse for their goals, and must have shown unwillingness to have any talks.
PSA
Doing this
<blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
Results in this
It makes comments with quotes easier to read.
thanks
Aanthanur DC @16
A quote from Winston Churchill comes to mind:
It may be difficult to talk to IS, aka Daesh, but until the effort is made, one cannot call it impossible.
well i think it is not possible, nor would i be willing to even try it. they are crazy and not rational in any way.
but if you are willing to try it. go try.
If They are “crazy”, which mental illness do They have?
i don’t know nor do i care. the word crazy is not only used to describe mentall illness. even i know that and english is not my first language.
how is the politically correct FTB approved word i may use to describe them and their behavior?
poor misunderstood still suffering from colonialism freedomfighters?
Aanthanur DC:
Well, you’re certainly invested in painting them in the most bigoted light possible. You can start by thinking first, and realizing that people and the situation they find themselves in is far from black and white, no matter how much you want it that way.
I’ve already asked you to refrain from using ableist slurs. There are a great many people on this planet who have one of many mental illnesses, and there’s no need to use language which cause splash damage to them. Instead of going for the low hanging fruit, fucking think, and then write accurately.
Aanthanur DC,
Of course the Taliban can be talked to. They’ve had diplomatic recognition with three states, including Pakistan, which basically created them in the first place with US assistance. India successfully negotiated a hostage release with them in 1999. Since 2009, the Taliban have offered to enter into formal negotiations with the United States; this offer was supported by the UN, the UK and the Afghan government, but the US has so far refused. In other words, we are the ones in this conflict who can’t be talked to.
That doesn’t mean that the Taliban would give us everything we want if we did talk to them, of course. But they might give us something, and we haven’t tried.
i gave two examples. IS and Taliban
Taliban can be talked to. Part of the problem is the US’ tendency to declare things like “We won’t talk to the Taliban” and blowing up anyone they can identify as a spokesperson. That’s one way of shutting down dialogue.
Negotiations with the Taliban would probably be difficult, of course. It’s hard to talk someone with a winning hand into discarding it.
@Caine
i know almost nothing is black and white. and i am happy that way.
and i surely agree that our western politics and wars are mainly to blame that there is so much hatred towards the west.
but all my empathy for their situation ends when they blow up civilians , targeting civillians. where it collateral damage, that they accidently kill civillians because they atacked a military convoy or so.
that would all be fine for me and would see that as a justified resistance.
but they are targeting civillians, reporters, aid workers etc.
and the sadest part is, they target the civillians that already have suffered most in those conflicts.
i don0t try to paint them in the most bigoted light possible, i paint them in the worst possible light i can imagine because they set the standard for that.
this has nothing to do with people from the middle east in general, or with moslems in general.
would i be racist or so, i would actually like them. they mostly kill people in the middle east, they kill almost no people from the west when you compare the numbers.
and i always try to make it very clear who i am talking about, and i was talking about the taliban and the IS. not moslems in general, not about a single nation in general and not the middle east in general.
IS and Taliban, and when my hatred for those 2 groups make me a bigot , well then i am a proud bigot.
i don’t call people with mental illnes cray, nor tards. but i do it with people liek IS and Taliban, whose behaviour i find crazy. if that offends you, so be it, that is your right.
@Anton Mates
those diplomatic agreements were, we give you weapons and money, close both eyes for your human rights violations aslong you do not get in conflict with our financial and special interests.
that is not the kind of talking i was thinking.
we already have enough such partners, like SA for example. we give you money and instructors for your special troops, so you can opress your people more efficiently, and you give good deals to our oil companies.
no thanks. i find human rights more important than fossil fuels.
@Marcus Ranum
you mean paying them off and closing our eyes for their human right violations.
@asbizar #15
That always seems to be his damn problem. He says something ridiculous, then when people call him on it, he rationalizes and adds qualifications until what’s left is an empty truism (well, if the bad guys were going to blow up the whole world, it might be worth while to torture one of them if we were out of other options, but torture would still be bad) or a half-assed restatement of the original proposal that fools nobody (he doesn’t want to profile anybody! He just wants to not profile certain people!)
He’s a lazy thinker and it shows.
you mean paying them off and closing our eyes for their human right violations.
That whooshing sound was the goalposts moving from “won’t negotiate” to “are for sale…”
You’re new at this thinky stuff, aren’t you?
