[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 62 KB, 800x430, Sam-Harris-800x430.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8221416 No.8221416[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Thoughts?

>> No.8221421

smart guy.

>> No.8221435

>>8221416
Made the Turk guy look like a cuck.

>> No.8221436
File: 59 KB, 531x467, xA8LLRu.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8221436

"At one point, I resisted by pushing my jaw between Harris’s elbow and my throat. That didn’t help. “He can choke your whole jaw into your throat,” Ryron said. “It affects the carotid—through the jaw!” He said this with an air of Isn’t that cool?"

Reminds me of pic related. What's with nerds being martial arts experts? Being bullied as kids?

>> No.8221478

sam is my nigga. a lot of the conclusions i've drawn on various matters are identical to his, which tells me i'm not a fucking retard

>> No.8221487

I like his soothing voice.

>> No.8221519

>>8221435
lol I'm watching that video as I clicked on this thread. Cenk is ridiculous. Harris wiping the floor with him.

>> No.8221522

>>8221478
what if he is a retard too?

>> No.8221527

>>8221522
Different anon. You can say a lot about Sam Harris. You can disagree with his views. But he's far from a retard. He's highly intelligent and highly educated.

>> No.8221538

>>8221416
Smart but not fully red-pilled yet.

I think if someone fed him the right information he could go full blown red. That or he is but hiding it.

He finally got into AI which is a good step. If he just gets red pilled on genetics he would be certified /pol/.

>> No.8221539

>>8221527
>He's highly intelligent and highly educated.
He's intelligent, and he's highly educated, just not on the matters he's most known for speaking about.

>> No.8221549

>>8221539
He's right about everything though

The foundation of Islam is different than every other religion. It's basic principle is that Muhammad was the last prophet and the teachings are final.

The problem with Islam is Islam. It's impossible to moderate it like you can with Christianity.

>> No.8221556

>>8221539
Is he a religious scholar? Has he studied the Quran his entire life? No. But has studied it (and other holy books) and the socio-political consequences of them extensively enough to have a logical viewpoint on them. He is also highly educated in philosophy and neuroscience, which is an extremely important lens to look at these issues through. What about his arguments or viewpoints do you believe is flawed?

>> No.8221560

>>8221556
>philosophy
what's his credentials?

>> No.8221566

>>8221549
>The problem with Islam is Islam. It's impossible to moderate it like you can with Christianity.

To be fair, Harris has never said that Islam is impossible to moderate. In fact, he believes that the only hope IS to moderate Islam, as he acknowledges the fact that they can't all be converted to atheism, and he does not at all advocate eradicating them.

>> No.8221570

>>8221560
He has a BA in philosophy from Stanford and a PhD in cognitive neuroscience from UCLA.

>> No.8221601

>>8221549
>It's impossible to moderate it like you can with Christianity
Religious moderation is what happens when people stop being real followers of the faith. Moderate islam has existed in the United States' black communities for decades. I think the real difference is that the leaders of the christian faith - the catholic church - have a history of conceding to the progress of culture and changing the doctrine of their faith. Islamic leaders in Saudi Arabia still do not fully accept that the earth revolve around the sun. Muslims are unwilling to change, but Christians are. They're both dangerous faiths, and the majority of both faiths are not practicing it correctly.

>> No.8221613

>>8221570
So that's what qualifies as "highly educated in philosophy" nwadays?

>> No.8221619

>>8221416
Idiotic brainlet with bad, unoriginal ideas. No one intelligent takes him seriously not even in philosophy, neurosciene, or cognitive science.

>> No.8221629

Jesus, /sci/'s quality threshold for nuthugging based on someone's education an intelligence is now BA in philosophy and PhD in cognitive science? Seriously? Dude got cucked by Noam Chomsky, of all people....

>> No.8221650

>>8221613
>hudd durr it's just a BA

I knew that was coming. Perhaps "highly" educated in philosophy was a stretch, I'll concede that. But the fact remains that he holds a degree in philosophy from one of the highest respected universities in the world. It qualifies him more so than 90+% of people in the world to apply philosophical viewpoints to issues he studies and speaks about. And you don't know how much studying he's done on the subject in addition to his formal education.

In any event, he doesn't profess to be an expert philosopher. He uses philosophy in his arguments but his primary talking points are through the lens of neuroscience/psychology, which even you couldn't discount his expertise in.

If all you're going to do is question his credentials without addressing any of his arguments, I think that's pretty intellectually dishonest on your part.

>> No.8221653

>>8221619
>No one intelligent takes him seriously not even in philosophy, neurosciene, or cognitive science.

Can you back up this claim?

>> No.8221732

>>8221538
He's talked extensively about genetics. Concluding that "you can study IQ by race, but what would be the point? What good will eventually come of it and you would have to really look at who was doing the research" -paraphrasing.

>> No.8221875

>>8221556
He sucks dick at philosophy, which is terrible since it's what he's most known for.

>> No.8221888

>>8221538
You're such a fucking stereotype, kek

>> No.8222031

I like how he lets the content of his speech do the talking and doesn't rely on any verbal or emotional theatrics to carry points home. It's just an honest presentation.

>> No.8222050

pretty good

>> No.8222107

>/sci/ unironically likes Sam Harris

Top kek

>> No.8222433

>>8221875
>He sucks dick at philosophy

Awesome argument.

>which is terrible since it's what he's most known for

He's most known for being atheist neuroscientist and author who is critical of Islam mostly, but also all religion. He's never once, as far as I know, referred to himself as a philosopher. The vast majority of his arguments are based on psychology, sociology, and science - not philosophy.

>> No.8222451

>>8222433
>Awesome argument.
I wasn't arguing shit.
>who is critical of all religion
On ethical grounds.

He wrote books on ethics and free will, which were rather terrible. Consequentialism is true because it's true, Science can solve ethical problems (if you include philosophy in science, le xd), and misunderstanding the free will argument that even his friend had to step up and call him out on it. Sam, of course, said he was being taken out of context. Like every fucking time he's argued against.

>> No.8222464

>>8222451
>Sam, of course, said he was being taken out of context. Like every fucking time he's argued against.

He does say this often. The thing in, it's true 99% of the time in his case. He does argue from a philosophical standpoint, which confuses some people who aren't familiar with philosophical argument, and is easily taken out of context, He has clarified his views many times after being misrepresented.

