The case against burning wood is every bit as clear as the case against smoking cigarettes. Indeed, it is even clearer...

I don't know why that would be a bad thing. What's wrong with kudzu?

Unironically kill yourself.

There's no denying that burning wood is harmful for the environment.

No, but he refuted your point before you even posted it.

Is that the flag that was a meme on that autistic podcast

How did he refute my point? They should restrict it in urban areas.

My town in australia (armidale) has a real problem with wood fire pollution, in winter there is a wood smoke smog

Why does that image look more like its an advertisement for how cool sam harris supposedly is and nothing to do with 'morality'

>libertarian
>nanny state laws
The private individuals/companies can just compensate you for any damage caused, no nanny state required.

Oh well, if it's just there, carry on lad.

Could be worse. My old neighbors burned plastic.

>ban wood burning
>but don't ban car driving, which is much worse and much more prevalent

That's pretty far removed from articulate.

EDGY.

We don't have a better alternative to cars for personal transportation

Forest fires for instance are a necessary ecological process. This is the reason they stopped the "Smoky the Bear" campaign: if you artificial conserve the woodlands, dead wood piles up in the underbrush and when a fire does break out it will be that much worse.

And if we allow wildfires, to ban log burning on an individual scale is nonsensically autistic: much like Sam Harris.

Burning wood gives us campfires and saunas. It is good.

If some Indian streetshitters die because they can't plan or organize, why should we care? We have given them a genetic bottleneck through which they can advance.

What? Who burns wood?

Finns.

Post yfw when Sam Harris really makes you update your priors.

The world sucks cause of people like you
Why the fuck can't you just stop yourself messing with fucking parks
They're the only beautiful thing in most coties, why the fuck would you ruin that, you fucking monster
I hope you die tonight, not in your sleep
FUCK YOU

This is fucking hilarious. Saved as a copypasta.

What a fucking autist. I used to think that way when I was a child and in my early teens. It's called autistic thinking, and it really helps when you need to draw philosophical conclusions.

This is your brain on utilitarianism.

You have to be 18 to post here buddy.

thats hysterical

>bogans

>man I graffitti on walls as a fuck you to society
>not saying "fuck you" to society in any of the legal ways, of which there are various options
>shamelessly justifying your shitty adrenaline high you get from being "naughty"

>not saying "fuck you" to society in any of the legal ways, of which there are various options
You're not really saying fuck you to society if you're abiding by it.

Not the same user, but society's norms aren't perfect, they often allow behaviours that go against its own interests.

Yeah it's pretty integral to the whole idea. That's why abiding by those rules isn't a fuck you to society.

>The case against eating food is every bit as clear as the case against smoking cigarettes. Indeed, it is even clearer, because when you defecate, you needlessly poison the earth that everyone around you for miles must live on. Even if you reject every intrusion of the “nanny state,” you should agree that the recreational eating is unethical and should be illegal, especially in urban areas. By slamming a chili dog, you are creating pollution that you cannot dispose. It might be the clearest day of the year, but burn a sufficient quantity of barbecue and the air in the vicinity of your home will resemble a bad day in St Louis. Your neighbors should not have to pay the cost of this archaic behavior of yours. And there is no way they can transfer this cost to you in a way that would preserve their interests. Therefore, even libertarians should be willing to pass a law prohibiting the recreational cheeseburger-scarfing in favor of cleaner alternatives (like photosynthesis).

>I have discovered that when I make this case, even to highly intelligent and health-conscious men and women, a psychological truth quickly becomes as visible as a pair of clenched fists: They do not want to believe any of it. Most people I meet want to live in a world in which eating an entire pepperoni pizza in one sitting is harmless. Indeed, they seem committed to living in such a world, regardless of the facts. To try to convince them that takeout chinese food is harmful—and has always been so—is somehow offensive. The ritual of drinking Hersey's syrup straight from the bottle is simply too comforting and too familiar to be reconsidered, its consolation so ancient and ubiquitous that it has to be benign. The alternative—photosynthesis over french fries—seems a sacrilege.

