(Update: A reader brought to our attention that the rape of boys at Abu Ghraib has been mentioned in some news accounts of the prisoner abuse evidence. The Telegraph and other news organizations described "a videotape, apparently made by US personnel, is said to show Iraqi guards raping young boys." The Guardian reported "formal statements by inmates published yesterday describe horrific treatment at the hands of guards, including the rape of a teenage Iraqi boy by an army translator."
Salon com Article, Hersh: children sodomized at Ab Ghraib ON TAPE.
Some senators may have seen the tapes, not the first time this story has come up.
"Hersh said that after he broke Abu Ghraib people are coming out of the woodwork to tell him this stuff. He said he had seen all the Abu Ghraib pictures. He said, 'You haven't begun to see evil...' then trailed off. He said, 'horrible things done to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run.' He looked frightened."
Regarding rights of gay marriages. Logically, gays are citizens and should be equal to the task of any priviliedges anyone else has just like blacks, chinese, native Americans. Who denies this? Marriage does not come from god..it's about a piece of legal paper.
Also, proof that it's not a choice to be gay-
QUESTION to Heteros - Did you wake up one day at 15 or 16 years old and think "hmmmm today I'm going to be straight!"
i see that most of your comments fall within the lines we are discussing at my channel and all or most seem to agree with the complecated responce i gave you nothing is easy nothing is simple really listen to my videos what they are telling you as i am so go back to jdcriveau and again listen there is no plain simple answers just one main goal so continue to question me and i will list to you and like your video it was very indepth and must be listen several times to understand
i had to listen to this video several times for you send very mixed messages like churchill and japernese in camps yet against all and yet for all it seems much like you can not decide wht to say but finally after much though i feel you want to justified torture when you can justified touture then you can justify war the truth both can not be justified and both belong together they are both an evil we must guard against but yet an evil we are forced to use but never and i mean never justified
while it's true that most things are not black and white but rather shades of gray, it's also true that some issues are so close to black or so close to black that we can assume that some things are black or white. (for example slavery, equal rights for women, etc.)
"There very seldomly is an easy solution to a complicated situation or problem. However polititians usually offer such simple solutions, because that is what gets them re-elected." That is why I believe You should vote for that official, that seems to present a rather complicated solution. Even if that solution is harder to understand and takes longer to complete.
You seem to have left out a couple of zeroes. The bombing raids targeted towards the civilian population of Germany and Japan amount to at least more than one million casualties, although exact numbers are beyond our reach.
united we stand, divided we fall
Watch out what you wish for. I live in country in which historical reasons - poverty, harsh climate and natural conditions, our more powerful neighbours and occupiers - have created
(cont.) a climate of consensus on a variety of issues, and it is not a pretty sight. This consensus makes life very hard for anyone who strays from it.
both sides can have supporting logic. what we're really talking about when debating gay marriage is imposing a certain view or morality on others. people who are against gay marriage have a choice not to be involved in such a marriage. but they shouldn't have a right to impose their view on others. "good for the society" argument shouldn't apply when the opposing side isn't faced with physical harm. if 3 people want to get married then they should be able to. tradition is not a good argument.
It was a difficult video, but one of your best. I will say that I think the issue of being briefed is a bit of a red herring and a diversion. There is after all the difference between a neighbor watching in silence as someone gets there head pounded to the curb and the leader of the pack and telling someone to pound a dudes head into asphalt.
Thanks but my neighbor hasn't been and elected and sworn to uphiold the constitution nor is he or she supposed be be the cjhack and balance to the executive branch. Methinks your metaphor is faulty
Re:Gay marriage, you make a decent point, but the fact remains that we are denying an entire group of people a basic right that most hetero's take for granted. The bullshit notion of keeping the "sanctity" of marriage is ridiculous at best. No one is trying to force anyones church to perform said marriage,just that the state recognize the union. Implying that the state should protect the "sanctity" of marriage,puts the state in bed with religion.
Ok so ...an "Absolute Homo" would be someone with an unabashed and everlasting lust for men. And a "Relative Homo" would be someone who lusts after men, but only some of the time depending on the situation and the general perceived temperature of their particular society?
By this logic, I'd argue that battim classifies as an "Absolute Homo".
excellent video. I watched the video of a young man kneeling in front of three Taliban members as they spoke there native language into a video camera. After about ten minutes of this one of the men in the back proceeded to cut off the head of the twenty something yr old man with what looked like a pocket knife...i would call that torture. That boy knew he was gonna die, and in the worst way. This is war, and it's vile, but it's easy to point moral fingers from your couch.
It is not clear to me where you stand on torture Do you believe decisions like using trying to end WWII and avoid battle in Japan somehow make future controversial decisions OK Locking up japanese is recognized as a mistake With torture many ague that we should recognize mistakes to avoid doing it again
We are asked by the founders to strive for a more perfect union Their genius was in recognizing human weaknesses They expected the country to learn from mistakes and to live by laws
Torture should not be lessened in its meaning. If you do not need physical assistance, medical treatment, food or rest to recover from it, then it is not really torture.
All cruelty and inhumane treatment is not torture.
Calling too many things torture means that real torture will be lost in the masses of claims of torture and be over looked and ignored. The politically fashionable torture to talk about will be all that will matter and the victims of real torture will not matter at all.
Rest is certainly a convuluted idea. A two hour interrogation can be exhausting. I do agree with your premise that including loud music and koran flushing into the idea of torture does water down the impact of the term
all for one and one for all. better to think of that on a species level, humankind.
jack is the man.
I'm gonna watch it again, but, I don't see how obama is to blame for what bush did. obama is to blame for any deaths on his watch, as bush/cheney are to blame for all their killings. do you go as far as punishing the people inflicting the torture? the guys doing the actually boarding? They were following orders, but everyone in the free world knows torture is a crime against humanity.
I never claimed obama was repsonsible for any death. I am a bit lost as to where that came from. I was speaking to the crimes of former presidents. Not a present president
All of the US legal system is based upon situational ethics. It is why there are terms such as first offenders, manslaughter, first and second degree murder.
One of these men who was waterboarded, he cut an innocent man's head off with a knife in public. Al Quaeda said he was their man, he said he was their man. Then they killed thousands of US citizens.
If situations do not matter, then all about US law is wrong and all prison sentences should be the same. Prison is worse than waterboarding.
If you mean the refernce to the right being hypocritical on gay marriage my point was the constituion affords us certain individual liberties...equal access to contractual agreements is among them. The right seems to want to ignore this right to satify some absolutist claim gays canlt marry. I find it the height of hypocrisy on their part
The constitution is silent on marriage. No one has the right to take upon themself the tyranny to use its authority in order to force through laws or break down existing llaws.
the constitution is clear on equal protectin. it is also clear on contract law. marriage is a contract. the constitution is clear in that it afford americans those freedoms. it is silent on non american citizens rights during times of war....your point?
Marriage is more than a contract. A prommisory note to pay back a loan is a straight contract. Equal protection is equal protection under law. In some states homosexual marriage is unlawful. In order to make same sex marriage lawful via court ruling law must be discarded. In california is was put to the ballot. A direct democratic practice but not put to the court which must interpret the constitution. There is a precedent. Roe vs Wade was law via court action discarding proper law.
exactly, so congress should have the balls, or state legislators, to vote on it. i am not in favor of activist judges. that being said, if a court feels that homosexuals are a protected minority class, well, that is their interpretation of the law. the only way to get courts to not interpret the law is to pass a more specific one respective of gay marriage. Roe v. Wade assumed privacy was implied in the bill of rights, not sure i disagree with that.
Right. State gov'ts need to do this individually. If state legislators voted homosexual marriage legal it would be legal in that state and supported democratically indirectly by elections. As a personal note I no longer think democracy works for the best in America and would like to see a change. But that is neither here nor there for this discussion.
BTW I think that a proper examination of Roe vs Wade will show that not a shred of Constitutional principle was found in the ruling. It was just a wordy opinion that was full of pablum and claimed to follow the constitution. Hence now we have what is known as a "living Constitution". In other words we should look at what Kenya or France etc has to say about things lol.
it depends on how one defines privacy. as for a living constitution, the fact that it can be amended means that our founding fathers expected it to be living.
Based on privacy rights precedent based on the fourth amendment. Precedent interpetation is not objective...if it were there wouldn't be 9 justices...its called a legal opinion because its a subjective opinion. The point referred to you saying its nota living dpocument it certainly is....
they rewrote GODS laws and we made them kings on earth CHRIST JESUS told us to follow our heart to the soft toung we most keep the truth regaurdless death is not truth life is its like payin the bully to protect you when in truth you can protect yourself with truth
Well I can thinkl of a few of god's laws that contradict one another. Depends who your god is. The presupposition that god wrote these laws is based on nothing more than your faith in what some man told us was true. Even if I were to take the huge illogical premise that jesus was a god...he simply didn't write a word himself and we assume the scripture writers were human and contradicted each other on many occasions. It is flawed from the get go...
In reference to what the logic junky said. A reliable and potent energy source, or a abundant source of all commodities would completely change this hard wired human nature you speak of.
Logic junkie does not make the claim finding an energy souce will change hard wired behaviorial patterns. Slef interest and control of whatever energy source we use will not change the evolutionary byproduct known as self interest. To not see that we have strong inclionations toward predictable behavior ignores science and history. Are you claiming group dynamics and scitzophrenia and autism are myths
Logic junkie does not make the claim finding an energy souce will change hard wired behaviorial patterns. Slef interest and control of whatever energy source we use will not change the evolutionary byproduct known as self interest. To not see that we have strong inclionations toward predictable behavior ignores science and history. Are you claiming group dynamics and scitzophrenia and autism are myths
Excellent video. I am very uneasy with the whole torture thing. I see the validity of the argument you are making, and that Cheney or Bill O'Reilly makes on this subject, but I'm real uneasy as to how they make it, so 'simple' as you say. It seems they are trying to open the door for torture. To make it acceptable. We don't always manage to be consistent with our stated principles in this country, but our society is better off when we do manage to do so. We should keep trying.
I am not really making an argument one way or another actually, just pointing out that simplifying such complex issues as morally absolute without having an open discussion about history is faulty. I think water boarding is torture. I think torture is a bad means to an end...but humans have stepped over much larger lines to jutify means to an end and I find it difficult to feel sympathy for theocratic sociopaths
i find your video very illuminating battim. i was trying express the point of more fuzzy and complex logic but you did a better job of it. about absolutes there no real absolutes not really . beside core abolutes food,sex,shelter. nothing is true everything is permitted to quote Burroughs. hard wired behaviours can be overrided also
We are even finding out that even in the laws of physics there may not be absolutes. As for overcoming hardwired behaviors. Get back to me when you can live without a heartbeat. Hormonal excretion and breathing. These ate behaviors and the brain is not relative. A consciousness is simply a selected for product of a brain that has evolved over tiime. We don't overcome behavior. We simply rewrite what is reinforcable over the same instinctual mechanism.
the heart thing is a core abolutes. "We don't overcome behavior. We simply rewrite what is reinforcable over the same instinctual mechanism" if a mechanism can be rewritten it can be overcome pelov proves that
We have proven nothing about human behavior. We haven't even scratched the surface. Simply because some behaviors in some folks seem to change temporarily implies nothing. Seriously.
I would say that the one absolute truth here is that cultures need a reliable and potent energy source. And because those who pioneered and built their fortunes on oil, also chose to sabotage all efforts within the last 30-40 years to develop alternative widespread energy systems, we are now still dependent on oil. And, make no mistake: we cannot survive without it, because the other technologies are undeveloped, thanks to them.
Ultimately, we are fighting (and torturing) for control of oil.
And, also, the alpha-Muslims who control the Middle Eastern oil fields are, too. I suspect that their people are fighting so virulently now because they and our own "oil leaders" know something they've kept to themselves: that the oil fields are indeed going dry, and that the race is now on to control the last of it.
The main OPEC nations have barred western inspectors of their oil fields since around 1975 or so, and so we have only their "good word" that they're not lying about their levels.
When you consider that bluff and deception are time-honored strategies of tradition in Arabic societies -- especially in situations of actual, positional disadvantage -- then it is not stupid to expect that the Arab oil sheiks might not easily be putting a brave, false face on their astronomical oil capacity estimates that they report to the West. They would do this, and we would believe it.
But I think that the West takes no chances, and there are now high-tech methods of assessing
underground oil levels using various depth-adjustive density scanners, such as microwave beams from space satellites, and they could report if the density measurements under the ground of certain regions is characteristic of underground oil, and how much is there.
I personally think that the ruling cliques of both sides know the real truth about the oil supplies, and that is why there has been all this urgent warring, from seemingly out of nowhere, with no apparent reason.
And, finally, what I specifically mean by that, is that the ruling cliques of both sides have been using religion to try and whip up the mindless pawn-mobs of both cultural sides, to fight and die to protect their respective cliques' interests -- except for the fact that they don't disclose that oil is the reason; they don't need to, because they know that most of the people are so innately stupid that they can be enthralled into an angry mob frenzy simply by religion's charismatic lunacy alone.
Well these oil wars have gone on since england navy went to oil based engines in 1912. I haven't seen any more spike in it than ever, not that that makes your point about limited resources any less relevant. How long you think before we take out chavez.?
I agree the war in iraq was based in energy based geopolitical interests. But al quaeda and taliban have no control over energy. Al quaeda operative affect our supply of oil how?
the world is full of enemies, simply folks with different agenda. foreign policy seems to work when finding common geopolitical ground. for instance iran was originally cooperating with us in afghanistan in 2001. we blew that chance.
personally I feel torture no matter how you justify it is wrong, when you "torture" your enemy to gain information you have lowered yourself to the level of your enemy that you demonize. We justify it to yourself by saying "we got information that saves lives" But what is to stop those your work for turning around and "put you to the whip" in the name of safety and justice? Or in a political move to appise the populace? There is only shades of Grey.
i understand your perspective. its an "ends" justifying means issue. interrogation methods are as old as language. how do you feel about war then? even a defensive war requires heinious actions, no?
I feel war in and of itself is "usually" a selfish act. Defending ones self is one thing.. . . "torturing" people in the hopes that MAYBE they will give up information you can use to counter the enemy. . . For myself it is just against "my" moral code. Defending is you countering an attack that is currently coming against you. This is our government harming others, in my name (so to speak) for politics at the end of the day, not REALLY to defend. Just how I see it.
Let me rephrase...is torturing three high level theocratic sociopaths on the same level as killing hundreds of innocents collaterally? is the temporary discomfort of three folks the same as killing hundred to justify the theoretical endgame?
In truth, I believe the only true course of action is recognizing one's own agenda, eliminating it from the picture, and taking actions that aid and bless as many people as possible. Real Leadership means doing what is best for those under you, and being accountable for your actions. Each person does need rights, but not the rights to violate everyone else's for their own desires. I do believe Spock is right, but it is the choice of the one that makes the sacrifice noble, not the imposition.
The question begs that even if the means are justified by the endgame...are they still legally culpible. Was nixon right when he said "when the president doesit. Its not illegal?"
Even the President should be fully accountable to the laws of the land. I personally believe certain things must be justified in wartime conditions, due to the dangers of warfare, however, these must also be dealt with carefully. In all honesty, America has better and more sound wartime practices than almost any other country even with torture. It is not an excuse for free reign, and your assessment is correct. Doing what is right is truly one of the most difficult challenges of being human.
There is no fixed, predetermined "human nature". Our values, methods, and actions are developed and derived from experiences. It annoys me when i hear people talk about human nature - it's a myth.
Why is it naive? How do you think you're wired? What is it that you're inclined to do? Human behavior (or human nature as you put it) can certainly be changed. If they could not, we would still be living in caves. Therefore it can't be predetermined
I think the things we are interested in are hard wired for one. This has been shown with identical twins, separated at birth, who grew up to like the same things. One set were both editors to their high school newspaper for example. I agree that some of our hard wiring can be overcome, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Overall human beings still exhibit the same selfish behavior that evolution has rewarded over the eons. That behavior is the core of "human nature".
i agree appy. ignoring instinctual patterns of behavior does us no good. believing in such ideological nonsense without understand the mchanical processes of our nervous system seems to be a "myth" to some folks. i suppose the stark causal relationships in our biological are a myth to drogden too, as if a gag reflex, although much simpler, is instincically different that a complex decision excpecting for a more complex mechanism responsible for the "decision"
drogden, we are hardwired for certain behaviors. ignoring that is ignoring the last breath of air you took or your last heartbeat. they are behaviors. that being said machnistic abilities seemed to be wired, such as language, which is the foundation of a social learning capacity. you don't think a reinforcement model is wired?
I'm not talking about actions that are obviously imprinted. People mistake others as being inherently evil etc...That's my problem, that's the myth.Our interest in surviving and reproducing is imprinted/genetic in some way, as it is directly associated with fundamental survival. However, the means by which survival is obtained is entirely based on the social conditioning of that person.
Game theory is a myth? Mathematical models of behavior are mythical? Your brain is a product of the physical world bound by the same laws as all matter. Claiming its the exception to the rule is a belief system that rivals saying zues sontrols our thoughts and actions. Without the complex socialization wiring you claim is irrelevant. You can't make decisions. Autism prings to mind. If its not all a complex biochemical reaction...explain why drugs affect our behavior then
Why would you bring up game theory? It just supports my argument that behavior is derived from social activity. I think you're misunderstanding me. Drugs and autism changes our perception of experiences. The bottom line is that it is environmental conditioning that really affects 99% of our actions, and all diligent behavior studies have proven this time and time again. You're saying there's a biochemical reaction that dictates whether a person will be a thief, greedy or a murderer?
Game theory works on the notion that complex mathematical causal relationships cause our nervous system to act in predetermined ways. That behavior is predictable...and so are the decisions we make. That implies mechanism decide our decisions...and that its not as mallable as you seem to believe
People become alcoholics not because they have a genetic predisposition, but because of the influence of their parents or friends. If you abuse a child, very often they grow up to abuse other children. When the mass media promotes a certain idea in society, such as "terrorism", the public is conditioned into believing this is true and a real threat, regardless of reality. The fact is, we are emergent, vulnerable organisms and always undergoing influence, conditioning and change to a degree.
Oh really? lol Who found the alcoholic gene? They started those studies, because so many Indians were alcoholics. .They didn't find any solid proof. That's like saying, because i live in Vegas i might develop a meth gene. That's completely absurd. This goes to support my argument even more so. It wasn't a gene that made them drink. Obviously, it was the fact that they all were alcoholics. To them it was the status quo. Lets just blame all our faults on genes lol. I think i have a youtube gene.
Do a google search on genetic predisposition to alcoholism. Genes determine structure of genes as they move for stem cells to nerve cells. The structure and biochemical responses of these cells are genetically predisposed to certain kinds of addictions. Its apparent that science isn't a concern in your belief systems. But we have shown some nervous systems when exposed to an addictive agent are predetermined to be more vulnerable to dependance of certain chemicals in this case. Ethanol
Alot of referrals to how we are "hardwired". But you said in the previous comment that "ignoring instinct is a theological as one can get." I didn't understand it is all I was saying.
I see what your saying but I personally don't like the term. I don't have an uninterruptable power source. I didn't mention evolution. I still don't see the connection between "ignoring instinct" and being "theological". It's so vague that it defies my imagination. Maybe I have no imagination. I will admit to lacking education. But ALOT of YT'ers (not you) are totally uneducated but love to ridicule Christians (not you again) on YT so I don't feel unjustified asking questions at times.
That's debatable I think but that aside how is "ignoring instinct theological"? It was your statement but it is not explained as yet. I see a possble religion vs evolution. Is that it or can you explain further?
I don't think so. I think I may even be supporting it. But let me ask again regarding your statement "ignoring instinct is a theological as one can get". How so?
ignoring empiricism and believing in things solely based on faith is theological in nature. anything that one believes in without scientific method and causal relationships is theological in nature. its no different than religion, in that, there is no proof but folks believe it anyway, like creationism for instance.
Oh I see. So a theological person could not believe in any part of evolution for example or a genetic link to "instinct" because that would require a departure from faith. And therefore evolution can be no part nonfactual or not based even in part on faith for if it were it may be considered negating it's scientific standing?
that is a huge leap of logic there. lol. not what i said, what i said was, ignoring empiricsm is afaith based ideal. there are those of faith that approah science in a logical way. look at the lutherans and catholics, they believe adam and eve is a myth and evolution is the way things happened. you twisted a simple statement. i was talking about ignoring instinct as a product of evolution, genetics. if you ignore it, its a faith based conclusion.
Well on the other hand you may ignore it because you find it boring but to ignore a genetic link to "instinct" you said is theological. I think you would agree now that it is not necessarily so. To ignore it may just be "ignorant" but not ipso facto "theological". A theologist may accept genetics and theology. The two are not mutually exclusive in my view but are in the view of many; especially a class of YT evolutionist and/or atheists.
the point i made, not the point you wanted to make, is that if one denies empiricism and genetic and evolutionary affects on the human psyche its a faith based conclusion based on no evidence whatsoever. twisting my statement around to make it seem as if we agreed on your statement, which really was a gross twisting of my original statement, is moot. the two ideas are not connected. that is the point many of atheists are trying to point out.
for instance on may believe communism is the best form of government, even without any precedent or proof to back it up. another person may think a free market anarchist form of society is best. they may both think the phillies are the best team in baseball. simply because they agree on the phillies that has nothing to do with their political beliefs. its EXCLUSIVE of their political beliefs. as believing a jewsih carpenters son is god would be exlusive of science.
You may have wanted to make that point but you did not. You didn't say "faith based" you said "theological". Believing a Jewish carpenters son is God would be exlusive of science? Under what scientific method was this disproven? I'll accept the fact that the sun revolves around the earth as a faith based idea that is exclusive of science if this is the 14th century and we are in Europe. You leave me too many places to start again. Ignoring a "genetic link to instinct" is not "theological"
Science does not have to disprove that jesus is god. They didn't make the statement. Whoever makes the claim is resonsible for the proof. The paradox is illogical and not how empirical models work. I did make that point folks who ignore that instinct is a by product of naturl selectiojn do so based on theology.
You made a point but you didn't prove it. A general statement about "folks" you do not even know is bullshit. But this is YT and bullshit is admired. The sun doesn't revolve around the earth. Science disproved it by seeking another truth. Prove that evolution is fact and do not use faith or unfounded belief and you'll convince me.
science can make general assumptions about folks in the same species you moron. i don't know most of the people in india but we can assume that they respire. they do so based on genetic wiring and instinct. but keep denying simple facts like natural selection is how the brain evolved. keep belieivng in your silly god. tons of research supprts my claim, none supports your silly nonsense that "god made it happen"
So I'm a moron and you are tired of being questioned. Good. Now science can make general assumptions as you say. So a general assumption that all people who "ignore" a genetic link to instinct are "folks" who are theological. Every one of them. And this is because even though you may never have been to India you may assume that people respire. Hmmmm. It won't be long until you have no leg to stand on. It depends on how much time and uneducated man like me feels like humoring you.
i am not tired of eing questioned, you want me to look up the oceans of research on natural selection for you, but its out there for you to find. there is nothing out there that proves your jewish carpenter is god. i have every sceince department in the world in my corner, you have nothing in yours. i haqve been to india, but we can make the assumptions that all life respires, because there has never been a case where life does not. the olny one with no leg is you. your comments are silly
So why have you spent so much time answering my silly questions? So if you believe in God you are full of silly nonsence because.....you say so. And you also say human nature is dark and murky. I just want YT atheists to pretend that they know everything. That way they can ridicule freely. The rest of us can marvel at how they can be so smart to ridicule what we admit to not fully understanding. Great.
Honestly? Because I kind of enjoy making wanna be creationist intellectuals look like the programmed mess that they are. Honestly because id like to think that if there is a god. As you claim, it would want us to see the universe as it is...not as a 2000 year text tells us it is. Science and our understanding of natural selection has saved millions of lives. Prayer simply has not. Noone claims to know everything. Er are just fighting to preserve finding out what is. Not what we wish it to be
You're an intellectual I guess? Ha ha ha. funny. At least I know that I am not making you the delusional of the two of us. I did not claim that there is a God. If I did ( i don't feel like checking) I did not intend to. "Science and our understanding of natural selection...." Very broad subject there. It includes Darwin but also Newton,Copernicus, Tesla, Curie, Watson and Crick etc. All that versus prayer? Doesn't seem fair you pseudogenius. If you cannot claim to know everything don't ridicule.
