Sam Harris is frustrated that no one understands him but they understand Trump

[jpahmad]

My breakdown of Sam Harris's arguments for Hillary over Trump.

[Guest Gee]

Thanks jpahmad, I'm watching the video now and really enjoying it!

 

@ 38:00 Stormtroopers! It's another Shoah!

[Will Torbald]

Good content. I bailed abround 30 minutes in because I found Harris to be mentally and physically painful to listen.

[ValueOfBrevity]

Great video. 

When I heard Sam Harris' arguments on Joe Rogan, I realized how empty his arguments are.
Apparently calling someone unfit for the presidency makes it so.

[Cuffy_Meigs]

Thanks, another good video. Yours, that is, not Harris's!

 

To speak approvingly of a person's experience and qualifications per se, without reference to either their character or behaviour during the time they acquired it is absurd.

 

Hey Sam - I found a really qualified, highly experienced nanny. Oh by the way she's a recidivist child killer...is that important?

[rosencrantz]

A fine recording of Mahler's second by Furtwängler 

[jpahmad]

Thanks everyone for the responses.  

[DCLugi]

What are the qualifications to be president?

 

1. Give the impression that you know what's best for millions of strangers.

2. Capable of coercion for the sake of qualification #1.

3. That uh, about covers it.

[Mister Mister]

thanks for another great vid.  What boggles my mind in this election in particular, is this implication that we have this totally functional, reasonable system that works great for everyone, and Trump and his idiot racist followers have come along and will potentially ruin everything.

- He talks about torture and everyone freaks as if they're not already doing this.
- He talks about "taking out their families" of terrorists, and people clutch their pearls, as if they're not already doing this

- They say he can't be trusted with nuclear codes, when Hillary has already leaked tons of classified info

- They say he's fiscally irresponsible for talking about negotiating a debt default, as if we are totally solvent and our budget is fine

- They say he's racist toward Muslims, when he has opposed the insane war crimes the last 15 years that have killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims and displaced millions more.  (Words and tones can break my bones but bullets and bombs can never hurt me...if I don't think see them on TV)

- They say he's xenophobic for enforcing immigration laws on the books, which are still fairly modest in historical terms and compared with non-white countries

 

  Most of Sam's criticisms are the same as the rest of the morons, it's all about his "tone", his "rhetoric", nothing about facts or policies.  It's just that Sam uses more sophisticated words.  As you pointed out in one of your other videos, if you start from the wrong epistemological assumptions, even a very intelligent and otherwise rational person, can end up with very wrong conclusions.  He says Trump doesn't understand economics, then goes on to say that Hillary taking money from the Saudis won't affect her "judgement".  Why the fuck do you think they give her money if not to affect her decision-making?  He's got to be one of the most intelligent idiots ever...

 

BTW that clip from American Psycho had me laughing hysterically, good find

[jpahmad]

 

 

BTW that clip from American Psycho had me laughing hysterically, good find

 

yeah, I had to put it in there.  It was just too appropriate.  

[ClearConscience]

Initially, I just need to comment on the fact that you have a massive speaker, probably valued at above $100, set on a tripod in front of the only door to the room.  You're literally required to move that speaker every time you want to enter, or exit, the room, unless you can barely squeeze through by cracking the door.

You need to make yourself available to women.  This shit is unacceptable.  You're actually a very attractive man, if you actually bathe yourself and wear clothes that fit correctly.  Your style doesn't actually matter... ever... at all.  Just buy clothes, when you can afford them, that contour to your body.  Let your hair grow out a bit, and walk into the cheapest hair salon imaginable (Great clips?).  Find the oldest person in there.  Ask for the oldest person in that is working there, explicitly.  Tell her that you're conducting an experiment and you want her to give you, in her opinion, the most attractive hair cut and styling that she can based solely on the shape of your face.  Tell her that your study is regarding expensive hair stylists vs. more affordable options.  Actually make the claim that you're conducting a study.  Tell her to do give you a cut, and a style, that she is familiar with, that she has done many times.  This is a lie, obviously, but I GUARANTEE that you will walk out of that place with a $15 haircut that looks amazing.

