Whats his best movie? Is it still Zoolander?

Whats his best movie? Is it still Zoolander?

Also why did he have a fallout with Ben Affleck?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10#Madison.27s_arguments
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army
youtube.com/watch?v=yAmE1cNB9WI
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

probably what about marry or when this meme-lord got in a spat with Taleb, can't decide which

>why do Lebanese alphas trigger jews

Permanent Midnight.

*smashes moral relativism*

Reading The Moral Landscape right now. I find it quite convincing.

Stop believing in free will.

But how do you derive any sort of moral or philosophical guidance from scientific information? I would like to (and probably will) read the book, but this seems like a glaring flaw which Harris has ostensibly left unaddressed.

His podcast is pretty good. If you an islamophobe

His podcast is decent in general. I'm sad he's decided to take this Islam thing to his deathbed, but most of the guests and topics are fairly insightful.

Why is his podcast so comfy bros? Anything similar?

The guest from the most recent nutrition episode is unbearably annoying and clownish, i coudnt finish it.

Anyway, While We're Young and Greenberg are his best non comedy roles. And Chas Tenenbaum.

>it's a "Ben Stiller derives an Ought from an Is" flick

Fun ride, but massive plot holes

econtalk and myth of the 20th century are both good

>observing the obvious reality of jihad makes you a made up word.

I enjoyed his talk with Charles Murray. I will never understand the controversy over the bell curve. He found that IQ variability within race is far greater than across different races. I don't understand why that is a controversial result.

I'm being facetious, you rube.

>It's a Ben Stiller takes a pedantic, autistic view of the word "truth" to never before seen levels episode.

>all men are created equal

If you don't believe in equality, you literally don't believe in american values

As Harris said, intelligence and racial differences are just a very taboo topic. The way in which certain people reference and use The Bell Curve (often incorrectly) is just the cherry on top.

He argues that morality is based on maximizing well-being, but he also says that it can be difficult or impossible to figure out which action maximizes well-being the most. This isn't a failure of his moral theory, though. He says several times that simply because there are no "answers in practice" doesn't mean that there are no "answers in principle". If we figure out how to predict the consequences of our actions better, we will have more "answers in practice".

I'm only halfway through the book, but if I were to make a guide from this theory, I'd say that you should follow your instincts or experience about what is right if the consequences are not clear enough to provide a clear decision.

Go clean your room like Kermit told you to.

what do you mean by Islam thing?

Torture is painful.
You oughtn't torture people for no reason.

It wasn't so hard. Was it?

That's fair, but that leaves me with one very important question: what is well-being? I listened to his TED talk, which briefly touches on the topic of well-being, and I found the comparison to overall health or wellness to be insufficient for explaining such an expansive topic.

He's a very staunch believer in the idea that Islam's texts are to blame for terrorism in the Middle East and abroad.

Is it just an idea when said terrorists are citing Islamic texts to justify their terrorism? Or is it reality?

That and Islamic culture are responsible for jihad you fucking mong. Fuck Islam. Go read Hirsi Ali.

He talks about the definition of well-being beyond what you described on page 39 of my 2010 printing. In the index you can look up "well-being, definition of".

He says that you can define it from the other end of the spectrum -- the worst misery for everyone on earth, where everyone suffers as much as they can. From here, you can say that any action that prevents or lessens such a state is morally good or that it moves toward well-being (the other end of the spectrum).

Id suck his dick after he lectured me on the flaws of moral relativism.

I think that the Quran offers many inadvisable rules and practices for life, but my issue is that the same claim can be levied against nearly every religion. Yet I don't see many Christian extremists, nor Buddhists extremists, or even Islamic American extremists. So I'm left with the belief that it's about the environment, interpretation, and culture. I feel like this is a more comprehensive and considerate answer than saying "an honest reading and practice of the Quran will end badly."

Maynmar and Buddhism google it

however I mostly agree with you

But then I'm left asking what is the worst possible form of suffering. I think I'll have to read the book to really get an answer that I like, but I am glad to see that Harris doesn't gloss over the topic as much as I thought he had.

He claims that when people say they're motivated by Islam, then just maybe they ARE motivated by Islam, and not merely by economics as the Left insists. He points out that many people, globally, are poor, but it is only the Muslims who wage Jihad against non-believers. He suggests that perhaps there is some connection between the Koran;s many explicit demands that the Muslims wage war against the non-believers, and the incidence of Muslims waging war against the non-believers.

But he's probably just a racist, everyone knows Muslims don't really believe the silly things they claim to believe and all the violence the Muslims inflict on others is a direct consequence of White Imperialism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10#Madison.27s_arguments

Here, Madison acknowledges the differences in men's abilities and says that our government should protect the fruits, like property, that men of higher ability acquire.

It had something to do with his argument with Kermit.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army
Obviously a bit dated, but it should be an interesting read for you.

Yeah, that's just a bit of my ignorance showing. I didn't feel that it was fair to just talk about Christians.

1. Torture is painful [T].
2∴. Therefore, one should not torture a person for no reason [~R].

OR

1. T.
2. So, not R.

You do see the logical gap here?

