Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,583 Year: 2,840/9,624 Month: 685/1,588 Week: 91/229 Day: 2/61 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific Morality? - (The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris)
Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 7 of 34 (664617)
06-03-2012 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Jack
06-02-2012 2:23 PM


Here's Sam Harris' rebuttal regarding first strikes and torture:
http://www.samharris.org/...ll_text/response-to-controversy2
Some (hopefully) salient quotes:
Sam Harris writes:
While I think that torture should remain illegal, it is not clear that having a torture provision in our laws would create as slippery a slope as many people imagine.
...
It seems probable, however, that any legal use of torture would have unacceptable consequences.
It seems he is anti-torture because it is counter-productive, but not because it breaches human rights.
And as Kairyu said, Harris advocating nuclear first strikes on islamic countries is just a quote mine.
(You can read the relevant passage in the link above.)
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 06-02-2012 2:23 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 16 of 34 (664648)
06-03-2012 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Jack
06-03-2012 8:52 PM


Mr Jack writes:
When Harris is making claims about moral systems his moral viewpoints are not irrelevant personal attacks.
When you misrepresent his moral viewpoints, your personal attacks are worse than just simply irrelevant: they are misleading.

CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Jack, posted 06-03-2012 8:52 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Dr Jack, posted 06-04-2012 2:47 PM Panda has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 21 of 34 (664750)
06-04-2012 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dr Jack
06-04-2012 2:47 PM


Mr Jack writes:
I have in no way misrepresented him.
Yes you have.
Repeatedly.
And now once more:
Mr Jack writes:
He has advocated nuclear first strikes as rational and moral and defended torture, he has done so both in writing and in speech.
I'll repeat my earlier quote, since you seem to be having comprehension problems.
Read it carefully:
quote:
While I think that torture should remain illegal, it is not clear that having a torture provision in our laws would create as slippery a slope as many people imagine.
...
It seems probable, however, that any legal use of torture would have unacceptable consequences.
'Advocating' does not mean what you think it means.
Mr Jack writes:
He may later have tried to backpedal on some of his repellent views but by no means all of them.
"It doesn't matter if he claims that he was misunderstood and then explains in detail what he actually thinks because we only accept initial statements!"
This shows that you are knowingly misrepresenting his opinions.
Mr Jack writes:
But I really can't be arsed to play link footie over the views of a third party.
Yes - you would prefer your lies to go unchallenged.

CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dr Jack, posted 06-04-2012 2:47 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024