Yes, this had nothing to do with your video.  I'm just telling you how to win at life.

EDIT: you mispronounced several words as you were reciting that horrifically pretentious quote.

[Mister Mister]

Initially, I just need to comment on the fact that you have a massive speaker, probably valued at above $100, set on a tripod in front of the only door to the room.  You're literally required to move that speaker every time you want to enter, or exit, the room, unless you can barely squeeze through by cracking the door.

 

You need to make yourself available to women.  This shit is unacceptable.  You're actually a very attractive man, if you actually bathe yourself and wear clothes that fit correctly.  Your style doesn't actually matter... ever... at all.  Just buy clothes, when you can afford them, that contour to your body.  Let your hair grow out a bit, and walk into the cheapest hair salon imaginable (Great clips?).  Find the oldest person in there.  Ask for the oldest person in that is working there, explicitly.  Tell her that you're conducting an experiment and you want her to give you, in her opinion, the most attractive hair cut and styling that she can based solely on the shape of your face.  Tell her that your study is regarding expensive hair stylists vs. more affordable options.  Actually make the claim that you're conducting a study.  Tell her to do give you a cut, and a style, that she is familiar with, that she has done many times.  This is a lie, obviously, but I GUARANTEE that you will walk out of that place with a $15 haircut that looks amazing.

 

Yes, this had nothing to do with your video.  I'm just telling you how to win at life.

 

EDIT: you mispronounced several words as you were reciting that horrifically pretentious quote.

You are a horrible communicator in general and terrible at giving advice, which was unsolicited in this case.

[jpahmad]

Initially, I just need to comment on the fact that you have a massive speaker, probably valued at above $100, set on a tripod in front of the only door to the room.  You're literally required to move that speaker every time you want to enter, or exit, the room, unless you can barely squeeze through by cracking the door.

 

You need to make yourself available to women.  This shit is unacceptable.  You're actually a very attractive man, if you actually bathe yourself and wear clothes that fit correctly.  Your style doesn't actually matter... ever... at all.  Just buy clothes, when you can afford them, that contour to your body.  Let your hair grow out a bit, and walk into the cheapest hair salon imaginable (Great clips?).  Find the oldest person in there.  Ask for the oldest person in that is working there, explicitly.  Tell her that you're conducting an experiment and you want her to give you, in her opinion, the most attractive hair cut and styling that she can based solely on the shape of your face.  Tell her that your study is regarding expensive hair stylists vs. more affordable options.  Actually make the claim that you're conducting a study.  Tell her to do give you a cut, and a style, that she is familiar with, that she has done many times.  This is a lie, obviously, but I GUARANTEE that you will walk out of that place with a $15 haircut that looks amazing.

 

Yes, this had nothing to do with your video.  I'm just telling you how to win at life.

 

EDIT: you mispronounced several words as you were reciting that horrifically pretentious quote.

 

Wow, thanks for the advice man.  I do it right away. Wish me luck!

[Donnadogsoth]

"One thing you can't say about her is that she is not qualified or that she is profoundly ignorant of how the world works, or that she is unintelligent."

 

If incompetence is ruled out, that leaves evil.

[labmath2]

My breakdown of Sam Harris's arguments for Hillary over Trump.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrXhqVu_exg

If we take Trump at his words (given that he has no political experience we can go by), do you think the country will be worse or better with him at the helm? What evidence do you have for that answer(worse/better)?

[Wuzzums]

For me, everything Sam has to say about Trump is worth absolutely zero after I heard him say on Joe Rogan that a good businessman knows nothing about economics.

 

Sam Harris is an academic. He only talks to academics or what he perceives as academics. He comes from that world, it's where he feels most comfortable. The rise of Trump is indication how his elitist hierarchy is crumbling. I see this with every single person I admire that hates Trump: Andrew Klavan, Ben Shapiro and Sam Harris (the fact that they're all jews also does not escape me).

 

I think what Gavin McInnes said hit the nail straight on its head: it's not about arguments, it's about CLASS.

