• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scott Adams Sam Harris debate about Trump

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
So what we have is Sam Harris and Scott Adams talking about Trump. Both are liberals and towards the left of the spectrum on most issues. Scott Adams is pro Trump. Sam Harris is not. Its pretty long, about 2 hours long, but in the first 27 minutes you hear the basic positions.

Scott Adams is the creator of the Dilbert comics.
Sam Harris is an author and neuroscientist who is involved in philosophical conversations and has a show.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
In the classical sense not modern. Republicans for example are liberals while democrats are considered post liberal

That is a contradiction considering the understanding of what 'liberal' means. In recent history the Republican Party has become more staunchly conservative with a Tea Party Evangelical agenda representing a significant block of the party. Most of the rest of the Party is heavily entrenched in the 'Old Guard' industrial and wealthy agenda. The recent voting history cited in another thread documents this.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm not a big fan of Dilbert, although from what I've read of it, it seems to satirize business/corporate culture - which is something that a liberal would be more inclined to do than a conservative.
Mainly it satirizes HR and Marketing bull ****. In particular it draws upon his work experiences at certain companies, such as Bell Atlantic. I have worked for them as a temp, so I know what he is talking about. When I read his comics I see that company in them.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Mainly it satirizes HR and Marketing bull ****. In particular it draws upon his work experiences at certain companies, such as Bell Atlantic. I have worked for them as a temp, so I know what he is talking about. When I read his comics I see that company in them.

Yeah, and I think a lot of companies operate the same way, especially in the HR world. I have to admit that I also take a somewhat cynical and critical view of that kind of corporate culture and the phony way they come across.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I'm not a big fan of Dilbert, although from what I've read of it, it seems to satirize business/corporate culture - which is something that a liberal would be more inclined to do than a conservative.

But he's also a long time denier of both evolution and climate change.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
But he's also a long time denier of both evolution and climate change.

I see "liberal" and "conservative" more in terms of defining one's economic and political philosophies, views that can exist independently of one's stance on evolution or climate change.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I see "liberal" and "conservative" more in terms of defining one's economic and political philosophies, views that can exist independently of one's stance on evolution or climate change.
You're right, but typically those views are held by conservatives, which was why I was surprised to hear he was a liberal.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Scott Adams denies evolution?

From: https://danielmiessler.com/blog/sco...****-but-he-believes-in-evolution/#gs.1tn_gzk

"Scott Adams has posted another highly inflammatory post — this time claiming that popular evidence for evolution is bull****. I’m no longer surprised by these pieces of his, but I have figured something out. He’s playing games with his readers by creating incendiary titles that don’t match his post content.

His post is titled, “Fossils — Still Bull****”. Ok, now he’s got our attention. Then he goes on to say that he’s NOT claiming any of the following:

  1. Evolution isn’t a scientific fact.
  2. All evidence for evolution is false.
  3. God created the earth.
His game is simple — create a title that will rile people up because it indicates an extraordinarily weak argument is going to follow, and then proceed to point out how that’s not actually what he was saying.

It’s a win-win for him. When someone comes back and says, “Eh, fossils are real, the evidence is real, you’re wrong.”, he just says, “You’re stupid. I already pointed out that my title was incorrect within my post.”

Great. You win again, Scott. You tricked people into believing for a second that you didn’t believe in evolution. But all you actually said was that scientific evidence for evolution (which you admit is completely strong) is so complex that it’s difficult to dumb down for laymen, and that in an attempt to reduce its complexity it gets mangled.

I think it’s a great point, but must he package it as an anti-evolution argument in order to make people react so strongly? I’m aware of the whole “tainment” concept, but at some point the style can become too similar to trolling. Scott is unbelievably awesome without having to resort to such tactics."
 
Top