Why does Sam Harris Blow Jordan Nutbag Peterson the fuck out everytime they debate ?

Why does Sam Harris Blow Jordan Nutbag Peterson the fuck out everytime they debate ?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=JfbNRLkg7bQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb
youtu.be/4sDB-05wXk4?t=9m45s
youtu.be/8GW6sLrK40k
lmgtfy.com/?q=harris peterson debate
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Because jordan is an intellectual hack

>The mark of a charlatan –say the journalist Sam Harris –is to defend his position or attack a critic by focusing on some of his/her specific statement (“look at what he said”) rather than blasting his exact position (“look at what he means” or, more broadly, “look at what he stands for”), the latter of which requires an extensive grasp of the proposed idea.

Peterson is a professor at a top 15 school in NA. What does Harris do?

Jordan Peterson is fine until he starts talking about religion
Unfortunately they debated about religion

Link the fucking debate. Both of these fucking people are charlatans so this should be filled with idiocy

pretty much this.

Sam is also a pretty good debator and handed Noam chomsky his ass

Harris got fucking rekt by Chomsky on email and only pretends he won with his fucking pussy cuck Reddit fanboys on Twitter.

Because Jordan Peterson's communication skills are terrible, I'm pretty sure he's on the spectrum.

He's way smarter than Sam Harris but Harris abuses JBP's lack of communication skills to beat him.

Based Taleb

t. chomskycuck

Sam Harris is a jew he lost at life

That's not how I remember it: Chomsky pinned Harris down on his justifications for his moral codex as over glorified utilitarianism.


Harris pinned Chomsky down on simply ignoring beliefs inherent of Islamists and the actions this makes them disposed to.

>all these Harris fags
Out!! This is jbp turf!

You must not have seen the two debates then, because it's clear to anyone with an ounce of brain that Harris is the one who got BTFO

He bes a faggit

...

I think you're just too stupid to understand Peterson, he did not get BTFO

The only thing he blows is Satans goat dick in hell

Lol moral codex what?

Chomsky showed that Harris is a pro establishment parrot who would gladly justify murder if it were in the interest of the state.

Pretty much proved Harris is a fucking hypocritical fascist. Harris just flayed around >muh Reddit guys think this one fact might be incorrect
>Intent is so crucial that blowing people up with tomahawks is ok!

because you're 12 years old and don't understand what Peterson was saying.

Christian cuck fundie nutbags detected

who /anti-fragile/ here?

Peterson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harris

That book was excellent.
youtube.com/watch?v=JfbNRLkg7bQ
Same themes as Peterson talking about safe environments destroying a person.

>Peterson argues for a mythological, scholarly approach to religion
>Peterson appeals to fundamentalists

Pick ONE and only ONE you fucking affirmative action recipient of life waste of a cumshot.

Harris is on par with Neil deGrasse Tyson in terms of Reddit-cred.
Return to pleasure island.

L I N K

>debate

Peterson's Lectures are much more wholly useful

who is this

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb

You would think Harris and Peterson would agree about their opposition to totalitarianism

Harris doesn't do what debates are supposed to be and are most useful for - comparing two sides of an issue and reaching a new and superior synthesis between the two after laying all the facts on the table to draw a conclusion you hadn't before, or if not at least acknowledge and respect the opposition you disagree with totally.

Harris debates to 'win', to get a knock-out blow for the ego. Something to be ate up on reddit and a best of compilation on youtube. Great for e-fame, shocking for long-term influence or achievement.

Seconded

They do, that's bare minimum for most Western peoples. Even though peoples definition of what is Totalitarian is different for everybody, it's become a byword for people with power doing thing I don't like.

Peterson refusing to move past the nature of reality because he knows he'll get btfo with intellectual super powers.

interesting. i'll pick up some of his works. cheers user.

> Sam : let's talk about Reality

> Petershit : good idea Sam ! I got a good story about that

Admit it . Peterson is a hack intellectual you stupid fucking Faggot

What would you recommend from him leaf?

Remember how Sam Harris hasn't had any credibility on these topics since William Lane Craig debated him?
youtu.be/4sDB-05wXk4?t=9m45s

Antifragile is a necessity.
The Black Swan is also useful also.

