pt 3/3 - Understanding the Far Left (ZOMGitsCriss, Gratex, InMendham)

[rotcafarg]

ZOMGitsCriss is far left. That's hilarious. She's from a country that was ruled by a stalinist dictator for decades until they finally got rid of him and shot him and his shrewish wife when she was a kid. I bet she values her freedom more than you ever will.

[ultimateillusion]

Oh god, give me a break.

[TJae1]

zombie kriss... ooooo...

she likes pumps, video clippin', flippin' comments, & 80's perms..

[TJae1]

TAC.. how about pyrrho314; is P a libby... :

[PersonalPariah]

Surely everyone in the political arena is out for their own power? What would be their motivation for doing so otherwise? Certainly not philanthropy.

[shenanigan55]

ZOMGitsCriss loves Islam? Did anyone else catch that? Jesus, what a fucking imbecile.

[HailRasec]

I can only appreciate one thing of these series of videos, and that is your intellectual curiosity and the effort you put in forming your own opinion. In regards to your message, I think you have a very deceiving and inaccurate perspective of what truly the political left is meant to be.

[diagoras54]

How do we distinguish the "truth" from "propaganda"? I have an extensive education and have read and researched a large volume of material, almost all of which was in agreement. How do I determine the difference between that which accurately reflects "reality" and the material intended to warp my mind? That's why you need to provide sources; I might not find the same info as you, and I don't know how you came to the conclusions you did.

[diagoras54]

If you don't provide facts, you aren't leading the viewer to a conclusion. You're appealing to pathos, and attempting to bias the viewer so that when they perform their own "research" they will reach a pre-determined conclusion. If you intend to convince someone, you need to do more than state your own assertions on these issues with nothing to back them up.

[LazersFromJimmy]

I don't disagree with everything you say, but I'm not sure you represent the majority, you're just some guy. You sure do have a punchable face!

[ImproveYourLifeNOW]

... there's that emotionalist, intolerant, violence again.

[LazersFromJimmy]

Oh don't worry. I'm not in antifa or anything.

[unassumption]

People have differences in power, which mean their votes are, even if counted as equal, worth less, as they have less influence over the votes of other people. These discrepancies must be fixed to minimize the conglomeration of power in the hands of a few.

Happiness is a better goal than consensus; democracy is a means to the end of maximizing happiness. When human irrationality is concerned, a more scientific method based on merit in the field would perhaps be more applicable than democracy.

[unassumption]

The right have conspiracies and short attention spans too; the majority are irrational and ill-educated on both sides. Absolute democracy is not the most rational system, if our goal is to increase welfare and happiness in society.

National boarders don't mean anything; all humans deserve the same treatment, and boarders should only exist if they increase global happiness.

You may research but you should check out your sources; i've found some odd ideas on the net before.

[crashoppe]

right on man! when the minority rule, there will be so many laws none of us will be able to breathe the air without being fined for it. minority rule will not gain anyone freedom, it will only dampen it.

[535wer]

Uh you need to talk about how greedy the right wing is. George bush not greedy,come on now dude. Its funny how so many people have toatlly different views on politics and we are all blind becasue its all specualtion. But he is right on a lot of things though but it goes both ways. You might be right on some things but not on every issue. these days you dont know what to believe. its weird how you are really accurate on this issue bur far fetched on the hloacaust.

[ddviolinist]

I am not sure why you think you are interesting. You aren't. Nothing you say is of value. Nothing. You are boring and narcissistic. No one likes you.

[skribblah]

you are absolutely no different than the people on the far left...you spout your conservative opinions...they spout their leftist opinions...you're all just f-ing whiners anyways...who gives a F...you don't believe in global warming...turn your heat up, buy a F-ing hummer and shut up about it...or get off your ass, become a politician and do something about it...

[skribblah]

everyone who has an opinion on an issue, and campaigns for that issue, is asserting a certain amount of control on the opposing group... both sides will never win...what you're really saying is that you have a problem with people who have a difference in opinion from yours...all the arguments you made in this video can also be applied to the far right...greed...control...etc.­..just in different ways...capitalism vs socialism...right wing morality vs homosexuality...

