On the Mechanics of Defamation

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:14 pm

Let me briefly illustrate how this works. Although I could cite hundreds of examples from the past two weeks alone, here is what I woke up to this morning: Some person who goes by the name of @dan_verg_ on Twitter took the most easily misunderstood sentence in The End of Faith out of (its absolutely essential) context, attached it to a scary picture of me, and declared me a “genocidal fascist maniac.” Then Reza Aslan retweeted it. An hour later, Glenn Greenwald retweeted it again.
On the Mechanics of Defamation Aslan_Greenwald_copy

On the Mechanics of Defamation Aslan_Greenwald_copy

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:15 pm

Here is the statement in context (p. 52−53):

The power that belief has over our emotional lives appears to be total. For every emotion that you are capable of feeling, there is surely a belief that could invoke it in a matter of moments. Consider the following proposition:
Your daughter is being slowly tortured in an English jail.
What is it that stands between you and the absolute panic that such a proposition would loose in the mind and body of a person who believed it? Perhaps you do not have a daughter, or you know her to be safely at home, or you believe that English jailors are renowned for their congeniality. Whatever the reason, the door to belief has not yet swung upon its hinges.
The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.

There is an endnote to this passage that reads:

We do not have to bring the membership of Al Qaeda “to justice” merely because of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. The thousands of men, women, and children who disappeared in the rubble of the World Trade Center are beyond our help—and successful acts of retribution, however satisfying they may be to some people, will not change this fact. Our subsequent actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere are justified because of what will happen to more innocent people if members of Al Qaeda are allowed to go on living by the light of their peculiar beliefs. The horror of Sept. 11 should motivate us, not because it provides us with a grievance that we now must avenge, but because it proves beyond any possibility of doubt that certain twenty-first-century Muslims actually believe the most dangerous and implausible tenets of their faith.

The larger context of this passage is a philosophical and psychological analysis of belief as an engine of behavior—and the link to behavior is the whole point of the discussion. Why would it be ethical to drop a bomb on the leaders of ISIS at this moment? Because of all the harm they’ve caused? No. Killing them will do nothing to alleviate that harm. It would be ethical to kill these men—once again, only if we couldn’t capture them—because of all the death and suffering they intend to cause in the future. Why do they intend this? Because of what they believe about infidels, apostates, women, paradise, prophecy, America, and so forth.

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:41 pm

I think if you start to apply this notion across the board, rather than in the narrow sense of ISIS, you begin to appreciate the horror of it.

Let's take another dangerous proposition:

Ultimately we need a Whites-only America and living space so the savage nature of Blacks is no longer a threat to the safety of our people and the order of our society. However in the short term we need to fashion a way to protect our people until the time has come for that White nation, and to that end I have proposed the formation of the White Guard in every city in this nation where there is an ongoing problem with regard to Black-on-White crime, non-White-on-White crime in general actually. We need disciplined and courageous young White men on the streets to see to it that our people are kept safe when in areas the system has flooded with Blacks, the system’s half measures and excuses are no longer to be tolerated, the time has come for White men to stand for their people in the streets.

The guy who said that is currently running for U.S. Senate:

http://renegadetribune.com/robert-ransdell-for-senator-in-2014-with-jews-we-lose/

Should this man's dangerous beliefs be stopped in their tracks? Of course. Are his beliefs alone justification for killing him?

Of COURSE THEY'RE NOT!

The notion of killing anyone merely over the beliefs they have, no matter how repugnant those beliefs are, is far more terrifying, and there's no amount of context that can make it right.

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:52 pm

Oh for fuck sake, that has to be the worst reply you have ever come out with Ben and is so bad it it does not even warrant an intelligent reply.

Is there a mass following of this person based around a belief of a deity that commands unbreakable laws?

No

Is there a mass following based upon his beliefs, where people are being butcherd and raped according to his beliefs

No

Is there real reality of extremist Islamic groups committing genocide and rape?

Yes

Did you fail to even understand the context of what he stated?

Yes

I suggest you read again:

Why would it be ethical to drop a bomb on the leaders of ISIS at this moment? Because of all the harm they’ve caused? No. Killing them will do nothing to alleviate that harm. It would be ethical to kill these men—once again, only if we couldn’t capture them—because of all the death and suffering they intend to cause in the future. Why do they intend this? Because of what they believe about infidels, apostates, women, paradise, prophecy, America, and so forth.

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:57 pm

The justification for dropping bombs on the heads of the leaders of ISIS or any group with murderous intent can ONLY come from their actions.

Otherwise you're not only trying to legislate belief/create "thoughtcrime," you're actually giving out the death penalty for some "thoughtcrime."

Actually, if there was any belief I'd even come close to considering punishing with death, it would be the belief that some beliefs should be punishable by death ...

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:59 pm

I wouldnt have expextec anything different from You Ben.....

what part of
"
Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense.

Do you not understand

what the author is saying here is actually nothing more than reasonable "casus belli" at worst....
no different to the justification for WWII
or indeed to the israeli war on palastine...
or depending on your POV almost any war......

but then I understand the problems you have Ben, when one of your progressives pet projects bites you in the ass, it must be uncomfortable......

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:01 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:The justification for dropping bombs on the heads of the leaders of ISIS or any group with murderous intent can ONLY come from their actions.

what part of theior actions come from their beliefs can you not comprehend??

Otherwise you're not only trying to legislate belief/create "thoughtcrime," you're actually giving out the death penalty for some "thoughtcrime."

Actually, if there was any belief I'd even come close to considering punishing with death, it would be the belief that some beliefs should be punishable by death ...

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:02 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:The justification for dropping bombs on the heads of the leaders of ISIS or any group with murderous intent can ONLY come from their actions.

Otherwise you're not only trying to legislate belief/create "thoughtcrime," you're actually giving out the death penalty for some "thoughtcrime."

Actually, if there was any belief I'd even come close to considering punishing with death, it would be the belief that some beliefs should be punishable by death ...

Right, are you advocating allowing criminality?
Or do you believing in stopping criminality?

This is not a thought crime, this is a reality of thousands of extremists committing crimes against humanity, which you seem to be now trying to defend, based around holding beliefs, when it is these beliefs they have that is being used by them to justify committing genocide and rape.
This is not just some people with views or beliefs, they are enacting their views to the letter.
There is a difference to holding a view, which is not even being argued, which you have tried badly to claim this is, when IS "are" committing these views and thoughts, to the letter.
Two different things altogether.

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:04 pm

You've got to be kidding me, Vic. Intent-plus-past-action can, I would agree, create justification for taking someone/some group out if they can't otherwise be stopped.

But there's nothing just about punishing "certain beliefs," no matter what they are, unless that person has shown that they will act upon them or have already acted upon them.

Don't you understand what a dangerous precedent that would set? If we accept this, then who knows what beliefs in the future will be determined as punishable by death?

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:The justification for dropping bombs on the heads of the leaders of ISIS or any group with murderous intent can ONLY come from their actions.

Otherwise you're not only trying to legislate belief/create "thoughtcrime," you're actually giving out the death penalty for some "thoughtcrime."

Actually, if there was any belief I'd even come close to considering punishing with death, it would be the belief that some beliefs should be punishable by death ...

Right, are you advocating allowing criminality?
Or do you believing in stopping criminality?

This is not a thought crime, this is a reality of thousands of extremists committing crimes against humanity, which you seem to be now trying to defend, based around holding beliefs, when it is these beliefs they have that is being used by them to justify committing genocide and rape.
This is not just some people with views or beliefs, they are enacting their views to the letter.
There is a difference to holding a view, which is not even being argued, which you have tried badly to claim this is, when IS "are" committing these views and thoughts, to the letter.
Two different things altogether.

Thoughts are one things, actions are another.

Think the most murderous, hateful thoughts you want. I don't care unless you're acting upon them.

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:09 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:You've got to be kidding me, Vic. Intent-plus-past-action can, I would agree, create justification for taking someone/some group out if they can't otherwise be stopped.

But there's nothing just about punishing "certain beliefs," no matter what they are, unless that person has shown that they will act upon them or have already acted upon them.

Don't you understand what a dangerous precedent that would set? If we accept this, then who knows what beliefs in the future will be determined as punishable by death in the future?

