Can we have a serious discussion about Sam Harris here?

No you're right you probably don't

>Nobody makes me bleed my own blood!

haha I love Zoolander

He's not a great philosopher. He hasn't said anything original at all.

go away OP

>solves ethics
>not original

>first person to ever concisely destroy chomsky in a debate, leaving him utterly finished
>not relevant

k.

>solves ethics
elaborate.

>Thinks Ben Stiller solved ethics.
Yeah, because that's not still a problem people need to talk about, Ben Stiller has literally all the answers. Sure. (What a mental case)

>Bested Chomsky in debate
Keep dreaming, even Ben Stiller himself said it wasn't a debate, and there wasn't a winner or a loser. You are just making rubbish up. Stop shitposting, faggot.

...

le ad homi response :^)

Autism the book?

>first person to ever concisely destroy chomsky in a debate

that wasn't the first time bruh

this tbqh

he's like the neil degrasse tyson of philosophy. he hasnt really contributed anything, but he's a good communicator.

who?

>inb4 le bald autist power man

Good thing I can still do that, you being a Harriscite would say it's justifiable to torture and kill me because I don't agree with him. Oh yeah, that's moral.

> good communicator.
Hes a good entertainer (for autists). Nothing more.

chomsky got btfo by my sister once

when did he say it's justifiable to torture people who disagree with him?

literally anyone chomsky has "debated" with about anything not directly related to the field of linguistics

>being this mad

he makes philosophy more accessible. even though it's watered down, his books feature more philosophy than the average person will ever read.

like Andrew Marr? :^)

>le prominent intellectual says us is ebil XD

i want chomskyfags to leave

>he's against extracting potentially critical information by torturing shitskins who would gladly and without a second thought chop your head off and film it because "muh fee fees"

limpwristed leftist cuck detected

Exactly this: Us Harrisites know that US is a benevolent but sometimes sloppy force.

Stay strong enlightened one.

He said it's morally justifiable to torture and kill suspicious Muslims because they might have information about America's enemies. He's an apologist for American foreign policy. So yeah, I'm a leftist because I think some things can be better solved with words than bullets. Shoot me.

Someone link that Churchland video where she embarrasses Harris in front of a huge audience

>he thinks torture is effective

have you ever read a report on the efficacy of torture? half the time they get bogus information.

that's not the sme as saying he says it's ok to torture people who disagree with him now, is it?

actually i think the us has done some evil shit, but i hate that chomsky downplays the role of radical islam in current middle eastern affairs.

Define 'suspicious Muslim' - of course it is. I just don't happen to be a Muslim.

she doesn't. she just spouts some shit that and rambles and then some hume faggot gets flustered and angry cuz 'muh old scottish man' is getting btfo

I remember Buckley Jr. running rings around him, in the old days.

>Tfw no intelligent paleoconservative talkshow hosts to #rekt people

think for 1 second. Do you think what he said is the same claim as the blanket statement: 'It's OK to torture those who disagree with me'

Does he say it's OK to torutre all Christians, Chomsky, anyone who dislikes meditation?

What are you talking about?

Yeah, it's pretty obvious where the morality is in 'Oh god, please make it stop! Yes, Atlantis is real and Hitler lives there! PLEASE STOP THE PAIN! I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!'

Buckley and Foucault?

youtube.com/watch?v=vaR-T_hqRSM

i thought chomsky won tbqh

Que?

I didn't think so. He got pretty flustered, being generous.

Yeah, think for one second about the implication of saying it is morally justifiable to torture anyone so long as you have 'good intentins'. No about of pseudo-intellectual drivel is going to get you out of that.

lol, only a complete baiter could think Buckley won. He even yelled at Chomsky after saying: 'I'll teach you a thing or two'

Kek, literal cuck

>I'm a leftist because I think some things can be better solved with words than bullets
>FREE PALESTINE!

all the comments are just ad hominem attacks on buckley/chomsky

>I'm so glad this Buckley douche bag is dead. The idiot kept interrupting Prof. Chomsky. The constant expressions & the fact that he kept putting a pencil in his mouth is clearly some sick oral fixation.

>chumpsky is a turd, a weak far left bottom-feeding lowlife who should have been buried 6 feet under 50 years ago like the worthless scumbag he is. Fucking garbage is probably still apologizing for pol pot's mass murders...

kek

Lol, not even what I think. Try again.

Actually he's a pretty shitty entertainer. He's probably the most boring person to listen to on the planet.

look at this post. don't ignore it. Answer to it.

not an argument

I'm pretty sure you agree that it's justifiable to torture anyone so long as you have good intentions, it's just a question of what the intentions are.

E.g. take an extreme scenario, you believe that torturing someone will prevent them from setting off a nuclear bomb which'd destroy millions of lives?

Are you still just going to say 'nope, no torture'?

Of course not. The question is about what is a 'good intention' not about the question of whether there ever could be one. If you beleive that you're deluding yourself.

>To clarify: Buckley's comment "smash you in the goddamn face" is Buckley making fun of himself for famously losing his temper in his debates with Gore Vidal. See the recent documentary, Best of Enemies.

Not to mention that Chomsky has been politically discredited, in perpetuity, for his wilful ignorance over what happened in Communist regimes.

He had to be dragged kicking and screaming into admitting their crimes.

0/10

yeh, that's not the bit i'm talking about obviously. They laugh about it

the times it didn't work will have been worth the one time it did work, that's my answer

inb4 some hysterical weenie response about muh human rights from a progressive white teenager who lives in his parents basement and has never even seen a muslim irl

Yeah, it's always that simple outside of some philosophical seminar.