[crashoppe]

"...all the arguments you made in this video can also be applied to the far right"

i agree. it's the extremist on any side of any argument that muck up the program.

[skribblah]

I love how you research everything and always come out agreeing with the conservative stand on that particular issue. like the holocaust didn't happen. leftists are the root of all evil...etc etc. why not use your "superior intellect" to do something useful. campaign for the government to remove the holocaust from the history books. or to stop immigration. instead of just bitching about it. or are you worried you'll sound like a leftist trying to use your opinions to control others lives...

[GeorgPuschnik]

Excellent speech, full of truth, just perfect!

[sustainedbyramen]

Majority rule?

What do 9 out of 10 people enjoy?

A gang bang.

Just because it pleases the majority, it does not make it moral. Minorities must be protected in democracies or you may end up with two seperate states in the end.

[JJDarklink]

dude this is great... I don't understand how you only have two stars.

I have to say though, while you are genial, you are grating. I understand, the far left is INFURIATING, and I love to use sarcasm against them too. but in order for us to reach them and convince them of our ideas, we'll have to be nicer. they're used to nice, sweet, CNN programming.

so I have to ask, are you libertarian? or what?

and we have to convince the others because like you said "majority rules."

[danielukes]

the far left love islam? so did hitler... so what?

[chainzdown2dadik]

its not only the far left that blocks people. i was recently "preemptively" blocked by confederalsocialist. who responded to a comment that i posted on a video that was neither mine nor his and at the end of the comment notified me that i was now blocked. smart move being that i was a subscriber of his. anyway he is definately an intelligent person but dude has serious issues.

[scionlightning]

Y'know, I've sat through all three of your videos on the far left and I want my half hour back, you rambled on about a lot of hateful, disrespectful things and expect people to swallow it. You sir are a douche.

[lovecloud2]

I liked your presentation. Very well said. Real people need to be running the world. Get rid of these power hungry people or whatever they are.

[TheAngryCanuck]

Thanks!!

[adronias]

This is an act, right? You're satirizing right wing extremism and the prevalent lack of critical thinking throughout, correct?

For your sake I really hope so, because the alternative is that you're a simpleton with absolutely no self awareness, which is seriously embarrassing to behold.

[OrionSyndicate910]

Since you're a Canadian, you might not have heard of Thomas Jefferson, who was one of the Founding Fathers of the USA. He had this to say about the rights of minorities:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

You should really read more.

[TheAngryCanuck]

I know of who Thomas Jefferson is.

Funny.. he didn't think women were a minority at the time.

My point is, EVERYTHING can get made into a minority.

[comamaos]

Like whites and heterosexuals.

Jefferson didn't think of women as a minority? Think for a minute. For the longest time, people didn't consider blacks a minority either. This was during the time in which they were considered property. Following abolition, in the South, they were still not considered a minority for the longest time, but looking back on how they were treated, they weren't considered much at all.

[comamaos]

My point is, once they reached the same civil level as whites, in this example, efforts had begun to be made to compensate for the disadvantages previously imposed upon them in order to integrate them more fully into our society. The minority isn't dictating anything; this is an effort to put a fully capable sector of our population on an equally functioning level.

[theathiestguy]

This reminds me of the first time i watched venomfangx

[BigDaddyBongos]

Yesterday:

""The factors firefox71 had described were not even related chronologically." -comamamos

Today:

""I'm not disputing Bush's expression of doubt about global warming nor am I disputing the increase of the price of gas at a later date." -comamaos

[comamaos]

BDB: Again, I'm trying to show you what a post hoc is. The way in which firefox71 worded his/her argument did NOT make mention of any actual dates, nor did the argument imply a chronological progression from point A to point B, making it a complete non-sequitur. This is what I have been trying to say to you. Now, if you disagree, you can please actually address my argument and explain why, preferably with some semblance of maturity and civility befitting a discussion between adults.

[comamaos]

While one event did occur LATER than the other, this does not make the fallacy a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The implication must be that there was a natural progression (as perceived by the proponent of the fallacy) between point A and point B. "When Bush enacted policy ignoring global warming, gas prices went up." The implication, here, is causation by chronological relation. "Bush was skeptical of global warming, and gas prices went up." Not quite the same.