It doesn't take an intellectual to debunk silly creationist theories. A five year can do it. I never claimed to know everything. I simply stated that denying human instinct as a by product of natural selection was something that only a theologian might do...and never every theologian just those that deny millions of hours of research chose to do
Not quite. You stated that "ignoring a genetic link to instinct is as theological as one can get". As an extention of that you may then say that any scientist having any questions about human instinct being a product of evolution cannot be anything other than a theologian if he is acting "as theological as one can get" by your definition. You said that proof of evolution is that our hearts beat, we breath, we have language. So I'll conclude that you do not understand "proof".
No I can't show any such research but absent such research I'm unwilling to cede you the absolute that it is indisputable fact. What is instinct really? My cat will run away if I make a loud noise. I think that is genes in action. But what lies in the heart of every man may be more. I don't really know. Laying in bed with my wife i'll be honest about what I think and we will laugh. But here on YT I'm more likely to just offer you a blue pill or a red pill. Neo, pick your reality. Who can know?
or every man may simply jump think he is more because he has this wonderful organ we call a brain that has evolved this complex consciousness that makes us believe we are "more" and it would certainly seem, as wegner, pinker and others who know much more than you and i about our nervous system, as they have spent a lifetime researching it, that this "more" is just a product of this complex organ, an illusion, as it has been called.
Yes.Perhaps.I thought I knew my mother. When she died I went through a period of mourning when I thought of her differently that when she was alive. In dreams she was more real to me than when she was alive. More direct,straightforward. It seems that my perception of her when she was alive was more illusory than the dream experience that is more real to me. Alot of stuff cut away and a direct essence remaining. I don't know. It's confusing. But I have my preference and experience to hold on to.
Mr. Rahab111222, I have been watching prrolg bury himself in nonsense for two days on this video. It is fun to watch this man of an obvious lack of academic backround try to argue that a belief in evolution is the same as a belief in god, or a denial of instinct. Its quite humorous. You and Battim can continue making mincemeat of him. Carry on.
I do have a lack of academic background. I never made a claim to the contrary and did not intend for it not to be obvious. I also never claimed that a belief in evolution is the same as a belief in God. I am making statements about people who are smug enough to find humorous that which they do not understand. Thanks for showing up on time.
Perhaps. I haven't given it any thought. But I have not found anything in this video humorous and i do not laugh at things that I do not understand. It's bad karma. I know karma is not scientific. Ok...sue me.
This is the comment of a retard. Also you must have barely got through 12 years of school with grammar such as "Ever know how a virus can adapt..." and " You ever seen videos...." BTW in 1st year high school biology many years ago we were told that virus' are not alive. Has that changed? And facts do matter to me. On what specific basis do you make that claim?
Your comment I'm responding to is an ad-hominem (argument against the man, instead of the argument.)
You clearly know nothing about science. Scientific consensus changes and grows with each piece of knowledge acquired.
That's why we have people in the lab making better medicine to combat EVOLVING bacteria, that's why technology is changing for the sake of growth and efficiency.
Science changes, it's not written in stone, otherwise it'd end up being stagnant and obsolete like your bible.
Why do you say that? I don't have a bible. "Science changes, it's not written in stone......" Well a scientific method should be adhered to but in your context science does advance things as much as it advances itself. I've always known that so you saying that "you clearly know nothing about science" is an unfounded claim. I admire your defence of battim but I'm afraid you don't understand. No fault of yours. I've kept my reasons obscure and inadvertantly departed from it to attack. My bad.
what is there to disagree with, i am asking questions, not making statements. you claim to disagree but don't even say which part. i was simply making an observation about others, not making any moral statements myself. i have folks on boths sides of the ideological aisle get that this was about politcal folks dividing us even if it goes against their ideals. i never made a statement about whether i was for or against either issue, simply they are used to divide.
(Update: A reader brought to our attention that the rape of boys at Abu Ghraib has been mentioned in some news accounts of the prisoner abuse evidence. The Telegraph and other news organizations described "a videotape, apparently made by US personnel, is said to show Iraqi guards raping young boys." The Guardian reported "formal statements by inmates published yesterday describe horrific treatment at the hands of guards, including the rape of a teenage Iraqi boy by an army translator."
tbgx1 2 years ago
Salon com Article, Hersh: children sodomized at Ab Ghraib ON TAPE.
Some senators may have seen the tapes, not the first time this story has come up.
"Hersh said that after he broke Abu Ghraib people are coming out of the woodwork to tell him this stuff. He said he had seen all the Abu Ghraib pictures. He said, 'You haven't begun to see evil...' then trailed off. He said, 'horrible things done to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run.' He looked frightened."
tbgx1 2 years ago
Love your mind brother and thankful for your sharing...good vid..peace
PaulLayton1102 2 years ago
I think people like this guy misunderstand torture.
The type of torture we conduct is not for information but more to force confessions. It is a failure and disgrace.
hellstone77 2 years ago
United under what?
tbgx1 2 years ago
its a slogan from the american revolution. united under the ideals this country was based on.
battim 2 years ago
Excellent Commentary! I agree on the lot of it.
Regarding rights of gay marriages. Logically, gays are citizens and should be equal to the task of any priviliedges anyone else has just like blacks, chinese, native Americans. Who denies this? Marriage does not come from god..it's about a piece of legal paper.
Also, proof that it's not a choice to be gay-
QUESTION to Heteros - Did you wake up one day at 15 or 16 years old and think "hmmmm today I'm going to be straight!"
MARANTZamp 2 years ago
i can't believe i exist in this reality
thehoeslaper 2 years ago
i see that most of your comments fall within the lines we are discussing at my channel and all or most seem to agree with the complecated responce i gave you nothing is easy nothing is simple really listen to my videos what they are telling you as i am so go back to jdcriveau and again listen there is no plain simple answers just one main goal so continue to question me and i will list to you and like your video it was very indepth and must be listen several times to understand
jd
jdcriveau 2 years ago
i had to listen to this video several times for you send very mixed messages like churchill and japernese in camps yet against all and yet for all it seems much like you can not decide wht to say but finally after much though i feel you want to justified torture when you can justified touture then you can justify war the truth both can not be justified and both belong together they are both an evil we must guard against but yet an evil we are forced to use but never and i mean never justified
jdcriveau 2 years ago
while it's true that most things are not black and white but rather shades of gray, it's also true that some issues are so close to black or so close to black that we can assume that some things are black or white. (for example slavery, equal rights for women, etc.)
jesokingcryst 2 years ago
Thanks for the interesting video.
DarkAvow 2 years ago
As my History teacher used to say:
"There very seldomly is an easy solution to a complicated situation or problem. However polititians usually offer such simple solutions, because that is what gets them re-elected." That is why I believe You should vote for that official, that seems to present a rather complicated solution. Even if that solution is harder to understand and takes longer to complete.
tomthemd 2 years ago
"tens of thousands of non militant civilian"???
You seem to have left out a couple of zeroes. The bombing raids targeted towards the civilian population of Germany and Japan amount to at least more than one million casualties, although exact numbers are beyond our reach.
united we stand, divided we fall
Watch out what you wish for. I live in country in which historical reasons - poverty, harsh climate and natural conditions, our more powerful neighbours and occupiers - have created
EpifanesEuergetes 2 years ago
(cont.) a climate of consensus on a variety of issues, and it is not a pretty sight. This consensus makes life very hard for anyone who strays from it.
EpifanesEuergetes 2 years ago
I think this a really interesting video.
Pattty3 2 years ago
both sides can have supporting logic. what we're really talking about when debating gay marriage is imposing a certain view or morality on others. people who are against gay marriage have a choice not to be involved in such a marriage. but they shouldn't have a right to impose their view on others. "good for the society" argument shouldn't apply when the opposing side isn't faced with physical harm. if 3 people want to get married then they should be able to. tradition is not a good argument.
tulip777 2 years ago
This video is why you are just simply, "One Of The Best"!
sharonafox1 2 years ago
i was just talking to friends of mine about it
sirnubenegra 2 years ago
Now that's what I call a sticky situation
therealclamknuckle 2 years ago
It was a difficult video, but one of your best. I will say that I think the issue of being briefed is a bit of a red herring and a diversion. There is after all the difference between a neighbor watching in silence as someone gets there head pounded to the curb and the leader of the pack and telling someone to pound a dudes head into asphalt.
kraymes 2 years ago
Thanks but my neighbor hasn't been and elected and sworn to uphiold the constitution nor is he or she supposed be be the cjhack and balance to the executive branch. Methinks your metaphor is faulty
battim 2 years ago
Sometimes I wish there was a 3rd party.
Justinmazing 2 years ago
sometimes i wish you weren't so obsessed with your ballsack
battim 2 years ago
Tim- I'm contemplating ordering The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century by George Friedman. I take it that you would reccomend that book?
Greensborrow210 2 years ago
Yes barnes and noble has it....
battim 2 years ago
If complicated arguments weren't watered down to something more simple, who would watch?
And then how would we make any advertising revenue?
That's sarcasm, of course.
;-)
5/5
OhCurt 2 years ago
i bought a pack of gum with mine last month, how about you?
battim 2 years ago
There's been such little activity on my end, they actually billed me!
*rimshot*
OhCurt 2 years ago
You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall!
Mrmikeshelton 2 years ago
Great Fooking Video Tim
You Give Me Hope My Brother.
RickSoCrazy 2 years ago
torture as a result of human misunderstanding....
wir solltwn die verantwortung endlich übernehemen.LG fahni 23009
faehnstah
responsibility is a fact
fahni23009 2 years ago
Re:Gay marriage, you make a decent point, but the fact remains that we are denying an entire group of people a basic right that most hetero's take for granted. The bullshit notion of keeping the "sanctity" of marriage is ridiculous at best. No one is trying to force anyones church to perform said marriage,just that the state recognize the union. Implying that the state should protect the "sanctity" of marriage,puts the state in bed with religion.
cstrand31 2 years ago
i agree i am pro gay marriage.
battim 2 years ago
Ok so ...an "Absolute Homo" would be someone with an unabashed and everlasting lust for men. And a "Relative Homo" would be someone who lusts after men, but only some of the time depending on the situation and the general perceived temperature of their particular society?
By this logic, I'd argue that battim classifies as an "Absolute Homo".
There we go Tim. I finally proved you're gay.
Who's with me?
DuffMc81 2 years ago
Have you been drinking again andy?
battim 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheMercilessEye 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheMercilessEye 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheMercilessEye 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheMercilessEye 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheMercilessEye 2 years ago
excellent video. I watched the video of a young man kneeling in front of three Taliban members as they spoke there native language into a video camera. After about ten minutes of this one of the men in the back proceeded to cut off the head of the twenty something yr old man with what looked like a pocket knife...i would call that torture. That boy knew he was gonna die, and in the worst way. This is war, and it's vile, but it's easy to point moral fingers from your couch.
Greensborrow210 2 years ago
The older I get, the more people...amuse me.
Michelle5451 2 years ago
It is not clear to me where you stand on torture Do you believe decisions like using trying to end WWII and avoid battle in Japan somehow make future controversial decisions OK Locking up japanese is recognized as a mistake With torture many ague that we should recognize mistakes to avoid doing it again
We are asked by the founders to strive for a more perfect union Their genius was in recognizing human weaknesses They expected the country to learn from mistakes and to live by laws
peace.
cambridgee 2 years ago
what's with the spooky music?
s2cuts 2 years ago
Torture is spooky. The murky depths of human nature are spooky. I am spooky. Lol
battim 2 years ago
Torture is spooky. The murky depths of human nature are spooky. I am spooky. Lol
battim 2 years ago
I LIKE HOW ANYONE CANT POST HERE GZYYY6
gzyyy6 2 years ago
Who can't post here?
battim 2 years ago
Torture should not be lessened in its meaning. If you do not need physical assistance, medical treatment, food or rest to recover from it, then it is not really torture.
All cruelty and inhumane treatment is not torture.
Calling too many things torture means that real torture will be lost in the masses of claims of torture and be over looked and ignored. The politically fashionable torture to talk about will be all that will matter and the victims of real torture will not matter at all.
BellaAngelique 2 years ago
Rest is certainly a convuluted idea. A two hour interrogation can be exhausting. I do agree with your premise that including loud music and koran flushing into the idea of torture does water down the impact of the term
battim 2 years ago
TOTALLY OFF TOPIC.
i have that thomas paine quote written on my computer tower, and was just thinking, do you think that's where T-pain got his name?
pornfartin 2 years ago
Must be.
battim 2 years ago
all for one and one for all. better to think of that on a species level, humankind.
jack is the man.
I'm gonna watch it again, but, I don't see how obama is to blame for what bush did. obama is to blame for any deaths on his watch, as bush/cheney are to blame for all their killings. do you go as far as punishing the people inflicting the torture? the guys doing the actually boarding? They were following orders, but everyone in the free world knows torture is a crime against humanity.
pornfartin 2 years ago
I never claimed obama was repsonsible for any death. I am a bit lost as to where that came from. I was speaking to the crimes of former presidents. Not a present president
battim 2 years ago
All of the US legal system is based upon situational ethics. It is why there are terms such as first offenders, manslaughter, first and second degree murder.
One of these men who was waterboarded, he cut an innocent man's head off with a knife in public. Al Quaeda said he was their man, he said he was their man. Then they killed thousands of US citizens.
If situations do not matter, then all about US law is wrong and all prison sentences should be the same. Prison is worse than waterboarding.
BellaAngelique 2 years ago
Sometimes leaders declare absolutes because the public will not catch the nuances.
I trust that if there will be imminent danger of 911 redux, people will be waterboarded and worse.
You still need to post an example of the principles to your country.
In the barracks field officers do what needs to be done and will fall on their swords for it if necessary.
Ranblv 2 years ago
If you mean the refernce to the right being hypocritical on gay marriage my point was the constituion affords us certain individual liberties...equal access to contractual agreements is among them. The right seems to want to ignore this right to satify some absolutist claim gays canlt marry. I find it the height of hypocrisy on their part
battim 2 years ago
I was talking about the torture.
Ranblv 2 years ago
The constitution is silent on marriage. No one has the right to take upon themself the tyranny to use its authority in order to force through laws or break down existing llaws.
prrolg 2 years ago
the constitution is clear on equal protectin. it is also clear on contract law. marriage is a contract. the constitution is clear in that it afford americans those freedoms. it is silent on non american citizens rights during times of war....your point?
battim 2 years ago
Marriage is more than a contract. A prommisory note to pay back a loan is a straight contract. Equal protection is equal protection under law. In some states homosexual marriage is unlawful. In order to make same sex marriage lawful via court ruling law must be discarded. In california is was put to the ballot. A direct democratic practice but not put to the court which must interpret the constitution. There is a precedent. Roe vs Wade was law via court action discarding proper law.
prrolg 2 years ago
exactly, so congress should have the balls, or state legislators, to vote on it. i am not in favor of activist judges. that being said, if a court feels that homosexuals are a protected minority class, well, that is their interpretation of the law. the only way to get courts to not interpret the law is to pass a more specific one respective of gay marriage. Roe v. Wade assumed privacy was implied in the bill of rights, not sure i disagree with that.
battim 2 years ago
Right. State gov'ts need to do this individually. If state legislators voted homosexual marriage legal it would be legal in that state and supported democratically indirectly by elections. As a personal note I no longer think democracy works for the best in America and would like to see a change. But that is neither here nor there for this discussion.
prrolg 2 years ago
BTW I think that a proper examination of Roe vs Wade will show that not a shred of Constitutional principle was found in the ruling. It was just a wordy opinion that was full of pablum and claimed to follow the constitution. Hence now we have what is known as a "living Constitution". In other words we should look at what Kenya or France etc has to say about things lol.
prrolg 2 years ago
it depends on how one defines privacy. as for a living constitution, the fact that it can be amended means that our founding fathers expected it to be living.
battim 2 years ago
Amended yes. Misinterpreted or ignored when making judgement no.
prrolg 2 years ago
Based on privacy rights precedent based on the fourth amendment. Precedent interpetation is not objective...if it were there wouldn't be 9 justices...its called a legal opinion because its a subjective opinion. The point referred to you saying its nota living dpocument it certainly is....
battim 2 years ago
a change to what?
battim 2 years ago
Holy Jeebus...every time I find you arguing you are getting your ass handed to you..