 

Another proof of this is Tommy Robinson. All these intellectuals which have been warning us about the rise of islam have always been a dozen steps behind Tommy. When Sam Harris was still having idiotic debates about atheism Tommy was there on the forefront doing everything to stop the violence we now see on the news so often. But did they listen? No, because Tommy's just some chav, no way he has anything valuable to say!

[Cruiser]

Sam Harris who prides himself for his intellectual honesty,  said during a Joe Rogan podcast that Trump used the money he fund-raised for the veterans for his own campaign, business and luxuries. 

 

Which obviously is a big fat lie, not even Hillary Clinton is that corrupt to use charity money for herself. That's when I stopped listening to Sam when he talks about Trump. 

[jpahmad]

If we take Trump at his words (given that he has no political experience we can go by), do you think the country will be worse or better with him at the helm? What evidence do you have for that answer(worse/better)?

 

It doesn't matter.  I'm not voting for someone who claims they are going to steal from me and steal from others.  I don't know what will ultimately happen if Trump becomes president.  But, like so many others on this forum, I'm voting to defend my property.  

[labmath2]

It doesn't matter.  I'm not voting for someone who claims they are going to steal from me and steal from others.  I don't know what will ultimately happen if Trump becomes president.  But, like so many others on this forum, I'm voting to defend my property.  

Why do you think it doesn't matter? Isn't that the whole point of the election (who will make the country better)?

[jpahmad]

Why do you think it doesn't matter? Isn't that the whole point of the election (who will make the country better)?

 

The consequences of a principled action (self-defense) don't matter.  That is the whole point of principles.

[jpahmad]

The grand irony is that if this was the same forum from the last election cycle, Molyneux was argueing against voting altogether and making fun of libertarians who supported Ron Paul, and argueing against anti-immigration stances. Now he is pandering to Trump's demographic for clickbait and you guys bought it. I find this somehow strangely hilarious. The stance at the site and of its leader was most certainly not the idea that nationalism and voting is a practical defensive strategy for liberty. People, including Stef, spending this much time and effort in defense of a presidential candidate would have been unthinkable.

 

JPahmad is merely staking out what original position here on voting was: principled anti-voting stance.

 

Here's a fun thought experiment using Stef's own logic:

Do you support Donald Trump for president?

If so, you favor putting a gun a to my head as a consequence of forcing his policies on me.

Therefore you are immoral and should be disassociated from.

 

Alternative:

Do you support Trump's immigration policy?

If so, you favor the use of force against me to pay for it.

Therefore you are immoral and should be dissasociated from.

You wouldn't hang out with people who *want you shot*, would you?

 

If this logic works for healthcare it also works for immigration control. Turns out that Universally Preferable Behavior isn't so universally preferable once one is convinced that the barbarians are at the gates.

 

You're late to the party.  You're talking points are not original and we've been through this on a number of other threads already; It's getting really boring.

[shirgall]

Turns out that Universally Preferable Behavior isn't so universally preferable once one is convinced that the barbarians are at the gates.

 

This is a non sequitor. To test the items with UPB you have to construct the test case like this:

 

Murder is the unjustified killing of another person. If murder was universally-preferable behavior everyone should kill another person and should want to be killed. If everyone should kill another and want to be killed the killing would not be unjustified. Because there is no murder when it is universally-preferable to murder, it must not be universally-preferable to murder.

 

What individual action are you testing with UPB in your two examples.

 

Universal healthcare and welfare involve a group of people taking valuable resources from individuals to fund some charitable initiative. It is theft. Theft was already shown not be UPB in the the book. Voting to fund healthcare and welfare less is an attempt to modify the power of the state to steal less. It is not a UPB problem to attempt such a modification.

 

Unfettered immigration puts more of a burden on the state to fund healthcare and welfare than restricted immigration. It is not a UPB problem to attempt such a modification.

 

Restricted immigration prevents people from coming into a place from another place. Restricting people from entering places they do not own is not a UPB problem either.

