Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "Sam Harris allowed ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ to destroy him" video.

  1.  @Spartan1853  He has blind spots alright. He got popular during the War on Terror by denouncing all "religion" without any objective reasoning involved in his arguments. All while claiming that "reason over religion" is the only "rational" choice to make. I suspected all along that he was an incoherent lunatic because his special lexicon is all about saying things that sound "scientific" and "objective" but they're just fuzzy claims about his fears and feelings and so forth. You like that if you already want to agree with his claims and opinions. But it's not an appeal to anyone's intellect. These are emotional appeals to the biases of his fellow travelers. He's no smarter than Bill Maher, I guarantee you.
    9
  2.  @Mike1Lawless  Wow. You're quite the guru.
    2
  3.  @promethiac2641  LOL. Do you understand what "intellectual dishonesty" means?
    2
  4.  Diane M  Ever heard of a guy named Freud?
    2
  5. Truly.
    1
  6.  @XiagraBalls  LOL. Good, how? You're a fellow traveler. Big deal. What "intellectual" comment do you offer? Nothing yet...
    1
  7. @A U He has never had "special intelligence". He just spent a long time working on his pseudoscientific lexicon and he fools a lot of people in to thinking that he has added to "scientific knowledge" that wasn't already published and well-propagated before the US Civil War. Sadly, all of his comments involve circular logic and never contain any relevant facts to support his claims. It's all theory and pontification on those stale theories.
    1
  8. @Armond Welch What do you think that means?
    1
  9. @A U That is his credentialed philosophy. That's all he's got.
    1
  10.  @dfc9180  Not once did he say anything that has ever added to human knowledge. He's a male trigglypuff.
    1
  11.  @Mike1Lawless  What nonsense. Something can be personal and social at the same time. And if it's also based on testimonies of dead people then that too can be about both personal choice and public debate. It just means that it affects each person according to their own judgement. OTOH if you believe that murder is wrong that can be both personal and political. And also "religious" to the extent that it affects your beliefs and your "religious" behaviors. The problem here is that Harris commits endless fallacies when he argues that faith is harmful to society and or to persons that believe in an unseen creator that directly or indirectly affects any person's "sense of" morals. And speaking directly to your fallacious claim about "belief does not arise from reasoning' this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Your intuition and psychological reactions can come from many sources both seen and unseen. If you have a reasoned belief in something then that is itself an intellectual exercise. Discussing it is allowing others to debate. Therefore it becomes more "objective" and so forth. You don't actually know what reasoning is. You just got suckered by people like Sam Harris in to making you think arrogant Dunning Kruger "unskilled and unaware" atheists have special cognitive skills to "explain" (but only to fellow travelers) nutritively how everyone else is deluded. Anything that you say about reasoning can be turned back on you. And the only thing that you can do to defend Sam Harris is perhaps correct a misquote or something. LOL.
    1
  12.  @BabySkinCondom  Give an example to support your claim. I think you don't even know what objective reasoning is. Fallacy peddler.
    1
  13.  @BabySkinCondom  You're conflating rational reasoning in things that are outside of that believer's direct sight with "blind faith". Interesting that YOU conflated "faith" with "blind" reasoning, belief, etc. Not only that you have blind faith in unseen things that you are simply told are in contradiction with all theories of a creator-god. You don't actually know what science and empiricism are. That's why you don't know what reasoning or faith are. The end of Sam Harris's philosophy is that nobody knows anything. But you can condition yourself to put on the brakes when you see lights that turn red. These expectations (that you can learn how to drive) are derived from empiricism and some weak but still valid "science". That's all anyone can "believe" through his form of "Reasoning".
    1
  14.  @cypherpunk7675  He literally is a credentialed "science" philosopher that doesn't understand any aspect of uncertainty theory in philosophy or the material sciences. And his view of human intelligence is so dimwitted that posing as "erudite expositor" is exactly why he is rightly regarded as a fake intellectual since he is a destroyer of critical thinking and objective reasoning.
    1
  15.  @BabySkinCondom  You obviously don't know how to read properly.
    1
  16.  @jamesnelson9919  Do you understand the words that you just used and that you're responding to?
    1
  17.  @jamesnelson9919  It can't be your poor reading comprehension. Of course not.
    1
  18.  @Mike1Lawless  Great rebuttal! He obviously didn't destroy your critical thinking or objective reasoning!
    1
  19.  @jamesnelson9919  Nice "Yo' Mama" comeback, moron.
    1
  20.  @Mike1Lawless  Hilarious commentary.
