Ben Affleck vs. Sam Harris & Bill Maher on Real Time

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

And in this case the dissimilarity is so wide the analogy fails.

Not good enough nodin, of course it is valid
At least give your reasoning

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

Not good enough nodin, of course it is valid
At least give your reasoning

English football hooligans vs secretive terrorist organisations willing to shoot, behead and suicide bomb anyone who gets in their way....have a think, get back to me.

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

English football hooligans vs secretive terrorist organisations willing to shoot, behead and suicide bomb anyone who gets in their way....have a think, get back to me.

We are talking about the Muslim world Nodin,there is more countries than just the middle east ! You need to see the bigger picture and not everything through the middle east.

the analogy refers to the behaviour of crowds,peoples,nations and is very valid and illustrates until the 80% stand up to the 20% things only get worse.It happened in Germany,it happened here with the Church,some might say it is happening in the USA.

sooner or later everyone must pick a percentile, which one are you ?

if you believe in 'Liberal values' then you do so everywhere, I know you will vote yes to equal marriage here in Ireland and believe in womens's rights etc, but is that just here or everywhere ?

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

We are talking about the Muslim world Nodin,there is more countries than just the middle east ! You need to see the bigger picture and not everything through the middle east?

Wtf?

marienbad wrote: »

the analogy refers to the behaviour of crowds,peoples,nations and is very valid and illustrates until the 80% stand up to the 20% things only get worse.It happened in Germany,it happened here with the Church,some might say it is happening in the USA.

What are you on about?

marienbad wrote: »

sooner or later everyone must pick a percentile, which one are you ?

if you believe in 'Liberal values' then you do so everywhere, I know you will vote yes to equal marriage here in Ireland and believe in womens's rights etc, but is that just here or everywhere ?

Everywhere.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

Wtf?


What are you on about?


Everywhere.

Everywhere? But what about multiculturalism?

Fair play for admitting it though, I had you pegged as a wannabe oppressor and totally intolerant of those who think for themselves or differently than you.

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

Everywhere? But what about multiculturalism?

............

You mean what about whatever notion of multiculturalism exists in your head. What about it indeed.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

You mean what about whatever notion of multiculturalism exists in your head. What about it indeed.

No need to get upset, It's obvious that you cannot see liberalism (or yourself) as capable of being intolerant and/or belligerent. It really amuses me to see how rigid and imperialistic you really are (when it suits you) and how similar you are to those who you claim to oppose the most.

Eta: I think you owe marienbad a far more respectful and substantive reply than bitter one liners and immature wtf's.

Hotblack Desiato

reprise wrote: »

I think you owe marienbad a far more respectful and substantive reply than bitter one liners and immature wtf's.

You'd think that, but any criticism of islam must be shouted down at all costs.

Playboy

Maybe I'm missing something here but as far as I can tell the vast majority of the Islamic world are anti fundamentalism and terrorism. Most of them say it plenty too and say it pubically. Unfortunately it doesn't fit the narrative in the media so doesn't really get much attention. The average Muslim can do as much about fundamentalism and terrorism as you and me. Let us not forget that the victims of extremism are overwhelmingly Muslim so it's a little condescending to tell them that they need to do something about it. What would you have the average Muslim do?

nozzferrahhtoo

Playboy wrote: »

Good post and to be honest I think you are getting an unfair time of it from other posters in relation to this topic.

What do you think is unfair about any posts I have made to the user. Especially regarding rebutting his claim that the kind of profiling (that is negative profiling) that Sam Harris actually espouses is in any way a racist system to propose. Post which, you might note, the user has merely ignored and dodged.

Playboy wrote: »

I think people like Harris and Maher who claim to be liberal should be held to account as they both espouse views and sympathies which are far from liberal.

I do not think they need to be held to account for that at all. Rather I think the whole practice of subscribing to such a label and then being expected to follow every tenet YOU personally ascribe to that label, needs to be held to account.

I see no utility _at all_ in the "conservative" and "liberal" labels. Certainly not for me as a huge swath of opinions I hold would please people in one camp, the other camp, or both.

