Comrade Dore at it again

Then they wouldn't be voting Hillary.

It's mostly this. They're riding on the disgust for a demagogue like Trump (which comes from liberal first sin and guilt mentality), but mostly fear Pence's policies which are basically Reaganonomic trickle downs + Bush-tier foreign policy in one. This is because Trump intends to use Pence like Bush used Gore which is to say that Trump will just be the figurehead while Pence and his advisors do most of the work. At least with Shillary you're sure to get a little more of the welfare-type policies Obummer gave people and some minor reforms even though she's sure to order more drone strikes over the middle east and north Africa.

Give the man a hug

If Trump wins the Pence wing have lost, he will have created a new de facto Party, he will probably be assassinated and the old Trots will rejoice as neo-cons are back baby.

ayyyyyy

AYYYYYYYYYYYY

They are voting Hillary because only Hillary stands a chance against Trump, the B████ people have no propaganda game and lack the will to smear Trump

Hillary is left compared to Trump.

Trump winning is bringing the house down, because he serves his own interests and frequently disagrees with Pence.

But neo-cons never left.

They are neo-liberals, the same big state, big government, big war shit.

What is she to the left of Trump on? She wants to privatise SS. She wants NATO expansion, she wants wages kept low via immigration.

She's not even left of Trump on Trannies, and was against gay marriage only a few years ago. IDpol is all she has, wheeling muslims. cripples, illegals, blacks on stage as if it meant something. And they lap it up like the tards they are

She supports free trade and anti-discrimination laws.

She also supports higher corporate taxes.

I'd say identity politics, but tbh they both virtue signal to idpol ideologists, since the alt-right is just the inverse of SJWs.

Alt-right is not the inverse of SJWs for the simple reason that they are fucking nazis.

Free trade agreements, nothing to with with free trade. And not a left wing position
Higher corporation tax, no chance, she said something about loopholes, it's bullshit, Obama wants to lower corporation tax to 28%, what was his policy in 2008?

Marx supported free-trade because free-trade is destructive to nation states.

It's bullshit but it's her position.

Under Trump, they will pay less taxes than under her.

Alt-rightists are the textbook definition of paper tigers. Just look at what happened at the Trump rally in San Jose. The business interests propping them up, however…

SHUT IT DOWN

life sucks sometimes

Do you mean "like Clinton used Gore?" I know that every U.S. president since Reagan kind of just blends together.

There's lot of shitposting, but I notice some people in the comments who say they are right wingers but agree with Jimmy.

Jimmy delivers his message in a very blue collar, Chicago working class manner which appeals to them. Could prove useful in eventually converting some of them.

Yeah, I think Jimmy has the right way to go about discussing this kind of shit he just needs to get pushed a bit more to the left so he starts believing in being a commie but without losing his desire to explain shit real simple like.

They get beaten up to gain victim point, m8.

Notice how when the alt-right goes to fight, they just bring guns and knives.

You can't push to the left and say vote for Clinton.

I mean, that's playing straight into the "alt-right" playbook.

Dore's voting for Stein, holy fuck. Chill out.

Jimmy hates Clinton. He's the only one on TYT that criticizes her, and he does so pretty relentlessly. What are you talking about?

Stein has no way of winning.

She's even lower than Gary Cuckson.

If 5% of voters go for the Greens, they get more funding. That's a good long-term thing. Either choice for president is terrible so I'm not going to waste my vote choosing which of the terrible options I want.

But she gets lesser than Cuckson, which is 4.

nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/jill-steins-plan-to-stop-trump-by-electing-him.html
Stein supported Trump, m8, for accelerationism.

And you should too!

I don't care that much about supporting Stein directly, she's at best a decent candidate. I care about getting a party on the left to have decent funding and start radicalizing socdems and bluecollar conservatives, not about which figurehead is going to do dumb neoliberal shit and lead to more wars.
Also the polling for third parties is likely off as fuck but we'll just have to see.

At this point, it's likely republican turn-out would be the greatest.

Trump has regained the vigor of the republicans.

That's because there is no leftist opposition. If you don't offer them such an opposition don't cry about the popularity of the far-right.

This. While Trump is actually to the left of her on some issues. Even Dore has the balls to say that.

It's not about winning. It's about supporting the candidate most aligned with what you believe in, you faggot.

You'd be surprised. A lot of Brits have so little they would tank the economy to spite politicians out of Euro directorships and giving them a shitty legacy.

Thank you for Correcting the Record.

higher minimum wage

...

80% of participants fail this test:
Is this man sane?
Click to find out.

True quote?

...

yes

Thanks for CTR

...

That still does not make free-trade a left wing idea, for it is a right wing one supported out of accelerationism, lower corporate tax would also work towards the same aim.

...

Someone open a bunch of these together with his laugh.

youtube.com/watch?v=ifpIw3EK7-A

Alt-right was co-pted by Milo, the "alt-light" is far the majority of the movement, and who are nothing but edgy conservatives/liberals. The Nazis have even threatened to attack the Alt-light as of late, but really it is all too late.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ru6gt2LLSVo
They even LOOK like SJWs ffs.

Why do people hate Sam Harris? He's just another liberal.

$12 > $10

Because he is a devious self-important faggot.

>80 years of imperialism in the middle east muh koran dun goofed

KILL
SAM
HARRIS

He's the poster child for new age positivists.

He's right about that, though. Imperialism doesn't cause teens from the UK to go fight for ISIS.
The Palestinians deserve a state. He's never said that isn't true. However, it doesn't mean Israel is 100% evil. It's a complicated issue. You'll notice the religious wing of the Israeli government is the one that keeps expanding settlement and bombing hospitals.
He's said that torture should be illegal, but that obviously there are times when torture may not be ethically wrong.
His argument is that if your decisions on morality are based on certain beliefs about the inner working of minds and other such things, Science can help you inform those decisions.

Apparently you've never read any of his work or listened to him talk, but have browsed liberal sites that think Islam is truly a religion of peace.

wat

Explain why positivism is wrong.

Fuck off.

...

prove it

Well, considering they say they are fighting for their religion, and aren't complaining about imperialism, which has never affected them, since you know, these teens live in the UK while going to good schools, I'd say it's a safe bet to assume it's Islam.
I don't know why you're so desperate to deny that some Muslims take their shit so seriously that they're willing to kill. If a Holla Forumstard showed up tomorrow at a school and shot a bunch of kids, you wouldn't deny that his belief in Nazi ideology and racism made him do it. Face it, sometimes Muslims do bad things because of their religion and nothing else. I don't see any atheist Arabs blowing themselves up because muh imperialism. Do you?

You can hear it from Sam himself.

youtu.be/yMKOV2zA9Wc

Well framed Picasso

who is desperate? I'm asking you to prove it. Failing so far btw….

Hi Holla Forums, you need to leave now.

He argues Israel has the right to defend themselves.

