Sam Harris vs. Glenn Greenwald

[triachus]

 

 

 

you haven't heard of the Intercept.com or the movie that won an academy award for best picture called Citizen Four filmed buy Laura Poitras starring Glenn Greenwald?

 

fun fact: first noise artist to ever win an academy award was Trevor Paglen for his work on Citizen four

 

here's the video in which I think Sam was responding to while we was recovering from the assholes that were torn all over his torso

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJkJdUyK5SY

 

Gleen Greenwald VS Sam Harris, Greenwald Wins FATALITY

 

love that Sam took the bait again, hilarious that he can't resist making these embarrassing as fuck response videos every time someone calls him out

 

you haven't heard of the Intercept.com or the movie that won an academy award for best picture called Citizen Four filmed buy Laura Poitras starring Glenn Greenwald?

 

fun fact: first noise artist to ever win an academy award was Trevor Paglen for his work on Citizen four

 

here's the video in which I think Sam was responding to while we was recovering from the assholes that were torn all over his torso

 

 

Gleen Greenwald VS Sam Harris, Greenwald Wins FATALITY

 

love that Sam took the bait again, hilarious that he can't resist making these embarrassing as fuck response videos every time someone calls him out

It's funny:

You were wrong on the Charlie Hebdo issue (your position seemed roughly to be "shame on them for drawing the Prophet")

I've never once seen you criticize Islam.

You don't seem worried by the international polling data on Islamist beliefs (spoiler: it's not good)

You've admitted that you think people who criticize Islam secretly just don't like dark-skinned people.

You dodge moral dilemmas where "torture" is the less horrible of two options, and then you call others "pro-torture."

I mean, I'm happy to continue...

 

 

 

[goDel]

Human rights violations are often about disturbed power structures. Whether or not those are religious originated. Look at the police violence in the US, for instance. Rarely those violations are actually originated in religion, imo. It's mostly political, although admittedly there can be many gray areas. Public executions tend to appear in countries run by iron fist regimes, for instance. You may put the focus on the religion behind. I'd rather look at the way the people in power want to stay in power. (Look at Assad, for instance)

[KovalainenFanBoy]

Calvin Harris vs. Jonny Greenwood

 

 

 

DJ YORKE AS MODERATOR!!

 

[LimpyLoo]

 

he endorses torture, only a liar or a sociopath would do that. I'm sorry if you don't agree :(

 

he thinks American foreign policy is waged with 'good intentions' therefore when we kill civilians its not inherently evil, but when ISIS does it it is inherently evil. These are the hallmarks of an individual deluded by nationalism, jingoism patriotism and arrogance, all of these combined can probably give one a genuine sociopath diagnosis by a clinical psychologist.

 

he's also a serious piece of shit and I really hope we stop seeing his dead-eyed face on this forum as often as we do now.

if you listen to the link posted you'll see that he has in fact not endorsed toture, it is others writing about him that have slated him with this, and that is in fact the beef that he has with these people like greenwald, that they rely on lying, deliberate distortions to attack someone and are entirely unrepentant about it. Now whilst i don't agree with harris' assessment of reality, and find some of his presentation of the US position, delusional. i am very suspicious of greenwald's character and motivations these days, and am somewhat in agreement with the hack journalist internet troll line that harris quite eloquently and convincing put forward. I think it's true that anytime anyone brings up the political islam is dangerous to the west line. They get jumped on by liberal stooges, and greenwald and and others that harris mentions seem to fit that triggered bully persona.

 

JE seems to think there's exactly two positions:

You're either pro-torture or anti-torture.

 

 

I have tried literally like 10-15 times to suggest that maybe there are more shades to it than that, but JE just keeps saying SH is "pro-torture" like that's sufficient (or even accurate).

 

Person 1: How does Sam Harris feel about torture?

Person 2: He's pro-torture.

 

Is that accurate?

 

Never mind the fact that he thinks torture should be illegal and only used in one-off emergencies (like that case study I've linked you to 3-4 times and asked you to comment on...still waiting).