Easy, Atom bomb dropped, thousands die, millions though are saved.Why?
Estimations of an invasion place allied casualties at one million, Japanese estimations on expected casualties at 20 million.
How many more have to die at the hands of IS for you to see that, the only option is talking them out or capture, allowing them to escape or be free is not an option.
If we could have taken out the Nazi leadership and brought about the fall of Nazi Germany and prevented the holocaust by killing them, would you have any reservations?
His argument is in the same context, read it again:

Why would it be ethical to drop a bomb on the leaders of ISIS at this moment? Because of all the harm they’ve caused? No. Killing them will do nothing to alleviate that harm. It would be ethical to kill these men—once again, only if we couldn’t capture them—because of all the death and suffering they intend to cause in the future. Why do they intend this? Because of what they believe about infidels, apostates, women, paradise, prophecy, America, and so forth.

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:11 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Right, are you advocating allowing criminality?
Or do you believing in stopping criminality?

This is not a thought crime, this is a reality of thousands of extremists committing crimes against humanity, which you seem to be now trying to defend, based around holding beliefs, when it is these beliefs they have that is being used by them to justify committing genocide and rape.
This is not just some people with views or beliefs, they are enacting their views to the letter.
There is a difference to holding a view, which is not even being argued, which you have tried badly to claim this is, when IS "are" committing these views and thoughts, to the letter.
Two different things altogether.

Thoughts are one things, actions are another.

Think the most murderous, hateful thoughts you want. I don't care unless you're acting upon them.

Oh my goodness, IS is are acting on them as well as other Islamic extremist groups, so you just agreed he is right, because as seen you only care if they are acting on them, well, not sure what news channel you have been watching but they are acting on their views.

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:12 pm

When have I ever advocated not stopping ISIS, even if it means killing them? I think we're all agreed here that this is the most evil group to come along since al Qaeda. We know this because of their actions.

But Harris said what he said, and the context doesn't make it any better. You can't kill someone just for having a belief you don't like. It's a horrific thought to imagine a world of people living like that.

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:16 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:When have I ever advocated not stopping ISIS, even if it means killing them? I think we're all agreed here that this is the most evil group to come along since al Qaeda. We know this because of their actions.

But Harris said what he said, and the context doesn't make it any better. You can't kill someone just for having a belief you don't like. It's a horrific thought to imagine a world of people living like that.

You just jumped in on this thread where Sam is advocating a reason behind taking on people because of their actions based on their beliefs and more important that they will not stop doing so.
You see ,you are still not reading what he said in context, you have as badly taken a line from this without reading all of what he said.

Why would it be ethical to drop a bomb on the leaders of ISIS at this moment? Because of all the harm they’ve caused? No. Killing them will do nothing to alleviate that harm. It would be ethical to kill these men—once again, only if we couldn’t capture them—because of all the death and suffering they intend to cause in the future. Why do they intend this? Because of what they believe about infidels, apostates, women, paradise, prophecy, America, and so fort

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:17 pm

I would also like an answer to this question:

If we could have taken out the Nazi leadership and brought about the fall of Nazi Germany and prevented the holocaust by killing them, would you have had any reservations?
His argument is in the same context, read it again:

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:18 pm

And how can we be sure of this intent? Because of their actions. Without action there is no way of knowing intent, and surely no way of knowing it with enough confidence to take someone's life.

Actions prove intent. Without actions? Sorry, it's just speculation. You can't kill someone over what you believe they believe ...

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:19 pm

Brasidas wrote:I would also like an answer to this question:

If we could have taken out the Nazi leadership and brought about the fall of Nazi Germany and prevented the holocaust by killing them, would you have had any reservations?
His argument is in the same context, read it again:

Until the Nazis began actually committing crimes, they didn't commit crimes -- right?

So to kill them would be a crime itself -- right?

Fuck!

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:21 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Brasidas wrote:I would also like an answer to this question:

If we could have taken out the Nazi leadership and brought about the fall of Nazi Germany and prevented the holocaust by killing them, would you have had any reservations?
His argument is in the same context, read it again:

Until the Nazis began actually committing crimes, they didn't commit crimes -- right?

So to kill them would be a crime itself -- right?

Fuck!

