Sam Harris
I truly believe that Sam Harris is the smartest philosopher alive, the clarity and precision of his insights is impressive. Although this is certainly not the case, he appears to be almost infallible. I dont want to sound like a fan boy but, can you thnk of anyone whose books I could read, or videos I could watch who is more brilliant and insightful than him? He is just so logical and mathematical with his arguments, I always try to come with counterarguments to what he says but what he says simply makes a lot of sense! What other people like him could I follow?
Comments (85)
Out Of all the new atheists, he probably annoys me the least. I appreciate that he practices meditation, that he doesnt seem to have much of an ego, and I respect that he's been cogently and politely critical of Islamism (I'm not sure all of his arguments hold), but other than that, it's just more flash in the pan religio-atheism, as far as I can tell. Of course, his ideas might take hold and continue to influence western thought, for as long as it's around.
Quoting rickyk95
Yes, many...
Ken Wilber.
Christopher Lasch.
Danny Dunn and the Anti-Gravity Paint, by Jay Williams
Christopher Hitchens had a nearly-unmatched erudition, combined with an acerbic and pointed style of argumentation. I would recommend not only his writings, but the copious amount of videos of his debates, lectures, and interviews, available on YouTube. This is not to say that the man was perfect, either in his arguments or his interpersonal style, but his was a unique mind, greatly missed and not easily replicated. Alas, weathering The Age of Trump is just a bit tougher without his biting social commentary.
Noam Chomsky -- superior in almost every way. A true intellectual. I love Sam, but he only approaches Chomsky's level.
This is true.
I seriously applaud you! A true seeker after wisdom and knowledge! This is rare.
Sam Harris and all the other proselytizing atheists...are simply pitching a different compound of the snake oil theists sell.
Nothing wrong with doing so. I mean that sincerely.
And I suppose there is nothing wrong with folk like you thinking that some people are more adept at selling the oil than others.
But when you take off the packaging...all you have is snake oil.
I didn't read the rest, but I have a definite opinion that I wanted to toss out. Of all the so-called "public intellectuals" out there, Sam Harris is in my opinion the absolute dumbest of the lot. He's just a stupid man that is (1) educated; and (a) articulate to the max. And he has such a calm, soothing delivery. His ideas are just dumb. But he's stylish, I enjoy watching him talk
Whats an example of one of his dumb ideas?
Just an impression I have. Nothing in particular that I remember, although I usually find something when I watch one of his videos.
What I have learned about Atheists and intellectuals in general is that they don't actually have an education until they understanding sociology and political theory, specifically the rich variety of humanist thought contained in the Liberal tradition. And this does not mean Libertarians or Ayn Rand. Many Atheists make the mistake of thinking that these are powerful liberal philosophies simply because they make so much reference to reason. This is how Atheists and so many others who are seeking to flee from superstition get sucked in. If an Atheist thinker really wants to begin in the direction of a good Liberal education he would do well to begin with something like Herbert Marcuse's One Dimensional Man.
Which one of his works was that in?
I don't think Harris is really a genuine philosopher, but what this neuroscientist is, is one of the best intelligent academic commentators and interviewers who is thoughtful, respectful in an era where others hurl accusations and vitriol.
Of course that Harris belongs to what is loosely called "the intellectual dark web" may raise hostility in PF, as other member of the group are widely hated here... at least by some. Usually this is just a knee-jerk reaction.
What makes a philosopher “genuine”?
a) that the person says/admits/confesses that he or she is a philosopher / puts it as the first thing in his or her CV
b) That enough of those in academic philosophy departments regard the person as a philosopher, a peer
c) that he has published well received literature in philosophy
d) and that people generally describe the person as a philosopher.
I understand, I was just curious what your criteria was.
From what you posted, it seems like you just mean a professional or working philosopher?
There are many consistent, logical tautologies that make sense but are not truth. Truth and nifty models of the world are not always the same thing. Personally I find his world view monstrous. He even tried to justify torture.
Something like that, yes.
Harris talks to larger public and typically explains the more advanced terms etc. and tries to keep his talk as understandable as possible. A very good communicator in my view.
I agree with you, I think Harris is a very good communicator. Id say his job is a public intellectual, if that term means anything.
People hate him though, so the clarity of his points gets lost in the emotional reactions he provokes in people. There are a few of these public figures that are like that, the mere mention of their names taps into a ready waiting mob that feel like they need to tear him down.
