2
 
   
 

Potentially glaring contradiction in the End of Faith.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
John
Total Posts:  8
Joined  20-12-2008
 
 
 
23 December 2008 10:26
 

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.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
23 December 2008 10:31
 
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 by Traces Elk]
 
 
sam harris is a neocon idiot
 
Avatar
 
 
sam harris is a neocon idiot
Total Posts:  1221
Joined  20-07-2008
 
 
 
23 December 2008 10:38
 
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.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
23 December 2008 10:48
 
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?

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
John
Total Posts:  8
Joined  20-12-2008
 
 
 
23 December 2008 11:10
 

“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”.

 
sam harris is a neocon idiot
 
Avatar
 
 
sam harris is a neocon idiot
Total Posts:  1221
Joined  20-07-2008
 
 
 
23 December 2008 11:27
 

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.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
John
Total Posts:  8
Joined  20-12-2008
 
 
 
23 December 2008 11:40
 

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.

 
M is for Malapert
 
Avatar
 
 
M is for Malapert
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  23-09-2006
 
 
 
23 December 2008 11:48
 
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.

 
 
M is for Malapert
 
Avatar
 
 
M is for Malapert
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  23-09-2006
 
 
 
23 December 2008 11:50
 
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.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
CanZen
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  22-01-2005
 
 
 
23 December 2008 14:52
 

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

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
John
Total Posts:  8
Joined  20-12-2008
 
 
 
25 December 2008 11:26
 

Thank you Bob for germane threads.

 
2