I understand that, but that's not what people mean when they interpret it in a modern context

>HURR

Is it hard to type with all those Muslim cocks in your asshole?

The gap is called not being a psychopath, I suppose. I'm sorry but I don't know how to prove such a simple statement logically. How would you try to prove such a statement logically?

Just because you know that people are not as intelligent as others does not mean that you have to treat them as unequal in law. You simply recognize the same rights for people of all levels of intelligence.

I guess you could try something like,

1. If I am tortured, then I will be in pain.
2. If I am in pain, then I am in an undesirable state.
3. So I am in an undesirable state.
4. If I do not want to be in an undesirable state, then I do not want to be in pain.
5. So, I do not want to be tortured.

But then this enters into subjectivism, and my subjective experience of pain undoes claims to absolute moral truth by Harris's method.

This is to say, you and I cannot verify the other person's true experience of pain and further, while neurons firing may have a clear linkage
to me or you being in pain, it is not what us being in pain is actually like. The conscious experience of me stubbing my toe (which I know I have, and am pretty sure you have) is different than our brains firing in a particular way.
The states we enter cannot be measured accurately by present science.

I do believe that there is a true moral system, but I Harris goes about it all wrong in my estimation.
I think the equivalent to what Harris does is like if a chemist tried to convince you that certain elements on the periodic table had superior moral value.

Ben Stiller sucks, I prefer Mark hamil

he really does look a lot like him

I started getting more and more into him. He's pretty badass

I definitely see what you mean. But can't you say that "His neurons are firings in a way that clearly indicates pain. His experience right now is probably similar to what all of us understand as being in pain."? Why does his actual experience (that we can't know exactly) prevent us from saying that our moral claims relating to pain aren't absolute and true?

I guess what I'm saying is that why does somebody's exact experience that only they know matter when we can see their neurons firing and say that they're in a state that all of us are familiar with and have a name for, like pain? We all know what pain feels like and we may know what it looks like in the brain, so what does his experience have to do with it?

*what does his unique experience that is only knowable to him have to do with it?

We could all agree that a person being tortured is experiencing pain.

I find it interesting how he has gone from a point of being loved by the left to where the same exact people hate him now.

>We all know what pain feels like and we may know what it looks like in the brain, so what does his experience have to do with it?

I think you would agree that if we are in pain, we would need to experience it. That is, even if I had my fingers being broken one by one, if I felt nothing I would not say I am in pain.
Maybe I would be scared about the loss of functionality in my fingers, but I wouldn't think "This hurts".

But then there are certain cases such as, what if a person cannot communicate that they are in pain, or do not react as if they were despite being in agony.

While it certainly seems quite true that we do not like pain, I cannot say this with scientific scrutiny. I am taking it on faith that torturing a person causes them pain.
It seems fairly obvious that they may be in pain, but there is simply no way for me to verify this by measurement which is the issue Harris's ethics has great difficulty with.

Im pretty far left, but I think some lefties distance themselves from him because he spouts a lot of socialist and communist ideologies.

I understood this reference.

But they're killing muslims.

that was my point. So called peaceful buddhists, have been literally bombing people and killing them because of political and ideological difference.

But he doesn't say "will" he says "is more likely to". And it is because it combines the vengefulness of the old testament with the promise of heaven from the new. Throw in top that literal embodiment of the religion was a literal warlord and its not hard to see why one would be harder to enlighten than the others (it would be weirder if they were the same (also the middle East is inbred as fuck))

There have been plenty of muslim terrorists from the US and London, and most of the terrorist faggots from Saudi Arabia are rich.

Yeah Kony and boko Haram are equivelant sized problems for sure

fuck drumpf

Pretty sure islam is garbage and anyone with a brain would be against it.

Muslims, by acting out their muslimness, have turned even peaceful Buddhists to violence. What does that tell you.

So is he just an utilitarian with the stipulation that well-being can be scientifically derived?

The problem is the culture of martyrdom in Islam, it used to be a huge thing in Christianity but died out when it was cool to get eaten by lions

Islam has had a revival and it's super cool to kill yourself and as many people with you becauce "huurr duuur thy'll be judged equally and join you in paradise if they were good which mans killing children is ok"

we live in a democracy, people want equality, not equal rights

was great in meet the fuckers

What is the difference?

equality meaning equity, equal right meaning liberty

I would simply operate on the principle that a person is probably experiencing what is generally understood to be what he would be experiencing given his circumstances. I don't know how you could go wrong with this.

If you decide not to torture somebody even though he maybe wouldn't have experienced pain somehow, it's still good that you didn't torture him. And if you do something good for somebody and he actually experiences suffering from it, you can't really be blamed because it would be an anomaly that he suffered instead of prospered.

>hear that sam is having a podcast with douglas murray
>get excited as I love his speeches
>it was actually charles murray instead

i can't handle these feels

he had a podcast with douglas murray, it was great

youtube.com/watch?v=yAmE1cNB9WI

Emma Wattson is my Waifu!