>People ask me; why are you for death penalty - because Sam Harris is still alive.
What did he mean by this?
>Sam Harris
>books: Islam and the future of tolerance
>>7392159
Have you read it?
>>7392160
>who advocates fo torture
People who say this are the ones being intellectually dishonest. He never said that any state should adopt torture as a legitimate practice
>>7392163
>they be good boys
>they be reformed
>muh crusades
>just radicals
>muh peaceful revolution
Using your own personal view to base individuals is bias.
>>7392154
Sam Harris doesn't deserve to live because he's an intellectually-dishonest pseud who advocates for torture. It's a joke.
>>7392166
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html
Regardless, he's an insignificant insect and people who bother with him are the same.
>>7392169
So you haven't read it. He's critical of Islam throughout.
>>7392176
>muh jihadis
>muh religion be evil
>muh using modern morality to the past
>>7392159
>Maajid Nawaz
>Sam Harris
vomitting tbqh
>>7392172
It's perfectly legitimate view. In situations where a false positive isn't as costly as no information whatsoever, torture is a good alternative to indiscriminate drone strikes.
>>7392183
>>Maajid Nawaz
What's wrong with Maajid?
>>7392182
"muh" isn't an argument you faggot. Are you suggesting that Islamic Jihad isn't a credible threat?
>>7392186
>What's wrong with Maajid Nawaz?
>>7392190
>muh small minority
>muh Jews made them do it
>muh death tolls compared to bombings by US
>>7392193
What's wrong with Maajd Nawaz?
>>7392193
>replying to trip fags
>>7392195
What the fuck are you even arguing?
>>7392198
>quoting the question with a meme pic
>"reply"
>>7392200
>muh 60% of women and children
>muh Assad killin the good boys
>muh peaceful religion
>muh oppression
>muh sharia law
>muh nun = hijab
ITT: reddit
Remember that time when Zizek shat on the movie Black Swan for perpetuating the sexist myth that a women with a career will inevitably meet some doom, even though the director's previous four films had the same story with male protagonists?
Why do people listen to this waste of skin run his mouth?
>>7392211
>>7392211
>we can't presecute propogandists because they haven't actually killed anyone
>Charles Manson should be free
Harris is right, like always.
>>7392215
Maybe you should actually read him to figure it out?
>>7392222
I agree my friend we should murder anyone who violently enforces their ideology. :^)
>>7392154
If you get to know pan arab world you start to realize some pretty awful shit wrt their monopoly on and enforcement of religion, incest, rape, slavery, all the salafi sunna opiod they use for fraterníte
>>7392245
Can you attempt to make a cogent point?
>>7392229
Expressed ideology is a good indicator of future action. One can come up with a context where it would be necessary, like a radical imam who's responsible for the radicalization of a bunch of terrorists.
>>7392251
slavoj pretty outspoken against religious fanatics and the keks that go along
>>7392254
total lack of self-awareness: the post
>>7392256
Yeah he is. He's also critical of these establishment pseuds.
>>7392257
no, op wanted explanation why peace filled slavoj said tolerate islam. slavoj is saying a line needs to be drawn and he did so using hyperbole. this is /lit/? littany of bullshit?
>>7392254
statistically race is also a good indicator of future action.
>>7392265
*dont
>>7392257
You're an idiot. Speaking of ideology, the Western notion of a "thought crime" isn't based in natural rights.
>>7392154
That Sam Harris is a dick.
Come on, its not that hard.
>>7392184
>War Crime A is less severe than War Crime B
>therefore, do War Crime A
>>7392613
It's the lesser of two evils. And I don't give a damn that several forms of torture are actually detrimental to homeland security according to governmental analysis and I don't care that studies on terrorism have determined that drone strikes are more detrimental than beneficial in the long-term.
>>7392154
He meant that he dislikes Sam Harris because Sam's ideas are too sound to be argued against. He finds Sam's calm, clear, direct voice to be the perfect antidote to his erratic, equivocal way of speaking, which allows him to say a lot while saying nothing of substance. Because of this, his only choice is to kick and scream and yell, "I hate Sam Harris!"
>>7392636
>tips ideology
>>7392636
>being this deluded.
Help will come soon anon.
>>7392641
*tortures you for ethical reasons*
>>7392636
You will suffer in the gulags for sure. Slave on, you dog!
>>7392636
>Simplistic, childlike understanding of religion
>Ethical theory involving no actual philosophical reasoning
>Hard determinism so simple and retarted that it got BTFO by his own bro Dennett
>Only 3 papers published in his supposed speciality neuroscience, none of which have been cited more than 3 times
Literally everything Sam Harris has ever done, even in his own field, is shit. Rather than go through the trouble of refuting his points when Sam's atheist fans will worship him regardless, Zizek would rather just have him shot and be done with it.