MasterofGoogleslave 2 years ago
who?
battim 2 years ago
I absolutely find this video relevant.
Blargaldalien 2 years ago
Great Video Man!!
Five Stars!!
MadBadVoodo 2 years ago
they rewrote GODS laws and we made them kings on earth CHRIST JESUS told us to follow our heart to the soft toung we most keep the truth regaurdless death is not truth life is its like payin the bully to protect you when in truth you can protect yourself with truth
gzyyy6 2 years ago
Well I can thinkl of a few of god's laws that contradict one another. Depends who your god is. The presupposition that god wrote these laws is based on nothing more than your faith in what some man told us was true. Even if I were to take the huge illogical premise that jesus was a god...he simply didn't write a word himself and we assume the scripture writers were human and contradicted each other on many occasions. It is flawed from the get go...
battim 2 years ago
In reference to what the logic junky said. A reliable and potent energy source, or a abundant source of all commodities would completely change this hard wired human nature you speak of.
drogden 2 years ago
Logic junkie does not make the claim finding an energy souce will change hard wired behaviorial patterns. Slef interest and control of whatever energy source we use will not change the evolutionary byproduct known as self interest. To not see that we have strong inclionations toward predictable behavior ignores science and history. Are you claiming group dynamics and scitzophrenia and autism are myths
battim 2 years ago
Logic junkie does not make the claim finding an energy souce will change hard wired behaviorial patterns. Slef interest and control of whatever energy source we use will not change the evolutionary byproduct known as self interest. To not see that we have strong inclionations toward predictable behavior ignores science and history. Are you claiming group dynamics and scitzophrenia and autism are myths
battim 2 years ago
Excellent video. I am very uneasy with the whole torture thing. I see the validity of the argument you are making, and that Cheney or Bill O'Reilly makes on this subject, but I'm real uneasy as to how they make it, so 'simple' as you say. It seems they are trying to open the door for torture. To make it acceptable. We don't always manage to be consistent with our stated principles in this country, but our society is better off when we do manage to do so. We should keep trying.
woozlbug 2 years ago
I am not really making an argument one way or another actually, just pointing out that simplifying such complex issues as morally absolute without having an open discussion about history is faulty. I think water boarding is torture. I think torture is a bad means to an end...but humans have stepped over much larger lines to jutify means to an end and I find it difficult to feel sympathy for theocratic sociopaths
battim 2 years ago
i find your video very illuminating battim. i was trying express the point of more fuzzy and complex logic but you did a better job of it. about absolutes there no real absolutes not really . beside core abolutes food,sex,shelter. nothing is true everything is permitted to quote Burroughs. hard wired behaviours can be overrided also
jedimagejoe 2 years ago
We are even finding out that even in the laws of physics there may not be absolutes. As for overcoming hardwired behaviors. Get back to me when you can live without a heartbeat. Hormonal excretion and breathing. These ate behaviors and the brain is not relative. A consciousness is simply a selected for product of a brain that has evolved over tiime. We don't overcome behavior. We simply rewrite what is reinforcable over the same instinctual mechanism.
battim 2 years ago
the heart thing is a core abolutes. "We don't overcome behavior. We simply rewrite what is reinforcable over the same instinctual mechanism" if a mechanism can be rewritten it can be overcome pelov proves that
jedimagejoe 2 years ago
We have proven nothing about human behavior. We haven't even scratched the surface. Simply because some behaviors in some folks seem to change temporarily implies nothing. Seriously.
battim 2 years ago
I would say that the one absolute truth here is that cultures need a reliable and potent energy source. And because those who pioneered and built their fortunes on oil, also chose to sabotage all efforts within the last 30-40 years to develop alternative widespread energy systems, we are now still dependent on oil. And, make no mistake: we cannot survive without it, because the other technologies are undeveloped, thanks to them.
Ultimately, we are fighting (and torturing) for control of oil.
TheLogicJunkie 2 years ago
And, also, the alpha-Muslims who control the Middle Eastern oil fields are, too. I suspect that their people are fighting so virulently now because they and our own "oil leaders" know something they've kept to themselves: that the oil fields are indeed going dry, and that the race is now on to control the last of it.
The main OPEC nations have barred western inspectors of their oil fields since around 1975 or so, and so we have only their "good word" that they're not lying about their levels.
TheLogicJunkie 2 years ago
When you consider that bluff and deception are time-honored strategies of tradition in Arabic societies -- especially in situations of actual, positional disadvantage -- then it is not stupid to expect that the Arab oil sheiks might not easily be putting a brave, false face on their astronomical oil capacity estimates that they report to the West. They would do this, and we would believe it.
But I think that the West takes no chances, and there are now high-tech methods of assessing
TheLogicJunkie 2 years ago
underground oil levels using various depth-adjustive density scanners, such as microwave beams from space satellites, and they could report if the density measurements under the ground of certain regions is characteristic of underground oil, and how much is there.
I personally think that the ruling cliques of both sides know the real truth about the oil supplies, and that is why there has been all this urgent warring, from seemingly out of nowhere, with no apparent reason.
TheLogicJunkie 2 years ago
And, finally, what I specifically mean by that, is that the ruling cliques of both sides have been using religion to try and whip up the mindless pawn-mobs of both cultural sides, to fight and die to protect their respective cliques' interests -- except for the fact that they don't disclose that oil is the reason; they don't need to, because they know that most of the people are so innately stupid that they can be enthralled into an angry mob frenzy simply by religion's charismatic lunacy alone.
TheLogicJunkie 2 years ago
Well these oil wars have gone on since england navy went to oil based engines in 1912. I haven't seen any more spike in it than ever, not that that makes your point about limited resources any less relevant. How long you think before we take out chavez.?
battim 2 years ago
I agree the war in iraq was based in energy based geopolitical interests. But al quaeda and taliban have no control over energy. Al quaeda operative affect our supply of oil how?
battim 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheLogicJunkie 2 years ago
United with our enemies, we are already fallen.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
the world is full of enemies, simply folks with different agenda. foreign policy seems to work when finding common geopolitical ground. for instance iran was originally cooperating with us in afghanistan in 2001. we blew that chance.
battim 2 years ago
this is the best video you have EVER made!!
KiheiLawyer 2 years ago
apparently quite a few missed the point.
battim 2 years ago
personally I feel torture no matter how you justify it is wrong, when you "torture" your enemy to gain information you have lowered yourself to the level of your enemy that you demonize. We justify it to yourself by saying "we got information that saves lives" But what is to stop those your work for turning around and "put you to the whip" in the name of safety and justice? Or in a political move to appise the populace? There is only shades of Grey.
RHPSmagenta 2 years ago
i understand your perspective. its an "ends" justifying means issue. interrogation methods are as old as language. how do you feel about war then? even a defensive war requires heinious actions, no?
battim 2 years ago
I feel war in and of itself is "usually" a selfish act. Defending ones self is one thing.. . . "torturing" people in the hopes that MAYBE they will give up information you can use to counter the enemy. . . For myself it is just against "my" moral code. Defending is you countering an attack that is currently coming against you. This is our government harming others, in my name (so to speak) for politics at the end of the day, not REALLY to defend. Just how I see it.
RHPSmagenta 2 years ago
Let me rephrase...is torturing three high level theocratic sociopaths on the same level as killing hundreds of innocents collaterally? is the temporary discomfort of three folks the same as killing hundred to justify the theoretical endgame?
battim 2 years ago
In truth, I believe the only true course of action is recognizing one's own agenda, eliminating it from the picture, and taking actions that aid and bless as many people as possible. Real Leadership means doing what is best for those under you, and being accountable for your actions. Each person does need rights, but not the rights to violate everyone else's for their own desires. I do believe Spock is right, but it is the choice of the one that makes the sacrifice noble, not the imposition.
DantarBlade 2 years ago
The question begs that even if the means are justified by the endgame...are they still legally culpible. Was nixon right when he said "when the president doesit. Its not illegal?"
battim 2 years ago
Even the President should be fully accountable to the laws of the land. I personally believe certain things must be justified in wartime conditions, due to the dangers of warfare, however, these must also be dealt with carefully. In all honesty, America has better and more sound wartime practices than almost any other country even with torture. It is not an excuse for free reign, and your assessment is correct. Doing what is right is truly one of the most difficult challenges of being human.
