@SDGundamX

Wow, where to start. Your reply to my latest comment illustrates how you (willingly or ignorantly?) continue to misconstrue the issue, building up strawman after strawman, putting words and notions in Harris' mouth and mine, while ignoring everything I post. And then you post an article that maliciously distorts the views of Harris and Hitchens, depicting them as solely intent on vilifying Islam. If that article really describes what you think than I should probably stop arguing with you and spend my time better, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

Yes, I read the book you linked, or at least what the preview offered, which was more than enough to show that it does not go against anything Harris or I argue, only against the strawmen you prop up. A few comments on the book nonetheless:

The introduction (the one not by the book's author) is full of wishy-washy 'everything-and-its-contraire' platitudes, and ironically refers to Muslims as a unified whole, which is exactly what you accuse H. and I of... that's a good start; it's okay to make sweeping generalizations if they're positive? But even this text recognises that the secular influence of the "West" upon Muslim modernists forces them away from the core tenets of Islam and it's sacred text, which then sees the rise of fundamentalist backlash. And then there's this tidbit in the conclusion:

"Muslims, we often forget, do not always act as Muslims or members of a religious community; rather, they respond to economic, social and political needs that may direct conduct more than ideological signposts do."

Well hello captain Obvious! Either he's trying to address Christian right white trash, in which case he should use a bilboard instead of a book (I kid, I kid), or he takes his projected audience for fools. Or maybe he's building up to the sort of strawmen you seem so fond of attacking.

Now to the actual book: the author suggests that the world concentrates on "Arab" Islam, and ignores the rest. Not only is that false (at least where H. and I are concerned), not only does it carry racist undertones (yes, "Arab" is, for lack of a better word, a "race"; "Muslim" is not), but it purposefully ignores that the Middle East is Islam's birthplace, and still regarded as it's "Mecca" (haha). It's fine and dandy to put the blame that it deserves on European colonialism, but the author seems to forget that the spread of Islam is mostly due to, hey, Arabo-Islamic colonisation (and/or military conquest, sometimes with a healthy sprinkling of "cleansing", i.e. persecution of non-muslims 'till there were none left). But hey, Christianity did the same.
A really weird part is when the author somehow turns our quasi-universal use of the "Christian" calender into an illustration of Euro-American "structural violence and hegemony". Wow.
All in all, I learned nothing new whatsoever from what I read of that book, and cannot recommend it.

So there are modern/accomodationist interpretations of the Qur'an and Islamic doctrine? So not all Muslims are crazy male Saladins (I'm not making this up)? No one here is disputing that. So there are also other factors at work here? Not being denied either.

Neither are we arguing that muslims are more likely to commit violence than anyone else. By taking away the bold when citing me, you changed the meaning of the citation, creating one of the strawmen you also use to attack Harris: the key words are "in the name of" (or, to paraphrase "with the justification/motivation" of religion).

What is being argued is that Islam, i.e. the doctrines found in the Qur'an and Hadith, justify - render moral even - actions that are unethical, harmful, violent (the same is true of the Bible, from which Sharia law stems, but it is much less practiced than under Islam). That is why I quote the Qur'an, which - whether you like it or not - constitutes the core of the religion called "Islam" ("submission", btw... a pretty bad start). Nor can you deny that said religion demands that its holy text be considered the infallible and ultimate word of God (33:36). Many Muslims ignore the worser parts? Yay hooray! Doesn't change that some do not.

As for evidence (of which the book you cite, at least the parts accessible to me, contained none), you will never get it from me because you want evidence that supports the strawman arguments you put in H.'s mouth and mine, and there's no way you're getting that from either. What you do get, from the small sample of examples above (in a mess of html, i admit), is evidence that Islam today, more than any other religion, is at the source of (e.g. application of Sharia law) or aggravates (e.g. honour killing, fgm) acts of violence, discrimination and barbarity.