 

The sticky problem comes from state-owned property. The group of people that are the state are stealing from some people to claim, hold, and develop "public spaces", which they claim are "open to all" but they really aren't. Once these spaces are established, it is no longer a matter of liberty to enter or modify those spaces. It is a matter of quelling a bully. Immigration as a liberty concept refers to people migrating to unowned, undeveloped land which they turn into property. There is very little such unclaimed land to be had on the planet.

 

Those that say that public spaces should be open to all are attempting to quell the bully that is the group of people that are the state. Whatever argument works is what's right to those people, not philosophical arguments. 

[Three]

Alternative:

Do you support Trump's immigration policy?

If so, you favor the use of force against me to pay for it.

Therefore you are immoral and should be dissasociated from.

You wouldn't hang out with people who *want you shot*, would you?

 

If this logic works for healthcare it also works for immigration control. Turns out that Universally Preferable Behavior isn't so universally preferable once one is convinced that the barbarians are at the gates.

 

 

"I have said in a situation where there is coercion, where there is violence no matter what there are no moral standards to be applied. There is no moral choice to be made in a coercive situation. If somebody puts a gun to your head and tell you to walk left or to walk right, whether you walk left or walk right is not a moral choice. No morality exists when there is coercion. 

 

When it comes to immigration, there is no possibility of a consistent moral choice at the moment. In the future, free society — open borders away! Fantastic! Because then we have a choice. Right now we have no choice because immigration is a giant government program and if the immigrants come in huge amounts of violence will be enacted against the young, against those on fixed incomes, and not to mention very high rates of crime among immigrant populations, which we’ve talked about before. 

So, if the immigrants from third-world countries come into America, it will result in the vast escalation and hazardously resulted, statistically, demonstrably, according to the experts with all the data — it has resulted in a vast increase in the initiation of force in society.

 

And you say, ‘Ah, well keeping immigrants out also requires the initiation of force!’ Yes, let’s say that it does. So what? The initiation of force is going to happen under any context you can consider other than a magical, unicorn-based free society that will never occur tomorrow because libertarians wont focus on peaceful parenting. So, there’s going to be coercion no matter what. 

 

There’s coercion to keep them out and to keep them in there’s even more coercion. So, if you want the immigrants to come in just be honest and say, ‘I’m willing to accept the coercion of the immigrants coming in.’ But, it is dishonest and tendentious to the maximum to only focus on one small potential act of violence called keeping people out and to completely ignore all of the amounts of violence that is occurring by letting people in.

 

I mean, if libertarians can stand in front of a group of hundreds and hundreds of Swedish women and say, ‘Yeah, it’s fine that you got raped because I don’t want to have border guards push people back’, then fine. Go talk to the Swedish women and say, ‘Your bruised and battered and blond faces because you got raped, fine, it’s for my moral self congratulation.

 

It’s because I’m afraid of being called a racist, it’s not because I have any consistent application of the non-aggression principle, otherwise I’d be all over that spanking thing Stef’s been talking about forever. It’s because I wanna feel good about letting people in. I don’t wanna be thought of as a racist. I wanna be thought of a cosmopolitan. I wanna be thought of as an egalitarian and I just want to focus on one tiny little aspect of the initiation of force and ignore all of the other initiations of force that occur just to satisfy my moral high ground. 

 

 

Pathological altruism. 

 

But, if people are willing to say, ‘Yeah, I wanna let people in and the result is far greater crime, much worse educational outcomes for the children, massive increases in the national dept, and a complete entrenchment of the welfare state and all of the intended destruction on the poor the welfare state entails’, great! Fantastic. Say, ‘I don’t want that border. I don’t want that initiation of force at that border, I’m willing to take a far greater initiation of force elsewhere’, fine! Say it! Just say it and be honest about it. 

 

But, don’t be one of these people who are like, ‘Ah, yes, you see there’s this government program that created 500 jobs, so we’re now richer!’ The whole point of libertarian thinking and economic thinking and just plain thinking is to not look at the obvious benefits, but to look at the hidden costs. And there are huge violent, coercive, destructive, direct, repetitive, government escalating costs by allowing third-world people to come into a first world country. 