He also gets super triggered if someone talks about him. I remember on an interview with secular talk (when I was a former liberal) he spent a half hour just talking about how glenn greenwald disrespected him.

They do. I don't think anyone denies that.

Yeah, if people make shit up about you, it might upset you.

I was shitting on the guy last week, now I feel kind of bad about it.

He's absolutely right in his diagnosis, the only problem is that the person standing up for the proletariat is on the right.

Our only hope is for the Democratic party to collapse and for the real left to rise out of the mess.

That's not an argument. Do you deny that these teens go over to ISIS specifically because of religious convictions?

You're failing to acknowledge evidence. The proof is right in their articles and their propaganda. ISIS isn't fighting the west because of muh imperialism. You'll say anything to try to argue that it isn't Islam that causes Islamic terrorism.

I'm not from Holla Forums. I am, however, not a shitbrained liberal that thinks that if you say bad things about Islam, it somehow makes you not a leftist. Religion belongs to in trash heap of history.

lol considering the only arguements they make when being pro Israel is that they're more civilized, and that its more beneficial to the US

The simple fact is this every time or at least most of the time the border changed and was to Israels benefit

wew!

Thats because /l.pol/ is an Islamic board you filthy kaffir.

:)

What do you propose to do about all the Israelis, then if they do not have a right to exist?

You continue to stick your fingers in your ears. When ISIS posts articles openly stating that their reasons for attacking the west are religious, you just decide that they must be lying for some reason. I'm inclined to believe them. Religion is cancer.

...

Rebuild from the ground over as a one state government with a new constitution

*ground up

We let them continue their genoci- shit I mean um…defense! GREATEST ALLY

You don't need ears to communicate online, just a few brain cells. Of which you have none.

Sure, but that's not what the Israelis or Palestinians want. Why not give Palestinians their state with 1967 borders, get settlers out of Palestine, and stop Israel form basically controlling the whole area as it is now?

How is the position of religion being cancer in line with those of a Holla Forumsack?

This is a false dichotomy. Israel can continue to exist and defend itself in legal ways instead of what it is doing now.

Again, no arguments from you. You just keep making claims and not backing them up with any reasoning. You're just a liberal, and not an actual leftist.

Did I say it shouldn't?

See:

Or was that post not implying incredulity of the phrase "Israel has a right to exist".

I thought the JIDF was just a meme :). Wasn't me btw.

I am NOT

Who's the Holla Forumsack now :^)

You're an AI, aren't you?

Look, I don't think Israel should be bombing Palestinians left and right like they do now. Nor do I think that their refusal to accept any solution isn't just a ploy to wait out the Palestinians and basically take all the land for themselves. That is all true. However, this does not mean that Israel needs to be destroyed, or that saying that they have some right to defend themselves is condoning their actions. Israel is a fascist religious state. This needs to end, but that does not mean that all Palestinians are innocent. Some of them are terrorists who would, given the chance, kill every Israeli in the area. These people also need to be stopped. Just because Benjamin Netanyahu is a piece of shit, doesn't make all of the Palestinians angels.

I've read Letter to a Christian Nation and End of Faith, and have heard him speak. In his youtube videos he has said that Israel's retaliations are justified.

The distortion of the Koran stemmed from a reaction to western involvement in the middle east. That involvement being Kissinger pissing off Syria, allying with the saudis, and propping up israel. Adam Curtis' Hyper-normalization does a good job talking about suicide bombing and its spread.

I'll keep that in mind next time imperialism sends american teenagers into another country to bomb and occupy.

Move all the israelis out of the illegal settlements and back into the territory the UN designated that was theirs. I don't think Israel has a right to exist, but I don't think they should all just be kicked out of the region.

When will this meme die?

You're misrepresenting him again. He said they have a right to retaliate. He did not say that they have a right to retaliate in all forms and all ways. For example, using white phosphorus on civilians should be a war crime. He has never denied that.

Wahabism is not a distortion of the Qur'an. It's religious fundamentalism at its peak. You've also left out the hadith. Or did you expect me to ignore that?

Wahabism and fumdamentalist Islam existed before this. That they've been able to gain power in the 20th century is inconsequential. Terrorism like what we see here would not exist if it weren't for the religion.

So American teenagers that were born in, grew up in, and were educated in America go and fight for ISIS, citing religion, and you say that it's because of imperialism? Nice job not listening to the reasons the terrorists themselves give for the actions.

This is good. Nobody is debating that, not even Sam Harris.

Not that poster but
A bit in bad faith, ya?

Nice liberalism. Read to page 30, you fucking idiot.

clarionproject.org/factsheets-files/islamic-state-magazine-dabiq-fifteen-breaking-the-cross.pdf

would have abandoned the tired claim that the actions
of the mujahidin – who have repeatedly stated
their goals, intentions, and motivations – don’t make
sense. Unless you truly – and naively – believe that
the crimes of the West against Islam and the Muslims,
whether insulting the Prophet g, burning the Quran,
or waging war against the Caliphate, won’t prompt
brutal retaliation from the mujahidin, you know full
well that the likes of the attacks carried out by Omar
Mateen, Larossi Aballa, and many others before and
after them in revenge for Islam and the Muslims make
complete sense. The only thing senseless would be for
there to be no violent, fierce retaliation in the first
place!

"There are exceptions among the disbelievers, no
doubt, people who will unabashedly declare that jihad
and the laws of the Shari’ah – as well as everything
else deemed taboo by the Islam-is-a-peaceful-religion
crowd – are in fact completely Islamic, but they tend
to be people with far less credibility who are painted
as a social fringe, so their voices are dismissed and a
large segment of the ignorant masses continues believing
the false narrative. As such, it becomes important
for us to clarify to the West in unequivocal terms – yet
again – why we hate you and why we fight you."

"1. We hate you, first and foremost, because you
are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah –
whether you realize it or not – by making partners
for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him,
claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against
His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all
manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that
we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for
you and our enmity towards you."

"Furthermore, just as your disbelief
is the primary reason we hate you, your disbelief
is the primary reason we fight you, as we have
been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they
submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming
Muslims, or by paying jizyah – for those afforded this
option – and living in humiliation under the rule of
the Muslims. Thus, even if you were to stop fighting
us, your best-case scenario in a state of war would be
that we would suspend our attacks against you – if we
deemed it necessary – in order to focus on the closer
and more immediate threats, before eventually resuming
our campaigns against you."

"So in the end, you cannot bring an indefinite halt to
our war against you. At most, you could only delay it
temporarily. “And fight them until there is no fitnah
[paganism] and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah”
(Al-Baqarah 193)."

