Ok Hitchens, lets hear your argument as to why it is morally objectionable.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^shinyblurry:
This is the reason Jesus came, to reconcile us to God. The wages of sin is death, and He paid that price for us, so that we could be forgiven and receieve eternal life.

And the doctrine of vicarious atonement is one of the most morally objectionable concepts in the whole Bible.

>> ^shinyblurry:
This is the reason Jesus came, to reconcile us to God. The wages of sin is death, and He paid that price for us, so that we could be forgiven and receieve eternal life.

And the doctrine of vicarious atonement is one of the most morally objectionable concepts in the whole Bible.

*commercial

pay me money and live vicariously!

@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.

The work of abstract painting 'prodigies' says a lot more about our shared human aesthetics than the 'skill' of the children.

... I feel like some art critics only experience art vicariously, and forget that they can have fun creating crazy art themselves, to either be framed or tossed in the dumpster.

Oh, I don't know. I think the policing works pretty well. If it is substantially different, it stays. If it is not, it goes.

That happened to me once. Gwiz posted something, I followed with a shorter, more focused edit with a great title (not knowing it was close to a dupe, my tags suck sometimes) that garnered a lot of votes very quickly while Gwiz's languished. It was called as a dupe, I tried to weasel my way out of it (weasel being the operative word) and it was rightfully called as a dupe. (I then offered my title to gwiz, predicted Top 15, and he made it! I was quite happy -- a vicarious Top 15!)

Self policing. It works.

I don't know that we would want it be any more complicated than it already is here on the Sift. If it gets out of hand, I think the community will rein things in. This is a smart bunch.

In reply to this comment by luxury_pie:
You have a point there.
An idea would be a new type of post, like a comment. You could add it under a video to mark certain parts as especially worth watching and so gain a few additional votes for it, without reposting it.
This would encounter the problem of not having the time to see the video as a whole. Maybe the sifter himself could add these remarks to his *long video, to approach those who have little time on their hands.

Because otherwise wouldn't there be a whole bunch of excerpt-reposts of the current top sifts?



In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
But don't you think that some people will blow by a 20 vid, but will watch a 5 minute excerpt of the same vid?

I certainly have been known to look at the length of some vids and kept on going.... I know I miss a lot, but I just don't have the time sometimes.

In reply to this comment by luxury_pie:
I would define the "dupe" as an exact copy of another video.
I'd suppose the likelihood of a exact copy is higher then that of a portion of a video to appear on the sift and thus the "definition of dupe" should handle the more likely thing to happen.

But in addition just posting a part of a video without adding more context or another point of view, though not adding anything, should be called a dupe too.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I agree. It's almost as good as unwrapping some shiny piece of unfingerprinted electronics yourself. It's nerd porn.>> ^MaxWilder:

Although I have only watched a few "unboxing" videos, I have to say I think they have their place. It's a vicarious thrill when your really want a gadget but can't afford it.
Also, if nobody wants to see them, they will go away. If they are common, it's because people want to see them. If that bothers you, don't watch.

Although I have only watched a few "unboxing" videos, I have to say I think they have their place. It's a vicarious thrill when your really want a gadget but can't afford it.

Also, if nobody wants to see them, they will go away. If they are common, it's because people want to see them. If that bothers you, don't watch.

This is wonderful stuff. To be sure it's dangerous, and idiots who don't think can indeed get themselves very hurt, but things like that first disused station are amazing places, really beautiful and I love them because they are little time capsules.

Just a word on how he handles getting into places like when he removes the drain cover... just wear a yellow/orange vest and look like you're supposed to be there and you'll have no problem. Wearing 'civilian' clothes and looking around suspiciously is the things that makes people think you're up to no good. It's hiding in plain view, and can work a lot better than trying to not be seen.

But exploration of abandoned places is something I'd love to do, never have... so do so vicariously though a number of sites, http://www.opacity.us and http://www.abandoned-places.com being my two favourite for their superb photography.

Ok, so for everyone who screams, "stupid", lets examine the meaning of the word, shall we? Taking for granted that when used above the sentiment was the adjective utilization of the word to convey meaning:( For the sake of those without a dictionary or adequate command of the full battery of tools available to those seeking to communicate with other English speaking people in the world with a working knowledge of the same, heres a quicky form the first hit when typing the word into a search engine:

stu·pid
   /ˈstupɪd, ˈstyu‐/ Show Spelled [stoo-pid, styoo‐] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, noun

1.lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull. (not these kids, eh??-They show both keenness and quickness of mind and that out of the ordinary hence, their confidence in execution, regardless as someone above so observed of their mate's taunts and/or encouragements, I don't speak fucking Russian, i don't know, you don't either!)
2.
characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.

Not so, as evidenced in their balsy showcase of skills, camera in hand.
3.
tediously dull, esp. due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.
Not this one either, Officer Judgement.
4.
annoying or irritating; troublesome: Turn off that stupid radio.

Perhaps. This would fall into the category of a personal problem.
5.
in a state of stupor; stupefied: stupid from fatigue.

Nope. Can't be stupefied or fatigued to do something a window cleaner or hi-rise welder would do everyday, not unlike a lady walking her doggy.
6.
Slang . excellent; terrific.

Well hell, pinrods...Use that one in a sentence and see if you are not living vicariously through these wonderful human beings, not afraid to live life, and embrace to the fullest their desires and otherwise get outside and exercise, rather than masturbating, for example, on their computer(s)

>> ^ForgedReality:

"I love being told what to say and then my parents editing out the part where they told me to say it!"


I agree completely. It's so obvious. If his knowledge surpassed her own, then she wouldn't be recording obscure things like "Eris". Not that it's a bad idea to teach your kids about the universe but this is called "living vicariously".

I almost died when she said that she's, "just been living vicariously". HA!

Oh, Alcatraz, you've won my heart! I can see it now: You, in an evening gown, slipping into my car - which just so happens to be the fur-lined novelty wagon from Dumb & Dumber - while we drive through low-income neighborhoods, serving eviction notices and kicking the homeless. Vicariously.

OUR PASSION WILL BURN LIKE THE EMBRACE OF A MILLION KITTIES ON THE SURFACE OF THE SUN

Vicariously I live through this video. *crushes can*

In ten short years, how many lives have I lived, how many dreams have I shared. Vicarious beauty within personal mediocrity.