It's always meant that. Totalitarianism is just a synonym for tyranny that conveniently encompasses fascism and stalinism

I'll give em a go, thanks Commonwealth bro.

lel ur a faget

In the second conversation Harris basically accuses Peterson of spinning theological justifications to support his preexisting value system, rather than uncovering meaning through an intellectually honest interpretation of the text.

It's a fair point and a difficult charge to defend against but Harris certainly didn't need to read out a long excerpt from his own book just to illustrate it. I have no idea how Peterson takes shit from people for being long-winded after that dick move from Sam.

Anyway, I think there was an opportunity missed toward the end, where Sam suggested that it's perfectly possible for an individual to engage in spiritual practice without reference to any theological structure and invent their own value system ex nihilo... I know Peterson strongly believes in the futility of this project and that the religious and mythological narrative structures capture thousands of years of empirical knowledge. Seems he was just getting fatigued and tapped out early.

Personally I'm not too interested in the outcome of these debates and would much rather have listened to these guys talk politics. But I guess this is what Sam's listeners want.

Debates are meant to be won. Discussions are meant to synthesize. Cmon man.

I'm reading "Fooled By Randomness" right now. 3 chapters in and I feel like my life is changed. Fantastic author

RWRs are incapable of logical reasoning. This is why they elected Trump and listen to Alex Jones.

Harris talking politics loses me, he knows the progs have killed whatever side he could have picked, but refuses to parley with the growing nationalist revival.

Revivify, father, etc...

What does Sup Forums see in Peterson anyway? I watched a few of his talks and he's an alright guy, but it's literally nothing. What, is it because he told a tranny to fuck off once? Is it that he validates christcucks? Genuinely curious.

>Reality
I feel like you don't know much about philosophy or epistemology or logic... or science even.

But sure, be dazzles by anecdotal examples Harris provides and anecdotal attacks. That's what all the greats always did anyway

Oh wait.

Thirded

Perfectly stated.

Also, let's not forget his argument against Trump was that he "had nightmares about him."

A supposed rational thinker poses as a seer. Also, his idea of life is to avoid suffering. Idiot - that means this deer is better off than he is.

There's litterally no public figure I despise more than him. And I'm an Objectivist.

Pretty much because he validates Christ cucks fanatics and there is a new Christian revival movement going on in the alt gay club

He has done a lot of work in opposition to the PC algorithm.
Plus he has been able to explain the purpose of religious stories on a level many people can appreciate.

You're entirely right, it would probably not have been good either. Maybe I should rethink my choice in podcast subscriptions.

sam harris is pretty dull. peterson is talking about religion as a basis of human ethics to live by and not worshiping a god. he says there's evidence that that supports it and lays out a good argument of why religion to some degree or rather a set of ethical rules is good to live by

sam harris just kept saying no because what if something bad happens, but nothing propose any counter-arguments or even suggest some other system that we can use. he says religion is bad cause it's bad and we should create a new system, but totally ignores or even considers any flaws in that argument.

peterson never suggested religion should replace or even be like science and instead it should be a system of ethical and spiritual guidance yet sam harris kept pretending to not understand went back to science.

science doesn't tell you how to live life you fucking retarded piece of shit so stop pretending it does. religion would be a philosophical stance not a scientific one. sam harris can't argue against this stance at all cause there's no ability to when you look at christianity as philosophy and literature rather than science

>>>>>>>r/Athiesm

Nice b8 faggot

Peterson demolished Harris in their last discussion. He even got Sam to agree that truth can be derived from fiction which works into a greater narrative on underlying truths in religious documents and humanity itself.

Harris and his reddit-intellect atheist fanbase are the living examples of people 'missing the forest for the trees'.

>peterson never suggested religion should replace or even be like science
Peterson specifically talking about religion being necessary to fill in the gaps in the human experience that science is unable to fill, he suggests that they are complimentary not antagonistic.

>convince him of the existence of God

Harris is dumb, but he's not that stupid

Nailed it.
That's also why Harris got wrecked by William Lane Craig. Harris can't appreciate purpose that extends beyond human suffering.