[BigDaddyBongos]

"The implication must be that there was a natural progression (as perceived by the proponent of the fallacy)"

firefox71 posted that it was the epotime of a post hoc fallacy.

And you _still_ can't even be honest enough to post that firefox71 said 4$ a gallon, which is a specific event. Not a "gas prices went up".

[comamaos]

Again, you've chosen not to address HOW the post was "the epotime [sic] of a post hoc fallacy", despite claiming confidently that it was. And then you dive into another strawman. The difference between the actual price the poster referred to and the price just going up a lot really isn't that significant in *our* discussion.

[BigDaddyBongos]

"The difference between the actual price the poster referred to and the price just going up a lot really isn't that significant in *our* discussion."

Yeah, actually it is. Gasoline hitting 4$ a gallon happened on a specific date. Now I wonder why someone who, before, claimed that the events in firefox71's argument weren't chronologically related, kept trying to omit that part of firefox71's argument, and now claims that it's "not important"?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[BigDaddyBongos]

Could it be Saaaaaaaaatan?

Nah. Heh.

[comamaos]

Is it all right if I go to bed and come back later? Or am I going to be pathetic and running away?

[BigDaddyBongos]

Sleep is for the weak! WEEEAK! j/k

[comamaos]

Returning to our discussion? Are we gonna do this without name-calling or should I just go browse videos of cats running into things?

[BigDaddyBongos]

The specific terms carry their own context with them.

eg, "Larry Flynt makes millions, and the incidence of date rape rises."

Is a post hoc fallacy, not a non sequitur due to the context of who Larry Flynt is and the business he's in.

[comamaos]

You're definitely right about your example, but I felt that the George Bush example earlier didn't quite demonstrate the same correlation. Perhaps Bush's enacting a policy concerning global warming or fuel would've made a better connection, and I'm not going to deny the implication of Bush's expression of doubt over global warming as man-made having influenced such policies. I just feel the example was so far removed, it wouldn't have even operated on the same level of illusory legitimacy.

[comamaos]

You're blatantly omitting the fact that I had acknowledged in several places already that the rise in gas prices occurred following Bush's expression of doubt concerning global warming. Now you are just trying to create problems.

[comamaos]

Odd that you would be talking about this instead of my actual argument.

[comamaos]

If you disagree, I'll happily discuss it with you if you can be mature about it. This would necessarily exclude using words such as "pathetic" or "retarded" to describe me because you disagree with me and would naturally mean acknowledging my point without insisting I'm ignoring yours (which, you know as well as I do, is not true). It would also mean not turning to the whole congregation of YouTube to try to paint me stupid. Can we please have a discussion?

[BigDaddyBongos]

"It would also mean not turning to the whole congregation of YouTube to try to paint me stupid." -comamaos

You can proceed to prove this by showing exactly how many people have viewed this discussion and then comparing it to the total # of users on Youtube. They're hardly equal.

[comamaos]

I guess that answers that, then.

[BigDaddyBongos]

You didn't want to have a discussion, ever. You wanted to claim you knew TheAngryCanuck's definition of "the far left" by putting a cute (tm) on the end of it when in fact, he didn't define his term. If you actually wanted civil discussion in the first place, you would have posted a request for TAC to define what he meant. You didn't do that.

[comamaos]

Scroll back. Way before our little spat began.

[BigDaddyBongos]

So this is comamaos' pattern.

1. He sees a position that he disagrees with.

2. Lacking the integrity or the drive to actually debate the position directly, he restates it into something that's easily debunked. (The strawman fallacy)

3. When presented with an actual rebuttal to anything he posts, he pretends that the content of said post doesn't exist.

4. When called on this behavior he whines and calls it a personal attack.

Given these 4 behaviors, it's not unfair to call him pathetic.

[comamaos]

Again, you are personally attacking me, making claims about my arguments which are, to say the least, straw-man arguments (in that they have nothing to do with anything I've said; you've yet to refute me once, but you sure have named a lot of different ways I'm retarded or pathetic) and then you plea that YouTube acknowledge your moral superiority over me, again in place of actually having a civil discussion.... with ME.

[blade004]

If you are going to discuss, then discuss. Sit down and talk in a respectful way in regards to those for whom you address within your opposition to them.

