It's starting again though.

You’re all far too easily impressed.

All Gonz demonstrates there is a failure to understand someone expressing themselves clearly.

Gonz, the fact you describe the intentions that Harris attributes to Israel as being ‘benevolent’, or that he bases those of the Palestinians simply on the ‘utterances of a weak and angry party’ shows that you’re simply not paying attention. These are such gross misrepresentations of what’s actually being said that everything you write subsequently should be ignored.

For some reason a video blog of Sam Harris explaining his position is not enough to explain the position of Sam Harris. I very much doubt I’m going to change that, but perhaps this slightly expanded versions of the same talk will help?

Harris’ position is actually much the same as Richard Dawkins (and Daniel Dennet’s for what it’s worth):

1. That this is a terrible conflict with plenty of culpability on both sides. That there's more than enough blood for all hands involved, but nevertheless the Israelis can absolutely take a relative moral high-ground based on the specific actions and stated intentions of both sides.

2. That the level of scrutiny and the global response to the actions of Israel is clearly out of proportion with acts they commit. That they are held to entirely separate moral standard and met with a level of outrage that's inconsistent with what's seen in attitudes towards other groups involved in violence.

The ease with which you gloss over the Palestinian atrocities here, along with a flagrant misrepresentation and demonization of someone you clearly perceive as sympathetic to Israel (including a ludicrous accusation of Zionism), seems to me a deeply troubling combination of thinking. Your cheerleaders should be mindful of what they're actually cheering. 

I wonder if Dawkins is on the payroll too? I mean, it stands to reason if he and Harris are spouting the same stuff.

Wait, but if misdirection is an indication of a paid-up Zionist - maybe Gonz is a zionist?

Maybe I am?

Now I don’t know what to believe!

What a fucking screwball.

Never mind that, he's the one who banged on about the "we know exactly what their intentions are" /what if roles were reversed line and once I demonstrate its flaws, he totally abandons the argument and starts on another tack. Waste of time innit.

Still, it's good to have our weirdos outing themselves I guess?

JRPC wrote:

You’re all far too easily impressed.

All Gonz demonstrates there is a failure to understand someone expressing themselves clearly.

Gonz, the fact you describe the intentions that Harris attributes to Israel as being ‘benevolent’, or that he bases those of the Palestinians simply on the ‘utterances of a weak and angry party’ shows that you’re simply not paying attention. These are such gross misrepresentations of what’s actually being said that everything you write subsequently should be ignored.

Really not gross misrepresentation at all. Ignoring won't help. I'm not unsympathetic re Sam being misrepresented, he has been over the years, but he's also been shown to be non expert when he gets out of his lane.

Chompers exchange is the current example, but feel free to go back to the criticism around the moral landscape. The method to his argument is the same, while you read it it can be initially tantalising, and then you dig and see the assumptions underpinning and what he's missing.

Plenty of moral philosophers paid out on him, some misrepresented his argument, but even Russell blackford, who likes Sam and went out of his way to be fair to his arguments in the moral landscape, picked it apart pretty good. (hopefully his review is still free online.)

Harris’ position is actually much the same as Richard Dawkins (and Daniel Dennet’s for what it’s worth):

(like Sam, dawkins and dennet aren't infallible, and need to stay in their lanes.)

1. That this is a terrible conflict with plenty of culpability on both sides. That there's more than enough blood for all hands involved, but nevertheless the Israelis can absolutely take a relative moral high-ground based on the specific actions and stated intentions of both sides.

I don't even. Intentions be damned when you're ambivalent about your ability to create a massive bodycount.

Say what you will about Sam Harris and his views, but the fella has some fucking great guests on his podcasts, on some really interesting subjects. Just done his last couple on violence and Trump.

Great listening.

I hope there's room to go back to this for a second, as I've found a short Podcast from Harris talking about the responses he got to the Chomski exchange.

I'm going to have another read of those emails and what was said here about them as I know it didn't have my full attention the first time around. Having said that though, the criticisms that Harris describes on this Podcast are very much along the lines of what I took you lot to be saying here.

Anyway, here it is.

Tellingly, Chomski felt no need to produce a podcast of his final thoughts.

Harris killed himself? Owned.

That didgeridoo bloke wrote Silence of the Lambs? Well I never.

So what we're saying is that Sam Harris is a paedophile, yeah?

You've got it in for Sam Harris in a big way Gonzo.

It's almost irrational mate.

Last night I recorded an interview with the editor of table top gaming magazine.

Tonight I've just recorded one with the Development manager for the Dark Souls Boardgame.

Both were excellent chats with two vastly different people. Episodes will be out by the weekend.

I'm currently listening to a number of podcasts
Polyhedron collider.
Gentle arrogance
The musicians podcast
Twin humanities
Watch out for fireballs
Monster of the Week
Days of future cast.
Plus a few more.

Haven't listened to the finale yet, will get to it tomorrow.