Bill Maher on the "ethical treatment of animals"

[brimstoneSalad]

Oh, that was just about his misuse of the word literally?

Yes.

So what if he frames it like he's being reasonable and open minded? He's just mistaken about that.

When did he ignore criticism? When did he not accept correction?

He's not just mistaken. That entire segment was him rationalizing his position, in response to critics. If he accepted correction, he wouldn't hold those views anymore. He brushed off, repeatedly, the opposition's views represented in one of those panelists.

Ignoring, rationalizing, refusing to change his position.

It makes sense that he doesn't identify that way, because with that movement comes the "vaccines cause autism" ideas etc.

They've backed off that a bit, finally. Now they've switched to "children are getting too many vaccines" and "they're getting them all at once, they should space them out!".

Anti-vaccination light. It's the new way to question vaccinations and undermine the credibility of the medical establishment through ignorant layman opinions.

And even if he was an anti-vaxxer, he'd just be wrong. That doesn't make him arrogant.

He makes himself arrogant. He has clearly gotten a lot of shit for these views, or he wouldn't have felt compelled to defend himself.

Hm, ok, fair. I think these are better examples (I added them in an update, but it was after you wrote this response).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkHo91jeh50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiMS4FvNX_g

Sounds like he's echoing Harris and Hitchens, but less reasonably and less eloquently respectively. He's not offering anything new to the conversation. Also, not necessarily right in doing so.

Why do you think it's so low?

Anti-GMO
Conspiracy theorist
Skeptical of vaccinations
Against aspartame, etc.
Doesn't understand the difference between doctors and scientists
Constantly makes errors about religion and atheism
Misrepresents his opponents in order to better mock them

I could go on. There are very few cases where he fully understands something and gets it completely right.

The best I've seen him do is on climate change. On that point, he is correct, it's a big fudging deal. But, of course, I don't think he actually understands it so much as is taking it based on what other people say.

[EquALLity]

He's not just mistaken. That entire segment was him rationalizing his position, in response to critics. If he accepted correction, he wouldn't hold those views anymore. He brushed off, repeatedly, the opposition's views represented in one of those panelists.

Ignoring, rationalizing, refusing to change his position.

According to him, it was because of the media's attitude, and because it was a hot topic.

Bill Maher didn't ignore the guy in the middle. He rationalized and his position didn't change, but that doesn't automatically make him arrogant.

But I'm not a starving child in Africa. Ok yes if I was starving I would eat a GMO food, but that's not the case here.

We don't know and we don't trust Monsanto. If there's one company I don't trust above all it is Monsanto.

They've backed off that a bit, finally. Now they've switched to "children are getting too many vaccines" and "they're getting them all at once, they should space them out!".

Anti-vaccination light. It's the new way to question vaccinations and undermine the credibility of the medical establishment through ignorant layman opinions.

Oh, I didn't know about that. The autism thing is still alive though, apparently. I was surprised at this comment by Vegan Gains at 7:32: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shW8HVHYunQ

It still makes sense that he wouldn't want to identify that way because of the inevitable association, and the term anti-vax. and I don't see how that makes him arrogant.

He makes himself arrogant. He has clearly gotten a lot of shit for these views, or he wouldn't have felt compelled to defend himself.

He was apparently having a reaction to the media and discussing it because it was a hot topic.

But it does look like that a few years ago he got a lot of shit for similar views, about his supposed germ theory denial etc.. He maintains that he doesn't deny germ theory.

Sounds like he's echoing Harris and Hitchens, but less reasonably and less eloquently respectively.

Why do you assume he's echoing? I wasn't presenting those videos to show his original ideas, though, just as intelligent statements.

Also, not necessarily right in doing so.

What do you mean?

Conspiracy theorist

What?

Constantly makes errors about religion and atheism

What errors?

Misrepresents his opponents in order to better mock them

When?

[brimstoneSalad]

He rationalized and his position didn't change, but that doesn't automatically make him arrogant.

I kind of think it does. He has a political talk show, of course he's arrogant (it's kind of a necessity).
I don't think there are any popular political pundits who aren't arrogant. I'm not criticizing him for being arrogant; arrogance is fine, as long as you're also right.

Most people would probably agree than I'm arrogant, and that's fine. You could say it's not arrogance, but confidence, if you're substantiated in that self opinion and assertiveness, but I'm not so sure there's a big difference between the two beyond perception (one person's confidence is another's arrogance).
What is objectively true or false, however, is the fact being advocated (whether it's done with humility or assertive confidence/arrogance).

'Arrogance' (or confidence) itself is fine, ignorance itself is forgivable, but the two together are intolerable.

I was surprised at this comment by Vegan Gains at 7:32: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shW8HVHYunQ

Hopefully he takes a lot of flak for that. And if he changes his views, then he was just ignorant. If he sticks to it, then he's an idiot.
It's hard to guess how somebody will respond to something.

There are a lot of things that I don't really agree with him on, though those are kind of borderline matters, this is pretty serious.

It still makes sense that he wouldn't want to identify that way because of the inevitable association, and the term anti-vax.

It doesn't make him not anti-vax when he says he isn't anti-vax, but still holds and advocates anti-vax ideas.
If he wants to try to be neutral on the topic, then he needs to just shut up about it, and stop trying to advocate some middle-ground.

Why do you assume he's echoing? I wasn't presenting those videos to show his original ideas, though, just as intelligent statements.

Like I said, occasionally he copies people who are smarter than he is.

What do you mean?

Jebus posted a thread recently on how he's moving away from criticizing religion (maybe you can find it?). That's what I mean. In a consequential sense, that kind of aggression may not be the right way to deal with the problem. And that's also coming from somebody (me) who uses by default very aggressive argumentation.

What?
What errors?
When?

Too much to answer. You might want to search some criticism of him.

To his credit, he was against the 9-11 conspiracy theories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Mahe ... y_theories

He has been right sometimes, but other times he is so incredibly wrong that, given the hit to miss ratio, assertiveness, and his resistance to correction, I can only conclude that he's an idiot.

By comparison,
Sam Harris is occasionally wrong about things, but not so blatantly wrong about things that are so obviously, empirically, logically false like that. And he's much more open to reasonable discourse.
So while Harris has said some very ignorant things, I don't think he's an idiot.