Well, any non-woke commentator will get at least irritation from the woke identity politics crowd from the left. I guess Sam Harris got his baptism of fire and the full wrath of that crowd after presenting his views on islam. And have to say, Harris does take it under his skin (which is understandable) and for example his conversation with mainstream journalist Ezra Klein some time ago was simply painful to listen, even if both tried to be cordial.
Thats true, there is always resistance from that crowd. I guess I more mean people who are against certain intellectuals who aren’t necessarily the fringe left. Harris is often attacked with strawmen, accusations of racism and bigotry with no basis, misrepresentations of his political views etc. People will straight up lie in attempts to smear him...they so despise him that they can justify dishonesty. I see it with others too, like if you disagree with the person you have to hate them and do whatever you can to discredit them regardless of its legitimacy. Ezra Klein is a good example of this with Harris, even though Harris let it get to him it was clear to me Ezra wasnt arguing In good faith and I know from other exchanges that Ezra knew he was misrepresenting Harris.
(and he extends this to the idea of treating beliefs AS actions. We can't tolerate certain beliefs and we must treat them as fait accompli actions. Interesting what happens if you apply this to his beliefs about torture,say)
Thats the first sentence of a paragraph, which explains what exactly he meant by that. Perhaps you disagree with it, but thats not the same as “dumb”.
What is it about that you think is dumb?
I think there's a wide agreement in the scientific community that there indeed have to rules and limitations to research. Starting from the oath of Hippocrates, it is obvious that there is both a moral and a societal issue here. I do remember, just to give an example, the researchers that cloned Dolly the sheep were first asking for a serious public discussion and regulation on human cloning.
Go back hundred years or more and you would find firm believers in eugenics etc. in the academic scene in many universities with really bad societal ideas. Now there aren't anymore those kind of "scientific racists" as in the 19th Century and early 20th Century, so I think is more of a topic of PC scaremongering and something dear to the few real racists among us.
And coming to the topic of the thread, I remember Sam Harris saying that the racial IQ discourse is simply dumb.
That sounds like most people, not just racists. Anything other than admitting they are wrong or that they dont know, ad hoc rationalisations etc etc, all very human.
https://www.storyfit.com/blog/new-ai-emma-identity-detects-distinct-writing-styles
In any event, I have for the past couple of days been watching a lot of Sam Harris clips; and I think I can give a better answer to what it is that I don't like about him. Some things I like. He has a calming delivery and he gets off some good lines and has a way of verbally. clarifying the obvious. I just don't consider him particularly smart. Or at the very least, not particularly deep or interesting.
I originally said that I don't consider him very bright. And what I mean is, he's witty, but it's the wit of a precocious 16 year old who just discovered that the world doesn't work the way they were told. So he makes a joke about praying over your breakfast pancakes to turn them into God, in order to mock the Catholic belief that the wafers are literally the body of Christ.
Well ok, he's right about the analogy. The pancake image is funny. He has a great deadpan delivery.
But it's essentially a puerile observation. Many volumes have been written across the ages about the meaning of the Eucharist. Harris offers no scholarly insight into the practice. And say what you will, there are 1.2 billion Catholics in the world. You can't dismiss their earnest and heartfelt beliefs with pancake jokes. A philosopher has to account for the undeniable power of religious faith in the hearts of so many of the world's people.
My recent Sam Harris binge has confirmed my original opinion. Puerile is the word. Childish, silly, trivial. He is entertaining and satisfies our pseudo-intellectual urges. But a deeper question would be why 1.2 billion people derive personal value in their lives from the wafers. I'm not a Catholic and I'm not religious. But I recognize the awesome power, for good and for evil, of religion in the world. Dismissing religion as superstitious claptrap makes some people feel good about themselves. But if we are to claim to be philosophers or "public intellectuals," we must give a thoughtful, intellectually satisfying account of those 1.2 billion. This, Harris does not do.
Harris is superficially clever but lacking in depth; and ultimately intellectually unsatisfying.
New, new atheists:
Steven Woodford (Rationality Rules)
Alex O'Connor (CosmicSkeptic)
Political/Social commentary:
Douglas Murray
Jonathon Haidt
Claire Lehmann
Science and Society
Bret & Eric Weinstein
Steven Pinker
This site uses Google Analytics, which places a tracking code on every page, so that every time you visit a page, Google knows about it. Google also indexes page content, and of course Google owns Youtube. I don't know much about this technology, but theoretically, putting all this together, it is possible that the pages that you browse affect the choice of suggested videos. (I block google-analytics.com, and I keep Google login confined to those instances where I actually need it - although Google also keeps track of IP addresses.)
