< 1 2
 
   
 
Poll: I think I would enjoy a conversation between Sam Harris and Bill Warner.
 

I would absolutely listen!

Yeah, I’d probably listen

I dunno.... maybe

I have no interest in this conversation.

 

Sam should have a conversation with Bill Warner

 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6388
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
28 January 2016 19:20
 

I can understand Mr. Warner/French’s desire for some anonymity. He has exposed himself to some real danger.

I have seen a lot him lately on TV. They call Totally Christian Television, The Trinity Channel, ABN, TCT… whatever. They run hours of what they call Apologetics Marathons and they are addictive to have droning in the background. Bill Warner, David Wood, the snickering Pastor Joseph and others go up against the likes of Anjem Choudry. The critiques of Islam are devastating and well-articulated. It is followed with an amazing defense of their own brand of looniness. Atheists are cast as people who are angry at God of course. It is lo-tech and often hilarious. Very habit forming.

Mr. Warner talks like Buck Henry’s older brother.

Also of note, a little show called ‘Ancient Foolish Wisdom’…  sorry, ‘Ancient Jewish Wisdom’… features an engaging couple who spout off for twenty minutes about whatever they want to and cast it in ancient Hebrew text. Which is, of course, the greatest and purist and smartest and bestest wisdom from the chosen people who have everything we need to know all sorted out for us long ago (with one hand tied behind their backs) and why don’t we just admit it. He speaks like Mart in a lofty brit accent which puts a veneer of intelligence on even the wackiest of utterances. Just like Mart. Maybe take a peek at youneedarabbi.com.

 
 
June
 
Avatar
 
 
June
Total Posts:  337
Joined  09-06-2013
 
 
 
29 January 2016 14:56
 

  Such a lovely British accent,  that Rabbi Lapin.  I can’t remember a thing he said now,  but he sounds great saying it! 

I completely understand any desire for anonymity from any of the outspoken speakers.

 
 
Hesperado
 
Avatar
 
 
Hesperado
Total Posts:  112
Joined  19-05-2015
 
 
 
30 January 2016 12:55
 

“One of the most intriguing is his assertion that we cannot defeat religious Islam, we can only defeat political Islam. “

I suspect that Warner is smart enough and Islamoliterate enough to know that there is only one Islam, a religious-political fusion which cannot be divided (except by some artificial fantasy); and that if he does utter locutions like the above, it is purely out of pragmatism, insofar as “political Islam” is just Islam as it impacts us, while “religious Islam” would be the inevitable remnant which we reasonably suppose will perdure in the amazingly brainwashed psyches of over a billion fanatics. 

The problem, then, with Warner’s formula is that it tends to encourage those who have an emotional need to divide up the colossally grotesque horror of Islam in order to allay their semi-conscious dread of where the mountains (nay, volcanos) of data we already have available to us lead our reason to conclude.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7686
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
30 January 2016 13:21
 
Hesperado - 30 January 2016 12:55 PM

“One of the most intriguing is his assertion that we cannot defeat religious Islam, we can only defeat political Islam. “

I suspect that Warner is smart enough and Islamoliterate enough to know that there is only one Islam, a religious-political fusion which cannot be divided (except by some artificial fantasy); and that if he does utter locutions like the above, it is purely out of pragmatism, insofar as “political Islam” is just Islam as it impacts us, while “religious Islam” would be the inevitable remnant which we reasonably suppose will perdure in the amazingly brainwashed psyches of over a billion fanatics. 

The problem, then, with Warner’s formula is that it tends to encourage those who have an emotional need to divide up the colossally grotesque horror of Islam in order to allay their semi-conscious dread of where the mountains (nay, volcanos) of data we already have available to us lead our reason to conclude.

Your concern could be correct. But to me the question is what strategies will be most effective given the nature of the believers and non-believers in the soup? I think that perhaps Warner is being cagey in an effective way to make a distinction here. I’d wager that Warner knows full well of your contention (and might even agree with it), but that using his distinction is more likely to gain traction with the non-believer crowd. In other words, it’s more palatable for the non-Muslim on the street to think he’s against JUST political Islam than it would be if he claimed to be against all of Islam.

