patrick.net

Here's the video covered by The Young Turks.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/EN52CP2_F0U

Dan8267 says

Sam Harris and Bill Maher were right, as usual, and Ben Affleck was simply giving into leftist politically correct bullshit and ironically perfectly demonstrating Harris's point, which was that many people falsely interpret any criticism of Islam as Islamaphobia and bigotry.

I take back everything negative I said about you.
For now. :)

Dan8267 says

Ben Affleck was simply giving into leftist politically correct bullshit and ironically perfectly demonstrating Harris's point

I agree. I thought Harris made a really good case with his concentric circles of Islam, very rational and persuasive. Both Bill and Ben were somewhat hysterical in the encounter, Sam was calm and reasoned. Not an atheist, but one doesn’t have to be an atheist to see what a mess religious insanity can and does lead to.

Strategist says

I take back everything negative I said about you.

For now. :)

Please don't. It's like getting endorsed by the KKK.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

I take back everything negative I said about you.

For now. :)

Please don't. It's like getting endorsed by the KKK.

he he he. Are you upset at losing the last one? Lots of opportunities to make things even, you know.

Just like the anti fundies they are anti correct. There is recorded video and the Grouperthinking_libruls may want to erase it!

Entitlemented says

Just like the anti fundies they are anti correct. There is recorded video and the Grouperthinking_libruls may want to erase it!

Speak English much?

Anyway, Harris and Maher were being liberal. Affleck was being leftist. The video is a perfect illustration of the difference between rational liberalism and politically correct leftism.

The narrator was great, puts some logic and perspective into it.

Bill Maher is an entertainer and an asshole and ignorant.

Anti Root causality has an equivalency in group thinking liberalism. Maher thinking for himself is looking at the data - root cause analysis. He is departing from pure liberalism which is bigotry enshrined in entitlementism.

indigenous says

The narrator was great, puts some logic and perspective into it.

Bill Maher is an entertainer and an asshole and ignorant.

Translation: I'll grasp at any straw that makes Bill Maher sound bad because I'm afraid of him.

Dan8267 says

Speak English much?

Entitlemented says

Anti Root causality has an equivalency in group thinking liberalism.

Guess not.

dump that iphone for a galaxy s5 and you can drop your percentage to the low 20's...

Strategist says

And don't tell me about witch burnings you morons, that happened a long time ago.

I'm ashamed to be 70% librul.

an alternative option is to threaten to nuke mecca or medina if they don't get their flock under control....
I think that might get a reaction from the muslim majority.....step up and stop your rogue ronin or we take out the equilivent of muslim heaven...

Strategist says

The solution IMO is to control their leaders. Put a gun to their heads and make them an offer they cannot refuse....A bullet, or $10 million. Make them brutally go after these lunatics. Let them terrorize the terrorists. We will look the other way. There is no other solution.

CaptainShuddup says

I'm just shocked that he, still has any audience to be confused over who to cheer for or otherwise.

Yeah people below a certain IQ level definitely don't appreciate him.

Maher is condemning liberals more than Muslims. The evidence showing Islam on a collision course with progressive liberal principles is obvious without his argument. He's calling his own people hypocritical pussies. It's no wonder they don't know for whom to applaud.

One day it will be apparent that 'looking the other way' BECAUSE of someone's race is as evil a sin of omission as blatant cross-burning. I shudder to think of what event may be required to open our eyes.

Here are some examples of Librul Logic (TM)

It can't be racist if a white person didn't do it.

Criticizing non-American, non-European cultures or beliefs is always racist.

Criticizing religious beliefs is only okay if the religion is Christianity or some offshoot of it. All other religious beliefs must be respected, regardless of the harm they may cause the world.

Affleck comes off as a leftist douche bag with the critical thinking skills of a turnip. He's irate because these other thinkers have the gall to contradict the PC dogma he's been "educated" to believe more strongly than a jihadi believes in a 72 Virgin Paradise.

rdm says

I thought Harris made a really good case with his concentric circles of Islam, very rational and persuasive.

Harris' argument was neither rational nor persuasive. "Concentric circles of islam", with terrorists at the center? What kind of lamebrain model of islam is that?

That is a about as logical as model of Catholicism consisting of concentric circles of Catholics, with homosexual child-rapists in the center.

Try instead a Venn diagram consisting of three overlapping circles, one for murderous terrorists, one for Americans (religious or not), and one for muslims. Make a note of which subsets have been killing more people, say in the last 15 years. Think carefully, then discuss.

Oh, @roemoore, your headline is biased. Maher was arguing that all of Islam is radical, and Affleck was arguing that it is not.

SoftShell says

dump that iphone for a galaxy s5 and you can drop your percentage to the low 20's...

Strategist says

And don't tell me about witch burnings you morons, that happened a long time ago.

I'm ashamed to be 70% librul.

I'd rather join ISIS.

justme says

Make a note of which subsets have been killing more people, say in the last 15 years. Think carefully, then discuss.

You wish to change the argument that was taking place. Your assertion may well have validity but it wasn’t the question at hand. The question in discussion was what % of the practitioners of Islam are engaged in and or agree with Islamic ideas and practices that "liberals" find repugnant and further why they (liberals) wont condemn the people
(Muslims) who practice and or hold said repugnant (to liberals) beliefs. Additionally, that they (liberals) condemn all those that condemn the repugnant beliefs of Muslims as racists and or bigots (some of course are, as was acknowledged).

In the context of Muslims who hold beliefs repugnant to liberals the expanding circle of active Jihadis, Islamists and conservative Muslims worked quite well as visualization without a visual aid being available to make his point. Bill Marr's show is not a college classroom.

Is radical islam a redundant statement like disfunctional alcoholism?

justme says

rdm says

I thought Harris made a really good case with his concentric circles of Islam, very rational and persuasive.

Harris' argument was neither rational nor persuasive. "Concentric circles of islam", with terrorists at the center? What kind of lamebrain model of islam is that?

That is a about as logical as model of Catholicism consisting of concentric circles of Catholics, with homosexual child-rapists in the center.

Try instead a Venn diagram consisting of three overlapping circles, one for murderous terrorists, one for Americans (religious or not), and one for muslims. Make a note of which subsets have been killing more people, say in the last 15 years. Think carefully, then discuss.

Harris was explaining the different levels of Islamic extremism. It was an excellent explanation. I would place a Koran right in the center, as that book is the root cause of 99% of terrorism.
By the way Muslims kill the most, and they kill each other the most.

Cenk Uygur's analysis was poor. Using edits he made it seem that Maher was saying that ALL Islam was extreme, which he clearly did not. He claimed that Harris said that 20% of Islamists were terrorists ready to "blow up" things, when in fact Harris did not say that.

I also love how he glosses over the fact that 60% of Muslims in Egypt and a few other heavily populated countries think it's okay to kill someone who leaves the religion. It's true that when you combine all nations together that number drops to -- what -- 20 or 30 percent. Fuck, that still is a huge number.

He reminds me of a guy who rags on his family but the second you say something like, "yeah, your brother is kind of a jerk" he rushes to the defense of his brother.

justme says

Oh, @roemoore, your headline is biased. Maher was arguing that all Islam is radical, and Affleck was arguing that it is not.

Please show me how Maher was arguing that ALL Islam is radical. The quote used by Uygur was taken out of context. His point was in line with Harris -- that if there are 1.5 billion Muslims and 20 percent are radical that still is a huge number.

BTW, I think Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism etc have had problems with extremists - currently and in the past. Right now, in terms of percentages, Islam is winning, so to speak.

Forget the murderous terrorist acts for a moment if you can. What percentage of Muslims worldwide believe that apostates from Islam living within Islamic states are guilty of a crime deserving of serious legal punishment? A majority.

Only a minority feel the death penalty is warranted, but that majority is far from fringe thinking.

Why isn't the common liberal disgusted by this one fact alone?

deepcgi says

Forget the murderous terrorist acts for a moment if you can. What percentage of Muslims worldwide believe that apostates from Islam living within Islamic states are guilty of a crime deserving of serious legal punishment? A majority.

All Muslims believe that, because the Koran says that.

deepcgi says

Only a minority feel the death penalty is warranted, but a majority is far from fringe thinking.

Why isn't the common liberal disgusted by this one fact alone?

You heard Ben...."It's racist"
Why isn't criticizing Christianity and Christians not racist? There are White Christians and Black Christians, just like there are White Muslims and Black Muslims. It makes no sense at all.

deepcgi says

Why isn't the common liberal disgusted by this one fact alone?

Speaking as a common liberal I'd have to say that I am disgusted by lots and lots of things! But truthfully, I think the problem here is the so-called guilt complex many liberals have. And to be truthful, we have lots of good reasons to feel guilty - not personally guilty - but guilty of electing assholes who do some pretty fucked up stuff.

But the guilt complex combined with the right's constant use of the "other" as the reason for all the world's problems leads to liberals sometimes being too timid to call out this kind of shit.

rdm says

You wish to change the argument that was taking place. Your assertion may well have validity but it wasn’t the question at hand.

So you acknowledge that the group we may identify as American Judeo-Christians are killing Muslims in much higher numbers than Muslims are killing Judeo-Christians (American or otherwise). But you also say that pointing this out constitutes "changing the argument that is taking place". Well, duh.

Yes, I am pointing out the fact that it is misleading, morally wrong and intellectually dishonest to exaggerate the number (percentage) of Muslims that are "radical", in order to justify killing Muslims in large numbers (the Iraq war comes to mind).

Bonus questions: Who are more radical, Shiite or Sunni muslims? Why do we want to kill one kind but not the other? And how come that we (=US foreign policy as currently practised) act according to the principle that Shiites are good if they live in Iraq, but when they live in Iran they are baaaad?

One more bonus question: In 2002, some 80% of the American public supported going to war against Iraq, a country that had NOTHING to do with the deaths of 2996 Americans on 9/11 2001. What percentage of Americans should then be deemed "radical Judeo-Christians" and terrorism supporters, and would that justify Muslims going to war against us and trying to kill us?

Americans are so steeped in the illusion that "we are the good guys" that there is no limit to what evil we will do in the world. We have completely forgotten what being "the good guys" means. First and foremost, it means NOT going around killing a lot of people for no good reason.

justme says

Americans are so steeped in the illusion that "we are the good guys" that there is no limit to what evil we will do in the world.

I don't disagree at all, but the Muslims did kill 3000 people on our ground at 9/11. Yea if you use logic being at war in the middle east makes no sense. But at the same time 9/11 definitely left a mark.I suppose similiar to the mark left by japan in 1941.

When looking at real causes always follow the money trail, in this case straight to the defense contractors.

indigenous says

the Muslims did kill 3000 people on our ground at 9/11

Please keep in mind that it was not "the Muslims" that killed 3000 people. it was 20 crazed terrorists. Your statement is less true than making the statement that it was "the Judeo-Christians" that killed 100,000 Iraqis. Perhaps just a slip of the tongue, but these kinds of dangerous oversimplifications is exactly what the present discussion is about.

The rest of the post is I like'ed. Thanks.

justme says

Please keep in mind that it was not "the Muslims" that killed 3000 people. it was 20 crazed terrorists. Your statement is less true than making the statement that it was "the Judeo-Christians" that killed 100,000 Iraqis.

And that makes my point, that is the way think of it, perhaps Edward Bernays type PR/brainwashing? The tail wags the dog?

deepcgi says

Forget the murderous terrorist acts for a moment if you can. What percentage of Muslims worldwide believe that apostates from Islam living within Islamic states are guilty of a crime deserving of serious legal punishment? A majority.

Only a minority feel the death penalty is warranted, but a majority is far from fringe thinking.

Why isn't the common liberal disgusted by this one fact alone?

Because liberals like labels, and dislike those labels to change. Once someone is deemed a Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, black person, or white person (as Zimmerman was), they hate having to reclassify for any reason (except gender reassignment, that's cool).

indigenous says

And that makes my point, that is the way think of it, perhaps Edward Bernays type PR/brainwashing? The tail wags the dog?

Yup.

justme says

indigenous says

the Muslims did kill 3000 people on our ground at 9/11

Please keep in mind that it was not "the Muslims" that killed 3000 people. it was 20 crazed terrorists.

It was the Muslims. All you have to ask is if the 19 terrorists were not Muslims, would 911 have taken place? The answer is an easy NO.

justme says

Bonus questions: Who are more radical, Shiite or Sunni muslims? Why do we want to kill one kind but not the other? And how come that we (=US foreign policy as currently practised) act according to the principle that Shiites are good if they live in Iraq, but when they live in Iran they are baaaad?

They are all equally radical. Just practicing Shariah laws makes you a radical.
It's been 1400 years, and they still haven't stopped killing each other. How can we expect them to make peace with us?

justme says

Yes, I am pointing out the fact that it is misleading, morally wrong and intellectually dishonest to exaggerate the number (percentage) of Muslims that are "radical", in order to justify killing Muslims in large numbers (the Iraq war comes to mind).

We don't want to kill "Muslims" we want to kill radical Islamic terrorists. We also want to prevent moderate Muslims from being radicalized.

rooemoore says

But the guilt complex combined with the right's constant use of the "other"
as the reason for all the world's problems leads to liberals sometimes being too
timid to call out this kind of shit.

Excellent observation. From the SWOT analysis in marketing, that is definitely a weakness (W) of a good amount of liberals. Unfortunately and dangerously, that is a weakness that can be exploited by politicians and demagogues who know what they are doing.

I have fundamental respect for all religions. However, we should fear those who do evil things in the name of goodness for the promise of a decadent afterlife. Stupidity and brutality is a horrifying combination.

Ben Affleck said nothing, NOTHING, of substance. He wanted to play the good cop, which is frankly the lazy and easy thing to do. Might he also be interested in keeping his reputation clean---an agent no doubt would not have recommended that he take a controversial stance on this, for fear of turning into a Mel Gibson. He hemmed and hawed about the injustice of stereotyping, but made no counter argument to Harris and Maher.

If fear of stereotyping means we cannot discuss societal patterns and beliefs and values associated with religious or other groups, than we have no way of striking a meaningful dialogue. Religions of all stripes, not just islam, bleed into civic life way more than they should, and that, my friends, is a huge problem. Hobby Lobby, Palestine/Israel, Gay marriage in places like Utah. I think it's ok to look askance at Islam these days and wonder if it hasn't turned into something scary. For example, Muslims in Bangladesh mourn the fact that extremism is on the uptick in their country.

I think the thing is that being Muslim is an ethnic identity much like Judaism--and hey, what can we do about it? Muslims in many countries call themselves such because they have been pitted against other religions (Hindu, Buddhism, etc) and been made to stand their ground. I think it's a pity that identity requires even the faintest allegiance to a religion, but tradition is hard to break, I guess. I'm glad that my family left Ireland generations ago or else I'd probably feel compelled to identify more with my Catholic heritage. Thank SOMEONE that I no longer have that pressure.

FYI, my husband ethnically identifies as Muslim.

lahossain says

an agent no doubt would not have recommended that he take a controversial stance on this

Then he should have made no stance.

I would simply reiterated my respect towards all religion and wish for world peace.

Strategist says

It was the Muslims.

Strategist says

They are all equally radical.

Strategist says

We don't want to kill "Muslims" we want to kill radical Islamic terrorists.

Can anyone else see how logic does not quite apply here?

justme says

Strategist says

It was the Muslims.

Strategist says

They are all equally radical.

Strategist says

We don't want to kill "Muslims" we want to kill radical Islamic terrorists.

Can anyone else see how logic does not quite apply here?

Out of context.