PS – we also helped arm them. One of the dirty secrets about both IS and the Taliban is that, at various times, people who are now their members, were recipients of US weapons, training, or intelligence data. That doesn’t fit neatly under “negotiate with” but it’s certainly a form of “engagement with” …
@Aanthanur DC:
Wake-up call, champ: all interactions between any country and the United States require at least one party to close their eyes at human rights violations. It’s a human rights violation to deny people access to water, as is happening in parts of Michigan. It’s a human rights violation to deny people access to basic healthcare, which is happening all over the country. It’s a human rights violation to house people in solitary confinement. It’s a human rights violation to imprison people for excessively long sentences in inhumane conditions for nonviolent crimes. It’s a human rights violation to allow police officers to kill unarmed civilians without punishment. It’s a human rights violation to imprison people without access to counsel or trial on the mere suspicion of being a terrorist. It’s a human rights violation to torture people. It’s a human rights violation to allow people to be gunned down day after day after day and do nothing to restrict access to firearms or ammunition. It’s a human rights violation to allow children to starve when food is abundant. It’s a human rights violation to allow people to be homeless when empty dwellings are plentiful.
You don’t get to be on a high horse when you’re riding the moral equivalent of a My Little Pony action figure.
I’m sure the next stop for your goalposts would be to argue that the Taliban and IS are worse, and that’s probably true. It might even matter if not for the fact that a major reason either group exists or has power at all is because of our meddling in the Middle East for the last seventy-odd years. Toppling regimes, backing groups out of political expediency, looking the other way for some countries (Saudi Arabia) and not others (Iraq), playing both sides of internal conflicts (Iran-Contra), and generally destabilizing and impoverishing and bombing the ever-loving shit out of the region, those actions are the fertilizer that allow fundamentalism to grow. When you’ve been living in poverty and fear for decades and a group says “we have the weapons and the will to stop the people who keep bombing your families, your weddings, your hospitals, your funerals” it is entirely rational to side with those people. Sure, they might be hella backwards in terms of religious beliefs and politics, and if they were in power, it’d probably be pretty terrible for everyone. But it’s already pretty terrible for everyone, and hopefully if they were in power, they wouldn’t be bombing your hospitals with robot planes.
It is, in fact, exactly the same kind of calculated decision we made every time we supported one of those groups. Sure, they might be awful, but they’re willing to point their guns at the right enemy, so we might as well throw in with them. If that’s “crazy,” then negotiating with the IS is going to be exactly as “crazy” as negotiating with the US.
If you want to make peace, there are exactly two options:
1. Negotiate with human rights abusers.
2. Kill everybody.
Without peace, or at least some semblance of stability, there will never be respect for human rights. If you make respect for human rights a pre-condition for peace, there will never be anything other than endless war – and there is nothing which destroys respect for human rights like war. How the hell do you expect to persuade somebody to respect human rights while you’re killing his friends and family?
by the “implied logic” given here just a guess I admit the steps are it is not the thinking of all Muslims it is IS and the Taliban that can not be talked to and it is OK to kill. They are distinguished by declaring themselves as such and fighting or attempting to join such groups or participating in acts of violence in aid of such groups. As such they would now seem to have moved out of the realm of just thought and into the realm of action. So I am not sure what the argument or disagreement is here. Or maybe I just find it hard to believe that anyone who claims to be rational (I think) would advocate that mere thoughts should condemn you to death or that once a thought has occurred it can never be changed and shall always be a death warrant.
If thoughts can be changed as is a reasonable hypothesis are they not changed by dialog and further thinking? They surely can not be changed at the point of a gun or a nose.
uncle frogy
So let’s take a hypothetical. You find yourself marooned on a desert island alone. You could be there for months or even years. Then you find you’re not alone but your only companion is Sy Ten Brugencate. You have a gun. Watcha gonna do?
pointinline @ 35:
I’d throw the gun into the ocean. That said, if you’re going to persist in being an idiot, would you mind doing so elsewhere? Ta.
No rational answer so resort to abuse. Clever. Not.
pointinline
To get a “rational” answer, ask a “rational” question.
pointinline @ 37:
I gave you a rational answer to a very stupid question. Do you need to read it again? Here you are: I’d throw the gun in the ocean. I’m not a gun fondler. I don’t much care for guns. I would not commit murder because I disagree with someone’s beliefs, and I’d prefer it if they returned the courtesy. That enough?
