REMINDER SAM HARRIS BTFO
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse
He was btfo the second he tried to pretend to be an academic.
Chomsky is a silly contrarian unconcerned with debating seriously with a fellow intellectual.
>>834504
tl;dr
Who is Sam harris?
>>834791
Hello, I'm a confused idiot with no understanding of historiography. Also, religion sucks.
>>834504
All atheists are BTFO, whether they admit it or not.
>>834791
pop philosopher who tried to rebrand utilitarianism, and is destroyed by Hume
most people here would probably like him for criticizing islam on tv
>>834808
>utilitarianism
I am currently reading J.S. Mill for the first time, so far his little essay on liberty seems alright.
>>834808
Harris's views aren't actually utilitarian, but near it. He says that the science of morality is very open-ended and evolving to fit our definition of well-being.
>>834504
All I took away from that is Chomsky thrives on being obtuse and dismissive of people he doesn't like
>If you had read further before launching your accusations, the usual procedure in work intended to be serious, you would have discovered...
Top lel. I'm no fan of Harris but Chomsky was ruthless in this exchange.
>>834839
Your lack of reading comprehension is you own failing bruv
>>834787
And even he is too smart to waste time on Sam Harris
>>834818
>hello I am 15 and what is this
I think Sam Harris is a lot smarter than a lot of people give him credit for. True, he was outmatched in the debate with Chomsky, but mostly for his lack of knowledge about Chomsky's actual views.
In regards to the Al-Shifa situation, Chomsky's idea of Bill Clinton's motive is horrifyingly hilarious - and Sam should have pointed that out better.
When Sam decided to move the debate to a conversation on intent, all it ended with is Chomsky's mockery.
So yeah, Sam came out as the loser here, but at least he had the guts to publish a public failing. He's pretty on point for most other things though - his recent conversation with Jonathan Haidt was very interesting and I suggest you all go listen to it.
>>834839
Chomsky was being a dick yeah, but I would be too if some bottom-feeder who has been very critical (and wrong) about my views in the past tried to milk my name for publicity, despite knowing nothing of my work to successfully debate. Harris came of as a complete schmo and was reduced to essentially calling Chomsky a bully, even though it was he who prompted the exchange in the first place. He wouldn't even answer the question Chomsky posed to him that was a rebuttal to his own charge on the same terms (re. moral equivalence).
>>834872
He's the guy who "started" it isn't he?
>>834880
are you kidding? Chomsky's account was the only accurate one; that the Clinton administration bombed Al-Shifa as a deterrent retaliation for the Al Qaeda embassy bombings. They did this under then unfounded assumption that the pharmaceutical plant was used to manufacture chemical weapons, and knew full well how many casualties there would be in the aftermath but didn't care as long as it preserved America's position as a powerful force not to be fucked with.
>>834504
Or course, Sam is based in reality and science, the Chomper is a linguist and professional gatekeeper for the left, no chance. You can only go so far attacking religion with Chomps, he has nothing but good things to say about the Jesuits for example, contrary to much history which is just one red flag. Another is his lionizing of certain aggressive US foreign polices while ignoring others, he is controlled by higher ups and wouldn't get all the publicity he does if he wasn't. 21st century, propaganda is a science.
>>834888
no, the first philosophers to popularize utilitarianism were William Gay and Jeremy Bentham, though there were progenitors in Locke and others. Nevertheless, reporting to be reading 'on liberty' has nothing to do with this thread
>>834886
Chomsky was being bully. whatever miner mistakes he made quoting Chomsky in the first book hardly justifies the insults Chomsky threw at him. Nor did any of Harris's points in those emails seem unreasonable, but Chomsky showed no interest in having a dialogue
>>834900
>Sam is based in reality and science
Sam is based in nationalism and scientism, you mean. You could not find a more pathetic apologist for the actions of what he considers 'the enlightened world', and a harsher critic of entire nations he unilaterally considers savages.
>he is controlled by higher ups
massive fucking source needed here, as much of his career has been dedicated to disparaging those who are controlled by 'higher ups'
>>834949
oh I acknowledge that Chomsky was being a douche, but I bet partially that's because he saw through how transparent Harris was trying to be by banking off the inevitable publicity he would get. This was apparent by how little Harris actually was prepared to have a serious debate, he didn't research hardly anything to do with Chomsky's writing on Al-Shifa despite it being the preliminary example he cited. Furthermore, Chomsky became more of a dick when Harris showed how much of an amateur he was at actual discussion in that he would not respond to Chomsky's own assertions and questions, and instead reverted to parroting the 'you don't get moral equivalence' standpoint
>>834913
So the book itself has nothing on utilitarianism?
