EU

I thought it was Ayya.

  On 7/20/2016 at 2:31 PM, caze said:

 

  On 7/20/2016 at 10:06 AM, chenGOD said:

TIL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muselmann

 

edit: not disagreeing with you entirely, but I think the term "Musulman" is probably archaic - I remember reading it in older history books.

It is archaic in English, dated but not completely out of use in German, and still normal and widely in use in many other languages. The guy who used it initially on here was German I believe.

 

Note that the person who insistently used the word "muselman" is also the same man who made posts in the brussels airport attack thread suggesting that the whole thing was a false flag operation, so I would be careful to rationalize his choice of words.

again, there is no reason to insist on using it in English in a conversation on WATMM, and yes the person who used it was a twat, so unless you want to sound like a twat and/or knob, don't do it blud.

you can call me a moussel man

it's fair to say a Musilman is without qualities imo

  On 7/20/2016 at 2:31 PM, caze said:

 

  On 7/20/2016 at 10:06 AM, chenGOD said:

TIL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muselmann

 

edit: not disagreeing with you entirely, but I think the term "Musulman" is probably archaic - I remember reading it in older history books.

It is archaic in English, dated but not completely out of use in German, and still normal and widely in use in many other languages. The guy who used it initially on here was German I believe.

Phling is German, he seems to disagree.

I dunno, I'm not German, nor do I live there, so can't speak to it with any certainty.

Musulmán is the Spanish word for Muslim person.

  On 7/20/2016 at 7:46 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 7/20/2016 at 2:31 PM, caze said:

 

  On 7/20/2016 at 10:06 AM, chenGOD said:

TIL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muselmann

 

edit: not disagreeing with you entirely, but I think the term "Musulman" is probably archaic - I remember reading it in older history books.

It is archaic in English, dated but not completely out of use in German, and still normal and widely in use in many other languages. The guy who used it initially on here was German I believe.

Phling is German, he seems to disagree.

I dunno, I'm not German, nor do I live there, so can't speak to it with any certainty.

 

i'm german and i'd very much say it's out of use. i've only heard it in (pretty racist) south german nursery rhymes which probably date from about 150 years ago and in writing about its use in the concentration camps, as mentioned last page, mainly by giorgio agamben who picks it up from primo levi. its probably as common in day-to-day german as saying "thou doest" is in english

Good info. So in daily German newspapers they use Muslim?

no, they say "thou doest Musulman"

come on chen

This thread proves the EU has become Muslim territory. Thanks Obama!

* insane laughter of Farage in the background till he chokes on it *

moops. not even a nod.

it's all gone into some even more batshit crazy territory over here.

ted fucking cruz championed the brexit vote at the RNC as a sign of people rejecting big government and the pittance of faithful fucking fucks cheered like he ripped off his face revealing ronald reagan living under his mask.

hunter s thompson is sorely missed. my 3 glasses of wine is not enough inspiration to bring forth any worthy verbiage laden with insight so i'll fuck off.

  On 7/20/2016 at 12:37 AM, Alcofribas said:

sam harris clearly means to be provocative in everyone of those examples and numerous others. it's why he phrases things in the way he does and not in a more sophisticated manner. "We are at war with Islam" and "profile people who look Muslim" and "Id vote for Carson over Chomsky" etc are deliberately meant to be provocative. The fact that he tries to scale back the thrust of those pronouncements with tepid qualifications, often ex post facto, does not make them any less incendiary and obnoxious.

 

your closing sentiments do not ring true in light of your consistent apologetics for some one who consistently betrays a contempt for the very liberal values you'd like to champion. I believe harris's performance in his petulant correspondence with Chomsky reveals quite enough about the integrity of his values. and whether you "believe" I've read anything beyond slate articles or whatever is irrelevant.

he phrases those things in a perfectly sophisticated manner, it only fails to appear sophisticated if you cut out most of what he says. they're only provocative because you want them to be, they're not really.

Harris doesn't in any way show contempt for liberal values, that's just nonsense. and the only one who came out of that exchange looking bad was Chomsky, who was incredibly ignorant and pompous. Harris was bending over backwards to be accommodating, but Chomsky was just acting like a jerk.

Alco simply cannot accept the idea that there could be a problem with a religion. He will do anything he can in order to deny it. It is a huge emotional struggle for hypersensitive naive people with their pinky glasses. It is similar to having an argument with a devoted believer. No logic, just irrational struggle and huge amounts of emotions. Pointless.

  On 7/21/2016 at 9:19 PM, WNS000 said:

Alco simply cannot accept the idea that there could be a problem with a religion. He will do anything he can in order to deny it. It is a huge emotional struggle for hypersensitive naive people with their pinky glasses. It is similar to having an argument with a devoted believer. No logic, just irrational struggle and huge amounts of emotions. Pointless.

you're an idiot

  On 7/21/2016 at 9:31 PM, goDel said:

 

  On 7/21/2016 at 9:19 PM, WNS000 said:

Alco simply cannot accept the idea that there could be a problem with a religion. He will do anything he can in order to deny it. It is a huge emotional struggle for hypersensitive naive people with their pinky glasses. It is similar to having an argument with a devoted believer. No logic, just irrational struggle and huge amounts of emotions. Pointless.

 

you're an idiot

 

Oh shit, that had to hurt! Bullseye!

Seriously dude, you're a friccin moron

  On 6/29/2016 at 8:05 PM, caze said:

 

  On 6/29/2016 at 6:30 PM, Alcofribas said:

sam harris is a charlatan and a hack "philosopher." i normally think you're a well-spoken and reasonable poster but your comments and outright lies in that post (he has most certainly advocated for every one of those things) is quite disappointing.

 

but fuck it, another islam thread on here is lame. let's agree we see things quite differently and seek toward general lushness on this forum.

 

cheers

nah, not letting that stand, no lies in my post.

 

on profiling: you could disagree with everything Harris says in that discussion with Schneier, but you'd still have to concede that he's not advocating for racial profiling. what he is advocating for, as Limpy already said, is negative profiling, i.e. dismissing certain individuals from profling - little old ladies, babies, fat elderly japanese guys, etc., looking at everyone else (which would include you, me, limpy and Sam Harris himself), and focusing on behavioral profiling with them. It doesn't really matter which approach is right when it comes to questions about Sam Harris' character though, if he's wrong it doesn't make him in the slightest bit bigoted or racist. if he's wrong he's simply failing to provide an effective method for profiling.

 

on torture: he advocates for it being completely illegal in all situations, but thinks up certain extreme hypothetical situations where it might be morally justifiable in consequentialist terms. this isn't particularly troubling. you might disagree with his arguments - I probably do as well, but he's not advocating for torture, waterboarding, enhanced interrogation, or anything like that.

 

on war: never made any public statements on the Iraq war before it happened AFAIK, says he was pretty much against it, was vaguely supportive of the Afghan war after the fact, I've never seen him publically advocate for initiating any war against anyone, aside from generally thinking taking on ISIS and the likes is a good idea without going into specifics other than local countries are best placed to deal with it, the west should help where/if it can. he has examined moral arguments for when war would be justified, which included scenarios like religious lunatics getting their hands on nuclear weapons. nothing particularly controversial in any of this even if you disagree with any of it, he takes pretty mainstream centrist stances here. he's not a pacificst clearly, but just as obviously he's not a hawk or a neocon, he doesn't go around advocating for war.

 

on incarceration: he's been highly critical of guantanamo, abu ghraib, etc. so not sure what you think he thinks on this one.

 

 

this post by him covers a lot of this stuff: https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-controversy

 

somehow i missed this post and it's typical of the kind of disavowal surrounding sam harris and his cohorts.

On profiling: sorry mate, you're picking and choosing what you want to see here. yes, harris does speak of "anti-profiling" in the article but it is only a feature of his approach to profiling. he also speaks consistently of active profiling, viz., people who positively look muslim:

"Agents could be well-trained to look for the threat—jihadists—under all conceivable guises and then be trusted to use their discretion to ignore people who obviously pose no threat."

"We should acknowledge that certain travelers fit the profile so well that they are obviously Muslim, and others stand a very good chance of being Muslim, and these facts can be discerned by any trained screener simply by looking. Certain costumes and behaviors constitute ideological performances—which is to say, we can know what a person believes, or is likely to believe, by his appearance alone."