>> No.8222471

>>8222464
>He has clarified his views many times after being misrepresented.
Yeah, and people still think he's fucking wrong

It's like he actually thinks his arguments are foolproof and noone could disagree once they read him "correctly"; he can't accept that smart people (some smarter than him) understand and disagree with him, and not just on philosophy

>> No.8222503

>>8222471
>Yeah, and people still think he's fucking wrong

Gee - someone taking a controversial stance on a complicated subject and there's people who think he's wrong?? Get the fuck out of town! He must be completely fucking wrong then!

>It's like he actually thinks his arguments are foolproof and noone could disagree once they read him "correctly"; he can't accept that smart people (some smarter than him) understand and disagree with him, and not just on philosophy

I'm sorry, but I don't get that sense from him. Perhaps to some degree this is true, as I can't recall him ever correcting himself or admitting he was wrong. But I've never heard any of his opponents or detractors on the other side of the argument ever admit any of their views were wrong either.

I certainly don't agree with Harris on everything he says. I think he downplays the socio/political/economic influences that result in terrorism and puts too much emphasis on religious doctrine alone, for example. BUT his arguments are still, for the most part, well researched and logically sound - which is much more than I can say for many other "famous" people who speak on the subject. To sit there like so many armchair philosophers on the internet do) and call him a fucking idiot or a hack with nothing to back it up is ridiculous, and happens constantly. His opinions on these matters are researched and logical enough to be considered at the very least.

>> No.8222564

>>8222503
Knowing fuckall about a topic and still commenting about it could be described as controversial. Also could be described as idiotic.
> he downplays the socio/political/economic influences that result in terrorism and puts too much emphasis on religious doctrine alone
Yeah, he does. That's barely the surface of it.
Don't take this as a defense of Islam/religion in general either, because I really dislike both. This point alone makes me doubt the "well researched" part of your post. Other shit, like his free will book ("let me completely ignore compatibilism") just about confirms it. His book on ethics does the same for the logical part, it's basically circular reasoning and the bait and switch of science determining morals still irks me a lot.

Also he's such a naive moral realist (uncharitable view, maybe, but idrc), anyone else with the same position would get laughed here

>> No.8222634

>>8222564
>Knowing fuckall about a topic

What topic does he know fuckall about and how can you demonstrate that as fact? I'm genuinely trying to learn here.

>> No.8222651
File: 5 KB, 171x208, franco face.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8222651

ITT : determinist losers.
Determinists are closet believers who think destiny is written and the fate cannot be changed. literally no different than religious people

>> No.8222675

>>8222651
I'm not sure you know what literally means. That or you're completely out of your mind.

>> No.8222700

>>8222634
Philosophy in general (I know he has a BA). The problem of Free Will and Ethics in particular, with some demarcation problem being thrown in. Dismissing compatibilism and "consequentialism is true because it's true" are the biggest offenders.

And you already know about how much he focuses on Islam over the other shit on the complete mess that's the Middle East (and religious fanatism in general).

>> No.8222705

not /sci/
>>8222651
tool

>> No.8223145

>>8222700
I'll have to look more into his philosophical views in general to have a discussion on that. I'm more interested in his recent commentary on Islam, regressive leftists, the idea of free speech, and so on.

To be fair to his position, he does not completely discount the sociological problems that exist in the middle east. He does, however, point out the many problems inherent in Islam as a belief system. Is he wrong for doing that? I don't think he is at all - and that's what gets him the most criticism - how "mean" his is to Muslims and how he "paints them all with a broad brush" (which he doesn't - he's careful to mention which type of Muslims he's addressing).

The fact that people get so up in arms about someone like Harris pointing out FACTUAL inconsistencies and immoral/incompatible values within the Islamic faith itself shows just how dangerous and ignorant far-left thinking can be. It's an important point to make in a Western society that's become so used to NOT questioning diversity and politically correct thinking. As far as I'm concerned, he's doing the world a service in that regard. We need to be real about the danger that religious doctrine poses - ESPECIALLY when it comes to Islam. Maybe by talking about it, we can begin to push Muslims themselves towards the reformation that their religion clearly needs in order to exist peacefully in the 21st century. I don't see any other alternative excluding escalating violence, honestly.

I consider myself a liberal - and in order for liberal ideas to flourish, we need to be real about issues we discuss without applying PC blinders to them. Sam is one of the many liberals who are leading the way in this regard. That's why I like him - even if I don't agree with him on every issue.

>> No.8223177

>>8223145
His philosophical views are really a shitshow, yeah. If you do become interested in hard determinism or consequentialism, there are better authors out there.

I haven't seen much people complain about him pointing out the dumb stuff muslims believe, but I've seen a lot of people salty about various other shit. Like advocating racial profiling, nuclear first strikes, and borderline thought police. Of course, the discussion of these goes deeper than what this broad-ass overview, but stilll.

>> No.8223183

>>8222107
>some other board told me I have to hate on Sam Harris

top kok

>> No.8223235
File: 115 KB, 1024x683, 1469109954042.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8223235

What SH books should I start with if I'm interested in hearing his side of arguments/observations? Doesn't matter if it's philosophical or religious I just find it all interesting.

>> No.8223308
File: 623 KB, 750x1117, ben stiller harris.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8223308

>> No.8223316

>>8223177
>Like advocating racial profiling, nuclear first strikes, and borderline thought police.

I've heard him clarify a few of these views, and while I don't agree 100% on all of them, they do make sense to a certain extent, and are not as "insane" as his detractors make them out to be. Racial profiling, for example, makes perfect sense in screening for terrorists. Statistically, terrorists are more likely to be of middle eastern descent, and far more likely to be Muslim. So of course security officers at airports are going to look more closely at brown people - let's be real about that. This is ultimately about safety and saving lives - not protecting the feelings of Muslims who get a little extra scrutiny at airports.

And as far as his nuclear first-strike comment, he's not advocating a nuclear first strike on anyone - he's saying that in an extreme circumstance (which has not yet come to pass and hopefully never will), it would be foolish to not at least consider a first-strike as an option. Now even this is hard for me to swallow, but again, he's speaking hypothetically from a philosophical standpoint - same as when he speaks about torture being justifiable in extreme circumstances. It's the age old moral/ethical argument regarding a cure that kills 100 but saves a million. Agree with him or not, it's a discussion worth having.

>> No.8223321
File: 95 KB, 771x900, aliens.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8223321

>>8223308
make it happen

>> No.8223327

>>8223316
99% of the arguments I hear against this rely on taking out the context. They never mention that Harris wants torture illegal or that the nuke situation is if they are going to kill millions guaranteed. I laugh every time someone calls him a neocon.