"2. We hate you because your secular, liberal societies
permit the very things that Allah has prohibited
while banning many of the things He has permitted,
a matter that doesn’t concern you because you
Christian disbelief and paganism
32
separate between religion and state, thereby granting
supreme authority to your whims and desires via the
legislators you vote into power. In doing so, you desire
to rob Allah of His right to be obeyed and you wish to
usurp that right for yourselves. “Legislation is not but
for Allah” (Yusuf 40). "

"Your secular liberalism has led
you to tolerate and even support “gay rights,” to allow
alcohol, drugs, fornication, gambling, and usury to
become widespread, and to encourage the people to
mock those who denounce these filthy sins and vices.
As such, we wage war against you to stop you from
spreading your disbelief and debauchery – your secularism
and nationalism, your perverted liberal values,
your Christianity and atheism – and all the depravity
and corruption they entail. You’ve made it your mission
to “liberate” Muslim societies; we’ve made it our
mission to fight off your influence and protect mankind
from your misguided concepts and your deviant
way of life"

"3. In the case of the atheist fringe, we hate you
and wage war against you because you disbelieve in
the existence of your Lord and Creator. You witness
the extraordinarily complex makeup of created beings,
and the astonishing and inexplicably precise physical
laws that govern the entire universe, but insist that
they all came about through randomness and that one
should be faulted, mocked, and ostracized for recognizing that the astonishing
signs we witness day after day
are the creation of the Wise,
All-Knowing Creator and not
the result of accidental occurrence.
“Or were they created
by nothing, or were they the
creators [of themselves]?” (AtTur
35)"

"We hate you for your
crimes against Islam and wage
war against you to punish you
for your transgressions against our religion. As long as
your subjects continue to mock our faith, insult the
prophets of Allah – including Noah, Abraham, Moses,
Jesus, and Muhammad  – burn the Quran, and
openly vilify the laws of the Shari’ah, we will continue
to retaliate, not with slogans and placards, but with
bullets and knives."

OP here, are there moderators on this board?

Because spamming should be grounds for a lifetime ban :)

"5. We hate you for your crimes against the Muslims;
your drones and fighter jets bomb, kill, and
maim our people around the world, and your puppets
in the usurped lands of the Muslims oppress, torture,
and wage war against anyone who calls to the truth.
As such, we fight you to stop you from killing our
men, women, and children, to liberate those of them
whom you imprison and torture, and to take revenge
for the countless Muslims who’ve suffered as a result
of your deeds.
6. We hate you for invading our lands and fight
you to repel you and drive you out. As long as there
is an inch of territory left for us to reclaim, jihad will
continue to be a personal obligation on every single
Muslim."

Finally the two things that these retards say is the reason ISIS fights us. Two paragraphs dedicated to what blind idiots think is the ultimate cause of terrorism. Notice that we don't have any atheist Arabs blowing themselves up over this issue, nor fighting us in any capacity.
My problem is not with Muslims, but the shitty ideas inside their religion which, if taken to their logical conclusion, result in ISIS. Their ideas, just like the ideas of Christians, and other religions, must be put out to dry and be held up as the shitty ideas that they are. There should be no reason to hold back and call their ideas what they are: shitty ideas based on lack of reason.

Op, sorry if it looks like I'm spamming, but I'm tryign to make an argument. These faggots keep trying to say that Islam is not a bad religion, but the fact is that it is not yet reformed or on its way out like Christianity. This needs to be understood by the left.

"What’s important to understand here is that although
some might argue that your foreign policies
are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular
reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list. The
fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning
us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our
lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary
reason for hating you will not cease to exist until
you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah
and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation,
we would continue to hate you. No doubt, we would
stop fighting you then as we would stop fighting any
disbelievers who enter into a covenant with us, but we
would not stop hating you"

childcare
healthcare
income tax
corporate tax
minimum wage
abortion
college
environment

i dont like her but she is very clearly to the left of trump

trump - right-wing + protectionism
hillary - centrist

there's just not much data to suggest that immigration has any significant effect on wages. you can probably cherry pick a few studies that support such a notion, but there are more that suggest otherwise

So Capitalism and Islam meme nuffin amiright? It's all due to ebil imperalist powers and has completely nothing to do with a fucked up religion being promoted due to the "peaceful" radical islamists who have profited quite nicely off of capitalism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Saudi_Arabia

That's Capitalism 101 for you. :)

This too. Islam is shit, but that isn't the only reason that it's shit. The reason it's even worse is because it is a tool of capitalists to further destabilize the world and profit from it.

Capitalism and religion both must go.

He sees it as Israel responding to and protecting themselves from radicals in Palestine. youtube.com/watch?v=dFb88lyCf84

Responding to you and >>1011253: Not going to argue that Islam is a religion of peace. I was arguing that shit like suicide bombing is a recent development and comes from ta distortion of the koran,

Did I say that teens who joined ISIS citing religion were lying? I was saying that all these problems can't be traced just back to the koran. My comment was that imperialsism causes teens to willingly go and fight wars just like those who claim Islam said they should join ISIS.

Did I say the the religion was one of peace?

And for your recent post, it should definitely be reformed.
There are parts of the koran that are not acceptable today. But Judaism was able to reform its text by ditching Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and there should be a push by muslims to do the same. That's one of the points I agree with Harris on.

It's good to see that not throwing all the world's problems on one religion makes me a capitalist loving liberal, huh?

That is unarguably true. Israel is being taken over by racists and religious fanatics, but it's historically been true. Notice he never says that Israel should just keep building settlements or things like that. I fail to find error in his thought process.

But you already know that the methods of terrorism aren't the problem with Islam. It's the fact that there is terrorism at all.

You sure did keep trying to push the imperialism angle, which is simply false.

No, the hadith exists too. But ultimately their problem is that of religion. Would the Orlando club massacre have happened if not for religion?

It isn't imperialism that causes them to go. It's their religious convictions. Nothing else causes teens from good families to go out and kill in the name of their religion.

You seemed to imply that their terrorism stems from a corruption of their religion. This is simply false. It's their religion taken to its logical conclusion. There is nothing ISIS does that Muhammad would not have done.

The whole of it is trash. It's not hing more than a work of mythology by backwards people. No part of the Qur'an should be held to give you any knowledge that you cannot gain independently of it.

Sure, and only Muslims can do this, but that doesn't mean we should not, to their faces, tell them that their religion is false and full of bad ideas.

Shes anti-environment as fuck, she is pro-fracking etc.
American meme politics.
She isn't going to do anything.
Even the Euro right is to the left of her on this, America is behind on these things.
Shes lowering it, shes literally a corporate whore.
They are against increasing it.
Obama deported the most immigrants than any other US president in history, and it will continue and even increase under Hillary. She was already building the wall that Trump is trying to take credit for even.

Plus she is way more of a warmonger than Trump, they're just as right wing as each other really.

Evidences of Hillary building the wall and deporting people?

No one is actually saying that bruh, and if anyone is trying to throw all the world problems under something its you who is blaming America for everything.

When did anyone suggest that Islam is the sole problem in the world?

People earlier have stated that all religion is shit before in this thread and religion is but one of the many problems that exist in this world.

Also when did anyone suggest that you are a capitalism loving liberal?