"You’ve said repeatedly that there is no such thing as “looking Muslim”—but there is [...] I have heard stories of women in niqabs breezing through security. What percentage of niqab wearers—or, more important, the men traveling with them—hope for a global Caliphate or believe that martyrdom is a direct path to Paradise? It is surely high. It is rather like asking what percentage of skinheads wearing swastika tattoos and “White Pride Worldwide” T-shirts are racist and anti-Semitic. If we were in a global war against a cult of suicidal white supremacists, one would have to be crazy not to pay extra attention to this distinguished gentleman at the airport."

"I think you continue to trivialize how difficult it is to recruit people for jihad who look completely off type, and who can behave completely off type while passing through security."

you can't somehow pretend that this isn't active profiling he's talking about. he's specifically saying that some people will look and even behave like jihadists and those people should be scrutinized more than Betty White or Al Gore. it's at the heart of the the debate between them, i have no idea how you can pretend that he isn't explicitly suggesting that people who look muslim should be profiled. in a different world this wouldn't be offensive so much as just a trite pedestrian analysis. but considering the way in which such commentary lends itself well to the rights violations of many innocent people based on nothing but their thoughts or looks i find it repulsive.

on torture: harris has definitely, explicitly said he believes torture should be illegal but for a few cases vaguely informed by "thought experiments." a few comments. all of sam harris's thought experiments are pro-western. this is typical of his work in general. it is unimaginable that he would apply such a thought experiment to, e.g., palestinians who torture a kidnapped idf solider to learn of the location of the next israeli bomb that will decimate homes and kill innocent civilians. this alone seems to belie the integrity of his little thought games; as long as they support the trivial view that western values are righteous and upheld by western leaders against primitive and backward muslims, then he is willing to rally behind such thought experiments.

but that is not the whole picture. sam harris has also supported in high moral terms the torture of a specific, actual person by the u.s. government:

"Enter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: our most valuable capture in our war on terror … his membership in Al Qaeda more or less rules out his "innocence" in any important sense, and his rank in the organisation suggests that his knowledge of planned atrocities must be extensive. The bomb is ticking. Given the damage we were willing to cause to the bodies and minds of innocent children in Afghanistan and Iraq, our disavowal of torture in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed seems perverse. If there is even one chance in a million that he will tell use something under torture that will lead to the further dismantling of Al Qaeda, it seems that we should use every means at our disposal to get him talking."

a few things of note: her harris has departed from his thought experiment mode of a ticking time bomb, even as he invokes it. khalid sheikh mohammed was waterboarded 185 times. the cia concluded that despite this he managed to withhold the information they were looking for and he later claimed that the information he did reveal under torture was false. now you can attempt to hide behind the fog of "thought experiment" here all you'd like but i'll just point out two things: considering the result of torture in this real life case the experiment failed. but what is more, sam harris is here claiming that this man should be tortured by the cia not in order to produce vital information to stop a "ticking bomb" scenario; he is in fact calling for torture to dismantle al qaeda.

so i believe that, again, you'd like to believe all sam harris is saying is what he produces in his hand-wringing while ignoring the more offensive and indeed quite provocative claims that make him such a repulsive figure (we must torture in order to destroy al qaeda).

i'll leave aside the greater picture of war bc i haven't the energy to attempt to construct a comprehensive view of his public statements beyond his, offensive to me, claims of agnosticism and statements along the "bush & co. blundered the war" type shit.

finally, i agree with your appraisal of his comments on incarceration generally. if you look at my original post i did not single him out specifically and did not mean to.

France: Truck Attacker Had Accomplices, Planned for Months

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/french-minister-criticized-nice-attack-police-claims-40762397

No "unexpected, sudden radicalization" as claimed before.

Nobody (authorities) knew he was being radicalized.

at a very young age i was radicalized by Splinter.

I was born rad.

My friends call me rad itt.

  On 7/21/2016 at 11:30 PM, Alcofribas said:

at a very young age i was radicalized by Splinter.

So thou doest, Musulman.