GOD, TRUMP & #metoo - Sam Harris & Matt Dillahunty This event occurred on February 23rd, 2018 at the Comerica Theatre. Over 2500 people were in attendance. Copyright - Pangburn Philosophy #pangburnlive
¡Suscríbete a nuestro nuevo canal en español! Our new Spanish channel will feature professionally translated voice acting & dubbing for all Pangburn Live Discussions. Please subscribe & share with your Spanish-speaking friends! ¡Esperamos que disfrutes! czcams.com/video/dwiAsHi0Nj4/video.html
Matt Dillahunty must have a problem with his wife. He's always mentioning her even when it doesn't makes sense. I think the man has a pretty apparent and massive ego.
Again, all this depend on how you define the concept of truth. You can accept both versions, but when it comes to a useful representation of the world and a tool for everyday use, Harris' view comes off as the most sound
Haven't read so much nonsense in a long while. "Why would one limit themselves to posit empiricism (science's founding principle) as the only method of truth, " Because it is based on any random selection of human consciousnesses having the same result in observations and not depending on singular, subjective reports of cosciousnesses. “Mind” but leads to a world-view that denies one's self, the objective reasoner as no more than mere biochemical illusory as the result of it's assertions. " So? "These metaphysical conceptual constructs can not be tested/falsified outside of themselves empirically thus are asserted as objective." That is nonsense. We created math based on our observations of this universe. All axioms are based on whether they make sense if we apply them to physical observation, e.g. what would it physically mean to divide a set of objects by zero objects? "The root problem in Empirical Science is a Materialistic positing that consciousness/mind is mere by-product functioning of brain." That's nonsense. We dealt with the mind body problem for centuries and this materialistic view is the only logical conclusion left based on all the failed attempts at other soutions which demand unproven constructs we have no reason to believe to exist other than you not personally liking materialism. "If morality, self awareness, emotions and freewill are also mere results of Mind (the brain by-product) it would then seem to be just cherry picking to trust logic over self-awareness or mathematics over morality and in the end become some form of “begging the question”." Yes, and that is what we see religions doing so there aren't actually any alternatives that don't do the begging the question or cherry picking part. They only falsely claim they do not. " The theory that all knowledge is limited to what can be empirically known is itself, incapable of being known or demonstrated empirically." You make a false claim of what empiricism claims. It only claims that you as a person can only derive knowledge based on your senses. You may think you don't, that just proves that without empiricism you can believe a lot of nonsense because a human brain is faulty. " for any trustworthy substrate for knowledge that is solely metaphysical (one's self, the objective reasoner);" Provide five examples of knowledge that is metaphysical. "Science's necessary presuppositions are otherwise inexplicable but logically follow after the positing of a Supreme Being designer of the Universe and life" non sequitur. "Once one posits a Supreme Being designer of the Universe and life; logic, reason, rationally, science and mathematics become validated. All above presuppositional foundations are accounted for with this starting principal notion; Pragmatically, there is a God"." non sequitur. "Moral obligations would not pragmatically exist if there is no God. It would be no less moral to cast a child into a river that you tripped over than to case a rock into a river you tripped over." Assuming absolute moral derived from reality, morality based on human interaction and social dynamics (aka social groups seeking a beneficial outcome for each individual participating in that group) don't have that problem. Incidently how religions came to be. "Morality, justice and guilt itself would not be pragmatic if there is no God. If any moral obligation is a net loss to the individual, it would not be pragmatic for the individual to follow such an obligation if there was no God." Limited understanding on what social species consider a net loss. "Pragmatically, there is no God" There isn't. If you want objective morality, an objective morality baked into the fabric of the universe is far less complex. Adding a God construct serves no purpose to explain morality other than making an appeal to authority to support your moral claims. " Many people may claim to be pro-abortion but if given the “choice” that they themselves stand in as the aborted, only the suicidal would volunteer." Stupid example is stupid. You should have that existential crisis anyway because it could be any of tens of millions of other sperm to make the race and you would not be here. Incidently "not being" is not an immoral state. "Suicide is already against the law, so why is suicide against the law but abortion not?" Suicide is actually not against the law in the US and even when there were laws against it, they were rarely enforced. Incidently suicide as a crime derives from Chriostian biblical scripture aka acting against God's will. So you have a circular reasoning there. Btw: Abortion in the Middle Ages also was not considered a sin because of murdering a person but as acting against God's will. The theory of soul being imbued into the body back then assumed to happen many weeks after conception. "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they appear from sensory perception. The mind's ability to know reality is dependent on a posited worldview to assert. " non sequitur. "However, it is essential that there is God in order to account for the otherwise inexplicable presuppositions in all means of knowledge." non sequitur. "so is the worldview "There is a God" that actually validates these means." non sequitur. Yes, if we ignore all alternatives the "there is a God" is the only idea standing. If we account for all alternatives your "there is a God" litany is an unproven, unnecessary and ill defined construct to explain things that don't need an explanation.
Those chairs are too small. A proper chair requires arm rests that exceed the height of the occupant. The purpose of a good chair is to encapsulate the victim inside.
Haha! Good one! Also.. If anyone wonders what they're called.. I believe these are "Chesterfield armchairs". Just search: "Chesterfield armchairs uk" and you'll find them! Or something looking a lot like them at least! 😉👍
About the chairs. I've organized events and debates a number of times. Giving your speakers funny chairs and watch them sit awkwardly while speaking is genuinely one of the few pleasures of the job.
I've organized events too and I think this is fine. The chairs in this video look comfy and appropriate for an intellectual discussion. Personally I prefer cozy armrests if I'm going to be sitting down for a lengthy amount of time.
Anyone has a name for them? Googling Thick/Fat Leather Armchair doesn't help xD. I really like these sorts of armchairs. Not a big fan of recliners, but simple comfortable and quality made chairs are a must for me.
"The internet is where religions go to die... it may also be where the next round of religions are born." That was pretty prescient and insightful of Matt.
There is probably good reason religions have places of worship. To have a place where people can circle jerk their beliefs in affirmation to strengthen that belief without opposition. Whether or not social media we know today was created for that purpose doesn't really matter, the same type of people that manipulate and exploit people through belief systems have turned it into such a place of circle jerking affirmation. Like and retweet to spread the word.
