Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am sure that will go down well with the electorate.

And that is a very sad thing.

It's not a sad thing at all.

 dogma wrote:
No, it doesn't. But if you're saying that a particular religion is not compatible with an ideology you ascribe to, it is almost certain you believe it to be bad.

That's odd, I can't find where I said that Islam was was "bad"... oh wait, that's right, I didn't. Keep trying though, you almost got me!

I never said your numbers weren't empirical, but any conclusion based on the interpretation of those numbers is not.

Hold that thought for a moment.

I studied politics and philosophy for nearly a decade. I have referenced the internet from time to time, but referencing sources is what honest scholars do; even if a citation isn't made.

Honest scholar, you say? Even though you can't see it, I'm golf clapping for you right now.

Anyway, in Ancient Greece universal human rights were not a thing. Indeed, many of the key thinkers who underpin liberalism specifically differentiated between being a Greek citizen, and being a barbarian.

Exactly... and what does this have to do with anything I've mentioned so far? Nothing, maybe? Sounds about right.

Then why did you attempt to counter my argument by isolating persons by nationality and humanity while asking a question?

That wasn't a counter, it was sarcasm. Still waiting for evidence to back up your claim.

Anyway, I don't believe the average person believes that humans have universal rights because I don't believe that an average person is capable of agreeing with another average person regarding who is a human, and what their rights are. This can easily be demonstrated by way of arguments made by people regarding Christianity, Islam, China, Russia, North Korea, any number of African or Middle Eastern countries, the US, Japan, Mexico, etc.

And what exactly do you base this off of, your "feelings?" You have no numbers, polls, or evidence of any kind... you're literally pulling gak out of thin air and using it to back your argument (which is getting increasing difficult to figure out, seeing as how you're kind of all over the place). My conclusion based off empirical evidence is inherently flawed, but your counter to that is what you "believe?"

However, you feel that your, for all intents and purposes, completely baseless claim is somehow worth more than the facts that I have given multiple times pretty much sums up your entire position thus far: rejecting what I say without offering insight to your position. It's worth noting that your entire argument began over your attempt at pedanticism because I used both "wrong" and "liar" to describe someone who is often wrong and lies.

I'll give you credit though, you're trying awful hard...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Like Islam does?

Looks like there is disagreement in Islam over if it's optional or mandatory

For:
http://www.greenprophet.com/2011/09/circumcision-healthy-muslim-sexuality/

Against (NSFW):
http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptions/circumcision.html

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
That's odd, I can't find where I said that Islam was was "bad"... oh wait, that's right, I didn't.

I never said that you did. I arrived at that conclusion by way of your statements regarding Islam, your own beliefs, and Reza Aslan. And I did not do so empirically because a conclusion based on the interpretation of data is not empirical.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Exactly... and what does this have to do with anything I've mentioned so far? Nothing, maybe? Sounds about right.

You specifically stated that your beliefs, as a self-identified liberal, amounted to the foundation of liberalism. I am claiming that is false because the notion of universal human rights was not something which has ever been foundational with respect to liberalism.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

That wasn't a counter, it was sarcasm

A counter argument can be sarcastic.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
And what exactly do you base this off of, your "feelings?" You have no numbers, polls, or evidence of any kind... you're literally pulling gak out of thin air and using it to back your argument (which is getting increasing difficult to figure out, seeing as how you're kind of all over the place). My conclusion based off empirical evidence is inherently flawed, but your counter to that is what you "believe?"

What empirical evidence do you have to support the notion that the average person believes in the concept of Universal Human Rights, or can agree on what they are? I mean, you can put forth a survey of some kind, but that will almost certainly not be representative, and there is plenty of anecdotal and legal evidence to suggest that the average person does not believe in the concept of Universal Human Rights. Indeed, your own contention that Islam is not compatible with liberalism suggests that a large chunk of the global population is not so disposed.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

...rejecting what I say without offering insight to your position. It's worth noting that your entire argument began over your attempt at pedanticism because I used both "wrong" and "liar" to describe someone who is often wrong and lies.

It is not pedantic to object to a person being called a liar when they are clearly not, and to suggest that "liar" and "wrong" are synonyms is ridiculous.

 dogma wrote:
I never said that you did. I arrived at that conclusion by way of your statements regarding Islam, your own beliefs, and Reza Aslan. And I did not do so empirically because a conclusion based on the interpretation of data is not empirical.

Trying to prove I said "Islam = bad" is an exercise in futility, because I have never and would never claim that. Feel free to keep trying to put words in my mouth though.

You specifically stated that your beliefs, as a self-identified liberal, amounted to the foundation of liberalism. I am claiming that is false because the notion of universal human rights was not something which has ever been foundational with respect to liberalism.

