tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3415199613719619920.post6322815933763932875..comments2019-10-01T07:12:02.241-07:00Comments on Modern Times: In Response to Sam Harris' Mechanics of DefamationZachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11899515793480310854noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3415199613719619920.post-9169261352703949302015-12-03T11:28:42.013-08:002015-12-03T11:28:42.013-08:00Aha...finally in the last two sentences your agend...Aha...finally in the last two sentences your agenda makes itself known. Your beef is not with the ad-hominem attacks or polemical style of Harris, but rather your disagreement with him on foreign policy (or Muslim) issues. You, like seemingly every critic of Harris, is also a Muslim apologist...Did you feel nice and warm and fuzzy as if you were fully embracing multiculturalism as you penned this nonsense??Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13528865605131627060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3415199613719619920.post-63024866775280056452014-10-16T12:03:32.018-07:002014-10-16T12:03:32.018-07:00This was a response to Sam Harris' blog post a...This was a response to Sam Harris' blog post about the mechanics of defamation, and nowhere did I claim some sort of moral or ethical superiority by Harris' critics. I wasn't writing a comprehensive review of the good or bad both sides have done, I was writing a response to Sam Harris' blog post to point out he's just as guilty of defamation. <br /><br />Also if you're going to accuse me of smearing Sam Harris please understand the definition of the word smear. Please point out where I make a false accusation or falsely damage the reputation of Harris. I pointed out the instances of Harris willfully misrepresenting others views and making ad hominem attacks in order to attack a person rather than their ideas. <br /><br />I have no personal relationship with Harris and have no personal dislike for him, but I do find some of his ideas abhorrent, and I've made those views clear in earlier posts. If my post was perhaps titled "A Comprehensive Review of the Arguments Made by Sam Harris & His Critics", you might have a point, but clearly the subject and scope of the article is a reply to Harris' main assertion that he's being defamed and that he hasn't done that himself. A view I find hypocritical and one neither Hussain, Aslan, or Greenwald is making.Zachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11899515793480310854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3415199613719619920.post-47891737456396850752014-10-16T10:11:41.090-07:002014-10-16T10:11:41.090-07:00Speaking of letting personal feelings get in the w...Speaking of letting personal feelings get in the way of writing an objective article, here's Murtaza Hussain asking "Which of the new atheists is the biggest dbag?" several months before he wrote the hit piece on Harris (et al) that Greenwald liked so much: https://twitter.com/MazMHussain/status/285255826170605569<br /><br />And here's Hussain describing that article as "an 1800 word middle finger": https://twitter.com/MazMHussain/status/319092854276382720<br /><br />These are just some of the things you've left out of this piece in order to smear Harris. I get it that you dislike him, but when you write something as misleading and context-free as this you only illustrate this point.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3415199613719619920.post-2153572168077489492014-10-16T05:30:47.093-07:002014-10-16T05:30:47.093-07:00An interesting article and you make some intriguin...An interesting article and you make some intriguing points. I have always liked Sam Harris (though I would not call myself an 'acolyte', Harris has his flaws) and nothing you have said here is going to change that, but it's always nice to get the other side of an argument.<br /><br />One piece of constructive criticism is that your article does not come across as very balanced. Greenwald and Aslan, irrespective of your opinion on Harris, are not squeaky clean when it comes to ad hominem attacks and misrepresentations of opposing arguments. Your article would have had more impact if you had acknowledged this and not been quite so one sided.<br /><br />It is evident (especially from your reply to 'Jeebs' in the comments) that you do not like Harris. But you shouldn't let personal feelings get in the way of writing an objective article.<br /><br />Just my two cents.rahvinn54https://www.blogger.com/profile/02574904117631320788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3415199613719619920.post-14344408607035604902014-10-16T05:28:14.251-07:002014-10-16T05:28:14.251-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.rahvinn54https://www.blogger.com/profile/02574904117631320788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3415199613719619920.post-40044281310434822992014-10-15T12:57:58.617-07:002014-10-15T12:57:58.617-07:00I provided the definition of defamation that I'...I provided the definition of defamation that I'm going by and by that definition Harris has obviously engaged in defamation. You're more than welcome to your opinion that because Harris said defamation involves dishonesty that ad hominem attacks against a person to damage their reputation and spread evil about them aren't defamation without dishonesty, but that's a semantics argument I'm not interested in. I'm not aware of one single instance where Greenwald or Aslan have written or spoken in an attempt to discredit Sam Harris the person, because they attack his ideals and at most point to his lack of expertise on the subject. So please point me to all these attacks on Harris if you have them and send me a link to your writing on it. Your argument rests on the notion that Harris can tell they're maliciously misinterpreting his positions which is a supernatural power if I've ever heard of one. I don't think either of them are, so if they're wrong on them point out where, Harris shouldn't act like he's being attacked when he attacks people himself and was the first to do so. There's also no necessitation of repeated offenses for it to be defamation, but I think the point here is Harris' arguments in refutation to Greenwald's haven't actually been in any way convincing that Harris didn't mean what he clearly wrote. You have to ask yourself if someone is publishing something that is being criticized by many people over the course of a decade, does it perhaps point to that person not being clear on their position in the first place? <br /><br />If you call for profiling, confuse doctrine with individual faith, make arguments for torture, and even a nuclear first strike being ethical with a strong us v them throughout the work, these are controversial subjects so you should prepare to be critiqued on them. When these initial critiques came out Harris lashed out personally against his critics and defamed them claiming subversion, malicious & sinister intent, and general bullying. If the positions weren't so morally opaque in the first place (and in my opinion outright nefarious) perhaps it would be more clear just what Harris' stances are. Zachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11899515793480310854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3415199613719619920.post-24711525239896913482014-10-15T12:24:13.068-07:002014-10-15T12:24:13.068-07:00Defamation involves dishonesty. In the definition ...Defamation involves dishonesty. In the definition from Harris that you provide he uses the word "knowingly." The "knowing" is actually the "crucial" to the definition. This obviously opens a door for the alternative possibility of an honest mistake. You can rule out an honest mistake when someone has been corrected on that issue several times and yet keeps repeating it. This is the case with Greenwald and Aslan. Harris has communicated with them extensively and they continue to misrepresent him. Harris considers knowingly misleading people a form of lying. So it makes sense he'd call people liars for doing it.<br /><br />Ad homs in general are not always dishonest so they are not always defamatory. If you have an example where Harris repeatedly misrepresents someone's views or criticizes them in a dishonest fashion, please provide it. What you have presented here is not comparable to the unethical criticism that Harris has been subjected to.Jeebshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02422972905434840435noreply@blogger.com