>>834880
>True, he was outmatched in the debate with Chomsky
Tbqh it barely was a debate. They just flung shit at each other because both have preconceptions about their political views.
Do people like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens actually, really, honestly taken seriously outside of Youtube videos?
>>834949
What's that you say? The leftists are all for shutting down dialog?
Well, I never.
>>834967
> but I bet partially that's because he saw through how transparent Harris was trying to be by banking off the inevitable publicity he would get
This very well could be the case, but if it is he would have simply politely refused the conversation.
His questions to Sam came off more as accusations and attacks. its not the level of dialog I would expect from a professor
>>834977
no. The Sam Harris/ Chomsky debate has nothing to do with utilitarianism. Harris has one book that deals with it, 'The Moral Landscape.' He is not by definition a utilitarian. If you knew who he was you would know that
>>834991
Hitchens was, kinda. I mean maybe not in academia but he was quite the writer. Harris isn't taken seriously anywhere but his own forums and youtube.
>>835002
>should have, not would have. sorry about that
>>835002
I'd rather read someone who was occasionally a dick than one who is intellectually dishonest and misinformed about topics he volunteers for 'debate'
>>835009
Well I don't know him. I just recognized Chomsky in the OP, though I had never heard of him until two weeks ago either. He sounds like he has some interesting stuff to tell.
>>834991
Hitchens is a good writer and occasionally decent journalist. His new atheism bullshit is boring, but tolerable in small doses. Harris, however, is just a pseudointellectual hack whose dangerous islamophobia is some of the most ignorant shit I've ever read
>>835023
intellectual dishonesty and misinformation are some of the main reasons I don't read Chomsky
>>835038
>Harris, however, is just a pseudointellectual hack whose dangerous islamophobia is some of the most ignorant shit I've ever read
This is probably the most shitty b8 I've ever seen.
>>835044
>I don't read Chomsky
forgive me for ignoring your uninformed criticisms, then.
>>835047
Harris is mocked in all academic circles. The only place he has any clout is with mainstream FoxNews-tier and edgy 18 year olds who haven't read enough to understand how embarrassing his writing is
>>834913
>Nevertheless, reporting to be reading 'on liberty' has nothing to do with this thread
Really? On Liberty have nothing to do with utilitarianism? That's what you're gonna try to argue on a Taiwanese superhero conference?
Is this whole enormous debate about Clinton knowing it was a pharmaceutical company or not?
I'm not a Clinton supporter, but it doesn't make political sense for Clinton to bomb it if he knows it is not a weapon factory. Only an idiot would do that.
>>835083
Fair point.
>>835099
nobody said that. The two possibilities were:
a)Clinton did not know it was a chemical weapons processor but only assumed that without evidence. He then bombed it with full knowledge it produced majority of the pharmaceuticals for the entire country and would thus cause the deaths of thousands of innocents
b) The administration DID have strong evidence that it was a chemical weapons processor. He then bombed it with full knowledge it produced majority of the pharmaceuticals for the entire country and would thus cause the deaths of thousands of innocents.
Either way, the administration was responsible for countless innocent casualties as collateral damage for retaliation against the Al Qaeda embassy bombings. It is an atrocity nomatter how you split it
>>834951
I like Sam, he isn't afraid to attack all Abrahamic flavors and marks all as equally repugnant tools of the occult. Of course this is a dangerous thing to do in America, why his whereabouts are unknown for the most part and for good reason, a modern hero. I've read enough Chomsky to suspect he is only around to placate the left, up to a point, then attacks them viciously should they cross a line. Take this quote for example.
>"I mean even if it [Elements within US government were complicit in the 9/11 attacks] were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn't have any significance." -Noam Chomsky
Extremely unlikely? Really? Based on what meticulous research by the linguist?
Sure his argument is even if it were true it couldn't be proven, but don't you suspect Americans should be talking about this sort of thing, Noam especially, before anything else if that were the case? Why does he suspect it could not be proven? Just because he would not assist in any such investigation? Why is the silence deafening?
Truth is, Sam is out of his depth here, he is dealing with a professional misinformation artist with many years of experience under his belt. No surprise Noam would not be interested in a face to face debate with someone like Sam though, only if the opposition was controlled and lobed softballs with well rehearsed responses is where Noam excels.
![[Trigger warning].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/DLGzC3h.jpg "[Trigger warning].jpg")
>>835145
He doesn't talk about it because it would be merely speculation, and normally his research is based on declassified CIA and international documents that objectively report the occurrence of events. He is not discouraging the discussion of the possibility by the american people, he just does not do so himself because it is mere conjecture at this point. In 35 years when documents have been declassified, it will be time to revisit.