@@muchanadziko6378 IMO there is only 1 foundation concept required to manipulate and exploit other human beings regardless of the method, that's belief. Where belief is a prerequisite to bigotry you have your contradiction driven conflict between groups, which is also bolstered by those given power of authority treating some demographics better than others. Make the peasants hate and fight each other over nothing, swoop in as the savior of the situations you created and get raised up in society by the idiots that bought it, use the idiots to police the non-idiots, keep everyone in check and under your thumb! :D Divide and conquer baby!
"I hate bad arguments -- I hate them Most when they are defending positions that I think are correct." Matt keeps voicing precisely things that have been on my mind.
@@ceceroxy2227 Haha what's the worst argument you think Matt made in error? Unless you meant the worst attitude? That'd be an opinion I could understand. He can be fair, but the volatile temperament is the weakness I see in his ability to advocate the positions he does on this show. I'm too often disappointed by that.
@@anthonypc1 What you say about Matt is exactly how i feel. I agree with him on most things but his lack of patience and bad attitudes earns him a bad rep for many. its a shame he cant better communicate with people during conversations. But it's also a shame that some people cant see past all that and just listen to the substance of what he says.
I can’t believe you’re all commenting on the chairs. Don’t you guys know Sam and Matt are only 4’11” in height? Of course they look big in comparison, try to be a little more sensitive.
6:20 Thank you Matt! I'm in my 20s and I can't keep up with the Pace at which social media cycles demand reactions. And I don't want to! I deliberately take for myself as much time as I need to read through other's more informed views from different perspectives and refine my own until I can feel RESPONSIBLE enough to share it, when it's on any issue that's controversial and matters.
Sam's answer to the question about mindfulness at around 1:30:00 almost made me cry. I had to go back and listen again because it's so profoundly helpful. I wanna get the transcript of that little speech and read it every morning lol
Pangburn actually bought those chairs with the money that was meant for the tech crew, which is why he was forced to hire dogs and cats to operate the cameras and audio equipment.
Matt likes to be humble and pretend that he isn't very well educated since he didn't really have much schooling, but he does a really good job of having a thought provoking conversation with someone as intelligent as Sam. These guys are basically my top two favorite atheists, so I'm pretty happy that they had this conversation together.
Speaking personally, Matt gave me courage and language to advocate my lack of blindsided devotion to Sunday school silly stories. SAM HARRIS opened my mind to the science, history and bigger psychological issues involving the survival of our species. Stephen Fry 'paints' the spaces in between with a humanity that accepts beauty in the religions deeds such as architecture, music, ceremony, and a sense of community. I love the debates, the honesty, and honor our current day ability to make sense and make our own minds up. Thank you Matt and Sam!
Joe Gillian propaganda does not inherently mean fake or untrue..... There are endless examples of factual propaganda..... Propaganda can be true and good for societies. Propaganda can also be fake. It is simply a type of way information in conveyed....
Nope. Propaganda serves a manipulative purpose. Fake news are often a result of attention seeking, sensationalism, simply low standards of fact-checking, and auto-promotion or marketing.
Neither a beanbag nor a stool, and yet your brain recognises a great opportunity for sitting. Q.E.D.: The would consists not of matter but of what matters.
Say what you want about these two, and say what you want about the stupid chairs (way too many comments about the damn chairs here), these 2 men here were the 2 most instrumental individuals that contributed to my deconversion out of Christianity. A big nod goes to Richard Dawkins who actually kicked it off thanks to The God Delusion. But it was really both Sam and Matt who were the ones I would continue to watch trying to soak in as much information as I could in trying to understand the conflicts I was going thru with religion. Both were important to me for different reasons. I appreciated Matt's no holds barred approach to callers on his show who tried to use the typical argument points, full of fallacies, when trying to defend their beliefs. Matt is quick to point this out to his callers and often brutal in shutting down the conversation when they refuse. Sam Harris on the other hand is so damn talented at explaining things in a way I could understand while somehow not dumbing it down too much. Dawkins and even Hitchens, while very knowledgeable, could be hard to follow occasionally. Sam was different in that aspect. I also loved Sam Harris's wit and charm. It amazed me that he would get laughs from both the atheists and the theists on stage and in the crowd.
1:20:00 The answer to this great question is an absolute gem full of wisdom. Sam admits that this issue is something he continually meditates on and is confounded by it every time but the golden lesson here is to flip the default switch and see the others perspective and try to find out why which is the journey through how they come to that rather than reacting to it as an immediate response plays chess in the mind which makes situations where most people would find is an uncomfortable one is now seen as interesting to you. To uncover their truth and challenge yourself to understand them will ultimately not only affirms your mental position and state of equanimity but will leave you walking a path of least resistance where one might find in futile.
Six months later, this video gets uploaded? The conversation is practically irrelevant, obsolete. I understand Pangburn needs to sell tickets to events, but waiting six months cannot possibly be boosting ticket sales to events. A 1-month embargo seems more reasonable. At that rate, uploads may function as advertising for upcoming talks while remaining somewhat current.
"Man, that's a complicated question, you don't take abzzurdness with due seriousness! I need at least 3 months to think this through, at the moment I can not give a short answer, roughly speaking."
@@ENTP247 The words hysterical and narcissism have actual definitions and there is nothing I have observed about JP that would fit their definition. Or, if they would claim there is, it's not too late for them to match up specific examples to specific symptoms. I know that nuance is usually lost on social media, but it garners no respect from me. It shows no intellectual rigor and comments on a SH and MD video should be better. As to biased... that is a charge no one that is self-aware can deny. Some are more and some are less of course, but it speaks nothing to whether or not someone is correct. In this particular instance I obviously have no knowledge of the mental state of the person I responded to so I will give you that. But it was not truth I was looking for, it was a rebuke. If the meaning of words is unimportant then they can be applied to anyone.
@@jamespeterson3868 i appreciate your effort to comment but all i am saying is you are JP, so you could be a bit biased as you tried to defend the actual Peterson in your first comment man. Its just my own opinion and there is a possibility that i could be wrong. (Its only pun)
@@ENTP247 I'm sure there were many other people they could have made hyperbolic and unsubstantiated comments about that were totally unrelated to his beliefs (the thing that actually matters) and I would have passed by. They didn't. I didn't. Bias is inherent in being human and I have already acknowledged my guilt. The fact that I stopped at this comment speaks nothing to whether I am correct in my assessment. Does not the fact that you stopped to comment on mine. indicate your own bias? Does that mean you are therefore wrong? Or right for that matter?