Look up her vote on the Secure Fence Act.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ezaw-g6TIQI

abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661

huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/hillary-clinton-child-migrants_us_55d4a5c5e4b055a6dab24c2f

he's not right. his explaination of the phenomenon of islamism and jihadism can be boiled down to "muh koran" which is idiotic.. and that's why experts in the field think he;s an idiot (see: scott atran)

neither did netanyahu as far as i know. same as obama. they all say they want a palestinian state. however his defence of ISrael is totally reactionary talking points. he mainly justfies atrocities and human rights violations.

yes amidst the war on Iraq and Afghanistan, Harris came out with shitty argument saying that torture can be morally justified in "our war on terror"

his whole book that claims science can answer moral questions serves nothing but a badly argued version of utilitarianism. which is why he's a laughing stock among actual philosophers

he also supports muslim profiling, and argued that a peremptive nuclear strike against the muslim world can be justifiable, and that religion is worse than rape, and that the people who speak most sensibly about the threat Islam poses to europe are fascists.

let's see you defending that

Trump promises a wall, there already exists a border wall.

I read those and it does not come close to the amount of indians Jackson forced out.

...

And what does this have to do with anything?

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Except it's not. Do you see any atheist or Christian Arabs committing acts of terrorism against the west?

Sam Harris doesn't have the power to give the Palestinians a state. Or do you think he wouldn't do it, given the chance?

He has specifically condemned those.

Yes, but he never said that what the government did was justified and constantly has reiterated that he thinks torture should be illegal.

Yes, and these people don't actually matter. What do philosophers contribute to the world, exactly?

No, he has said that some people should obviously not be searched as they do not fit the profile. He gave the example of Jerry Seinfeld.

It can. Assume that ISIS gains a nuclear weapon. Why would you wait until they try to use it to retaliate? He said that under those specific conditions a preemptive strike would not only be justifiable, but completely necessary. I tend to agree.

I'm going to need citation on this.

You're going to have to elaborate on this. It sounds you're speaking from a biased position. What exactly did he say to make you think this?

Friendly reminder Trump winning will swing worker's rights towards the right wing side

Cant let that happen

Different poster but I love how you idiots always have to put words into his mouth to hate on him when you don't even need to go that far to dislike him.

He believes political correctness shouldn't get in the way of profiling. And also he even published a guest response to the blog article which was disagreeing with him on profiling.

Fucking reactionary amiright?

Also he probably does not believe that profiling at airports is a good idea anymore after learning that it does not work.

Isn't that the largest deportation event ever?

It was not a deportation event, 16,000 Cherokee were relocated and over 20 years due to the law 130,000, and it was not near the amount of 2.5 million people under Obama.

This also pales in comparison to the deportation of the Crimean Tatars, that event which lasted from 18-20 may 1944 was a mass deportation in which over 230,000 people where forced to leave their homes on order of Stalin.

130,000 out of all Native Americans have been relocated, and actually it was not all due to the law.

Jordan doesn't like her either, doesn't he? Honestly I've never payed attention to TYT but Jordan seems like one of the few people actually talking about the wikileaks releases who isn't a trump kiddie.

you undermine your own point. where are all the islamic terrorism against non western though like in japan china latin america…..
again, western imperialism plays 2 parts, one it makes a target for retaliation by those groups, second it creates the environment for these groups to even exist. that's why some 40 years ago the middle east was way more secular.

he doesn't think Israel is at fault. he says they do all this bad things, but they are justifiable given the savage nature of the palestinian. the point is everyone can say we want a palestinian state, but to recognize Israel is the one who is undermining a solution, and causing human rights violations and suffering is something different.

yes, he says they exist because he's not stupid enough to deny facts, but he goes on to justifying them using textbook israeli talking points 'muh human shields' 'muh hamas more interested in getting babys killed'. it's total dershowitzian apolegitics

yes… where did i say he thinks it should be legal? what i said that he thinks it's morally justifiable which he does.

lol

" should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it."

great.

one sidenote: he didn't say ISIS or AlQaeda, he said an Islamist regime.

"If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion. "
thesunmagazine.org/issues/369/the_temple_of_reason?page=2

"The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists. To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization."

so… he doesn't support profiling muslims?

so… he does support profiling muslims? so where am i wrong?

" should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it."

Moderate Christianity is on its way out as the religion of Humanism takes over. Fundamentalist Christianity is actually growing at a rapid pace.

The lack of Muslims in those areas might have something to do with it. Also China does have a problem with Islamic terrorism. You didn't even bother to look this up. Also, Latin America is western, you racist.

Can you tell me what Spain has done to any Muslim country? What Germany has done? No, you cannot. Even then, none of this would happen if it wasn't for their religion. You keep trying to ignore that, and it isn't going away.

Except he's directly accused them of war crimes.

He also did not say that. Why not provide direct quotes. The transcripts to his podcasts are on his site. Why make shit up?

His point is that both sides are doing this. The Palestinians put an organization with a specifically genocidal platform in the seat of government. How are you supposed to make peace with this being their representation?

Provide citations. I did not see him do this.

They do use human shields. Can you deny this?

Hamas is more interested in that, but again, he also says that Israel has it in its best interest to not kill those kids, specifically because it knows that it would be made an international pariah. Even if Israel has the bases of intentions, it is in their best interest not to kill the Palestinians.

You said he advocates torture. That, to me, would seem to imply that you think he thinks it should be legal. If I said I advocate rape, do you think I would still want it to be illegal?

That's not an argument. What do these philosophers actually do?

He's talking about behavioral profiling. Or do you think this is bigoted?

And we shouldn't bomb these people why?

Do you disagree? Rape is awful, but it doesn't cause people to behead journalists or throw homosexuals from the top of buildings, or to fly planes into buildings. I thought you had said that being religious is worst than being a rapist. So yeah, I still agree with him.

Is this not true? Remember what happened in the UK with rapist gangs? What about Germany? France?

Ah, I thought you had said that the ones you had deemed as "sensible" he had called fascists. Well, he's right in a lot of ways. A lot of these fascists make fair points on Islam. They may be wrong about everything else, but Islam is a threat to Europe. Notice that he does not think it is a good thing that only fascists can see this. The problem, he has said in the past, is that this gives credibility to fascists, and so you're stuck between two evils instead of good and evil.

Behavioral profiling is acceptable, no? What argument do you have against it?

He said that at the very least, you shouldn't be searching people who pose no threat, and that if you're going to profile, you should at least be honest about it and target the Muslims first. How is he wrong?

A follow up post on this issue:

samharris.org/blog/item/on-knowing-your-enemy29

Fundamentalist Christianity gains relating to the net loss of Christianity overall is utterly meaningless.

This, she's literally interchangeable with Dick Cheney on the issues, with the exception of a few lollipop social issues and slogans that get the masses of DNC sycophants mobilized.