Is it "really" necessary to let your ego and sarcastic snide remarks to be become part of your discussion? Again, don't go slamming off people as having piss poor attitudes when you yourself a far from living by your own example.

You know that if you spoke that way in person, you would get smacked in the mouth by that person.

[blade004]

Damn this guy has one hell of a cocky big mouth. Too much time on your hands AngryCanuck?

Want to talk about piss poor attitudes? look in the mirror.

[BigDaddyBongos]

So, in conclusion, for anyone who's followed this, comamaos' own posts prove him to be a liar.

And firefox71's original quote does, in fact, have chronological structure, (gas at 4$ in current dollars has occured on a specific date, and GWB's statements and later reversal on AGW are documented) which makes it a post hoc ergo propter hoc error.

There's nothing left for me to prove here.

[comamaos]

Again, you're trying to prove, not to me, but to YouTube, you're superiority over me, as opposed to your original point. You've made no effort to make a persuasive illustration of your point to me, but to portray me as having been dishonest and, in your own words, "retarded" to whomever might see. This suggests that you were never interested in discourse to begin with, but instead, proverbially, stroking your e-peen.

[BigDaddyBongos]

"You've made no effort to make a persuasive illustration of your point to me,"

Strawman argument again.

[comamaos]

Here we go again. Look up "logical fallacies".

[BigDaddyBongos]

My argument has been posted.

The fact that you can't respond to it directly, and can only claim that it doesn't exist is dishonest and pathetic.

The fact that you chose not to directly quote and respond to firefox71's original post, but rather restate it in order to omit the chronologically specific event it originally contained, was, in fact, a strawman argument, and was also pathetic.

And you know this comamaos.

[comamaos]

"The fact that you can't respond to it directly, and can only claim that it doesn't exist is dishonest and pathetic."

I have responded to it directly and I have never claimed it "doesn't exist". That you, of all people, should accuse me of doing so, on top of claiming mine are straw man arguments, is hypocrisy.

And scroll back a few. I have, indeed, directly quoted firefox71's original post. And I have even restated it.

Please stop with the personal attacks.

[BigDaddyBongos]

"I'm not disputing Bush's expression of doubt about global warming nor am I disputing the increase of the price of gas at a later date." -comamaos

Of course, that just doesn't include the time he claimed that firefox71's post had no chronological structure, and it also doesn't include comamaos' earlier claim that I didn't prove that it did.

Civility in debate depends upon honesty on the part of both participants, and comamaos has repeatedly failed to bring that to the virtual table here.

[comamaos]

Again, you're not replying to my posts, which is odd.

You're also personally attacking me and misrepresenting things, again. I don't know why you insist on doing this.

[gnu11111]

nazi propaganda

[BigDaddyBongos]

And guess what? I actually predicted comamaos' behavior 9 hours before this post. Go a page back folks, and you'll read in one of my earlier posts: "He will not directly reference firefox71's quote...."

PROVEN by comamaos' subsequent post right on this page.

[comamaos]

Do you notice how I have not been quite as self-serving as you have been nor have I resorted to name-calling or personal attacks? Why is it you feel the need to attack me and then prove to YouTube your superiority? We could've been having a quite civil discourse, no matter who was in the right or wrong.

[comamaos]

BDB, I've noticed in these last couple of messages, you haven't been posting as direct replies to my posts. Rather, you are posting them independently. When you post a direct reply, I am notified, but this is not the case with independent comments on the video.

[BigDaddyBongos]

Note how comamaos isn't even honest enough to reperesent the original argument accurately.

"Bush and his admin were rabidly anti-global warming and the price of fuel went to over $4 a gallon...is that far left?"

-firefox71

He also can't dispute the fact that gasoline prices went over 4$ ON A SPECIFIC DATE:

4.02 US on 7/7/2008.

And he can't dispute that GWB expressed doubt about anthropogenic global warming before this date.

[BigDaddyBongos]

In short, comamaos is, again, strawmaning an argument--specifically, by claiming that a post hoc ergo propter hoc requires chronological ordering, but then ignoring the facts that I've presented proving that firefox71's statement WAS IN FACT chronologically ordered.

