US Politics. Oh yes he did. Oh no he didn't


This is exactly what you are arguing.

Again, ad hominem attacks which are entirely fictional in their premise.

Again, the irony is strong, given you’ve consistently proved that it is yourself who believes having sex with minors is not a big deal, as you proved as regards your defence of Milo Yiannopoulos, as well as non-minor sexual abuse, given your constant defence of Donald Trump.

Sexual abuse is only a big deal for you when you think you can score political points from it - just as it is for Trump, the sexual assaulter-in-chief.


Sam Harris is a liberal, only an extreme left wing nutcase would argue otherwise. He is brave enough to tackle the insanity of Islam which has many liberals, especially on the left, denouncing him as an Islamophobe. Criticizing the lunatic beliefs of religion is not racism.


The wet dream of your politics, and that of Trump, is for that to happen.

And how do you make that happen? By slashing tax receipts.

Slash and burn economics, also called “voodoo economics”.

“Trickle down economics”, or “siphon-up” economics, as it should be called, is an utter sham and a disgrace.

And idiots like you whose brains are so small that they cannot conceive of anything else are a disgrace to humanity.

Economic growth does not occur when the rich are given vast tax breaks. You’d think you’d have learned that lesson after the disaster of Bush’s tax cuts. You’d think you’d have learned that lesson after the disaster of what Kansas did.

Actually, it’s no surprise you didn’t, because you’re the type that walks into a glass door, and instead of opening it, keeps trying to walk through it.


[quote=“Sidney, post:2471, topic:10941, full:true”]
This is exactly what you are arguing. [/quote]

It isn’t. Every defendant has the right to character witnesses. It is possible to hold that opinion and also have the opinion that the two who wrote character witness statements for Humpheries, given the circumstances of he case, are absolute cunts with a very dubious moral compass, like yourself.


You’ve just repeated the false information you posted in your previous post on that topic.

You’ve added nothing new and not dealt with a single point I’ve made about him.

Critiquing religion is not racist. Generalising in fascistic terms about all Muslims, and only Muslims, is.

That’s what he does, that’s what you do.

This is Racism 101.


You obviously have read nothing by Sam Harris. He is extremely critical of all Abrahamic religions, but obviously most so regarding the most lunatic and harmful of them. You are making the classic error of confusing attacking ideas with attacking the people who hold them.


You talking about morality is absolutely hilarious, given that you have proved, and admitted by branding yourself as a believer in the batshit crazy, cult-like ideology of Libertarianism, that you are a true believer in social Darwinism.

Again, you prove it above with your cheerleading for massive tax cuts for the top 1% at the expense of state-provided health and social services.


You don’t even know what his ideas are, mate, given that I had to put right as to what they are.

And you haven’t come back on a single one.


The rich are not getting “vast” tax breaks. People of high income pay 39.5% federal tax, 7.5% social security, a variable state tax, medicare and medicaid taxes, property tax etc. What tax rate do you think high earners should pay? 100%?

The only ones getting a significant tax break are corporations of all sizes, and I’ve explained why that is good for the economy, but unsurprising you don’t understand that. Low corporate taxes, especially for small businesses, make sense to stimulate economic growth. Where do you think economic growth comes from? The government?


The US economy boomed when the top tax rate was 90%.

Vast tax cuts for the richest in society have proven to be a disaster for society everywhere they’ve been tried. hey increase inequality, they depress markets, they gut health and social services.

The most prosperous countries in the world. those that actually believe in a society for all, have high taxes.

But to hell with facts.


You have zero comprehension of what Sam Harris ideas are. The people who attack him on his views on Islam are cowards who are afraid to criticize toxic violent ideology in case they offend someone.


You are confusing individual tax rates and corporate tax rates. High earners already pay the vast share of individual taxes. The problem that has to be addressed is tax avoidance as the 0.1% hold their wealth offshore to avoid tax. No politician has the balls to tackle that as the 0.1% are also their donors. If tax avoidance were tackled there would be no issue with funding social programs.


As a lawyer, I can confirm that I frequently compose tweets confessing to crimes and send them from my clients’ twitter accounts. It’s the first thing you learn at law school.


What kind of racist pseudoscience is he spreading?


Sure what would Sam Harris with his PhD in Neuroscience know about science compared to our TFK expert on all subject matter.



He gave a completely unchallenged platform to Charles Murray, who is a peddler of racist pseudoscience.

He supports racial profiling, torture of prisoners, and supports the position of European fascists.

To use his own words, “these are all facts”.

Yet our resident pseudoscience-loving racist here thinks he’s a “liberal”.

Perhaps he means in the Leo Sherlock, ahem, “understanding” of the term.


i) Earlier you referred to Berkeley, which is part of the University of California, as “a nutcase institution run by nutcases”. The institution from which this Harris chap has his PhD is also part of the University of California.

It’s quite the backtrack on your part to now place such such store in it as a source of knowledge.

ii) He has a PhD in Neuroscience. He is not a neuroscientist. Big difference.

iii) His PhD is irrelevant to what he is - a controversialist blogger and media personality, who knows there’s a lucrative market in generalising against Muslims.

iv) All sorts of people with idiotic views have PhDs. An academic qualification is no guarantee of somebody not being an idiot. I believe you claim to have an academic qualification. That’s proof enough in itself.


Vox again :joy: No left wing bias there whatsoever :joy:

The Vox piece is typical of the kind of misleading ideological nonsense permeating US universities. Science and scientists are concerned with evidence and the pursuit of truth, not moral or political perspectives. Far from being pseudoscience, Murray’s work is still widely accepted by experts in the field. The fact you would label it as pseudoscience simply confirms you know nothing whatever about science or the scientific method.

Hereditarianism is the best explanation we have currently for the evidence based factual difference in IQ levels between races. It is by no means settled science, but to label an honest scientist as a racist for reporting actual empirical findings is absurd. In the same studies Asians scored higher than whites, does that make Murray racist towards whites?

The fact that there are IQ differences between races is undisputed, what is in question are the causes, basically the genetics versus environmental argument. The majority of intelligence scientists agree with the hereditarianism position, which is that intelligence is at least somewhat genetic. There is nothing racist about genetic studies involving race, racism is claiming superiority of one race over another.

In short, Vox and yourself are full of shit. For anyone interested in the actual science as opposed to the screaming Marys calling everyone they disagree with a racist, this is an excellent balanced response to the Vox piece of trash.


Harris’s PhD in Neuroscience trumps your degree in journalism when it comes to debates on science.

The UC system (and public school education in general in the US) has been infiltrated with left wing nutcases, particularly in the Humanities. This is indisputable. That says nothing about the standard of education in the sciences which is universally excellent.

A failed journalist isn’t in a position to call anyone else an idiot.s