...

there's something like 4 million muslims in latin america. there's over 20 million in china. where is the islamic terrorism in those places in comparison to the shit in the europe and north america?

plus it's not my whole argument. western intervention doesn't soley explain the targeting and strategy of these groups.

again, western intervention doesn't explain the strategy of targeting by these groups. in the case of ISIS while it does focus on nato and north american countries who bomb them, but they also more importantly target places where they have muslims population to eliminate the greyzone as they put it.

my argument is western imperialism and meddling in the middle east ever since the post ww1 colonialism and through US intervention and coups and backing dictators it created an environment where these groups present a valid opposition to the unbearable status quo.

in contrast you can see the rise of right wing fascism in EU as rresponse to economic insecurities mainly that is blamed on immigrants , and the terrorism. would any serious person say it's because of western culture or religion that people are getting more prone to side with fascists? no
the same goes in the middle east. unless you think muslims or arabs are different than other human beings

and then goes to justify them

" And there’s probably little question over the course of fighting multiple wars that the Israelis have done things that amount to war crimes. They have been brutalized by this process—that is, made brutal by it. But that is largely the due to the character of their enemies. "

yeah israel done some bad things, but that's it's enemies fault

1) how can a secular atheist justify the existence of a state around religious population

"Though I just said that I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state, the justification for such a state is rather easy to find. We need look no further than the fact that the rest of the world has shown itself eager to murder the Jews at almost every opportunity. So, if there were going to be a state organized around protecting members of a single religion, it certainly should be a Jewish state. "

" And there’s probably little question over the course of fighting multiple wars that the Israelis have done things that amount to war crimes. They have been brutalized by this process—that is, made brutal by it. But that is largely the due to the character of their enemies. "

". One of the most galling things for outside observers about the current war in Gaza is the disproportionate loss of life on the Palestinian side. This doesn’t make a lot of moral sense. Israel built bomb shelters to protect its citizens. The Palestinians built tunnels through which they could carry out terror attacks and kidnap Israelis. Should Israel be blamed for successfully protecting its population in a defensive war? I don’t think so"

"This is where most critics of Israel appear to be stuck. They see these images, and they blame Israel for killing and maiming babies. They see the occupation, and they blame Israel for making Gaza a prison camp. I would argue that this is a kind of moral illusion, borne of a failure to look at the actual causes of this conflict, as well as of a failure to understand the intentions of the people on either side of it. "

Well, it means that, when they drop a bomb on a beach and kill four Palestinian children, as happened last week, this is almost certainly an accident.

i couldn't go further to me cringing into a fetal position

yes they did, as did israel btw. but that doesn't justify the innocent lives spilled. and sure as shit doesn't justify israel bombing schools and hospitals

1/2

yes, there's absolutely no reason ISrael would kill civlians, why would they? why would they occupy people for 50 years? why would they build settlments in violation of international law? it doesn't seem that Israel is that intereested in preserving it's PR imagie. maybe it's counting on idiots like you and harris to justify and apoligize for it's crimes

ethnicity and nationality is behavioral now? and dressing aswell? he says he isn't narrowly focused on skin color, but he doesn't discount it. that's why the first time he spoke of profiling he said he "I wouldn’t put someone who looks like me entirely outside the bull’s-eye" which is a weird way to fram it. as it suggests that he doesn't perfectly fit the bulls eye. if so what fits? maybe if he had darker skin? my guess would be yes.
skin color is a component of his profiling method but so are other things, but the target is muslims, the more you look muslim, the more you'd fit the bulls eye.

some people think it's outrageous to propose we should preemptively nuke other people

what a disgusting thing to say. what the fuck are you doing on a leftist forum

if you think fascists have fair points about islam and muslims you are a fascist yourself. again what the fuck are you doing on a leftist forum

2/2

It means that Christianity isn't dying so much as becoming more extreme and returning to it's feudal roots as it becomes ever more incompatible with modern capitalism and liberal democracy.

Also, the biggest religion that's gaining today is Humanism, not Islam.

It's dying completely, a few extra recruits for independent churches is a sign of decay, not a growth in extremity, the whole thing is dying.

Christianity is actually growing rapidly, just not in the West.

Why should anyone be excluded from profiling, what makes Muslims special that they shouldn't be profiled?

Anyways, he does not believe they should be profiled at airports anymore because it doesn't work.

are you an idiot? the profile he supports specifically targets muslims. that's the whole fucking point

source?

Who else would it target ffs? Pygmies?

He would say the same exact thing if there was a mass terrorist group of Christians going around committing acts of terrorism, and because of current events it would make sense to profile Christians.

His conversation with Bruce on his defense of profiling article, he even said that he was set straight on the issue because airport profiling does not work.

classic harris fan goal post shifting. first you accused me of putting words in his mouth. now that we have established you are full of shit you want to shift the conversation from whether he said it or not to whether he is right or wrong.
if you believe profiling a religious group like muslims is okay that's your buisness i have no interest in arguing with you over that.

no he didn't change his mind. at the end of that exchange he made a childish sarcastic commentary. if you think im wrong provide exact quotes

the core tenet of logical positivism is verificationism, which states that:

this statement is not verifiable through empirical observation

it's literally self-refuting

That's an assumption you idiot. Do you know what that means?

Well they just house the satellite relay station that allows the US to conduct it's drone war across the globe. No big deal really.

God you are fucking stupid, I actually dislike Sam Harris.

I did not say he didn't say it, I was elaborating more on the issue of his views of airport profiling, and even mentioned the conversation he had with Bruce in the very same fucking post.

I personally don't believe they should, and especially airport profiling because its shit but that is besides the point.

He was clearly refuted and was shown that airport profiling does not work, so I said that he probably doesn't anymore because it clearly does not work.
How the hell do you think they did not have a honest discussion from that? Harris learned a lot from the conversation, why else would he link it with his article, why do you think he wouldn't change his mind on something when he was clearly shown that he was wrong?

no, it's not an assumption, you idiot

it's an axiom

if it is incorrect (which it self-reportedly is), all of logical positivism is incorrect too

Not all positivism is logical positivism.

No, it's an assumption about the world. You can keep telling people that they don't believe what they believe, but you just make yourself sound like an idiot. The only reason you want to rephrase it is so that you can win the argument. At the end of the day, the world is material as we see it. It might not be, sure, but you and I act as if it were, so why delve into sophism?

no, i don't think you understand

the principle of verificationism is a fundamental axiom of logical positivism

all the arguments of logical positivism rely on verificationism being a stable axiom

if the verificationist argument is shown to be weak, then logical positivism is entirely fucked

which, incidentally, it is

you can type all the paragraphs in the world, but it won't make up for the fact that you clearly don't understand what you're fucking talking about

i don't care. the point is you shifting goal posts

u said i was putting words in his mouth

good, then you must agree it's bigoted right?

he was refuted but he's too much of a smug idiot to realize that. that's why he finishes up with sarcastic commentary and never conscedes defeat, and never has.

i respect Scheiner's patience, it was painful going though harris's ignorant musings. what i'm refering to is this :
" given your reasoning, they should vitiate our commitment to targeted security on every other front. Rather than fly drones over Yemen, we should let them drift with the wind and rain down missiles at random."

at no point does he conceed he is wrong. and he has never said to have changed his mind on profiling. if he has show me some quotes

You need to stop.

