Ben Affleck and Sam Harris clash on Real Time

Jono

Master Poster
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
2,054
Location
Sweden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60

There are, I just noticed, several articles (guardian, daily.uk etc) about the 'debate' between Ben Affleck, Sam Harris and Bill Maher on liberal principles with regards to criticism (and failure of doing so) of islamic theocracies et al.

Have anyone of you seen this yet?
 
I have. IMO, Affleck called them on their blanket bigotry and it was great!

What did Harris say (on that show) that was bigotted? [mind you, I'm not saying that he's never said something of that order, elsewhere]

I thought Affleck came across, a little bit, as emotionally charged and misunderstood what Harris was actually saying, which in part was the issue Harris described with liberals not being consistent with liberal principles.
 
Last edited:
What did Harris say (on that show) that was bigotted? [mind you, I'm not saying that he's never said something of that order, elsewhere]

I thought Affleck came across, a little bit, as emotionally charged and misunderstood what Harris was actually saying, which in part was the issue Harris described with liberals not being consistent with liberal principles.

Affleck was reacting to the violation of PC that Maher and Harris were committing by mentioning some of the better known and less savory aspects of Islamic culture. That demanded a purely emotional response that Affleck, as an actor, has been trained to give. If you want intellectual discourse, you might not want to try talking to people who play pretend for a living.
 
Last edited:
Affleck was reacting to the violation of PC that Maher and Harris were committing by mentioning some of the better known and less savory aspects of Islamic culture. That demanded a purely emotional response that Affleck, as am actor, has been trained to give. If you want intellectual discourse, you might not want to try talking to people who play pretend for a living.

Or, blanket statements were made and Affleck quite possibly knows actual Muslim people who don't fit the emotionally driven stereotype.
 
I like Ben Affleck generally, both as an actor (surprise, surprise) and as a humanitarian, but in this clip he exemplified why I find such discussion groups worse than useless. He asked questions but refused to allow answers. Everyone spoke over everyone.
 
I'll have to have a look at that when I get home- not the kind of thing to review at work.
My memory of the exchange may be wrong. I do recall statements being made that I'd have strongly disagreed with as soon as they were made.
I'm not sure why actors are fair game for castigation. He was being asked questions by a guy who's a smart ass for a living and a flamethrower.
 
Beheading people tends to raise the emotions.

Sure. If all Muslims participated in such things there'd be good reason for the bigotry.
My neighbor's family is Muslim and there haven't been any toppings.
 
Sure. If all Muslims participated in such things there'd be good reason for the bigotry.
My neighbor's family is Muslim and there haven't been any toppings.

Some Muslims are beheading people is a statement of fact, not bigotry.
 
Some Muslims are beheading people is a statement of fact, not bigotry.

True. It's a tiny minority of extremists. That's the objection. It leaves any statement that doesn't include that information open to a "Hey, hey! Whoa there!"

Kind of like if people judged all skeptics based on the worst actions of a tiny minority, I'd be saying, "Now, just hold on, point of order..."
 
Hypothetical, present-day scenario: A Roman Catholic sect goes rogue and starts waging acts of terrorism - including mass murder, rapes, stonings, and systematic beheadings - on nonbelievers. Their goal is a military takeover of one or more countries to establish the "kingdom of heaven on Earth" in preparation for the JC Magical Mystery Tour 2.0.

How would rank and file Catholics (or other Christians) respond? How should they?
 
My favorite part is when the gentleman on the far left of the table says we can't broadly label Muslims as extremists when there are people who speak out against it...and all those people were shot or jailed for their outspokenness.

And a significant portion of people in those countries support those attacks or imprisonments.
 
My favorite part is when the gentleman on the far left of the table says we can't broadly label Muslims as extremists when there are people who speak out against it...and all those people were shot or jailed for their outspokenness.

And a significant portion of people in those countries support those attacks or imprisonments.

This really applies to some degree in all societies where the extremists have the guns.
 
Hypothetical, present-day scenario: A Roman Catholic sect goes rogue and starts waging acts of terrorism - including mass murder, rapes, stonings, and systematic beheadings - on nonbelievers. Their goal is a military takeover of one or more countries to establish the "kingdom of heaven on Earth" in preparation for the JC Magical Mystery Tour 2.0.