"Imagine how fatuous it would be to fight a war against the IRA and yet refuse to profile the Irish?"

>> No.8223330
File: 568 KB, 874x1760, consequentialism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8223330

>anglos

wew lad...

>> No.8223334
File: 52 KB, 716x724, le caprio face.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8223334

>>8223330
> sam harris bombed middle east

>> No.8223550

>>8221629
>Noam Chomsky
Dude, Chomsky is a boss. Don't be disrespecting.

>> No.8223553

>>8223316
To be fair, he explicitly said that he would favor killing someone for their free speech, and cited Osama bin Laden as an example of someone who we did kill because their speech was dangerous. He event went so far as to say that Laden did nothing else wrong, blithely ignorant to the loads of real criminal charges that would apply, such as money launderying, conspiracy to murder, etc.

>> No.8223562

>>8221416
I don't believe a word he says, in my defense neither does he.
He's a sensationalist who realizes his credentials make it easy for him to pump out books telling the hungry masses what to think and why.
I can synpathize with that, but I'm not going to accept it.

Smart people are good at making themselves believe things that aren't really true.

>> No.8223565

>>8223562
Maybe. I do think he believes that. I think Harris is supremely full of it, and doesn't do enough self critical thinking and listening to critiques.

>> No.8223569

>>8223330
this cenk meme is the worst

>> No.8223615

>>8223553
Is calling for someone's death really "free speech"? Also wasn't Bin Laden killed for conspiracy as well? Not too mention funding and supporting terrorism and death.

>> No.8223617

>>8222675
literally means figuratively now
you can literally use literally in place of any adjective now

>> No.8223622

>>8223615
People have no fucking idea what free speech was meant to be.

Free speech used to be a long distant dream for oppressed people under authoritarian governments. They perceived free speech as what it was truly meant to be, the right to call out any oppressor on his crimes and end tyranny. Today edgy kids think free speech is all about insulting Islam's prophet, praising the Holocaust, and calling black people n*ggers.

>> No.8223630

>>8223553
Is it not a fair point though? Who cares if he missed out some details in one of his many analyzations, he was primarily focused on the issue of free speech vs the ability to harm using words.

Islam, terrorism, and other calls to violence are all heavy-weight arguments against the idea of free speech. Free speech to me is the most important thing that I value, my reasoning is that a culture where people aren't afraid to share ideas (even if most ideas are bad) helps find and refine the best ideas.

But with that said, I can still admit that it's a completely fair argument that having free speech will do varying degrees of harm.

>> No.8223633

>>8223622
You can't have only the good. There's a spectrum of shit when it comes to free speech, and most of what you'll find is shit, but it only takes one diamond in a dumpster for it to have value.

>> No.8224037

>>8223633
This is why I liked when the ACLU defended NAMBLA's free speech when everyone else was "how could they do that?! God they're advocating pedophilia groups! These people don't deserve free speech!"

>> No.8224299
File: 895 KB, 920x2492, samHarris3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8224299

>>8221416
Got pwned by Chomsky

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse

http://www.alternet.org/books/what-happened-when-sam-harris-tried-and-failed-embarrass-noam-chomsky

>> No.8224305

>>8221538
>>>/pol/
>>>/thrash/

>> No.8224315

>>8224299
This is hilarious. I had no idea someone bothered to make retarded comics about this stuff.

>lol religion

>> No.8224323

>>8221538
AI is a vague subject though. I feel like most speculations about the future of AI are bogus and will never come true.

>> No.8224330

>>8221416
https://youtu.be/aof6h6KTOs0?t=1m

>> No.8224336

>>8224299
>http://www.alternet.org/books/what-happened-when-sam-harris-tried-and-failed-embarrass-noam-chomsky
>muh vagina
stopped reading there

>> No.8224346

>>8221416
Dumb person's idea of a smart person.

See >>8221421

>> No.8224369

>>8224299
>http://www.alternet.org/books/what-happened-when-sam-harris-tried-and-failed-embarrass-noam-chomsky

What a pointless interchange. Chomsky is autistic as fuck and Harris is an idiot.

>> No.8224386
File: 41 KB, 403x403, a8c050c8c54c497baff52f62a3edec38.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8224386

>>8224346
What exactly is a smart person's idea of a smart person like?

>> No.8224400

>>8224369
> Harris is an idiot.
why?

>> No.8224401

>>8224299
It seemed to me that the entire time Chomsky refused to have an open and honest discussion. Every time he responded he acted like he performed a take down on Sam.

>> No.8224403

turbo meme

>> No.8224404

>>8224400
Did you read the correspondence?

Chomsky absolutely (autistically) destroys him piece by piece.

>> No.8224407

>>8224401
Because Harris kept pretending that Clinton was innocent, and kept pretending that Chomsky wasn't clear (YES, INTENTION MATTERS). Just how dense can you be?

>> No.8224413

>>8224386
A lot of these "really smart" people, I dont think they were THAT much smarter than you or I. I think they were just far more clever than you or I. They figured out tricks and asked better questions than you and I do.

Thats just my humble opinion.

Also, there are absolute savants out there that are obviously very smart and very clever, but you can tell something is also very wrong with these people. Or very right, its up to your interpretation.

>> No.8224420
File: 89 KB, 800x430, Sigmund-Freud-800x430.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8224420

>>8224346
If you ask /sci/, there are unequivocally no intelligent people who are also public figures. Any such person who achieves sufficient public awareness will automatically trigger /sci/'s underlying feelings of inadequacy and get them decried as a pseudointellectual.

>> No.8224427

>>8224404
> some dumb retarded fraud comments on a neuroloscientist
I'm not even gonna waste my time lol

>> No.8224444

>>8224427
>chomsky
>dumb retarded fraud
This is what ignorance

>> No.8224448

>>8224444
Ignorance means not wanting to get informed on the knowledge you're lacking.

Just like your misuse of the word.

>> No.8224450

>>8224401
The dishonesty started when Harris said he had no intentions of publish their discussion. Harris is half his age and with insignificant production compared to Chomsky. I think he was just bothered by the fact that Harris arrogant is out of proportion to his work - he's pretty much the bill nye of philosophy

>> No.8224459

>>8224448
>Ignorance means not wanting to get informed on the knowledge you're lacking.

Simple Definition of ignorance
: a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education : the state of being ignorant
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorance

do us a favor and read a book, undergrad

>> No.8224462

>>8224459
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorance
> merriam webster
Now that you have proved you're retarded, you can keep talking about Noam - fraud - Chomsky.

