Isn't the term "biologist" reserved for real scientist?.....Keep it in church, man.... :P Besides....I recanted my "fraudulent" claim and replaced it with "public relation NIGHTMARES!!" Anytime you mention that which you claimed was unmentionable.....It is met with the statement "Biggest scam in scientific history!".......I don't create public perception...I only repeat it.....
@shanedk ALL except the ones who are not?Which do exist.All it takes for your statement to be incorrect is ONE biologist who denies evolution.watch?v=pele5vptVgc Now let's talk about your views on the Verichip being used as currency.I've been dying to hear your views on this.Nobody can hide from the future,but I feel this will be all sorts of horrible for the future of mankind.I'm all for Transhumanism, but wouldn't this stepping stone of H+ remove what little wealth us debt slaves already have?
@ninjacatmagic "ALL except the ones who are not?Which do exist. All it takes for your statement to be incorrect is ONE biologist who denies evolution."
Reference to peer-reviewed scientific literature or it didn't happen.
@shanedk This is one of your own videos. watch?v=LRtzB_nBaSY&feature=related Please note your statement in said video @ 6:56.In fact..In the majority of your evolution videos.The term "biologist" is rarely, if EVER!!!!!!!!!!!! (<--That's 12 exclamation points), used when describing evolutionary scientist.(Now see how I placed the term "rarely, if EVER?"This is a form of protective speech.It closes the loopholes that using totality terms such as all, every, always, never, ect. often create.
@shanedk I was unaware that my youtube comments were peer-reviewed literature....Furthermore....I use the term "evolutionist" because most youtube posters, who just so happen to agree with evolution, are NOT biologist.The term "evolutionist" is not uncommon, nor derogatory.....The accuracy of a term, in light conversation, is only as accurate as the scrutiny of it's audience! Saying the sky is blue is correct, but only if saying the more accurate azure is not required...
@shanedk You know for a fact that some Creationist dillweed has evaded a comment worse than that....You are exaggerating.....And as I said....It has everything to do with the scrutiny of the audience.....Even in your own videos you do not refer to evolutionist as biologist.....You favor the term evolutionary scientist or the like.......Double standard much?.....
@ninjacatmagic I HAVE to do that because of LYING CREATIONISTS--if I'd just said that Piltdown Man was exposed by scientists or biologists, they would have just bleated back with, "See? Even scientists and biologists say that evolution is a fraud!"
Trust me, I've been debating these LIARS for over 20 years. I know all the tricks. And yes, your evasion IS one of the worst I've EVER seen in that time!
@shanedk "I HAVE to do that because of LYING CREATIONISTS" I won't even list the amount of logical fallacies this statement contains.. :P Not to mention you changed your previous statement from "Biggest. Evasion. Ever." to "one of the worst I've EVER seen in that time!"...So is it the biggest evasion ever, or is it one of the the biggest....You can't claim something is #1, then change your claim from it being #1 to it merely being in a top 5....But I like the way you caught that evation! :)
@ninjacatmagic Never said anything about top 5, LIAR. It was a HIDEOUS evasion, and you're just trying to distract from it now with semantics. You disgust me.
@shanedk It was a cute evasion and you know it....Otherwise it wouldn't have received such adoration......As for the Verichip....Agreed....Perhaps I should have not used a namebrand when describing an item....Coke = Soda, Q-tip = Cotton swab, ect....But with future technology, and a slow acclimation towards transhumanism (Which I am for, btw!)....Isn't it logical/possible/probable that an implantable chip is in our near future for finacial transactions? (Which I am against!).....
As I said....A lot of evolution's problems lie in it's fraudulent past....There isn't many cases of gravitational scientists faking evidence....This isn't the theory of evolutions fault, but it has tarnished it's reputation...Btw, there is no human history, from isolated sources, that aliens are pushing everyone down...But there is plenty of isolated history with claims of aliens seeding the Earth.... ;)
@shanedk So are you saying that evoloution has NEVER had a single instance of fraud?.....But to keep the peace and give a more....Errrrr.....Politically correct statement....I'll recant my previous use of the term "fraudulent" and replace it with the more pallitable statement of "public relations NIGHTMARES!!".... ;)
@ninjacatmagic Only due to fabrication by creationists, like the fake dinosaur-with-human tracks. When it comes to the fakes, NO ONE has it on the creationists...
@shanedk Sounds like mudslinging to me....It's ok to admit that evolution has had it's moments of "public relation NIGHTMARES!!".....I won't hold it against you, or use it as ammo......But I can agree with your statement......Evolutionist have only been full of poop for a couple hundred years.......Bible thumpers have been full of poop for a couple millennia.....
Aliens must exist!How else would the Earth have been seeded with adaptable, biological machines?Consciousness gives reason to existence, and the universal God Consciousness, although far from being proof of God's existence, cannot be explained through evolution without imaginative speculation.As for my question?Are you atheist or agnostic?And if you are atheist, are you atheist towards the "White Bearded Guy in the Sky", or atheist towards any intelligent existence outside of our 5 senses?
@ninjacatmagic “How else would the Earth have been seeded with adaptable, biological machines?”
Where do I begin? First off, conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. Argument from ignorance. Begging the question. Argument from incredulity. That’s at least 4 logical fallacies in one sentence. You’re assuming that only aliens could have seeded the earth. (cont.)
@ninjacatmagic (cont.) Secondly, you’re assuming the earth was seeded. Third, you’re dismissing all other possibilities without consideration. Fourth, you’re making a conclusion based on your own inability to understand the science. In essence, your argument boils down to “I don’t know. Therefore, aliens.”
@ninjacatmagic “Consciousness gives reason to existence…”
Do you mean that it allows one to reason, or that it gives one purpose? It’s a bit difficult to parse what you’re saying. I’d recommend getting off the drugs. They screw up your ability to think rationally, much less express your ideas clearly.
@ninjacatmagic “…and the universal God Consciousness, although far from being proof of God's existence, cannot be explained through evolution without imaginative speculation.”
Pretty much all the criticisms I made of your first sentence apply here. You’re making the same logical and cognitive errors.
@ninjacatmagic (cont.) However, I have to ask, what the hell are you talking about? Universal God Consciousness? Is this some bastard afterbirth of the long discarded theory of collective unconsciousness, or does it have something to do with the proliferation of religious thought?
@ninjacatmagic (cont.) If the former, provide your evidence. Simply asserting a thing does not make it true. If the latter, this is very EASILY explained by psychology and evolution. No imaginative speculation required. Then again, this could be something completely unrelated to the two ideas above. It’s a bit hard to tell when you won’t elaborate on anything you say.
@ninjacatmagic “ As for my question, are you atheist or agnostic? And if you are atheist, are you atheist towards the "White Bearded Guy in the Sky", or atheist towards any intelligent existence outside of our 5 senses?”
Shane’s an atheist. This means applying the same mentality to god as one does to unicorns, mermaids, the invisible monster in your closet, etc. (cont.)
