• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Sam Harris says it like it is

ddt said:
Can someone clarify? I mean, I know Salman Rushdie was in hiding for quite some years. Nowadays, I see him at least once a year at the TV show of the Dutch Book Gala with another gorgeous blonde at his side. That fatwah has been lifted - was that despite "our" response?
Click to expand...
I think you have your answer. The guy's life was hell and the efforts to improve his life for some considerable time were ineffective. Something about Justice delayed is justice denied comes to mind.
 
ddt said:
And since October 2007, Ayaan has returned to live in Holland. The issue was that the Dutch government was not willing to pay indefinitely if she'd remain a US resident. AFAIK, the security paid for by the Dutch government also extends to her speaking assignments outside the country. As to the last sentence: after publication of her book "Infidel", her security risk in the US was assessed as being as high as in Holland, according to Dutch newspapers.
Click to expand...
It would be nice to get something more than "AFAIK" and according to Dutch newspapers.
 
JoeEllison said:
...to claim that part of the problem is that no one dares criticize Islam. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

That's a whopping straw man. There are two problems.
  • People who label criticism as hate speech in an attempt to stifle criticism.
  • Real threats to prominent people who do criticize Islam. You know there names. You are not really going to pretend that they don't exist, right?
That's what people are arguing and not your strawman. Of course, I'll gladly appologize if you can show me examples where people have said that no one dares criticize Islam.
 
Gravy said:
I'm sure Sam Harris or Ms. Ali will be glad to explain what the money's for. Perhaps Harris' site needs to be updated.

ETA: from her website:
Up until October 1, 2007, this protection was provided by the Dutch government.

Now a permanent resident of the United States, Ms. Hirsi Ali must raise her own funds to oversee the financing of her costly—but necessary—protection.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Seems her website needs some updating too.

Up until May 2006, Ayaan lived in Holland and received protection from the Dutch government. Then she moved to the US, and the Dutch government extended that protection temporarily; Ayaan offered herself to find funds to pay for it afterwards. The Dutch government extended the temporary period twice, but refused to do so per October 1st, 2007. Upon that, she returned to live in Holland and again received protection from the Dutch government.

October 2007, there were debates in the Dutch Parliament. The Greens tabled a motion to extend the security (I think indefinitely) irrespective of where she lived. There was some uproar as her lawyer, an Upper House rep. for the Greens, published some confidential correspondence between Ayaan and the govt. Amongst others, the VVD - the party she had been MP for - and Wilders' party were against this motion, so her security was only paid for as long as she lived in Holland.

In February 2008, she held a speech in Paris, and had talks with the French govt. They offered her French citizenship and to pay for her security - but as soon turned out, also only on condition she lived in France.

The US won't pay for her security, even as a resident. She wasn't even allowed to raise funds as long as she didn't have a green card - which she got in October 2007. I'm at a loss why the fund raising would be prohibited, but all newspapers reported it thus.

I haven't kept track of her whereabouts since she returned in October last year, but I get quite annoyed at everyone trying to pass the guilt to the Dutch government.
 
RandFan said:
It would be nice to get something more than "AFAIK" and according to Dutch newspapers.
Click to expand...
Then quote US or British newspapers, I'd say, with specifics.

Here is a Dutch newspaper article.

The issue is, unfortunately, tainted with quite some misinformation.
 
ddt said:
Seems her website needs some updating too.
Click to expand...
I expect she knows where she lives. :) These quotes may shed some light on her situation:
March, 2008
Reason: Having lived in the United States for about a year now, do you find that Muslims in the United States have by and large integrated better here than they have in Europe?

Hirsi Ali: Since I moved here, I've spent most of my time in airports, in airplanes, in waiting rooms, in hotels, doing promotion for Infidel all over the world, so the amount of time I've actually lived in the U.S. is very small. But yes, I have the impression that Muslims in the United States are far more integrated than Muslims in Europe. Of course, being assimilated doesn't necessarily mean that you won't be a jihadist, but the likelihood of Muslims turning radical here seems lower than in Europe. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_6_39/ai_n24225629/pg_7


April, 2008 (U.S.)
Before her speech, I was able to sit down with Hirsi Ali in an informal press setting, albeit surrounded by two unsmiling bodyguards.

...The Dutch government paid for her security for some time, but eventually Hirsi Ali was forced to emigrate to the United States, where she published Infidel, her memoirs, and began working for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. She is under constant security protection and the location of her home in unknown, though it was known that she had moved back to the Netherlands for some time in late 2007. http://www.vutorch.com/vutorch/2008/04/ayaan-hirsi-ali.html

April, 2008
BECK: Real quick, because we have to go to a break, and I would love to spend an hour with you some time, but you have to actually now pay for your own security. Is there a way if anybody wants to help you pay for your own security they can? Is there a Web site or anything?

