RE: I Used To Be A Fan But I Am Now Shocked, Disgusted And Appalled With Sam Harris
June 1, 2017 at 5:17 am
(This post was last modified: June 1, 2017 at 5:46 am by Edwardo Piet.)
Lol.... you say I'm assuming complicity. Lmao. Complicity is literally not taking action or calling out bigotry in the face of it. Laughing along at bigotry is complicity by definition. It's not rocket science.
LOL. You're just messing about with semantics there. It's bloody obvious that when I'm saying that you're focusing on the parts you agree with and throwing the rest out I mean you're selecting the parts you agree with and ignoring the rest. You're cherrypicking. And now you're even doing it with semantics.
I'm focusing on the whole thing but I'm actually not ignoring the part where transgender people are called "weirdos" and Sam Harris laughs along with it.
The way you turn a blind eye to the whole thing and attempt to justify it or pretend that laughing about that isn't complicity (when it's literally not only not calling it out but it's acting like it's funny) is pretty fucked up on your part.
I'm not ignoring them. I'm not talking about them because they're fucking irrelevant to the part where transpeople were called "weirdos".
You're pretending like in full context it's somehow non-bigoted to call transpeople "weirdos" and it's not complicit to laugh along at that like it's funny.
Bullshit.
You're ignoring it because you're only focusing on all the parts you agree with it and pretending like the bigoted part isn't bigoted.
By admitting that you just proved me right.
He was complcit in the face of the part you admit was bigoted. He was complcit in the face of the part that you admit it's bigoted to be complcit in the face of. Q.E.D.
Guess what, when you don't respond to the whole of something and that whole includes a part that is bigoted... that's being complicit in the face of bigotry. This is basic logic. The fact that you pretend like ignoring the whole isn't ignoring part of the whole... and the fact you admit that what Murray said was bigoted, that being complicit in the face of bigoted things said is bigoted, and the fact that Sam Harris didn't respond to it other than laughing about it... this is all proof that you're wrong. You're literally accepting all the premises that entail the conclusion and ignoring the conclusion.
I'll spell it out for you and show you that you're accepting all the premises but ignoring the conclusion that is entailed:
Premise 1: Saying bigoted things is bigoted.
Premise 2: Laughing along in the face of something bigoted without calling it out as bigoted is being complicit in the face of bigotry.
Premise 3: Being complicit in the face of bigotry is bigoted.
Premise 4. What Murray said was bigoted
Premise 5. Sam Harris laughed along in the face of it without calling it out as bigoted
Conclusion: Sam Harris was bigoted.
You admit that what Murray said was bigoted, you admit that being complicit in the face of it is bigoted, and you know what being complicit is... it's not taking action in the face of something. Your insistence that I am not talking full context into account is irrelevant. If you are complicit in the face of the whole of something and part of that whole is bigoted then you're complicit in the face of something bigoted. Focusing on what's relevant to what I'm complaining about is not 'cherry-picking'. Cherry-picking is what you're doing where you'll literally accept all the premises but ignore the conclusion. It's when you'll listen to the whole thing and ignore the parts that are relevant to what I'm fucking complaining about.
It's disgusting how widespread transphobia is. If the same things had been said about gay people or black people or any other minority I wouldn't have to make these fucking arguments when someone laughs along at bigoted statements giving no impression that they disagree with any of it. That's what complicity in the face of bigotry is for fuck's sake. I wouldn't have to be doing this if it was any other minority. It's disgusting how common transphobia is. The fact you're trying to justify this shit when you wouldn't do the same for any other minority is fucking vile. It makes me sick. Look at the premises you've already accepted and the conclusion it actually entails that you're ignoring. You're fucking ridiculous.
(May 31, 2017 at 6:57 pm)Crunchy Wrote: You have this totally backwards.
"Picking" does not involve throwing out, it involves selecting like you're doing. I'm listening to the whole thing and realizing that it is impossible to know exactly which parts are in the mind of Harris at any given moment.
LOL. You're just messing about with semantics there. It's bloody obvious that when I'm saying that you're focusing on the parts you agree with and throwing the rest out I mean you're selecting the parts you agree with and ignoring the rest. You're cherrypicking. And now you're even doing it with semantics.
I'm focusing on the whole thing but I'm actually not ignoring the part where transgender people are called "weirdos" and Sam Harris laughs along with it.
The way you turn a blind eye to the whole thing and attempt to justify it or pretend that laughing about that isn't complicity (when it's literally not only not calling it out but it's acting like it's funny) is pretty fucked up on your part.
(May 31, 2017 at 6:57 pm)Crunchy Wrote: While leaving out the parts concerned with political correctness and ignoring them. Cherry picking. You don't know what Harris thinks about trans people from this interview but you're convinced that you do.
I'm not ignoring them. I'm not talking about them because they're fucking irrelevant to the part where transpeople were called "weirdos".
You're pretending like in full context it's somehow non-bigoted to call transpeople "weirdos" and it's not complicit to laugh along at that like it's funny.
Bullshit.
You're ignoring it because you're only focusing on all the parts you agree with it and pretending like the bigoted part isn't bigoted.
(May 31, 2017 at 6:57 pm)Crunchy Wrote: Referring to trans people as weirdos is bigoted.
By admitting that you just proved me right.
Quote:It is also bigoted to be complicit is the face of bigotry. No disagreement there, but was Harris complicit with the parts you cherry picked or complicit with the parts you ignore?
He was complcit in the face of the part you admit was bigoted. He was complcit in the face of the part that you admit it's bigoted to be complcit in the face of. Q.E.D.
Guess what, when you don't respond to the whole of something and that whole includes a part that is bigoted... that's being complicit in the face of bigotry. This is basic logic. The fact that you pretend like ignoring the whole isn't ignoring part of the whole... and the fact you admit that what Murray said was bigoted, that being complicit in the face of bigoted things said is bigoted, and the fact that Sam Harris didn't respond to it other than laughing about it... this is all proof that you're wrong. You're literally accepting all the premises that entail the conclusion and ignoring the conclusion.
I'll spell it out for you and show you that you're accepting all the premises but ignoring the conclusion that is entailed:
Premise 1: Saying bigoted things is bigoted.
Premise 2: Laughing along in the face of something bigoted without calling it out as bigoted is being complicit in the face of bigotry.
Premise 3: Being complicit in the face of bigotry is bigoted.
Premise 4. What Murray said was bigoted
Premise 5. Sam Harris laughed along in the face of it without calling it out as bigoted
Conclusion: Sam Harris was bigoted.
You admit that what Murray said was bigoted, you admit that being complicit in the face of it is bigoted, and you know what being complicit is... it's not taking action in the face of something. Your insistence that I am not talking full context into account is irrelevant. If you are complicit in the face of the whole of something and part of that whole is bigoted then you're complicit in the face of something bigoted. Focusing on what's relevant to what I'm complaining about is not 'cherry-picking'. Cherry-picking is what you're doing where you'll literally accept all the premises but ignore the conclusion. It's when you'll listen to the whole thing and ignore the parts that are relevant to what I'm fucking complaining about.
It's disgusting how widespread transphobia is. If the same things had been said about gay people or black people or any other minority I wouldn't have to make these fucking arguments when someone laughs along at bigoted statements giving no impression that they disagree with any of it. That's what complicity in the face of bigotry is for fuck's sake. I wouldn't have to be doing this if it was any other minority. It's disgusting how common transphobia is. The fact you're trying to justify this shit when you wouldn't do the same for any other minority is fucking vile. It makes me sick. Look at the premises you've already accepted and the conclusion it actually entails that you're ignoring. You're fucking ridiculous.