Quoting fishfry
This.
Yes, he certainly goes on to explain what he means.
Nor are they mutually exclusive. IOW you just told me that the reason I gave it as an example of one of his ideas that I consider dumb is because I disagree with it. (and yes, you said, 'perhaps' but since it is obvious I disagree with it, so your reminding me of something I do not need to be reminded of/told, is assuming I conflate my disagreement with an idea with that ideas dumness.) This is mindreading. He's obviously a very smart person and he does make a case. However very smart people can make well thought out cases for ideas that are dumb. I think there are a lot of problems with treating thoughts/beliefs as the equivalent of actions.
Quoting DingoJonesThe combination of considering beliefs to be the moral and practical equivalent of actions AND a justification for torture is dumb. As in such a pernicious idea that goes against the core values of Western liberalism (not in the sense of conservative against liberal) that it is actually more aligned with the worst of Islamic fundamentalism than the culture it is supposed to be defending. We are not just attacking freedom of speech, with the combination of these ideas, we are attacking freedom of thought and belief. Something radical Islam, the supposed justification for this radical shift in values is supposedly against. I think that is dumb. I think it is dumb that he doesn't notice this, though, yes, he makes an intelligent, though flawed defense of his position. I also think it is dumb that he did not take responsibility for the problems created by his ideas, which were pointed out by many readers, and simply denied the conclusion. Saying one does not believe the conclusions that can logically be deduced from one's positions without explaining how the deduction is incorrect is dumb. Because he should know how people can use texts for their own ends, including violence. He should know that factions within the government like torture and would love to have an apologist for the justification of extending the use of torture to people based on beliefs.
Further he should know, as a modern intellectual, how people's beliefs can often extremely accurately be determined by the various social media companies. In fact they sell this information. And the intelligence services monitor this information. IOW once we have decided that beliefs are the same as actions AND we have a system in place to determine even unsaid (publically at least) beliefs, we have a machine of totalitarianism in place that rivals, say, Stasi and the current Iranian Islamic regime. I think it is dumb that he doesn't realize he is going against Western ideas and that his position, on this, share more with belief systems he does not like and wants to fight.
I think howeverly cleverly it is argued that we treat belefs as actions, it is dumb because of what an actual implementation of such a concept would lead to. And if someone wants to argue that terrorism is so bad that it's OK to treat Islam this way, governments tend not to contain/limit precedents, they extend them. Why only with some POTENTIAL crimes and criminals? the government or intelligence official can ask. I think it shows ignorance (that is, is dumb) of history and even of Enlightenment values.
IOW I think it is dumb how he doesn't seem to notice that he is going radically against Western values. Ones that for example removed us from the reign of conceiving heresy and blasphemy and atheism as crimes. What he considers punishable sins are different but it is dumb to not notice that the problem is not content by form. He is setting an anti-Western precendent and one heartily accepted by his enemies, the Islamic terrorists. Yes, we can treat your beliefs as actions. Or you lack of beliefs. You are not innocent.
Yes you can. Especially given the means of Catholic ubiquity (violence, war, incarceration, totalitarianism, etc.), that ubiquity is not a defence of any Catholic idea. And the worse the idea, the more theology is required to rationalise it, so the vast literature on the Eucharist is an indictment, not a defence. The Eucharist is an absurd practice, the absurdity held at bay only by normalisation through endless repetition and by unquestioned indoctrination. Like almost every aspect of religion, this does not demand a sophisticated rebuttal on the believers' own terms.
That said, Sam Harris has never impressed me either. I don't really get what the OP sees in him. He strikes me as a lefty Jordan Peterson type: a sufficiently eloquent orator to inspire and elevate an unpopular and underground movement, largely on the internet, but by no means an honest or insightful thinker. Maybe I've missed his finest hour on YouTube. If anyone has a link, I'm willing to learn.
And I say this as someone who is generally very much behind the idea of something like a "moral science", but I think Harris has its foundations completely wrong, and those should be questioned; but questioning it doesn't mean we can't get on with doing actual good in the meanwhile.