 

He's "pro-torture" and only sociopaths are "pro-torture" ergo he's a sociopath.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[goDel]

Hi, I'm Shelley Duvall.

[LimpyLoo]

P.S. JE will never respond to any of the moral dilemmas I've spit-balled

Because he's taken the "anti-torture" position

(Remember, there are exactly two positions: "pro-torture" and "anti-torture")

So now he could never admit that torture might be the less horrible option

Lest he be seen as "pro-torture"

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[YO303]

Lympi if Sam Harris read your posts he would be going live on TV holding hands with the pope saying "atheism doesn't work" while holding printing posts you made here ( and I'm sure in many other websites)

[LimpyLoo]

K thx m9

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Guest Atom Dowry Firth]

Lympi if Sam Harris read your posts he would be going live on TV holding hands with the pope saying "atheism doesn't work"

 

flol

[awepittance]

 

 

I've never once seen you criticize Islam.

You don't seem worried by the international polling data on Islamist beliefs (spoiler: it's not good)

You've admitted that you think people who criticize Islam secretly just don't like dark-skinned people.

at this point Limpy I just gotta say you're a fucking idiot. I'd chalk it up to the fact that you seem young, but that would be giving you an excuse.

[Brisbot]

 

 

You may put the focus on the religion behind. I'd rather look at the way the people in power want to stay in power. (Look at Assad, for instance)

Well, Religion is used to keep power over people is it not? Here in the US, conservatism is bound by Christianity. You have a lot of power over people when you tell them what will happen to them when they die. I see it every day as I live in rural Texas.

 

 

 

 

at this point Limpy I just gotta say you're a fucking idiot. I'd chalk it up to the fact that you seem young, but that would be giving you an excuse.

I've read a lot of your replies to people who you don't agree with. You're very quick to insult. What does that accomplish?

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

 

I've never once seen you criticize Islam.

You don't seem worried by the international polling data on Islamist beliefs (spoiler: it's not good)

You've admitted that you think people who criticize Islam secretly just don't like dark-skinned people.

at this point Limpy I just gotta say you're a fucking idiot. I'd chalk it up to the fact that you seem young, but that would be giving you an excuse.

 

 

Your condescension is duly noted. (Boy, Sam Harris really got to your sister lol)

 

So yeah I guess you simply can't address any of my points, besides saying "you're a fucking idiot." (Played like a true gentleman, innit)

[Brisbot]

John, I know you believe in a heavy agenda, and that Sam Harris is a neocon/sociopath, but you're not pointing to the reasons why, which is why I can't take what you're saying seriously. It makes for a more interesting debate if you state why you believe in addition to what. It's a complete cop out to jump to insults.

[caze]

 

 

 

at this point Limpy I just gotta say you're a fucking idiot. I'd chalk it up to the fact that you seem young, but that would be giving you an excuse.

I've read a lot of your replies to people who you don't agree with. You're very quick to insult. What does that accomplish?

 

I'd like to think what it accomplishes is that it makes him look pretty foolish. He knows he's in the wrong, he is completely unwilling to engage in honest debate and so immediately falls back on insulting people. He's been repeatedly asked to provide evidence for his claims, he's never done this properly - aside from some pretty lame out of context paraphrasing, and when the flaws in those lame arguments are easily pointed out he just falls back on the insults again. I'd like to think it's pretty transparent to most people on here.

[Candiru]

I've always seen Sam Harris as an Ann Coulter kind of person, just a different brand. People who act like smug cunts to this degree, like Bill Maher are poison.

[Brisbot]

I don't think he believes he is in the wrong. I also don't believe that he IS totally wrong. I am not totally sure what I think of Sam, and am trying to make my opinion, but I just can't treat what John says seriously if he just states his beliefs without the reasoning behind them.

Things tend to be more nuanced. Sam is on the side of nuance which throws other people for a loop. He is asking difficult questions which aren't necessarily comfortable, which NEED to be asked.