The conversation between these two men illustrates exactly what is necessary to begin the resolution of all problems that exist between peoples... dialog. In some cases, such dialog has gone on for thousands of years with no universal resolution, but those cases that have indeed been resolved, were only achieved through such dialog. I am a huge fan of these long-form discussions, as they delve into discussions beyond click-bait and headlines. EDIT: @1:34:40 there was a spectacular question from an audience member in regards to algorithms of search engines continually feeding you with consistent political ideologies. My answer...... don't watch, search or look at ONLY one side of the political spectrum. The search engine will generally give you similar content as your last viewed subject, but keep it, and yourself, guessing as to what is next on the list. Absorb all sides to be informed and logical in your own opinions.
50% of comments are about the chairs 40% of comments are about how shitty pangburn is 9% of comments are about jordan peterson 1% of comments are about the content of conversation in this video
"All you've done is provide ammunition to..." - I use that phrasing a lot when I see people who I agree with using bad arguments/ buying into unverified stats. Somehow, regardless of the group you still get vilified by many like minded people just for being unwilling to defend your position dishonestly. Thank you so much for saying this Matt, I feel vindicated.
One of the greatest things Christopher Hitchens taught us is “That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence”. If we are to be intellectually honest and applied this reasoning across the board instead of just with religion, then I don’t see how anyone can be a fan of anonymous accusations of rape and sexual abuse.
Yeah I agree. So hypocritical of matt. If we are gonna believe things based on anecdotes then why not believe angels, alien abductions, faith healings and all other nonsense. Some people ditch one ideology and pick another and they fail to apply same standards of skepticism to it. Matt is one of them.
Not sure you know what the word anyonymous means... A victim testimony is evidence, legally and rationally. A witness takes the stand so their answers are entered into evidence => they are evidence. There is no anonymity but these are still "only" allegations. There is this nonsense assumption only independent facts matter. That is actually not how western justice systems work. In a given case the supporting evidence could be simply about whose testimony is more trustworthy, e.g. if one side answers all questions and even honestly admits ignorance about details while the other testimony evades answers and makes false statements the trustworthiness of one testimony goes up and that of the other goes down. The same goes about corborating evidence that suggests one witness has no reason to lie while the other does. It is about the collection of all evidence and how they weigh in to judge the circumstances of a certain case. That is where the concept of reasonable doubt comes in and again "reasonable" does not imply "none" so obviously uncertainty is acceptable. Now the threshold of reasonable is debatable and depends on the justice system of a country, I think in the US it can depend on direct instructions by the judge to the jury. There is also a small difference between scientific descriptions of reality and about fact finding the truth in a specific event of human interaction. Making the claim these are the same is a false equivalency and ignores the different purposes of these procedures.
Philosophy and Science is important and all, and I'm glad that Lawrence and Sam finally got the chance to get together to debate but what do you guys really think about the chairs?
1:17:33 We already know one feasible way to achieve this. You make a cocktail of three different drugs that all target the same mode of depression, but differ in their side effects everywhere else, so the side effects are more diffuse, but these broad side-effects are all at 1/3 of the previous level (which hopefully in most cases is modest or unnoticeable). But this involves solving a very complicated and messy cooperation and responsibility problem (with three drugs involved, from three different companies, what do you do when people start dying from an unexpected interaction with other factors?)
A new scientific commandment " thou shall not sit thy Gods in silly chairs, lets their heads look tiny and thy ridiculous chairs take away the attention of their reasons"
I'm a few years late, but I have to acknowledge the young woman that asked a question at about 1:28:47. She is in a very similar boat that I am, i.e., practicing mindfulness meditation, while living with anxiety and panic attacks. It was a great question, and a hell of a way to confront her anxiety head-on. Sam's answer was extremely helpful as well, in case anyone else is in a similar situation.
Many people who follow these discussions have already heard audio of this. I heard it several months ago; releasing the video doesn't make it a new discussion.
Dillahunty Dresses like a Russian Oligarch from Siberia.. he especially loves these (Chester Field ) Imperial style Sofas. it gives him feeling like he is the Emperor of "Science & Reason Kingdom" ...
The AlphaGo project was a little more sophisticated than going from 0 to mastery in 4 hours. They had to feed the AI many sample games and run it for days upon days of simulation. When it played the world's best player, it won 3 of 4 matches. Impressive, but i think they're slightly understating the process.
Pangburn still has our money from the expensive and cancelled event in Auckland. He's been reported to the NZ Commerce Commission. It's a shame that unscrupulous operators have moved in to corner this market.
Really? That is terrible! I hope something is done. I went to the Sydney event and right up to the event we didn't know when we were getting our tickets or if it was also going to be cancelled. Radio silence was unhelpful. A few of us wondered if we were going to be refunded the (I think) $45 International mailing fee we paid, seeing as none were mailed. I won't hold my breath. If they continue to conduct themselves this way they'll go under pretty quickly.
¡Suscríbete a nuestro nuevo canal en español! Our new Spanish channel will feature professionally translated voice acting & dubbing for all Pangburn Live Discussions. Please subscribe & share with your Spanish-speaking friends! ¡Esperamos que disfrutes! czcams.com/video/dwiAsHi0Nj4/video.html
Spoiler alert
Sam is not thrown off the stage
lmao
No, that would go against his well-being.
I feel sorry for whoever paid for attending this talk
why? it was an interesting talk
Matt Dillahunty must have a problem with his wife. He's always mentioning her even when it doesn't makes sense.
I think the man has a pretty apparent and massive ego.
Comment statistics:
0.05% related to the debate
99.95% the chairs!
Agree, here is a detailed response and why Sam Harris is wrong and Jordan Peterson is correct;
Peterson starts from a solid philosophical position of, 'I think, therefore I am", as a founding principal of truth to knowledge itself and then to God's existence as being pragmatic as the result. Sam makes the error of discarding René Descarte's, "Cogito ergo sum" in favor of some empirical evidence based system yet known or defined to account for truth in moral oughts and ought nots. Science is about discovering "was is or is not" while religion is about discovering "what ought be done about what is or is not". Both have equal value within their own type of truths. Science informs us of "what we are" while religion informs us of "who we are". Harris seems to not understand that both are actually separate and necessary steps to moral truths rather than opposing means of truth.
All forms of knowledge claiming, including science and empiricism are built on required presuppositions (faith asserting). Consciousness is the only substrate of any possible claim to knowledge and thus the starting and ending point to posit a reality or any truth. Why would one limit themselves to posit empiricism (science's founding principle) as the only method of truth, which is also a product/idea of “Mind” but leads to a world-view that denies one's self, the objective reasoner as no more than mere biochemical illusory as the result of it's assertions.