Also, I don't think Sam Harris ever called himself a logical positivist. The one putting that title on him is you. Do you have the problem with the idea that the only things you can reliably know are those you can observe? If so, why? You keep bringing up these philosophical terms that don't really mean anything just to make an argument from that. Face it, you're wrong on this.

Liberals, everyone.

what is mathematics?

Wow, I did not expect that. It's refreshing to see an honest look at the Brexit movement as a knee jerk reaction to neo-liberalism as opposed to the standard liberal cuckold view of, "Dey rayciss, kill whitey!"

It really is a great video.

that ideology being Islam?

You don't know what that means so just stop.

Because you clearly have been, and not only that but also projecting.

No, profiling people only because of their religion I think is stupid because it would take a shit load of resources for places like the US, and its also not enough to tell if someone is an extremist or not. So I don't believe that every person of a certain religion or ethnicity should be profiled and would like a mix of random profiling in there too(the point which Bruce makes).

You clearly hate him, otherwise you wouldn't be so disingenuous and take what he was saying out of context of the conversation or projecting onto Bruce. Besides a joke here or two in his last part, he asks Bruce if there are any books or articles he would like their viewers to read to follow up on, gives a recap of the conversation, and asks what should he suppose we do on the matter since Israeli tier airport profiling in the US won't work. Any third party can see that they are both enjoying the conversation almost as if they were friends.

Why wouldn't he change his mind on somethings since he is a skeptic because they usually change their minds when provided evidence? According to his own philosophy he would change his mind on something when provided empirical evidence.

He changed his mind on somethings during the conversation but not all, Harris believes that "ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, dress, traveling companions etc" can help with finding potential jihadist terrorist but people who clearly are not a jihadist shouldn't be checked on.

So clearly he just wants less people checked on by the TSA, but somehow wanting less people being checked is bigotry according to liberals.

A made-up system. You don't know that any of those numbers reflect the real world.

it means that you have pivoted the conversation from what Harris said which was the original point, to whether harris is right or wrong. that is goal post shifting

then prove it. just saying that I have isn't enough

You don't know what that means so just stop.

great. but it also fits the definition of bigotry. and since harris advocates such that we can safely conclude that harris is bigoted against muslims.

again, you don't get to just say that. back it up, quote me, quote harris and show me where i have took him out of context

i don't give a shit if they are enjoying their conversation. harris gave shit arguments, and after proven wrong by an actual expert he still didn't admit he was wrong there or in any other platform. he claims to not have changed his position at all. if he did please show me where.

your guess is as good as mine. mine would be that he is either too stupid to realize it or too arrogant to admit it

which makes you wonder why he didn't change his mind when refuted by actual experts like scott atran on terrorism, noam chomsky on foreign policy, scheiner on torture, daniel dennett on free will, others on moral philosophy

what did he change about that? as far as i know he never claimed ethnic background and skin color is the only component of his policy, but they *are* a component. can you show me where he actually changed his views? i cant see it

yes, he wants people who look less muslim to not be checked

The “distortion” of the Quran has more to do with capitalism and the Saudis playing the long game than it does with western involvement in the middle east, as that “distortion” is the Saudi approved interpretation of the Quran, which they spread widely across the world. Even before the Saudis had the large amount of money via oil exports they were very influential due to having both Medina and Mecca, also the rise of arab nationalism against the Ottoman Empire was another successful thing they used to spread their interpretation of islam.
When the oil money started flowing in the Saudis used large quantity of money in order to fund schools, mosques and various charity programs for the primary goal of spreading their interpretation to other muslim nations and even muslims in the west.
The kind of financial domination that they hold over the spread of islam and hence the type of islam is frankly concerning.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_propagation_of_conservative_Sunni_Islam#Religious_funding

Another concerning group other than the Saudi financed and backed ones are the Deobandi who’s teaching are most likely the reason that kids from the UK are going to fight for groups such as ISIS.
They have both horrible teaching and a large amount of control of Islam in the UK.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deobandi#In_the_United_Kingdom

"Saudi Arabia" only exists because of the British and American empires.

Nice made up fallacy, simply put it means that you provided evidence that proves your argument and that I asked for greater evidence to prove that same point. Also I haven't pivoted anywhere, I was elaborating more on a certain view that Harris had. Our conversation was never about with either if Harris is right or wrong, unless you somehow think I’m the other user you have been arguing with.

Like how you haven't provided evidence for his reactionary defense of israel or that he is a logical positivist?

He clearly states that muslims who are obviously not jihadist shouldn’t be checked out in the quote I provided with my post, how is that bigotry? If there wasn’t for salafis, wahhabis and other extremists killing people and other muslims etc currently then this wouldn’t be a problem.

And with this you can conclude that he isn’t a bigot.

I called you out on Harris being insincere with the conversation and that Bruce had anything to be patient about, which is funny because you then turn around and say that you don't give a fuck if they were at all in one post.

Why not drop the the whole reply then, you deliberately took out a small bit to make him look bad, but in the context of the entire reply he didn't say anything wrong.

You are over simplifying things, his entire point was not refuted but some things were, you don't need to fully concede when some things are proven wrong about your position if it isn't crucial. Bruce focused only on Israeli airline security being too expensive and impractical in the US, so he did not refute many of other points Harris made and was even forced to concede on some points he made. Like the one where he said that no one does airline security better than the Israelis which is based on “racially, ethnically, behaviorally, by nationality and religion, etc” and Bruce agreed.

1/2

Again, you seem to be oversimplifying the discussions he has had with these people, the way you framed it, Chomsky and Dennett don’t change their minds on anything either. Harris is a critic of American foreign policy, and was against Iraq War. It's just that Chomsky is obviously way more knowledgeable and critical about it. He believes torture is reprehensible and should be illegal, but with utaltaritarin ethics he then argues that if torture could save a greater amount of people's lives, then maybe the cost of torturing might be worth it.

These issues and discussions are complex and are not as simple as are insinuating them to be.
Really, you have trying to portray him as something he is not. Not to say that his philosophy is good or anything and that he doesn’t have shit ideas it's just that he's not as bad as you are making him out to be.

That sentence was poorly worded and wasn't finished, he changed his view on the US completely adopting Israel’s airport profiling.
Do you think if we have to have airport security measures that the limited resources should be spread thin and everyone should be checked in order to not offend liberal sensibilities instead of those resources being allocated in a more useful manor?

2/2

The Ottoman empire was crumbling and the Saudis grabbed a fair bit of clay before British involvement which was more due to the British wanting to befriend a future regional power than anything else.

