2 of 2
2
Potentially glaring contradiction in the End of Faith.
Posted: 23 December 2008 10:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2008-12-20

I was clearly making a hypothetical point that there is a difference between targeting a building housing the enemy say and dropping a nuclear weapon to “destroy a city”. But your reaction is telling. Does anyone want to stick to the point I raised in the incongruity between the two arguments? or play word games to jockey for place in salt creeks venerated heirarchy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 December 2008 10:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
John - 23 December 2008 03:26 PM

I was clearly making a hypothetical point…

John, you cannot “clearly” make a “hypothetical” point. The only thing that reaches a point here is the top of your head.

Does anyone want to stick to the point

Since you come in head first, it’s essentially unavoidable.

[ Edited: 23 December 2008 10:35 AM by Traces Elk]
 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 December 2008 10:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1221
Joined  2008-07-20
John - 23 December 2008 03:26 PM

I was clearly making a hypothetical point that there is a difference between targeting a building housing the enemy say and dropping a nuclear weapon to “destroy a city”. But your reaction is telling. Does anyone want to stick to the point I raised in the incongruity between the two arguments? or play word games to jockey for place in salt creeks venerated heirarchy.

I was considering addressing his delusion that he was making a point, clearly or otherwise, and suggesting that it was impossible to “to stick to the point I raised in the incongruity between the two arguments” when the underlying premise of “the point I raised” is in all likelihood a phantom in his brain, but then I realized he was too small and I had to throw him back in.

 Signature 

“I am one of the few people I know who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.”  Sam Harris October 17, 2005

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 December 2008 10:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
teuchter - 23 December 2008 03:38 PM

then I realized he was too small and I had to throw him back in.

So you are of the sentiment that one swallow does not make a season?

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 December 2008 11:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2008-12-20

“John, you cannot “clearly” make a “hypothetical” point.” Clearly what I was doing was making a hypothetical point. word games then. Noone can bring the threads(s) where this contradiction was discussed to light? It wasn’t about “torturing muslims”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 December 2008 11:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1221
Joined  2008-07-20

Excuse me, but I was willing to discuss the difference between “collateral damage” and “intended dead,” but you want to talk about a pretend war where only soldiers get hurt.  That’s not war, junior.  That’s a video game.  Please feel free to go back to you game boy and leave the adults alone.

 Signature 

“I am one of the few people I know who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.”  Sam Harris October 17, 2005

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 December 2008 11:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2008-12-20

No the discussion would have been about the contradiction between Harrs’ two arguments, and if they can be reconciled. “but you want to talk about a pretend war where only soldiers get hurt.” One time try to read, comprehend, then comment. Just as an experiment in consciousness.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 December 2008 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
John - 23 December 2008 03:26 PM

I was clearly making a hypothetical point that there is a difference between targeting a building housing the enemy say and dropping a nuclear weapon to “destroy a city”. But your reaction is telling.

What is the difference in destroying a city in a moment and destroying a city over several months (in terms of human casualties)?

More Iraqis have died of war-related violence, both in raw numbers and proportionately, than Japanese died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the single moments of holocaust.  More Iraqis have died even if you include the Japanese people who died of radiation exposurein the months and years afterward.

What’s “telling” about bringing this up?  Let me guess.

Does anyone want to stick to the point I raised in the incongruity between the two arguments? or play word games to jockey for place in salt creeks venerated heirarchy.

Your point was almost impossible to discern, but from what I’ve read since, the answer appears to be “No.”

As I said—use the search function so you can present this old argument in some new way.

 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 December 2008 11:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
John - 23 December 2008 04:40 PM

No the discussion would have been about the contradiction between Harrs’ two arguments, and if they can be reconciled. “but you want to talk about a pretend war where only soldiers get hurt.” One time try to read, comprehend, then comment. Just as an experiment in consciousness.

How about if you try to write coherently for once?  Just as an experiment in effort.

 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 December 2008 02:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2005-01-22

John, you might try reading the following thread,

http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/93/

or if that’s not enough, try a more recent rehash of same topic,

http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/1376/

I believe the topic you’re discussing is referred to in both.

Bob

 Signature 

It’s definitely a moon! . . . and now it’s become a sunflower!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 December 2008 11:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2008-12-20

Thank you Bob for germane threads.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed