I don't know anyone I would describe as liberal (as opposed to "classical liberal" or whatever euphemism for "doofus" they prefer) who defends most of Harris' nonsense, or Hitchens war-mongering that flirted with racism.
-
-
I'm a liberal, and not a "classical liberal" (i.e. a libertarian) but a real liberal social democratic Krugman fan, and I defend Sam Harris. See also
@GodDoesnt,@HPluckrose,@IonaItalia, etc...4 replies 1 retweet 14 likes -
Replying to @AtticusOz @SamHarrisOrg and
Then you are the outlier. What do you defend Harris on? The race/IQ shit? Torture? The exchange he had with Chomsky?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @doubtthat11 @SamHarrisOrg and
I've put my view on race /IQ in other tweets. He's right about Islam, especially after his collaboration with
@MaajidNawaz. He gets the principle right on torture, but is naive about the practical realities. Chomsky is a dishonest genocide denier and an intellectual fraud.1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @AtticusOz @SamHarrisOrg and
What would that torture principle be? There is no justification for torture. His essay is immoral garbage.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @doubtthat11 @SamHarrisOrg and
Actually, even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has virtually the same position as Sam. There are very rare cases where torture is morally justified. My problem with Sam is that he underestimates the way allowing torture would be abused, the same way the death penalty is.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @AtticusOz @doubtthat11 and
Sam's thought experiment asks if you'd sanction torture if you knew it'd work & by hurting 1 person intending harm, you'd save the lives of hundreds of innocents. The 'no' reaction is interesting considering ppl don't feel the same abt shooting someone abt to do a school shooting
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @SamHarrisOrg and
I would say that's a really stupid fucking question because not only do we not know whether it would work (a lot of things make sense with omnipotence) but we know torture does the opposite: yeilds bad information.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @doubtthat11 @SamHarrisOrg and
There we go. That's what he points out. People can't rebut his thought experiment. They are afraid to consider it. They can say that it's not useful because the problem of getting bad information is paramount but they can't refute it ethically.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @SamHarrisOrg and
No, I've considered it, it's dumb and pointless. It presents a scenario that doesn't exist in the real world. When do tortures know what the victim knows, that they won't lie under torture, and whether what they're told is true? It's childish sophistry.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
'This thought experiment is not useful' is a valid response.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @SamHarrisOrg and
That would be my response, then.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @doubtthat11 @SamHarrisOrg and
Excellent. That is much better than saying he is justifying torture and is evil.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.