Comments by "S3N7RY" (@S3NTRY) on "Sam Harris on Joe Rogan | Lex Fridman Podcast Clips" video.

  1. "Sam Harris: voice of reason" - Lex Fridman: underrated comedian
    119
  2.  @wilsonsanabia4259  yeah, he just doubles down. Like he did in this clip.
    8
  3.  @noorkidwai  he did that. He denied children weren't affected by covid in the same way as adults in this very clip. Use your delusion, buddy.
    7
  4.  @Shiggystardust  what was wrong with Kavanaugh?
    7
  5.  @robertblackwell8611  won't stop him from dragging Brett though
    6
  6. ​ @joela.4058 bs he thinks that speaking in a calm monotone makes you sound ungodly rational... <cut to his Triggernometry interview>
    5
  7.  @Rikarth  he said children were at risk in this video. There was evidence from the start that that simply has never been true. Scientifically. Where did he get that great nugget, while he was trying to tell everyone to ignore people saying that very thing?
    5
  8. ​ @orange-418lol Ooof SH denies science to this day, and treats opinion as fact. Talking out both sides of his face. What are you on about.
    5
  9.  @stephensehrbrock5613  he was wrong about the impact of the "virus of unknown origin" on children. In this very clip. After we've had the science on it for 3 years.
    5
  10.  @squirlmy  very nice. Now let's see that broken down by age demographics, health demographics, and "with" not "from". Let me know if you can see the absurdly obvious. And if body-count is your single metric, you must be all over the rash of excess deaths affecting the majority of nations that took a certain mandatory path. You must be enraged at the deafening silence on those figures.
    4
  11. ​ @casualviewing1096 It's funny that you go for appeal to authority on characters that all defer to other professionals in their respective field for their information, and source said information (JRE not withstanding). And you're right, Campbell has been wrong on a number of things: the science behind masks, and the efficacy of v*cines, both of which he has come to realise were undermined entirely by the evidence, since. Good luck with your smear-job.
    4
  12.  @haonyoass9556  he said we didn't know how it impacted children. It was known from the very beginning. Spoiler: they brushed it off like it was nothing... The entire 3 years and counting
    4
  13.  @STVNDMC  I don't think you can claim clinical equality, but you'd have to be distrustfully obtuse to make a strawman of it, wouldn't you.... Explain my cultishness, I'm all ears.
    4
  14.  @jackeagleeye3453  what was he wrong on?
    3
  15.  @taeeererer  already have. Like 5 times. He said we didn't know what risk there was to children. In this very video. Completely wrong. We've had that data from the outset. Now, what was I wrong about, crayon muncher?
    3
  16. ​ @richardfraser7024 From the point of what? The lab? Because you can't be talking like the deaths were in every way avoidable.
    2
  17.  @MrVagif1  no, it means your thought process was sound, because you were right - you just think the only path to the correct outcome is guessing when it doesn't align with your outcome. No doubt whatsoever you throw the term "conspiracy theorist" around like candy.
    2
  18.  @duewest9801  yeah, and you can deflect to protect your beloved.
    2
  19.  @trancient  he was wrong on the assertions around children. Known since day 1, claims we didn't know, 3 years later.
    2
  20. ​ @amazin7006 Your posts are amazing. So confident that nobody can point out where SH is wrong, and then you go super quiet, when they give you a timestamp, say 10:45. You might want to get yourself checked, just sayin'
    2
  21.  @seanlennon5986  or you're just ignoring where people are citing the video directly. Example: my post directly before yours. Unless of course, it's shadow-banned, but that would just be conspiracy theory.
    2
  22.  @taeeererer  Just look at the CFR data from the beginning of the pandemic, until now. It's all there, ad hom boy
    2
  23.  @thetaytheist  what linguistic f'ery are you up to. He was wrong, and still is wrong. You wanted an example I gave you one. Now you're being a weasel about it.
    2
  24.  @STVNDMC  it's a qualitative comparison, not a quantitative one. Time to go back to Harris-U.
    2
  25.  @taeeererer  Sam Harris appears to have learnt more from the last few years than you have. I'm not sure what medal that earns you, but I'm certain Galileo would be the first to hand it to you.
    2
  26.  @Shiggystardust  so, your primary occupation to pass a sniff test is whether someone is capitalist? lol
    2
  27.  @Shiggystardust  I mean, sure you can have it. Not my fault your argument was in no way cogent.
    2
  28.  @Shiggystardust  way to double-down on nothing.
    2
  29.  @taeeererer  what was I wrong about?
    2
  30.  @taeeererer  ooof Being intentionally obtuse and calling me a liar
    2
  31.  @magog6852  your comment doesn't even make sense. Nowhere in it, should the word "intellectual" have been used.
    2
  32.  @gypsycabs  he was wrong about 3-year old facts in this very clip and tried to use it as an excuse.
    1
  33.  @gypsycabs  wut
    1
  34.  @thetaytheist  OK moustache man
    1
  35. Very well said
    1
  36. Sam Harris: "we didn't know its impact on children" Umm yes we did. We had statistics from day one. You just ignored them out of your own self-righteous fear and pomposity.
    1
  37.  @quamb  now show us the demographics of those that died. And explain the "totally rational" fear.
    1
  38.  @raidan6  to be fair, you haven't even said anything. People are pointing out Sam's hubris and hypocrisy. It's perfectly valid.
    1
  39.  @quamb  you and SH are reaaaal good at reading minds. If we focused on the demographics for personalised care, half of the insane garbage policy that was pushed would not have been needed. And get this, we still would have saved lives. The big lie is that if we didn't do the stupid things we did, more people would have died. John Hopkins research shows otherwise (on lockdowns alone). There were different approaches taken. Now show me where those that focused on liberty did worse than those that didn't. "Run rampant" would be an interesting way to describe a "focused approach" rather than blanket knee-jerk reaction.