>> No.8224465

>>8224448
Ignorance is not unwillingness to learn. Being purposefully ignorant is not equatable to just being ignorant.

>> No.8224468
File: 16 KB, 494x358, 2304795-good_good_let_the_butthurt_flow_through_you_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8224468

>>8224462
>Now that you have proved you're retarded
surely your opinion is more accurate than the dictionary
lol

>> No.8224471

>>8224468
> there is one dictionary
Now that you've proved you are extra retarded, you can stop posting now.

>> No.8224482
File: 92 KB, 480x270, giphy-facebook_s.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8224482

>>8224471
show ONE dictionary that doesn't give the definition given by merrrian webster (which is the same def. in the oxford dictionary, and cambridge dictionary, etc)

pro tip: you can't
that's why you won't

you're wrong kiddo
save yourself the shame and go to play your pokemon

>> No.8224483
File: 11 KB, 480x360, chomsky sucks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8224483

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ1ylGxGBF4

>> No.8224484

>>8224471
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/ignorant?q=Ignorant


http://www.onelook.com/?w=Ignorant&ls=a

Just shut up dude, you are a terrible troll or very ignorant yourself. You cant even comprehend a simple definition.

>hehe jokes on you, hehehe, i was only pretending to be retarded XDXD lulz

>> No.8224494

>>8221416
I don't consider him to be a scientist. As in, he doesn't publish through peer review and isn't quite in touch with the latest developments in neuroscience. There is a substantial difference between people who continue to do science after their PhD, and those who chose to leave academia. He falls in the latter category. He's a science communicator, and in that respect he does to some extent contribute to scientific development. Bringing people in touch with science is a good thing, and in fact a necessary thing, but it can become counter productive when you mix it in with strong personal opinions.

This probably goes without saying, but the above is of course also a strong personal opinion and should by no means be taken as fact. I'm biased because I myself did continue in academia after my PhD in neuroscience, and I tend to have a (probably unfounded) aversion to people who present themselves or are regarded as scientists when they are not actually doing science. You're free to disagree.

>> No.8224499

>>8224407
Chomsky was clear that intentions matter, but not at all clear to how much it mattered. This is what Sam was doing his best to clarify, to which Chomsky out right refused to have an open and honest discussion about.

>>8224450

Where is the dishonesty there?

>> No.8224523

>>8221416
A thoroughly nice chap.

>> No.8224569

>>8224299

This is just embarrassing.

Chomsky answered every question; however, he did so in a very brief and dismissive way which seemed to confuse and irritate Harris.

I could see where Harris was getting lost; therefore, I do understand his frustration.

Now, why did Chomsky do this?

It's very simple: Harris accused Chomsky of not considering the intentions behind and ethical implications of the Al-Sharif bombing.

This is ridiculous, as Chomsky is known for doing exactly that.

Chommers and other prominent critics of US foreign policy have spent decades uncovering and analysing actions/events resultant of official US foreign policy, as well as covert intervention/ acts of destabilisation.

Harris stated:

>I assume that Clinton believed that it was, in fact, a chemical weapons factory—because I see no rational reason for him to have intentionally destroyed a pharmaceutical plant in retaliation for the embassy bombings

An understanding of the history of US overt and covert military action over the past century, informs us that retaliatory action and indiscriminate bombings are unfortunately common occurrences.

The notion that the US is a good intentioned - powerful - giant who tries its best but doesn't always get it right, is not only naive: it's deceptively false.

An overview of US foreign intervention ranging from the end of WWII to the mid-eighties reveals a history rife with the destabilisation of democratically elected regimes unsympathetic to US desires, through the use of covert military action, assassinations and cripplingly exploitative forced economic arrangements.

This is hardly surprising, as every empire in history has acted in a similar fashion; those who stand in the way of imperialist progress are eliminated.

>> No.8224570

>>8224569

The reason I mentioned the period between 'the end of WWII to the mid-eighties', is simply due to documentation of events that took place during this period being based on the government's own declassified files, rather than mere speculation.

The 25 and 30 year legal limits on the classification of documents has allowed for dedicated researchers to meticulously analyse and document the actions of the American and British establishments, in relation to intervention in the affairs of foreign sovereign nations.

This research is available to anyone who cares to look.

Harris is clearly ignorant of not only the work of Chomsky, but seemingly anyone who has contributed to this field of research.

If he had bothered to look into any of this, he would have realised that a retaliatory bombing is not only not unthinkable, but is instead all too predictable.

Therefore, it's not a case of Harris being naive; it is rather a case of ignorance.

If I were Chomsky, I'd like to think I would have had more patience and would have taken the time to explain a few things to Harris.

However, Harris is known as a popular intellectual, which perhaps indicates that he should have been more tentative when speaking about a topic of which he has little understanding; a topic on which Chomsky literally wrote the book(s).

>> No.8224585

>>8224570

As an afterthought and in addition to the references to declassified government files ranging from the end of WWII to the mid-eighties:

While files relating to actions/events occurring after this period typically remain classified, information uncovered by diligent investigative journalists over the past 25-30 years indicates that the US establishment has not deviated from its modus operandi.

Thetefore, we have no reason to believe that anything has changed.

>> No.8224619

>>8224585

Also, Harris' naive understanding of foreign policy and military action could almost be pulled straight out of a comic book.

This is best displayed when he makes comments (elsewhere) such as:

>killing children intentionally is an entirely different thing to attempting to kill child killers and inadvertently killing children in the process

In relation to the Al-Sharif bombing.

These statements are built upon a naive and fallaciously dichotomous world view, that is best suited to the creation of comic book superhero archetypes and their respective villains.

It's plain childish and detracts from his otherwise rational disposition.

>> No.8224630

>>8224569
>>8224570
>>8224585
>>8224619
Are you the anon who made a thread on /int/ about the history of Anglo-American military intervention the other month?

Talking about the 1954 Syrian coup attempt and the more recent color revolutions?

>> No.8224634

>>8224630

I didn't make a thread; I replied to a thread.

But, yes.

>> No.8224638

>>8224634
Ok cool. I thought so.

>> No.8224648

>>8224570
>Harris is known as a popular intellectual, which perhaps indicates that he should have been more tentative when speaking about a topic of which he has little understanding
Being a popular intellectual made him overly arrogant

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/07/my_secret_debate_with_sam_harris_a_revealing_4_hour_dialogue_on_islam_racism_free_speech_hypocrisy/

>> No.8224688

>>8224648

Well, you could infer the statement that 'he should have been more tentative when speaking about a topic of which he has little understanding' as a subtle accusation of arrogance and pretentiousness.