@ninjacatmagic (cont.) I.e., the null hypothesis is the default until reliable, repeatable evidence arises that is capable of countering the null hypothesis. I don’t understand your dichotomy, though. Why the distinction, and why is that relevant?
@shanedk Full disclosure: I typed that up in LibreOffice writer first. I may not have been able to get Ubuntu to work with my video card, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to pick up something useful. :-P
@ninjacatmagic There. That wasn't so bad, was it? This time, try responding to my comments instead of complaining about some nebulous debate protocols.
@Virgil0211 There's a scientific consensus for sense of pain, sense of temperature, sense of balance/acceleration, and sense of kinesthesis. That makes 9. There's also a scientific consensus that there are other senses, but how they should be categorized is still a subject for debate.
@Virgil0211 Proliferation of religious thought.And I'm not a creationist.I believe the Earth was seeded.Big difference.I'm fully aware that Christians have made it near impossible not to instill the belief that a person who seeks other answers besides evolution is nothing more than a creationist incognito, but I assure you I AM NOT!....I'm an agnostic who leans more towards a believer than atheism...Perhaps a belief is the "wisdom teeth" of beliefs....A remnant, but saying this is spectulation!
@shanedk I assure you that I'm 100% against any organized religion.Religion is just a cultures way of brainwashing people into doing their bidding, or a form of predictive programming.I do, however, believe that life on Earth was scientifically created by a species of extraterrestrials.I would say that my belief system comes more from early human history moreso than from any organized group.But I can see how the two can intertwine.Isolated groups with similar stories of ET's is commonplace.Why?
@ninjacatmagic “I'm fully aware that Christians have made it near impossible not to instill the belief that a person who seeks other answers besides evolution is nothing more than a creationist incognito, but I assure you I AM NOT!”
Again, never implied otherwise. The problem is that evolution is so well supported, and has been for so long now, that it’s rare to find anyone who rejects the theory wholesale and isn’t a creationist. It's just that good.
@ninjacatmagic “....I'm an agnostic who leans more towards a believer than atheism...Perhaps a belief is the "wisdom teeth" of beliefs....A remnant, but saying this is spectulation!”
You’ve declared this several times throughout the comments of these videos. No need to overdo it. I’m afraid I have no idea what you mean by “spectulation”, though for some reason I keep thinking it has to do with mucous. :-P
@Virgil0211 Good read.But nowhere near consensus.Not even close to the consensus evolution has, and even evolution theory is bat****.ha/ha.But I'll give you this.Most people think the theory I hold on to is bat**** as well.So we're even.We may disagree on many things.But you have to admit that we can both agree that evolution will always be a controversial subject.btw.I wouldn't say that I "reject" evolution per se.Imo, an intelligent creator would be wise to seed using an evolutionary manner.
@Virgil0211 Nah.I'm fully aware that evolution does not deal with the origin of life.But it does hint at it.I would say I'm mostly indifferent.I feel evolution is impossible to prove.Entirely possible, but impossible to prove.Same with the concept of God.I believe a lot of evolution's problems lie in it's fraudulent past....It will always be a hot topic up for debate.Same with the theory I hold onto...Even if aliens would come down and say "It was us! We created all life individually!
@ninjacatmagic Evolution doesn't have anything to do at all with the origin of life, even hinting at it. It deals with the diversity of life. It's not just possible to prove, it's been proven. Even then, taking that standard of evidence, one could always claim that gravity was an illusion caused by an invisible alien pushing everyone down.
@shanedk Agreed....I'm slowly learning exactly how specific I have to be with you regarding semantics and debatable subject matter... :P I guess a more accurate statement would have been a question directed towards your belief or nonbelief in the possiblity of the existence of entities or phenomenon outside the scope of human perception and technological ability...Foregoing my question "are you an atheist... or agnostic..." Most stereotypical atheist are only atheist regarding (cont)
@shanedk society's view, or fictional literature descriptions of what, we as humans, commonly define a God's requirements or overall view of what a God has to be.....
i haven't watched all your videos yet so if this question is answered in one of them just ignore it: in the USA almost all pledges are "to God". "do you swear to god...bla bla". this is used in courts, congress elections, presidential,... right? to an atheist this means absolutely nothing, because for him, there is no god... since the number of atheists are growing shouldnt the government change this?
@roky1337 Actually, the oath in the Constitution doesn't say "under God." Not only that, but if someone is forced to swear to God to get into Congress etc., that's a violation of Article VI.
Shane, have you heard about the Ludwig von Mises institute? They have a lot of lectures here on YouTube. I've subscribed to them, it's REALLY good stuff that everyone should be made aware of!
is there any book(s) that you can recommend for someone that wants to learn about political issues from the basics, and also wants a valid reason to take a certain political stance?
As a libertarian I gotta disagree with you on the Death Penalty. A shame too, I figured that was one of the issues libertarian's could universally agree on
I see it as a way to cut cost on wasteful people, ie paying taxes to feed them etc. If you just kill the ones who are doing life anyway, we save money, food, space, it just seems much less wasteful to me
I'm not sure that one injection would cost more then a lifetime of food, that just doesn't seem to add up to me. I haven't looked at any evidence that says otherwise but I'm just saying, that sounds kinda strange.
And if they're being considered for execution then it's more then likely that they killed/raped (whatever else) a human being too.
And it's not uncommon to hear about criminals who get out of prison and do something even worse.
No, it's only likely that they've been CONVICTED of killing a human being.
Look up the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. Here we have SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the "science" they used to established that he set the fire was bogus, and that the fire happened EXACTLY the way he said it did. That means we finally have scientific proof that an innocent man has been executed.
If you ask me, that means that, from now on, ANYONE in favor of the death penalty is an accessory to murder.
It's a shame what happened to Mr. Willingham indeed, and I'm not opposed to taking as long as possible exacting every possibility to find the convicted person's innocence.
And I am starting to see your point on the government's incompetence, however many murderers and rapists have been found to be guilty, and rightfully so, but kept alive which to me seems unfair that they could do something so horrible and just get away with such a lenient punishment.
For people like you and me it would be hell, but for a person who decides to kill or rape somebody you may not have such a serious connection to the outside world. It's a little hard for me to picture a person who rapes and kills a child to be fearing a prison sentence, or be thinking about their family and friends.
If you do something like that you should pretty much already be expecting to go to jail. In short, it would be harsh for normal people, but for a killer it would seem pretty light
Not exactly, what I meant was that if they were to commit something like that, they must not have too much attachment to friends family, or the outside world; they might be a little messed up in the head. Therefore being in prison wouldn't be too horrible a punishment for them.
The only fear and punishment I can see of being locked up would be a disconnection from the outside world, which they would probably already have.
Oh, so it's about punishment, then? Funny, I thought that libertarian philosophy stated quite clearly that defense was the only justifiable use of force, not punishment...
Shane... I'm thinking of reading an Austrian treatise over the summer when I'm in the north atlantic circle. (It will be my magic Talisman to ward of the spirits of Socialism) I was thinking of getting human action, but i had thought that it might be better to get something by Rothbard or Block. I can handle complex economics...