Empiricism states that knowledge must be restricted to those objects which can be perceived by our senses. At the same time empiricism requires non-empirical foundational presuppositions and these presuppositions are not material themselves, they are metaphysical. Empiricism must assume mathematics, logic and human reason trustworthy; and that the Universe is rational and in line with a rational human consciousness/mind because these are not physical objects which can be perceived by any of our five senses. Mathematics, logic and reason originate and reside in the metaphysical consciousness, the mind. These metaphysical conceptual constructs can not be tested/falsified outside of themselves empirically thus are asserted as objective.
The root problem in Empirical Science is a Materialistic positing that consciousness/mind is mere by-product functioning of brain. Mathematics, reason and logic would therefore be results of this mere by-product functioning of brain called “Mind”. If morality, self awareness, emotions and freewill are also mere results of Mind (the brain by-product) it would then seem to be just cherry picking to trust logic over self-awareness or mathematics over morality and in the end become some form of “begging the question”. Empiricism alone is self-refuting. The theory that all knowledge is limited to what can be empirically known is itself, incapable of being known or demonstrated empirically. When adding the fact that empiricism can not answer for any trustworthy substrate for knowledge that is solely metaphysical (one's self, the objective reasoner); and the fact that the only substrate for claimed knowledge is “one's self, the objective reasoner”, shows empiricism as fallacious at it's core claim of being the only methodology for knowledge. Are presuppositions knowledge, well no, in fact they are actually mere faith asserting.
Science's necessary presuppositions are otherwise inexplicable but logically follow after the positing of a Supreme Being designer of the Universe and life. These presuppositions do not logically follow without such a worldview as to what is real and how we can know this to be reality.
Logic and math are also presupposed as vaild means to understanding what is real and our reality but also are inexplicable otherwise as to why they seem to function so well.
Once one posits a Supreme Being designer of the Universe and life; logic, reason, rationally, science and mathematics become validated. All above presuppositional foundations are accounted for with this starting principal notion; Pragmatically, there is a God".
Theism's discovery has predated or coincided with the discovery of philosophy, mathematics, geometry, logic, rationally and science. Why, because it validates their means and presuppositions as to actually true means of the knowledge of reality. Rather than failing to account for such unknowables, presuppositions are used to claim knowledge and even some people discard our ability to know anything at all. To hold presuppositions of one's abilities of their mind as "inexplicable" but nevertheless trust this mind to know what is real is a contradiction. It is a contradiction to assert that inexplicable means are able to lead to true and actual results.
Throughout almost every single culture, every single civilization, and every single human era including our modern era there is a history of a Supreme Being. It is a worldview that has been held since the beginning of recorded history and by the majority in every era. Theism has been independently discovered and revered over different locations, by different eras and different cultures. The mind found within mankind and mind's discovery of Philosophy, Mathematics, Geometry, Logic, Rationally and Science is evidence for God. Theism validated all of these, as they were being discovered, as a true means for mankind to know reality.
Moral obligations would not pragmatically exist if there is no God. It would be no less moral to cast a child into a river that you tripped over than to case a rock into a river you tripped over.
Morality, justice and guilt itself would not be pragmatic if there is no God. If any moral obligation is a net loss to the individual, it would not be pragmatic for the individual to follow such an obligation if there was no God.
A Russellian world implies this proposition and moral obligations with any net loss or that break even become impractical and absurd. You may claim that for yourself, "Pragmatically, there is no God", but you don't live your life by the consequences this assertion would make pragmatically. And if you don't even live by consequences this worldview pragmatically leads to, it surly cannot be pragmatic, even for only yourself to claim as true.
Freewill to choose immoral behavior or even prefer immoral behavior may seem to not be objective but once the ill-behaved is treated "badly" they will always contest this as cruel or wrong. Anyone as the victim of immoral actions will always desire to escape said immoral actions placed on them. This seems to lead to moral objectiveness. Many people may claim to be pro-abortion but if given the “choice” that they themselves stand in as the aborted, only the suicidal would volunteer. No one that values “Choice” would want to be aborted themselves other than the suicidal. The question then would be, not if abortion is moral but is suicide moral. This leaves no doubt about the question that abortion is immoral; meaning that the normal person that is pro-abortion would not want to be aborted themselves unless suicidal. Suicide is already against the law, so why is suicide against the law but abortion not?
Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they appear from sensory perception. The mind's ability to know reality is dependent on a posited worldview to assert. All worldviews that operate on the assumption, "there is no God", further limit the mind's ability to know any true reality rather than affirming such abilities to knowledge. The worldview of "there is a God" affirms these abilities to know truths about reality. Therefore, it is not at all pragmatic to claim there is no God. However, it is essential that there is God in order to account for the otherwise inexplicable presuppositions in all means of knowledge. If means of knowledge are pragmatic then so is the worldview "There is a God" that actually validates these means.
Wg Williams©
Again, all this depend on how you define the concept of truth. You can accept both versions, but when it comes to a useful representation of the world and a tool for everyday use, Harris' view comes off as the most sound
I was going to as well, but then I saw that a thousand people beat me to it.
Chairs are important.
Haven't read so much nonsense in a long while.
"Why would one limit themselves to posit empiricism (science's founding principle) as the only method of truth, "
Because it is based on any random selection of human consciousnesses having the same result in observations and not depending on singular, subjective reports of cosciousnesses.
“Mind” but leads to a world-view that denies one's self, the objective reasoner as no more than mere biochemical illusory as the result of it's assertions. "
So?
"These metaphysical conceptual constructs can not be tested/falsified outside of themselves empirically thus are asserted as objective."
That is nonsense. We created math based on our observations of this universe. All axioms are based on whether they make sense if we apply them to physical observation, e.g. what would it physically mean to divide a set of objects by zero objects?
"The root problem in Empirical Science is a Materialistic positing that consciousness/mind is mere by-product functioning of brain."
That's nonsense. We dealt with the mind body problem for centuries and this materialistic view is the only logical conclusion left based on all the failed attempts at other soutions which demand unproven constructs we have no reason to believe to exist other than you not personally liking materialism.
"If morality, self awareness, emotions and freewill are also mere results of Mind (the brain by-product) it would then seem to be just cherry picking to trust logic over self-awareness or mathematics over morality and in the end become some form of “begging the question”."
Yes, and that is what we see religions doing so there aren't actually any alternatives that don't do the begging the question or cherry picking part. They only falsely claim they do not.