DantarBlade 2 years ago
There is no fixed, predetermined "human nature". Our values, methods, and actions are developed and derived from experiences. It annoys me when i hear people talk about human nature - it's a myth.
drogden 2 years ago
So you believe that humans are an absolute blank slate at birth without any "hard wiring"? I would have to say that's very naive.
appybuddha 2 years ago
Why is it naive? How do you think you're wired? What is it that you're inclined to do? Human behavior (or human nature as you put it) can certainly be changed. If they could not, we would still be living in caves. Therefore it can't be predetermined
how a person is going to behave.
drogden 2 years ago
I think the things we are interested in are hard wired for one. This has been shown with identical twins, separated at birth, who grew up to like the same things. One set were both editors to their high school newspaper for example. I agree that some of our hard wiring can be overcome, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Overall human beings still exhibit the same selfish behavior that evolution has rewarded over the eons. That behavior is the core of "human nature".
appybuddha 2 years ago
i agree appy. ignoring instinctual patterns of behavior does us no good. believing in such ideological nonsense without understand the mchanical processes of our nervous system seems to be a "myth" to some folks. i suppose the stark causal relationships in our biological are a myth to drogden too, as if a gag reflex, although much simpler, is instincically different that a complex decision excpecting for a more complex mechanism responsible for the "decision"
battim 2 years ago
drogden, we are hardwired for certain behaviors. ignoring that is ignoring the last breath of air you took or your last heartbeat. they are behaviors. that being said machnistic abilities seemed to be wired, such as language, which is the foundation of a social learning capacity. you don't think a reinforcement model is wired?
battim 2 years ago
I'm not talking about actions that are obviously imprinted. People mistake others as being inherently evil etc...That's my problem, that's the myth.Our interest in surviving and reproducing is imprinted/genetic in some way, as it is directly associated with fundamental survival. However, the means by which survival is obtained is entirely based on the social conditioning of that person.
drogden 2 years ago
Game theory is a myth? Mathematical models of behavior are mythical? Your brain is a product of the physical world bound by the same laws as all matter. Claiming its the exception to the rule is a belief system that rivals saying zues sontrols our thoughts and actions. Without the complex socialization wiring you claim is irrelevant. You can't make decisions. Autism prings to mind. If its not all a complex biochemical reaction...explain why drugs affect our behavior then
battim 2 years ago
Why would you bring up game theory? It just supports my argument that behavior is derived from social activity. I think you're misunderstanding me. Drugs and autism changes our perception of experiences. The bottom line is that it is environmental conditioning that really affects 99% of our actions, and all diligent behavior studies have proven this time and time again. You're saying there's a biochemical reaction that dictates whether a person will be a thief, greedy or a murderer?
drogden 2 years ago
Game theory works on the notion that complex mathematical causal relationships cause our nervous system to act in predetermined ways. That behavior is predictable...and so are the decisions we make. That implies mechanism decide our decisions...and that its not as mallable as you seem to believe
battim 2 years ago
People become alcoholics not because they have a genetic predisposition, but because of the influence of their parents or friends. If you abuse a child, very often they grow up to abuse other children. When the mass media promotes a certain idea in society, such as "terrorism", the public is conditioned into believing this is true and a real threat, regardless of reality. The fact is, we are emergent, vulnerable organisms and always undergoing influence, conditioning and change to a degree.
drogden 2 years ago
drog, where do you get your info on alcoholism?
Michelle5451 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheMercilessEye 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheMercilessEye 2 years ago
Oh really? lol Who found the alcoholic gene? They started those studies, because so many Indians were alcoholics. .They didn't find any solid proof. That's like saying, because i live in Vegas i might develop a meth gene. That's completely absurd. This goes to support my argument even more so. It wasn't a gene that made them drink. Obviously, it was the fact that they all were alcoholics. To them it was the status quo. Lets just blame all our faults on genes lol. I think i have a youtube gene.
drogden 2 years ago
Do a google search on genetic predisposition to alcoholism. Genes determine structure of genes as they move for stem cells to nerve cells. The structure and biochemical responses of these cells are genetically predisposed to certain kinds of addictions. Its apparent that science isn't a concern in your belief systems. But we have shown some nervous systems when exposed to an addictive agent are predetermined to be more vulnerable to dependance of certain chemicals in this case. Ethanol
battim 2 years ago
Genes determine structure of nerve cells...not genes. Typo
battim 2 years ago
ther is no blank slate. we have hardwire machinisms. ignoring instinct is a theological as one can get.
battim 2 years ago
Electrical construction seems to have gotten into the debate here. What was that you were saying about instinct and theology again?
prrolg 2 years ago
what?
battim 2 years ago
Alot of referrals to how we are "hardwired". But you said in the previous comment that "ignoring instinct is a theological as one can get." I didn't understand it is all I was saying.
prrolg 2 years ago
we are hardwired, you breathe dont you?
your heat beats?
you have language?
ignoring that our brain is a product of evolution is ignoring reality.
battim 2 years ago
I see what your saying but I personally don't like the term. I don't have an uninterruptable power source. I didn't mention evolution. I still don't see the connection between "ignoring instinct" and being "theological". It's so vague that it defies my imagination. Maybe I have no imagination. I will admit to lacking education. But ALOT of YT'ers (not you) are totally uneducated but love to ridicule Christians (not you again) on YT so I don't feel unjustified asking questions at times.
prrolg 2 years ago
instinct is a product of evolution.
battim 2 years ago
That's debatable I think but that aside how is "ignoring instinct theological"? It was your statement but it is not explained as yet. I see a possble religion vs evolution. Is that it or can you explain further?
prrolg 2 years ago
if one denies a genetic link to instinct, they are basing that on nothing but faith and ignoring empiricism. thats all, nothing deep about it.
battim 2 years ago
Ok so now all we have to do is link the denial of a "genetic link to instinct" and theology ignoring it and we're all set.
prrolg 2 years ago
are you denying a genetic link to instinct?
battim 2 years ago
I don't think so. I think I may even be supporting it. But let me ask again regarding your statement "ignoring instinct is a theological as one can get". How so?
prrolg 2 years ago
ignoring empiricism and believing in things solely based on faith is theological in nature. anything that one believes in without scientific method and causal relationships is theological in nature. its no different than religion, in that, there is no proof but folks believe it anyway, like creationism for instance.
battim 2 years ago
Oh I see. So a theological person could not believe in any part of evolution for example or a genetic link to "instinct" because that would require a departure from faith. And therefore evolution can be no part nonfactual or not based even in part on faith for if it were it may be considered negating it's scientific standing?
prrolg 2 years ago
that is a huge leap of logic there. lol. not what i said, what i said was, ignoring empiricsm is afaith based ideal. there are those of faith that approah science in a logical way. look at the lutherans and catholics, they believe adam and eve is a myth and evolution is the way things happened. you twisted a simple statement. i was talking about ignoring instinct as a product of evolution, genetics. if you ignore it, its a faith based conclusion.
battim 2 years ago
Well on the other hand you may ignore it because you find it boring but to ignore a genetic link to "instinct" you said is theological. I think you would agree now that it is not necessarily so. To ignore it may just be "ignorant" but not ipso facto "theological". A theologist may accept genetics and theology. The two are not mutually exclusive in my view but are in the view of many; especially a class of YT evolutionist and/or atheists.
prrolg 2 years ago
the point i made, not the point you wanted to make, is that if one denies empiricism and genetic and evolutionary affects on the human psyche its a faith based conclusion based on no evidence whatsoever. twisting my statement around to make it seem as if we agreed on your statement, which really was a gross twisting of my original statement, is moot. the two ideas are not connected. that is the point many of atheists are trying to point out.
battim 2 years ago
for instance on may believe communism is the best form of government, even without any precedent or proof to back it up. another person may think a free market anarchist form of society is best. they may both think the phillies are the best team in baseball. simply because they agree on the phillies that has nothing to do with their political beliefs. its EXCLUSIVE of their political beliefs. as believing a jewsih carpenters son is god would be exlusive of science.