How would rank and file Catholics (or other Christians) respond? How should they?

Pretty much how they reacted to the priest buggering children episode: that's not the church it is just those people. We are not those people.

Or how the Mormons deal with polygamist: that is not an accepted Mormon practice, those are just rogue elements who self identify as Mormon, but who are not really mormon.

That is not consistent with my religion. Those people do not represent me. Sounds familiar.
 
My favorite part is when the gentleman on the far left of the table says we can't broadly label Muslims as extremists when there are people who speak out against it...and all those people were shot or jailed for their outspokenness.

And a significant portion of people in those countries support those attacks or imprisonments.

I'd figure they're pretty scared of getting outed by people who think they aren't Muslim enough.

Happened in Germany during the 30's and 40's wrt National Socialists.

In fact just yesterday I was watching a doc where a German woman from Munich was describing a mass hanging, she openly remarked that it was dreadful, and the man in front of her turned out to be a local National Socialist leader who ordered her to appear the next morning at their local fun house.
 
Affleck was reacting to the violation of PC that Maher and Harris were committing by mentioning some of the better known and less savory aspects of Islamic culture. That demanded a purely emotional response that Affleck, as an actor, has been trained to give. If you want intellectual discourse, you might not want to try talking to people who play pretend for a living.

That is terribly unfair to actors. You're basically saying that any opinion they have is worthless.

Where did Harris' 20% figure come from, if not his own ass ?
 
Or, blanket statements were made and Affleck quite possibly knows actual Muslim people who don't fit the emotionally driven stereotype.

Specifically what "blanket statements" were made? Can you provide any examples?

I heard Harris and Maher both explicitly state that they were not talking about all Muslims; Harris even went on to explain that he was referring to a subset of Muslims, perhaps 20% or so, as either participating in or supporting the extreme acts of violence against apostates, women, any anyone else they deem to be an enemy. They did also point out the disturbingly high percentages of survey respondents who seem to support prosecution of cartoonists, but I thought they both made it clear that they were not making blanket statements about all Muslims.
 
Last edited:
Sure. If all Muslims participated in such things there'd be good reason for the bigotry.
My neighbor's family is Muslim and there haven't been any toppings.

That is true. I still can't hear, or fail to see, how what Harris said was bigotted. He specifically qualified his argumentation around theocracies (and of the liberals who are less 'back-boned' when its not a white theocracy) that not only allow but encourages, and gives vestige, to deeds and practices that *should* make liberals gag six ways from sunday. That's pretty much it. He also qualified a clause that he was, again specifically, not targeting or accusing individual muslims of all being, man women and child, bad eggs. Only that; it is not really a fringe-element of a handful of extremists who enables this barbarism to proceed, while acknowledging the point that it is important to show support of the muslims who breech the otheriwse normative archaic (and morally inferior) practices in their own cultures.

I looked at the show again and I think Affleck reacts a bit irrationaly because he takes the criticism as if it was ment to be a condemnation of every muslim individual (a bit like you're reacting with the above post), but that is as far as I can see not how Harris ment it.
 
Making it appear like it's a widespread phenomenon is bigotry, however.

Can you share any examples of any direct quotes where they tried to make it appear that beheadings are a widespread phenomenon? I certainly didn't walk away with that impression but maybe I missed something.
 
Saw it on TYT yesterday evening. Maher is funny but sometimes he can be terribly opinionated.

Yes he can, very much so. I agree with him almost as often as I find myself disagreeing with him. A bit of an odd duck, though funny.
 
I'll have to watch again at home and maybe what you're saying will seem more like what actually happened. Will see!
 
Hypothetical, present-day scenario: A Roman Catholic sect goes rogue and starts waging acts of terrorism - including mass murder, rapes, stonings, and systematic beheadings - on nonbelievers. Their goal is a military takeover of one or more countries to establish the "kingdom of heaven on Earth" in preparation for the JC Magical Mystery Tour 2.0.

How would rank and file Catholics (or other Christians) respond? How should they?

Given such groups exist today we don't need to consider a hypothetical; "they" (majority of christians ) seem to condem such actions by people who also label themselves christian, which is exactly like "them" ( majority of muslims) seem to condem those by people who also label themselves muslim.
 