Is the fact that more than half of the active terrorist groups in existence today wear their Islamist agenda proudly, often including it in their name, not "evidency" enough for you?

Is the fact that unethical practices are condoned by Islamic (and almost only Islamic) regimes, even enshrined in civil law (which is also religious law), not evidence of Islam's virulence?

What more do you want? You say "You can't attack the religion without attacking the people who believe in that religion". You, and the author of that pathetic excuse of an article you just linked to, are trying to project a generalising, hate and fear-mongering view on people like Harris and myself, something I find both ignorant and insulting. Of course I can criticise an ideology, warn against its potential (and existing) negative consequences, without targeting every one of its adherents, or even the majority thereof. When Hitchens points out that the idea of vicarious redemption, central to Christianity, is unethical, and the Christian God's treatment of Abraham disgusting, is he saying that all Christian's are unethical and disgusting?

You say: Prove that people in Islamic countries are suffering because of Islam and not because we colonized them, used them as pawns in our own political games, got overthrown or kicked out, then either left them to rot or turned them into our oil suppliers while funding autocratic regimes and looking the other way as they tortured and killed their own people. Prove that it's Islam and not the appalling lack of medical care, education, political access, or access to a reliable legal system that accounts for the violence. Prove that the tenets of Islam are a significant factor in the violence and not just lipservice paid to justify it.

Quite simple really: compare pre-Islamic revolution Iran with post-Islamic revolution Iran. Compare the twin fates of Pakistan and India, the former being "created" as an Islamic nation. Which of the two bears the record for honour killings (the Sihks and Hindus try hard to catch up, I know)? Which of the two was hiding the world's most famous terrorist and Islamic fundamentalist? Which of the two has one of the lowest rates of literacy for women? In which of these two countries, whose post-colonial fate is practically identical, do you have 7/10 chances to be sexually abused in a police station if you are a women? I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Colonialism and its modern forms (globalisation, etc.) have a lot of blame to shoulder, no doubt whatsoever. But that does not diminish in any way the import and effect of Islam's doctrines. Did colonialists invent sharia law, for example, or demand it be enforced? No. Mohamed and his ideology did.
Blaming everything on colonialism and "western" influence is a twisted form of pretentiousness, as if only the "west" could come up with bad stuff. Arabs, Asians, Africans, etc. are people too, they too can be atrocious, it's not just reserved for the whiteys! It's as wrong as blaming slavery entirely on Europe and the American colonies. The slave trade in Africa and the Middle East was going on long before "westerners" became buyers, and guess who was doing the trading?

As long as you insist on blinding yourself to the influence of Islam in the world today, or at least to its negative aspects, you will have a skewed and prejudiced view, exactly what you are accusing others of. Of course it is only one factor among many, but it is an important factor, whether that suits your guilt-by-association-ridden conscience or not.

>> ^legacy0100:

...wtf is this bullshit. This man is spewing diarrhea out of his mouth. He is basing his argument solely on what little he knows about his own little world. I highly doubt this man has ever done any professional research over these matters, not even data collection. He's just conjuring up a theory solely based on what he has read and heard over the news media sitting in his own living room.
What he said towards the end really bothered me the most. "some religions have never had these extremists", what sources does he have?


You, sir or madam, are the one who apparently knows little to nothing about both Islam and Sam Harris. May I suggest you read "The End of Faith", or any of Harris' excellent (and researched) books, before "spewing diarrhea"-like criticisms without knowing what you're talking about.

As for Islam, look up one or many of the following effects of Islam in the world today: honour killing, fgm, suicide attacks, stoning, hate crimes, hate speech, punishments for "adultery", etc...

@bareboards2: yes, "at this moment" is a key phrase; when Christianity had Islam's age it was still all about the Inquisition and inter-faith massacres (oh, and witch-burning). But there can be no "redemption" for any religion whose core fundamentals are flawed, there can only be a watering down of its craziness with secular morality.

