Many people who read his blog come away convinced that I am a racist who advocates the widespread use of torture and a nuclear first strike against the entire Muslim world. The most despicable claims about me appear in the comment thread, of course, but Myers is responsible for publishing them. And so I hold him responsible for circulating and amplifying some of the worst distortions of my views found on the Internet.
Sam Harris is advocating torture and he also does advocate the use of nuclear force against Muslims.
"Advocating torture" ≠ "advocat[ing] the widespread use of torture"
"Nuclear force" ≠ "a nuclear first strike against the entire Muslim world"
Regardless of his stance on these issues, which I've not looked up yet but am now curious to investigate, the point he appears to be making here is that his opinions have been polarised to extremes and (presumably) taken way beyond their original scope and context, by the same kind of people who conflate a tasteless joke to an actual threat of violence.
Good point. I should have said Harris is in favour of torture and preemptive nuclear strikes under specific circumstances.
But, of course, Harris has clarified that he does not, in fact, favor such things, and the cited writings of Sam Harris are consistent with that.
For example, regarding torture, he did not at all say he was in favor of it. He said that a moral case could not be made that it was, absolutely, morally impermissible in all circumstances, including IDEALIZED circumstances. The fact that PZ Myers doesn't get this casts some serious doubt on his intellectual chops.
Wow, thank you for posting that. I feel embarrassed I didn't seek it out for myself sooner. I never made any public judgements on him but I took a lot of the selective quotes on faith and that's not something I normally do. I haven't finished reading yet, but this sounds like a completely rational and thoughtful stance if you actually read what he said in it's entire context, which is rather important for something of that complexity and depth.
lordpasternack wrote:Yeah - I fuckin' love oppressin' ma wimmin, like I love chowin' on ma bacon and tuggin' on ma ol' cock…
Pappa wrote:God is a cunt! I wank over pictures of Jesus! I love Darwin so much I'd have sex with his bones!!!!
Wow, thank you for posting that. I feel embarrassed I didn't seek it out for myself sooner. I never made any public judgements on him but I took a lot of the selective quotes on faith and that's not something I normally do. I haven't finished reading yet, but this sounds like a completely rational and thoughtful stance if you actually read what he said in it's entire context, which is rather important for something of that complexity and depth.
JimC wrote:The Vatican has a "Special Duties" squad whose job is to undermine the atheist movement, using all the subtle wiles of its Jesuit Commando members....
Are you suggesting PZ is an undercover Jesuit operative?
It would explain a lot. He's exhibiting all the hallmarks of a false flag operation.
I should think his fellow travellers will be surprised when this gets out.
It would make sense, he's the bishop of the Whiny Attack Nuns.
"What started as a legitimate effort by the townspeople of Salem to identify, capture and kill those who did Satan's bidding quickly deteriorated into a witch hunt" Army Man
WHY SKEPCHICK IS THE CANCER OF THE SKEPTIC MOVEMENT
July 26, 2012 · by dramaista · in feminism, radFem, skepchick, skepticism
There is one website, one group of people and one person in particular that is at the heart of all the skeptic drama. The website is skepchick.org and the person is their “fearless leader” Rebecca Watson.
Why do I have a problem with them? Because what they promote is anti-skepticism. They have their own dogma. Their position cannot be criticized. You only have to look at the comments on any skepchick article to see evidence of one big circle jerk. Anyone who dares speak up and tell them what they are doing is wrong is immediately labelled a misogynist, or privileged, or any other such thoughtless brand. The sarcasm is painful. This is completely antiskeptical because the whole point of skepticism is being able to ask questions. The skepchick dogma however, cannot be questioned. Rebecca Watson is right about everything. She will not even entertain the possibility that she might be wrong, not for one, fucking nanosecond.
Why do I call them a cancer? Because their poisonous dogmatism is spreading and one day it will leave skepticism as a dead, lifeless, putrid corpse. For the sake of the movement, skepchick.org must be excised.
Let me call my Russian driver, Pikup Andropov, to speed me away from here!
Were the seats tested properly by official seat tester, Wilma Butfit?
Or her colleague, Fitz Matush?
I think that language has a lot to do with interfering in our relationship to direct experience. A simple thing like metaphor will allows you to go to a place and say 'this is like that'. Well, this isn't like that. This is like this.
JimC wrote:The Vatican has a "Special Duties" squad whose job is to undermine the atheist movement, using all the subtle wiles of its Jesuit Commando members....
Are you suggesting PZ is an undercover Jesuit operative?
It would explain a lot. He's exhibiting all the hallmarks of a false flag operation.
I should think his fellow travellers will be surprised when this gets out.
Cue someone pasting PZ's head onto the albino priest from The Da Vinci Code.
ZOMG there are Bloggerzzzzz!!!! And they're Blogginnnnnnng and saying things I disagree with!!!!
They're even having... Panel discussions!!!
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P
The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange
Now it looks like Amy Farrah Fowler.... errr. I mean Surly Amy....one of the Skepchicks (and perhaps others) are using false DMCA claims to get at their opponents....either to bully or harass them, or as a trick to find out their personal contact information.
Surly Amy has not denied making the DMCA claim, and she hasn't admitted it, either. But, one of the claims was made on a picture of one of Surly Amy's jewelry pieces, so it doesn't appear to be something that anyone else would even remotely think they could report.
FreedomThoughtBlogs has come up their own brand of atheism called Atheism+! They have a new logo and everything!
Their 10 commandments 5 suggestions:
We are…
Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support women’s rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.
It speaks to those of us who see atheism as more than just a lack of belief in god.
Never mind that like 99% of atheists already believe in all that stuff. It's good to jot it down, I guess....
Atheism isn't just about not believing in gods anymore. That's so passe! Come on and join along!
Jesus cum-gurgling Christ, the sanctimony offends me more than the fucking stupidity. From this day forth I'm calling myself a non-deist if anyone asks. Seth was right. Atheism (in this sense) is a post-modern religion. Those idiots are going to be a public embarrassment.
I'm glad I'm not an Atheist in America, poor bastards are going to get identified along with them. "Oh so you're an atheist huh, you must be one of them crazy whinin radical gender queers?"
It would be tragic if it wasn't so fucking funny.
"What started as a legitimate effort by the townspeople of Salem to identify, capture and kill those who did Satan's bidding quickly deteriorated into a witch hunt" Army Man