battim 2 years ago
You may have wanted to make that point but you did not. You didn't say "faith based" you said "theological". Believing a Jewish carpenters son is God would be exlusive of science? Under what scientific method was this disproven? I'll accept the fact that the sun revolves around the earth as a faith based idea that is exclusive of science if this is the 14th century and we are in Europe. You leave me too many places to start again. Ignoring a "genetic link to instinct" is not "theological"
prrolg 2 years ago
Science does not have to disprove that jesus is god. They didn't make the statement. Whoever makes the claim is resonsible for the proof. The paradox is illogical and not how empirical models work. I did make that point folks who ignore that instinct is a by product of naturl selectiojn do so based on theology.
battim 2 years ago
You made a point but you didn't prove it. A general statement about "folks" you do not even know is bullshit. But this is YT and bullshit is admired. The sun doesn't revolve around the earth. Science disproved it by seeking another truth. Prove that evolution is fact and do not use faith or unfounded belief and you'll convince me.
prrolg 2 years ago
science can make general assumptions about folks in the same species you moron. i don't know most of the people in india but we can assume that they respire. they do so based on genetic wiring and instinct. but keep denying simple facts like natural selection is how the brain evolved. keep belieivng in your silly god. tons of research supprts my claim, none supports your silly nonsense that "god made it happen"
battim 2 years ago
So I'm a moron and you are tired of being questioned. Good. Now science can make general assumptions as you say. So a general assumption that all people who "ignore" a genetic link to instinct are "folks" who are theological. Every one of them. And this is because even though you may never have been to India you may assume that people respire. Hmmmm. It won't be long until you have no leg to stand on. It depends on how much time and uneducated man like me feels like humoring you.
prrolg 2 years ago
i am not tired of eing questioned, you want me to look up the oceans of research on natural selection for you, but its out there for you to find. there is nothing out there that proves your jewish carpenter is god. i have every sceince department in the world in my corner, you have nothing in yours. i haqve been to india, but we can make the assumptions that all life respires, because there has never been a case where life does not. the olny one with no leg is you. your comments are silly
battim 2 years ago
So why have you spent so much time answering my silly questions? So if you believe in God you are full of silly nonsence because.....you say so. And you also say human nature is dark and murky. I just want YT atheists to pretend that they know everything. That way they can ridicule freely. The rest of us can marvel at how they can be so smart to ridicule what we admit to not fully understanding. Great.
prrolg 2 years ago
Honestly? Because I kind of enjoy making wanna be creationist intellectuals look like the programmed mess that they are. Honestly because id like to think that if there is a god. As you claim, it would want us to see the universe as it is...not as a 2000 year text tells us it is. Science and our understanding of natural selection has saved millions of lives. Prayer simply has not. Noone claims to know everything. Er are just fighting to preserve finding out what is. Not what we wish it to be
battim 2 years ago
You're an intellectual I guess? Ha ha ha. funny. At least I know that I am not making you the delusional of the two of us. I did not claim that there is a God. If I did ( i don't feel like checking) I did not intend to. "Science and our understanding of natural selection...." Very broad subject there. It includes Darwin but also Newton,Copernicus, Tesla, Curie, Watson and Crick etc. All that versus prayer? Doesn't seem fair you pseudogenius. If you cannot claim to know everything don't ridicule.
prrolg 2 years ago
It doesn't take an intellectual to debunk silly creationist theories. A five year can do it. I never claimed to know everything. I simply stated that denying human instinct as a by product of natural selection was something that only a theologian might do...and never every theologian just those that deny millions of hours of research chose to do
battim 2 years ago
Not quite. You stated that "ignoring a genetic link to instinct is as theological as one can get". As an extention of that you may then say that any scientist having any questions about human instinct being a product of evolution cannot be anything other than a theologian if he is acting "as theological as one can get" by your definition. You said that proof of evolution is that our hearts beat, we breath, we have language. So I'll conclude that you do not understand "proof".
prrolg 2 years ago
Semantics...cam you show any rearch that suggests insinct isn't linked to genetics? Until suchhj times its faith based nonsense
battim 2 years ago
No I can't show any such research but absent such research I'm unwilling to cede you the absolute that it is indisputable fact. What is instinct really? My cat will run away if I make a loud noise. I think that is genes in action. But what lies in the heart of every man may be more. I don't really know. Laying in bed with my wife i'll be honest about what I think and we will laugh. But here on YT I'm more likely to just offer you a blue pill or a red pill. Neo, pick your reality. Who can know?
prrolg 2 years ago
or every man may simply jump think he is more because he has this wonderful organ we call a brain that has evolved this complex consciousness that makes us believe we are "more" and it would certainly seem, as wegner, pinker and others who know much more than you and i about our nervous system, as they have spent a lifetime researching it, that this "more" is just a product of this complex organ, an illusion, as it has been called.
battim 2 years ago
Yes.Perhaps.I thought I knew my mother. When she died I went through a period of mourning when I thought of her differently that when she was alive. In dreams she was more real to me than when she was alive. More direct,straightforward. It seems that my perception of her when she was alive was more illusory than the dream experience that is more real to me. Alot of stuff cut away and a direct essence remaining. I don't know. It's confusing. But I have my preference and experience to hold on to.
prrolg 2 years ago
""Prove that evolution is fact an.""
This statement alone shows how little you know about biology and evolution.
Ever know why there are so many species of dogs, that were created/bred by humans to look a certain way?
Ever know how a virus can adapt, mutate and EVOLVE a certain way to combat anti-biotics?
You ever seen videos of mutated fly's in labs passing along their mutated traits to their offspring?
No, you haven't. Either that, or you just don't care. Facts don't matter to you.
Rahab111222 2 years ago
rahab there is no talking to this moron. really.
battim 2 years ago
So why do you continue?
prrolg 2 years ago
Mr. Rahab111222, I have been watching prrolg bury himself in nonsense for two days on this video. It is fun to watch this man of an obvious lack of academic backround try to argue that a belief in evolution is the same as a belief in god, or a denial of instinct. Its quite humorous. You and Battim can continue making mincemeat of him. Carry on.
nitwitkiller 2 years ago
I do have a lack of academic background. I never made a claim to the contrary and did not intend for it not to be obvious. I also never claimed that a belief in evolution is the same as a belief in God. I am making statements about people who are smug enough to find humorous that which they do not understand. Thanks for showing up on time.
prrolg 2 years ago
QUOTE prrolg:""I am making statements about people who are smug enough to find humorous that which they do not understand.""
Psychological projection, anyone?
Rahab111222 2 years ago
Perhaps. I haven't given it any thought. But I have not found anything in this video humorous and i do not laugh at things that I do not understand. It's bad karma. I know karma is not scientific. Ok...sue me.
prrolg 2 years ago
The video wasn't humorous...your contention that religion and science aren't mutually exclusive was
battim 2 years ago
Never said the video was humorous. You are contending that religion and science are mutually exclusive? Really? What a moron.
prrolg 2 years ago
How are they inclusive? One is based on empiricism the other is not
battim 2 years ago
This is the comment of a retard. Also you must have barely got through 12 years of school with grammar such as "Ever know how a virus can adapt..." and " You ever seen videos...." BTW in 1st year high school biology many years ago we were told that virus' are not alive. Has that changed? And facts do matter to me. On what specific basis do you make that claim?
prrolg 2 years ago
Your comment I'm responding to is an ad-hominem (argument against the man, instead of the argument.)
You clearly know nothing about science. Scientific consensus changes and grows with each piece of knowledge acquired.
That's why we have people in the lab making better medicine to combat EVOLVING bacteria, that's why technology is changing for the sake of growth and efficiency.
Science changes, it's not written in stone, otherwise it'd end up being stagnant and obsolete like your bible.
Rahab111222 2 years ago
Why do you say that? I don't have a bible. "Science changes, it's not written in stone......" Well a scientific method should be adhered to but in your context science does advance things as much as it advances itself. I've always known that so you saying that "you clearly know nothing about science" is an unfounded claim. I admire your defence of battim but I'm afraid you don't understand. No fault of yours. I've kept my reasons obscure and inadvertantly departed from it to attack. My bad.
prrolg 2 years ago
There has never been a video of you where I disagreed with you more ever
hypothetisch 2 years ago
what is there to disagree with, i am asking questions, not making statements. you claim to disagree but don't even say which part. i was simply making an observation about others, not making any moral statements myself. i have folks on boths sides of the ideological aisle get that this was about politcal folks dividing us even if it goes against their ideals. i never made a statement about whether i was for or against either issue, simply they are used to divide.
battim 2 years ago