Has Sam Harris ever been wrong?

>>7510234
Thank you for the honest answer.

I don't agree with determinism or materialism

"God don't real" - Sam Harris

>>7510228
I have seen a lot of hate for him in different philosophy circles on the internet. Yet, I rarely disagree with him about anything, and he usually takes a calculated approach to his ideas. I think people are just upset that Noam Chomsky acted like a baby and everyone feels the need to defend their senile old man.

>>7510547
Sam go home

>>7510547(You)
lel

>>7510228
epin

>>7510448
Pope of Rome is still lurking around, very rare for anyone to get on a pedestal and shit talk man God in Rome these days, time will tell but if you are asking for a whacking that's one way to do it. A healthier, well spoken and articulate new age Nietzsche.

>>7510562
Pure Autism.

>>7510228
>Has Sam Harris ever been wrong?
just once, it's still going on at the time of writing.

>>7510547
You talking about when Harris picked a fight with an aging heavyweight and got fucking annihilated? That was the funniest thing I'd seen in a while. I can't believe Harris was stupid enough to post that to his own website.

It was so sweet watching Harris try to justify his utter defeat. I mean, he titled the transcript "the Limits of Discourse", as if the reason he lost was because of some reality of the English language that inhibits communication on the level he is capable of thinking. No, Sam, you lost because you didn't know what you were talking about, and Chomsky, who had not even read what misrepresentation you wrote about him at the beginning of the discourse, still beat you.

I thought neocons were supposed to be better at picking fights. As in, I thought they never picked fights they might lose. I mean, did he really believe the bullshit, that Chomsky's best days were behind him? The only reason Chomsky doesn't look as iconoclastic as he did a few decades ago is because he won so many big fights that his ideas are taken as a given these days. We all agree mainstream media is corporately owned and serves capital. We all agree that American imperialist wars are more or less all corrupt and immoral. We all agree that Israel is sham state funded by those with no interest in the religious and tribal turf wars in the middle east. The only thing we don't agree on is Chomsky's stupid ideas about language.

I was worried Chomsky was spent, too, before this fight, but the one thing that Harris proved for good was that that old heeb still has some fight in him. Well, that, and proving that Harris is a fucking child, completely incapable of knowing when he lost a fight. God damn, that was sweet.

Anyway, it's really long, but if anyone wants the link, I promise you'll enjoy it.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse

>>7510627

Way to fulfill your own narrative without any regard to the reality of the situation.

To claim that Harris "picked a fight with" Chomsky is absurd. The only reason you state this is because your limited mind needs a good vs. evil rationalization of events to justify your beliefs.

The reason he titled it "Limits of Discourse" is because that is exactly what it was. Both parties (moreso Chomsky) were unable to have a rational and clam discussion on the topic at hand. Their egos failed to let them simply talk and have an actual discussion. It doesn't take a genius to realize that Chomsky was childish in his rhetoric and resorted to petty insults when pressured on his ideas.

Further, to claim Harris is a neocon only further perpetuates your infantile good vs evil morality system. Anyone with a brain understands that Harris is anything but a neocon, and that if anything, he values liberal ideals. However, among muslim apologist crowds, and crowds of regressive atheists, they do throw people like Harris and Dawkins under the label of neocon, only because they dare have rational views on Islam and gun rights.

I would take some time out of your life and go into deep introspection. I think that you will find that you have many biased views, and rely on bandwagoning to form your beliefs. It would be of great benefit to examine these biases and find all the flaws within your thinking. Perhaps maybe you can improve your cognition to the point where you can come up with rational, and justifiable arguments.

>>7510669
See people? This is the kind of bluster you'll be reading in the Harris vs. Chomsky fight? See how they keep insisting that Harris didn't actually lose the argument because he was an idiot, but instead only lost because of some rhetorical stalemate? That's what you're getting into.

I mean these people are seriously claiming that Chomsky -- Noam FUCKING Chomsky -- is impossible to debate because he's cantankerous. Can you even imagine that? That Chomsky would throw a fight by being petulant so he didn't have to face the fight? Well, even if you can imagine that, you can just read the transcript. It's right there online

Thanks for reminding me of this thing. I forgot how New Atheism loved to defend the War on Terror, because of how hard the WAR OF DA WORLDS shit made their dicks get. God, what a bunch of dildos. You know that Harris is a third rate Hitchens, right?