If you did, you would be correct.

>> No.8224701

>>8222031
Under-rated post.

>> No.8224708

>>8224648
>salon
opinion discarded. don't post this bullshit here

>> No.8224718

>write entire books about how Islam is incompatible with western societies
>criticize Trump's proposal, claiming it's racist (his own words)

Well what the fuck do you want, Sam. I don't care if you think Trump's dumb, dangerous or whatever, but don't call him racist for wanting to stop Muslim immigration.

>> No.8225255

>>8224718

Regardless of calling him a racist or not Trump's proposal was beyond retarded since stopping muslim immigration does not stop radical islamic terrorism.

Islam like other religions is at it's core a set of abstract ideals and concepts. You can't ban nor stop an abstract idea/concept no matter how hard you try.

There's a reason why religions have lasted for thousands of years. And with the existence of the internet now you don't even need to physically make contact with a single muslim or the koran itself to become a believer and be radicalized.

>> No.8225630

>>8225255
>stopping muslim immigration does not stop radical islamic terrorism.

This. If nothing else it will exacerbate it. We need to take an entirely different approach to this problem. As much as it's emotionally satisfying to listen to people like Trump and Milo shout about banning Muslims and taking a hard-line approach against Islam in general, that's not going to solve shit and most likely make things much worse. If you really listen to what Harris is saying, this isn't his approach at all - he would rather liberals wake up, realize the danger that ignoring the threats of Islam poses, and force a dialogue with Islamic religious leaders to truly condemn radical behavior and begin some type of reformation.

But of course, opponents of Harris never listen to this and just cherry-pick quotes out of context regarding torture and nuclear strikes - and then accuse Harris of being disingenuous about his views when he tries to clarify them, because they weren't listening in the first place.

>> No.8225650

>>8221436
>What's with nerds being martial arts experts? Being bullied as kids?

it started in the 80's after the "Revenge of the Nerds" movies came out. bunch of STEM types didn't want to be a caricature so they swung hard in the opposite direction.

most of the dudes i went to school with lifted. the swole nerd meme is real.

>> No.8225929

>>8224450
Hey, that's an undeserved insult to Bill Nye! (lol)

Sam Harris isn't all bad, but he's so full of himself and doesn't listen to obvious critiques, and never admits when he's wrong.

>> No.8225940

>>8225929
>Never admits when he's wrong

I'm listening to him right now and he literally just said he was wrong in predicting that Trump would go away early in the presidential race.

>> No.8225949

>>8225940
Hyperbole, but IMO still an accurate character description.

For example, I think the moment that I wrote him off entirely was when he said that science was a man thing, and rather than walking that back and apologizing / clarifying, he went on some trip about how he's being misinterpreted, or misunderstood, or how he's actually right, blah blah. So annoying.

I'm also still really pissed that he specifically said he was in favor of killing Osama bin Laden for speech and only speech, and for torturing specific inmates at Gitmo - in several places, he gave specific names of people who were tortured and defended that.

>> No.8225957

>>8225949

So let's hear your counterargument. How was killing Bin Laden for speech (which directly resulted in the deaths of thousands) wrong? And explain the Gitmo torture - was there information obtained from it that saved lives? Would you advocate letting people die because waterboarding is mean?

>> No.8225962

>>8225957
Protip: Not a single life was saved by the torture of people at Gitmo. Not one. Including waterboarding. Even the CIA admits this. The world is not like the tv show 24. That shit does not happen in real life, and/or it happens so rarely that we would all be better off to ban it in all cases, in order to promote a culture and rule of law where torture is always illegal, so that the "abuses" can be found and stopped.

A similar argument applies to killing - or any kind of legal punishment - people for political advocacy. General political advocacy - that is precisely the kind of speech which most needs absolute legal protection. Because as soon as you cross that absolute line of absolute protection, then where do you draw the new line? And more importantly, remember that you're not the one drawing it. Your opponents are likely to be the ones drawing it, deciding what is and is not legal to advocate for in public.

>> No.8225963

>>8225957
>>8225962
Obligatory link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM

>> No.8225975

>>8225949
>I think the moment that I wrote him off entirely was when he said that science was a man thing

Science has been male dominated since it's inception, and there's good evidence that the reason why men are more attracted to it has to do with inherent sexual dimorphism - differences between male and female brains. This is actually becoming well-established, although it freaks PC people out. Men choose to gravitate towards science and technology, women to humanities/working with people. Evidence is showing that this is a case of biology, not sociology.

So in essence, what Sam said was correct - and you write him off for this?

>> No.8225978

>>8225975
>evo psych argument
Allow me to laugh.

Oh wait, you're serious? Let me laugh harder.

>> No.8225980

>>8225962
Protip: Just because torture at Gitmo never "saved a life" as you claim, doesn't mean that it could never save lives, and should never be used in the history of ever, even in the most dire circumstances. That's the point Sam was making. He himself believes torture should remain illegal. He's making a point that not everything is cut and dry.

>> No.8225981

>>8225978
Well put. You've convinced me.

>> No.8225987

>>8225978
You have to be kidding me. So by your logic, there's absolutely no inherent difference in the brain of a male compared to that of a female? We're exactly the same, only one has tits?

You have to be kidding me that you think you can write that off as evo psych bullshit. That's fucking ridiculous.

>> No.8225995

>>8225980
Sam Harris is duplicitous and two-faced. He said that, but in other areas he specifically named real and particular Gitmo inmates by name, and said that their torture was morally justified, in short because "they're bad people", and because there's a (small) chance we might get useful information. It's not just an academic thought experiment. He really means that we - the United States military - should be torturing people as common policy. As best as I can tell, he wants it to be illegal, but also wants a culture that regularly flouts the law on torture. Which is quite possibly worse than just having explicit rules of when it's legal, because having a culture that regularly flouts the law is damaging to rule of law as a general concept, which is even worse than mere regular torture.

>>8225987
There are differences. Evolutionary psychology, the modern field of study and its published papers, is almost entirely a sham. It's quackery through and through. We all know the jokes and memes stating that modern sociology is not a science because of its incredibly poor quality and replication rates for papers, but evo psych is far, far worse.

In other words, there are obviously differences, but the ways that they have been studied thus far are entirely laughable. I would link to the Richard Carrier post on this topic, but unfortunately his blog at FTB has been removed.

>> No.8226003

>>8225995
Thank you based Wayback Machine!
https://web.archive.org/web/20151231111623/http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/9141

>> No.8226008

>>8225987
NEOCON!