The thing is, I've read about half of 'socialism' by Von Mises, but the way he frames his sentences is extremely Bizzare... His arguments once i understand them, are good arguments, but i need to reread his sentences 3 times before i understand what he's trying to say. Rothbard on the other hand is a native speaker of English and i find his writings, like 'For a new liberty' for instance, much easier to understand grammatically.
i think economics is less confusing and mystical than people think it is... it just happens to benefit those in power that economics be as confusing and unattractive to learn about as possible. 'leave it to the experts', so to speak.
I just subscribed today. You're my new favorite Youtuber!!! :D A good ol' fashioned Libertarian Skeptic...my kinda people. :)
My question (don't know if this has been asked or not yet) is about your position on Global Warming. This is one issue that separates me from most Libertarians. I was initially unconvinced by arguments of anthropogenic GW, but I changed my mind after I studied it. I always have an open mind on things like that, so I'd be thrilled if you could change my mind again. :)
Also, I REALLY enjoyed your videos responding to the moon landing conspiritards. You really ripped them a new one and I thoroughly enjoyed watching and learning from you. :D Keep up the good work!
4:19 - "you're talking about killing a human being"
Humans are killed all the time for one reason or another. What is significant about sentencing one to death as opposed to all the other possible ways a human being is killed?
While I agree with you most of the time I don't agree without you about this.
You seem to agree that killing to save another life is acceptable. However, what if the killing indirectly saves lives?
For example, a person is sentenced to life in prison for murder. Why should we waste resources on keeping this person alive? The resources could have been used elsewhere to save other lives.
What is your opinion of the Heritage Foundation's Economic Freedom Index putting the USA as #6 in terms of economic freedom with a score of about 80.7 out of 100?
Ey! do you think it would be a good idea to expand the libertarian party platform to... lets say Mexico? If that's so, where wound you start? We desperate need real options.
What is your biggest concern regarding the future welfare of all humans on this planet? Will everybody some day live in reasonable prosperity as we do?
Here is another question. If you are a libertarian, and there are government programs like stafford loans, should you take advantage of them, or refuse to use them?
Shane, what is your take on fluoridated water and salts? I have a colleague in the states who's a dentist that thinks fluoridation is great, but another colleague who works for a chemical manufacturer for pharma in the EU that thinks it's backdoor profiteering?
Here is a question you may find interesting, what would be better for the United States, an honest, sincere, and competent socialist in power, or an insincere, dishonest, and incompetent politician that wants to shrink the government.
I am curious to know whether you lean toward the position of Market Anarchism(Anarcho-Capitalism) or Minarchism? If Minarchist, what are your main criticisms of the Ancap position, or vice versa? Love your vids, thanks!
Do you think we will be able to survive this economic crisis, or do you think ignorance and stupidity will prevail and those currently in power will destroy us? I know that it is possible for us to get our government back to the way it was intended to function, but I fear that will never happen because the general populace is either too stupid or apathetic to act. What is your opinion?
You claim the virtues of critical thought yet make statements like "perfect libertarian". The term "perfect" reeks of religious dogma and I even question why you would hold so closely to a party rather than issues. Isn't the best road for political tolerance that of talking and compromise, rather than taking sides before the debate has even begun?
No, it does not, not in any way, shape, or form. It just refers to an ideal. An ideal that, perhaps, no one can actually achieve, but which can be aspired to and can be the metric by which success is judged.
Also, the phrase clearly referred to philosophical libertarianism, and not the party.
The fact that you jumped there strongly suggests that it is YOU who is taking a dogmatic position.
I would encourage everyone to read I Pencil. A link can be found in the video description of this video and now also on my channel. It is free, short, and eye opening. Thanks for the link.
The government says they're doing it to protect us from mis-using drugs. But shouldn't they be obliged to protect us against the abuse of doctor's prices and health insurance rates as well?
why do we get one protection on the expense of another?
Socialism, (communism lite), seems to work 100% adequatly regarding interpersonal relationships. (I bum 3 or 4 smokes off of you at X date, so I'll give you 3 or 4 smokes when you don't have any). (I need a ride today, you need a ride tomorrow, it works out fine and neither one of us are unduly burdened). However, on national scales, it does not function correctly. Why?
Since you haven't responded to the question I posed to you in the video responses, I'll ask it again here: Why do you refer to the tea party protests as being "grassroots" when it's a well known fact that they were funded and coordinated by various right wing and corporate interests? The evidence points to the tea party protests as being a clear example of astroturfing. Surely a skeptic such as yourself won't dismiss the evidence...
I KNOW PEOPLE who organized tea parties! I know LOTS of people who went there! I have DIRECT SOURCES from people WHO ACTUALLY ORGANIZED THEM AND THEY NEVER GOT ONE PENNY FROM FOX NEWS OR ANYONE ELSE!!!
Astroturfing does not mean that everyone involved is necessarily an agent of the astroturfers. It simply means that the events were not grassroots. They were not the spontaneous reaction of the people. The protests were first funded and coordinated by right wing politicos and businesses. The fact that several more protests were organized at the local level without overt influence from the right wingers and businesses does not change the fact that it was a case of astroturfing.
The protests would not have happened if they weren't started by the likes of Dick Armey and his astroturfing organization FreedomWorks, or the massive propaganda from FOX news. The people themselves didn't get angry and protest on their own. They were told to get angry and protest from above. That's why it was not grassroots.
You mentioned the global warming controversy. I would allow for the possibility that there is bogosity on both sides of the issue, but the fact that Exxon and other fossil fuel companies stand to gain from the global warming problem not being dealt with by denial of it shows how dangerous it is to let corporations influence how science is done to profit themselves. Exxon should just shut up and go away!
If you had the power, and you could do it in a manner that wouldn't incur any backlash (IE lawsuit for being bucked off the dinosaur fantasy lands triceratops with saddle) would you censor people like Ken Ham or Kent Hovind from being able to spew their ignorance to people who don't know better?
How does Radiometric dating work? (Not Carbon dating, i understand carbon dating because carbon is consumed by organisms, that's why i don't understand radiometric dating because what element do they use for that?)
There are several elements used for radiometric dating, the most common methods are uranium-lead potassium-argon and argon-argon. The parent elements decay into other elements called daughter isotopes at what we can gather is a fairly constant rate.
I used to enjoy conspiricies, before I seriously started studying science and particularly before watching bogosity.
I placed every nut job idea I had away, but I have yet to see a decent rebuttal to the 9/11 conspiricy claims. I dont accept them anymore- but when people challenge me to disprove the conspiricy- I have no evidence whatsoever to back me up.
know of any good rebuttal sites or could you do a bogosity on it??
Keep in mind that some of the claims that 9/11 truthers say don't need a rebuttal or explanation because they are completely made up. Like Osama bin Laden denying the attacks, a trillion dollars missing from the federal reserve, some of the hijackers being found alive etc. There not just as cut and dry stupid as moon hoax claims or creationist claims.
Do you believe that consciousness and freewill are an illusion? If so, can you justify people being punished for their actions? If no, how do you justify this with the causal nature of science?