Such as the one example: is it right to torture someone who has kidnapped someone and needs to be coerced into telling you where the kid is and WON'T do it through simple reasoning with him.

 

 

I've always seen Sam Harris as an Ann Coulter kind of person, just a different brand. People who act like smug cunts to this degree, like Bill Maher are poison.

I don't think it's a good idea to generalize this way. It's too easy to just label someone like this and is a fault of human reasoning, when I do it I have to double check myself.

[delet...]

Things tend to be more nuanced. Sam is on the side of nuance which throws other people for a loop. He is asking difficult questions which aren't necessarily comfortable, which NEED to be asked.

 

Such as the one example: is it right to torture someone who has kidnapped someone and needs to be coerced into telling you where the kid is and WON'T do it through simple reasoning with him.

 

 

 

 

The thing with torture though, is that it doesn't work, it has been shown many times that it's far more effective using normal police interrogation techniques, like developing a rapport with the subject etc. Whereas with torture you generally end up with useless intelligence and more importantly if you allow for it in the system in any way, it eventually corrupts the whole system. So therefore it should be verboten with no moral equivocation, thought experiments, or pretending that it is necessary in some dramatic cases, when if we go back to the start of what i was saying, it doesn't actually work and you are better off without it for that point alone, let alone the danger to our policing system and civil liberties as an whole if it were to be given in to.

[Brisbot]

It seems like it could be necessary though depending on the situation. What normal techniques are you talking about?

The guy from Secular Talk (I always forget his name... Kyle I think), is part right. I agree with Sam on many things, but I often feel like he is too wrapped up in thought experiments VS. real life. Not always. But often. Thing is this isn't a good vs. evil thing. It is asking when is something like torture necessary and when is it justified. These are interesting questions to me. As Sam said, torture can encompass things like sleep deprivation, or listening to death metal very loudly, not necessarily digging into the person's fingernails, and it's always temporary, vs if he has someone holed up somewhere, their death would be permanent and affect the person's family and such.

This has happened before btw, I have heard of a few cases where criminals had kidnapped someone, and they never told authorities where they had them holed up. They just went to jail for killing the person. One guy years later told police where a little girl was he kidnapped as his last words before he was executed, and when they went there they found a skeleton in a hidden room. I totally forget where I heard it though, it was years ago. So basically she died because he was caught and wasn't there to feed her and he had no interest in admitting he had kidnapped anyone in the first place.

If there were provisions in place where torture is ONLY allowed in certain circumstances and after deliberate thought about it. There shouldn't be jails and such that torture people on a regular basis. These should be shut down.

[delet...]

i will try and find the quotes from ex military and cia interrogators that clear up what i mean. But law enforcement as an whole are not behind torture as a useful information gathering technique. but surely you could do that, i don't wanna be all day looking this shit up, perhaps type "torture doesn't work" or something into google.

 

as for provisions, for only certain circumstances, once something is on the books it tends to be a slippery slope.

[chenGOD]

 

Things tend to be more nuanced. Sam is on the side of nuance which throws other people for a loop. He is asking difficult questions which aren't necessarily comfortable, which NEED to be asked.

 

Such as the one example: is it right to torture someone who has kidnapped someone and needs to be coerced into telling you where the kid is and WON'T do it through simple reasoning with him.

 

 

 

 

The thing with torture though, is that it doesn't work, it has been shown many times that it's far more effective using normal police interrogation techniques, like developing a rapport with the subject etc. Whereas with torture you generally end up with useless intelligence and more importantly if you allow for it in the system in any way, it eventually corrupts the whole system. So therefore it should be verboten with no moral equivocation, thought experiments, or pretending that it is necessary in some dramatic cases, when if we go back to the start of what i was saying, it doesn't actually work and you are better off without it for that point alone, let alone the danger to our policing system and civil liberties as an whole if it were to be given in to.

 

 

I'm glad we still see eye to eye on some things.

 

If there were provisions in place where torture is ONLY allowed in certain circumstances and after deliberate thought about it. There shouldn't be jails and such that torture people on a regular basis. These should be shut down.

