MAD Harris

'Member the OG guy who called Islam out on its bullshit? He might not like Trump but he's definitely a pretty redpilled dude and I have a lot of respect for his intellect.

I lost so much respect for him endorsing Hillary. I don't give a fuck if he doesn't like Trump.

Yes, I 'member the OG "we cannot let Donald Trump get the nuclear codes"

he is a neocon

I find him too pretentious.

He's a smart dude for sure but I find it hard to respect intelligent people who don't seem to be able to ever change their opinions on any subject.

I know that conviction is an admirable trait, that you should stand up for your beliefs and ideas (with the understanding that you put a great deal of thought into forming those beliefs in the first place), but even in such cases I don't think anyone's perfect, and almost everyone adopts flawed beliefs at one point or another, and yet in the case of Sam Harris I don't think I've ever seen him shift his opinion away from his initial belief on any subject he has ever spoken on.

lol not even close. harris completely fell off.

who else was he going to endorse, faggot?
he knows of shillary's ills, and yet, made the choice to put her above Trump. it was either hillary or trump, third party is BS

>Spineless neocon Jew who cloaks arguments for Greater Israel in shallow atheist rhetoric
He's a kike and he acts like one.

>Schmuel Horowitz
>meme degree in "theoretical" science
at least Pablo down at the Lube Joint knows how to keep a car on the road.

Sort yourself out.

it's past your bedtime, user.
they spoke past each other in harris's podcast

He's very islamophobic and yet turned out to be insanely anti-Trump... Gee, I wonder why..?

>zionist kike is anti islam
>he's /ourguy/

>his intellect
He went full determinism. He doesn't have an intellect. His conclusions are strictly beyond his control or influence. He isn't smart; he isn't even dumb. He just is, like a rock.

You only look up to very big rocks. Harris is a manlet

Fuck off, faggot

Sam "I'm very smart, but I still shart" Harris

Yeah, I have this strange feeling that just because you can't win a debate against him doesn't make him right or wrong or a genius. You just accept his points and fault him for not being seemingly able to be critical of his own ideas. "own ideas" btw

His prose is fucking horrible too. He even uses words like "unpack."

>'Member the OG guy who called Islam out on its bullshit?
You mean Christopher Hitchens

harris is a fucking cuck, I never liked him even back in my reason/rationality/atheist period. why couldn't cancer have taken him instead of hitchens?

Same. I loved all his books, but he went full-retard by endorsing Hillary.

...

It's funny.

Most philosophers condemn him as unoriginal because he literally hasn't brought anything new to the table as far as philosophy goes. The whole "morality can be discovered through science" argument is a stretch, and that's as unique as it's gotten for him. Harris' ideas have been said by greater minds before him. He's really just an atheist populizer. I like him though.

The problem is, he couldn't allow himself to side with Republicans because of their association with the religious right. Which was retarded, because Trump is pro LBGT and hardly a religious conservative. But seeing such an otherwise brilliant known skeptic keep himself willfully ignorant about Hillary was really depressing.

this """"""""""""""""intellect"""""""""""""""" managed to get a BA in philosophy and still wrote a book "Moral landscapes" where he used the naturalistic fallacy as a basis for his whole argument.

That is like someone with a BA in philosophy writing a book claiming Trump is wrong because he's overweight, old or because he is white. Using logical fallacies to argue is stupid, even a BLM thug is intellectually superior to that.

>Most philosophers condemn him as unoriginal because he literally hasn't brought anything new to the table as far as philosophy goes.

Hume showed that it was a logical fallacy in the 1700s.

>The whole "morality can be discovered through science" argument is a stretch

Yes, it was popular idea during a short time in the enlightenment until it was shown to be morally flawed.

>and that's as unique as it's gotten for him. Harris' ideas have been said by greater minds before him.

The only thing unique about him is that he is the only one who is so dumb that he don't understand the counter arguments. The people who said the same in the early 1700s later realized their mistake. I do not know any serious philosopher who held this position without rejecting it later. It's like being a solipsist.