" The theory that all knowledge is limited to what can be empirically known is itself, incapable of being known or demonstrated empirically."
You make a false claim of what empiricism claims. It only claims that you as a person can only derive knowledge based on your senses. You may think you don't, that just proves that without empiricism you can believe a lot of nonsense because a human brain is faulty.
" for any trustworthy substrate for knowledge that is solely metaphysical (one's self, the objective reasoner);"
Provide five examples of knowledge that is metaphysical.
"Science's necessary presuppositions are otherwise inexplicable but logically follow after the positing of a Supreme Being designer of the Universe and life"
non sequitur.
"Once one posits a Supreme Being designer of the Universe and life; logic, reason, rationally, science and mathematics become validated. All above presuppositional foundations are accounted for with this starting principal notion; Pragmatically, there is a God"."
non sequitur.
"Moral obligations would not pragmatically exist if there is no God. It would be no less moral to cast a child into a river that you tripped over than to case a rock into a river you tripped over."
Assuming absolute moral derived from reality, morality based on human interaction and social dynamics (aka social groups seeking a beneficial outcome for each individual participating in that group) don't have that problem. Incidently how religions came to be.
"Morality, justice and guilt itself would not be pragmatic if there is no God. If any moral obligation is a net loss to the individual, it would not be pragmatic for the individual to follow such an obligation if there was no God."
Limited understanding on what social species consider a net loss.
"Pragmatically, there is no God"
There isn't. If you want objective morality, an objective morality baked into the fabric of the universe is far less complex. Adding a God construct serves no purpose to explain morality other than making an appeal to authority to support your moral claims.
" Many people may claim to be pro-abortion but if given the “choice” that they themselves stand in as the aborted, only the suicidal would volunteer."
Stupid example is stupid. You should have that existential crisis anyway because it could be any of tens of millions of other sperm to make the race and you would not be here. Incidently "not being" is not an immoral state.
"Suicide is already against the law, so why is suicide against the law but abortion not?"
Suicide is actually not against the law in the US and even when there were laws against it, they were rarely enforced. Incidently suicide as a crime derives from Chriostian biblical scripture aka acting against God's will. So you have a circular reasoning there.
Btw: Abortion in the Middle Ages also was not considered a sin because of murdering a person but as acting against God's will. The theory of soul being imbued into the body back then assumed to happen many weeks after conception.
"Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they appear from sensory perception. The mind's ability to know reality is dependent on a posited worldview to assert. "
non sequitur.
"However, it is essential that there is God in order to account for the otherwise inexplicable presuppositions in all means of knowledge."
non sequitur.
"so is the worldview "There is a God" that actually validates these means."
non sequitur.
Yes, if we ignore all alternatives the "there is a God" is the only idea standing. If we account for all alternatives your "there is a God" litany is an unproven, unnecessary and ill defined construct to explain things that don't need an explanation.
Those chairs are too small. A proper chair requires arm rests that exceed the height of the occupant. The purpose of a good chair is to encapsulate the victim inside.
Lol
Would an A.I. even identify those as chairs?
10/10 Game over
Don't forget the ultra-soft filling so they also dive deeeeep into that chair. Ideally we should see only their legs.
You're right. Chairs of this kind need some kind of restraint system and I see no such system.
Sam had many good points in this debate, but in the end I agree with the chairs
Haha! Good one! Also.. If anyone wonders what they're called.. I believe these are "Chesterfield armchairs". Just search: "Chesterfield armchairs uk" and you'll find them! Or something looking a lot like them at least! 😉👍
This event was sponsored by the Ministry of Silly Chairs
Which happens to be my favorite and most cherished ministry!!!
Just know that your comment made me laugh out loud! Thank you, well done.
I didn't even notice until you said something. Now, I can't see the chairs as anything but ludicrous.
@@mikimiyazaki *most chairished ministry
Jay Dyer just smoked Dillahunty in a debate on atheism vs theism. Sam Harris is next in line.
Weird...I never even noticed the chairs until approximately 700 comments pointed them out.
#MeToo
😂
How could you not notice them? They're football-player size.
Joe Anthony it’s much more shocking you didn’t notice the sarcasm...
Dark Place Who are you talking to? How does one miss that?
**starts typing about the actual content in the discussion**
"Nah"
**backspace**
**writes about the chairs**
About the chairs. I've organized events and debates a number of times. Giving your speakers funny chairs and watch them sit awkwardly while speaking is genuinely one of the few pleasures of the job.
I want one!
I've organized events too and I think this is fine. The chairs in this video look comfy and appropriate for an intellectual discussion. Personally I prefer cozy armrests if I'm going to be sitting down for a lengthy amount of time.
actually these specific chairs are ones I would like to have at home
Anyone has a name for them? Googling Thick/Fat Leather Armchair doesn't help xD.
I really like these sorts of armchairs. Not a big fan of recliners, but simple comfortable and quality made chairs are a must for me.
@@ZoneTitan Chairs need to have flat arm-rests to hold my beer.
How they managed to have a serious intellectual discussion while sitting in those chairs is beyond me.
I think it's perfect hahaha. Those look comfy. I'd want to be comfy for an intellectual discussion.
@@fullmatthew I would fall asleep in about 5 minutes in a chair like that.
Yeah, those chairs make you look like an eight year old child again, lol!
They look trapped!
I applaud Pangburn for providing life rafts for the event.
"In case of a philisophical discussion, your floatation device can also be used as a pretentious chair."
Great discussion but can we get them some bigger chairs?
Who was chairing this event? The chairman must be compensating for something...
Lol 😂
@Francisco Nieves I don't know, dismantling a chair like that would be an awful lot of work, and there are TWO of them to take apart!
7.8/10 too much chair.
K. R. G. Holy crap that’s actually really clever lol I love it
"The internet is where religions go to die... it may also be where the next round of religions are born." That was pretty prescient and insightful of Matt.
There is probably good reason religions have places of worship. To have a place where people can circle jerk their beliefs in affirmation to strengthen that belief without opposition.
Whether or not social media we know today was created for that purpose doesn't really matter, the same type of people that manipulate and exploit people through belief systems have turned it into such a place of circle jerking affirmation.
Like and retweet to spread the word.
@@Mike1Lawless The thing is that "thanks" to the bubbles the internet is a place of worship
@@muchanadziko6378 IMO there is only 1 foundation concept required to manipulate and exploit other human beings regardless of the method, that's belief.