I remember a lecture by JBP when I was still an undergrad. Science gave us automatic weapons and nuclear bombs.

If society truly went by science and only science, we'd be ashes long ago.

I wondered why he doesn't, he makes jab at religion but JP isn't arguing about if a religion is good, hes just making points about how there is meaning in the stories we tell. How can Sam Harris argue with that?

no you faggot

debates are not for the debaters, they are for the audience.

There is not supposed to be a declared winner--each individual is supposed to take both arguments into consideration, and make a decision for themselves.

So I'm supposed to be some sort of mind-reader and know what the person meant to say and not what they actually said? Genius.

He's a radical materialist combined with literal idiot. If it's not measurable, it's not real. Therefore, the only morality he can come up with is the avoidance of suffering. Which makes a dead deer morally superior to him.

Beyond pathetic for a supposed "rational thinker."

what purpose does Christianity offer? wow, you get teleported to another dimension where you live forever with all your friends and family? you really believe that man? are you 12?

He's the only person on the planet outright telling people how to actually fix themselves and become better people

Or you could just try to understand the person's position and dismantle the position itself.

>Peterson

...

i understand this somewhat but there needs to be a way to uniting the community that doesn't involve shit made up by Jews 2000 years ago

I can agree with that.

Really, you can think about most of what Harris has produced over the last year or more as an expression of pure neuroticism. Trump derangement, the AI apocalypse, etc.

He made me convert from Dawkins atheism to Jungian Christianity

He doesn't, though.

You need a certain level of intelligence to understand his concepts

>Still thinking universal purpose is defined by how it benefits you personally.

>Who is Tony Robbins

And that's that bucko!

Jordan Peterson keeps trying to defend religion, while he doesn't go on offensive why nihilism leads to USSR, PRC, Mozambique, Pol Pot type massive genocides.

That's what grade school taught us. And we both know grade school was bluepill trash.

He's still liberal. Just because there is a movement in the far left that's become insane fascist doesn't mean he's suddenly going to throw away his ideology and become right-wing.

but what is your purpose? to convert 2 billion Niggers to Christianity?

>I got a good story about that
I think you're missing the point. The stories come from millennia of refined observation by the people who came before us. It's, at minimum, interesting, and according to Jordan, a distilled truth. I'm not suddenly a christian, but it's certainly an interesting part of the world that I never looked into when the atheist community dismissed it all. It's not that the people who are taking it literally are suddenly right, but it's made me interested in all of the mythology of all cultures.

this

Oh, Thats why Islam is the answer.

When you see into Jordan Peterson's mind

youtu.be/8GW6sLrK40k

what is it with shills and saying the opposite happened, i guess its a liberal thing, fake it till you make it

all shills on here ever do is say something that is diametrically opposite to the truth and hope people believe them.

stupid shills, i hate them so god damn much

That the one who was slain receive the reward of his suffering.

Aha! Ive been collecting data on this very issue.

For those of you who already havent voted, please vote on my Harris - Peterson debate poll.

Thank you.

Here are the results ive collected thus far.

...

>I won't actually debate you and instead will assume you are wrong based on nothing but my own faulty reasoning
What a fag. This is the mentality of Bernie supporters. "So what he sold out to Hillary? What he actually meant to say is fuck the dnc."

the worst part is that you aren't even trolling dude. you are so hooked on to this ancient shit and you take it 100% seriously.

I was caught up in the whole "New Athiesm - Five horsemen" wave that basically destroyed the last real remnant of religious thought in the west. What i realise now is that whilst it is indeed a simple confrontation of myth and reality centred around literal interpretations (e.g. Hitchens only ever considered the literal and that is fine for his purpose). However i believe the new atheist movement effectively threw the baby out with the bathwater. Bathwater being the human tendency to literal interpretation (dogmatic established religion) and the baby (religion as a crowd sourced attempt at morality and organising our society in a stable way). We are seeing the effects of this now, chaos and cancerous nihilism and post-modern madness.

b-but religion is by definition superstition, and that´s dumb so you´re wrong. Check mate.

lmgtfy.com/?q=harris peterson debate

>doesn't know the joys of being sorted.