Should a company be allowed to temporarily make prices so low that they will drive their competition out of business - only to then raise them once all of their competition is gone?
I'm sorry, but comparing a gun to a hammer doesn't make sense. A gun is made for 1 thing.. hurt & kill.. a hammer clearly isn't. it's also darn difficult to kill someone with a hammer from 10 yards distance..
Umm... actually that is 2 things... but let me add a third - defend. We don't put guns in the hands of police officers just so they can 'hurt and kill'.
lol...This has become silly.....Now why not answer my question on the Verichip being used as currency?.... :D
ninjacatmagic 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic The Verichip isn't currency; it's a form of ID. Learn what you're talking about and then come back.
shanedk 6 months ago
Isn't the term "biologist" reserved for real scientist?.....Keep it in church, man.... :P Besides....I recanted my "fraudulent" claim and replaced it with "public relation NIGHTMARES!!" Anytime you mention that which you claimed was unmentionable.....It is met with the statement "Biggest scam in scientific history!".......I don't create public perception...I only repeat it.....
ninjacatmagic 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic ALL biologists are "evolutionists." You can't do biology without evolution. Evolution IS the unifying concept of ALL biology.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk ALL except the ones who are not?Which do exist.All it takes for your statement to be incorrect is ONE biologist who denies evolution.watch?v=pele5vptVgc Now let's talk about your views on the Verichip being used as currency.I've been dying to hear your views on this.Nobody can hide from the future,but I feel this will be all sorts of horrible for the future of mankind.I'm all for Transhumanism, but wouldn't this stepping stone of H+ remove what little wealth us debt slaves already have?
ninjacatmagic 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic "ALL except the ones who are not?Which do exist. All it takes for your statement to be incorrect is ONE biologist who denies evolution."
Reference to peer-reviewed scientific literature or it didn't happen.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk This is one of your own videos. watch?v=LRtzB_nBaSY&feature=related Please note your statement in said video @ 6:56.In fact..In the majority of your evolution videos.The term "biologist" is rarely, if EVER!!!!!!!!!!!! (<--That's 12 exclamation points), used when describing evolutionary scientist.(Now see how I placed the term "rarely, if EVER?"This is a form of protective speech.It closes the loopholes that using totality terms such as all, every, always, never, ect. often create.
ninjacatmagic 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic Because I make videos RESPONDING TO CREATIONISTS.
Look in the scientific literature; can you find the term "evolutionist" used ANYWHERE in the peer-reviewed literature?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk I was unaware that my youtube comments were peer-reviewed literature....Furthermore....I use the term "evolutionist" because most youtube posters, who just so happen to agree with evolution, are NOT biologist.The term "evolutionist" is not uncommon, nor derogatory.....The accuracy of a term, in light conversation, is only as accurate as the scrutiny of it's audience! Saying the sky is blue is correct, but only if saying the more accurate azure is not required...
ninjacatmagic 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic "I was unaware that my youtube comments were peer-reviewed literature"
Biggest. Evasion. Ever!
"I use the term "evolutionist" because most youtube posters, who just so happen to agree with evolution, are NOT biologist."
Except you keep using it in reference to people who ARE doing the science!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk You know for a fact that some Creationist dillweed has evaded a comment worse than that....You are exaggerating.....And as I said....It has everything to do with the scrutiny of the audience.....Even in your own videos you do not refer to evolutionist as biologist.....You favor the term evolutionary scientist or the like.......Double standard much?.....
ninjacatmagic 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic I HAVE to do that because of LYING CREATIONISTS--if I'd just said that Piltdown Man was exposed by scientists or biologists, they would have just bleated back with, "See? Even scientists and biologists say that evolution is a fraud!"
Trust me, I've been debating these LIARS for over 20 years. I know all the tricks. And yes, your evasion IS one of the worst I've EVER seen in that time!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk "I HAVE to do that because of LYING CREATIONISTS" I won't even list the amount of logical fallacies this statement contains.. :P Not to mention you changed your previous statement from "Biggest. Evasion. Ever." to "one of the worst I've EVER seen in that time!"...So is it the biggest evasion ever, or is it one of the the biggest....You can't claim something is #1, then change your claim from it being #1 to it merely being in a top 5....But I like the way you caught that evation! :)
ninjacatmagic 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic Never said anything about top 5, LIAR. It was a HIDEOUS evasion, and you're just trying to distract from it now with semantics. You disgust me.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk It was a cute evasion and you know it....Otherwise it wouldn't have received such adoration......As for the Verichip....Agreed....Perhaps I should have not used a namebrand when describing an item....Coke = Soda, Q-tip = Cotton swab, ect....But with future technology, and a slow acclimation towards transhumanism (Which I am for, btw!)....Isn't it logical/possible/probable that an implantable chip is in our near future for finacial transactions? (Which I am against!).....
ninjacatmagic 6 months ago
As I said....A lot of evolution's problems lie in it's fraudulent past....There isn't many cases of gravitational scientists faking evidence....This isn't the theory of evolutions fault, but it has tarnished it's reputation...Btw, there is no human history, from isolated sources, that aliens are pushing everyone down...But there is plenty of isolated history with claims of aliens seeding the Earth.... ;)
ninjacatmagic 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic "There isn't many cases of gravitational scientists faking evidence."
Show evidence of deliberate forgery or receive a warning for violating Rule #5. (Hint: If you say "Piltdown Man," you get the warning.)
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk What is Rule #5?
ninjacatmagic 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic No libel or false accusations.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk So are you saying that evoloution has NEVER had a single instance of fraud?.....But to keep the peace and give a more....Errrrr.....Politically correct statement....I'll recant my previous use of the term "fraudulent" and replace it with the more pallitable statement of "public relations NIGHTMARES!!".... ;)
ninjacatmagic 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic Only due to fabrication by creationists, like the fake dinosaur-with-human tracks. When it comes to the fakes, NO ONE has it on the creationists...
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Sounds like mudslinging to me....It's ok to admit that evolution has had it's moments of "public relation NIGHTMARES!!".....I won't hold it against you, or use it as ammo......But I can agree with your statement......Evolutionist have only been full of poop for a couple hundred years.......Bible thumpers have been full of poop for a couple millennia.....
ninjacatmagic 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic You have yet to show ANY poop from "evolutionists" (BTW, the proper term is "biologist").
shanedk 6 months ago
Aliens must exist!How else would the Earth have been seeded with adaptable, biological machines?Consciousness gives reason to existence, and the universal God Consciousness, although far from being proof of God's existence, cannot be explained through evolution without imaginative speculation.As for my question?Are you atheist or agnostic?And if you are atheist, are you atheist towards the "White Bearded Guy in the Sky", or atheist towards any intelligent existence outside of our 5 senses?
ninjacatmagic 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic "How else would the Earth have been seeded with adaptable, biological machines?"
The work of Dr. Jack Szostak (and others) show that it could easily have happened naturally.
shanedk 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic Get ready for a multi-part comment, as this one's a doozy.
“Aliens must exist!”