[comamaos]

You're ignoring, thoroughly, my actual argument and are being somewhat hypocritical by insisting I am propagating a straw man fallacy.

[comamaos]

I'm not disputing Bush's expression of doubt about global warming nor am I disputing the increase of the price of gas at a later date. You seem to be missing the one point I've been trying to get across to you: the structure of the original argument.

You once again attacked me personally by calling my honesty into question, again not really taking into account either what I've said or, indeed, my point.

[BigDaddyBongos]

correction: Gas prices don't rise above 4$ US/Gallon every day. Hence that event has a specific chronological context.

Hence, you're a douche.

[comamaos]

George Bush expressed doubt about global warming. Gas prices went up. This is similar in that it is a fallacy conflating correlation with causation, but it is a non-sequitur. Compare to the hypothetical position: "Terrorist attacks dramatically decreased following the implementation of the Patriot Act."

Notice the lack of personal attacks in that last post. There is that whole civility in intellectual discourse to consider.

[BigDaddyBongos]

Step lively commamos, hurry up or you'll miss your FAILboat.

[comamaos]

Personal attack in place of actual argument.

[BigDaddyBongos]

"The factors firefox71 had described were not even related chronologically." -comamaos the retard.

Gas prices hit 4.02 US on 7/7/2008. GWB had expressed scepticism on Anthropogenic Global Warming long before that. Therefore, the factors are chronologically related, and therefore, comamaos the retard FAILS AGAIN! Hahaahahah!!!!

[comamaos]

Straw man. The factors were not connected chronologically within the argument. Forced laughter.

[BigDaddyBongos]

You are retarded comamos.

In the real world, which you apparently know little about, gas prices don't rise above 4$ US. That FACT is what gives the 4$ statement a specific chronological context, which you dropped. Also, GWB does in fact refer to US President GWB, and not someone else of the same name, again, specific chronological context, which you dropped.

Face it, you're a joke.

[comamaos]

"You are retarded comamos"

More grade-A civility and intellect. I especially like how it looks with my name spelled so creatively.

"Face it, you're a joke."

Again, you did not substantiate the original argument as having exemplified post-hoc fallacy, although this didn't stop you from sandwiching your statements so confidently with personal attacks.

[BigDaddyBongos]

"It is not a post hoc fallacy because she was not construing a correlative relationship between two EVENTS as being causal." -comamaos

"Bush and his admin were rabidly anti-global warming and the price of fuel went to over $4 a gallon...is that far left?"

-firefox71

It's an example of a post hoc ergo propter hoc error. -BigDaddyBongos

"the very epitome" -firefox71

[comamaos]

Quote-mining.

[Kernchen012]

5*s The Far Left are the Jewish Communist shitheads who orchestrated every war and famine and financial meltdown in the last 2000 years. Go to judicial index (google) a really good site on real information on the jewish parasite.

[Kernchen012]

Thanks a lot for your videos! Your video "Holocaust" is banned here in Germany. Research the secret history of the JEW and global ZOG control. They are the real culprits of all these evil things on this planet. They are the creators of communism and of the holohoax lie.

Take care!

Alex

[StabbedInTheKunt616]

You're so fuckin stupid. Put the mic down no one cares what you have to say. According to this video you have to be prejudice. Fuck you.

[kavudiego]

all you can research on your own is how the holocaust didnt exist, nice job fucktard,

[vibrant151]

Epic FAIL

[5quintessential5]

dont fuck with zomgitscriss.

you fucking disgrace to human rights

[BUDA20]

First, don't fuck with ZOMGitsCriss...

Second, if the majority rules, you have 1 star rating, so you lose.

[ALoreMiles]

You...fail. At understanding the life around you. The "far left", as you call them, members are research INCARNATE!

You either don't have the intelligence to understand the concept of minority, or ZOMGitsCriss's videos...did you watch any of them, I mean really watch?

Research? Cite your sources, please. If you read stuff somewhere, then you have the same sources as the "far left".

Sorry...but you fail.

[Antarblue]

Far left? There is no left in US.

[MrHoover3000]

Your father should have withdrawn.

[freethinkerdangerous]

This has to be a joke.

one person cant be THAT stupid and breathtakingly ignorant.

