http://www.salon.com/2016/01/09/new_...moral_leaders/

I am getting pretty damned tired of reading of Harris described as a
"neruoscientist.". In fact, for that matter, I'm getting damned tired
of him being described as a "philosopher," too. He has a Ph.D in
neuroscience (which shows up as a misspelled word, for what it's worth),
but he never worked in the field beyond obtaining his degree and he
never taught it. As far as "philosopher" goes, he took an undergraduate
degree in it. Big effing deal. I took a few philosophy courses as an
undergraduate, too. I think Harris is, at best, a pop philosopher.
He's a pretty smart guy, to be sure, but he has never undertaken the
serious long-term - and SUPERVISED - study that I think a person needs
in order to be taken seriously as a philosopher. For what it's worth, I
think he's kind of an arrogant know-it-all - someone suffering from
smartest-boy-in-the-room syndrome.

I think a lot of the same can be said about Dawkins. He's now a
professional nag; not really active as a biologist.

Anyway, neither nag, Harris nor Dawkins, can make a compelling case for
"veganism." They can't even make a case for vegetarianism as a response
to the alleged horrors of so-called "factory farming," a stupid
pejorative term with as little concrete meaning as "assault weapon."

2016-01-12, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> Anyway, neither nag, Harris nor Dawkins, can make a compelling case for
> "veganism." They can't even make a case for vegetarianism as a response
> to the alleged horrors of so-called "factory farming," a stupid
> pejorative term with as little concrete meaning as "assault weapon."

The fact that it still exists is a perfectly logical case against it.
Get educated and get *plonk*ed.

--
:q!