Oh, this ought to be good.
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic “How else would the Earth have been seeded with adaptable, biological machines?”
Where do I begin? First off, conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. Argument from ignorance. Begging the question. Argument from incredulity. That’s at least 4 logical fallacies in one sentence. You’re assuming that only aliens could have seeded the earth. (cont.)
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic (cont.) Secondly, you’re assuming the earth was seeded. Third, you’re dismissing all other possibilities without consideration. Fourth, you’re making a conclusion based on your own inability to understand the science. In essence, your argument boils down to “I don’t know. Therefore, aliens.”
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic “Consciousness gives reason to existence…”
Do you mean that it allows one to reason, or that it gives one purpose? It’s a bit difficult to parse what you’re saying. I’d recommend getting off the drugs. They screw up your ability to think rationally, much less express your ideas clearly.
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic “…and the universal God Consciousness, although far from being proof of God's existence, cannot be explained through evolution without imaginative speculation.”
Pretty much all the criticisms I made of your first sentence apply here. You’re making the same logical and cognitive errors.
(cont.)
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic (cont.) However, I have to ask, what the hell are you talking about? Universal God Consciousness? Is this some bastard afterbirth of the long discarded theory of collective unconsciousness, or does it have something to do with the proliferation of religious thought?
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic (cont.) If the former, provide your evidence. Simply asserting a thing does not make it true. If the latter, this is very EASILY explained by psychology and evolution. No imaginative speculation required. Then again, this could be something completely unrelated to the two ideas above. It’s a bit hard to tell when you won’t elaborate on anything you say.
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic “ As for my question, are you atheist or agnostic? And if you are atheist, are you atheist towards the "White Bearded Guy in the Sky", or atheist towards any intelligent existence outside of our 5 senses?”
Shane’s an atheist. This means applying the same mentality to god as one does to unicorns, mermaids, the invisible monster in your closet, etc. (cont.)
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic (cont.) I.e., the null hypothesis is the default until reliable, repeatable evidence arises that is capable of countering the null hypothesis. I don’t understand your dichotomy, though. Why the distinction, and why is that relevant?
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 Damn, you're a fast typist!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Full disclosure: I typed that up in LibreOffice writer first. I may not have been able to get Ubuntu to work with my video card, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to pick up something useful. :-P
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic There. That wasn't so bad, was it? This time, try responding to my comments instead of complaining about some nebulous debate protocols.
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic Oh, and by the way, there are more than 5 senses.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk There's the sense of nausea whenever one is dealing with a creationist, so that makes at least 6. :-P
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 There's a scientific consensus for sense of pain, sense of temperature, sense of balance/acceleration, and sense of kinesthesis. That makes 9. There's also a scientific consensus that there are other senses, but how they should be categorized is still a subject for debate.
shanedk 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 Proliferation of religious thought.And I'm not a creationist.I believe the Earth was seeded.Big difference.I'm fully aware that Christians have made it near impossible not to instill the belief that a person who seeks other answers besides evolution is nothing more than a creationist incognito, but I assure you I AM NOT!....I'm an agnostic who leans more towards a believer than atheism...Perhaps a belief is the "wisdom teeth" of beliefs....A remnant, but saying this is spectulation!
ninjacatmagic 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic You sound like a Raelian.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk I assure you that I'm 100% against any organized religion.Religion is just a cultures way of brainwashing people into doing their bidding, or a form of predictive programming.I do, however, believe that life on Earth was scientifically created by a species of extraterrestrials.I would say that my belief system comes more from early human history moreso than from any organized group.But I can see how the two can intertwine.Isolated groups with similar stories of ET's is commonplace.Why?
ninjacatmagic 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic “Proliferation of religious thought. “
As I said, this is easily explained.
Goo dot gl slash btJJX
See? No imaginary thought or magical speculation required. You really should expand your horizons.
”And I'm not a creationist. I believe the Earth was seeded. Big difference.”
I never implied otherwise.
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic “I'm fully aware that Christians have made it near impossible not to instill the belief that a person who seeks other answers besides evolution is nothing more than a creationist incognito, but I assure you I AM NOT!”
Again, never implied otherwise. The problem is that evolution is so well supported, and has been for so long now, that it’s rare to find anyone who rejects the theory wholesale and isn’t a creationist. It's just that good.
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic “....I'm an agnostic who leans more towards a believer than atheism...Perhaps a belief is the "wisdom teeth" of beliefs....A remnant, but saying this is spectulation!”
You’ve declared this several times throughout the comments of these videos. No need to overdo it. I’m afraid I have no idea what you mean by “spectulation”, though for some reason I keep thinking it has to do with mucous. :-P
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 Good read.But nowhere near consensus.Not even close to the consensus evolution has, and even evolution theory is bat****.ha/ha.But I'll give you this.Most people think the theory I hold on to is bat**** as well.So we're even.We may disagree on many things.But you have to admit that we can both agree that evolution will always be a controversial subject.btw.I wouldn't say that I "reject" evolution per se.Imo, an intelligent creator would be wise to seed using an evolutionary manner.
ninjacatmagic 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic So, technically, your problem is with the theory of abiogenesis?
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 Nah.I'm fully aware that evolution does not deal with the origin of life.But it does hint at it.I would say I'm mostly indifferent.I feel evolution is impossible to prove.Entirely possible, but impossible to prove.Same with the concept of God.I believe a lot of evolution's problems lie in it's fraudulent past....It will always be a hot topic up for debate.Same with the theory I hold onto...Even if aliens would come down and say "It was us! We created all life individually!
ninjacatmagic 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic Evolution doesn't have anything to do at all with the origin of life, even hinting at it. It deals with the diversity of life. It's not just possible to prove, it's been proven. Even then, taking that standard of evidence, one could always claim that gravity was an illusion caused by an invisible alien pushing everyone down.
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@shanedk Agreed....I'm slowly learning exactly how specific I have to be with you regarding semantics and debatable subject matter... :P I guess a more accurate statement would have been a question directed towards your belief or nonbelief in the possiblity of the existence of entities or phenomenon outside the scope of human perception and technological ability...Foregoing my question "are you an atheist... or agnostic..." Most stereotypical atheist are only atheist regarding (cont)
ninjacatmagic 6 months ago
@shanedk society's view, or fictional literature descriptions of what, we as humans, commonly define a God's requirements or overall view of what a God has to be.....
ninjacatmagic 6 months ago
I suggest you make Bogosity Episode 10 on Holistic Medicine & Homeopathy. I'll watch your videos and make sure to inform people.
UnmaskedTuxedo 1 year ago
what does the D in shaneDk stand for?
interstate317 1 year ago
@interstate317 Derek.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
"Shane Derek Killian"
Really? I always thought the D stood for "Dawkins" :P
vspqbd 8 months ago
i haven't watched all your videos yet so if this question is answered in one of them just ignore it: in the USA almost all pledges are "to God". "do you swear to god...bla bla". this is used in courts, congress elections, presidential,... right? to an atheist this means absolutely nothing, because for him, there is no god... since the number of atheists are growing shouldnt the government change this?
roky1337 1 year ago
@roky1337 Actually, the oath in the Constitution doesn't say "under God." Not only that, but if someone is forced to swear to God to get into Congress etc., that's a violation of Article VI.
shanedk 1 year ago
Shane, have you heard about the Ludwig von Mises institute? They have a lot of lectures here on YouTube. I've subscribed to them, it's REALLY good stuff that everyone should be made aware of!