On the false problem of fundamentalists: http://videosift.com/video/The-problem-is-not-fundamentalists-but-the-fundamentals

yes, thats what i said, and these aren't ducks..more like snakes..and i'm little more qualified than you in this area..in this case im an ornithologist and you're some guy who saw daffy duck..this is a huge issue in the church right now..over half the church is roiled in complete apostacy..most forms of Christianity you see out there do not at all represent Christs life or message of redemption..there are over 35000 denominations when there isnt even supposed to be one..so christians themselves have to be extremely discerning..let alone the secular culture that doesnt know any better

Just finished the game tonight. A lot of people I know have been hating on that game in a big way, but I love how they've built upon the GTA engine to create some really unique games - from Read Dead Redemption to this one. I'm looking forward to what's next.

Is LA Noire perfect? No. There are many bugs that plague all the games using the GTA engine. But the face acting is a huge advance in video game technology. I hope it's used more and it excites me to think what they'll be doing for the next gen game consoles.

Rockstar still makes my favorite games. GTA IV, RDR and now LA Noire are probably the best game I've played in recent years.

They'll need all the redemption they can get after the mess that was DA2.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^Sketch:
I hate dogs and find them obnoxious, malodorous, and over-rated, but COME ON, PEOPLE!

You've never had a dog. I am sad for you. If you ever do get the chance to know one, and perhaps own one, you will not only find that dogs are not only awesome in more ways than I can put into words, but they will give you a whole new dimension in life. Seriously. They can change your fucking life.

Seriously.


True, I'm not a big dog person but now that I've had my dog for a couple of years since she was a wee pup, I'd mangle anyone who treated her badly.

And I'm not ashamed to admit that watching this got me quite teary. If there is one redemptive quality about watching horrific shit like this, it's that seeing how bad one individual animal get's treated has far more impact than hearing that hundreds of thousands get mistreated. I think we need that occasional punch in the guts to remind us the sort of shit that goes on in the world, and how we should all be aware and try to do our part when an opportunity presents itself to make a difference. Statistics just can't do that.

Yes, it's by Thomas Newman. The guy who also did Shawshank Redemption and the Road To Perdition.

No, I don't think it is.

Christianity actively "filters" its content to only portray the nice parts; the golden rule, be nice to others, don't kill; that sort of thing, but it hides the gay bashing, slavery, misogyny and all the other bad stuff.

It has an intentional consequence which is sinister. Libertarianism, to follow up on your example, is on the other hand not intentionally evil, it has unintended evil consequences, such as corporate takeover of a "free" market, disregard for people's wellbeing when compared to the money-focus and so on.

Pure libertarianism is bad because it is too naive and thinks to highly of people to know and act "smart" and to make the right choices by themselves. At its core libertarianism seems like a good idea, to each his own, make your own luck, free markets etc. but when you think of the consequences, then it's a bad idea taken to its extreme.

Christianity is bad because it sells itself as something its not. It is explicitly bad when you look at its holy book, the idea of hell and redemption is bad, and it tries desperately to hide its bad sides as "part of the times" or to essentially pick and choose what it is. At its very core, even if you pick and choose like crazy, the idea of God makes no sense. You only have to read the bible to become an atheist.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^gwiz665:
Christianity is sinister, in that it guises itself as a good thing "do unto others etc", but in reality it is a means for people to control other people - not just enslave them, but control their minds, make them willing slaves, and that to me is even more scary than just being oppressed.
That's kinda a generic fill in the blank rhetoric for any ideology you don't like. For example:

Libertarianism is sinister, in that it guises itself as a good thing "you own the product of your labor etc", but in reality it is a means for people to control other people - not just enslave them, but control their minds, make them willing slaves, and that to me is even more scary than just being oppressed.

>> ^shinyblurry:
That being said, the lies of the devil are too numerous to count, and far too many people have been duped by them. Anything which points away from Gods truth is a lie, and at least in this country sinning has become socially acceptable, and is even admired.

