Sam Harris

Whoa….I'm watching one of my stables and guess who shows up??? Mr. Sam Harris!

Sam, you're aging, fast. You now look over 35….late nights studying for the PHD?

So, it appears to me that this time Sam is being swept away conceding the points that Bill O' is saying. Ha, ha, LOL, Sam got cut off, Bill disagreed with the first real disputable point and walla, that was it. Hee hee….that was funny. They didn't talk about his book, just about the hate speech from that MORON HugoC today at the UN.

But Sam actually sounded reasonable and rational this time. Usually him and Mr O have it out…with amenable arguments.

[quote author=“TheChampion”]Sam, you’re aging, fast. You now look over 35….late nights studying for the PHD?

No, running from religious types.  I read in an article about him that he uses body guards sometimes.

Well, he did never disclose the location of his University.  If I were him, I would get protection as well.  Judging from some of the trolls who post here, I’m sure there are lurkers who wish him harm.  I am sure that there are even more who would be willing to harm him just because they heard of what his message might be.  Without even reading the book.

Look at it this way, Pat Roberston or Jerry Fallwell don’t worry that some non-theist will come up to them and perforate them with a .38.  I’m pretty sure though, that whenever Mr. Harris is alone and in a public place and someone comes up and says, “Excuse me, but are you Sam Harris?”  He has an “Oh Shite!...friend or foe” moment.
That in itself is really scary for me.  When Rushdie went into hiding I could understand it.  The fact that an Athiest has to protect himself from “peace loving christians”......kinda tells you about what we are really dealing with here.  Ignorance and anger.  Same brew, different flavor.

[quote author=“TheChampion”]Sam, you’re aging, fast. You now look over 35….late nights studying for the PHD?

For those who don’t recognize it, that is an Ad Hominem observation. People age. You age. Sam ages. What does it have to do with any idea that Sam might have?

So, it appears to me that this time Sam is being swept away conceding the points that Bill O’ is saying. Ha, ha, LOL, Sam got cut off, Bill disagreed with the first real disputable point and walla, that was it. Hee hee….that was funny.

Bill O’ regularly cuts people off with bluster, shouting, or whatever. It’s his show. The fact that he is rude enough not to actually allow his guests to say their piece before he interrupts them speaks more to his ill-manners than to anything about his guests abilities to make their points intelligently. But if that’s the style of argument you like, Champ, then you just continue to enjoy Bill O’. Somebody’s got to.

They didn’t talk about his book, just about the hate speech from that MORON HugoC today at the UN.

That was another Ad Hominem. Attacking rather than arguing persuasively—is that a Christian characteristic, or just one of yours, Champ?

But Sam actually sounded reasonable and rational this time. Usually him and Mr O have it out…with amenable arguments.

Now, I don’t like ad hominem attacks myself, so rather than call you stupid and linguistically challenged, I’ll merely point out that none of the definitions of “amenable” really makes any sense whatever in that sentence.

[quote author=“evangelicalhumanist”]Now, I don’t like ad hominem attacks myself, so rather than call you stupid and linguistically challenged, I’ll merely point out that none of the definitions of “amenable” really makes any sense whatever in that sentence.

As an adjective it does.

[quote author=“English”][quote author=“evangelicalhumanist”]Now, I don’t like ad hominem attacks myself, so rather than call you stupid and linguistically challenged, I’ll merely point out that none of the definitions of “amenable” really makes any sense whatever in that sentence.

As an adjective it does.

No, it does not. “Amenable” means easily persuaded to agree or change. An argument is the persuader, not the persuadee. An “amenable argument” would be a distinct contradiction in terms, or so weak an argument as to have no reason for existence.

anyone have a link to the inteview?

Champ probably meant “amiable.” But we can go after him for his dangerous world views rather than for his occasional mistaken word choice.

[quote author=“Anonymous”]anyone have a link to the inteview?

If Clinton had any guts he go on the Bill O’Reilly show and allow Bill to ask him the tough questions that the drive-by media never asks.

Link? Can we get a link to the interview?

[quote author=“Anonymous”]Link? Can we get a link to the interview?

I second the motion

I haven’t been able to track down a video yet but I found the “segment summary” on Bill’s website:

Unresolved Problems Segment
Chavez bashes US at the UN
Guest: Author Sam Harris

Speaking at the United Nations Wednesday, leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called President Bush a “devil” who talks “as if he owned the world.” Author Sam Harris explained that Chavez will pay no price for his over-the-top remarks. “It’s getting very easy to bash America, and Chavez is an opportunist who sees that he can generate sympathy. The problem is that we’ve lost the perception of having the high ground, particularly in our conflict with the Muslim world. We have to somehow unite the civilized world, but President Bush was the wrong guy to unite the civilized world.” The Factor accused Chavez of deflecting his own failures. “Chavez blames his country’s problems on the USA - he gets away with telling his people that it’s America that is making them poor. And I’ll tell you this about President Bush - he’s one of the few guys who understands the danger in the world. Human Rights Watch doesn’t understand it, and the left in America doesn’t understand it.”