Renton 21625 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I think he retrospectively justified it with comparisons to the Bulger case, but if it was just the first of many comparisons he could have made, I think it was most unfortunate his first thought happened to compare the muslim clock boy to the muslim executioner boy. To be fair, Dawkins is not as bad as Harris from what I've read. His overt criticism doesn't go as far as suggesting we should profile muslims. The thing that annoys me about him is the straw man he concocts to suggest that liberals shut down ANY criticism of Islam. It most exasperated me recently on Real Time, because I despise almost everything about the religion... http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/10/02/bill-maher-richard-dawkins-denounce-regressive-leftists-for-granting-free-pass-to-islam/ Criticism of all the bad ideas within all religions are encouraged and have made him his fortune, It's what I appreciate about him. In fact, muslims being off the table for criticism is the opposite of the truth. US journalists are routinely fired or forced to resign for criticism of Israel or support for boycotts, complete support for Israel is a requirement and those offering actual balance are instantly labelled anti-semites and out on their ear. There is complete impunity for any criticism of Islam though, you'll struggle to find any examples of anyone punished for anti islamic sentiment. When Dawkins pushes for more criticism of one faith to further shift the imbalance he caters to the right wing bigots. I understand there are nutjobs who will kill for cartoons, their aim is to shut down conversations, but these aren't the people Dawkins and Maher are referring to here, they're complaining about other liberals, because to criticise the actual monstrous fucks who do that shit wouldn't be edgy enough to sell their books or their TV show, it would just be common sense. The God delusion and similar works of the time were mainly critical of Christian beliefs. Plenty of Christians have attacked Dawkins because they believe he unfairly and selectively attacked them. Since then, has he got more critical of Islam? Honestly don't know as I don't read him much, but if he has, isn't the reason obvious? Which religion is most in conflict with Dawkins belief in an entirely secular state? Maybe he's also had time to do a bit more research on the fundamental tenets of the respective religions too, and has come to some conclusions others don't like. Whatever, the constant attacks on him by the liberal left is strange to me, as is there persistent support of this particularly regressive religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 The God delusion and similar works of the time were mainly critical of Christian beliefs. Plenty of Christians have attacked Dawkins because they believe he unfairly and selectively attacked them. Since then, has he got more critical of Islam? Honestly don't know as I don't read him much, but if he has, isn't the reason obvious? Which religion is most in conflict with Dawkins belief in an entirely secular state? Maybe he's also had time to do a bit more research on the fundamental tenets of the respective religions too, and has come to some conclusions others don't like. Whatever, the constant attacks on him by the liberal left is strange to me, as is there persistent support of this particularly regressive religion. I've not read any of his books...or Hitchens or Harris base all my opinions of them on their interviews and articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21625 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I've not read any of his books...or Hitchens or Harris base all my opinions of them on their interviews and articles. All the recent interviews with him I've read, the interviewer has been sneering and plainly intent on misrepresentation and mischief. Particularly the Guardian. You should read some of his books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4385 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Dawkins certainly doesn't limit himself to any particular religion. I don't agree with everything he says buts it funny to see his detractors (even the supposed atheist ones) apply religious mores by saying if you are a "fan" of his then you must believe his every word without exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 All the recent interviews with him I've read, the interviewer has been sneering and plainly intent on misrepresentation and mischief. Particularly the Guardian. You should read some of his books. That one I linked to was a back-slapping mutual wank over how much better they both are than all the other unnamed liberals who're supposed to stifle their free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4385 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 All the recent interviews with him I've read, the interviewer has been sneering and plainly intent on misrepresentation and mischief. Particularly the Guardian. You should read some of his books. Hitchens' book is more aggressive. The bloke in guardian - Andrew Brown - who claims to be an atheist but is an ultra-apologist for all faiths hates Dawkins with a quite amusing passion. The utter bullocks he's written on the subject is astounding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21625 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 That one I linked to was a back-slapping mutual wank over how much better they both are than all the other unnamed liberals who're supposed to stifle their free speech. The two guardian pieces you linked to were hatchet jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Dawkins certainly doesn't limit himself to any particular religion. I don't agree with everything he says buts it funny to see his detractors (even the supposed atheist ones) apply religious mores by saying if you are a "fan" of his then you must believe his every word without exception. No, he doesn't limit himself to any religion at all, and he might be closer to me than to you or Renton on the subject of ISIS... “Religion itself is not responsible for this... It's also this feeling of political involvement. It's a feeling that it's 'us against them.' And I think that quite a