Yeah, and I still stand by that. My ideology is planted firmly in the basis of liberalism. Also, please show me where I said that universal human rights were the foundation of liberalism (spoiler alert: you can't because I never claimed that). Trying to wax intellectual about ancient Greece or whatever it is you are doing isn't impressing anyone.

A counter argument can be sarcastic.

Agreed, but it still wasn't a counter argument.

What empirical evidence do you have to support the notion that the average person believes in the concept of Universal Human Rights, or can agree on what they are? I mean, you can put forth a survey of some kind, but that will almost certainly not be representative, and there is plenty of anecdotal and legal evidence to suggest that the average person does not believe in the concept of Universal Human Rights. Indeed, your own contention that Islam is not compatible with liberalism suggests that a large chunk of the global population is not so disposed.

I never made the claim that the average person worldwide supports the notion of universal human rights; feel free to go back and look. I said there is a serious gap between current Islamic doctrine and universal human rights, you countered with there is a serious gap between what "the average person" believes and universal human rights, I then asked you for proof of that, you provided none, and since then you have argued that I made the claim the average human on Earth supports universal human rights.

You can't even keep track of your own arguments.

It is not pedantic to object to a person being called a liar when they are clearly not, and to suggest that "liar" and "wrong" are synonyms is ridiculous.

I didn't say they were the same thing. Aslan purposefully spreads misinformation and when he says things that are "true," he's still wrong (these fall under the 'technically-true-but-not-really-accurate' statements highlighted in one of the articles I shared earlier).

And yes, your being pedantic.


Again, when you have something to actually add to the conversation, feel free to do so. Because right now, as cute as it is, all you have is half-formed thoughts, arguments from nothing, and arguments over semantics.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Feel free to keep trying to put words in my mouth though.

I just stated that you did not specifically say that Islam is bad, but that I arrived at that conclusion because you stated it is incompatible with liberalism, happen to be a self-proclaimed liberal, and are attacking Reza Aslan for being a supposed liar.

This is not putting words in your mouth, it is arriving at a conclusion by way of an informed deduction. You exhibit many of the behaviors consistent with people who believe that Islam is bad, and specifically stated it is not compatible with the ideology you hold to.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Also, please show me where I said that universal human rights were the foundation of liberalism (spoiler alert: you can't because I never claimed that).

You stated that, as a liberal, you support...

...(amongst other things) fair elections, free trade, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, universal human rights, and the right to private property.

...after drawing a distinction between true liberals and, presumably, false liberals. Additionally, when I specifically asked you if your beliefs were definitive of liberalism you responded with...

In the loosest sense, yes. The things I listed are pretty much the building blocks of liberalism. Do you disagree?

...as one of the things you listed was "universal human rights" I think it is fair to draw the conclusion that you believe that to be a fundamental component of liberalism.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

I said there is a serious gap between current Islamic doctrine and universal human rights...

Actually, you said this:

The hard numbers show that there is a serious gap between what the average Muslim believes and the idea of universal human rights.

Your usage of the phrase "average Muslim" is what caused me to use the phrase "average person", which I also clarified upon your request.

As to hard numbers: a poll with 38,000 respondents is not representative of a population of 1.6 billion. The only reason that 1,000 is industry standard in US polling is that many polls are taken at a high interval, and as such can easily be compared against one another; the same cannot be said of any poll of Muslims. I mean hell, nobody even trusts ANES enough to base a conclusion on their data without significant qualifications, and that's limited to a population less than 320 million.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

I didn't say they were the same thing.

No, you just used them interchangeably throughout this thread.

Good job, you caught me!

The modern idea of human traces its roots to the Enlightenment Era; the same group of thinkers who laid the foundation for liberalism. So yes, the concept human rights are pretty ingrained in the liberal ideology. I mean, in your vast studies of politics you had to have come across that, right? And since you know so much about the topic, please explain it so all can bask in your wealth of knowledge.

Instead of trying to prove me wrong (which you really haven't) and that because I disagree with someone/something that means it's "bad" (it doesn't because I don't view the world in black and white like you apparently do), what exactly is your point?

I think the problem is more the people delivering the message than the message itself. I get what maher and harris are saying, at least I think I do. My problem is more with them than the message. I really like sam harris until he does politics, but he's really bad with bias and double standards, much like maher. Maher's never very consistent, he vacillates all over the place to have an edgy opinion, which is often hard to gauge because you can't tell if he really believes what he's saying or if he's just stirring the pot to make for a good debate/better tv. I think their message needs someone with less obvious bias. Maher hates religion, but also really hates a certain religion. Harris thinks jews can do no wrong, because, well, there's just so few of them. There's an optics problem here.