    1
  21.  @Mike1Lawless  I notice that you take it for granted, seemingly, that you have some special insight or technique or something for laying out the spectrum of "nutcases" and "extremists" in some kind of objective fashion. From my point of view, it seems to me that you are clearly, way, way more "extreme" than just about everyone I've met. Of course we're not talking about "dangerous extremism" because you're just a nameless Internet troll. But as a...I don't know...a "virtual voice of reason" you're clearly as nutty as they get. You must know this. In any case, even if you don't, you at least must realize that you've offered nothing in the way of "enlightenment" of any kind. And the simple reason is that you're here to defend kooky nihilists that have no comments at all that would help the readers and listeners come up with "Reasonable Ethics" arguments or whatever. The hilarious thing about Sam Harris is that if he is taken down the road to mention anything at all about "ethics" he pretty much agrees with standard morality as taught by Christians and Jews for thousands of years but at the same time bloviates like you do about how "faith" is contrary to "reason" and therefore against "Reasonable Ethics" arguments. About the only thing I can see that would be different is that as an atheist he has to characterize gays and all sexual deviants as victims of "Theistic" ethics. He doesn't understand why a society would "rationally" want to disparage "proud" homosexuals and people that sleep around and promote abortions. And just categorically disparaging "extremism" without any kind of rational, usable definition is much worse than what religious zealots do. At least religious zealot reference a canon of some kind and then you can engage in debates from that point of view. It's much more complicated than you seem to think it is. You've never had any sense that you had anything at stake by just playing around with these nihilistic, brain dead philosophies. The only one worse than Sam Harris is Noam Chomsky. Both have created personality cults. And neither leads anyone in any kind of useful direction. I won't call them "extremists" because that's a stupid label. I think you're talking about "radicals" that expect to ignite "social" (and or political) change with their theories that they imply should be forced on others. I know lots of secular politicians that preach much worse. And those "secular" politicians that preach worse garbage are usually from the Political Identity cult where they basically demonstrate that they only join a given religious organization because it's socially and politically expedient. And the most dangerous thing about atheist radicals is that they try to do everything that they can to prove there is no God above them to judge. The only thing they have to do to avoid accountability for anything is make sure no living person can testify against whatever radical thing they want to do to reach their Utopian political goals.
    1
  22.  @Mike1Lawless  Poor you.
    1
  23.  @Mike1Lawless  I'm sure you're right. Since you say so.
    1
  24.  @promethiac2641  Classic stupidity from you. There is no "right versus left" except in the Marxist Jacobin "political science" imaginary universe. You can't say anything universal about "the right" because "the right" simply means opposition to leftist morons like you. The left is a construct of the Jacobin left and used to represent the "activists" defending "the disenfranchised Third Estate" of the so called ancient regime (monarchy, its class allies, and the institutional (Roman) church and its class allies). Worse than simply falling for that you actually made a dogmatic claim about this delusional bogey man construct that is better explained by Freudian projection than anything you can possibly come up with. Explain what you think "science" is. How do we test the laws of thermodynamics? How do we gauge usefulness of the knowledge that comes from those tests? If you can't say something halfway intelligent about that I know it's totally useless to ask you about "Climate Change Denialism". You are the knowledge destroyer in this thread.
    1
  25. There's no "possibility". We already know. Some of Hunter's funding sources are Chinese Communists. This we all know. What about Hunter's hookers and drug dealers? What about Joe's hookers and drug dealers?
    1
  26. If born under the right conditions he would run the ovens and all of the other genocidal schemes. Without blinking. That's who he is. He just told everyone that.
    1
  27. They fear Trump as a Reactionary Capitalist that got elected to the US Presidency. That event triggered them beyond all repair. These morons think Trump is "Putin's Puppet" because they also think that "fascism" and liberal (freeish market based economics) is pretty close to Hitlerian Nazism and even more scary because it goes against the Progressive (Marxist) Arc of History. It blows up all of their fantasies and pseudoscientific assumptions.
    1
  28. He's OK with "good" fascism or "his" fascism. Like Nancy's Our Democracy. They all speak in code. That's how cult's operate.
    1
  29.  @frankcooke1692  You just made a bunch of unsupported claims derived from stupid tropes and the underlying dogmas that your cult propagates and clings to. As "science". LOL Explain what "moral standard" means and you you would test being able to explain your own or anyone else's. Straight over your arrogant "unskilled and unaware" head. You don't even know what bad faith means.
    1
  30. Academic intelligence is something of an oxymoron. Academia is traditionally about lectures and debate. It could be the beginning of advanced learning but that doesn't happen just from turning it in to a cult. I would say that it's more likely for the opposite to happen. And the poor lunatic we're discussing doesn't really have a coherent take on "morality". This is what neo-Darwinism does to the brain. They get so caught up in Dawkins's gene/meme theory that they spew endless gibberish that even they must admit leads only in circles. All life is meaningless. Fine. Why are you bothering me about it? Why do you care anything at all about Trump? This dude will say, no, I have "Reasoning" and the circular logic with special meme theory carries on. That's the essence of the woke social/political cult, even if these morons don't quite understand the useless logic circles they spin themselves in to. The only thing this dude is missing is Critical Religious Studies to "understand" how "Islam" is a "victim" of The Christian (and or Jewish) "Patriarchy".
    1