Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 30 (since 2014-09-03 17:59:30)

Psychiatrist, Humanist, Pacifist, Love reasoning and critical thinking


Showing comments 30 - 1

  • Chomsky and his critics
    • That's simply not true. He cites newspapers and journals from all over the world. If you read him, you'd see. Yesterday, I was reading his "Power Systems" and he was talking about the "Frontline" magazine from India.

    • Chomsky is not anti-BDS. He is for it, if it works. The thing is he doesn't think it works. And then, there are multiple tactics that can be used for BDS. Chomsky is not opposed to them all. Whether wrong or right, he is one of the few ones who uses a consistent reasoning method in that regard.

  • JK Rowling stumps for Israel -- what would Harry Potter do?
  • Rescuing atheism from Harris and Hitchens
    • I think everybody should read this article:
      it sums up Sam Harris's logic pretty well.

      From the same article, these are Hitler words:

      "There’s only one duty: to Germanize this country by the immigration of Germans, and to look upon the natives as Redskins. If these people had defeated us, Heaven have mercy! But we don’t hate them. That sentiment is unknown to us. We are guided only by reason. …

      See Harris apologists? He was "guided only by reason"

    • "The fact that the Americans invaded Iraq DOES NOT IN ANY WAY contradict the statement that they “did, at considerable cost to themselves, ATTEMPT to improve life for Iraqis”. That statement is about their INTENTIONS. And the costs are obvious – billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and a less stable Iraq"

      This is delusional. Any doctrine by any American president in recent decades has pointed to Iraq as a place for the interests of the US. Saying they were there to help people is not only factually wrong and unsupported by evidence but also is outright narcissistic. Who the fuck do you think you are that you allow yourself to go to another country and kill and maim and displace millions of people and then lecture people about civilized behavior? A sociopath? a narcissist? a supremacist?
      Even more, he is an outright apologist for imperialism,
      “Zakaria has persuasively argued that the transition from tyranny to liberalism is unlikely to be accomplished by plebiscite. It seems all but certain that some form of benign dictatorship will generally be necessary to bridge the gap. But benignity is the key and if it cannot emerge from within a state, it must be imposed from without. The means of such imposition are necessarily crude: they amount to economic isolation, military intervention (whether open or covert), or some combination of both.” End of Faith

      See? military or sanctions! 500,000 Iraqi children died as a result of sanctions, and you are talking about "ATTEMPT to improve life for Iraqis”?????? You are out of touch.

      Oh I see where you are getting at, the "intention game", yep. I hope you have the same idea about the civilized behavior of Nazis toward Polish, and Japanese fascists toward Chinese, and Americans towards Vietnamese, and Stalin towards his own people. Because they all had good intentions.

    • "Harris opposed the Iraq war"
      "Zakaria has persuasively argued that the transition from tyranny to liberalism is unlikely to be accomplished by plebiscite. It seems all but certain that some form of benign dictatorship will generally be necessary to bridge the gap. But benignity is the key and if it cannot emerge from within a state, it must be imposed from without. The means of such imposition are necessarily crude: they amount to economic isolation, military intervention (whether open or covert), or some combination of both." End of Faith

      "As for Islam, I’ve just finished reading Harris and Nawaz’s “Islam and the Future of Tolerance”, a discussion between an atheist and an ex-Muslim extremist. It is discussions like this which will lead to peace, not the denunciations of p.c. apologists like the author of this article and the author of the book it reviews."
      So by definition whoever criticize your master is an apologist? Interesting. Harris is dangerous not because of criticizing Islam but because of call for actions against Muslims and being an apologists for Israel. You wanna ignore what he said about torture, profiling, or imposing dictators, killing people for beliefs or about justifying Israel crimes? go ahead. do it, but don't expect others to ignore it and don't think by ignoring, they go away. If not ignoring these make us apologists, so be it. I am more than happy to be an apologist for pointing to fascism and bigotry of Harris