large number of young Muslims feel kind of beleaguered against the rest of the world. And so religion in some sense might be just an excuse, but I do think that a dominant part of the motivation for these young men has to be religion." As you say though, I think we're all "fans" and agree with most of his positions, while disagreeing with others...like for me, those in the Maher interview and some of his tweets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15526 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4385 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Pretty much what we've concluded on here then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Good that Meenz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2979 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I've not read any of his books...or Hitchens or Harris base all my opinions of them on their interviews and articles. No shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2979 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I read Harris's book Waking Up which was interesting. No mention of Muslims though. That is just a front, clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Problems for Camecon. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/01/cameron-has-failed-to-justify-syria-airstrikes-mps-committee-says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7027 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 He apparently called those in the Labour Party opposed to air strikes 'terrorist sympathisers' today. The flaming turd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17261 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) tbh if theres anything in this he sounds fuckin desperate so am wondering if theres somelast minute wavering on his own side going on? Pointless just bombing, waste of time and money,but there wont be boots on the ground in any real numbers unless the US elects a republican next January. By which time how many cities will be attacked like Paris? I may have mentioned my mate who was a sergeant in the Royal Marines, hes spending Christmas with the Kurdish Peshmurga fighters (hes returning for the third time) because he says Isis are the biggest threat to our way of life since the Nazis. He's not one for hyperbole or histrionics either. Despite my goddam pinko tendancies I tend to agree with him. Edited December 1, 2015 by PaddockLad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21625 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Cameron's rhetoric is disgusting. It's one thing for me to call J69 a terrorist apologist on toontastic, but another for Cameron to accuse the leader of the opposition a terrorist sympathiser. What a shit head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44880 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 In a significant escalation of the frontline use of American ground troops in the region, Carter told congressional leaders the troops would be based in Iraq but carry out raids across the border. It puts everybody on notice in Syria, he said. You dont know at night who is going to be coming in the window. Well that sounds like it'll be nice for the majority of Syrians that aren't terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) As I said a week ago there will be mission creep and escalation. Getting us to start bombing is a move towards a grand coalition. The stated aim to get rid of Isis masks the real intent of taking Assad out before the Russian airstrikes balance the field too far. They simply won't stop and will play any angle to break Syria into 2/3 statelets. They were talking about it in 2006ffs! Israel gets to keep the Golan Heights and will in the coming years spread out in its search for water. Then they will go after Iran. It all depends on Russia now. Russia is going to have to fight this war sooner or later they know it. They grey wolf moves down from the hills. Winter is coming. Edited December 1, 2015 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2979 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) Yep. Must be a shit place to be right now. Cameron carrying on like bombing people is the only anti-terrorist option isn't really helping matters either. Calling people opposed to violent destruction, 'terrorist sympathisers', is the sort of false equivalence you'd expect out of someone like HF. People are right to expect more from their leaders. Edit: 'Yep' to Gemmers. I don't read Parky's posts. Edited December 1, 2015 by toonotl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 One of the reasons the plane was shot down is NATO wanted the S300 in Syria to take a closer look at how it works and listen to its signatures and protocols. They will will try and get the Russians to fire one in the next few weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) Pretty sad watching Newsnight. Edited December 1, 2015 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) Cameron's rhetoric is disgusting. It's one thing for me to call J69 a terrorist apologist on toontastic, but another for Cameron to accuse the leader of the opposition a terrorist sympathiser. What a shit head. Shameful stuff and totally out of order. Cameron has to do what he's been told, he doesn't really understand any of what this intervention might lead to and he isn't bright enough to weigh up the deep responsibility of leadership. The Labour ranks are disorganized riddled as they are with Blairites and careerists. Edited December 1, 2015 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Chomsky interview on these matters http://www.salon.com/2015/11/30/noam_chomsky_americas_isis_strategy_plainly_is_not_working_partner/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2979 Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 On The Maintenance of Civilization For those interested in what Sam Harris' views actually are from arguably the best source on the matter. It's an interesting podcast shining a light on the dishonest bullshit which some leftists are engaging in. Also, here is an example of exactly this sort of dishonesty from salon.com: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sam-harris-the-salon-interview Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now