O_O OMG this dude is for real. Jeepers.

[firefox71]

That's some mighty powerful stupid here. Bush and his admin were rabidly anti-global warming and the price of fuel went to over $4 a gallon...is that far left?

....and for the record, read it ZOMG its Criss

[BigDaddyBongos]

"Bush and his admin were rabidly anti-global warming and the price of fuel went to over $4 a gallon...is that far left?"

It's an example of a post hoc ergo propter hoc error.

[firefox71]

the very epitome

[comamaos]

BDB, I really think you need to read up on logical fallacies. This is not a post hoc fallacy. It is a non-sequitur. I know naming fallacies must make you feel kinda smart, but it'd do you better to actually know what you're talking about.

[BigDaddyBongos]

At this point, comamaos will not attempt to explain the difference between a post hoc error and a non-sequitur. He will not directly reference firefox71's quote and will not explain how it is *not* a post hoc error. He will not do this because he can't without admitting I'm right and he's wrong. Decide for yourself youtubers. Check out firefox71's quote and then look up the definition of a post hoc ergo propter hoc error.

[comamaos]

It is not a post hoc fallacy because she was not construing a correlative relationship between two EVENTS as being causal. I like how, instead of demonstrating HOW you are right, you toss in a personal attack against me and try to rile up support from folks I'm fairly certain couldn't give two shits.

The factors firefox71 had described were not even related chronologically. Post hoc fallacies are necessarily progressive in terms of chronology.

[logic11isGod]

and the reason you protect minorities is because a minority may not be able to protect themselves. There is a group call the Malaitans. The Malaitans were different from everyone around them. The government of their country decided all Malaitans needed to be restricted to Malaita (a small island inside the country in question) and could not be allowed to work. The Malaitans did fight back, dropping the country into a decade of war. Had their rights been defended, no war... get it?

[logic11isGod]

The ice age thing was popular media, the science always said different. If you have done so much research, what is the highest carbon PPM in the last 700,000 years and how do we know that? What is the greenhouse effect and what is albedo? Is there an explanation for the recent warming on Mars and is it still going on? What is the hydrate hypothesis and what is the possible effect on global warming?

BTW: I am a leftist... which means I am against greed, and believe in individual rights.

[logic11isGod]

Weird dude, you talk about people not doing research and then equate Zomgitscriss with Islam... try watching some of her videos on islam sometime. Seems like you have missed the point of the ATHEIST community and its stand on Islam (hint: Islam is a religion)

[Gimmeaflakeman]

TheAngryCanuck,

Tip for you.

I am a registered slave owning Republican. I believe the world was created in 6 days and I think the UN is trying to take over the world. God bless our saviour the only and only JC.

And, more importantly, I don't make videos on politics. If you want views drop my name from your tags and use theamazingatheist in your tags. Nobody gives a flying frick against me.

[LimpLoser]

AngryCanuck. what is the ' Far Left '. How would you define it?

[Walabio]

Criss advocates equal rights for gay homosexuals -- not special rights. Please, do not be willfully ignorant. Proposition H8 is a clear case of of the majority discriminating against a hated minority. Marriage is great for us, not not for you.

You should watch this video by Dechha1981 about equal rights versus special rights:

watch?v=AqSErDUR_Xw

The gay homosexuals did not want special rights, just equal rights. The supporters of H8 wanted to keep the right to marry as their special right.

[jirishboy]

Dude, your ignorance scares me. Ignorance and anger is a dangerous combination...I don't need the media...your own words are sufficient to decide that you are an racist asshole.

[VyckRo]

You're right! Zomb she is a left.

[funeralsong34]

Share, but not with immigrants..lol

[RandyLayhea]

Five stars for this. I'll admit my mistakes in mixing the far left and calling them right wing. my ignorance in the subject was my mistake.

What are your views on our Health Care System? Do you feel that universal health care is wrong? For me I hope that it remains. But serious restructuring is badly needed. What's your input on Canada's Health Care?

[jesskat]

honestly your ass backwords, i hate these little comment boxes cus its not enough to straighten you out.