Lies. Clearly Islam is the one true religion. The Qur'an is the infallible word of God. Your bible is written, told and edited by men, and susceptible to the perversion and lies of the devil. It is the devil who tricked you into believing in the false divinity of Jesus Christ.

Renounce your belief in your false god and your soul may yet have a chance at redemption. Those who hear the word of Allah and reject it with receive a greater punishment. May He have mercy on your soul.

http://videosift.com/video/Arkham-Redemption

whatever gets them a paycheque. I think they are a bunch of bull queers but... thats just me. (watched shaw shank redemption earlier)

I've seen little in WoW that has surprised me. There are a few things here and there, but it really is a game copied from another game that, that game copied from yet another and then they polished it. And..as The Mythbusters proved you can polish a turd; so taking this old-outdated-prehistoric-you-get-the-point concept of go fetch times 5 per level and go gather times 5 per level plus the times 5 per level go kill stuff -- this is WoW's main feature o'fun and is the core to leveling.

The items are okay, some quests are awesome: there's a Plants vs. Zombies type quest that is well done and VERY refreshing, some of the NEW new newbie areas (goblins and furry humans) have great opening quests and have "phases" which are essentially instances "on the run" -- you don't notice it load and others don't know your in it unless they're grouped -- essentially a personal instance, there are a few "red pill" vs. "blue pill" such as making you realize you need to jump off a cliff to complete it, some of the class specific are great due to their obvious care and attention to detail in teaching you how to play your class effectively (the rogue has some of these that are a joy to play), etcetera -- oh wait, there isn't really much beyond that except instances, raids, and "PvP".

Instances can be great with your buddies and when the group size is a nice manageable size, but the fact they don't have randomized group size and level based dungeons is ridiculous, with this much time having passed. The fact that some of the boss fights start of at super hard and never bother to ramp up is stupid (as wiping should minimized to affect only idiots; trust me it doesn't matter if everyone has l33t gear, everyone should have the chance to have a character they feel is special and a force to be reckoned with). Where the hell are unique, non-soulbinding items; i.e., there are these "named" (I know they've made a few, laughable, *requires a raid* to get the guild leader the super item, which means you've got a better chance to win the lottery if you're an average player ) items that could be made into the thousands available (non-soulbinding so that they can be sold on the auction house -- which would fight gold-farmers and allow ANY player to get: THE GOODS) that drop once per server and have a 100% chance of being found for everyone...?

I could go on, but I think my point is made. There is little thought going into game creation and mechanics. Everyone stole from the MUDS, Ultima Online, and what little originality Everquest had; and no-one ever looked back. I know it will take some hard work to make a NEW TYPE of MMO that isn't guaranteed to be a slight upgrade in graphics, item crafting, or *pick your one "special" thing* the next MMO does...

So many of the current crop of MMO's have their own original and great ideas. If it would be sifted through and made into a "best of all worlds" (which is what WoW did, but they left in aggro which is a HUGE disservice to ALL players) we might get something unique and great; it would only need expansions as the core would not need much change ever (unless the engine becomes the "hindrance" to development).

Right now the aggro system n e e d s t o g o . It's archaic and mystifyingly still used though it was made for games that couldn't handle AI running (Ultima Online, Everquest,etc...) full-blast. But, with the power servers have available plus the bandwidth and the users' computer this should be a very easily solved or solvable issue. Second, comes two things that walk hand in hand: dungeons and loot. I addressed both above and what I propose should solve a lot; but imagine semi-random dungeons created that lead to great cities (very doable just from what I've seen in Warhammer and WoW's "phasing"), think: D&D's Forgotten Realms - Undermountain™, anything approaching something that massive would be equal to creating a dungeon the size of the world map, but every-time you enter you procedurally move forward to a new creation (so if you join a party your "dungeons" join to make a "seed" that is unique to those to characters. I'll stop there as it would into full-on programming techniques that aren't used either because of the complexity, non-skill, or doubt that they can make a "performance" acceptable version. Items have just as much ability to be enhanced (their own level-ups with skills, AI weapons, vehicular type, etc...).