Yes, but you would have prevented the mother of all crimes, the point you clearly miss, because all the evidence is there documented, before they did commit this crime, that they were going to commit this crime, called the final solution.
It maybe a crime to kill them, but it would be an even bigger crime, not to have killed them and allowed them to commit mass genocide.

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:23 pm

But you wouldn't have known what they would go on to do unless you could time travel. The best you could know is what they said should be done; which I'm arguing is not enough to take a life over.

Amazing that I am the one who ends up accused of trying to police people's thoughts ...

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:25 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:And how can we be sure of this intent? Because of their actions. Without action there is no way of knowing intent, and surely no way of knowing it with enough confidence to take someone's life.

Actions prove intent. Without actions? Sorry, it's just speculation. You can't kill someone over what you believe they believe ...

Seriously, you are having a bubble bath.

I think you only have to look at how people are being treated under their rule, in lands they now occupy.

I am happy to have this on my conscience, to take them out and save countless people from rape and murder.

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:28 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:But you wouldn't have known what they would go on to do unless you could time travel. The best you could know is what they said should be done; which I'm arguing is not enough to take a life over.

Amazing that I am the one who ends up accused of trying to police people's thoughts ...

Actually it was known of their intentions, the allies knew of their plans and with the fact this genocide started way before WW2, it had its makings in Shark Island, the first ever death camp, not concentration camp, but death camp.
Thank goodness, some of us have some savvy.

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:30 pm

"The way people are being treated" = "actions." Not "beliefs."

Beliefs alone should not ever be used to justify killing someone. I think deep down you know that and you're just really trying to win this debate.

The only way we know that these people are worth stopping, with deadly force if needed, is that they have shown what they are capable of doing through their actions.

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:32 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:"The way people are being treated" = "actions." Not "beliefs."

Beliefs alone should not ever be used to justify killing someone. I think deep down you know that and you're just really trying to win this debate.

The only way we know that these people are worth stopping, with deadly force if needed, is that they have shown what they are capable of doing through their actions.

OMG, this actions are based on beliefs, that is to them righteous to kill people, rape women etc, they are based on their beliefs, they claim are justified to do so. You seriously are claiming their beliefs have nothing to do with their actions, even though they justify their actions through their beliefs?

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:33 pm

If someone's planned a crime, that's proof of intent and justification for stopping them. But you do have to at least acknowledge that planning is not the same as believing.

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:35 pm

For example, you could very well believe I deserve to be slapped for daring to disagree with you, but if you're not actively planning to come over here and slap me, I wouldn't be justified in taking any kind of pre-emptive action (other than maybe evasive).

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:37 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:If someone's planned a crime, that's proof of intent and justification for stopping them. But you do have to at least acknowledge that planning is not the same as believing.

I do not, again if you know your history of which I gave you a clue and of where such view points had been going around since the formation of the Pan Germanic league, you would know you are talking nonsense, when many of those involved within Namibia were founding members of the Nazi party.

I suggest you following book to help you better gauge what I am saying:

On 12 May 1883, the German flag was raised on the coast of South-West Africa, modern Namibia - the beginnings of Germany's African Empire. As colonial forces moved in , their ruthless punitive raids became an open war of extermination. Thousands of the indigenous people were killed or driven out into the desert to die. By 1905, the survivors were interned in concentration camps, and systematically starved and worked to death.

Years later, the people and ideas that drove the ethnic cleansing of German South West Africa would influence the formation of the Nazi party. The Kaiser's Holocaust uncovers extraordinary links between the two regimes: their ideologies, personnel, even symbols and uniform.

The Herero and Nama genocide was deliberately concealed for almost a century. Today, as the graves of the victims are uncovered, its re-emergence challenges the belief that Nazism was an aberration in European history. The Kaiser's Holocaust passionately narrates this harrowing story and explores one of the defining episodes of the twentieth century from a new angle. Moving, powerful and unforgettable, it is a story that needs to be told.

On the Mechanics of Defamation Z

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:38 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:For example, you could very well believe I deserve to be slapped for daring to disagree with you, but if you're not actively planning to come over here and slap me, I wouldn't be justified in taking any kind of pre-emptive action (other than maybe evasive).

Complete babble and unrealistic, being we live countries apart, where again we are talking about plans, that were already before enacted.