I'm joking of course. Classical liberalism needs a resurgence. We can admit biological differences and explore controversial subjects like race, religion and sex without hating one group or another and without a bias or an agenda to use this information in an oppressive manner. The "without" is what separates the left from the right.

>> No.8226021

>>8225981
I would offer a similar response to someone promoting young Earth creationism, or flat Earth. Either the person is a troll, or so hopelessly ignorant with motivated reasoning that nothing I can say will help matters. The best I can do is hope that they educate themselves just a bit, and promote a culture where such ridiculous views are ridiculed, which I do so now.
>He cited an evo psych argument?
>laughing_girls.jpg

>> No.8226027

>>8226021
The poster gave you an unsubstantiated but clear explanation for why science and STEM in general is male dominated. You responded with a meme. Who do you think is making their case better? You didn't even stop there but you're implying the other poster is a troll? Come on.

Explaining something isn't advocating it, or promoting it. I don't know why you're so upset over his post. Blacks make up the vast majority of the prison population in the U.S. That's not implying anything and you're an idiot if you think otherwise.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf

>> No.8226028

>>8226008
>classical liberalism needs a resurgence

I don't think anyone is arguing that. In fact, from everything I've heard Harris argue about, this is exactly what he advocates - right down to the non-oppressive nature of the utilization of this information.

>>8226021
And now you compare evo psych to creationism and flat earth theory? That aside, since when was the difference between the male and female brain purely an evo psych argument? Why are you framing it as if evo psych is the only discipline that has anything to say on this issue? That's pure strawman and you know it. I'd expect better from a "scientist" honestly.

>> No.8226030

>>8221522
nice doubles

Checked

>> No.8226040

>>8221549
The Saudi regime relies on their specific interpretation of Islam, to exist. The entire justification for their state's existence is reliant on people believing in that version of Islam. If people stopped believing in it, then the Kingdom's platform would fall apart, and their foundations would crumble.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was created after rebelling against the Ottoman Caliphate, which was the ruling body of Muslims at the time. Rebelling and going against the Caliph is a major sin in Islam, and a great evil according to Islamic beliefs. The Saudi state needed to make a very specific version of Islam, to allow them justification to go against the ruling authority of Islam at the time.

Now the United States needs the Saudi government in place, to rule over the kingdom, and control the King. There have been leaders that are far more progressive, and a lot more intelligent, like King Faisal, who tried to modernize the kingdom, give women more rights and education, and really lay the groundworks for Saudi Arabia transitioning into democracy, and guess what happened to that king?

He was assassinated by a close family member, who had just spent months before in the United States

>> No.8226170

>>8221416

"There is nothing like Islam at this moment for generating this kind of intolerance and chaos, and if only a right-wing demagogue will speak honestly about it, then we will elect right-wing demagogues, in the west, more and more, in response to it. And that will be the price of political correctness. That's when this check will finally get cashed. The root of this problem is that liberals consistently fail to defend liberal values as universal human values. Their political correctness, their multiculturalism, their moral relativism, has led them to rush to the defense of theocrats and to abandon the victims of theocracy, and to vilify anyone who calls out this hypocrisy for what it is, as a bigot. The words we use matter here."

-Sam Harris on the Orlando shooting

No argument here.

>> No.8226187

>>8221416
He thinks he solved ethics by literally repeating a theory that had already been developed and studied for centuries.

>> No.8226198

>>8226170
please elaborate on how fighting "islamic terrorism" is different from fighting "terrorism".

also, if you would be so kind, do explain how giving an organization (namely, the IS) what they want; as in "credit and acknowledgment for their actions". wouldn't it be better to just not acknowledge them at all, politically and otherwise? don't you think there is already an effort to combat extremism within the muslim community? while i would agree that more can be done, i don't see how calling terrorist attacks of which nobody really knows whether they are motivated by extremist religion, political motives or whatever there is an act of islamic terror and thereby giving credit to some kind of twitter account claiming it was the IS is going to help.

>> No.8226203

>>8226170
I wonder what peril Hillary (and by some minor effect Obama) puts herself in if she were to speak honestly about the need to motivate moderate muslims to bring Islam into the modern world and dispel with its crazy traditions.

Who the fuck would turn against her? And would it so drive her could-be Bernie supporters away from her? Is it a cost that she is unwilling to accept to try and win some of Trump's supporters?

Like, I suspect that the vast majority of Trump's supporters don't give a fuck about the threat of fundamentalist radical Islam as their primary reason for supporting him. But I would feel much better about supporting Hillary if she got her shit together like Harris says she should.

>> No.8226221

>>8226198
>please elaborate on how fighting "islamic terrorism" is different from fighting "terrorism".

I never said it was, and neither did Harris in that quote - although I do think that one inherent difference is that Islamic terrorism is rooted directly within the holy books that nearly 1.6 billion of them regard as the final, perfect word of God. So yeah... that's a bit of an issue, don't ya think?

Furthermore, all you have to do to find clarification on the question you posed is read the first line of the quote again. Shall I repost it for you?

>There is nothing like Islam at this moment for generating this kind of intolerance and chaos

Notice the phrase "at this moment." While you seem to have a bug up your ass about distinguishing "Islamic terrorism" from "terrorism," the fact remains that at this moment, it's specifically Islamic terrorism that is causing the most problems, and it's something that needs to be addressed.

As far as your suggestion to just "ignore it" - that's so asinine it's not even worthy of a response.

>> No.8226261

>>8226003
>>8223550
You're starting to grow on me, tripfriend.

>> No.8226399

>>8221732
Dude's spot on there

>> No.8226407
File: 992 KB, 389x259, 1126[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8226407

>>8223550
> noam chomsky
> inguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, logician, social critic, and political activist

I was wondering who would our resident retard of /sci/ would be idolizing. Turns out that nobody is surprised that its the worthless Chomsky fraud with no scientific background :^)

>> No.8226417

>>8226221
ignore the IS, not ignore the fact that there's a problem within the muslim community (which i stated needed to be addressed).

as such, i would much favor a world in which the IS gets no media coverage or public acknowledgement whatsoever. i'm still hugely in favor of addressing the problem within Islam, yet i would not go as far as to demonize all muslims in the process.

>>8226407
so you had to look up chomsky? cute.
>no scientific background
you must've misunderstood. chomsky is first and foremost a linguist, which in this case means mathematician (as opposed to, as you seem to think, something to do with literature).