>Of course, if you are anything like my friends, you will refuse to believe this. And that should give you some sense of what we are up against whenever we confront religion.

this is dumb

if humans could stop shitting they would

i find it very pleasurable

>doesn't object to eating an entire pepperoni pizza at once
>doesn't object to drinking Hersey's syrup straight from the bottle
>objects to shitting

But people need to eat to survive, we don't need fire to survive. On another point, a few weeks ago some user said in a thread about disaster that capitalism will put off the world ender indefinitley. And that guy was right, too, because I've been seeing news stories about plans to adapt cities to rising tides and plans to reform the ice caps by piping more water on them. Itll get a little hotter in here but it'd be ridiculous to assume that we'd let economies crash over global warming.

people can eat whatever they want and it doesn't really affect anybody but themselves

why would you object to such a thing?

What about people who mistreat their bodies by gorging themselves to excess or eating so much sugar (etc.) that they develop medical conditions? If these people are wards of the state, the taxpayer picks up the bill. If they're insured, the insurance company needs to charge a higher premium to every consumer to mitigate the risk they incur by insuring people who fundamentally trash their bodies. By Harrislogic, hardly a victimless crime.

Yes but that is not the fault of the man for incurring medical charges but society for treating him. They could just let him die, and then there would be no burden, but the people (I know this is gonna sound odd) actually like to keep others alive and feel it is "immoral" to let a diabetic man die because of their illness. This is just a classic Modal Fallacy problem, but Harris' logic is correct in the original context.

Is it not against the spirit of insurance to take out a policy only to do everything in your power to violate it?

He's trying to explain to fedora tippers what they sound like to theists when they bash religion.

>live in the boonies
>no natural gas
>electricity is intermittent
>can't burn wood though, that would be unethical

I'm so mad, I mean this must be a troll.

10/10 OP, sounds like something he would actually say.

I believe him. I'm an accelerationist though so the fire rises.

yes

he's merely reminding you of what you are doing to nature in general you denial cuck

Now that's a kek. Too bad about all the r/literature cunts taking it so seriously.

samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion

Did he really say that quote in the picture? I assume it's an attack on Islam, but that's just retarded.

Harris, did you ever consider that it is better off to silently suffer the ill effects of wood burning than it is to outlaw the things that enliven the human heart, and set afire the mind? Humans do not live in a world of atoms, but one of images, odours, chills on the skin.

He means he doesn't understand carcinogens, atmospheric dispersal or arguments, and that we should fund more moderate rebels in Syria to protect his kike relatives in Israel.

(direct reference)
Gee, it sure is spooky around here.

(secondary reference)
Someone should call an exorcist.

> Even if you reject every intrusion of the “nanny state,” you should
No, you shouldn't. That isn't an argument, it's a statement.

Content-free paragraph. Waste of time, like everything Harris does.

>Bringing up spooks
A reminder that logical positivism is a self-refuting ideology, and that Stirner's work may be casually disregarded out of hand with no philosophic consequences whatsoever.

Au contraire, Harris is the one trying to impose his spooks, and I reject his moral premises.

Says who? Insurance companies understand the risk involved, and if someone wants to take advantage it is their right if they have been given that room to do so by the insurance company.

>smug false equivalence and whataboutism
classic Ben Stiller

read stirner

>all these people itt proving him right
lol

someone should bash this faggots head in with a fucking burning log

what his friends are not wanting to believe is how big of a fucking moron he is.

>burning wood hurts everyone!

shut the fuck up you baby.

>breathing releases carbon dioxide that harms everyone! everyone must suffocate!

jesus christ how retarded are people today.

i'm going to plan a bonfire on the beaches for next weekend. we're going to burn chemically treated pallet wood.

You need a slingshot, my friend.

Nothing like making car alarms go off from 50 yards away from the leisure of your darkened home.

You just shoot into the darkness and wait for the crash. It's beautiful.

Ethics should be totally off limits to STEMfags"

Say more bout autism

Lol yeah it's harmful af to the environment. So is human existence bruh. If you've never stared for hours into a campfire, your mind is still pre-ancient in the worst possible way. Develop self-consciousness, get paid. Hnng

They're "proving" part of his point (religious people disagree with him), but not the other part (religious people are wrong to disagree with him).

this