Also Saudi Arabia was already a proper regional power in it’s own right before the American empire was even involved in the middle east. I know this hard for an American to understand this but the world does not revolve around you and many powers have risen and fallen without your input in the history of mankind.

utilitarian***

No it wasn't. Saudi Arabia was not consolidated until 1932. Standard Oil discovered the Saudi oil fields in 1938, and Ibn Saud immediately gave the Americans the rights drill it.

Now don't you feel stupid?

I never argued that Harris is a logical positivist. you must be mixing up people.
i did say he provides reactionary defense of ISrael, you can see here:

how the fuck can you know that from looking at a person?
he starts with the proposition that every jihadist is neccessairly a muslim, therfore it's rational that we target muslims.
but since you can't tell a person's faith by looking at them other components come into play, like ethnicity, nationality, dressing …
he is essentialy playing a hot cold game that is the more muslim you look, which skin color is a strong indicator of that, as is ethnicity and nationality, the more scrutiny you should get.
you can't escape the racial component, otherwise the sentence "we should profile muslims" doesn't make any sense.

I guess if there wasn't all those japanese pilots bombing the US we wouldn't have to put japanese in internment camps

hey i can provide quotes too

"it's time we recognize- and obliged the muslim world to recognize- that "muslim extremism" is not extreme among muslims"

"there is no such thing as islamophobia"

"the people who speak most sensibly about the threat Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists"

"it's time to admit we are not at war with terrorism, we are at war with Islam"

"the truth about islam is as politically incorrect as it is terryfing: Islam is all fringe and no center"

[on refugees] "is it crazy to express, as Ted Cruz did, a preferance for christians over muslims? of course not"

the last quote actually evidence that his thinkig on profiling hasn't changed

i never said he was insencere, I said he refused to acknowledge being refuted

what reply are you talking about? and how would it change anything i said?

i think this quote at the end by Scheiner explains perfectly harris's intellect

"And while you’ve objected to bits and pieces of this, the only argument you have made for this profiling system is that it’s common sense."

harris made shit points. the original question was whether it makes sense in terms of security to "profile muslims, or anyone who looks muslim". Scheiner refuted that systematically and refuted Harris' points. trying to act like its fifty fifty is delusional

i don't see that. plus it's a marginal point. the main question was refuted, and harris made himself look like a fool by offering nothing but his gut feeling as evidence as Scheiner pointed out.

yet, somehow Harris hasn't budged on his advocacy for profiling even though it was completely and uterly refuted by an expert.

that gave me a good chuckle. was that before or after calling the US a well intentioned giant?

that's a lie. he says he never knew what to think about the Iraq war and it seems like a distraction.

1/2

that's not the issue, the issue is that Harris was merely uttering badly argued apolegitics that Chomsky has heard and been dealing with for 50 years, which harris didn't bother to look at

yes, he believes torture is morally acceptable in the war on terror specifically

you adding context doesn't change the conclusions I stated. you just rush to explain them after you claim that I misrepresent him

show me one example where I did that

i don't know where you got that from, but it's still a marginal point. the question was whether it makes better security to profile at airports. after being refuted by an expert he still didn't budge and repeats the same thing.

so harris did say that he wants to profile muslims? now you want to argue whether his idea has merets. for that u have the whole exchange with scheiner

2/2

Kek

Not really, I would hardly consider the involvement of a private company from America who only got involved because of the intial company search a New Zealander did on behalf of the Saudi king as the same thing as the involvement of the American empire.

The relationship was completely different as to one in which an empire was involved, simply if the American empire was involved the Saudi king would not of been able to threaten the company into giving him a 50% share of the business during the 1950's. If the American empire was involved at that time there would be no king of Saudi Arabia.
This is very different than Iran for example as when the Iranians tried to nationalise oil instead of the british company pleading with the rulers and giving up a massive chunk of their own wealth in a comprimise Iran's government was destroyed and a puppet ruler gained power.

Looks like he's been demoted to Slippin' Jimmy again:

youtube.com/watch?v=VSe8C5j-E4A

youtube.com/watch?v=5G1v6mg6DGw
here's some Chemo
Jimmy has not completed his evolution give him time

Its seems like the only thing you can do is be intellectually dishonest, simplify, and misrepresent what Harris is trying to say despite the full quotes I've given where he himself clears up any misconceptions. This time around it looks like I have to post his articles and go into detail of how you are.

Nice false equivalence you got there.

Of course a out of context quote does not say much on its own, you're doing what Harris points out here and what many journalists do when they want to make clickbait or someone they disagree with look bad. You even took the exact same quote that they so often take to misrepresent him on in one of your earlier post here.

samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-controversy#profiling

Part of a quote earlier:

Islam is not a race so there is no racial component, Salafi and Wahhabi Jihadist DO have a look and not all Muslims look like them at all and most don’t. The type of beard they have is a huge indicator if someone is from those particular groups, it is much more distinguishable than shit like ethnicity because really what race/ethnicity is Muslims? Salafis and Wahhabis have a certain way they have their beard, long with mustache shaven or clean, not to say that always part of those groups but it is just one indicator. This is mostly seen with fundamentalist, it is why in Muslims countries a way to fight against Saudi/extremist religious imperialism is to shave the beards of men and close down shops that sell traditional Muslim clothes.
aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/tajikistan-shaves-13000-men-beards-radicalism-160120133352747.html

It being fifty fifty or not is irrelevant, and it seems like you didn’t read the exchange or don’t want to go into detail about the points they went on about like I have, repeating “he had shit arguments refuted refuted!” over again says nothing. As I said before, Bruce did not refute with evidence that the Israeli airport security which Harris advocates part of for does not work and even agreed that it is the best, but he goes onto say that it is impractical and too expensive for the US. I will provide where they say so here from the following links:

schneier.com/essays/archives/2012/05/to_profile_or_not_to_1.html
Harris goes on here about a paper that supports some of what he is saying in which even Bruce agrees and also that he does not advocate for “strong profiling”.

Here Bruce says that he is only focused on passenger security checkpoints at airports and that the profiling does work elsewhere.

1/2

I like how that quote he says nothing about his views of profiling.
From this article he goes over what he conceded to during the debate, and that he was vilified for the wrong reasons.

samharris.org/blog/item/wrestling-the-troll

You couldn’t stand what Harris himself explained clearly that he is not bigoted towards muslims and that the bigger issue is finding jihadist, and not every Muslim is a Salafi or Wahhabi so there is no need for anymore scrutiny for them than average. So then you moved the goal post and quote mined harder than a Gawker journalist, I will go over one example you got from a literal quote mining site.

en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sam_Harris
Here is the full quote.
washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/1/20041201-090801-2582r/
In the article he goes to say that Moderates shouldn’t get any ideas that they’re a religion of peace and indeed need to reform the quran. He also mentions that even without the US and Israel fucking things up, Muslim moderates will still have the problem of islamic extremism spreading in their countries and they are by large the prime fighters against Islamic extremist, and must be given every tool they need to win the war of ideas.