Where belief is a prerequisite to bigotry you have your contradiction driven conflict between groups, which is also bolstered by those given power of authority treating some demographics better than others.
Make the peasants hate and fight each other over nothing, swoop in as the savior of the situations you created and get raised up in society by the idiots that bought it, use the idiots to police the non-idiots, keep everyone in check and under your thumb! :D
Divide and conquer baby!
@@Mike1Lawless I don't know what you're referring to, or you misunderstood what I meant
What's this? "Honey I shrunk the atheists"?
Your comment made me laugh so hard, even in after-thought I crack up.
Such an underrated comment
😄 Thanks for the laugh
Jay Dyer just smoked Dillahunty in a debate on atheism vs theism. Sam Harris is next in line.
lol
It's not the size of the chair that matters, it's how you use it.
It is obvious a giant made this chair
Looks like Pangburn spent all their money from the JP/SH conversations on the chairs in this video..
HEEHEEHEE
They look so. fucking. comfortable though.
Matt looks so small sitting in this chair 😂
They don't look comfortable. Sam's arms are angled upwards at his sides. What a joke.
I love the variety of chairs from talk to talk. Maybe it will be Pangburn;s 'thing' with these events
More like Sam Chair-is and Matt Pillow-hunty
bruh that made me laugh out loud at 2AM
See yourself out.
This comment deserves more love. Puns are good.
Goteeeem
Under rated comment
"I hate bad arguments -- I hate them Most when they are defending positions that I think are correct."
Matt keeps voicing precisely things that have been on my mind.
He does that 🥰
ya especially when Matt has the worst arguments
@@ceceroxy2227 Haha what's the worst argument you think Matt made in error?
Unless you meant the worst attitude?
That'd be an opinion I could understand.
He can be fair, but the volatile temperament is the weakness I see in his ability to advocate the positions he does on this show. I'm too often disappointed by that.
@@anthonypc1 What you say about Matt is exactly how i feel. I agree with him on most things but his lack of patience and bad attitudes earns him a bad rep for many. its a shame he cant better communicate with people during conversations. But it's also a shame that some people cant see past all that and just listen to the substance of what he says.
It’s funny imagining Sam as a little kid sitting in that massive chair forming such eloquent sentences
Fun Twist, maybe they're normal sized chairs
@@dougjones4987 0:28 I thought they were stools at first from a distance! How small would Sam and Matt be then
"The Harris Dillahunty talk". Which one? "The one with the chairs." Gotchyou fam.
The chairs are absurd.
Blech319 Absurdly comfortable.
there were even bigger chairs but they chose the smaller ones
They look like little kids in those chairs, I want one!
Once seen, cannot be unseen!
Yeah, I love sitting with my arms around my ears.
A creationist designed those chairs.
Not-so intelligent design
The chairs evolved through natural processes
No the chairs came from nothing. If you wait long enough, anything can come from nothing. Especially when you redefine nothing to something.
According to Passion of the Christ, Jesus invented chairs.
@@sharplikecheddar2 haha like God himself
I can’t believe you’re all commenting on the chairs. Don’t you guys know Sam and Matt are only 4’11” in height? Of course they look big in comparison, try to be a little more sensitive.
Is that their combined height?
Uea. Check your height priveledge people! Lol
Matt: "Are we actually stuck to this massive access to information?"
Me: **No, you are actually stuck in those massive chairs.**
I clicked on this just to laugh at the chairs.
Careful... Pangburn will start charging for those lols.
Me too 🤣
If Thanos and Hulk had an interview, the chairs would be just the right size.
You're right
6:20 Thank you Matt!
I'm in my 20s and I can't keep up with the Pace at which social media cycles demand reactions.
And I don't want to!
I deliberately take for myself as much time as I need to read through other's more informed views from different perspectives and refine my own until I can feel RESPONSIBLE enough to share it, when it's on any issue that's controversial and matters.
This is a very old video, but those are still gigantic chairs.
Nice, and thank you for the video! =)
might want to go back a bit on the chair size thou :P
Great discussion! Huge respect for Sam for what he said to the young lady who mentioned anxiety and panic attacks.
Sam's answer to the question about mindfulness at around 1:30:00 almost made me cry. I had to go back and listen again because it's so profoundly helpful. I wanna get the transcript of that little speech and read it every morning lol
He said nothing.
Just because you didn't understand what he said doesn't mean he didn't say anything
I love that bit.
I too re watched that segment and "felt it" on another level!
Such a pleasure to listen to this. Thank you for the upload.
I could run laps on those arm rests.
Pangburn actually bought those chairs with the money that was meant for the tech crew, which is why he was forced to hire dogs and cats to operate the cameras and audio equipment.
I come back to this video every so often so I can watch my favorites vanish into chair doom.
Thank you Travis :)
Matt likes to be humble and pretend that he isn't very well educated since he didn't really have much schooling, but he does a really good job of having a thought provoking conversation with someone as intelligent as Sam. These guys are basically my top two favorite atheists, so I'm pretty happy that they had this conversation together.
Speaking personally, Matt gave me courage and language to advocate my lack of blindsided devotion to Sunday school silly stories. SAM HARRIS opened my mind to the science, history and bigger psychological issues involving the survival of our species. Stephen Fry 'paints' the spaces in between with a humanity that accepts beauty in the religions deeds such as architecture, music, ceremony, and a sense of community. I love the debates, the honesty, and honor our current day ability to make sense and make our own minds up. Thank you Matt and Sam!
I can't figure out how I missed this one. Stuff like this usually shows up in my feed all the time.
We don't need this term "fake news" to describe something that we already have a perfectly good word for. That word is propaganda.
Great point.
Joe Gillian propaganda does not inherently mean fake or untrue..... There are endless examples of factual propaganda..... Propaganda can be true and good for societies. Propaganda can also be fake. It is simply a type of way information in conveyed....
More chair references!
If he used words with more than two syllables, the big orange cheeto would alienate his base
Nope. Propaganda serves a manipulative purpose. Fake news are often a result of attention seeking, sensationalism, simply low standards of fact-checking, and auto-promotion or marketing.
Mature decision by Sam and Matt about the sexual harassment allegations. The transparency was appreciated.
Matt: "In time you will know what it's like to lose, to feel so desperately right, and yet to be obscured by the armrests, all the same"
It's like they're being eaten by the chairs.
even dictators don't use chairs like this XD
FINALLY!!!
Thank you for sharing this with us all.
Insert your comment on how big the chairs are here.