    • ""The things that Sayeed says about the work of Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens is so far from the truth that it is absolutely stunning."
      I would go with no?! because he has quoted Harris in length in every one of his articles. Hitchens and Harris are both fascists disguised as atheists. But as usual, Harris apologists talk about misrepresentation

  • A guide to the worst refugee crisis since WWII
    • More than 90% of them are Afghan refugees. I cannot see any Syrian refugees in there. Moreover, Afghans have disastrous living conditions there. I am not saying that refugees in other countries don't, and I am not saying that Iran has been hostile to refugees, I am merely stating the facts.
      I am an Iranian by the way.

  • My fellow Muslim-Americans, in the wake of Chapel Hill we can’t stop speaking out - even if our voices shake
  • Finkelstein on Joan Peters's legacy (and Dershowitz's legal troubles)
    • Thanks Adam. Despite the smearing campaign of some Palestinian supporters against Norman, he is one of the most intelligent and hard-working Palestinian supporters. I really salute his life-long efforts for Palestine.

  • Dershowitz named in lawsuit alleging abuse of underage sex slave
  • On eve of University of California honor, Bill Maher defends anti-Muslim hate speech in Vanity Fair interview
    • What Maher does as usual is using his fallacious arguments to justify what he said. For those who think he did not say anything about allowing Muslim concentration camps and genocide, he is implying it obviously.

      Read again:
      Sally Kohn of Vanity Fair said to him: “The religious scholar Karen Armstrong did an interview with Salon and talked about what you and Sam Harris said. And she said that your comments fill her with despair because this is ‘the sort of talk that led to the concentrations camps in Europe. The sorts of things that people were saying about Jews in the 30s and 40s.’ That’s gotta sting, especially coming from her.”

      To which he replied: “It doesn’t sting because it’s beyond stupid. Jews weren’t oppressing anybody. There weren’t 5,000 militant Jewish groups. They didn’t do a study of treatment of women around the world and find that the Jews were at the bottom of it. There weren’t 10 Jewish countries in the world that were putting gay people to death just for being gay. It’s idiotic.”
      Armstrong is not talking about who has the burden of fault here, but rather she is focusing on the CONSEQUENCES of such remarks. So what Muslims (often a minority of them) did and ( a larger minority) just believe, can never ever justify putting them in concentration camps. So there IS difference in what Jews and Muslims did, but there might be no difference in the consequences of the hate speech against them. And here "them" refers to all Muslims not just those who did or believed those actions.

  • U.S. seeks to counter Palestinian UN resolution with alternative offer, says French diplomat
    • As the most pessimist of all, I have no faith whatsoever in the UN. They are a bunch of puppets that do two things 1: clear the way for the world powers to do whatever they want 2: issue a set of useless resolutions only to say we did something.
      For those who continuously talk about Hamas charter and peace-loving Israel, this is a very clear statement: no Palestine can exist. Peace is only meaningful in the case of a nonexistent Palestine.

  • A point by point response to Alan Dershowitz’s 'Ten Reasons Why The BDS Movement Is Immoral'
    • Not only the responses were measured, but also funny and refreshing. Where is the "rational" Dershowitz Follower Sam Harris to put these into his brain.

  • 'What is your religion?' question surprises two American visitors to the occupation
    • In addition to factual falsity of your claims, you are a prime example of how Israeli propagandists deflect questions about the criminal actions of their government. This "what-about" this and that, however, is not going to spare Israel of explaining their crimes towards Palestinians. Zionist Propagandists like Bill Maher and Sam Harris are more concerned about lack of "gay bars" in Gaza, while at the same time do not give a hoot about Israel criminal actions. This is the mentality of your kind, which is not only unethical and immoral but outright ridiculous.

      A despicable action by Zionists during OPE was to ask what about Syria, what about ISIS, as if they are really concerned with human lives. Nope, Mr Zionist, please look in the mirror before accusing the "other" of crimes.