Harris comes off to me (by proxy) as akin to a physicist saying "stop doing philosophy of science / epistemology / ontology, just accept [my preferred philosophy of science / epistemology / ontology] and get on with doing the science!" And even though I am a hard-core physicalist who thinks we definitely should continue being on with doing the science, that doesn't mean we don't need to defend and shore up its philosophical underpinnings against those who would sabotage the project from beneath.
Google is practically Yog Sothoth at this point:
What is the foundations that Harris gets wrong?
Ethical naturalism, basically. Which wouldn’t be such a problem is all he meant was “not supernaturalism” or “not divine command theory”, because those are even more wrong. But there’s a lot more nuances in metaethics he’s insisting that we should just ignore; there’s a lot of problems that naturalism and the alternatives he‘s probably thinking of have in common.
Thats not the argument he makes about morality. Also, Where does he make this insistence to ignore?
I assume you are referring to The Moral Landscape? You said you had “little exposure” to Harris, yet you seem pretty confident he is wrong so Im wondering where youre getting this from.
Its hard to say without a specific reference, but it seems to me you’ve been misinformed, Harris fans or not.
His moral views start with the concept of “well being”, and whats good or bad is dependent on what relationship that thing has to well being. He makes his whole argument based on that, and he puts in the work to argue why its a valid axiom. I understand why someone would think he means ethical naturalism, but its not really where its grounded.
Thats the gist of his premiss fir The Moral Landscape, which I would say is the primary expression of his ethical views.
Yeah, any person who says something as simplistic as this either hasn't truly engaged with the person they're condemning, or doesn't have the emotional intelligence to avoid equating someone they disagree with with "stupidity." Or, as is usually the case, they're simply envious of said person's success.
Sam Harris is by no means a stupid man, although I happen to disagree with him a lot.
Act less like an internet troll. Otherwise: try Twitter.
What they’ve told me is that Harris wants to just give an operational definition of “good” as “conducive to human flourishing” or something along those lines, and then get on with figuring out what is conducive to human flourishing, putting aside any further arguments about whether “conducive to human flourishing” really works as a definition of “good”.
That kind of definition pretty much is the archetype of ethical naturalism, held by e.g. utilitarians. As it happens I think that “conducive to human flourishing” and “good” are more or less coextensive so it would be good to get on with figuring out what is conducive to human flourishing, but that doesn’t serve well enough as a DEFINITION, and bypasses a bunch of nuanced ethical and metaethical questions besides that.
Those questions are still worth looking into, and can be looked into simultaneously with doing a “science of morality” that is just investigating what causes human flourishing, just like we can still do science simultaneously with doing philosophy of science and don’t have to either wait for the latter to be finished before we do the former, or give up on the latter entirely since we can start doing the former without it.
Well I dont think he is setting anything aside, but yes he posits the human flourishing as an axiom. He does make his case for that, its not just something he presumed.
When Harris refers to “science”, he is talking about reason and rationality. I never really understood why he did that, but he specifically spends time on it. To me it just confuses things needlessly.
Quoting Pfhorrest
See I dont recognise this restriction from anything ive read/heard. Im hardly an authority though so maybe these people had different info.
There can be those sorts of disagreements or divergence without effecting Harris’s arguments. Thats what the moral landscape means, the peeks and valleys of various moral questions and answers. He allows for multiple peeks (different but equally valid moral conclusions) and valleys (human suffering) that can all function from the same standard.
I think it would be worthwhile to do some reading or look into some of the debates/talks Harris did on The Moral Landscape. His arguments are pretty thorough and address most criticisms. Id be interested in discussing how I (or anyone else) disagree with Harris but I'm not keen on (probably poorly) trying to articulate his entire arguments piece-mail.
The question as I see it is how he argues for it, and this is where Harris seems weak to me. I mostly know him from his speeches against religion, and he doesn't come across as particularly honest. For instance, he substitutes religion in general for specific religions and vice versa at will, casting the war between science and religion as a general religious problem because that's what suits that argument on the one hand but then demoting religion to an almost meaningless umbrella term when it becomes necessary to show how the violence and intolerance of a religion is driven by specific dogma (e.g. there are no Amish suicide bombers). I think honesty is a pre-requisite of intelligence.
