Colin Wright Profile picture
Oct 7 2 tweets 3 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
This is a pertinent clip from Sam Harris on the moral difference between Israel and her enemies.

The moral difference comes down to understanding the answer to this question: what would each side do if they had the power to do it?

TRANSCRIPT:

The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them. The charter of Hamas is explicitly genocidal. It looks forward to a time, based on Koranic prophesy, when the earth itself will cry out for Jewish blood, where the trees and the stones will say “O Muslim, there’s a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.” This is a political document. We are talking about a government that was voted into power by a majority of Palestinians.

The discourse in the Muslim world about Jews is utterly shocking. Not only is there widespread Holocaust denial—there’s Holocaust denial that then asserts that we will do it for real if given the chance. The only thing more obnoxious than denying the Holocaust is to say that it should have happened; it didn’t happen, but if we get the chance, we will accomplish it. There are children’s shows in the Palestinian territories and elsewhere that teach five-year-olds about the glories of martyrdom and about the necessity of killing Jews.

And this gets to the heart of the moral difference between Israel and her enemies. And this is something I discussed in The End of Faith. To see this moral difference, you have to ask what each side would do if they had the power to do it.

What would the Jews do to the Palestinians if they could do anything they wanted? Well, we know the answer to that question, because they can do more or less anything they want. The Israeli army could kill everyone in Gaza tomorrow. So what does that mean? Well, it means that, when they drop a bomb on a beach and kill four Palestinian children, as happened last week, this is almost certainly an accident. They’re not targeting children. They could target as many children as they want. Every time a Palestinian child dies, Israel edges ever closer to becoming an international pariah. So the Israelis take great pains not to kill children and other noncombatants.

What do we know of the Palestinians? What would the Palestinians do to the Jews in Israel if the power imbalance were reversed? Well, they have told us what they would do. For some reason, Israel’s critics just don’t want to believe the worst about a group like Hamas, even when it declares the worst of itself. We’ve already had a Holocaust and several other genocides in the 20th century. People are capable of committing genocide. When they tell us they intend to commit genocide, we should listen.

There is every reason to believe that the Palestinians would kill all the Jews in Israel if they could. Would every Palestinian support genocide? Of course not. But vast numbers of them—and of Muslims throughout the world—would. Needless to say, the Palestinians in general, not just Hamas, have a history of targeting innocent noncombatants in the most shocking ways possible. They’ve blown themselves up on buses and in restaurants. They’ve massacred teenagers. They’ve murdered Olympic athletes. They now shoot rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas. And again, the charter of their government in Gaza explicitly tells us that they want to annihilate the Jews—not just in Israel but everywhere.
This is from episode 2 of his Making Sense podcast titled "Why Don't I Criticize Israel?" published in 2014.

samharris.org/podcasts/makin…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Colin Wright

Colin Wright Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @SwipeWright

Sep 26
🚨BREAKING: The American Anthropological Association the Canadian Anthropology Society have cancelled the panel "Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby: Why biological sex remains a necessary analytic category in anthropology" scheduled to take place at their annual conference.

The reasons given for the cancellation was that the panel conflicted with their values, compromised "the safety and dignity of our members," and diminished the program's "scientific integrity."

They claimed the ideas the panel was planning to advance (i.e., sex is a real and scientifically important biological variable) would "cause harm to members represented by the Trans and LGBTQI of the anthropological community as well as the community at large."

The AAA and CASCA have vowed to "undertake a major review of the processes associated with vetting sessions at our annual meetings" to ensure that such discussion panels about the reality and importance of sex will not be approved in the future.
Image
The panelists responded to the sudden cancellation of the scheduled panel discussion, expressing their disappointment that the AAA and CASCA "have chosen to forbid scholarly dialogue" on this topic.

They also firmly rejected the "false accusation" that "to support the continued use of biological sex categories (e.g., male and female; man and woman) is to imperil the safety of the LGBTQI community."

The panelists say the suggestion that the panel would compromise “…the scientific integrity of the programme” is "particularly egregious," noting that, on the contrary, "the decision to anathematize our panel looks very much like an anti-science response to a politicized lobbying campaign."