 

And if people want to have open borders to third-world immigrants they have to be honest about the violence that causes in society. "-

 

Stefan Molyneux (podcast 3388)

 

 

 

[fractional slacker]

Is Harris still charging $20 for his book about "free education?"

[labmath2]

 

"I have said in a situation where there is coercion, where there is violence no matter what there are no moral standards to be applied. There is no moral choice to be made in a coercive situation. If somebody puts a gun to your head and tell you to walk left or to walk right, whether you walk left or walk right is not a moral choice. No morality exists when there is coercion.

 

When it comes to immigration, there is no possibility of a consistent moral choice at the moment. In the future, free society — open borders away! Fantastic! Because then we have a choice. Right now we have no choice because immigration is a giant government program and if the immigrants come in huge amounts of violence will be enacted against the young, against those on fixed incomes, and not to mention very high rates of crime among immigrant populations, which we’ve talked about before.

So, if the immigrants from third-world countries come into America, it will result in the vast escalation and hazardously resulted, statistically, demonstrably, according to the experts with all the data — it has resulted in a vast increase in the initiation of force in society.

 

And you say, ‘Ah, well keeping immigrants out also requires the initiation of force!’ Yes, let’s say that it does. So what? The initiation of force is going to happen under any context you can consider other than a magical, unicorn-based free society that will never occur tomorrow because libertarians wont focus on peaceful parenting. So, there’s going to be coercion no matter what.

 

There’s coercion to keep them out and to keep them in there’s even more coercion. So, if you want the immigrants to come in just be honest and say, ‘I’m willing to accept the coercion of the immigrants coming in.’ But, it is dishonest and tendentious to the maximum to only focus on one small potential act of violence called keeping people out and to completely ignore all of the amounts of violence that is occurring by letting people in.

 

I mean, if libertarians can stand in front of a group of hundreds and hundreds of Swedish women and say, ‘Yeah, it’s fine that you got raped because I don’t want to have border guards push people back’, then fine. Go talk to the Swedish women and say, ‘Your bruised and battered and blond faces because you got raped, fine, it’s for my moral self congratulation.

 

It’s because I’m afraid of being called a racist, it’s not because I have any consistent application of the non-aggression principle, otherwise I’d be all over that spanking thing Stef’s been talking about forever. It’s because I wanna feel good about letting people in. I don’t wanna be thought of as a racist. I wanna be thought of a cosmopolitan. I wanna be thought of as an egalitarian and I just want to focus on one tiny little aspect of the initiation of force and ignore all of the other initiations of force that occur just to satisfy my moral high ground.

 

 

Pathological altruism.

 

But, if people are willing to say, ‘Yeah, I wanna let people in and the result is far greater crime, much worse educational outcomes for the children, massive increases in the national dept, and a complete entrenchment of the welfare state and all of the intended destruction on the poor the welfare state entails’, great! Fantastic. Say, ‘I don’t want that border. I don’t want that initiation of force at that border, I’m willing to take a far greater initiation of force elsewhere’, fine! Say it! Just say it and be honest about it.

 

But, don’t be one of these people who are like, ‘Ah, yes, you see there’s this government program that created 500 jobs, so we’re now richer!’ The whole point of libertarian thinking and economic thinking and just plain thinking is to not look at the obvious benefits, but to look at the hidden costs. And there are huge violent, coercive, destructive, direct, repetitive, government escalating costs by allowing third-world people to come into a first world country.

 

And if people want to have open borders to third-world immigrants they have to be honest about the violence that causes in society. "-

 

Stefan Molyneux (podcast 3388)

 

 

 

This is an argument from effect (which is incompatible with morality from principles). If morality ceases to apply the minute one person is initiating force then morality will never apply. We have morality precisely because there are bad actors. If i go out and murder someone does that not count because government coercion? Why do you excuse support of initiation of force for border controls because government coercion.

 

If this is how we deal with initiation of force now, what will change when it is a free society? Can i steal from my neighbor because armed robbers broke into my house last night therefore morality no longer applies?

[Three]

This is an argument from effect (which is incompatible with morality from principles). If morality ceases to apply the minute one person is initiating force then morality will never apply. We have morality precisely because there are bad actors. If i go out and murder someone does that not count because government coercion? Why do you excuse support of initiation of force for border controls because government coercion.