ALI: Yes, there`s a Web site. There`s AyaanHirsiAli.org, and it`s just -- it`s self-explanatory. It tells you how you can donate. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/02/gb.01.html
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Religion is an enemy of reason, but only one such enemy. Fitna is a giant appeal to emotion, and a melodramatic one at that. It is clearly intended to invoke sadness, disgust, and yes, hate. Such fallacious reasoning has no place in civilized society. Fighting unreason with unreason does no good. Banning the movie might be going too far, especially for the chilling effect argument he gives, but otherwise, Fitna is an irrational piece of junk which should not be given any respect.

Additionally, I find the following argument generally dumb:

Wilders, like Westergaard and the other Danish cartoonists, has been widely vilified for "seeking to inflame" the Muslim community. Even if this had been his intention, this criticism represents an almost supernatural coincidence of moral blindness and political imprudence. The point is not (and will never be) that some free person spoke, or wrote, or illustrated in such a manner as to inflame the Muslim community. The point is that only the Muslim community is combustible in this way.
Click to expand...

So what? If a car shorts out if you drive over a certain speed, then there is something wrong with the car, but there is also something wrong with a person who drives at that speed knowing what will happen. The argument might be made that inflaming the Muslim community is an acceptable cost to spreading knowledge, but there is not something magical about human beings that makes causing them to behave in a certain way fundamentally different from causing a car to behave in a certain way.
 
ravdin said:
Do you care to point out why Harris is wrong? Or do you think it's more effective to use ad hom arguments instead?
Click to expand...
Technically, it is not an ad hom as I have been given to understand same. He just said Sam Harris is an idiot (not exact phrase). He did not say (though I admit, it is a likely implication) : Sam Harris is an idiot so what he wrote is clearly wrong and pointless and he is wrong. :)
 
UserGoogol said:
The argument might be made that inflaming the Muslim community is an acceptable cost to spreading knowledge, but there is not something magical about human beings that makes causing them to behave in a certain way fundamentally different from causing a car to behave in a certain way.
Click to expand...

The point is that it is clearly the MUSLIM community that gets inflamed at the slightest provocation, or perceived provocation, and of course deliberate provocation too.

We don't see most other cultural/religious groups of humans behaving that way today, which is precisely why the Muslims actually need to be provoked until they too start to realize that they can ignore what they don't like, just like westerners ignore, mostly, the garbage that can be seen coming from the Muslim world, thanks to YouTube and Memri.
 
UserGoogol said:
Religion is an enemy of reason, but only one such enemy. Fitna is a giant appeal to emotion, and a melodramatic one at that. It is clearly intended to invoke sadness, disgust, and yes, hate. Such fallacious reasoning has no place in civilized society. Fighting unreason with unreason does no good. Banning the movie might be going too far, especially for the chilling effect argument he gives, but otherwise, Fitna is an irrational piece of junk which should not be given any respect.
Click to expand...
"Banning the movie might be going too far..." Really? You think?

An accusation of appeal to emotion has some merit. The truth is that is the coin of the realm of politics. I'm not excusing it but it is a fact. Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth was just such an appeal. A number of Michael Moore's movies have been such appeals. I'm jaded when it comes to politics and the populace but it is what it is. A movie shouldn't simply use emotion and I don't think Fitna does.

I watched To Kill a Mockingbird yesterday for the umpteenth time. It's an appeal to emotion. But it's not strictly an appeal to emotion. There is reason and truth in it. I'm not sure we should dismiss something simply because it evokes an emotional response.

If a car shorts out if you drive over a certain speed, then there is something wrong with the car, but there is also something wrong with a person who drives at that speed knowing what will happen.
Click to expand...
Now THAT is a dumb argument. Civil rights activists were often criticized for inflaming the prejudices of those who were against civil rights.

We are not inflaming Muslims to inflame them. We are speaking out against religion. That they are inflamed is not our fault anymore than the KKK being inflamed was the fault of civil rights workers and not speaking because someone might be inflamed is the one of the dumbest reasons not to speak. That is how bullies stifle speech in the first place and rely on otherwise reasonable people to assist them in their cause.
 
Last edited:
fuelair said:
Technically, it is not an ad hom as I have been given to understand same. He just said Sam Harris is an idiot (not exact phrase). He did not say (though I admit, it is a likely implication) : Sam Harris is an idiot so what he wrote is clearly wrong and pointless and he is wrong. :)
Click to expand...

Yep. :D He's been right on some things too... although even a broken clock is right twice a day. I think his bigotry and defense of bigotry as a sign of "toughness" is seriously wrong-headed.
 
JoeEllison said:
Yep. :D He's been right on some things too... although even a broken clock is right twice a day. I think his bigotry and defense of bigotry as a sign of "toughness" is seriously wrong-headed.
Click to expand...
We disagree on a number of things - but this is not one of them.
 