While one might decide to espouse one of those labels for themselves, and call themselves Liberal for example, you should not therefore expect ALL of their views to be in line with that alignment. Just enough of them as a majority to warrant the chosen label.

marienbad

Playboy wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something here but as far as I can tell the vast majority of the Islamic world are anti fundamentalism and terrorism. Most of them say it plenty too and say it pubically. Unfortunately it doesn't fit the narrative in the media so doesn't really get much attention. The average Muslim can do as much about fundamentalism and terrorism as you and me. Let us not forget that the victims of extremism are overwhelmingly Muslim so it's a little condescending to tell them that they need to do something about it. What would you have the average Muslim do?

I think we are seeing a different narrative, remember I am talking about these specific values .

'like freedom of speech,freedom to practice any religion you want without fear of violence,freedom to leave a religion, equality for women, equality for minorities including homosexuals''

The fact of the matter is if you check the the research , Pew etc , you will find the disagreement with those values is fairly mainstream and Islam seems to get a free pass compared to say Catholicism . For example if you take the coming referendum here on Equal Marriage , the pro side have virtually succeeded in branding anyone opposing it as homophobic.

For me the water shed was the Salman Rushdie affair - here you had a foreign religious leader issues a death treat on the citizen of another country for writing a book in a language that (as Far as i know ) was in a language he did'nt speak !

And approval for was much greater than against and on a world wide basis.

I am on the move now so I will come back to this later

Michael OBrien

Playboy wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something here but as far as I can tell the vast majority of the Islamic world are anti fundamentalism and terrorism.

ARE they the vast majority when it comes to opposing fundamentalism? What does fundamentalism mean in regard to Islam. What stance (or set of stances) does a muslim take that keeps him from being a fundamentalist.
I have no doubt many muslims don't support terrorism, and in keeping with the topic of this thread, no one said otherwise. Sam specifically is referring to several levels in Islamic adherance and action, from severe to mild.
However fundamentalism is a lot trickier to define with a religion that states any move to change the central doctrine is one of the greatest sins imaginable.
So if a muslim puts secularism above his islamic faith, then he has, according to the quran, committed a grave sin. This might indeed be ignored by a secular muslim, but once again, reading the quran makes this quite plain.
Basically the more liberal a muslim gets on many topics, the less he follows his religion. We are talking about a 6th century religious text that they are proud has NEVER changed (in their view anyway).

That is why the pew polls are quite worrying. There are large percentages that hold very fundamentalist views, and they don't see that as bad naturally.

There is a difference between apologetics and genuine reformers. IF a muslim blames everything on everything else except his religion then that is dishonest. There is no way reading the texts and history of islam that you find a peaceful religion. It is a deceitful and violent one at times as well. This needs to be recognises for reform to occur. Otherwise its just a shell of self deception that is being build around a rotten core.

One way to reform Islam genuinely is to reverse the scholarly doctrine of later revelation. Simply reverse this (not so simple theologically of course) and I would be much much happier. It would make the apologetics more honest as well as what they say in regard to tolerance would actually be valid instead of bull.

jank

Almost a continuation of this story. Maher gives his view on the latest attacks by Islamic nut jobs and calls for Liberals to do more to stand up to them.

The American Spectator has its view.
http://spectator.org/articles/61416/bill-maher-was-right

So let’s go back to Bill Maher in October of last year. As written here — as discussed all over the place — there were pyrotechnics when actor Ben Affleck appeared on Maher’s show with writer Sam Harris. The discussion turned to Islam and the fireworks began, as immortalized on YouTube.

Memorably, Maher said this, which launched the furies. Islam is “the only religion that acts like the mafia, that will f--king kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture or write the wrong book.” Affleck protested, saying that to even suggest this was “gross” and "racist.”

Today, ten French journalists are dead because they ran insulting cartoons of Mohammed. Ironically, Charlie Hebdo is in its own way a print version of Bill Maher’s style of comedy. The paper has famously insulted every religion on the planet, notably mocking the pope. Maher, an atheist, has made this kind of thing his stock in trade. He can by turns be crude, insulting, and satirical in search of humor. One doesn’t have to agree with him, or for that matter even like him, to understand that he is but one example of free speech at work in a society that cherishes free speech as a right central to human freedom.

So the world has witnessed yet again a murderous terrorist attack, this time on a French media outlet whose stock in trade is satire. I generally disagree with Bill Maher on most subjects — but most certainly not on this one. He was right to say what he said back there in October. And sadly, the events in Paris yesterday are exactly proof — if in fact any more proof was needed — that Maher was 100 percent right in his assessment.