 
 
Hesperado
 
Avatar
 
 
Hesperado
Total Posts:  112
Joined  19-05-2015
 
 
 
31 January 2016 04:09
 

More palatable, maybe; but not more effective against the coming storm.  But then, you think the coming storm is not a tsunami, so no need to prepare for one.  That’s precisely why I’ve lost hope in the West, when even those on the forefront, the canaries in the coalmine, are fooling themselves about the full catastrophe coming down the pike.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7686
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
31 January 2016 13:43
 
Hesperado - 31 January 2016 04:09 AM

More palatable, maybe; but not more effective against the coming storm.  But then, you think the coming storm is not a tsunami, so no need to prepare for one.  That’s precisely why I’ve lost hope in the West, when even those on the forefront, the canaries in the coalmine, are fooling themselves about the full catastrophe coming down the pike.

Man I wish you’d stop putting words in my mouth. It would be irritating even if your batting average was good, but yours is horrible. In other words, you almost always mischaracterize my positions.

To be clear, I DO THINK a mega-tsunami is coming. I’m on this forum partly to help figure out how to combat it or deflect it, or deflate it, or whatever.

From my perspective, we have to win the hearts and minds of westerners and Muslim fence-sitters who are asleep at the wheel. But these are human beings we’re talking about so we have to cook up strategies and tactics that will be effective on humans. So again, I think that Warner might be on to something when he takes a large problem and starts to slice it up into more manageable pieces.

 
 
Hesperado
 
Avatar
 
 
Hesperado
Total Posts:  112
Joined  19-05-2015
 
 
 
01 February 2016 12:48
 

Peter can use a term (T1) to denote X, and Paul can insist that he agrees with Peter about T1; but Peter may have good reason to doubt that Paul actually understands T1 in the same way as he, Peter, does.  Hence (and similarly), icehorse insists that he fully grasps and agrees with my term “tsunami… coming down the pike”, but it’s patently clear he doesn’t (though that clarity would only become apparent by reading through the many previous exchanges icehorse and I have had on a few different threads on this forum)—since, for one thing, my definition of “tsunami… coming down the pike” necessarily entails the grim realization that—we must reasonably infer from the mountains of data and the oceans of dots to be connected which we have available to us—all Muslims are our enemy and that those who seem to be either positively benign (the “Reformers”) or passively harmless (the “Sandwich Muslims”) are mainly on a grand, protracted project of enabling horrific terror attacks and violent civil unrest to occur inside the West on a scale astronomically more horrific than a hundred 911s.  While icehorse’s definition of “tsunami… coming down the pike” entails—yea, seems to depend upon—trusting and cooperating innumerable Muslims. 

I don’t know why icehorse keeps insisting that he agrees with me and my terms, when it’s clear he doesn’t.  Since I assume he’s smarter than that, it does not bode well for sincerity.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7686
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
01 February 2016 17:21
 
Hesperado - 01 February 2016 12:48 PM

Peter can use a term (T1) to denote X, and Paul can insist that he agrees with Peter about T1; but Peter may have good reason to doubt that Paul actually understands T1 in the same way as he, Peter, does.  Hence (and similarly), icehorse insists that he fully grasps and agrees with my term “tsunami… coming down the pike”, but it’s patently clear he doesn’t (though that clarity would only become apparent by reading through the many previous exchanges icehorse and I have had on a few different threads on this forum)—since, for one thing, my definition of “tsunami… coming down the pike” necessarily entails the grim realization that—we must reasonably infer from the mountains of data and the oceans of dots to be connected which we have available to us—all Muslims are our enemy and that those who seem to be either positively benign (the “Reformers”) or passively harmless (the “Sandwich Muslims”) are mainly on a grand, protracted project of enabling horrific terror attacks and violent civil unrest to occur inside the West on a scale astronomically more horrific than a hundred 911s.  While icehorse’s definition of “tsunami… coming down the pike” entails—yea, seems to depend upon—trusting and cooperating innumerable Muslims. 