>>7392661
>deep understanding of religion, having studied various world religions for most of his adult life
>ethical theory a legitimate expansion of utilitarianism
>BTFO all compatibilists, including Dennett, in one short book
>earned PhD in neuroscience but mostly abandoned his studies to dedicate time to write about more pressing problems in the world
Let's look at Zizek.
>Marxist
>treats Lacan as an authority figure, and so promulgates his fanciful ideas unquestioningly
>takes Hegel seriously
>wrote perhaps the worst article out there in response to the Paris attacks
>etc., etc.
You were saying?
>>7392690
Firstly, lambasting Zizek doesn't make Sam Harris worthwhile. If you were the least bit literate or intelligent, you would understand that.
Secondly,
>treats Lacan as an authority figure, and so promulgates his fanciful ideas unquestioningly
False.
>takes Hegel seriously
Your point?
>wrote perhaps the worst article out there in response to the Paris attacks
Then you didn't understand it. He made very pertinent, good points.
>etc., etc.
I shudder to see them if the above is the best you could come up with.
Actually read Zizek if you want to understand him. But since you're a Harris fanboy, perhaps it's better you're just shot as well.
>>7392636
The guy claims morality can be based on "science"; he's a pleb-tier ideologue.
>>7392690
>Marxist
>This is a bad thing.
Pure ideology.
>>7392696
Should be called "Euphoric" tbqh.
>>7392690
>Being this wrong.
...how?
>>7392154
F U C K Z I Z E K
Who remembers when Harris was bitchslapped by Noam Chomsky. That was pretty funny.
>>7392706
I'd rather him fuck me. :3
Does anyone have that vid of the edit of the house scene in the 2005 Zizek! movie where there's plastic dildos and stuff?
>>7392613
>BEGIN liberalization
>IF required, do War Crime A/B
>>7392169
>Using your personal views to evaluate something
nigga isn't that what thinking is
>>7392710
Whats funny is that chomcky memespouted for about 1 hour and harris basically gave up trying to have a constructive debate.
Chomskyfags literally cannot stop shitposting.
I think public intellectuals, all of them, are the problem. Like Baudrillard told us ; )
>>7392619
This false dichotomy. They've got you, son.
How the fuck can anyone take Zizek seriously after the plagerism scandal?
>>7392154
>I'm a socialist but I don't share my wife
>Z: I have a different rule, I share my wife but not my food
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjxAArOkoA0
What did he mean by this?
>>7393992
It is a satire of the uselessness of sexual liberalism without the accompanying socialist revolution, whereby the food is for all and she is no longer his wife, but a woman of her own, not to be shared like a piece of meat, but to sleep with and love whoever she is pleased to.
>>7392215
>Zizek shat on the movie Black Swan for perpetuating the sexist myth that a women with a career will inevitably meet some doom, even though the director's previous four films had the same story with male protagonists?
yeah ur right anon men nd women r exactly the same :) :) y cant we all just get along lol we're all the same there's no difference between those films because theres no difference between men and women lol wake up world :) y cant we all just get along as PEOPLE lol
>>7393857
he's the left wing version of trump, he just brushes that shit off
Are they related?
he doesnt want total annihilation of his enemy, only material destruction.
>>7392154
>People ask me; why are you for death penalty - because Sam Harris is still alive.
LOL did he say this
>>7394474
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifpIw3EK7-A
>>7394483
Cocaine all day 'ereday
>>7394412
No one is suggesting that, but the notion that a story about obsession leading to one's downfall being kosher when it comes to men but forbidden when it comes to women is utterly retarded. You're shrinking the stories available to women, and relegating their representation to a small region of morally acceptable narratives. According to Zizek male characters can be anything, but female characters require some form of self-regulation from the writer.
>>7392190
The Palistinian group? Just say Jihadism ffs
>>7394497
He wasn't barring all movies from depicting female characters in downfall he was identifying one such movie in particular which he recognised rightly as negative. Your claim (as i take it) is that Black Swan is the same as The Wrestler or other Aronofsky movies like Pi about obsessive characters spelling doom for themselves. I think only that loose thread connects them however. The way these films are presented and the movement of their plots is completely different. There certainly wasn't a cringe-inducing "sinister lesbian" sub-plot in The Wrestler, for instance.
Also it would be wise for some self-regulation on the part of male authors/directors when crafting stories around female characters, always.
>>7392166
People who say that are just appealing to emotion instead of seriously engaging the topic. It's all part of a broader smear campaign to discredit anyone who dares to question Islam.
>oh no! torture baaaad! muh feelings
>>7394525
>Also it would be wise for some self-regulation on the part of male authors/directors when crafting stories around female characters, always.
top cuck
>>7394525
The major advantage to crafting a male character is the blankness involved. One can craft any character one wishes, and have him be the protagonist for any story one wants to write. If you want more female protagonists, which I assume you do, ghettoizing them into a secluded space of only a few acceptable portrayals is more than a little damaging. It's pure artistic segregation in the name of equality.