Those chairs are too big to fail.
Neither a beanbag nor a stool, and yet your brain recognises a great opportunity for sitting. Q.E.D.: The would consists not of matter but of what matters.
Those chairs are absolutely ridiculous. If I sat in one I would feel like a 5 year old again.
Say what you want about these two, and say what you want about the stupid chairs (way too many comments about the damn chairs here), these 2 men here were the 2 most instrumental individuals that contributed to my deconversion out of Christianity. A big nod goes to Richard Dawkins who actually kicked it off thanks to The God Delusion. But it was really both Sam and Matt who were the ones I would continue to watch trying to soak in as much information as I could in trying to understand the conflicts I was going thru with religion. Both were important to me for different reasons. I appreciated Matt's no holds barred approach to callers on his show who tried to use the typical argument points, full of fallacies, when trying to defend their beliefs. Matt is quick to point this out to his callers and often brutal in shutting down the conversation when they refuse. Sam Harris on the other hand is so damn talented at explaining things in a way I could understand while somehow not dumbing it down too much. Dawkins and even Hitchens, while very knowledgeable, could be hard to follow occasionally. Sam was different in that aspect. I also loved Sam Harris's wit and charm. It amazed me that he would get laughs from both the atheists and the theists on stage and in the crowd.
Common sense was my biggest influence
Actually, it was Sam who got the whole thing started, not Dawkins. The End of Faith came out before The God Delusion.
Is it a compensation? Do it more often, maybe. Release JP and Harris debates. You`ll get back your audience.
Goshhh!!! You made my day. Youre an angel!!!!!!!!!!
the winner of this debate will be allowed to sit at the big boy table next year.
1:20:00 The answer to this great question is an absolute gem full of wisdom. Sam admits that this issue is something he continually meditates on and is confounded by it every time but the golden lesson here is to flip the default switch and see the others perspective and try to find out why which is the journey through how they come to that rather than reacting to it as an immediate response plays chess in the mind which makes situations where most people would find is an uncomfortable one is now seen as interesting to you. To uncover their truth and challenge yourself to understand them will ultimately not only affirms your mental position and state of equanimity but will leave you walking a path of least resistance where one might find in futile.
2:55 Sam Harris looks down at his chair and says, "Much Chair Isht."
You win. I'm dead. Hahaha! Best observation ever timestamped.
Hehehe, Freudian slip! "Much 'CHAIR!'-ished." Great catch!
i died
Dude you made my day!!
😂😂
This comment is seriously underrated
Six months later, this video gets uploaded? The conversation is practically irrelevant, obsolete. I understand Pangburn needs to sell tickets to events, but waiting six months cannot possibly be boosting ticket sales to events. A 1-month embargo seems more reasonable. At that rate, uploads may function as advertising for upcoming talks while remaining somewhat current.
Preach
Releasing these events are this pace is just absurd.
Miguel Exactly. I already watched this like three months ago.
Or as Doctor Peterson would say: "It's abzzurd!"
Depends on what you mean by "abzzurd".
"Man, that's a complicated question, you don't take abzzurdness with due seriousness! I need at least 3 months to think this through, at the moment I can not give a short answer, roughly speaking."
Pretty good interview, quite interesting. The chairs nether improved or detracted from it contrary to some other comments imply.
See. At the end they talked about optimism for the future but then when I see that this video only has 9,000 views, I just lose all hope.......
ikr?
120k now
1:29:00 This is a good answer from Sam, off the cuff. Well done.
Thanks Matt and Sam.
A joy to hear two highly intelligent men discuss in a calm comprehensible manner. A far cry from the ravings of that hysterical narcissist Peterson.
That comment about Peterson sounded pretty hysterical and narcissistic to be honest. Oh, the irony.
@@jamespeterson3868 this comment about the comment on the narcissistic Peterson sounds a bit biased. Just sayin
@@ENTP247 The words hysterical and narcissism have actual definitions and there is nothing I have observed about JP that would fit their definition. Or, if they would claim there is, it's not too late for them to match up specific examples to specific symptoms. I know that nuance is usually lost on social media, but it garners no respect from me. It shows no intellectual rigor and comments on a SH and MD video should be better.
As to biased... that is a charge no one that is self-aware can deny. Some are more and some are less of course, but it speaks nothing to whether or not someone is correct. In this particular instance I obviously have no knowledge of the mental state of the person I responded to so I will give you that. But it was not truth I was looking for, it was a rebuke. If the meaning of words is unimportant then they can be applied to anyone.
@@jamespeterson3868 i appreciate your effort to comment but all i am saying is you are JP, so you could be a bit biased as you tried to defend the actual Peterson in your first comment man. Its just my own opinion and there is a possibility that i could be wrong. (Its only pun)
@@ENTP247 I'm sure there were many other people they could have made hyperbolic and unsubstantiated comments about that were totally unrelated to his beliefs (the thing that actually matters) and I would have passed by. They didn't. I didn't. Bias is inherent in being human and I have already acknowledged my guilt. The fact that I stopped at this comment speaks nothing to whether I am correct in my assessment. Does not the fact that you stopped to comment on mine. indicate your own bias? Does that mean you are therefore wrong? Or right for that matter?
Wish I could've watched when it was relevant.
Pangburn "Paywall" Philosophy
I came to comment on the chairs, but I see I'm too late; I'll just take a seat.
The conversation between these two men illustrates exactly what is necessary to begin the resolution of all problems that exist between peoples... dialog. In some cases, such dialog has gone on for thousands of years with no universal resolution, but those cases that have indeed been resolved, were only achieved through such dialog.
I am a huge fan of these long-form discussions, as they delve into discussions beyond click-bait and headlines.
EDIT: @1:34:40 there was a spectacular question from an audience member in regards to algorithms of search engines continually feeding you with consistent political ideologies. My answer...... don't watch, search or look at ONLY one side of the political spectrum. The search engine will generally give you similar content as your last viewed subject, but keep it, and yourself, guessing as to what is next on the list. Absorb all sides to be informed and logical in your own opinions.
50% of comments are about the chairs
40% of comments are about how shitty pangburn is
9% of comments are about jordan peterson
1% of comments are about the content of conversation in this video
This sadly is the case.
"All you've done is provide ammunition to..." - I use that phrasing a lot when I see people who I agree with using bad arguments/ buying into unverified stats. Somehow, regardless of the group you still get vilified by many like minded people just for being unwilling to defend your position dishonestly. Thank you so much for saying this Matt, I feel vindicated.
