Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

I think what's happened is Western-liberal society has adopted the dogma that the terms "boy" and "girl" and "man" and "woman" have no objectively defined meaning and can be defined by anyone as they see fit or are the that the definitions are self-contradictory nonsense and white noise. A bit like the term "God" I suppose....who people are searching for.

Loving you bringing this back on topic  God is indeed white noise for me

[ProfessorDavey]

Harris seems to be doing a similar job to the people who are racist but present their anti-immigration arguments as concern for limited resources.

But prejudice doesn't necessarily equate with thinking that people are bad, does it VG.

There are plenty of people around who are sexist - they show prejudices attitudes and perhaps behaviours towards people of one sex. But a man who is sexist toward women doesn't necessarily think that women are bad, let alone that all women are bad people. Sure if you do think that all women are bad, I think it is pretty hard to argue that you aren't sexist, however you can be sexist without thinking all women are bad (and indeed I doubt there are many sexist men who do think that all women are bad).

And in the case of racism - I think you can be racist without thinking that all people who aren't white (as an example) are bad people.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It isn't pedantry - Vlad made a very specific claim and it isn't unreasonable for him to justify that claim with evidence. He has failed to do that.
You may not, I may not, but Vlad seems to as he made that specific claim. And if you make a specific claim and someone asks for evidence to support that claim there is an onus on you to provide that evidence or withdraw the claim. Vlad has done neither.

No you really don't need to try to distract people by getting side-tracked by specific claims and supporting evidence. You could just try addressing the point. Why is Sam Harris making a negative generalisation about all religious moderates? And is a negative generalisation justified by the evidence.

Religious moderates are individuals with nuanced views. Saying a whole group are the bearers of a terrible dogma and not supporting it with any logical or coherent evidence is simplistic nonsense.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

I think what's happened is Western-liberal society has adopted the dogma that the terms "boy" and "girl" and "man" and "woman" have no objectively defined meaning...

Do you not agree with that?

If I build a nice sandcastle on the beach then I have a sandcastle right? What if I remove one grain of sand from it? Still a sandcastle don't you think? How about 10 grains, or a 1,000, or 10,000? The terms "boy", "girl" etc exist on a spectrum, not as "objectively defined meanings" into which people can neatly be slotted.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Do you agree with the extreme rantings of Sam Harris? That is what I will base my decision on.

Been a while since you tried the poisoning the well fallacy.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But prejudice doesn't necessarily equate with thinking that people are bad, does it VG.

There are plenty of people around who are sexist - they show prejudices attitudes and perhaps behaviours towards people of one sex. But a man who is sexist toward women doesn't necessarily think that women are bad, let alone that all women are bad people. Sure if you do think that all women are bad, I think it is pretty hard to argue that you aren't sexist, however you can be sexist without thinking all women are bad (and indeed I doubt there are many sexist men who do think that all women are bad).

And in the case of racism - I think you can be racist without thinking that all people who aren't white (as an example) are bad people.

I think "bad" was just Vlad shorthand for behaving badly. Sam Harris and PD sound like they are trying the old "hate the sin but love the sinner" routine.

For example some religious people love homosexuals but call their behaviour bad. If they called homosexual sex bad are you ok with that, because they are not actually calling gay people bad?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

If he suggests that people who do a thing have a bad effect, then he is suggesting that in some way they are bad, even if he is just condemning them as stupid.

What's the reasoning that's taken you from the consequences of beliefs/actions to the character of the people who hold/do them?

Were the doctors who prescribed Thalidomide "bad" people too?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But prejudice doesn't necessarily equate with thinking that people are bad, does it VG.

There are plenty of people around who are sexist - they show prejudices attitudes and perhaps behaviours towards people of one sex. But a man who is sexist toward women doesn't necessarily think that women are bad, let alone that all women are bad people. Sure if you do think that all women are bad, I think it is pretty hard to argue that you aren't sexist, however you can be sexist without thinking all women are bad (and indeed I doubt there are many sexist men who do think that all women are bad).

And in the case of racism - I think you can be racist without thinking that all people who aren't white (as an example) are bad people.

As I said before when you accuse people of being the bearers of the bad while denying reification you are not suggesting morality or moral neutrality but immorality.

But if you accuse people of pushing us to the abyss that is conclusive and the most grand imputation of immorality.

If Harris had thought it was the idea he would have attacked it, instead of religious moderates.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

I think "bad" was just Vlad shorthand for behaving badly.

Why do you think that given that that's not what he said? Many theists no doubt behave entirely benignly, but that doesn't detract from SH's point (and nor does SH's point justify Vlad's claim).   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Been a while since you tried the poisoning the well fallacy.

OK, Do you agree with Sam Harris?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As I said before when you accuse people of being the bearers of the bad while denying reification you are not suggesting morality or moral neutrality but immorality.

No you’re not (and you don’t understand the meaning of “reification” here by the way either). Immorality require intent, and goes to the character of the person. Someone could be entirely morally good, and yet their actions could be harmful (doctors and Thalidomide again).

But if you accuse people of pushing us to the abyss that is conclusive and the most grand imputation of immorality.

No-one’s done that, and no it isn’t.

If Harris had thought it was the idea he would have attacked it, instead of religious moderates.

He did “attack the idea” – the “idea” here being the religious moderacy gives cover to religious extremism. He made no comment at all though about the moral character of religious moderates (which was your claim).     

[ProfessorDavey]

I think "bad" was just Vlad shorthand for behaving badly.

But that wasn't what I asked him to address. I specifically asked him for evidence that Sam Harris had explicitly stated that all christians are bad people.

Vlad presumably thinks that Harris does think that all christians are bad people as he came up with an article that he thought was evidence. It ins't, of course, but that is by the by.

If all he meant was that some christians sometime do things which have negative consequences he could have said so, but he didn't - he doubled down when I have repeatedly asked him to provide evidence that Sam Harris had explicitly stated that all christians are bad people but claiming that he had.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

OK, Do you agree with Sam Harris?

That religious moderacy gives cover to religious extremism? Yes. 

[ProfessorDavey]

If they called homosexual sex bad are you ok with that, because they are not actually calling gay people bad?

In which case if I was explicitly asked for evidence that a particular person through that all gay people were bad (the corollary of what I asked of Vlad) then I'd simply explain that I didn't mean to imply that all gay people are bad, just that I don't like/agree with some of their behaviours. But rather than clarify Vlad has doubled down and tried to justify the unjustifiable - a claim that Sam Harris has stated that all christians are bad people.

[Nearly Sane]

Vlad,

That religious moderacy gives cover to religious extremism? Yes.

So political moderacy leads to political extremism?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Do you not agree with that?

If I build a nice sandcastle on the beach then I have a sandcastle right? What if I remove one grain of sand from it? Still a sandcastle don't you think? How about 10 grains, or a 1,000, or 10,000? The terms "boy", "girl" etc exist on a spectrum, not as "objectively defined meanings" into which people can neatly be slotted.   

That's very interesting - what you wrote is just white noise to me but I can still find it interesting that you believe that. If society has decided that the terms "boy" and "girl" are meaningless white noise, ok, but regardless of the spectrum, as a woman, I would be uncomfortable having to deal with naked male genitalia in my face, especially if it was aroused and erect. If I wanted to join a nudist colony, I would, but I actually want to be in an environment where I get privacy and choices about whether i have to encounter naked men.

Do you think society should do away with single sex segregation on the basis that we're all on a spectrum? Or do you think the Equalities Act 2010 should be amended to change the terms used for single sex facilities? Instead of boys and girls rugby it should be male and female rugby and mixed rugby or should we adopt a trans lobby term to be inclusive and call it cis boys rugby and cis girls rugby and mixed rugby which is where the trans rugby players would go; and instead of a boys school and girls school everything should be re-labelled to cis-boys school and cis-girls school and mixed schools. Because I believe the separate facilities came about for reasons such as female rugby players would get flattened and seriously injured if they were tackled by a male rugby player, or because 99% of sex offenders in prison are male. So they realised there were actually 2 separate, distinct categories and an objective difference between the 2 categories and that the more vulnerable category deserved to be safeguarded.

If I said the moderate trans people bear a terrible dogma, because their faith claims about gender give moral cover for the coercive sex and rape of lesbians by extremist trans women who argue that being picky about genitals is transphobic, is that an ok thing to say?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

What's the reasoning that's taken you from the consequences of beliefs/actions to the character of the people who hold/do them?

Were the doctors who prescribed Thalidomide "bad" people too?

Essentially yes because they did a 'wrong' thing with not enough info.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That religious moderacy gives cover to religious extremism? Yes.

So are you saying Religious moderates are providing covering fire for extremists?

[Nearly Sane]

VG,
 The terms "boy", "girl" etc exist on a spectrum, not as "objectively defined meanings" into which people can neatly be slotted.   

Drivel and science denial.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But that wasn't what I asked him to address. I specifically asked him for evidence that Sam Harris had explicitly stated that all christians are bad people.

Vlad presumably thinks that Harris does think that all christians are bad people as he came up with an article that he thought was evidence. It ins't, of course, but that is by the by.

If all he meant was that some christians sometime do things which have negative consequences he could have said so, but he didn't - he doubled down when I have repeatedly asked him to provide evidence that Sam Harris had explicitly stated that all christians are bad people but claiming that he had.

You have not made it clear what the meaningful difference is in the distinction between "bad people" and " bad behaviour" of a certain group of people. It doesn't make it any better that Sam Harris thinks all Christians do bad things.

[ProfessorDavey]

So political moderacy leads to political extremism?

It can do, yes, when associated with a political 'tribe' with a fairly broad spectrum of opinion. Party political affiliation (rather like religious affiliation) can provide that 'tribe'.

So moderate figures with e.g. Labour, will tend to side with more extreme people within their own party rather than moderate Tories (and the same in reverse) - so although the moderate Labour member may have more in common with a moderate Tory member rather than side with fellow moderates, they support 'the tribe' and therefore give legitimacy and cover for the extremes within their parties. Party members find it much harder to speak out about extremes within their own party as it risks bringing criticism on the whole 'tribe'.

Happens all the time.

[Nearly Sane]

It can do, yes, when associated with a political 'tribe' with a fairly broad spectrum of opinion. Party political affiliation (rather like religious affiliation) can provide that 'tribe'.

So moderate figures with e.g. Labour, will tend to side with more extreme people within their own party rather than moderate Tories (and the same in reverse) - so although the moderate Labour member may have more in common with a moderate Tory member rather than side with fellow moderates, they support 'the tribe' and therefore give legitimacy and cover for the extremes within their parties. Party members find it much harder to speak out about extremes within their own party as it risks bringing criticism on the whole 'tribe'.

Happens all the time.

So your moderate political views justify the Holocaust. How far across the floor are your feet now that you have shot them both off?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

In which case if I was explicitly asked for evidence that a particular person through that all gay people were bad (the corollary of what I asked of Vlad) then I'd simply explain that I didn't mean to imply that all gay people are bad, just that I don't like/agree with some of their behaviours. But rather than clarify Vlad has doubled down and tried to justify the unjustifiable - a claim that Sam Harris has stated that all christians are bad people.

Are you arguing that it's ok to say gay sex is bad? Or that it's ok to say gay people bear a terrible dogma because they asked for their beliefs about marriage to be privileged by the religious people who believe religious marriage is only for heterosexuals?

[ProfessorDavey]

You have not made it clear what the meaningful difference is in the distinction between "bad people" and " bad behaviour" of a certain group of people.

Well actually I'm not sure I would hold to the notion of a 'bad person', but I think it would generally be confined to be someone inherently morally disordered regardless of what they may have or may have not done that might be considered to be 'bad behaviour'. Why is that relevant - well because christianity is based on the notion of inherent moral disorder of individuals - in other words original sin. The notion that someone is sinful regardless of whether or not they have actually done anything wrong.

So to claim someone to be a bad person implies an intrinsic and inherent badness that sits outside of what they may or may not have done.

As someone who has a broadly humanist outlook which tends to be consequentialist in philosophical position I tend to focus more on outcomes and would certainly not consider people to be inherently morally disordered - i.e. bad people. I tend also to focus on people as individuals, not defined by some nominal attributes that may lazily be applied to them by virtue of being part of a group. So while I can see that you might imply that for a specific individual, based on specific things that person has done, I'd certainly not imply that a whole category of people (whether christians, black people, women, tories) are inherently bad people by virtue of that categorisation when I have no knowledge of the vast majority of those people as individuals.

[Nearly Sane]

Well actually I'm not sure I would hold to the notion of a 'bad person', but I think it would generally be confined to be someone inherently morally disordered regardless of what they may have or may have not done that might be considered to be 'bad behaviour'. Why is that relevant - well because christianity is based on the notion of inherent moral disorder of individuals - in other words original sin. The notion that someone is sinful regardless of whether or not they have actually done anything wrong.

So to claim someone to be a bad person implies an intrinsic and inherent badness that sits outside of what they may or may not have done.

As someone who has a broadly humanist outlook which tends to be consequentialist in philosophical position I tend to focus more on outcomes and would certainly not consider people to be inherently morally disordered - i.e. bad people. I tend also to focus on people as individuals, not defined by some nominal attributes that may lazily be applied to them by virtue of being part of a group. So while I can see that you might imply that for a specific individual, based on specific things that person has done, I'd certainly not imply that a whole category of people (whether christians, black people, women, tories) are inherently bad people by virtue of that categorisation when I have no knowledge of the vast majority of those people as individuals.

So some racists are good?