And no, there is no major difference between Pi, Noah, and Black Swan. You can criticize the particulars (like the lesbian subplot), but Zizek criticized the story itself. Men are allowed to be self-destructively obsessive, but women aren't. This isn't an okay way to perceive art.
>Also it would be wise for some self-regulation on the part of male authors/directors when crafting stories around female characters, always.
No, that's fucking stupid. An artist should only be concerned with the piece as a whole, and care more about the aesthetic qualities of his or her work than whether or not the work is socially acceptable.
It appears to me that Zizek is for a more authoritarian government, possibly for effective implementation of actions and decision making.
But doesn't he think that this is dangerous/will never work for the better (given humans are the one doing the leading)?
>>7394554
i bet you read ayn rand
>>7394636
For Zizek, the fact that it doesn't work is the reason why it will work.
We will be forced to make it work*sniff*
>>7394636
what is zizek's relation to benedetto croce?
>hegelian
>liberal elitist
>close both to marxism and authoritarianism
>writes about aesthetics/fillems
>kinda weird looking
>le ideology mane
Edgy marxist college twerp detected. Or maybe you dropped out and worship Zizek to feel superior to your friends that graduated who are also marxists.
>>7394460
No, but these two are.
>>7397900
>you you actually look like a skinny beardless zizek
>>7392182
>>7392169
What the fuck are you even on about? Are you actually stupid enough to think that no amount of reformation can fix Islam?
Sam Harris is pretty much internationally lambasted as an "islamophobe" because he criticizes it so thoroughly and frequently. That book is LITERALLY only explaining the POSSIBLE way to reconcile its toxicity with a modern society.
Because news flash: Christianity hasn't always been against brutal executions, and the prosecution of minorities.
>>7392172
>insignificant insect
"I invite any reader who discovers a problem with my argument to point it out to me in the comment section of this blog. I would be sincerely grateful to have my mind changed on this subject."
Yeah, sounds like a total asshole, definitely the words of some sort of evil sociopath.
>>7392204
Further retardation from what i have to assume is a stealth /pol/ poster. Harris asserts vehemently that Islam (more than all other religions) is overtly violent.
>>7392211
>No one is ever the good guy!
>Everything is relative!
Sorry, but you're wrong. I'm sure he isn't for the indiscriminate killing of people at our mercy, but in a battle between indoctrinated Jihadists or avowed, passionate Nazi's there IS a greater good.
The people who align themselves to the cause of genocide and regression must be opposed, and this necessarily leads to their deaths through conflict.
>>7392229
Except that doesn't ultimately matter. His statement comes from the perspective SPECIFICALLY of jihadists. There is absolutely a justification for wiping out regressive theocracy when the option of reformation is not possible.
There's an obvious difference between someone who means to impose a democratic, egalitarian, modern society, and someone who wants a fascistic, genocidal, racist, medieval caliphate.
>>7392697
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pott, Kim Jong-il. Every successful country in the entire world is capitalistic to greater or lesser degree. Every communist state has more-or-less failed.
>>7394483
>I want Sam Harris Dead
>I hate his book
>It argues for torture!
Yes, in specific circumstances in which it can be the lesser of two evils and in which there is already a pre-established knowledge of the victim's ability to remedy a dire situation.
Like it or not, its infantile and ultimately less "moral" to believe that no amount of innocents killed can justify the torture of a single person who CAN give the right information.
You don't even have to like Harris to see how flawed these arguments are. There's an abundant amount of interviews he's done some of which i listen to on bus/walking.
>tips
>>7397984
Sparta did pretty well as a communist stateyou know, aside from the slaves[/sparta]
>>7392215
that is the post pathetic excuse for a gotcha I have ever read
>>7397984
>*tips*
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/
Required reading before discussing torture.
I FUCKING NEVER LIKED ZIZEK. I HOPE HE LIVES FOREVER.
>>7398185
>>>/pol/
>>>/trash/
>>>/r9k/
>>>/b/
Lit is one of the very few amounts of retarded meme spouting, I'd like to keep it that way. It'd actually be pretty interesting to talk about the ethics of things I addressed.
But I guess you think that killing a spree-killer in the process of a massacre is simply UNETHICAL.
After all, its just a ridiculous idea to say that some people are too dangerous to let live.
>>7399385
>*tips*
/lit/ would enthusiastically agree with Harris' criticism of Islam as overly violent if he were Christian.
>>7392690
>expand utilitarianism
people still do this? WHY?!
>>7399457
It's not even his criticism of Islam that pisses most of /lit/ off, just the fact that he's a bad philosopher and a poor excuse for an intellectual in general.
Why are Zizek threads always so bad?
>>7399812
Memers cannot help themselves from posting their meme views.
>>7392172
>naive utility theory
If that quote was Hiroshima pre-November the sixth, your punctuation would be the mushroom bomb dropped by the Americans.
>>7399940