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:39 pm

There are neo-Nazis in the U.S. right now who believe Jews and other minorities should be exterminated.

Should we lock them all up? Or go so far as Harris proposes and just kill them?

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:39 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:"The way people are being treated" = "actions." Not "beliefs."

Beliefs alone should not ever be used to justify killing someone. I think deep down you know that and you're just really trying to win this debate.

The only way we know that these people are worth stopping, with deadly force if needed, is that they have shown what they are capable of doing through their actions.

which are predicated upon their beliefs....

some bloke says I hate gingers and they should all be got rid of.....do you kill him (if you cant capture him) ner, he's unlikely to actually act on his belief (though of course he may)...risk factor ...tiny

some bloke in pyjamas, with a teatowel on his head says in a meeting with a bunch of his mates I hate infidels and we're going to kill some..do you kill him if you cant capture him, well it wouldnt be unreasonable since events have shown a likely hood of it happening.....risk factor.......... increased moderate....

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:40 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:For example, you could very well believe I deserve to be slapped for daring to disagree with you, but if you're not actively planning to come over here and slap me, I wouldn't be justified in taking any kind of pre-emptive action (other than maybe evasive).

Complete babble and unrealistic, being we live countries apart, where again we are talking about plans, that were already before enacted.

that were already before enacted

that were already before enacted

that were already before enacted

that were already before enacted

that were already before enacted

that were already before enacted

that were already before enacted

that were already before enacted

that were already before enacted

that were already before enacted

that were already before enacted

!!!!!@!!!@E!@11111

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:41 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:There are neo-Nazis in the U.S. right now who believe Jews and other minorities should be exterminated.

Should we lock them all up? Or go so far as Harris proposes and just kill them?

what part of kill unless you cant capture(presumably in order to "lock up") do you not get?

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:42 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:"The way people are being treated" = "actions." Not "beliefs."

Beliefs alone should not ever be used to justify killing someone. I think deep down you know that and you're just really trying to win this debate.

The only way we know that these people are worth stopping, with deadly force if needed, is that they have shown what they are capable of doing through their actions.

which are predicated upon their beliefs....

some bloke says I hate gingers and they should all be got rid of.....do you kill him (if you cant capture him) ner, he's unlikely to actually act on his belief (though of course he may)...risk factor ...tiny

some bloke in pyjamas, with a teatowel on his head says in a meeting with a bunch of his mates I hate infidels and we're going to kill some..do you kill him if you cant capture him, well it wouldnt be unreasonable since events have shown a likely hood of it happening.....risk factor.......... increased moderate....

Really?!

I'm going to remember this the next time you say you hate somebody. Sounds like a death-worthy belief to me in our brave new world of thoughtcrime punishable by death.

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:42 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:There are neo-Nazis in the U.S. right now who believe Jews and other minorities should be exterminated.

Should we lock them all up? Or go so far as Harris proposes and just kill them?

what part of kill unless you cant capture(presumably in order to "lock up") do you not get?

Why should we do ANYTHING to them for what they believe???

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:43 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:There are neo-Nazis in the U.S. right now who believe Jews and other minorities should be exterminated.

Should we lock them all up? Or go so far as Harris proposes and just kill them?

No he does not propose we just kill them, he proposes, if we cannot "capture" them, which shows you are incapable of reading it seems.
Is there a mass movement killing and raping daily at this present moment in the states formed by the neo Nazi's in America?
No, if there was I would advocate the exact same.
You seem to be totally confused over threats compared to genocide being committed.

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:44 pm

god how the progressive loves to play semantics and dispute the words rather than the meaning......

can the progressive only understand one - word - at - a - time

as opposed to comprehending the whole article???

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:45 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

which are predicated upon their beliefs....

some bloke says I hate gingers and they should all be got rid of.....do you kill him (if you cant capture him) ner, he's unlikely to actually act on his belief (though of course he may)...risk factor ...tiny

some bloke in pyjamas, with a teatowel on his head says in a meeting with a bunch of his mates I hate infidels and we're going to kill some..do you kill him if you cant capture him, well it wouldnt be unreasonable since events have shown a likely hood of it happening.....risk factor.......... increased moderate....

Really?!