>>7510703
Everybody please read this post, it's a very good example of what I'm talking about.

This is how Chomskyites actually talk. This particular specimen honestly does not see anything wrong with what he just wrote, he does not pick up on his superficial subscription to fashionable morals, his abuse of the English language, his lazy personal attacks or his inability to refute the argument at hand.

For him, this kind of sentence is normal, because this is how Chomskyites compose thoughts and share them with others. This is the Twitter-generation, a group of intellectual children who are completely dependent upon the paternal figure of Chomsky to dictate their worldview for them. They're been deluded by narcissism, self-pity, and a chronically inflated ego, and they've now lost all ability to form a coherent analysis of anything or anyone. They are a cancer on this world and political discourse, and the sooner this scum dies out, the better

>>7510627
>>7510669
>>7510703
>>7510706
samefag

Sam Harris seems like a duplicitous cunt who wants to sell books.
Noam Chomsky is a bitter anarchist with nothing left to be contrarian about.

Both suffer from the cult of personality. One is however a serious academic who debated Foucault and got arrested for his beliefs. The other is.. who is he again? Oh the warmup guy for Dawkins, carry on.

>>7510706
More good parallels here. Rather than pointing to anything specific, Harris gets angry about tone as this poster takes issue with typos on an anime image board.

In seriousness, if you see the sorta heat this shit brings up between two strangers on /lit/, you gotta see the thing itself. The link is up there, and I promise you that Harris gets trashed. It's a testament to his autism that he posts it anyway. It just goes to show you, you can never convince the old guard that they're wrong, you just have to wait for them to die.

>>7510718
>>7510715
>pic related but good joke all the same senpai

>>7510718
>Noam Chomsky is a bitter anarchist with nothing left to be contrarian about.
Yeah, he has the same problem that the Beatles have, where all their influence has become so entrenched that it doesn't seem like they've done anything new because their fingerprints are everywhere. Harris is a joke, obviously, who has no business being in the public spotlight.

>>7510793
Looks like someone hasn't read his Scaruffi.

>>7510715

He doesn't even bother to structure his paragraphs differently.

File: seriously.png (8KB, 161x178px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 161x178px

>>7510800

>>7510798

>Scaruffi
>having anything relevant to say about anything, ever

'No.'

>>7510802
I bet you just edited that.

>>7510802

Then the two of you are ridiculous mirrors of one another.

I happen to agree that Harris is a goon, though, so good on you, I guess.

Funny how the exact same thing happened to him when he tried to set up a debate with Dan Dennett about free will. I guess old people just can't handle his logical argumentation and rationality.

>>7510809
The truth is more embarrassing than actual samefagging.

>>7510798
I just wanchu to know that I spent a long while looking up things in order to get that reference

https://youtu.be/I7PzbJk7kBY

>>7510828
What's the story here?

>>7512238
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrS1NCvG1b4
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/reflections-on-free-will
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-marionettes-lament

IIRC Harris wanted to have a filmed debate in person, but Dennett wasn't interested and was a little condescending toward him about it

>>7512261
0 for 2, I guess.

He sounds like a huge chump obsessed with his own legacy. I'm glad he has some fans on /lit/ and reddit, he needs them more than they they need him

>>7510803

god tier knowledge in music and his issues on consciousness and other cognitive phenoms are worth a read

what have you done again?

>>7512996

I know that's you, Scruffy, don't bother hiding behind anonymity. It won't save your embarrassment.

>maintains a blog to hoist his ill-informed crank upon a completely indifferent public
>honestly believes he's accomplished something

Enough of these fucking threads. No, he's never been wrong. Now can we move on?

Harris is never "wrong", but I don't like him. he's unsopisticated and literally writes volumes of sophomoric argument for the readily apparent. He feels like reading a college student trying to fill up an essay to meet length requirements. And also, he's just plain autistic.

No, Piero Scaruffi has never been wrong.

>>7510828
It's because Sam Harris is a neuroscientist and people like Chomsky are glorified liberal arts people who have no concept of objective truth.