[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 274 KB, 2400x960, Sammy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7247199 No.7247199[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

if you were a guest on Sam Harris' podcast what would you talk about?

>> No.7247206

>>7247199
How to make food tasty while keeping the calories low

>> No.7247227

>>7247206
>>7247199

it sometimes baffles me that there are living creatures who waste their existence this way. then i remember that i'm here too. then laugh.

tbh i'd tell him "my uncle's a big fan of yours but he believes in free will." i'd try to get him to say "FUCK YOU JAMIE YOU PREDETERMINED FAG" on the air so i could defeat my uncle once and for all. then i would tell him i think he's a useless kind of person.

>> No.7247230

>>7247199
I'd tell him his eyeball is a little droopy

>> No.7247241

H U M E
U
M
E

>> No.7247443

I"d ask him what he's paying Ben Stiller and Bradley Cooper to rent their faces.

>> No.7247459

>>7247443
Wait you mean that's not Ben Stiller? Shit.

>> No.7247462

>>7247199
1 pick a handful of penny stocks
2 carefully steer the conversation so as to casually mention those stocks in a positive light with Sam I a kind of passive agreement
3 pump and dump

Also
>>7247206
This but with a self published book on amazon I can plug

>> No.7247476

I'd ask him if he ever loses sleep over the fact that there are Christians and other anti-science people on /lit/ who don't take his ideas seriously.

>> No.7247549
File: 63 KB, 484x403, christ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7247549

The bible

>> No.7247622
File: 16 KB, 600x337, samharris.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7247622

>>7247476
yeah fam dank post

>> No.7247628

>>7247622
hello reza aslan

>> No.7247641

>>7247628
>if you're not one kind of reactionary you must be the other kind of reactionary
hello reddit.com/r/samharris

>> No.7247675
File: 135 KB, 600x423, tits.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7247675

>>7247641
>implying

>> No.7247690

I'd probably start by asking him about the Greeks

>> No.7247692

i'd talk to him about psychedelic drugs and their possible medical uses. also guns.

>> No.7247696

>>7247622
lol it is fucking hilarious how ethically bankrupt reza aslan was, he knows sam did not say this or would ever support this and simply wanted to defame him in order to avoid rebutting his actual points. islam apologetics 101

>> No.7247702

>>7247675
Do you honestly not think that statement is ridiculous?

>> No.7247720

>>7247702
if i believe that it's my god given duty to decapitate a virgin each full moon, and i have yet to be captured, and it's a full moon and i'm kicking in your door, am i valid target for the use of deadly force?

>> No.7247758

>>7247720
>u r a virgin
nice. But you seem to misunderstand the quote my friend. He says it's ethical to kill people for their beliefs if you deem their beliefs dangerous. Not in hypothetical home invasion scenarios but before they commit the crime "Minority Report" scenarios. This idea was also popular with the Jacobins and The Catholic Church (during the inquisition)

the point is the statement is self contradictory as if it's taken as a belief he should himself be killed because he is advocating the death of others, which is dangerous.

I mean no disrespect to you and hope you can phrase your rebuttal without attacking my character :^)

>> No.7247949

>>7247720

epic

I upvote, melike

>> No.7247989

>>7247758
Sorry to reap such low-hanging fruit.

Harris is principally talking about ideologies which include violence as a proscribed and favored resource to deal with those who violate the ideology's values. A favored resource.

Harris is very much about the literal definition of ethics. He uses the term frequently when discussing cost benefit type analyses involving violence and death. When he uses the term "may be ethical" he is suggesting that in SOME scenarios this practice may minimize the loss of life.

This is what we base our entire view of the use of deadly force on, as a society. The concept that an individual may be killed if their behavior or expressed ideology proscribes or favors violence against others without any cause other than violation of said ideology is in line with this.

Harris is not advocating the freehanded butchery of homosexuals for their violation of religious edicts. He is not advocating the targeted killings of atheist bloggers due to their expressed aversion to religion. He is calling out the regimes that practice these policies and indicating that these ideologies have no place in the world. In some cases, the targeted killing of individuals who proclaim these ideas is necessary, and ethical, to avoid loss of life.

>> No.7248009

>>7247989
so we can agree he advocates the murder of people who violently enforce their ideology?

while I have you here in this thread would you explain how he thinks he can derive objective morality from neuroscience?