As for abuse, what abuse? You came trolling into this thread with an idiotic hypothetical, which was completely unnecessary, as you can see for yourself upon reading the comments, there are more than enough actual situations which are pertinent to the topic, right there for discussion. You didn’t address any of that, did you? No. You thought you’d try yanking a chain. Alas, the only thing you yanked is yourself, a position I’m sure you’re more than familiar with already. If you don’t wish to be called an idiot, try not acting like one.
No rational question was asked. Just a stupid asshole “gottcha” try, which is abusive in its own right.
Apparently, pointinline’s point is that we’re suppose to want to murder a creationist?
I’ve met Sye Ten Bruggencate. He’s ignorant, obnoxious, completely impervious to reason, but I never considered killing him until YOU brought it up…and I reject your suggestion.
@pointinline #35:
This question could be read in two ways: either as a flippant suggestion that, given sufficiently dire and annoying circumstances, any of us would eventually agree that someone deserves to be killed for their beliefs; or as a rebuttal to Aanthanur that we all occasionally need to look past what would normally be apparently insurmountable differences to accomplish a greater common goal, namely survival (both in this case and in the larger diplomatic one).
If it’s the former. I suspect it says a lot more about pointinline than it does about anyone else if he thinks that the mere fact of being an annoying presuppositionalist apologist warrants murder, even in a desert island scenario.
What would I do in that situation? I’d work out a plan with Sye, agree to disagree about God and presuppositional logic (assuming it even comes up) and focus on practical problems: getting off the island and surviving until we can do so. The gun is a potentially useful tool, so I wouldn’t go throwing it into the ocean, but I would suggest splitting it up so neither person has to trust the other with a lethal weapon. I get the gun, you get the bullets and the firing pin, or something like that.
Society is built on compromises, even ones we often find distasteful, made for the sake of mutual survival.
that is a fact that seems to pass many right by mostly extremest of all stripes; racial and cultural bigots, ultra-conservatives, libertarians oh and 40 republican members of congress to name just a few
uncle frogy
PZ @ 41:
A creationist might drive me to the other side of the island, but that’s assuming they’d have nothing better to think on or do than constantly preach. I suspect that being marooned and survival might be more on their mind than giving a sermon. People tend to be pragmatic in such circumstances.
Wasn’t that the essence of Hitchen’s “modest proposal“, by the way?
Muslims fundies are human rights abusers, ergo let’s start slaughtering Muslims until the survivors are so frightened that they’ll capitulate and start aping us just to make us stop genociding them.
You find yourself marooned on a desert island alone. You could be there for months or even years. Then you find you’re not alone but your only companion is Sy Ten Brugencate. You have a gun. Watcha gonna do?
Try to kill a few birds with it, or small game, while we tried to figure out better ways to supply food.
If I were going to spend a long time on the island I’d welcome having another human around in case I hurt myself or got sick. Having had pneumonia while snowed in out in the back-country I can tell you that being solitary is much more dangerous; it’s why we humans are social animals. It’d also be great to have someone to talk to. Who knows, the horse might learn to sing?
PS – the gun might come in really handy if one of us had an inoperable cancer or gangrene or something. Or maybe we wanted to make a really loud noise to get some attention from that ship over there?
How do you kill an idea? You murder people suspected of holding it indiscriminately! It worked wonders with Judaism and Christianity!
Let’s not! Why waste our time with outlandish scenarios when we could just discuss the very real situations Harris is talking about directly?
pointinline>/b>, what is wrong with you?
You have to laugh at the idea that anyone could consider something that mindbogglingly stupid and immoral to be a “rational”, not to mention even remotely apropriate, question. It’s also telling that while shooting Sye Ten Bruggencate in the face for being an idiot is apparently what “rational” people would do, giving any other answer to one of the most ridiculous questions imaginable, constitutes “abuse”. I’m starting to realise just how amazingly fragile these “rationalists” are…but then again that’s the thing with shitty thinking, it crumbles down with the touch of a feather.
Shit, sorry…my brain is working at minimum capacity…
In the linked comment thread, somebody “defends” Harris by pointing out that Harris isn’t just referring to conscious beliefs that may or may not result in actions, but also to deeply held, unconscious beliefs that affect actions without necessarily being a direct choice to be made. Which sounds worse, actually: Not just thought crime, but even unconscious thought crime. I’d prefer sticking with actions as the determiner of their treatment, everything else just seems like a fuzzy, unkowable, unprovable mess.
Euthoughtnetics….nah, doesn’t work…
Mentanics? That sounds kinda Ron-Hubbardesque… which is rather appropriate for Harris’ brand of pseudo-intellectualism