I don't like how a lot of liberals react to what they have to say and you saw that in affleck's response, it's the standard mo, accuse racism, bigotry, dislike of lgbt ect instead of really having the debate. With that said, the reason I am more concerned about generalizing about 1.5 billion people is it just seems incredibly facile and stupid. The other problem, sadly, is that conversion by the sword actually seems far more effective than secularism by the sword, does anyone really think the west liberated iraq? afghanistan? Do we even talk about libya anymore? All my conservative friends have been positively foaming at the mouth about the crtitical need for canada to send 6 cf-18's to bomb iraq, all I say to them is "I hear libya is a great place to raise kids".

We're pattern recognition machines with shoes, we make connections, often less than helpful ones. If a human is the victim of multiple crimes and each time it's a minority, they're going to start associating those behaviors with an entire race of people, perhaps discounting other massive factors past one's race, like say their socioeconomic status. If I can take anything from what aslan was saying is essentially you have to take things in context, just spewing out "muslim world" or "muslim country" does strike me as a pretty big brush and evokes sarah palin flashbacks more than memories of enlightening discussion. Aslan is a bit precious at times, but for someone of faith he's incredibly intelligent and even as an atheist myself I have to give the guy credit when it comes to theology, he knows his stuff.

The biggest plot hole here for me is using polls from 2012 to paint a very large swath of people, harris just pulling 20% out of his ass really doesn't help. Discounting any cognitive dissonance which is bound to occur isn't really possible, you have to take people at their word, are we really assuming muslims are more honest than the average human? My muslim friends probably would answer based on the doctrines of their faith, but that's just it, they barely follow their faith. They have sex out of marriage, they drink, they do drugs, they get into fights, they laugh, they cry, they're human, they're people, imperfect as always. If I asked any of them if they support sharia, they'll say yes, they feel obliged to, don't wanna piss off mom and dad or their imam. Do I think any of them have it in their hearts to stone someone to death? Hell no. They're also too busy having a life, they don't have time to plot to overthrow evil secular democracy. My point is simple, you could poll these guys who are incredibly "westernized" in pretty much every way and get answers that support maher and harris's views. I'm far more afraid of actions than professed beliefs. Hell, do a poll of the southern united states on the topic of supporting stoning or death penalty of homosexuality, the numbers will likely scare anyone. The problem is reality isn't that simple, stoning of gays are not at epidemic levels in southern states (I'm sure hate crimes are likely more prevalent) and in fact the south by and large has shown higher numbers of gay porn viewing, is it possible for a self hating closeted gay christian to answer yes that gays deserve death on a poll? My guess is yes. Religion is a factor, but it's not the only one. Imagine a scene in the movie taken where it's revealed liam neeson's character is a muslim, I doubt if one was being honest that it would affect their perspective of the character or the story, you wouldn't all of a sudden think his motivation is religious, when clearly given the context of the story, the guy loves his daughter and will kill to get her back.

I guess when maher and harris are out front of the white houses demanding we end all diplomatic relations with the saudi's I'll take them seriously.

Unsurprisingly, it didn't take Aslan long to again prove that he deliberately spreads misinformation, or you know... Lies: http://m.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

The modern idea of human traces its roots to the Enlightenment Era; the same group of thinkers who laid the foundation for liberalism.

But many of them could not agree on what constituted a human, let alone a person.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

So yes, the concept human rights are pretty ingrained in the liberal ideology.

The ideology "true liberals" ascribe to.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

I mean, in your vast studies of politics you had to have come across that, right?

The arguments you have made in this thread are not unfamiliar to me. I have simply been trying to allow you to make them, so as to avoid putting words in your mouth.

 dogma wrote:
blah

For the umpteenth time, trying to waxing intellectual about the entire history isn't proving anything to anybody nor has it proven anything I said to be incorrect. Also, you've put words in my mouth (or words from my fingers, as it were) by accusing me of this or that in order to prove... nothing?

Your entire argument began and has thus far has hinged on semantics.

Points for trying though.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
For the umpteenth time, trying to waxing intellectual about the entire history isn't proving anything to anybody nor has it proven anything I said to be incorrect.

It is proof that you don't understand what the foundations of liberalism are and, by extension, that you don't understand what liberalism is.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Also, you've put words in my mouth (or words from my fingers, as it were) by accusing me of this or that in order to prove... nothing?

No, that's plainly false. Arguing that someone's words indicate something else is not putting words in that persons mouth. If that were the case your decision to call Aslan a liar would involve you putting words in his mouth, and you could justly be called a hypocrite.

As to proof: I was never trying to prove anything to you, that would be a fools errand. You are clearly far too passionate to engage in rational argument, something people like Harris deliberately cultivate.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Your entire argument began and has thus far has hinged on semantics.

You started the semantic debate by calling Reza Aslan a liar, and then continued it by defending the accusation when called out.

Harris talking about his personal security is getting a bit precious. He's correct in that he's being taken out of context, anything past that initial gripe seems like crocodile tears.