>> No.7248028

>>7247758
When do we decide someone has crossed the line?

When the have committed the act which they have promised to attempt?

When they have begun its commission?

When there is evidence that they are about to commit the act?

When the are gathering resources to commit the act?

When the have expressed the act as an objective publicly?

If the act is sufficiently serious, it may make more sense to limit the ability of the person to act. In some cases, especially on a global scale, there is no way to do this without harming this person.

>> No.7248036

>>7248028
it sounds like Big Brother was the good guy after all.

>> No.7248062

>>7248009
>so we can agree he advocates the murder of people who violently enforce their ideology?

Murder is an interesting word choice.

If an ideology chooses violence as a way to deal with non-violent transgressions by outsiders, which in themselves are not indicative of causing harm to any member of said ideology, and is a common phenomenon outside of said ideology, then we are coming to an impasse.

To be less cryptic, and because it's relevant to many people on this board, there are many fundamentalist groups which list execution as a punishment for homosexuality. They are vocal about the enforcement of this penalty. There are many, many cases of men and women being killed, brutally, for this "crime".

So, we have Ideology "A" going out of it's way to kill people who do not pose a threat to anyone's physical security, simply because they are gay.

Ideology "B" recognizes this as a danger, and expresses that in some cases, the individuals who practice Ideology "A" may warrant execution to avoid greater loss of life.

In this case, and in my opinion, Ideology B is not committing murder when it authorizes the execution of a member of Ideology A who has expressed their intention to commit violence.

>explain how he thinks he can derive objective morality from neuroscience?

You'd have to ask him or visit his site. This is not something I have an informed opinion on, nor do I have any strong inclination on it.

>> No.7248108

>>7248009
>The concept that an individual may be killed if their behavior or expressed ideology proscribes or favors violence against others without any cause other than violation of said ideology
You see, Harris loses me on this because I can't wrap my head around how this isn't a logical paradox.

Is not the idea that it is ethical to kill those who advocate ideologies that favor killing those who violate the tenants of that ideology just an ideology that favors killing those who violate its tenants?

>> No.7248134

>>7248062
>Ideology "B" recognizes this as a danger
I guess it all depends on what they recognize as a danger but it all sounds a bit like fascist rationalization wrought with paradoxes to me.

anyway thanks for the mostly civil discussion.

>> No.7248153

>>7248108
>Is not the idea that it is ethical to kill those who advocate ideologies that favor killing those who violate the tenants of that ideology just an ideology that favors killing those who violate its tenants?

One group is advocating violence to preempt certain, expressed intent to commit violence, and the other is advocating violence to fight deviant behaviors like apostasy, feminism, homosexuality and witchcraft.

It is a logical paradox if one believes all violence is wrong regardless of motivation, which is a brave and commendable stance to take.

It is an ethical difficulty if one believes violence is wrong, but is a necessary tool.

>> No.7248156

Of course it is hypocritical to kill people for killing people. Being hypocritical does no make it invalid.

>> No.7248165

>>7248153
I don't think all violence is wrong I just think preemptively killing them because their beliefs make the predisposed to commit future violence is wrong.

>> No.7248180

>>7248165
I don't think predisposition is what Harris is operating on here. I think it's more like expressed views, and expressed intent to utilize violence to support those views.

I'm not advocating the wholesale slaughter of a given group due to what outsiders think of said group, and I don't think Harris is either. But, if a follower of an ideology expresses his intent to, say, bomb an abortion clinic, it is logical to characterize this group with this behavior, especially if the group rallies around this individual. In my opinion, the individual in this case is a target for interdiction, preferably non-lethally, but lethally if need be.

>> No.7248241

>>7248180
>preferably non-lethally, but lethally if need be.
I think that you must reflect why you cling so much to the existence of the safety in which you seem to believe. Why do you seek an attachment to safety and life ?
Do you refuse death which is imposed on you ?
especially when you do not refuse death when it is you who does it, when you refuse safety to those who seek it to, but in a different manner than you.

>> No.7248264

>>7248241
>Do you refuse death which is imposed on you ?

No death is imposed. It is suggested and either agreed to, or resisted. Refusal is survival.

Violence is the penultimate language. Learning to speak it allows two way communication in what may be your last conversation. If you are fluent, it will be the other guys last conversation.

>> No.7248272

>>7248264
okay, I did not know that you like to live in fear.