2/2

Welp, I’m pretty much doing this for fun at this point.

Please show me where he provides a full reactionary defense of Israel in context without taking bits a pieces of an argument he has made out of context in order to make it align to your personal prejudices.
While I personally am on the Palestinian side unlike Sam Harris, I still don’t find his views as bad as others claim and I have heard much worse opinions on the subject before.
It is very important to read the notes here.
samharris.org/podcast/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel
For example personally I think he is wrong about Israel not being the prime aggressor in this conflict however this whole post is hardly how a reactionary would see this conflict. Sam Harris is not for the status quo at all, does think that the Palestinians should have a state and that the settlements should not be constructed.

t. liberal

…..were you dropped on the head as a toddler? Are you dyslexic or just retarded?
When someone states shit like “I never knew what to think about the Iraq war and it seems like a distraction” it does not mean support if anything it is a statement against the war. Not knowing what to think about something is especially when it comes to events like wars generally means that it is so horrible that they don’t even know what to think about it. Also stating that it seems like a distraction is badly getting at it being a diversionary foreign policy action.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversionary_foreign_policy
So overall if anything those comments just prove that he was against the Iraq war. However the concept that someone both as thick and as ignorant as yourself even exists is mind blowing, honestly it is making me wonder if liberals are just as stupid as conservatives are after all.

...

...

It's actually exactly like that. Or do you think that ISIS beheads people just because they feel like it? Where do you think they got it from? Also, nice job on consistently ignoring the existence of the hadith.

Shi'i Islam has more revolutionary potential than Western atheism or any other religion. The notion and practice of major and minor jihad is the best thing any culture has ever created.

Dore has another great video out:
youtube.com/watch?v=Vg68IdhMm8g

that's the trick, whenever you're held up to the logical consequences of your own standards just yell 'false equivilance' and everything gets solved

well then harris disagrees with you :
"To assert that ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, dress, traveling companions, behavior in the terminal, and other outward appearances offer no indication of a person’s beliefs or terrorist potential is either quite crazy or totally dishonest"

also it's pretty retarded if you think dudes who are attempting to do terrorism wound't simply shave their beard to escape your profile. none of the 19 hijackers had a beard boarding on the plane.

pretend as if ethnicity (which at glance can only be determined by things like specific facial characteristic and skin color, in this case stongly correlated with race) is pretty laughable since the whole point of the debate with scheiner was about the merets of ethnic profiling that harris does advocate. here are quotes :

"Just how deep a recruiting pool could this be among people
born as non-Muslims? Not very. How easy can it be to recruit an old rancher and his wife
from Texas to be suicide bombers? What about a pretty blonde from San Diego who once had a walk-on part on Battlestar Galactica? If it were easy to recruit such people—people about whom you would say, “Are you kidding me? They are members of al-Qaeda?”—then we would not be seeing young middle-eastern men show upon on the news, again and again."

Muslim terrorists have no trouble finding people willing to martyr themselves in places like Pakistan,
Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Somalia—and in their satellite communities in Europe—but,
lucky for us, they still have a hard time recruiting a family that looks as if it just stepped out of a Ralph Lauren ad. Until this changes, it strikes me as completely irrational not to take these facts into account when screening for terrorists."

BS: "That’s behavioral profiling, completely different from what we’re discussing here.
I want to stick with your ethnic profiling system."

BS: "For the purposes of this analysis, I’m assuming that the correlation between attribute A (terrorist) and attribute B (Muslim) is 1. Attribute B is a belief system, and effectively undetectable within the context of an airport security checkpoint.
As such, you are proposing attribute B’ (“anyone who could conceivably be Muslim”) as a substitute for B. This why I previously described this as Arab-looking, or Semitic."

SH:" I like the approach you are taking"

SH:" Sorry, but your purified notion of “behavioral profiling” is a fiction.
You are attempting to divide that which cannot be divided. The fact that
the man was black in the elevator example was relevant (as it increased the statistical likelihood that he didn’t have an apartment in that building);
the fact that the bald man in the synagogue parking lot was white was also relevant
(making it at least conceivable that he was a neo-Nazi skinhead).
I am simply arguing that tossing out statistically relevant information is a bad idea—especially when your life depends on it. And what you call “behavioral profiling” simply can’t take place in isolation from these sources of information."

">Of course, if a plane gets blown up by someone who looked and acted like Betty White, I will issue a public apology."

even harris doesn't reject the idea that he is for ethnic profiling, im not sure why you'd embarras yourself trying to saying he does.

adressing strawmen :
yes, ethnic profiling is not the only component of his proposed system, he proposes a combination of both ethnic and behavioral profiling. and it does include other factors beside skin color and fascial charecteristics to determine the ethnicity of the person such as dressing.

and yes he does included himself in the profile because he does look like someone who can come from the middle east. but someone like betty white doesn't.

the ultimate neckbear debate trick. if the other person agreed with you on a marginal irrelevant point in order to focus on what's relevant you latch onto that agreement as if the person had conceeded the point.

but here's what Scheiner actually said (the quote of him you put is a response to something else btw):
" The paper supports some of your intuitions about how useful your correlation is, but doesn’t speak at all to the efficacy of building a security system around that correlation. That’s what I have been trying to make explicit: just because a correlation exists doesn’t mean that it is smart security to use it as a mechanism for dividing people into two categories and subjecting those categories to different levels of security."

since it seems that neither you or harris can comprehend Scheiner's point let me try to make it clear.
the paper says that *mathmatically* the system that would produce the best result is a combination of random and profiling(which is not what the Israeli do, nor is what Harris initially advocates). but the paper does support some of Harris's intuitive conclusions,probably because there is a correlation between muslims and terror threat. neither me nor scheiner denies that(scheiner even consider the probability as 1). but the idea when you try to apply this system in reality, which is what Scheiner did with his analysis, all sort of problems come along in effectivness and cost that deems the program " too complicated to implement in any practical way at a security checkpoint".

im having fun too

i did provide quotations of him justifying and apolegising for Israeli crimes. see above

lol, even Netanyahu says that. he just goes on to say that it's the palestinians fault that they have no states, and that once they are ready to reject violence or some shit we would negotiate 2 state settlment.

t. liberal

i know it's inconvenient when people are exposed to the logical conclusions of the standards they epouse

overly defensive attitude combined with hurling insults are usually a strong indication of one being in a weak position

I never said he supported the Iraq war. I simply pointed out that him saying that he didn't know what to think of the war doesn't mean he "opposed" it, which is what you or the person i responded to claimed

which is not what Harris means by distraction. he said he thought it was a distraction from what we were already doing in afghanistan.
plus, you can take it as a rule if you may, Harris never assumes bad intention on the part of white/western states.

Christ, Sam Harris said all that? What a fucking asshole