I'm going to remember this the next time you say you hate somebody. Sounds like a death-worthy belief to me in our brave new world of thoughtcrime punishable by death.

So to Ben, IS are not committing rape and murder, it is just thoughts in their head and hundreds of thousands have not been displaced or thousands subjected to sexual slavery and thousands have not been executed.

Okay Ben, its just a thought crime, wow.

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:46 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:There are neo-Nazis in the U.S. right now who believe Jews and other minorities should be exterminated.

Should we lock them all up? Or go so far as Harris proposes and just kill them?

No he does not propose we just kill them, he proposes, if we cannot "capture" them, which shows you are incapable of reading it seems.
Is there a mass movement killing and raping daily at this present moment in the states formed by the neo Nazi's in America?
No, if there was I would advocate the exact same.
You seem to be totally confused over threats compared to genocide being committed.

Again. I'm going to keep this short and break it up so you can easily comprehend it.

Beliefs alone don't justify stopping someone or killing someone.

When people do bad things based on their belief -- including planning to do bad things -- go get 'em.

There are no beliefs which, in and of themselves, are enough to justify killing someone.

Beliefs are thoughts. Don't kill people over thoughts. Kill them if they're acting dangerously because of those thoughts.

I can't be more clear than that.

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:50 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

which are predicated upon their beliefs....

some bloke says I hate gingers and they should all be got rid of.....do you kill him (if you cant capture him) ner, he's unlikely to actually act on his belief (though of course he may)...risk factor ...tiny

some bloke in pyjamas, with a teatowel on his head says in a meeting with a bunch of his mates I hate infidels and we're going to kill some..do you kill him if you cant capture him, well it wouldnt be unreasonable since events have shown a likely hood of it happening.....risk factor.......... increased moderate....

Really?!

.
I'm going to remember this the next time you say you hate somebody. Sounds like a death-worthy belief to me in our brave new world of thoughtcrime punishable by death.

and when you have lost the argument the progressives manual instructs its followers to engage in hysterics and "reductio ad absurdum"

to make leaps of semantic meaning (in this instance ...in Bens logical abyss, hating someone of course MUST (or his argument collapses) be synonymous with desiring to wrongfully kill them

the fact that there are degrees of hate is, for bens purposes irrelevant.

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:51 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

No he does not propose we just kill them, he proposes, if we cannot "capture" them, which shows you are incapable of reading it seems.
Is there a mass movement killing and raping daily at this present moment in the states formed by the neo Nazi's in America?
No, if there was I would advocate the exact same.
You seem to be totally confused over threats compared to genocide being committed.

Again. I'm going to keep this short and break it up so you can easily comprehend it.

Beliefs alone don't justify stopping someone or killing someone.

When people do bad things based on their belief -- including planning to do bad things -- go get 'em.

There are no beliefs which, in and of themselves, are enough to justify killing someone.

Beliefs are thoughts. Don't kill people over thoughts. Kill them if they're acting dangerously because of those thoughts.

I can't be more clear than that.

OMG, yes there is plans with IS, one to conquer the world and place it under Islam, their view of Islam, which is killing non-Muslims, making sex slaves of women and children etc etc.
The fact is you seem unable to even comprehend the view points of IS, that are being enacted daily and this is what Sam Harris is talking about as well as other Islamic extremism, where its beliefs are based upon barbarity of the worst order.
So IS is acting dangerously as well as other extremists, so you are basically backing his argument again, to either capture them, or if unable to, then to take them out, as they are acting out their beliefs.
You do realise he is talking about groups enacting out their beliefs?

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:55 pm

AHHH...I see Ben, you beleive in revenge....I.E kill then for what they have done

how.........primitive...........welcome to MY world cheers

On the Mechanics of Defamation 3489511464

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:59 pm

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:00 pm

Debate conceded by Ben.
More like you failed to grasp what he was saying even though Victor and I had to literally spell it out.

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:01 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo7z2Ml2tI0

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:02 pm

Again. I'm going to keep this short and break it up so you can easily comprehend it.

Beliefs alone don't justify stopping someone or killing someone.

When people do bad things based on their belief -- including planning to do bad things -- go get 'em.

There are no beliefs which, in and of themselves, are enough to justify killing someone.