Can you share any examples of any direct quotes where they tried to make it appear that beheadings are a widespread phenomenon? I certainly didn't walk away with that impression but maybe I missed something.

I'll have to watch the video again, which I cannot do now.
 
Pretty much how they reacted to the priest buggering children episode: that's not the church it is just those people. We are not those people.

Probably so. Having lived through that, however (meaning I was still practicing for several years after the main buggering stories broke), I know that there was huge emphasis among the faithful on actually prosecuting the buggerers. The people in the pews tend to be apologists for The Church in general, but not for the criminal priests themselves.

There's also this: millions of people leaving the church in the US and Europe.

This is my cultural bias - and perhaps just my raw ignorance - but I don't see rank-and-file muslims condemning violence in the name of their prophet on the scale of catholic outrage over pedophile priests. This may also be due to fear of real retribution for speaking out but doesn't that kind of support the point that violence is perpetuated by the faith itself? I generally agree with Maher on his point that there is a double-standard applied to muslims and it stems from the fact that the violence is condoned in their holy book. Am I way out in left field on this?

I guess I'm just sick and tired of people suffering as a result of Bronze Age sensibilities, whether those come from muslims, christians, jews, etc.. Let's jettison the lot and we'll drastically reduce global war and violence, John Lennon-style.
 
I'll have to watch again at home and maybe what you're saying will seem more like what actually happened. Will see!

Here are some relevant excerpts with emphasis added.

BEN AFFLECK said:
How about more than a billion people who aren't fanatical, who don't punch women, who just want to go to school, have some sandwiches, pray 5 times a day, and don't do any of the things you're saying of all Muslims. It's stereotyping.
SAM HARRIS said:
I'm not saying all Muslims...
[fast forward]
SAM HARRIS said:
Just imagine you have some concentric circles. You have at the center, you have jihadists, these are people who wake up wanting to kill apostates, wanting to die trying. They believe in paradise, they believe in martyrdom. Outside of them, we have Islamists, these are people who are just as convinced of martyrdom and paradise and wanting to foist their religion on the rest of humanity but they want to work within the system. They're not going to blow themselves up on a bus. They want to change governments, they want to use democracy against itself. Those two circles arguably are 20% of the Muslim world.

BEN AFFLECK said:
What are you basing that research on?

SAM HARRIS said:
There are a bunch of poll results that we can talk about. To give you one point of contact: 78% of British Muslims think that the Danish cartoonist should have been prosecuted. 78%. So, I'm being conservative when I roll this back to 20%. But outside of that circle you have conservative Muslims who can honestly look at ISIS and say that does not represent us, we're horrified by that but they hold views about human rights, and about women, and about homosexuals that are deeply troubling. So, these are not Islamists, they are not jihadists, but they often keep women and homosexuals immiserated in these cultures and we have to empower the true reformers in the Muslim world to change it.
[fast forward]
SAM HARRIS said:
Let me just give you what you want. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims who are nominal Muslims who don't take the faith seriously, who don't want to kill apostates, who are horrified by ISIS and we need to defend these people, prop them up and let them reform their faith.
 
Pretty much how they reacted to the priest buggering children episode: that's not the church it is just those people. We are not those people.

Or how the Mormons deal with polygamist: that is not an accepted Mormon practice, those are just rogue elements who self identify as Mormon, but who are not really mormon.

That is not consistent with my religion. Those people do not represent me. Sounds familiar.

Yes. That's basically been the general Muslim response to groups like ISIS.


Yes, but they're leaving the RCC, not converting away from Christianity itself.

This is my cultural bias - and perhaps just my raw ignorance - but I don't see rank-and-file muslims condemning violence in the name of their prophet on the scale of catholic outrage over pedophile priests.

If you don't see it, then you aren't looking. Condemnation and even outright mockery of ISIS is common.
 
edit to add link to poll Sam Harris was referring to...

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/291

From that link:

Asked how important religion was to them 78% of British Muslims said very important, but 48% of them also said they never attended a mosque, with another 6% saying they only attended for special occassions. The actual religious observance of Muslims doesn’t seem to match with how important they say religion is to them (in some ways this is comparable to Christianity in Britain – in the census around 70% of people self-identified as Christians, but many of them say they don’t believe in a god and only a fraction attend church aside from for weddings and funerals).