  • Why I confronted Gregor Gysi
  • 'I know how the brainwashing works'
  • As Kerry scrambles to prevent Palestinian action at UN, Israeli govt makes clear it will never accept Palestinian state
    • For me this is enough
      Ravid’s reporting backs up this theory. His Israeli sources say the prime minister is not interested in talking to Abbas. And yesterday Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon reiterated that Israel has no intent in seeing a sovereign Palestinian state, ever. “We need to free ourselves of the notion that everything boils down to only one option called a Palestinian state,” said Ya’alon to Yisrael HaYom, concluding, “I am not looking for a solution, I am looking for a way to manage the conflict and maintain relations in a way that works for our interests.”

  • Andrew Sullivan should stop giving a pass to Sam Harris and Bill Maher's bigotry
    • Hey Thomas

      Nobody here is in love with religion, the point is justifying West crimes against the Muslims, because Muslims are "backward" and "uncivilized". This is not just the criticism of religion (I myself am irreligious), but painting all the Muslims with a broad brush to justify profiling them, torturing them, or "war on terror" has nothing reasonable, justified or civilized about it.

    • "Sullivan had a column up recently that was really stupid. In it he argued that Hamas needs to be defeated because they hate Jews and if they ever get their hands on Jews they would kill them. Yes, Israel has killed innocents but they don’t mean to and anyway they’re not trying to kill all the Arabs"
      Sounds very much like Sam Harris

  • Fineman and Robinson blast Sam Harris and HBO for promoting ignorance about Islam
    • When Christians were burning scientists for saying the truth, there were several math, chemistry, medicine, astronomy, and physic scientists in the Muslim country who thrived and discovered many things. Having or not having iPhone has nothing to do with justifying bigotry. When you are a bigot, you are a bigot because you have a biased thinking and reasoning. While you excuse Israel murderous acts, you condemn the Islamic ones. This is bigotry

    • This is totally true, but only half of the truth. The other half being most Muslims do not belong to these groups and are not a fan of it. Also Koran has both aggressive and peaceful verses, so ignoring the peaceful ones is again biased thinking which is a hallmark of Harris.
      See this: as an argument of several clerics against ISIS on a one by one point. Have any media in the US shown this? no

  • 'NYT' finds a model relationship for Palestinians and Israelis: collaborator and his handler
    • Hero for humanity. Some abstract words without any meaning. Humanity for example: doesn't this include by any way defense of Palestinians who have been killed, looted, whose houses were demolished, lands taken, who were imprisoned without charges? You sounds very much like Sam Harris BTW in terms of argument, reducing a very complex conflict to a religious one so that you can justify your defense of his actions based on this religious fear-mongering argument.

      Another point is terrorist. Do you have any idea of the meaning of the word? If you like the only meaning I found for it is killing civilians for political gain. This is exactly what Israel does now and Jewish groups did to found Israel, whether Hamas does it or not. You probably do not know about PLO which was a secular organization and exactly due to actions of your heroes in Israel, it was undermined to give rise to an Islamist organization. Whatever Hamas is, this cannot prevent Palestinians from taking back their stolen land and home. If you have any meaning for humanity other than this, then good luck with it.

      By Rationality if you mean Project: Reason of Sam Harris, Thank u we are not hungry for your reasoning. Reasons that all they do is creating a world of fanatic Muslims and then attacking it. Based on this we are allowed to torture them, nuke them, and Hail Israel over killing "them". This is not reason. This is destroying reason.

  • Photo of six shoveling secretaries needs a caption
  • Defending Apartheid: Then in South Africa, now in Palestine
  • Sam Harris defends his silence on Gaza slaughter (or tries to anyway)
  • Dershowitz steps down from Harvard to spend more time with what he loves -- Israel
    • Guys have you ever thought about what I am thinking now? that most Israel supporters suffer from a devastating type of self-blinding narcissistic personality?

Showing comments 30 - 1