Beliefs are thoughts. Don't kill people over thoughts. Kill them if they're acting dangerously because of those thoughts.

I can't be more clear than that.

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:04 pm

Yes we know you view that way, it proves you failed to understand his point, I suggest you read it again:

Here is the statement in context (p. 52−53):

The power that belief has over our emotional lives appears to be total. For every emotion that you are capable of feeling, there is surely a belief that could invoke it in a matter of moments. Consider the following proposition:
Your daughter is being slowly tortured in an English jail.
What is it that stands between you and the absolute panic that such a proposition would loose in the mind and body of a person who believed it? Perhaps you do not have a daughter, or you know her to be safely at home, or you believe that English jailors are renowned for their congeniality. Whatever the reason, the door to belief has not yet swung upon its hinges.
The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.

There is an endnote to this passage that reads:

We do not have to bring the membership of Al Qaeda “to justice” merely because of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. The thousands of men, women, and children who disappeared in the rubble of the World Trade Center are beyond our help—and successful acts of retribution, however satisfying they may be to some people, will not change this fact. Our subsequent actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere are justified because of what will happen to more innocent people if members of Al Qaeda are allowed to go on living by the light of their peculiar beliefs. The horror of Sept. 11 should motivate us, not because it provides us with a grievance that we now must avenge, but because it proves beyond any possibility of doubt that certain twenty-first-century Muslims actually believe the most dangerous and implausible tenets of their faith.

The larger context of this passage is a philosophical and psychological analysis of belief as an engine of behavior—and the link to behavior is the whole point of the discussion. Why would it be ethical to drop a bomb on the leaders of ISIS at this moment? Because of all the harm they’ve caused? No. Killing them will do nothing to alleviate that harm. It would be ethical to kill these men—once again, only if we couldn’t capture them—because of all the death and suffering they intend to cause in the future. Why do they intend this? Because of what they believe about infidels, apostates, women, paradise, prophecy, America, and so forth.

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:07 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Indeed...but that would be because you are chief amongst idiots.........

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:10 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Again. I'm going to keep this short and break it up so you can easily comprehend it.

Beliefs alone don't justify stopping someone or killing someone.

When people do bad things based on their belief -- including planning to do bad things -- go get 'em.

There are no beliefs which, in and of themselves, are enough to justify killing someone.

Beliefs are thoughts. Don't kill people over thoughts. Kill them if they're acting dangerously because of those thoughts.

I can't be more clear than that.

Oh God........that is EXACTLY what the passage in the OP is saying.....

jesus wept...there can be nothing dumber than a progressive.......

(for the sake of clarity I have removed didge from that classification....he's just a bit of a tory numpty with a few wierd hippy ideas grafted on...... Razz

)

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:14 pm

Brasidas wrote:Yes we know you view that way, it proves you failed to understand his point, I suggest you read it again:

Here is the statement in context (p. 52−53):
The power that belief has over our emotional lives appears to be total. For every emotion that you are capable of feeling, there is surely a belief that could invoke it in a matter of moments. Consider the following proposition:
Your daughter is being slowly tortured in an English jail.
What is it that stands between you and the absolute panic that such a proposition would loose in the mind and body of a person who believed it? Perhaps you do not have a daughter, or you know her to be safely at home, or you believe that English jailors are renowned for their congeniality. Whatever the reason, the door to belief has not yet swung upon its hinges.
The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.
There is an endnote to this passage that reads:
We do not have to bring the membership of Al Qaeda “to justice” merely because of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. The thousands of men, women, and children who disappeared in the rubble of the World Trade Center are beyond our help—and successful acts of retribution, however satisfying they may be to some people, will not change this fact. Our subsequent actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere are justified because of what will happen to more innocent people if members of Al Qaeda are allowed to go on living by the light of their peculiar beliefs. The horror of Sept. 11 should motivate us, not because it provides us with a grievance that we now must avenge, but because it proves beyond any possibility of doubt that certain twenty-first-century Muslims actually believe the most dangerous and implausible tenets of their faith.
The larger context of this passage is a philosophical and psychological analysis of belief as an engine of behavior—and the link to behavior is the whole point of the discussion. Why would it be ethical to drop a bomb on the leaders of ISIS at this moment? Because of all the harm they’ve caused? No. Killing them will do nothing to alleviate that harm. It would be ethical to kill these men—once again, only if we couldn’t capture them—because of all the death and suffering they intend to cause in the future. Why do they intend this? Because of what they believe about infidels, apostates, women, paradise, prophecy, America, and so forth.