Kakarot21591 2 years ago
is there any book(s) that you can recommend for someone that wants to learn about political issues from the basics, and also wants a valid reason to take a certain political stance?
DahStranger 2 years ago
Harry Browne's books Why Government Doesn't Work and The Great Libertarian Offer are wonderful.
Also Mary Ruwart's Healing Our World; you can read the first edition online for free at ruwart(dot)com.
shanedk 2 years ago
Could you do a Bogosity episode on global warming?
Scoforever 2 years ago
Episode 12.
shanedk 2 years ago
5:09 You hardly recommend it? I hardly know how to interpret that.
Gameboygenius 2 years ago
As a libertarian I gotta disagree with you on the Death Penalty. A shame too, I figured that was one of the issues libertarian's could universally agree on
LOMGDosu 2 years ago
How libertarians can in any way trust the government with the authority to kill people is beyond me...
shanedk 2 years ago
I see it as a way to cut cost on wasteful people, ie paying taxes to feed them etc. If you just kill the ones who are doing life anyway, we save money, food, space, it just seems much less wasteful to me
LOMGDosu 2 years ago
Except that it costs more to execute a prisoner than it does to imprison him for life.
That, and you're talking about KILLING A HUMAN BEING.
shanedk 2 years ago
I'm not sure that one injection would cost more then a lifetime of food, that just doesn't seem to add up to me. I haven't looked at any evidence that says otherwise but I'm just saying, that sounds kinda strange.
And if they're being considered for execution then it's more then likely that they killed/raped (whatever else) a human being too.
And it's not uncommon to hear about criminals who get out of prison and do something even worse.
LOMGDosu 2 years ago
No, it's only likely that they've been CONVICTED of killing a human being.
Look up the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. Here we have SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the "science" they used to established that he set the fire was bogus, and that the fire happened EXACTLY the way he said it did. That means we finally have scientific proof that an innocent man has been executed.
If you ask me, that means that, from now on, ANYONE in favor of the death penalty is an accessory to murder.
shanedk 2 years ago
It's a shame what happened to Mr. Willingham indeed, and I'm not opposed to taking as long as possible exacting every possibility to find the convicted person's innocence.
And I am starting to see your point on the government's incompetence, however many murderers and rapists have been found to be guilty, and rightfully so, but kept alive which to me seems unfair that they could do something so horrible and just get away with such a lenient punishment.
LOMGDosu 2 years ago
Life without parole is lenient? Being imprisoned every day of your life is lenient?
shanedk 2 years ago
For people like you and me it would be hell, but for a person who decides to kill or rape somebody you may not have such a serious connection to the outside world. It's a little hard for me to picture a person who rapes and kills a child to be fearing a prison sentence, or be thinking about their family and friends.
If you do something like that you should pretty much already be expecting to go to jail. In short, it would be harsh for normal people, but for a killer it would seem pretty light
LOMGDosu 2 years ago
I am COMPLETELY unable to grasp the immense leap of logic which led you to that conclusion.
Someone who likes raping children would LIKE being locked up in a place where they can't rape children? HUH???
shanedk 2 years ago
Not exactly, what I meant was that if they were to commit something like that, they must not have too much attachment to friends family, or the outside world; they might be a little messed up in the head. Therefore being in prison wouldn't be too horrible a punishment for them.
The only fear and punishment I can see of being locked up would be a disconnection from the outside world, which they would probably already have.
LOMGDosu 2 years ago
I didn't say they wouldn't like it but I don't think it would be the punishment they deserve.
LOMGDosu 2 years ago
Oh, so it's about punishment, then? Funny, I thought that libertarian philosophy stated quite clearly that defense was the only justifiable use of force, not punishment...
shanedk 2 years ago
Well, there are libertarians who do support capital punishment like myself; Ron Paul, for example, who agrees with state level death penalty.
I guess our party is just split on these issues. Strange, I always thought we were more together on this one.
I can respect your opinion in the regard that you respect human life, hopefully you'll see my side in a better light some day.
It's been nice debating you, I do enjoy your videos it's nice to see that not all youtube users are simpletons
LOMGDosu 2 years ago
I could help with the Spanish if you are still interested
allison8914 2 years ago
it's a good thing bogosity is gonna be in German... because quite honestly i have trouble understanding spoken english.
LiberalofLiberty 2 years ago
It'll still be spoken in English, but with German subtitles.
shanedk 2 years ago
Crap then i'm shit out of luck!
Lol i'm not german at all.
Shane... I'm thinking of reading an Austrian treatise over the summer when I'm in the north atlantic circle. (It will be my magic Talisman to ward of the spirits of Socialism) I was thinking of getting human action, but i had thought that it might be better to get something by Rothbard or Block. I can handle complex economics...
LiberalofLiberty 2 years ago
The thing is, I've read about half of 'socialism' by Von Mises, but the way he frames his sentences is extremely Bizzare... His arguments once i understand them, are good arguments, but i need to reread his sentences 3 times before i understand what he's trying to say. Rothbard on the other hand is a native speaker of English and i find his writings, like 'For a new liberty' for instance, much easier to understand grammatically.
LiberalofLiberty 2 years ago
Yeah, Rothbard is very easy reading considering, which is impressive considering the subject matter.
shanedk 2 years ago
i think economics is less confusing and mystical than people think it is... it just happens to benefit those in power that economics be as confusing and unattractive to learn about as possible. 'leave it to the experts', so to speak.
LiberalofLiberty 2 years ago 2
interested in arabic subtitles?
Albukhshi 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
I just subscribed today. You're my new favorite Youtuber!!! :D A good ol' fashioned Libertarian Skeptic...my kinda people. :)
My question (don't know if this has been asked or not yet) is about your position on Global Warming. This is one issue that separates me from most Libertarians. I was initially unconvinced by arguments of anthropogenic GW, but I changed my mind after I studied it. I always have an open mind on things like that, so I'd be thrilled if you could change my mind again. :)
apopheniacMCMLXXXIX 2 years ago
Also, I REALLY enjoyed your videos responding to the moon landing conspiritards. You really ripped them a new one and I thoroughly enjoyed watching and learning from you. :D Keep up the good work!
apopheniacMCMLXXXIX 2 years ago
4:19 - "you're talking about killing a human being"
Humans are killed all the time for one reason or another. What is significant about sentencing one to death as opposed to all the other possible ways a human being is killed?
LagMasterSam 2 years ago
Nothing--that's the point!
If you have to kill someone to stop them from killing someone else, that's one thing, but outside of that, killing is just WRONG.
shanedk 2 years ago
While I agree with you most of the time I don't agree without you about this.