[Suorrel]

Though part of me likes to hear what needs to be said. Another part fears where this could go. Im refering to the additude of distain toward immigrants. While, I do agree the situation needs to be fixed. We should be sure not to treat people in humainly by raiding their homes, kidknapping them and putting them in a camp. I think it needs to be done carefully and with compassion. Otherwise we would be no better than Nazi.

[comamaos]

Normally, when you don't like a person, you feel that way because you notice disagreeable traits that seem to accumulate. This video is an example of assigning all conceivable negativity to one caricature, in this case The Far Left (tm), and only then explaining, when the mood strikes, what is unlikeable about it. The Far Left isn't a real collection of policies; it's just any little random thing that does, has, and will ever piss this guy off.

[BigDaddyBongos]

"The Far Left isn't a real collection of policies"

Ahahahahah! That's priceless.

[comamaos]

Here's another one: instead of addressing and refuting a statement, forced laughter is substituted. What it does is give the appearance of the poster as being so confident in the correctness of his own position and the alleged absurdity of the other position, that all he can or needs to do is laugh. This gives him an excuse not to actually work or make a refutation, which he may not even have.

[BigDaddyBongos]

"The Far Left isn't a real collection of policies"

Yeah it has no policy content whatsoever.

You misread me--I actually agree with you.

Hehehehe.

[comamaos]

And this is another one: purposefully misconstruing what one has said in order to make a joke. Like forced laughter, it avoids making any actual point by hoping parties involved will be distracted.

[BigDaddyBongos]

And here's another one--being anal retentive as a debating strategy in order to appear intelligent.

[comamaos]

Ad hominem, plain and simple.

[BigDaddyBongos]

And here's the real one: "The Far Left isn't a real collection of policies; it's just any little random thing that does, has, and will ever piss this guy off."

Strawman argument.

[comamaos]

How is it a strawman argument? I was saying "The Far Left" (tm) does not actually refer to any real platform or political party.

Here's one: false fallacies, insisting there is a fallacy in an opponent's argument in order to invalidate it, without any real base for the claim.

[BigDaddyBongos]

"How is it a strawman argument?."

You defined what TheAngryCanuck referred to "The Far Left" instead of either asking him for clarification. Textbook strawman. Case closed.

[comamaos]

This is yet another one: declaring victory or the end of the debate as if one's point is unassailable.

A straw man argument is a deliberate misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. You have yet to demonstrate how my interpretation of Canuck's vague, but threatening "Far Left" was off base in any way. You do not, then, have any base for claiming mine was a strawman argument.

[BigDaddyBongos]

"You have yet to demonstrate"

Another strawman argument.

The demonstration was this: "You defined what TheAngryCanuck referred to "The Far Left" instead of either asking him for clarification."

Putting your own interpretation on whatever TheAngryCanuck defines as "far left" instead of asking him what he means by it, was constructing a strawman argument. Since you don't know what his definition is, you've misrepresented it--deliberately.

It's rather pathetic to see you deny this.

[comamaos]

"Another strawman argument."

Again, how? My saying you haven't demonstrated your point is not a strawman argument.

I have not misrepresented anything. TheAngryCanuck addresses no specific platform and no specific policies. He simply names the alleged "tricks" used by The Far Left, but makes no attempt to identify any policy, action, person, platform, or party.

"It's rather pathetic to see you deny this."

And this would be resorting to insult. Odd that you would feel the need to do so.

[BigDaddyBongos]

"TheAngryCanuck addresses no specific platform and no specific policies."

Did you ask him to define what he meant by "The Far Left"?

No.

Did you say that a lack of definition was his definition?

Yes.

Ergo, misrepresentation, ergo, strawman argument.

It's not insulting to say that it's pathetic that you refused to even ask what TheAngryCanuck meant by "The Far Left" and yet still find the time to comment on his very channel.

[comamaos]

You want a straw man? You've got it.

Did I ask him what he meant by The Far Left?

Nope.

Should I have to since he's making a video criticizing what he feels is an aspect of it?

Nope.

Did I, indeed, say that the "lack of definition" was his definition?

Nope.

[BigDaddyBongos]

"Did I, indeed, say that the "lack of definition" was his definition? Nope. " -comamos

""The Far Left isn't a real collection of policies; it's just any little random thing that does, has, and will ever piss this guy off." -comamos

Comamos = FAIL.