Finally, the panelists claimed that the AAA's and CASCA's attempt to chill future debate on this topic represents a "declaration of war on dissent and on scholarly controversy" and a "profound betrayal of their stated commitment to "advancing human understanding and applying this understanding to the world's most pressing problems."

Image
Image
Below is the program entry for the now cancelled panel.
Image
Image
Read 4 tweets
Aug 24
NEW YORK TIMES: "Pediatric gender medicine is a nascent specialty, and few studies have tracked how patients fare in the long term, making it difficult for doctors to judge who is likely to benefit."

TRANSLATION: Hormonally and surgically transitioning children is completely experimental, and claims that such interventions are "life-saving" are not based on any reliable data.
"And conservative lawmakers in more than 20 states have taken the draconian step of banning or severely restricting gender treatments for minors."

Apparently it's the laws putting age limits on irreversible and often sterilizing hormones and surgeries that are "draconian," not the procedures themselves that, as the author admits, have no evidence of benefit. Right...
"It’s clear the St. Louis clinic benefited many adolescents: Eighteen patients and parents said that their experiences there were overwhelmingly positive..."

That's not how evidence-base medicine works. Given the lack of long-term outcome data and properly controlled experiments, which the author fully acknowledges, it is impossible to know whether the "positive" outcomes were a direct result of "gender-affirming care."

This is a classic post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore resulting from it) fallacy.
Read 4 tweets
Mar 27
The Univariate Fallacy

This is one of the most common and effective fallacies of our time, and it works by concentrating on a single variable while ignoring all else to deceive people into accepting a distorted picture of reality.

1/ Thread 🧵
realityslaststand.com/p/beware-the-u…
2/ Importantly, there are two versions of the UF that you should know. One version is blatantly applied across many issues and is used to invent/exaggerate group differences, while the other is applied more narrowly to reduce or eliminate appearance of real group differences.
3/ The first, more common version of the Univariate Fallacy serves as the foundation for virtually all “equity” initiatives that aim to eliminate outcome disparities for various identity groups based on immutable traits like race, sex, and gender identity. Image
Read 9 tweets
Mar 22
My article debunking a "multimodal" model of sex is now free for everyone.

But here's a 🧵 covering the basics...

1/ Activists are attempting to debunk the notion that male and female represent real and discrete biological categories in humans.

realityslaststand.com/p/debunking-ps…
2/ They believe that categorizing people as male or female is not only biologically incorrect but also harmful and oppressive.

Now, many activist scientists have been attempting to provide an imprimatur of legitimacy to these radical and anti-scientific beliefs. ImageImage
3/ Early attempts to debunk the two-sex model sought to expand the # of sexes beyond 2. One example is Anne Fausto-Sterling, who claimed the “two-party sexual system” in humans was “in defiance of nature,” and that there are “at least five sex categories, and perhaps even more.” ImageImage
Read 25 tweets
Mar 14
I decided to try a keto diet for a month to see how I like it. Today is day 10. Here's my experience so far.

Short 🧵:

In the first 4 days I dropped 5-6 pounds, which is likely water weight. Weight hasn't dropped more.
Despite eating calorically dense fatty foods and eating when I'm hungry, I'm actually eating under 2000 calories a day because each meal is very satiating.

I notice a big difference between eating carbs and going carb free. The difference is the impact on hunger levels.
Before, when i was really hungry and started eating carbs, I would get hungrier in the beginning before starting to feel full.

But with protein and fat, my hunger begins to drop off from the first bite. This seems to naturally prevent overeating.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 16
1/🧵I was inspired to pursue science at a young age by amazing scientists like Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, etc. They taught me the importance of the unbiased search for truth. They never mentioned DEI, and for good reason—it's antithetical to rigorous science.
2/ I wanted to be a university professor because I wanted to do good science in addition to teaching and inspiring future generations of curious students about the natural world.

Research and teaching, I couldn't imagine a better career.
3/ But the DEI initiatives that swung into full force shortly after I got my PhD in 2018 required me to center regressive politics over rigorous science. This wasn't what I signed up for.

I'll never forgive what activists have done to the academy. They've utterly destroyed it.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(