You seem to agree that killing to save another life is acceptable. However, what if the killing indirectly saves lives?
For example, a person is sentenced to life in prison for murder. Why should we waste resources on keeping this person alive? The resources could have been used elsewhere to save other lives.
LagMasterSam 2 years ago
Comment removed
NeddLudd1811 2 years ago
Comment removed
NeddLudd1811 2 years ago
What is your opinion of the Heritage Foundation's Economic Freedom Index putting the USA as #6 in terms of economic freedom with a score of about 80.7 out of 100?
Do you think this should be lower?
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Comment removed
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Ey! do you think it would be a good idea to expand the libertarian party platform to... lets say Mexico? If that's so, where wound you start? We desperate need real options.
Thanks
adam9dz 2 years ago
edit: do you have any thoughts on environmentalism?
jbz3 2 years ago
Comment removed
jbz3 2 years ago
What is your biggest concern regarding the future welfare of all humans on this planet? Will everybody some day live in reasonable prosperity as we do?
drandersw 2 years ago 2
Question:
When are you going to answer our questions?
hugesinker 2 years ago
I'm working on the script; hopefully I'll record today or tomorrow.
shanedk 2 years ago
Script? What about A Capella? :)
hugesinker 2 years ago
Here is another question. If you are a libertarian, and there are government programs like stafford loans, should you take advantage of them, or refuse to use them?
johnrainrules 2 years ago 6
Shane, what is your take on fluoridated water and salts? I have a colleague in the states who's a dentist that thinks fluoridation is great, but another colleague who works for a chemical manufacturer for pharma in the EU that thinks it's backdoor profiteering?
0bodobod0 2 years ago 2
Here is a question you may find interesting, what would be better for the United States, an honest, sincere, and competent socialist in power, or an insincere, dishonest, and incompetent politician that wants to shrink the government.
johnrainrules 2 years ago 3
Have you ever jacked off to Ayn Rand ?
Apptendo 2 years ago 4
Who hasn't?
bigjared420 2 years ago 6
I know I shouldn't dignify Apptendo's immature comment with an answer, but that was pretty funny!
grungefreak10 2 years ago
I am curious to know whether you lean toward the position of Market Anarchism(Anarcho-Capitalism) or Minarchism? If Minarchist, what are your main criticisms of the Ancap position, or vice versa? Love your vids, thanks!
Seansafk 2 years ago 3
Do you think we will be able to survive this economic crisis, or do you think ignorance and stupidity will prevail and those currently in power will destroy us? I know that it is possible for us to get our government back to the way it was intended to function, but I fear that will never happen because the general populace is either too stupid or apathetic to act. What is your opinion?
Fan0Tron 2 years ago 2
You claim the virtues of critical thought yet make statements like "perfect libertarian". The term "perfect" reeks of religious dogma and I even question why you would hold so closely to a party rather than issues. Isn't the best road for political tolerance that of talking and compromise, rather than taking sides before the debate has even begun?
MisterSartor 2 years ago
"The term "perfect" reeks of religious dogma"
No, it does not, not in any way, shape, or form. It just refers to an ideal. An ideal that, perhaps, no one can actually achieve, but which can be aspired to and can be the metric by which success is judged.
Also, the phrase clearly referred to philosophical libertarianism, and not the party.
The fact that you jumped there strongly suggests that it is YOU who is taking a dogmatic position.
shanedk 2 years ago
Q1: which US president was the greatest?
Lincoln or Washington???
Q2: can you make a bogosity-video about Holocaust-denial and the socalled "miracles" of the Quran
gre54hfd865erg634yts 2 years ago
I would encourage everyone to read I Pencil. A link can be found in the video description of this video and now also on my channel. It is free, short, and eye opening. Thanks for the link.
SUSPENDEDKUFFAR 2 years ago
You've been discussing the United States Government practices.
Here's something I'd like to see you discuss:
1. Medical care is VERY expensive.
2. Information about deseases is freely available.
3. Self dignoses is possible at many cases.
4. You can not buy drugs without perscription.
which leads back to point 1.
So question in short:
Why does the government force me to pay for doctors indirectly in order to get my medicin, even though it's very easy to figure out whats wrong.
dee0x29a 2 years ago 3
And for this question:
The government says they're doing it to protect us from mis-using drugs. But shouldn't they be obliged to protect us against the abuse of doctor's prices and health insurance rates as well?
why do we get one protection on the expense of another?
Thank you in advanced.
dee0x29a 2 years ago 2
What's your thoughts on Janeane Garafalo's "informed" opinion on the tea bag protests?
OMGSEASALT 2 years ago
Lol, cheers shane!
I was the one that asked if he was pro or anti guns and wether there are aliens.
Go to page 3 of his profile comments to see. :p
Timb0NZ 2 years ago
I was the guy who tried to answer the question for you.
Sorry it wasn't what Shane thought about guns. I DID, however, know that he's against the anti-gun people.
Peace.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Yeah, he gave an excellent answer. He makes it so simple. :p
Re: aliens, I ment if we already made contact. But I gather the answer is no.
Timb0NZ 2 years ago
By the way, Shane, I know this has nothing to do with science or economics, but I'm just curious...
What did you think about the latest Star Trek movie?
Virgil0211 2 years ago 4
is it that libertarians think that most(all?) governement intervention in the workings of the free
market leads to a poor or suboptimal outcomes as compared to if the market has been left alone?
if this is so then what market mechanisms would correct for Vendor lockins,information asymmetry,
patent protection that affect the competiveness of the market.doesn't these and other internal market
problems suggest a larger role for government intervention where market decision would be suboptimal?
oarobin 2 years ago 2
While this question is a bit loaded, and easily answered, I feel that placing it in a video would help a great deal.
Please answer this one, Shane.
Virgil0211 2 years ago
Socialism, (communism lite), seems to work 100% adequatly regarding interpersonal relationships. (I bum 3 or 4 smokes off of you at X date, so I'll give you 3 or 4 smokes when you don't have any). (I need a ride today, you need a ride tomorrow, it works out fine and neither one of us are unduly burdened). However, on national scales, it does not function correctly. Why?
kurtsemler 2 years ago
My question: When are the bonobos going to get their shit together? (i think that was meant to Aaronra, but what the hell, i'm here now, not there)
My second question: Can that pencil you were holding up: Isnt that one of those cool new pencils that can write in any language?
Great answer re: guns!
1. bogosity DVD = wow! a lot of work!
lennyhipp 2 years ago 2
Since you haven't responded to the question I posed to you in the video responses, I'll ask it again here: Why do you refer to the tea party protests as being "grassroots" when it's a well known fact that they were funded and coordinated by various right wing and corporate interests? The evidence points to the tea party protests as being a clear example of astroturfing. Surely a skeptic such as yourself won't dismiss the evidence...
LolLibertarians 2 years ago
I HAVE RESPONDED!!! MANY TIMES!!!
I KNOW PEOPLE who organized tea parties! I know LOTS of people who went there! I have DIRECT SOURCES from people WHO ACTUALLY ORGANIZED THEM AND THEY NEVER GOT ONE PENNY FROM FOX NEWS OR ANYONE ELSE!!!