 

 

 

If you can justify torture for one case, you can justify it for many more.

It also takes away any moral leverage you have when trying to convince other nations to wage war.

 

Busy with work so won't add much substantive to this debate.

[Adieu]

 

he endorses torture, only a liar or a sociopath would do that. I'm sorry if you don't agree :(

he thinks American foreign policy is waged with 'good intentions' therefore when we kill civilians its not inherently evil, but when ISIS does it it is inherently evil. These are the hallmarks of an individual deluded by nationalism, jingoism patriotism and arrogance, all of these combined can probably give one a genuine sociopath diagnosis by a clinical psychologist.

he's also a serious piece of shit and I really hope we stop seeing his dead-eyed face on this forum as often as we do now.

Please drop the ad hominem bullshit. I think it's pretty stupid to invalidate human beings with some psychological generalisations based on some opinion they have. Harris is not a sociopath simply because of his opinions. You could ask any clinical psychologist. (And what kind of argument is this? Is there a club of hypothetical psychologists who could speak on your, or mine, behalf?)

Disagreement is fine, but this is pathetic. Even more because of some use of vague sense of moral highground.

 

 

Ironic you say this, because it's the very first argument that Sam Harris makes in Limpy's video.

[LimpyLoo]

 

Things tend to be more nuanced. Sam is on the side of nuance which throws other people for a loop. He is asking difficult questions which aren't necessarily comfortable, which NEED to be asked.

 

Such as the one example: is it right to torture someone who has kidnapped someone and needs to be coerced into telling you where the kid is and WON'T do it through simple reasoning with him.

 

 

 

 

The thing with torture though, is that it doesn't work, it has been shown many times that it's far more effective using normal police interrogation techniques, like developing a rapport with the subject etc. Whereas with torture you generally end up with useless intelligence and more importantly if you allow for it in the system in any way, it eventually corrupts the whole system. So therefore it should be verboten with no moral equivocation, thought experiments, or pretending that it is necessary in some dramatic cases, when if we go back to the start of what i was saying, it doesn't actually work and you are better off without it for that point alone, let alone the danger to our policing system and civil liberties as an whole if it were to be given in to.

 

 

1)

 

Torture saved that baby in the case study I posted. Not a thought experiment baby but a real, actual baby.

For everyone who says that torture doesn't work (even a little), or that "ticking time bomb" scenarios are merely theoretical, I'll post this again.

 

2)

 

"Torture doesn't work" is a good argument--I partially agree with it--but it's not a moral argument.

It's a practical argument.

You wouldn't say "torture is morally wrong because it sucks at getting information."

 

3)

 

So you're saying that if we found ourselves in a "ticking time bomb" scenario tomorrow,

where some dude put a dirty bomb in NYC,

you would categorically say "no torture" in trying to find out where it is?

Is that really what you "anti-torture" folks think?

[Candiru]

I don't think he believes he is in the wrong. I also don't believe that he IS totally wrong. I am not totally sure what I think of Sam, and am trying to make my opinion, but I just can't treat what John says seriously if he just states his beliefs without the reasoning behind them.

 

Things tend to be more nuanced. Sam is on the side of nuance which throws other people for a loop. He is asking difficult questions which aren't necessarily comfortable, which NEED to be asked.

 

Such as the one example: is it right to torture someone who has kidnapped someone and needs to be coerced into telling you where the kid is and WON'T do it through simple reasoning with him.

 

 

 

I've always seen Sam Harris as an Ann Coulter kind of person, just a different brand. People who act like smug cunts to this degree, like Bill Maher are poison.

I don't think it's a good idea to generalize this way. It's too easy to just label someone like this and is a fault of human reasoning, when I do it I have to double check myself.

It's a very good idea to recognize manipulative slimy fucks when you see them. And always go for the jugular.

[LimpyLoo]

How is Sam Harris either manipulative or slimy?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Candiru]

How is Sam Harris either manipulative or slimy?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

He's covered in slime and manipulates people.