I am really trying hard to be patient here, guys. And I'm sorry for calling you idiots, but I'm having a really hard time accepting that you can't grasp the distinction I am making between thought (belief) and act (in this case, terrorism).

Harris wrote:

"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them."

No. Nobody deserves to die merely for holding a belief! If that belief motivates them to crime, and the only way to stop them is to kill them, then you have to do it.

But Harris was saying certain beliefs are punishable by death. No, wrong!

His citation of the Sept. 11 attacks isn't support. Those were criminal acts of murder -- NOT BELIEFS. They were motivated by beliefs, but we don't punish the beliefs, we punish the acts.

We don't punish "criminal thought." We don't punish someone for holding the thought he'd like to rob a store; we punish him for ROBBING THE STORE, or at least because we can prove he planned to rob it.

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:15 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Again. I'm going to keep this short and break it up so you can easily comprehend it.

Beliefs alone don't justify stopping someone or killing someone.

When people do bad things based on their belief -- including planning to do bad things -- go get 'em.

There are no beliefs which, in and of themselves, are enough to justify killing someone.

Beliefs are thoughts. Don't kill people over thoughts. Kill them if they're acting dangerously because of those thoughts.

I can't be more clear than that.

Oh God........that is EXACTLY what the passage in the OP is saying.....

jesus wept...there can be nothing dumber than a progressive.......

(for the sake of clarity I have removed didge from that classification....he's just a bit of a tory numpty with a few wierd hippy ideas grafted on...... )

Yeah okay Gandalf, I think you would fit in better than I somehow in a hippy party:

On the Mechanics of Defamation 1491

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:19 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Yes we know you view that way, it proves you failed to understand his point, I suggest you read it again:

Here is the statement in context (p. 52−53):

There is an endnote to this passage that reads:

The larger context of this passage is a philosophical and psychological analysis of belief as an engine of behavior—and the link to behavior is the whole point of the discussion. Why would it be ethical to drop a bomb on the leaders of ISIS at this moment? Because of all the harm they’ve caused? No. Killing them will do nothing to alleviate that harm. It would be ethical to kill these men—once again, only if we couldn’t capture them—because of all the death and suffering they intend to cause in the future. Why do they intend this? Because of what they believe about infidels, apostates, women, paradise, prophecy, America, and so forth.

I am really trying hard to be patient here, guys. And I'm sorry for calling you idiots, but I'm having a really hard time accepting that you can't grasp the distinction I am making between thought (belief) and act (in this case, terrorism).

Harris wrote:

"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them."

No. Nobody deserves to die merely for holding a belief! If that belief motivates them to crime, and the only way to stop them is to kill them, then you have to do it.

But Harris was saying certain beliefs are punishable by death. No, wrong!

His citation of the Sept. 11 attacks isn't support. Those were criminal acts of murder -- NOT BELIEFS. They were motivated by beliefs, but we don't punish the beliefs, we punish the acts.

We don't punish "criminal thought." We don't punish someone for holding the thought he'd like to rob a store; we punish him for ROBBING THE STORE, or at least because we can prove he planned to rob it.

We all get what you mean, what is evident is you do not get what he means and cannot read the whole context of what he is saying and he is not saying punish criminal thought, but criminal actions based on criminal thoughts, read it again:

You see you clearly miss what he says:

Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense.

The larger context of this passage is a philosophical and psychological analysis of belief as an engine of behavior—and the link to behavior is the whole point of the discussion. Why would it be ethical to drop a bomb on the leaders of ISIS at this moment? Because of all the harm they’ve caused? No. Killing them will do nothing to alleviate that harm. It would be ethical to kill these men—once again, only if we couldn’t capture them—because of all the death and suffering they intend to cause in the future. Why do they intend this? Because of what they believe about infidels, apostates, women, paradise, prophecy, America, and so forth.

Talk about taking out of context.

by Sponsored content