You're repeating a pack of PROVEN LIES!
shanedk 2 years ago
Astroturfing does not mean that everyone involved is necessarily an agent of the astroturfers. It simply means that the events were not grassroots. They were not the spontaneous reaction of the people. The protests were first funded and coordinated by right wing politicos and businesses. The fact that several more protests were organized at the local level without overt influence from the right wingers and businesses does not change the fact that it was a case of astroturfing.
LolLibertarians 2 years ago
The protests would not have happened if they weren't started by the likes of Dick Armey and his astroturfing organization FreedomWorks, or the massive propaganda from FOX news. The people themselves didn't get angry and protest on their own. They were told to get angry and protest from above. That's why it was not grassroots.
LolLibertarians 2 years ago
These protests have been happening for YEARS! This is just the first year they've gotten any measure of publicity.
"The people themselves didn't get angry and protest on their own"
That is EXACTLY what happened! You're an ignoramus, blindly believing what you're spoon-fed without checking it out.
shanedk 2 years ago
"The protests were first funded and coordinated by right wing politicos and businesses."
PROVE it. And "They were good at hiding their contributions" is NOT proof; it's special pleading.
THESE PROTESTS HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS!!! *YEARS*!!!!!
shanedk 2 years ago
You mentioned the global warming controversy. I would allow for the possibility that there is bogosity on both sides of the issue, but the fact that Exxon and other fossil fuel companies stand to gain from the global warming problem not being dealt with by denial of it shows how dangerous it is to let corporations influence how science is done to profit themselves. Exxon should just shut up and go away!
DaleHusband 2 years ago 2
Ah yes, the conspiracy theory. Which, for some reason, skeptics seem to accept. I'll be hammering that one big-time!
shanedk 2 years ago
something strage is going on in this videos comments section. I cant find my comment I posted yesterday and there is some highly suspect thumbing...
also, this video is a great idea but if you read in the comments section quite a lot of people are abusing it my just asking ABSURD things.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
Would you smoke a crack rock if it meant you would be paid $1,000 and you knew you wouldn't be arrested for it?
hugesinker 2 years ago
Would you do Kari Byron from Mythbusters? If not, have you come out of the closet yet?
DieselDiaries 2 years ago
Have you ever applied for a partnership before?
Apptendo 2 years ago
What's your take on Thunderf00t's recent video on Ron Paul's comments about swine flu? Sorry by here in youtube we like conflict ^^
mtanti87 2 years ago 6
Who would you rather have sex with John McCain or Ron Paul?
Apptendo 2 years ago
do you believe the US would be better off with universal health care?
zezimashelpr 2 years ago 2
And you mispelled Penns name on the annotation, just pointing it out.
CENSOREDFORSEX 2 years ago
Are you going to do a Bogosity on 9/11 truthers? I thought I heard you say something about that.
CENSOREDFORSEX 2 years ago
Yes, but it'll be awhile.
shanedk 2 years ago
If you had the power, and you could do it in a manner that wouldn't incur any backlash (IE lawsuit for being bucked off the dinosaur fantasy lands triceratops with saddle) would you censor people like Ken Ham or Kent Hovind from being able to spew their ignorance to people who don't know better?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago 2
Do you watch any anime?
Apptendo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do I have a life?
Apptendo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Have you ever heard of 4chan?
Apptendo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do you really want to hurt me?
Apptendo 2 years ago
How would you bring the national debt down to zero?
Apptendo 2 years ago 2
How does Radiometric dating work? (Not Carbon dating, i understand carbon dating because carbon is consumed by organisms, that's why i don't understand radiometric dating because what element do they use for that?)
BeanBag2909 2 years ago
There are several elements used for radiometric dating, the most common methods are uranium-lead potassium-argon and argon-argon. The parent elements decay into other elements called daughter isotopes at what we can gather is a fairly constant rate.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Check out potholer54 and potholer54debunks channels. He has an excellent explanation of radiometric dating, and how it works.
Longsday 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Have you ever played the game World of Warcaft ?
Apptendo 2 years ago
I just came up with another question: How do you make a pencil?
TomSFox 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Are you going to rape me?
Apptendo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Did you steal my iPod touch?
Apptendo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Are you a Furry?
Apptendo 2 years ago
Have you ever smoked cannabis?
KrazzyKlown 2 years ago 3
I used to enjoy conspiricies, before I seriously started studying science and particularly before watching bogosity.
I placed every nut job idea I had away, but I have yet to see a decent rebuttal to the 9/11 conspiricy claims. I dont accept them anymore- but when people challenge me to disprove the conspiricy- I have no evidence whatsoever to back me up.
know of any good rebuttal sites or could you do a bogosity on it??
TheProf1988 2 years ago 7
Keep in mind that some of the claims that 9/11 truthers say don't need a rebuttal or explanation because they are completely made up. Like Osama bin Laden denying the attacks, a trillion dollars missing from the federal reserve, some of the hijackers being found alive etc. There not just as cut and dry stupid as moon hoax claims or creationist claims.
interstate317 2 years ago
I have a question. Can you evaluate the NEA's (National Endowment of the Arts) great successful attempts at preserving the arts in america.
pjfislord 2 years ago 3
what party would you vote for if you couldn't vote for liberatarians
Jtking3000 2 years ago
do you like gilbert gottfried
hakon1913 2 years ago
What's your favorite animal?
cre8ivmind 2 years ago
How much traveling have you done out of the country? What is your favorite place to visit?
hugesinker 2 years ago
Do you believe that consciousness and freewill are an illusion? If so, can you justify people being punished for their actions? If no, how do you justify this with the causal nature of science?
hugesinker 2 years ago
My response to this has always been -
If you don't think that someone had free will in committing a crime...
why do you think that I have free will to not want to see him punished.
Basically there's no point in asking "what should we do" when a premise of the argument is that there is no free will.
Free will has to be assumed if we are to ask any question of what should we do (...even if we don't have free will)
1927Solvay 2 years ago
日本語の手伝い出来るよ。
What do you think of H.R. 1207?
ghengisconrad 2 years ago
As we all know guns don't kill people, people kill people but monkeys do too! (if they own guns)
I propose that all monkeys and apes should be banned from having guns as they may act unpredictably when under stress or when agitated.
omegavalerius 2 years ago
What is the libertarian position on monopolies?
Should a company be allowed to temporarily make prices so low that they will drive their competition out of business - only to then raise them once all of their competition is gone?
1927Solvay 2 years ago 7
I'm sorry, but comparing a gun to a hammer doesn't make sense. A gun is made for 1 thing.. hurt & kill.. a hammer clearly isn't. it's also darn difficult to kill someone with a hammer from 10 yards distance..
KittyGotSued 2 years ago
"A gun is made for 1 thing.. hurt & kill.. "
Umm... actually that is 2 things... but let me add a third - defend. We don't put guns in the hands of police officers just so they can 'hurt and kill'.
1927Solvay 2 years ago