Is he Sup Forumss final boss?

Is he Sup Forumss final boss?

nobody gives a fuck about e-celebs.

No he’s just a kike.

Sam "I won't debate Molyneux because he's a racist" Harris

>not thinking harris would mop the floor with molymeme

Molyneux mops the floor with himself. I'm surprised Sup Forums has such a hardon for him, given his constantly changing views and lack of sophisticated thinking.

Sup Forums won't make it past the minibosses. Sam is pure logic and reason, Sup Forums is emotional self-absorption and conspiracies.

hes actually pretty based, a poofter when it comes to politics tho. like "help trump said a mean thing and that tells me all i need to know about him" kind of poofter.. but he dishes out all the juicey stats about blacks and muslims so he is based he just isnt into white identity because he is jew

Isn't he the guy who thinks a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran is ok or something like that?

Call in to him and debate him, if you think you're so high and mighty

Protip: you won't

>I'm surprised Sup Forums admires a complete moron
Really, user?

he isn't into identity politics generally because it's a shit idea

>he changes his mind when presented with new evidence
>lel brainlet cuck

>pure logic and reason

Sam Harris believes that free-will is an illusion, that the origin of all your thoughts and desires, and decisions to act on them or not, are entirely beyond the realm of your control.
This is what Sam Harris actually believes.

He still lost in an objective fashion against Scott Adams

Only if his final attack is called "Empty Rhetoric"
But thats true though

>Atheism

Molyjeux is an idiot, but Harris is only one step above him.

Stefan pls go

Scott Adams has super autism, though.
Hard to beat a focused sperg.

While I enjoy your doubles, I still think it was Sam's own fault. He basically has a large amount of unexamined cognitive dissonance surrounding Trump, and that's why he was so blindsided by the first person that wasn't just doing a media persona of a Trump supporter.

>But that's true though

WTF I love moral-relativism now!!

Except 80% of Sup Forums and the entirety of Gen Z

He arrived at the no freewill hypothesis via a logical path, not sure if I agree with his conclusions though.

Also, Sam Harris is most certainly not a moral relativist, he argues against it often.

Didn't Sam Harris flirt with race realism pill, which made him the target of SJWs for a few months? He seems more open minded than the average skeptic, but I don't think he'll ever engage with the alt right again.

I'm surprised Sup Forums even talks about this fag after he got his ass handed to him by Chomsky.

I hope so.

Free will is literally self-evident. Denying this is basically inverted solipsism, it's a philosophic dead-end that raises a host of irreconcilable upon which there can be no deliberation because deliberation IS free will. Moreover, people who make this claim never act as though they actually believe it to be true. It would demand a totally mechanistic approach to debate that I have never seen anybody except the most extremely autistic rationalists (Yudkowski tier, Harris isn't even close) attempt, and when they do, it never fucking works.

If you actually believe in a totally deterministic origin to consciousness you are the sort of person who actually finds the Basilisk theory frightening and compelling.

His argument was chiefly biochemical, not logical. You're never going to hear Sam Harris make a Kantian argument on the origin of reason. Harris is a radical materialist with some interesting thoughts on neuroscience, but in this regard he is well out of his depth.

>He believes the obvious.
What is your point?

>his constantly changing views

Also known as intelligence. Knowledge is a journey and none of us live long enough to reach a final destination. Stop being a faggot.

I don't think disliking Trump means that the rest of your views aren't valuable though.

I think that anyone who thinks Trump played actual 4D chess is delusional, and I think the guy is a pathological liar and political neophyte;however, he's still better than Clinton.

he is defeated by proxy to peterson.

peterson v. dude = peterson
pol v. peterson = pol

the man can't string 2 sentences together to make a fucking argument past: muh morals.

He admits that the Bell Curve is correct and that whites have a higher average IQ than blacks, but he finds nothing noble to be done with such data.

I haven't read the book, I'm going off his descriptions from the podcast. His brand of logic is similar to Ayn Rand in my opinion: the logic holds up within the parameters he himself sets, which in this case are mostly biological.
He appears to see the human-mind as some sort of "black box" that spurts out thoughts, driven entirely by genetics, environment, experience and conditioning. He cannot account for any emergent behaviour in humans (let's call this "the soul") that might allow them to think, reason, and feel outside the realm of what they are and what has been done to them.
Anyway, I'm a pleb when it comes to this stuff, but there it is for what it's worth. Happy New Year, user.

Thanks for this post.

>Sam is pure logic and reason
O rly?

Reminder:

Hitler did nothing wrong and niggers need to go back to Africa.

scott adams is a disgrace.

>haha dude the tell for cognitive bias is saying you know what someone thinks.. anyway, let me tell you what trump means by this

>haha dude analogies are bad and are only used when losing.. anyway, have i told yu about the two movies analogy?

Sup Forums lost to the semi last boss