I've never felt he argued eruditely (articulately, yes; wittily, yes), and this seems to be the main criticism those who would otherwise be sympathetic have. He describes the state of the art of fields and the consistent feedback, even from the likes of fellow horseman Dennett , is that he just doesn't understand those fields.
Maybe his books are better, but this does seem similar to the Lost fanboy argument: whenever I decided not to watch any more of it was coincidentally when friends who were fans insisted it "got good".
Good points fishfry. I can't say too much about Harris in particular, but your description seems a pretty good summary of atheist intellectual culture in general. Energetic and superficially clever, but not very deep or sophisticated.
As just one example, so much of the atheist discussion on philosophy forums and elsewhere seems to assume without questioning that religion is all about ideological beliefs, as if that was all there was to it. Culture, tradition, community, art, history, ceremony etc, all typically ignored.
To me, the most rational response to religion is not to accept or reject it, but to try to understand the human need that religion is attempting to address, and then find ways to meet that need that work for that person. Internet atheists rarely get this far, or even make the attempt. As you said, they are typically way too distracted by the "make people feel good about themselves" agenda.
That, in a nutshell, is the project of modernism. I disagree that the debate has been awaiting this sort of supply and demand. For instance, the religious appear to require creation narratives. That is common to most religions and describes an understandable desire for context.
Secularism has given us evolution and cosmology and this has gone down extremely badly with many religious, especially Christians, especially in America. The issue is not that secular science failed to address needs: it was deemed to fail because it was inconsistent with particular beliefs.
Science concerns itself with facts about reality. Intellectual.
Religion concerns itself with our relationship with reality. Emotional.
Two very different agendas.
What confuses the issue is that religions often make claims about reality in the effort to manage the relationship. Such claims are just the tip of the relationship management iceberg. Other techniques such as community, service, tradition, ceremony etc help illustrate that there is a larger agenda than just making factual claims.
If I understand correctly, Harris has an interest in meditation, which is good, as that's an attempt to address the underlying fundamental human needs which arise out of the nature of thought itself.
Depends how you define secularism. I would argue that using the scientific method doesn't mean that you are a firm proponent of metaphysical naturalism. But of course for those Christians that have problems with evolution or science in general are one type of Christian believers who think they are the true believers and others are perhaps only CINOs, "Christians in name only".
Irrespective of the views of the individuals, science is a secular discipline. It does not depend on the teachings of any church, is not constrained to study and report on that consistent with any church dogma, and does not consider historical texts absolute truth.
Then I put it to you that a significant step forward would be for religions to give up pretending they have facts about creation and history, admit that it's all just emotive storytelling, and cease filling children's heads with false facts and interfering with teachers' job at teaching them scientific facts.
Nope, not me. I'm happy to agree that that religion should make no claims to fact.
And it actually doesn't promote atheism either, even if many draw that conclusion.
It's just a method.
I'm not saying you're wrong- in any way. It's just this is probably the EXACT same quote geocentrists said to real scientists not that long ago, usually before imprisoning them or worse. You can blame religion, or you can blame the true common element, which is dogma. Rather, ignoring an often spoken about but seldom applied bit of wisdom: "the only thing I know is that I know nothing".
Scientific doctrine essentially demands extraterrestrial life exists. Aliens, man. Call them what you will. Say one shows up and says "Yeah, it all happened. We're your gods. Check that out". Then that would be that.
Rigid belief systems of any kind can and will thwart progress for the believer. That includes outdated scientific theory, if one makes a belief system out of it. However, to thwart the progress for generations to come, you need a religion. Me not accepting the big bang is unlikely to affect my great granddaughter. Me converting to Christianity and believing in Genesis and that non-believers will burn in eternity for hell is likely to affect my great granddaughter a lot.
Everyone should be free to believe whatever makes sense to them, no matter how out of date or stupid. But no one should have the power to stop someone else, including their children, from being capable of taking on new information.
It's also worth remembering that the geocentrists who imprisoned heliocentrists were the Inquisition. That's not a coincidence.
Right. Like I said, you're comparing religion to science as if they were both fact finding enterprises, and then declaring science the best method of finding facts. This is the classic forum atheist misunderstanding, endlessly repeated on every philosophy forum. It's mostly a fantasy superiority pose built upon ignorance.
If you want to review and critique religion we should do so by measuring religion against it's own goals. How well is religion in general or a particular religion helping people manage their relationship with reality?