>> No.8226423

>>8226417
Oh please do tell what his scientific achievements are, then compare to it a neuroscientist :^)

>> No.8226429
File: 91 KB, 360x569, iphone360_53745[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8226429

> Everyone’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s really an easy way: Stop participating in it.
Truly a genius. Why didn't I think of that ?

>> No.8226430

>>8226407
u r p dumb desu

>> No.8226431

>>8226430
> noam fanboi getting butttriggered
:^)

>> No.8226433

>>8226423
Harris has done jackshit on the field, and he mostly talks ethics

Not even defending Chomsky

>> No.8226434

>>8225995

>Evolutionary psychology, the modern field of study and its published papers, is almost entirely a sham. It's quackery through and through.

I don't think you've ever looked into evolutionary psychology.

>> No.8226438

>>8226423

>his scientific achievements are

Pretty much founded modern linguistics and developed a lot of the infrastructure for developmental psychology.

>> No.8226441

>>8226434
I won't go as far as him, but evopsych has huge methodological problems. There's some good stuff there but there's just so much shit.

Not to mention it's like the epithome of popscience. Not the fault of the researchers but goddamn if it isn't annoying.

>> No.8226444

>>8226441

If a study has methodological flaws or statistical errors, then it's a shit study.

I only look at the good stuff and ignore piss poor researchers.

>> No.8226446
File: 34 KB, 413x395, 1310483412100[4].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8226446

>>8226438
> What are his scientific achievements
> Linguistics and psychology
AHAHHAHAHAHAHA. Do Chomfans even comprehend what science is ?

>> No.8226448

>>8226446

You have no idea what science is.

Define science and we'll see if you do.

>> No.8226455

>>8226448
> we
Chomfans belong to >>>/x/

>> No.8226458

>>8226455

>we

As in me and you, anon.

It's just us two.

Let's get intimate.

I'm also not a Chomfag.

>> No.8226459

>>8226458
> Let's get intimate.
w-what do u mean :o

>> No.8226465
File: 15 KB, 236x299, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8226465

>>8226459

>> No.8226466

>>8226465
:O

>> No.8226543

>An understanding of the history of US overt and covert military action over the past century, informs us that retaliatory action and indiscriminate bombings are unfortunately common occurrences.

>The notion that the US is a good intentioned - powerful - giant who tries its best but doesn't always get it right, is not only naive: it's deceptively false.

This sounds right. Does anyone have a link to specific instances I could read about?

>> No.8226548

>>8221435
he never recovered.
recently alex jones made him flip his shit and completely made him look like a fool.

>> No.8226565

>>8226423

He developed the idea of Context Free Grammars, and regular, and unrestricted grammars, which essentially finishes what Alan Turing started with his paper on Turing Machines.

His work on grammars is integral to any course on the theory of computation. Which is a course most Computer Science majors are required to take.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=224plb3bCog

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context-free_grammar

>> No.8226609

Some on reddit were stating Harris was an Islamophobe because because he was citing the Quran and Statistics related to Islam and how violent it is and how it encourages violence.

The idea that he dared criticize a violent cult of domination was too much for the SJWs, and they started attacking his character with false equivalencies and hyperbole.

These same fools post in the psychology, radical feminist, slut pride and gender confusion forums, and gang up on dissenters with fallacies and mockery.

As far as Harris goes?
Seems like a law biding skeptic.

>> No.8226626

>>8226543

Yes.

I'd recommend Manufacturing Consent and Killing Hope as starting points.

>> No.8226636

>>8226548
wtf is it with the turk guy and alex jones and sam harris ? what am I missing ?

>> No.8226637

you could send me money, i will have some.... thats how planet mostly works, i need it to stopthat.... i need a goood internet interface, i have mouse only.... i can send you coors utre

>> No.8226644

>>8226626

If you don't want to get hold of copies of the books, here are the .pdf versions:

http://www.socialismonline.net/sites/default/files/Manufacturing%20Consent%20-%202002%20-%20by%20Chomsky%20and%20Herman.pdf

http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres8/BLUMkillinghope.pdf

>> No.8227722

>>8226636
The turk had Sam Harris on and "debated" with him for over three hours. The vast majority of which the roach was rebutting with "come on Sam!". Then the roach went to the RNC convention and buy my supplements man crashed his set and they began yelling at each other but one had a shit eating grin and the other was raging.

>> No.8227726

>>8226609
Reddit is a haven of neoliberals who think whites need to apologize, and religion is never to blame despite mass murderers outright saying otherwise and citing religious texts that demand the blood of innocents. It's rebelling against conservatives with a complete disregard for how or what you're advocating in response to conservatism.

You don't have to chose between letting anyone into your country and barring everyone. There's a middle ground there that classical liberals believe in but no major political party is endorsing.

>> No.8227728

>>8227722
lmao AJ is crashing live shows now ? I know the turk is a libtard mouthpiece, he had no chance against Harris but I must say that alex was a nice touch. It's worth watching just for that.

>> No.8227747

>>8227728
[YouTube] Sam Harris and Cenk Uygur Clear the Air on Religious Violence and Islam (embed)

[YouTube] Infowars Alex Jones fight with The Young Turks (embed)

Personally I kinda sympathize with the roach in the second video. He's an idiot and wrong but less so than Alex Jones.

>> No.8227759

>>8227747
Alex is a clown, he's overplaying his role too much that I can't watch him for over 3 minutes. Ironically his "rebel" act is his legacy and he can't step down from it now.
Btw do you know if AJ ever mentioned ghost from true capitalist radio in his broadcast at all ? I'd love to see them arguing on skype now that ghost is back.

>> No.8227769

>>8226565
Helping develop what gets taught to undergraduate computer science majors isn't an accomplishment.

>> No.8227887

>>8227769
I mean, Leibniz and Newton discovered Calculus, which gets taught to undergrads.

>> No.8228755

>>8227769
Your statement is stupid.

>> No.8228798

>>8227887
because gin gis calcelated girls he fucked, you counted how much knowladge you missing you say next time, my backrefetence to calculus is newton

>> No.8228829

>>8225995
>As best as I can tell, he wants it to be illegal, but also wants a culture that regularly flouts the law on torture

He never advocates for a culture to regularly flout the law of torture, but only to excuse torture in exceprioanlly rare circumstances. I think your criticism of him being two faced is just your pwronal misunderstanding of his views.

>> No.8228877

>>8221416
I don't know dick about the guy's work in neuroscience, but from what I've heard most of his positions philosophically aren't that remarkable. Though, he seems to think very highly of said positions, which makes it difficult to listen to him talk about them.