My buddy described it as "Giving them a 'rhetorical advantage over truth'"
8000 people thought they'd be the only one making a chair joke.
Jesus, those chairs will be the subject of laughter of this video for as long as its on the web - Pangburn do something.
My two heroes! Legends!
I, too, love those chairs
@@eightequalsequalsdee 😂
One of the greatest things Christopher Hitchens taught us is “That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence”. If we are to be intellectually honest and applied this reasoning across the board instead of just with religion, then I don’t see how anyone can be a fan of anonymous accusations of rape and sexual abuse.
Dillahunty is a bit of a feminazi. He should dye his beard blue.
Yeah I agree. So hypocritical of matt. If we are gonna believe things based on anecdotes then why not believe angels, alien abductions, faith healings and all other nonsense. Some people ditch one ideology and pick another and they fail to apply same standards of skepticism to it. Matt is one of them.
Right on
Not sure you know what the word anyonymous means...
A victim testimony is evidence, legally and rationally. A witness takes the stand so their answers are entered into evidence => they are evidence. There is no anonymity but these are still "only" allegations. There is this nonsense assumption only independent facts matter. That is actually not how western justice systems work. In a given case the supporting evidence could be simply about whose testimony is more trustworthy, e.g. if one side answers all questions and even honestly admits ignorance about details while the other testimony evades answers and makes false statements the trustworthiness of one testimony goes up and that of the other goes down. The same goes about corborating evidence that suggests one witness has no reason to lie while the other does.
It is about the collection of all evidence and how they weigh in to judge the circumstances of a certain case.
That is where the concept of reasonable doubt comes in and again "reasonable" does not imply "none" so obviously uncertainty is acceptable. Now the threshold of reasonable is debatable and depends on the justice system of a country, I think in the US it can depend on direct instructions by the judge to the jury.
There is also a small difference between scientific descriptions of reality and about fact finding the truth in a specific event of human interaction. Making the claim these are the same is a false equivalency and ignores the different purposes of these procedures.
@@mangalores-x_x The victim testimony is neccesary evidence but not suficient evidence. I think this sumarises your thoughts xd
Philosophy and Science is important and all, and I'm glad that Lawrence and Sam finally got the chance to get together to debate but what do you guys really think about the chairs?
Oh cool! A video we don't have to pair for. Nice one! So when are the JBP & SH debates coming out?
check the internet ;)
There is a leaked version on youtube
Thank yous!
Guys , this is great but I really need more chair! I’ve got a fever and the only prescription is more chair!
The sarcasm over the chair is underrated.
1:17:33 We already know one feasible way to achieve this. You make a cocktail of three different drugs that all target the same mode of depression, but differ in their side effects everywhere else, so the side effects are more diffuse, but these broad side-effects are all at 1/3 of the previous level (which hopefully in most cases is modest or unnoticeable). But this involves solving a very complicated and messy cooperation and responsibility problem (with three drugs involved, from three different companies, what do you do when people start dying from an unexpected interaction with other factors?)
A new scientific commandment " thou shall not sit thy Gods in silly chairs, lets their heads look tiny and thy ridiculous chairs take away the attention of their reasons"
The only problem with this is that Matt & Sam agree on practically everything.
Fr 😂
The seat size has been picked accordingly; love them both!
What a nice surprise!
the comments are summarized in: talk about the chairs
I'm a few years late, but I have to acknowledge the young woman that asked a question at about 1:28:47. She is in a very similar boat that I am, i.e., practicing mindfulness meditation, while living with anxiety and panic attacks. It was a great question, and a hell of a way to confront her anxiety head-on. Sam's answer was extremely helpful as well, in case anyone else is in a similar situation.
YEAH!
Nice
Should I be expecting a bill in the mail for this one?
Best comment!
🤣🤣🤣
I remember when this was relevent.
mutantdog - Congratulations. Your short term memory works.
Thanks, i'd celebrate but i forgot where i left my drinks.
Long term memory... this is months old
why is this irrelevant now ?
Many people who follow these discussions have already heard audio of this. I heard it several months ago; releasing the video doesn't make it a new discussion.
The whole time I just couldn't stop thinking how comfortable that table looks.
3 chairs to this, I liked the chairs from the crowd ,all the best and chairs from new zealand.
Sam looks criminally understimulated
Dillahunty Dresses like a Russian Oligarch from Siberia.. he especially loves these (Chester Field ) Imperial style Sofas. it gives him feeling like he is the Emperor of "Science & Reason Kingdom" ...
Sergey Panfilov self project much?
@@megganbeck6772 project the idea of self projecting much ?
crazymuthaphukr it’s ok I’ll just block you lol
@@megganbeck6772 not if I block you first!!!
I’m just here to give Pangburn grief over releasing the SH/JBP analysis video before the actual debate.
That is all...
The AlphaGo project was a little more sophisticated than going from 0 to mastery in 4 hours. They had to feed the AI many sample games and run it for days upon days of simulation. When it played the world's best player, it won 3 of 4 matches. Impressive, but i think they're slightly understating the process.
This is so outdated by now. 6 months is too long, Pangburn. You need to make serious alterations to your model of publication.
Pangburn still has our money from the expensive and cancelled event in Auckland. He's been reported to the NZ Commerce Commission. It's a shame that unscrupulous operators have moved in to corner this market.
Really? That is terrible! I hope something is done. I went to the Sydney event and right up to the event we didn't know when we were getting our tickets or if it was also going to be cancelled. Radio silence was unhelpful. A few of us wondered if we were going to be refunded the (I think) $45 International mailing fee we paid, seeing as none were mailed. I won't hold my breath. If they continue to conduct themselves this way they'll go under pretty quickly.
Chairs with Sam and Matt! New show.
The thumbnail for this vid at first glance looks like Sam is talking during a movie and Matt is looking back with a death stare to shut him up.
2:56 "much chair-ished"
I feel for matts concern. It's easier to sling shit than it is to clean up.
The best thing about this discussion is that we didn't have to put up with the metaphorical substrate of the ethos.
lol I could be wrong but I take it that’s a dig at Peterson.
These guys totally failed on the gun question. Peterson was right
The first impression I had of Lawrence Krauss seems to have been accurate.
100%
These chairs make them look shrunk.
Here’s a solution to social media “pressure”: Don’t have an account.
The thumbnail looks like Matt was sleeping in the chair was startled up and surprised to see Sam
I never realized how short Matt and Sam are