61% of British Muslims said they thought of Britain as “my country”. There was support for some degree of integration – 94% of respondents disagreed that Muslims should live separately from non-Muslims but at the same time, given the choice 36% would prefer to have fellow Muslims as neighbours. Asked if they would prefer to live under Sharia law or British law, 30% said Sharia while 54% preferred British law. I mentioned in my comments on an earlier ICM poll Sharia law does not necessarily equate to the hand-chopping, adulterer-stoning version in the tabloid press, Western countries like Canada have in the past allowed the use of Sharia law under limited circumstances for things like inheritance law, so it was then impossible to tell exactly what people were supporting. In contrast NOP specifically stated in their poll “Sharia law, as practiced in such countries as Saudi Arabia and Iran” – perhaps explaining why the proportion of British Muslims supporting it was 10 percentage points lower than in ICM’s poll.

[...]

Back to the Muslim poll, NOP also asked if British Muslims thought that relgious leaders who supported terrorism should be removed – 68% agreed, with 22% disagreeing. Cross-referencing these results, NOP characterised 9% of the Muslims they surveyed as “hardcore Islamists” – people who thought that it was perfectly okay to speak in support of terrorism, but thought people should be prosecuted for insulting Islam. This small minority tallies with NOP’s other questions on terrorism – 9% of respondents said it was acceptable for religious or political groups to use violence, 13% of people said they understand why young British Muslims might become suicide bombers (though again, this needs to be put in context. Parallel polls of Muslims and non-Muslims have shown that there are a small minority of non-Muslims who think terrorist attacks on civilians can be justified).

And from those referenced parallel polls:

YouGov asked whether people agreed that “It is NEVER justified for anyone to attack British civilians because of Britain’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan” – 73% of British Muslims agreed, 10% disagreed. In contrast 83% of the wider British population agreed, but 7% disagreed. The question is not as harsh as some of the questions included in other polls on the London bombings – YouGov did not ask if people actually approved of the bombings for example – but it does indicate that while we get het up about the small minority of British Muslims who think attacks on British civilians are justifiable, there are apparantly also a small minority of British non-Muslims who think the same.
 
What did Harris say (on that show) that was bigotted? [mind you, I'm not saying that he's never said something of that order, elsewhere]

I thought Affleck came across, a little bit, as emotionally charged and misunderstood what Harris was actually saying, which in part was the issue Harris described with liberals not being consistent with liberal principles.

Maher should have shut the hell up & let Harris talk and then perhaps this discussion would have been handled slightly better.

Maybe I am wrong in interpreting this this way but when I hear "the Muslim world" in these exchanges I understand Muslim countries (specially given the examples given by Maher & Harrs --ie, women's rights issues, persecutiuon of authors, open atheists, etc.).

If you take it that way, the only Muslim country I can think of which has any real religious tolerance & freedom of speech would be Turkey.
 
One more thing:

WLUML's Karima Bennoune on Why Bill Maher and Ben Affleck Are Both Wrong

So, I want to challenge Bill Maher -- who is right about the need to ardently defend liberal principles -- to start supporting those who do, but whose stories are untold. Suggesting the fundamentalists somehow represent Islam, as Maher did, overlooks people like Al Naimi, but also acquiesces to the claims of the repulsive ISIS would-be "Caliph" Baghdadi who wants that to be true.

I may not always agree with Harris but that sounded a little bit like what he was trying to say.

For example, on Friday's show atheist writer Sam Harris opined shockingly that "Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas." How does one begin to respond to such an anti-humanist assertion?

Certainly, centuries ago Islam seemed anything but this. However, I can see how in the present it would seem this way.
 
Hypothetical, present-day scenario: A Roman Catholic sect goes rogue and starts waging acts of terrorism - including mass murder, rapes, stonings, and systematic beheadings - on nonbelievers. Their goal is a military takeover of one or more countries to establish the "kingdom of heaven on Earth" in preparation for the JC Magical Mystery Tour 2.0.

How would rank and file Catholics (or other Christians) respond? How should they?

Neither know or care. Would just want them removed with prejudice from my world.
 

Back
Top Bottom