>> No.8228880

He's a great example of how far common sense can take you.

>> No.8229532

>>8228880
Not when you let emotional thinking take over. Almost all of his critics disregard the context of his arguments. It's how politicians attack each other and we're all dumber for it.

>I think torture makes sense in a one in a million scenario that includes saving thousands or even millions of lives. I actually think you'd be a moral monster to not torture in this hypothetical scenario.
>OMG crackpot Harris wants to torture! What a neocon! He's a Trump stooge!

>> No.8229692

>>8229532
>he fell for the out of context meme
harris says outrageous shit, people call him a tard, he backtracks into the most boring, accepted positions

rinse and repeat

>> No.8229698
File: 156 KB, 468x1840, dc5020293d3a32024b5aa2b17a8e9322[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8229698

>>8229532
thats how word spreads

>> No.8229726

>>8229692
What has he said that's outrageous?

>>8229698
This is so true it hurts, holy shit.

>> No.8229743

>>8229726
>What has he said that's outrageous?
science can help us determine moral truths

and then he goes ayy i include philosophy on science

see
boring

>> No.8229747

>>8229743
philosophy isn't science?

>> No.8229750

>>8229747
no
demarcation is a bitch, but no

science is applied empiricism, to keep it way simple

>> No.8230213

>>8228829
>excuse torture in exceprioanlly rare circumstances
Which includes multiple inmates at Gitmo? That is not fucking rare. That is now established procedure.

>> No.8230278

>>8230213
You're incrediably ignorant. No wonder you're so angry.

>I consider our mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib to be patently unethical. I also think it was one of the most damaging blunders in the last century of U.S. foreign policy. Nor have I ever seen the wisdom or necessity of denying proper legal counsel (and access to evidence) to prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay. Indeed, I consider much of what occurred under Bush and Cheney—the routine abuse of ordinary prisoners, the practice of “extraordinary rendition,” etc.—to be a terrible stain upon our nation.

>> No.8230285

>>8230278
His follow up

>We often drop bombs knowing that innocent people will be killed or horribly injured by them. We target buildings in which combatants are hiding, knowing that noncombatants are also in those buildings, or standing too close to escape destruction. And when innocent people are killed or injured—when children are burned over most of their bodies and live to suffer interminable pain and horrible disfigurement—our leaders accept this as the cost of doing business in a time of war. Many people oppose specific wars, of course—such as the war in Iraq—but no public figure has been vilified for accepting collateral damage in a war that is deemed just. And yet, anyone who would defend the water-boarding of a terrorist like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad will reap a whirlwind of public criticism. This makes no moral sense.

>Again, which is worse: water-boarding a terrorist or killing/maiming him? Which is worse, water-boarding an innocent person or killing/maiming him? There are journalists who have volunteered to be water-boarded. Where are the journalists who have volunteered to have a 5000-pound bomb dropped on their homes with their families inside?

Ethically I can't argue against this logic. Why is it moral to knowingly drop a nuke on 200,000 innocent people to save millions but not moral to torture someone to save others? Context and intentions matter in ethics.

>> No.8230288

>>8230278
>confusing Abu Ghraib and Gitmo
Are you serious? One sec, looking for citations.

>> No.8230289

>>8221478
>>8221522
Well at least he's not alone

>> No.8230291

>>8230288
Also, trip was off because I didn't want to be an asshat on /a/.

>> No.8230292

>>8230278
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html

> I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror. In the aftermath of Abu Ghraib, this is not a comfortable position to have publicly adopted. There is no question that Abu Ghraib was a travesty, and there is no question that it has done our country lasting harm. Indeed, the Abu Ghraib scandal may be one of the costliest foreign policy blunders to occur in the last century, given the degree to which it simultaneously inflamed the Muslim world and eroded the sympathies of our democratic allies. While we hold the moral high ground in our war on terror, we appear to hold it less and less. Our casual abuse of ordinary prisoners is largely responsible for this. Documented abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere have now inspired legislation prohibiting "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of military prisoners. And yet, these developments do not shed much light on the ethics of torturing people like Osama bin Laden when we get them in custody.

Be sure to read the last sentence.

I recall a more specific quote. Still looking for it.

>> No.8230295

>>8230292
Oh, it's just further down on the same page.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html

> [...] our disavowal of torture in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed seems perverse. If there is even one chance in a million that he will tell us something under torture that will lead to the further dismantling of Al Qaeda, it seems that we should use every means at our disposal to get him talking. (In fact, The New York Times has reported that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was tortured in a procedure known as "water-boarding," despite our official disavowal of this practice.)

Does not get any clearer than this.

>> No.8230297

>>8221613
>stanford doesn't churn out people who are highly educated

Who's the retard now?

>> No.8230298

>>8230278
PS:
So, can we please stop pretending that Sam Harris is anything but a crystal clear advocator for torture of real people - people he has specifically named - in real and common circumstances?

>> No.8230304

>>8230288
He's not confusing anything. He's stating they're both morally reprehensible. I don't know if English is your second language but it's pretty clear what he meant when he cites both atrocities and then goes on further to say "I consider much of what occurred" meaning more than one incident. Meaning but not limited to Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

>>8230295
I think he's wrong to advocate torture so readily, but I cannot find a logical argument against it considering we knowingly bomb and kill innocents to save even more innocents. They're identical other than the literal methods used. Is torturing any better or more ethical than burning someone alive or crushing them with rubble? He's pointing out the moral hypocrisy in "We can't waterboard guys, it's mean. But we'll totally bomb the fuck outta your wedding because a terrorist is nearby." Your goals are identical.

>> No.8230307

>>8230304
>He's not confusing anything. He's stating they're both morally reprehensible.
And in other contexts, he's clearly stating that it's morally good and obligatory, such as my second link. Please stop pretending that Sam Harris is anything but a torture advocate in a real and concrete sense.

>> No.8230312

>>8230307
>And in other contexts, he's clearly stating that it's morally good and obligatory
If it is the only option and provides a chance to save innocents, then yes. Not taking that chance does make you a moral monster. Not torturing an evil person to save an innocent person if there's a chance of success makes you evil because you did nothing to stop evil. That is what I understand to be his argument and I'd have to agree.

>> No.8230316

primarily known as
>le new atheist guy
doesn't belong on /sci/

>> No.8230318

>>8230307
>>>/x/

>> No.8230322

>>8230318
see
>>8230295
>>8230292

>> No.8230323

>>8230322

see >>8230318