JoeEllison said:
I find the entire position to be kind of silly. *shrugs* I find Sam Harris to be idiotic. I dismiss him pretty easily because of it. Clearly, you've got a pretty serious crush on him, and I'm sure he'll send you an autographed photo if you ask nicely. :p
Click to expand...
Would it surprise you if I mentioned that I agree with you? I have seen him talk and debate on various shows. I would agree that Same Harris comes off a bit conceited, sometimes. (And, I have even worse opinions about Christopher Hitchens.)

But, I don't let such opinions color my assessment of individual works and deeds. For, there are times when they shine: Harris' protection of Aayan Hirsi Ali is heroic, not idiotic, for example.

I also think this particular article of his is a good one.

I certainly would not consider it a priority to post unhelpful opinions, at every opportunity, and without evidence to back them up.
I am curious: If someone posted, on this forum, "James Randi is an idiot", and that was it, how would you respond?

JoeEllison said:
"Terrorist theologies"? Really? Maybe a good game plan is to stop reading the script that the actual terrorists have written for the West, as a good start.
Click to expand...
Where is your evidence disputing this claim, from the article (emphasis added):
Only Muslims hound and hunt and murder their apostates, infidels, and critics in the 21st century. There are, to be sure, reasons why this is so. Some of these reasons have to do with accidents of history and geopolitics, but others can be directly traced to doctrines sanctifying violence which are unique to Islam.
Click to expand...

I would also like to know your response to this, from the article:
The Muslim world can match the FLDS sin for sin--Muslims commonly practice polygamy, forced-marriage (often between underage girls and older men), and wife-beating--but add to these indiscretions the surpassing evils of honor killing, female "circumcision," widespread support for terrorism, a pornographic fascination with videos showing the butchery of infidels and apostates, a vibrant form of anti-semitism that is explicitly genocidal in its aspirations, and an aptitude for producing children's books and television programs which exalt suicide-bombing and depict Jews as "apes and pigs."
Click to expand...


JoeEllison said:
After he cuts out the hate speech and pandering to fear and bigotry, he could maybe explain how it is so "dangerous" to speak against terrorists and religions,
Click to expand...
Because these terrorists are prone to kill you, if you do so in the "wrong way".

JoeEllison said:
and how "few" people "dare" to do it, when he's clearly and completely full of sour owl poop.
Click to expand...
Almost everyone speaks out against terrorism, in general, these days. But, getting into offensive specifics about Islam has, historically, been very dangerous, in recent years. Muhammad the Teddy Bear could tell you how murderously-sensitive these guys are.

JoeEllison said:
It reminds me of when Ann Coulter complained about how conservatives cannot be heard in the mainstream media... on ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, FNC, CNN... The complaint just doesn't ring true.
Click to expand...
Bad example: Ann Coulter is paranoid delusional (as evidenced by her distrust of atheists, for example); and even if it was true, NONE of those news stations are threatening to kill anyone.

JoeEllison said:
Generally speaking, I've heard massive amounts of criticism of Islam, and have added some of my own. It seems idiotic to me, in the face of the piles of valid criticism out there, plus the mountains of less than valid criticism, to claim that part of the problem is that no one dares criticize Islam. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Not everyone who criticizes Islam has gotten "caught", yet.

Don't assume these extremists would think "oh, it is only a harmless forum post, let it go". No, if one of them with any clout decided to "out" any particular example of any criticism as blasphemy, you can bet your sweet Bippy there will be riots and assassination contracts passed around.

The good news is that they can not, realistically, put a contract on everyone who blasphemes them. And, the more that do (hopefully, in a manner that is factual), the less and less they can do about it.

Are you going to argue that we, as a society, should not do more to "grow a spine" against these evils?
 
JoeEllison said:
Yep. :D He's been right on some things too... although even a broken clock is right twice a day. I think his bigotry and defense of bigotry as a sign of "toughness" is seriously wrong-headed.
Click to expand...

A group of people support their treatment of other people based on ancient superstitions. They want to suppress freedom, oppress women and they hate homosexuals. Harris criticizes this and he is a bigot?

It's a strange world you live in my friend.
 
Maybe I'm just disturbed by the tone of Harris's article, which strikes me as identical to that of the fundamentalist Christians who want to match bigotry with bigotry, extremism with extremism, in order to "win the war of cultures." I don't see Islam to be fundamentally more or less violent than any of the other Abrahamic religions. I don't see the usefulness of blaming the world's billion or so Muslims for the incredibly tiny amount of terrorism that exists in the world, or ignoring the cultural, political, and economic situations in favor of calling Islam a "terrorist theology". And, of course, there is the pathetic hypocrisy of Americans who complain about violence from any group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom