Islam v. Free Speech: Twitter Surrenders
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429190/islam-twitter-and-free-speech
[Bernie Sanders:] Global warming a worse threat than terrorism, "...climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism..."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427094/sanders-absolutely-global-warming-worse-threat-terrorism-tom-s-elliott
The main arguments supporting Sanders' assertion seem to revolve around resource availability:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/sanders-on-climate-link-to-terrorism/
However what's missing from Sanders' equation is the impact of the Islamic meme set itself upon the stability and viability of societies.
Mark Steyn's response:
http://www.steynonline.com/7299/the-leader-of-the-free-world-and-his-universal
Obama's statement about what, according to him, the future "must" not belong to:
https://reason.com/blog/2012/09/25/president-obama-says-we-must-condemn-tho
(never talking smack about Mohamed)
Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz collaborating discussions:
https://www.samharris.org/blog
Maajid is an unfortunately-singular truly-liberal voice within "Islam."
Cartoon posted by Maajid:
https://twitter.com/maajidnawaz/status/422342223460855809
more on Maajid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz
https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz
https://www.facebook.com/MaajidNawazFanPage/
Sam Harris chats w/gay neocon Douglas Murray:
http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/on-the-maintenance-of-civilization
Re climate change, Mark Steyn is engaged in a legal battle with Michael Mann.
http://www.steynonline.com/6234/the-silencing-of-science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bARjABDqok
Judith Curry & Mark Steyn at the Senate:
Anyway I've come to conclude that, as per Daniel Dennett's "dangerous" idea regarding religion being a natural phenomenon, religion is so damn natural that two or more atheists gathered in the name of their favorite social or political agenda cannot help but form a de facto one.
Charismatic charlatans come in all shapes and sizes. When our favorite "prophet" is on our side of the political spectrum we're more ready to dismiss their flaws. For example when Clinton was in office I personally wrote to the White House expressing my support during their trials & tribulations. However I now see that I was hoodwinked, just like I was hoodwinked about Joseph Smith.
Why are the rape crimes of Bill Clinton given a pass while the probably-natural activities of Catholic Priests & other pedophiles are not? Just because something is 'natural' doesn't mean it should be valued. Sociopathy and psychopathy are natural too, natural abusive outlier activities that is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Recoverers from religion have a hard time seeing value in fully natural & fully evolved human morality which says "no" to certain activities. Why did fully natural religions/cultures evolve moral codes of conduct? For fully natural reasons.
So how "conservative" should we be? It's a balancing act. An evolution if you will. And we aren't the first people to deal with the tension between letting it all hang out, and hanging people for doing so. Somewhere in between those two extremes lies human happiness & human thriving.
Islam & Mormonism are too conservative.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429190/islam-twitter-and-free-speech
Why ‘Draw Mohammed’? The Artist Explains
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429175/draw-mohammed-cartoonist-speaks-out-why-i-entered-garland-contest
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429175/draw-mohammed-cartoonist-speaks-out-why-i-entered-garland-contest
[Bernie Sanders:] Global warming a worse threat than terrorism, "...climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism..."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427094/sanders-absolutely-global-warming-worse-threat-terrorism-tom-s-elliott
The main arguments supporting Sanders' assertion seem to revolve around resource availability:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/sanders-on-climate-link-to-terrorism/
However what's missing from Sanders' equation is the impact of the Islamic meme set itself upon the stability and viability of societies.
Mark Steyn's response:
http://www.steynonline.com/7299/the-leader-of-the-free-world-and-his-universal
(that the Western political leadership is largely in denial about the real root causes of terrorism)
Obama's statement about what, according to him, the future "must" not belong to:
https://reason.com/blog/2012/09/25/president-obama-says-we-must-condemn-tho
(never talking smack about Mohamed)
Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz collaborating discussions:
https://www.samharris.org/blog
Maajid is an unfortunately-singular truly-liberal voice within "Islam."
Cartoon posted by Maajid:
https://twitter.com/maajidnawaz/status/422342223460855809
more on Maajid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz
https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz
https://www.facebook.com/MaajidNawazFanPage/
Sam Harris debates Cenk Uygur (an example of the new regressive left vs those few lefties who're willing to be honest regarding Islam)
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-young-turks-interview
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-young-turks-interview
Sam Harris chats w/gay neocon Douglas Murray:
http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/on-the-maintenance-of-civilization
Re climate change, Mark Steyn is engaged in a legal battle with Michael Mann.
http://www.steynonline.com/6234/the-silencing-of-science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bARjABDqok
Judith Curry & Mark Steyn at the Senate:
full hearing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KVTmo2Vxnk
Anyway I've come to conclude that, as per Daniel Dennett's "dangerous" idea regarding religion being a natural phenomenon, religion is so damn natural that two or more atheists gathered in the name of their favorite social or political agenda cannot help but form a de facto one.
Charismatic charlatans come in all shapes and sizes. When our favorite "prophet" is on our side of the political spectrum we're more ready to dismiss their flaws. For example when Clinton was in office I personally wrote to the White House expressing my support during their trials & tribulations. However I now see that I was hoodwinked, just like I was hoodwinked about Joseph Smith.
Why are the rape crimes of Bill Clinton given a pass while the probably-natural activities of Catholic Priests & other pedophiles are not? Just because something is 'natural' doesn't mean it should be valued. Sociopathy and psychopathy are natural too, natural abusive outlier activities that is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Recoverers from religion have a hard time seeing value in fully natural & fully evolved human morality which says "no" to certain activities. Why did fully natural religions/cultures evolve moral codes of conduct? For fully natural reasons.
So how "conservative" should we be? It's a balancing act. An evolution if you will. And we aren't the first people to deal with the tension between letting it all hang out, and hanging people for doing so. Somewhere in between those two extremes lies human happiness & human thriving.
60s/70s SanFran-Glory-Hole-style liberalism is probably too permissive.
Humans aren't Bonobos. Shame regarding certain otherwise destructive
activities exists for some reasonable evolutionary reasons. Moral codes
of conduct evolved as counterweights to proclivities which can be
destructive.
No comments:
Post a Comment