Nah, I wouldn't call you overly touchy. It's pretty well agreed that he -was- an asshole. But he was an asshole who could write incredibly amusing stories with real points, so I cut him some slack.

I'm sorry your Mom died, but what you have is an anecdote.

I'm sure your perceived experience means a lot to you, but the most probable answer is pretty simple: you imagined it. Human memory is incredibly fallible and at times of emotional stress even more so. There have been numerous studies that have shown this.

And yes, science can't explain everything.... yet. But that doesn't mean we just get to fill in the blanks.

There is no "fact" that there is "something beyond us". In fact, everything we know has shown that there almost certainly isn't anything beyond us (at least in a supernatural sense).

Meanwhile, where's our resident young earther? Cmon @shinyblurry. Bill Nye is calling you out.

To be fair, the warden isn't following established conflict resolution protocol which is as follows:

"Who you calling a cunt?"
"You, you fucking cunt."
"You calling me a cunt?"
"I am calling you a cunt, you fucking cunt."
"How fucking dare you, you calling me a cunt? You fucking cunt."
"Who the fuck are you calling a cunt, you fucking cunt, you?"
"You fucking cunt. You call me a cunt? You fucking cunt."
"I'm a cunt? You're the fucking cunt, mate."
"I'm not your mate, you fucking cunt."
"I'm not a cunt, you're the cunt."
"Cunt."
"CUNT!"

Both parties walk away shaking their heads...

"Cunt."
"WHO YOU CALLING A CUNT?"

If you respect his writing so much, next time maybe put a link to it instead of editing it in later after someone calls you out for stealing it and portraying it as your own.

@Truckchase
i was referring to how harris was crying on how he is so misunderstood and how everybody is getting his ideas wrong,or misrepresenting them.
i agree with him when he postulates that some people may be misrepresenting him to further their own agenda but i found it beneath him to whine due to disagreements with certain people who were just espousing their opinion based on his words.

maybe write clearer and more succinct in order to convey your ideas?

as a philosopher he should be accustomed to this,it is practically expected but it can further the discussion.

meh..thats how i took it anyways.just my opinion.

@gwiz665
you were the guy who encouraged me to look further into harris work.which i did.
and happily so..i found him far more reasonable and nuanced than my original impression.

so thank you my friend.

the arrogance i am speaking of is in the latter part of the video where harris does the two-step when cenk calls him out on some of his positions in regards to foreign policy.

you cannot acknowledge that certain historical events were monsterous and then double back and suggest we still have moral authority to USE the very same power structure,that only a second ago you admitted had perpetrated inhuman crimes,to impose your own sense of what a society should be.

and THEN,when cenk doubles down and calls you out AGAIN,suggest that what you are REALLY asking is just a hypothetical "philisophical" question.not actually offering a policy solution.

another point harris got stuck on and,in my opinion,where his REAL arrogance was exposed,is to suggest that democracy is the best form of government but islamic nations are not ready and would need a 20year buffer and maybe the western worlds could place a leader in order to help the transition towards democracy.

check,point.match.

this is where harris always loses me.i understand his criticisms of religion,others have done it far better than him but when he dips his toes into foreign policy,history and politics he wades into waters where his expertise is revealed to be severely lacking.

harris makes many exceptional points and i love that when given time (which cenk gave him) a lot of his ideas are allowed to flourish and blossom.this is a good thing.i may not be a harris fan but i am most certainly not a harris hater either.

i just dont think he is the best atheist thinker out there.

You see, it's not just me. you can pretend to live in your fantasy world all you like, but numerous people have already responded and called you out long before I ever came on the scene.

You're wrong. you always have been wrong. You're a racist, you think women are second class citizens, and you're a homophobe. your comment history clearly backs this up. No more hiding Lantern.

You're scared little boy

And you're done.

What is Islam? Who or what are Muslims?

It seems every single debate over whether Islam is a religion of peace or of violence comes down to this same argument over who or what defines those terms and there is never an agreement. Indeed, much of the conflict in the middle east is due to followers of Islam arguing over who's particular interpretation is correct. Meanwhile in the western world religion is something that, as the late Hitchens put it, we take "a la carte". It seems you can no more describe a person by revealing their particular faith than you could describe what food you had last night by giving somebody the whole menu to the restaurant. You might ascertain that it was perhaps Thai food... but little else.

Still though, when we go the texts we do find quite unequivocally immoral preachings. I think the religious really have to find an answer for this. We aren't buying the alternate interpretations or the lost in translation theories. When you describe yourself as a Muslim or as a Christian, or as any other faith, it seems to me you don't really have much of a right to get upset when we call you on the evil shit in your holy books. You might protest that you are not that "kind" of Christian, but the speed at which you dismiss any given passage is only matched by the speed at which you declare divine truth for another. We understand the vast plurality of beliefs, which is why it baffles us that you subscribe to a particularly narrow set of ideals whilst simultaneously admonishing us for tarring you all with the same brush.

My Wrecking Ball

Driving through the streets tonight
It's hot, I’ve got the windows down
I wish I could call you, I wish you were still around

Nothing much left in the tank
Somehow this thing still drives
Think I forgot what it needed but somehow still survive
And all the walls we built they must come down

But hey, you’re my wrecking ball won’t you come and maybe knock me down
Hey, you’re my wrecking ball won’t you come and maybe knock me down
Hey, you’re my wrecking ball won’t you come and knock me down, come and knock me down
Come and knock me down tonight

Lying in the bed at night
Feeling like I’m somebody else
My thoughts inside my head get lost inside the haunted house
Everyone I used to know left their dreams by the door
I accidentally kick ‘em and talk until you’re still not sure
If you want to sell them out at all

Well hey, you’re my wrecking ball won’t you come and maybe knock me down
Hey, you’re my wrecking ball won’t you come and maybe knock me down
Hey, you’re my wrecking ball won’t you come and maybe knock me down
Hey, you’re my wrecking ball won’t you come and knock me down, come and knock me down
Come and knock me down tonight
Come and knock me down, come and knock me down, come and knock me down tonight
Come and knock me down, come and knock me down, come and knock me down tonight
Come and knock me down, come and knock me down, come and knock me down tonight

Driving through the streets tonight
It's hot, I’ve got the windows down
I wish I could call you, I wish you were still around

Had the broadcaster said, "You're a convicted rapist, and I think your association with the politician may possibly taint his bid to win this election," then you'd be correct. But he didn't. He brought allegations without citing sources, which is unethical. And I'm not arguing that Tyson was charged and convicted in a U.S. court of law for rape -- I'm arguing that the broadcaster probably never heard anybody say that it would look bad for a convicted rapist to endorse a politician, and if he had, then he has a responsibility to audience to say exactly who said it. For example, had he said, "ChaosEngine, from Videosift, said you're a convicted rapist who may sully the politicians chances to win an election. And he called you an asshole," then we'd know the source. But he didn't, and Tyson called him out for it.

That said, Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz, Harvard Law School's most high-profile professor <--[Cite your sources!], said the evidence against Tyson for the rape conviction is flimsy and incomplete.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1993/4/13/dershowitz-wages-media-war-for-tyson/

If your fragile sensibilities can't tolerate being called a name, then the internet is not a place for you. Probably shouldn't be a cop either.

Or do we start calling you "Lantern the delicate flower"

In addition, you don't get to conveniently dismiss an argument merely because someone called you a name.

The 2nd grade called, they want their debate tactics back

You can't seem to understand that it is BECAUSE you defend these indefensible cops that I (and others) paint you (and other officers) as corrupt.

EDIT: Calling you 'predictable' isn't 'juvenile name calling' if it's properly descriptive, and it TOTALLY was, I predicted you supporting the cops and/or blaming the innocent victims, and that's exactly what you did.

...which further shows the hypocrisy of @lantern53

We see it all the time, he says he knows what a strawman is, what an anecdote is, yet as others have called him out on, He spouts strawmans, he spouts anecdotes, he does it consistently.

He whines about personal responsibility, but is the first one to cry foul, to claim victimhood, to pretend that he so oppressed. He's STILL whining about something I teased him about MONTHS ago. And news flash Lantern, I never did directly call you a homosexual (not the derogatory term "homo") I called you out on your strange "fantasies" (your word, not mine) that you yourself described regarding homosexuals. If you want to internalize that as an insult or an accusation, that's your problem, not mine. And besides, even if I did directly call you a homosexual and you're not, that's not an insult, it may be an incorrect statement, but it's not an insult.

That's your baggage, not mine.

Then there's the hypocrisy of claiming to care so much about manners, then saying that violence would be a good way to make someone have good manners. Do you fucking listen to yourself? The civilized world generally considers violence of ANY kind to be BAD manners...not good. Again, such a hypocrite. The fact that you seem to think differently is rather appalling.

and then his hypocrisy about name calling, just now he claimed that because someone "namecalled" him that he lost the argument, but you really don't have to look through his comment history very hard to find him being quite liberal <gasp!> with the name calling, often being the one instigating it with many ad hominem attacks. Enoch has already called you out about how you spit out the word "leftist" like it's a dirty word. news flash, people don't like being demonized. We may think you're an idiot, but we don't think you're evil, or less than human like you seem to think of us.

I know what you're thinking, "wah! but liberals do it too!!" Sure they do. But again, no one ever claimed that the left was perfect (that would be another strawman). we just claim that our ideas are better than yours and can usually back it up...big difference. And again, as someone who claims liberals are so bad and sub-human, wouldn't you want to NOT act like the bad, filthy liberals? So in either case, the "but they do it too" excuse just never holds any water.

Again, going back to what someone else asked and you never answered. What exactly is your goal in these threads? Again, you look at lantern's comment history and it's just nothing but negative negative derogatory posts. never building anyone up, but always tearing someone down. Yeah, you're right, posting videos is not a requirement to be here. But if all you do IS make comments, then you better fucking believe we're going to judge you on them.

You

Bring

This

On

Yourself.

Think before you type. It's a pretty simple concept.