>picture of le bald libertarian cult man

not an argument

>>cult

i bet you think taxes arent theft

it's always that simple because it's always that simple

youtube.com/watch?v=KuNsu-15HYM

Some things are so poorly thought out they require no further response.

ive never seen someone get so btfo

i actually gained a bit of respect for harris

Recall the context. I am not saying I want to impose any laws or say anything general about how torture should be applied. I'm simply making a case that there are some situations where torture may be appropriate. Recall my example.
So before you were so dismissive of it as even a possibility. Where do you stand now?

How can a serious comedic actor star in a movie like Night at the Museum?

night at the museum is good fun tb h

Harris himself gave a good scenario about a baby in a car. No torture even in that case is not ethical - it might be the only way to do something ethical, save the baby, but it is not in itself ethical. The morality of actions changes depending on intentions.

Sorry, typo: the morality of actions doesn't change depending on intentions.

>It's a Harris/Molyneux Trying to Become a Respected Thinker Episode

>Judging the popularity of anyone whilst they are alive

The true test of one's personality is how it holds up long after they (and their contemporary audiences) are dead.

yes it does. are you really rejecting that there are instances in which the end justifies the means? if they didn't "torture" that guy the baby would have likely died. not doing anything would have been the immoral action, since it would have indirectly killed a child. from a utilitarian standpoint, briefly hurting a guy is less suffering than allowing a baby to die from the heat.

No torture even in that case is not ethical - it might be the only way to do something ethical

eh

the morality of actions doesn't change depending on intentions.

How do you remove intention from action, they're intrinsically linked.

If I push a kid into the road and he's run over or if I slip and the exact same action is set in place except I completely didn't want to push the kid onto the road but my body and his body and everything did the exact same thing.

You can't possibly think those are equivalent in terms of morality.

>implying they already arent

stefan has a bigger cult than you ever will

If the end always justifies the means, what measure do you have for judging the ethical merits of the means? Think about it. Yes, I reject that utilitarian point of view.

Didn't we already have centuries where people, including Kant/etc, argued that we should stop with the retarded folly whereby we see other Human Beings as means, rather than ends?

Whatever 'end' you might have in mind with torture/etc, the victim is also an 'end'.

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.

Kek

The ends don't always justify the means. You have to take it case by case. The same way you can not do anything but take the means case by case because they exist not in a vacuum but in relation to their expected ends. This is the only sane way to judge things.
You're being ridiculous

Because intention is always that clear cut. How do you know a psychopath did not frame pushing the kid into the path of a car as an accident when it was intentional. You have a lot of faith in other people - which seems naive. Have you ever met a psychopath?

Kant was a beta scrub who ruined philosophy and spawned generations of philosophical shitposting with his secular Christfag muh feelings philosophy

That's what I'm saying. So if something must be judged case by case, does that mean morality is solid or not? How could Harris be said to have solved 'morality' when there is in some cases this grey area?

>If the end always justifies the means

i never said always

>what measure do you have for judging the ethical merits of the means?

if the action causes less suffering ultimately, then it is justifiable.

So if it was deemed that it wouldn't cause much suffering to submit our lives to some leader who would then have total say over everything we say and do, that would be an ethical society?

This has nothing to do with whether or not Harris has solved morality and you know it. This has to do with the thing we've been discussing. Whether there are times where it could be deemed ethical to torture.

That is not intention, that is lying about intention. I've never said it would be easy to apply or that I'd believe people. That's why I talked about myself as that's a scenario where I can know, regardless of whether anyone were to believe me

Libertarianism is as much of a cult as feminism

>So if it was deemed that it wouldn't cause much suffering to submit our lives to some leader who would then have total say over everything we say and do

totalitarianism restricts liberty and thereby inherently causes suffering.

Does the wide success and proliferation of the views of sophists like Harris finally signal the end of philosophy as we know it? What's the use of real philosophy in a world where every layman is already convinced he's an expert?

>he fell for the liberal egalitarian "equality" meme

The claim Harris had 'solved' morality was where this thread started. I guess I disagree, I think while some times it is justifiable, it's not ethical to torture. Justifiable and ethical are not synonymous.

If you were only to apply it to yourself then fine, but it is when you apply actions on others based on intention that I start to object. Because you might never know someone's real intention. And people can say anything under torture, just to stop getting waterboarded. How would you ever know it was an accident or not? You can't. You are using extreme examples to prove your case - and yeah I can respect that, but those grey areas prove nothing when it comes to morality, aside from the fact you can do bad things for good reasons. That's just the brutal reality of the world.

I don't think a lack of liberty inherently causes 'suffering'. I do share a love of liberty however.

>if it was deemed

what would be the basis for deeming this? there's far too much uncertainty for this to be justifiable. we know that torturing the man harris mentioned will likely lead to him revealing the location of the car because there's a video of him committing the crime and refusing to answer will only worsen his punishment. the minor consequences of torturing the man (ie temporary discomfort) are outweighed by the overwhelming odds that they discover the location of the car.

lel

Can you just stop making these threads? Good on you for doing a less obviously trolling OP this time, I doubt reporting this thread would get it deleted offhand like the last one.

he said specifically that the tyrant would determine everything we say and do.

i agree that there are justifiable restrictions of liberty. for example, a person shouldnt be allowed to have weapons grade plutonium. but restricting every aspect of a person's life would cause tremendous amounts of suffering.

That's not for me to decide or even elaborate on further (I'm the user you are responding to) - it was a hypothetical. The question still stands. If it is what you are saying, I don't agree morality just be judged on suffering.

On that we can agree.

Actually you can see a lot of what he thinks isn't that fleshed out, I heard him on a debate with Dan Carlin and most of his points were just bad.