Quests are the last concern. Fetch should only be around if you're character is going there anyway. Collection type quests should ONLY be used if you are keeping some of said items and are useful in some way. Hero quests do need to teach you to be a better "x = your class + type of class + modifiers", using instances or "phasing" (which I like more as I hate load screens). Quests need to have an main-arch that branches, but it needs to available to even the solo player; not the 60 man raid (which is a joke in the first place). Quests need to be rich in diversity: send, fetch, lead, fight, find, steal, games, test, challenge, dungeon, redemption, vengeance/wrath, ability, skill, un-lockable/lockable, class, species/race, race/time, item, creation, destruction, defend, follow, help, should I keep listing....?

I hope the programmers, I don't really care who hits the trump card first (although a low monthly cost team would be nice), figure this out. As it is getting boring even though there is "more" to do, how it's presented in WoW makes me less inclined to get involved, because it requires dedication and at that point, as he pointed out is almost as fun as shooting yourself.

As @MilkmanDan points out there is a lot of content that I don't use and at the lower levels I believe this to be fine as you'll make a mage, a shaman, a warrior, etc... Doing the same quest over and over is terrible. However, much of the high level content you CAN see, but you'll never get the riches (lottery again) and doing THE SAME EXACT DUNDEON 30 times to find that one head piece is ridiculous -- that is their idea of fun "high-end" content. F*%K YOU! This is all due to the notion (and I believe you see this in action at the auction houses, if you can compare the past to present) of inflation; the numbers go higher for the sake of going higher -- if it's higher it's better, right?!?. I'm better due to a number increase and I'll add to that number continually, mainly, because as is said above I'm now level 10 and no longer 5. I want the numbers to be in a "set" range so that you know, whenever you find or get something new, immediately how this new addition (or subtraction) will affect you. (Ultima Online got that partially correct and it made fighting on their a unique experience, STILL, although Warhammer Online uses a set number of action points instead of mana so it has a fun PvP experience, but ultimately fails due to the level problem. Oh and PvP is a joke as level and gear are the deciding issues in battle (which is funny as the winners get the better gear, thus making them win more and you can see where that goes...) and as long as you aren't stupid your talent specs (you really can't screw this up anymore as Blizzard decided that you can only go down one tree at a time rather than all three, until you've got talent point 32).

I'll stop there as I'm getting nauseated talking about this much (which is a lot). But, this is my view point on almost any RPG. Why is it so hard to make a fun system -- it seems obvious how to go after these issues. I think they're (the programmers and publishers) are lost in the woods with 100 foot tall pines and I'm on a outcrop that can see over the forest -- I see them occasionally, but even if I yelled (and I've made some of these points before) they'd still never gather a clue of what I mean. Or as it's usually said at this point:

"I'm afraid you can't see the forest for the trees."...

Damn, that was long, phew (hopefully a programmer reads it -- or I'll just cut & paste ) !

Of all the games he mentioned I played Red Dead Redemption and Dead Rising 2 and loved them both.

Reminds me of Shawshank Redemption when they read Brooks' letter after he got released from prison..."the world went and got itself in a big damn hurry". Until people realize that its not worth their or someone elses life to save a few seconds, or they just gotta send that text, accidents like these will continue to happen. I know not all of these are from carelessness or speeding, but thats the majority.

If you have two controllers then any of the Lego games: Lego Star Wars, Lego Batman, etc. They're a hit with the chicks, and they're enjoyable for us, too.

Uncharted 2 is an awesome game, but if you're playing she'd have to be spectator. Bioshock, Heavy Rain and Red Dead Redemption are games that are great for spectators, as well.

Or just buy games you like and tell her to go crochet a doily or something.