I don’t know why icehorse keeps insisting that he agrees with me and my terms, when it’s clear he doesn’t.  Since I assume he’s smarter than that, it does not bode well for sincerity.

Perhaps I should ask you what your proposed solutions would be…

 
 
Hesperado
 
Avatar
 
 
Hesperado
Total Posts:  112
Joined  19-05-2015
 
 
 
03 February 2016 13:31
 

“Perhaps I should ask you what your proposed solutions would be…”

If you are from the same world as I am, even if our worldviews may diverge in some respect, their overlap will be sufficient to qualify as sharing mutual perceptions, interpretations, concerns, and values; and if personally you are relatively intelligent and decent, then if you agreed with me about the nature of the problem (of Islam), that nature would dictate a very limited range of reasonable responses about “proposed solutions”.  I.e., it’s not rocket science. 

And, as part of our shared world, we have inherited Reason, which allows us to imagine and rationally do a thought experiment.  I.e., you don’t even have to agree with me about what the nature of the problem is, to be able to go through the steps of the very limited range of reasonable responses to what I assert is the nature of the problem.

The one thing missing here is why you didn’t come up, on your own, with what I have just argued in this reply here.  You should already have surmised this (if you have been thinking about this problem for a while and if during that time you have unremarkably realized that the “nature of the problem” as I see it is a distinct possibility about which we should all be aware, even if we disagree), but I propose that, given the nature of the problem as I see it, there are only three “proposed solutions”.  Let’s even see if you can come up with these three, and agree that they can only be these three—and why, and no other than these three, and why—before I tell you which one I propose.  I have to know you know what the hell I’m talking about, lest you lead me into the grounds of your paradigm where my “proposed solution” becomes strawmanned by virtue of being judged according to a paradigm that refuses to take any other into account and thus fails to rationally make a case for itself but only axiomatically (and even possibly unconsciously) presumes to know what the nature of the problem is.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7686
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
03 February 2016 15:11
 
Hesperado - 03 February 2016 01:31 PM

“Perhaps I should ask you what your proposed solutions would be…”

If you are from the same world as I am, even if our worldviews may diverge in some respect, their overlap will be sufficient to qualify as sharing mutual perceptions, interpretations, concerns, and values; and if personally you are relatively intelligent and decent, then if you agreed with me about the nature of the problem (of Islam), that nature would dictate a very limited range of reasonable responses about “proposed solutions”.  I.e., it’s not rocket science. 

And, as part of our shared world, we have inherited Reason, which allows us to imagine and rationally do a thought experiment.  I.e., you don’t even have to agree with me about what the nature of the problem is, to be able to go through the steps of the very limited range of reasonable responses to what I assert is the nature of the problem.

The one thing missing here is why you didn’t come up, on your own, with what I have just argued in this reply here.  You should already have surmised this (if you have been thinking about this problem for a while and if during that time you have unremarkably realized that the “nature of the problem” as I see it is a distinct possibility about which we should all be aware, even if we disagree), but I propose that, given the nature of the problem as I see it, there are only three “proposed solutions”.  Let’s even see if you can come up with these three, and agree that they can only be these three—and why, and no other than these three, and why—before I tell you which one I propose.  I have to know you know what the hell I’m talking about, lest you lead me into the grounds of your paradigm where my “proposed solution” becomes strawmanned by virtue of being judged according to a paradigm that refuses to take any other into account and thus fails to rationally make a case for itself but only axiomatically (and even possibly unconsciously) presumes to know what the nature of the problem is.

First, pul-lease stop with the condescending tone.

Since you want me to take the bold first step.