    1
  40.  @buckchile614  oof in with the free-rent TDS
    1
  41.  @duewest9801  deflection dĭ-flĕk′shən Noun Deviation or a specified amount of deviation. Example: you not addressing OP, but doing a "whataboutism" to deviate away from attacking the point directly. Deflection. oh don't worry, I used it correctly. Your posts are the best. So many empty hubristic assertions. But you're a dolt. Daddy SH would be proud.
    1
  42.  @Rockshit9  comments like yours make me think Sam Harris fans are borderline illiterate.
    1
  43.  @amazin7006  10:45 "we didn't know the negligible effect on kids" We did know that. The data was there from day one. Shove your hubris up yourself.
    1
  44.  @amazin7006  10:45 wrong
    1
  45.  @amazin7006  I gave you an example and you ignored it. You're a liar running around calling everyone else one. Pathetic.
    1
  46.  @andrewknowles5250  he was wrong about data we've had from the beginning *in this very clip*. He still believes bad data that is well known. That's pretty wrong for someone with an ego that big.
    1
  47.  @haonyoass9556  10:45 completely wrong.
    1
  48. ​ @stephensehrbrock5613 lol, Mr Current Events, right here
    1
  49.  @thetaytheist  he specifically said we didn't know what the pandemic would do to children, despite the science being extremely clear from day one. He fell for FUD, and pushed it. And still rationalises it now on flawed logic. I just gave you a prime example.
    1
  50.  @thetaytheist  are you saying that what I am saying is untrue? Since you have an obvious boner for Sam, you won't mind watching 20 minutes of his self-love to find it, will you. What happens if/when I find it again? You make some other excuse? Don't waste my time.
    1
  51.  @stevez4120  anyone that uses the words "because all these people are capitalist first" should be immediately disregarded for the commies that they are.
    1
  52.  @STVNDMC  to give your dubious question its due, OP is clearly saying that you can be equally rational in your blind adherence to whatever the powers-that-be tell you (ooh boy, wonder whether this describes you), as it is to be equally rational to be sceptical. It depends upon your faith in those institutions.
    1
  53.  @Shiggystardust  yeah, it was a sh1t take, I don't remember mentioning Peterson though.
    1
  54.  @sammythemc  ahh the ol' seatbelt analogy. Never gets old. If you wear your seatbelt in a car that isn't even leaving the driveway, you have mental issues.
    1
  55.  @quamb  oh for sure, but if you go around acting like you are the science, you're going to be given a lot more shit than someone that doesn't pretend to be that.
    1
  56.  @timothydouglas7375  for example? Sam Harris was wrong about children. We've had that data for 3 years, and he still uses it as a crutch to dpuble-down on - he did it in this very clip. It's pathetic. You've bought the hype. Congrats, sucker. Time for another booster, bro.
    1
  57.  @amazin7006  10:45 "we didn't know the negligible effect on kids" 100% wrong. We had data from day one. Sanctimonious Muppet. Are you Harris's alt?
    1
  58.  @amazin7006  argument from authority is claiming someone to be right, merely because of their position, rather than the merit of their argument. SH bois would be all up in that.
    1
  59.  @taeeererer  so nobody should have listened to any of his incorrect statements? I completely agree with you.
    1
  60.  @taeeererer  ...and those experts were wrong. How's the circular logic treating you?
    1
  61. *crickets*
    1
  62.  @taeeererer  medical data collection is on a continuum, genius
    1
  63.  @buckchile614  whataboutism, but I'll play along. Yes, worse. The main thing he was wrong about was used as a tool for controlling an entire population. Garbage attempt. Try again.
    1
  64.  @qwcasey  he was wrong about the impact to children, which was known early-on and has not changed in 3 years. He either doesn't know what he's talking about, or is being wilfully ignorant to the scientific evidence.
    1
  65.  @mattsbees3427  you for sure have TDS. Nobody even mentioned Trump, but he lives rent-free in your head.
    1
  66.  @duewest9801  and nothing to do with trump either, but t-dawg still lives rent-free in Sam's head.
    1
  67.  @Zeuts85  outsourcing your Dunning-Kruger. That's a fresh angle. Let us know how that works out for you.
    1
  68.  @duewest9801  your analogy is garbage. Imagine your scenario, but everyone explaining how the "bomb" is a just another bag, since professional bomb defusal experts had a good look through it, and security doing a controlled demolition, just so they can't be proven wrong. Cut to you seal-clapping because "it could have been a real threat!!" No, and it never was, security just ignored all the evidence.
    1
  69.  @amazin7006  10:45 "we didn't know the negligible effect on kids" 100% wrong, from day one. He still thinks that 3 years later. Have you said this in every thread yet?
    1
  70.  @amazin7006  no, it was terrible. Like acting like the bag hasn't been checked and cleared, when it has. His analogy works against his argument, not for it.
    1
  71.  @taeeererer  no, it is terrible. The bag has already been cleared. By defusal experts. So to act like there is danger, despite evidence, is foolhardy.
    1
  72.  @Zeuts85  no, you're just rationalising blocking your ears to other evidence under appeal to authority. And then you go onto the mind reading, too. Utter thought-vomit.
    1
  73.  @Mastikator  CFRs
    1
  74.  @Mastikator  you don't know what CFR means, do you...
    1
  75.  @Mastikator  you've already strongly alluded to the fact you're not acting in good faith. Figure it out for yourself. Maybe you'll learn more than one thing today, if you can figure out what it means beyond what a CFR even is. JFC
    1
  76. About what exactly?
    1