Let's imagine we have a young child dying of cancer. They're afraid about what's coming next. Whatever explanation we choose to share, how well does that explanation ease the child's fears and help them come to terms with what they face? How well does the story we tell help them manage their relationship with reality?
Would it be good religion to tell the child that they were born for no known reason in to short life full of pain and next they will be a rotting slab of meat in the ground? Such an explanation might be a reasonable scientific theory, but it would probably suck as a religion, right?
Funnily enough I agree that Harris is the smartest philosopher alive. I urge people to try and read ‘The Moral Landscape’ and not be impressed.
I also agree that ‘public intellectual’ describes him pretty well, but that shouldn’t mean that we dismiss him. I find so much of analytic philosophy barking up the wrong tree so Harris I find refreshing just on pure hit rate of what he gets correct.
In a similar vein I like Sean Carrol a lot. A physicist by training he doesn’t (in my opinion) have the same hit rate of correctness as Harris in philosophy but often has interesting things to say. I like his Ask Me Anything podcasts which you can find on YouTube.
But generally, Harris is a one off - there’s not many that really approach him for mine.
That we can actually produce such narratives from any text shows that we have a narrative function for interpreting in the world … such a function is far from meaningless and is actually something that humans excel at and live in every single day of our lives.
It kind of baffled me how he could not see that the thing he pointed out is the most meaningful item there possibly is in human history … that is why we have history.
All said and done, I do not think he is a complete waste of time, just lacks humility sometimes and his attempts to rectify this generally fail - the exchange with Chomsky was cringeworthy.
I don’t think Harris would argue about the importance of narratives or stories. His bit about the recipe (from memory) was simply to illustrate that it is very easy to read significance into text even when it is not intended, or borderline absent.
Harris will readily admit that there is some good to be found in religion, but that religion is rarely necessary to find that goodness, such that we needn’t put up with the obvious harms that religion also brings.
I think he does a reasonable job of being a spokesperson for ‘science’ in general. He sure as hell is not the best philosopher in the world … that had to be one of the most crazy labels I have heard attached to him, a bit like calling Jordan Peterson a philosopher. Both of them have a narrow field of expertise that they seem to believe to be much broader (or rather their ‘fans’ seem to believe that).
He is not a philosopher really. He is a neuroscientist with an interest in politics regarding the atheist movement (which was certainly called for in US).
Glad I wasn’t the only one who cringed. As a general fan of Harris, I was really disappointed. I was hopeful for a meaningful exchange, but Sam simply could not hear the answers Chomsky gave about American “intention” regarding Al Shifa.
Too bad.
I see comments like this on the reg, yet it looked like Chomsky was the dill from my vantage point! I seem to be in the minority about this so perhaps a bias toward Harris on my behalf.
I am not really talking about Harris' breadth of knowledge when I praise him. One can be an extremely good philosopher with a narrow field of expertise!
The Youtube AI knows ... you inside out! Run (for your life)!
Quoting SophistiCat
:scream: and also very :cool:
As for Sam Harris, I'd say his rhetorical skills are over the top! He's also proficient in logic and that makes him a worthy opponent.
He is no more a ‘good philosopher’ than I was a ‘good tennis player’ in my youth. Meaning I could beat all of my friends but they were not exactly seasoned pros or semi-pros.
I still find him worth listening to from time to time and would never simply dismiss him because he has made some - what I consider - poor remarks.
Socrates was charged with impiety which probably means he made some rather snarky comments about god(s) [re Euthyphro's dilemma] which was a polite way of saying god(s) is/are either unnecessary and/or undesirable i.e. atheism.
Then you either weren’t paying attention or you were clouded by prejudice towards Sam. I can’t see any way around it.
It’s as if you watched the Chomsky/William F Buckley conversation and came away believing Buckley looked good and Chomsky the “dill.” Come on.
He sometimes can string together some interesting observations, maybe once every 3 hours in his podcast. Not much more.
The worst of the so called "New Atheists". Hitchens used to be fantastic but went hard right the last decade of his life.
Dawkins and Dennett are quite good in many respects.
Maybe you’re unaware of how aggressive this post looks in a cold reading. I was up front about my bias toward Harris and gave an opinion on who it appeared to me came out looking better. No need to get exasperated!
From your point of view: a man being wrong on the internet - well there’s plenty of those out there :)
Fair enough. To each his own!
Thanks! No hard feelings, I realise I’m in the minority with this opinion haha :)