 

If this is how we deal with initiation of force now, what will change when it is a free society? Can i steal from my neighbor because armed robbers broke into my house last night therefore morality no longer applies?

Of course you should not steal from your neighbor. The fact that would even be a topic is just kind of ridiculous.

 

 

 He's not saying that there are no standards of morality in situations of voluntarism because the state initiates force.

 

He's saying that the same ethical standards don't apply in situations of coercion.  

 

So, if someone put a gun to your head and said, "steal from your neighbor or else" and you decide to steal from your neighbor, then that wouldn't be the exact same thing as if you voluntarily decided to steal from your neighbor. 

 

 

 

 

[labmath2]

Of course you should not steal from your neighbor. The fact that would even be a topic is just kind of ridiculous.

 

 

He's not saying that there are no standards of morality in situations of voluntarism because the state initiates force.

 

He's saying that the same ethical standards don't apply in situations of coercion.

 

So, if someone put a gun to your head and said, "steal from your neighbor or else" and you decide to steal from your neighbor, then that wouldn't be the exact same thing as if you voluntarily decided to steal from your neighbor.

 

 

 

 

I hope you are not arguing that the government is making him support border control at gun point.

 

Even in the extreme case where someone does demand i rob my neighbor at gun point, my actions are still violation of the NAP. The only difference is that no person will want to prosecute me for theft given the circumstances. This is what has been worked out in the classic flag pole scenario.

 

This is why i pointed out that the same standards always apply (if its morality from principle), what changes is how we respond to each violation of NAP.

[Three]

I hope you are not arguing that the government is making him support border control at gun point.

 

Even in the extreme case where someone does demand i rob my neighbor at gun point, my actions are still violation of the NAP. The only difference is that no person will want to prosecute me for theft given the circumstances. This is what has been worked out in the classic flag pole scenario.

 

This is why i pointed out that the same standards always apply (if its morality from principle), what changes is how we respond to each violation of NAP.

But, what I'm saying isn't contradicting any of the principles Stef has put foward on the show.  This has been talked about so many times in the show. The reason you wouldn't be prosecuted in that scenario is because the same standards aren't being applied to you in that situation because your capacity to make a moral choice was taken away from you.  We would reserve our moral condemnation for the person who put a gun to your head. 

 

The greater capacity a person has to make a choice, the more moral agency a person has, the higher the standards we would impose on him. This is why when a child hits me we don't apply he same standards towards to him and condemn his behavior in the exact same way as if he were a mentally sound adult(even though by hitting me he has *technically* initiated force against me.)

 

Regarding your first sentence, I have no idea what that means. 

 

[labmath2]

 

But, what I'm saying isn't contradicting any of the principles Stef has put foward on the show. This has been talked about so many times in the show. The reason you wouldn't be prosecuted in that scenario is because the same standards aren't being applied to you in that situation because your capacity to make a moral choice was taken away from you. We would reserve our moral condemnation for the person who put a gun to your head.

 

The greater capacity a person has to make a choice, the more moral agency a person has, the higher the standards we would impose on him. This is why when a child hits me we don't apply he same standards towards to him and condemn his behavior in the exact same way as if he were a mentally sound adult(even though by hitting me he has *technically* initiated force against me.)

 

My main opposition has to do with choice and force. You need a theory to describe the way in which force negates choice which no one has provided yet. You take it for granted that if someone puts a gun to my head and demands i rob my neighbor my capacity for choice is removed. The fact is that this is not the case. I reserve the right to refuse.

 

The full objection goes like this. A man demands i rob my neighbor at gunpoint.

Can i refuse and i so am i responsible for that choice?

If i acquiesce to his demands am i responsible for that choice?

If i beat my neighbor to death during the robbery am i responsible for that choice?

If i rape his wife in the process am i responsible for that choice?

 

What makes it the case that i am not responsible? Is it the threat or the danger to my life? If someone simply walked up to me and make the same demand as threat without a weapon would i still not be responsible for the actions?