Comments by "SsjC" (@ssjcosty) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder" channel.

  1. Dave Rubin in an interview a while back: "my brain is still in recovery mode from taking in so many high level important ideas"
    37
  2. I don't get it - if someone severely dislikes that people like you exist (i.e. gay people) and that marriage among people like you is legal, why does it matter whether those views are due to their religious belief or not? Like, the actions and the effects of his homophobia are the same, regardless of whether they come from his personal opinion or from his religious belief. Why does the religious belief count as an excuse?
    7
  3. Well he's pausing it so that he can comment on specific things that they say during their whole conversation. If you want to see the whole bit uninterrupted then just watch it on FOX. They make a lot of unchallenged claims in the video, so it makes sense for someone who is criticizing them to go through their talk point by point.
    4
  4.  @VannywiththeFanny  The decision about who to vote this time around is obviously easy if you're a decent person. But we shouldn't have to be in this situation in the first place, where the only options are two potentially senile old men in their late 70s. I would say that anyone who's over 70yo has no business being a president. And similarly with other high stakes roles, like the VP, a senate house speaker, a supreme court judge etc. Why are those judges appointed for life anyway?
    3
  5. He's obviously not doing it to change their mind, but to expose them to the people watching these interviews.
    2
  6. While this is a very old video, and sadly Brooks is no longer alive, I do want to say I strongly disagree with his view here. Yes, the "four horsemen" are white privileged guys, but they are all experts in their fields (maybe Harris less so) and their criticism of religion is well grounded. I disagree that philosophical writings like the ones he mentioned do not offer solutions to the problems he stated, because some of those writings have established the groundwork for the modern scienctific method, as well as informed our legislations on civil rights and liberty. Those are the very tools we need to continue building upon if we are to solve any future problems, be they scientific, social or ethical. A lot of our progress, both in terms of scientific research as well as civil rights, has been opposed by religious institutions, and still is. If you look at the books written by the "New Atheists", you'll see that their point isn't that these people are "backwards and barbarous", but instead they explain why religion is so toxic in many regards, how its claims and assumptions are unjustified, and how it is science and skeptical thinking that will get you closer to truth and not religion. I come from a highly religious Eastern European country, and it is thanks to people like these who were not afraid to criticise religion, including some of their debates and books later on, that gave me the opportunity to think more clearly about my own religious beliefs and whether or not they were justified. Hint: they weren't. You'd like them to do what? Shut up and not point out the harm that religious thinking can cause? Shut up and not explain the flaws in religious thinking when it comes to explanations of the natural world? You're saying they should "focus on the policies", but they are not politicians nor public servants - they are instead scientists, journalists, philosophers, so their concerns will not be the same as yours - a political youtube commentator.
    2
  7. Why does the caller keep talking over the host?!
    1
  8. lllULTIMATEMASTERlll There's also a video on YouTube titled "Why I stopped idolizing Sam Harris", where this guy T1J highlights a lot of issues with Harris's viewpoints and attitudes, while still somewhat sympathetic. Give it a watch.
    1