Win / KotakuInAction2
KotakuInAction2
Sign In
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Reason: None provided.

There will be no pretense of being polite in the face of these beliefs. It'll be a moral emergency, because it has to be.

-Sam Harris talking about a hypothetical scenario in late 2019 where antivaxxers have to be treated as the enemy and put 'under attack'.

He couches his thinking in Popperian logical positivist talk, because on some deep level he's convinced that this shields him from pitfalls, contradictions and superstitions, and instead puts him in a comfortable position of constant logical improvement. In fact Sam falls prey to the exact blindness of logical positivism that people like Paul Feyerabend and Thomas Kuhn describe, where he runs into the dead end of his own self-serving paradigm while being unable to conceive of any other.

What Sam is blind to, and what is obvious to anyone watching him, and what makes him say such stupid things, is that he WANTS this moral emergency most of all, because then he has obtained a moral grounding which he can't find anywhere else. That's why he literally can't go 5 seconds without saying some completely stupid, unsupported thing like "we got really lucky that Covid wasn't worse than it was" and "it could have been 50x as deadly". Really?? I'm sure you have rock solid virological, immunological or epidemiological grounds for that wild statement right? The fundamental nature of viruses - which means every viral replication carries a significant chance of producing something that's not the same strain or even any strain capable of further replication - that presents NO impediment to global, lethal, infectious viral replication, does it? Despite the fact that it's well known for viruses to naturally select for infectiousness and against lethality, because on a basic level that's what's best for their propagation? Despite the fact that that throws even covid's supposed, rigged 'lethality' into doubt?

This enlightened atheist is so fucking retarded he doesn't realise there's a form of evolution denial embedded in his assertions. It's there because he needs it to be - he's incapable of examining it, because it would destroy his concept of self.

1 year ago
1 score
Reason: None provided.

There will be no pretense of being polite in the face of these beliefs. It'll be a moral emergency, because it has to be.

-Sam Harris talking about a hypothetical scenario in late 2019 where antivaxxers have to be treated as the enemy and put 'under attack'.

He couches his thinking in Popperian logical positivist talk, because on some deep level he's convinced that this shields him from pitfalls, contradictions and superstitions, and instead puts him in a comfortable position of constant logical improvement. In fact Sam falls prey to the exact blindness of logical positivism that people like Paul Feyerabend and Thomas Kuhn describe, where he runs into the dead end of his own self-serving paradigm while being unable to conceive of any other.

What Sam is blind to, and what is obvious to anyone watching him, and what makes him say such stupid things, is that he WANTS this moral emergency most of all, because then he has obtained a moral grounding which he can't find anywhere else. That's why he literally can't go 5 seconds without saying some completely stupid, unsupported thing like "we got really lucky that Covid wasn't worse than it was" and "it could have been 50x as deadly". Really?? I'm sure you have rock solid virological, immunological or epidemiological grounds for that wild statement right? The fundamental nature of viruses, which means every viral replication carries a significant chance of producing something that's not the same strain or even any strain capable of further replication, that presents NO impediment to global, lethal, infectious viral replication, does it? Despite the fact that it's well known for viruses to naturally select for infectiousness and against lethality, because on a basic level that's what's best for their propagation? Despite the fact that that throws even covid's supposed, rigged 'lethality' into doubt?

This enlightened atheist is so fucking retarded he doesn't realise there's a form of evolution denial embedded in his assertions. It's there because he needs it to be - he's incapable of examining it, because it would destroy his concept of self.

1 year ago
1 score
Reason: None provided.

There will be no pretense of being polite in the face of these beliefs. It'll be a moral emergency, because it has to be.

-Sam Harris talking about a hypothetical scenario in late 2019 where antivaxxers have to be treated as the enemy and put 'under attack'.

He couches his thinking in Popperian logical positivist talk, because on some deep level he's convinced that this shields him from pitfalls, contradictions and superstitions, and instead puts him in a comfortable position of constant logical improvement. In fact Sam falls prey to the exact blindness of logical positivism that people like Paul Feyerabend and Thomas Kuhn describe, where he runs into the dead end of his own self-serving paradigm while being unable to conceive of any other.

What Sam is blind to, and what is obvious to anyone watching him, and what makes him say such stupid things, is that he WANTS this moral emergency most of all, because then he has obtained a moral grounding which he can't find anywhere else. That's why he literally can't go 5 seconds without saying some completely stupid, unsupported thing like "we got really lucky that Covid wasn't worse than it was" and "it could have been 50x worse". Really?? I'm sure you have rock solid virological, immunological or epidemiological grounds for that wild statement right? The fundamental nature of viruses, which means every viral replication carries a significant chance of producing something that's not the same strain or even any strain capable of further replication, that presents NO impediment to global, lethal, infectious viral replication, does it? Despite the fact that it's well known for viruses to naturally select for infectiousness and against lethality, because on a basic level that's what's best for their propagation? Despite the fact that that throws even covid's supposed, rigged 'lethality' into doubt?

This enlightened atheist is so fucking retarded he doesn't realise there's a form of evolution denial embedded in his assertions. It's there because he needs it to be - he's incapable of examining it, because it would destroy his concept of self.

1 year ago
1 score
Reason: Original

There will be no pretense of being polite in the face of these beliefs. It'll be a moral emergency, because it has to be.

-Sam Harris talking about a hypothetical scenario in late 2019 where antivaxxers have to be treated as the enemy and put 'under attack'.

He couches his thinking in Popperian logical positivist talk, because on some deep level he's convinced that this shields him from pitfalls, contradictions and superstitions, and instead puts him in a comfortable position of constant logical improvement. In fact Sam falls prey to the exact blindness of logical positivism that people like Paul Feyerabend and Thomas Kuhn describe, where he runs into the dead end of his own self-serving paradigm while being unable to conceive of any other.

What Sam is blind to, and what is obvious to anyone watching him, and what makes him say such stupid things, is that he WANTS this moral emergency most of all, because then he has obtained a moral grounding which he can't find anywhere else. That's why he literally can't go 5 seconds without saying some completely stupid, unsupported thing like "we got really lucky that Covid wasn't worse than it was" and "it could have been 50x worse". Really?? I'm sure you have rock solid virological, immunological or epidemiological grounds for that wild statement right? The fundamental nature of viruses, which means every viral replication carries a significant chance of producing something that's not the same strain or even any strain capable of further replication, that presents NO impediment to global, lethal, infectious viral replication, does it? Despite the fact that it's well known for viruses to naturally select for infectiousness and against lethality, because on a basic level that's what's best for their propagation?

This enlightened atheist is so fucking retarded he doesn't realise there's a form of evolution denial embedded in his assertions. It's there because he needs it to be - he's incapable of examining it, because it would destroy his concept of self.

1 year ago
1 score