Here’s my but: ““I am totally against those people killing the editors of Charlie Hebdo, but that event pales so much in comparison with the US terrorist attack on Iraq (2003) and the Israeli terrorist attacks on Gaza (20o8, 2012, 2014)that I can hardly take note of it. I am more concerned with understanding and controlling the terroristic impulses of my own country than that of a few rogue Muslims. They have killed thousands, we have killed hundreds of thousands.

No, I wouldn’t say either of those things, as I made clear. Those are examples of the first type of “but”, which I agree is not valid as it justifies the criminal action.

However, your examples in no way invalidate the second type of “but” I discussed, which does not seek to justify criminal action. Instead it is “meant to add or explain additional, often critical, information, without which, at minimum, incomplete conclusions will be drawn, leading possibly to calamitous actions that may even make matters worse”.

First, just a correction in the interest of clarity. It is not a Sam Harris quote, someone else tweeted it and mentioned Sam Harris, so it appeared in his stream.

Ken said:

I explained at length why I add the “but”, so not sure what you don’t understand about that.

I read your explanation and, in my opinion, it looks like you don’t understand it. I don’t know how you can agree with the quote, but also think any kind of “but” is okay. To use an actual quote from Sam Harris: “People have been murdered over cartoons; End of moral analysis.”

Would you say, “Well I’m sorry that biker gang killed that guy, but he should have known better than to wear that t-shirt into the bar.”? No. There is no “but”, no matter how insulting the t-shirt.

Would you say, “It pains me no end that my daughter was raped, but she should not have worn that little skirt in that neighborhood.”? No. The attackers should be brought to justice, that’s it.

The moment you insert a “but”, you’re well on path to victim-blaming. And victims should not be held accountable for the crimes committed against them, irrespective of the provocation.

paxton marshall said:

Opposing something doesn’t imply we think anyone should be killed for doing it. …

Reading your explanation makes me wonder if you may have slightly missed the point of the quote. The moment someone adds the “but”, they have just given permission to the attacker to take action.

I argue that the following position is irrational for someone who believes in free speech: “I am totally against those people killing the editors of Charlie Hebdo, but come on, they should have expected something bad would happen.”

You can’t be for free speech, and then tolerate incursions against it.

If you say to someone, “You look funny,” you would not excuse violence against you for that. Nor should you if you say to someone, “You’re god isn’t real.” The intensity of the provocation shouldn’t change the dynamics.

You’re right, Sam’s quote is too strong, particularly out of context. I assumed the context was that of the Hebdo murders, in which the objections of some to “I am Charlie” were taken as a refusal to defend free speech. That may even have been true for some, but not for many of us for whom there are valid “but”s to be raised even while fully supporting the right of Hebdo to publish. I don’t think there is an argument that the Hebdo case is analogous to your examples where free speech may be rightfully curtailed. And in general, the bar for curtailing speech should be extremely high. I would usually err on the side of speech being permissible unless a clear and immediate danger can be identified, akin to yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

In the US several people have been fired for posting support for the Charleston, SC killer, on social media. Has their right to free speech been violated? No legal action was taken against them. If we support the right of the employer to fire these people for something having nothing to do with their work, should we expect to be killed?

I want to take issue with the Sam Harris quote: “We either support free speech, or we support the right of others to kill us if we say something they don’t like”

Could we substitute “the right of gays to marry” or “the right to own guns” in that sentence. Opposing something doesn’t imply we think anyone should be killed for doing it. How about the right of a KKK member to give a fiery speech urging members to lynch someone? Is that free speech? Eugene Debs and others were jailed for speaking out against the draft in WWI. In this case I think the speech should have been protected. But at least they weren’t killed, just jailed. What about making threats or verbal harassment? Or provoking an armed rebellion against your country? Are they protected? I’m all for free speech, but I think there are legitimate limits, where other goods trump the good of free speech. And to say if you don’t support the right of people to say anything at all is to support the right to kill them for saying it is ridiculous.

I explained at length why I add the “but”, so not sure what you don’t understand about that. Further hint: My “but” is not in the least bit incompatible with Sam’s tweet, which I fully agree with.

The word “but” can be used in (at least) two ways. 1) One is indeed “Yes this terrible thing happened, but I have an excuse which justifies it”. 2) The other is “Yes this terrible thing happened and there is no justification, but there is other info we need to consider before deciding what to do about it”. So not all “buts” are meant to justify. Many are meant to add or explain additional, often critical, information, without which, at minimum, incomplete conclusions will be drawn, leading possibly to calamitous actions that may even make matters worse.

I don’t understand why people add the “but”: “I believe in free speech, but…”

This tweet to Sam Harris says it best:

We either support free speech, or we support the right of others to kill us if we say something they don’t like.

It takes a moment to parse that sentence, but once you get it, it’s quite profound.

than that, this is my last comment to you on this thread, because your misrepresentations are expanding at such a rate and my responses are necessarily getting longer. You’re just finding more ways to make the same misrepresentations

Well, I am glad it’s your last comment, because your post is full of so much hyperbole, straw men and ad hominem, it isn’t even worth my time responding.

And, no, I do not say this to everyone I disagree with. Heather and I have disagreed more times than we have agreed, but at least with her I can have an intelligent debate, where she presents her views in a succinct and concise manner, and at least she doesn’t see the world in the black and white view you see it in.

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/26/bill_maher_american_hero_laughing_at_religion_is_exactly_what_the_world_needs/ (h/t Jerry Coyne’s site)

We don’t have to let Islam off the hook while we also try to sort out the problems our own governments cause.

Our governments are ridiculous when they do ridiculous things, and they are cruel and divisive when the do cruel and divisive things. They are failing to live up to their own declared standards and rightly should be called out on it.

But religion’s standards are ridiculous, divisive and cruel from the outset, because they are are living down to the standards set in their holy texts written in ignorant times.

There are probably no more than a dozen or so simple worthwhile statements that can be teased out of these old books that are worth keeping today, and many of those statements would be found in independent sources from yet other cultures. And all of the useful statements can have God extracted from them. Example: The mercy of God can be recommended instead as the mercy of humans towards each other when we screw up – so getting rid of the death penalty across the US would be a start (hint to those among the religious that seem to be all for the death penalty).