Solutions I don’t want to discuss:

- Thermonuclear destruction of the ME
- the complete capitulation of the west

Some possible solutions:

- A mass education blanket over the ME
- A mass re-education of the west, e.g.
  - terrorism is largely a red-herring
  - Islamic values are in sharp contrast with secular values

 
 
Hesperado
 
Avatar
 
 
Hesperado
Total Posts:  112
Joined  19-05-2015
 
 
 
04 February 2016 13:34
 

It may not have been clear to icehorse that I was asking him to do the thought experiment of coming up with what I can argue are the only three solutions to the problem—given the nature of the problem as I see it (not as he sees it).

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7686
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
04 February 2016 15:44
 
Hesperado - 04 February 2016 01:34 PM

It may not have been clear to icehorse that I was asking him to do the thought experiment of coming up with what I can argue are the only three solutions to the problem—given the nature of the problem as I see it (not as he sees it).

I’m typically not a fan of guessing, how about you just tell us your big 3?

 
 
Hesperado
 
Avatar
 
 
Hesperado
Total Posts:  112
Joined  19-05-2015
 
 
 
06 February 2016 20:51
 

I already told you why I want you to guess.  Re-read my post for fuck sake.

 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  3164
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
07 February 2016 12:18
 
Hesperado - 01 February 2016 12:48 PM

for one thing, my definition of “tsunami… coming down the pike” necessarily entails the grim realization that—we must reasonably infer from the mountains of data and the oceans of dots to be connected which we have available to us—all Muslims are our enemy and that those who seem to be either positively benign (the “Reformers”) or passively harmless (the “Sandwich Muslims”) are mainly on a grand, protracted project of enabling horrific terror attacks and violent civil unrest to occur inside the West on a scale astronomically more horrific than a hundred 911s.  While icehorse’s definition of “tsunami… coming down the pike” entails—yea, seems to depend upon—trusting and cooperating innumerable Muslims. 

I don’t know why icehorse keeps insisting that he agrees with me and my terms, when it’s clear he doesn’t.  Since I assume he’s smarter than that, it does not bode well for sincerity.

Hesperado - there are many of us see Islam as an evil ideology. However, when you start making declarations like the bold above, you are causing harmful noise equal to that of Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church. Your are turning the legitimate debate into fanaticism bordering on total ignorance of how and why people call themselves Muslims, even atheist Muslims. You need to stop profiling all ME Muslims with a single profile which you call the enemy.

There are more Western intellectuals that provide protective cover for Islam and shield it from criticism than ME intellectuals.  Read about the Salman Rushdie affair and who in the west came to his aid. Very few if any. Most Western Scholars blamed Salman Rushdie, not Islam. Many Muslims in the ME who are fighting the devout for their rights and freedom were in disbelief at the shocking dishonesty of the Western intellectuals.

Whatever Muslims call their religion, it ought not matter. It is the West that needs to change their attitude and start being honest and realize that we don’t have to call Islam a religion. That is a legitimate starting point of attacking the problem. Ironically, that is also the kind of marginalization what many ME Muslims need to establish their freedoms in their own countries.

 
Barry0tter
 
Avatar
 
 
Barry0tter
Total Posts:  218
Joined  25-08-2016
 
 
 
25 August 2016 14:51
 
Sven62 - 24 January 2016 10:05 AM

Bill Warner, as we all know, has some very interesting things to say about Islam. One of the most intriguing is his assertion that we cannot defeat religious Islam, we can only defeat political Islam. I would enjoy listening to a conversation between Sam and Bill.

FYI, Gad Saad just posted a great interview with Bill.

(If you vote, please explain your reasoning. Thank you!)

Meanwhile, back on topic…

I would love to hear Dr Bill & Sam together, they’re my two favourite guys on the subject of the RoP. Personally I think (hope!) Dr Bill may even cause Sam to change his opinion on one or two things.

Regarding his name, I’m sure it’s a basic security precaution given the “emotional” responses this topic can evoke from certain quarters. Well done SPLC for denying him that privilege.

Anyway I think he’s a great, great man and I’m incredibly grateful for his work. I believe he’s been very clever by separating the political aspect from the religious one so that no-one can (legitimately) accuse him of religious persecution.

Bring on Dr Bill!

 

 
 < 1 2