[comamaos]

BigDaddyBongos = schizophrenic.

Again, waiting for you to show me a lack of a definition.

[BigDaddyBongos]

If you can't see it in the previous post then you have no understanding of what it is you wrote.

[comamaos]

That's one way to avoid making an actual argument.

[BigDaddyBongos]

Nope, it's just fact. You can''t acknowledge that words in the english language have definite meanings instead of meanings that change according to whatever it is you need to argue for at any given moment. It's a tactic that you share with creationists.

[comamaos]

Whew.  You want a straw man? There it is.

[TJae1]

... :-)

[TJae1]

dude ~ Ur too normal ~ I miss pyrrho :(

[TJae1]

zombiekriss ~ isn't exactly, a bill-o reilly ~

[SasukeUchihaBlood]

LOL "fuck that shit man" LMAO!!! LOL!!!

[0ldhack]

unblock me so I can school your ass in your comments some more.

[ChannelMikeG]

The irony is that Switzerland treats minorities better than minorities in other governments because they have a better sense of reciprocity in lawmaking which they developed through DIRECT DEMOCRACY. That's how Protestants and Catholics were able to peacefully coexist after a religious civil war. They abided by majority rule. Some majorities are minorities in other cantons, but they give consideration for each other through the process. Majorities and minorities crosscut each other in democracy.

[0ldhack]

the anarchists are gonna be a major obstacle in trying to get kids to understand the concept of freedom. i can see it already. just like how ron paul got more support then mike did during the campaign of the century. "be selfish" "share"

kids like hearing grown men tell them that being selfish is a good thing.

[ChannelMikeG]

I am certainly not a conservative, but this is a glaring hypocrisy of the left in American politics. Some of the criticisms could be easily be applied to the right as well, although there is a slightly different flavor of hypocrisy.

[0ldhack]

the right are the ones with the fight on their hands so they're all puffed up with that rebellious spirit in their hearts. I dont give a shit who or what anyones ideals are on individual issues.if they want to be free then I'm with them.

[ChannelMikeG]

Yeah, a lot of times I find myself identifying the right, because the left are far too complacent. I agree. Direct democracy is the key issue. The rest are mainly color preferences which are meaningless while we don't have lawmaking power. The current left-right paradigm is also a creation of representative government through its framing of the issues for our consumption.

[0ldhack]

it all started with the civil war.

[0ldhack]

neither the far left and the far right want to live in a democracy. out of fear of one another. otherwise they wouldn't consider themselves "far left" "far right". they'd be deeply centered like us.

[0ldhack]

yes I did fucker. I said it a million times. thats why you called me a anarcho-(d)emocrat -small d. remember? thanks for sticking with your rep for being stefan the plumbers tool belt

[0ldhack]

alright. you went more down the path of sanity towards the end. sharing power is the way we'll be able to become a more peaceful world.

[0ldhack]

dude. don't cut down on FDR. the mother fucker saved this country. you're about to start pissing me off man.

[0ldhack]

confederalsocialist is a bullshit artist. he might research things but he is every bit as guilty as farl leftists are in just using said research to further His agenda.

[adjohnson916]

It's generally understood that the Great Depression was put into motion by the Stock Market Crash of 1929 due to risky speculation in the stock market by the investor class.

[EconomicFeudalism]

The "minority at the top of the pyramid" are the economic feudalists (capitalists), you sycophantic stooge.

That's a trick of the far-right book: to draw attention away from the fact that they own and control the world, and make it sound like the leftists who expose that truth to the masses are the actual elitists.

[adjohnson916]

Wow. Most people aren't against gay marriage? Wow. Yes, it's changing slowly, but the reason we don't have it in 90% of the states is because PEOPLE DON'T WANT IT. So now you're a bigot apologist. Congratulations.

[TheAngryCanuck]

Case in point.

Were the people even asked in 90% of those states? Well they were in a poll:

"For the first time in a nationwide survey, more Americans say they support gay marriage (49%) than oppose it (46%), according to the latest Washington Post/ABC poll.

Also in the new survey, a majority of Americans (53%) believe that their state should recognize gay marriages from other states. "

[0ldhack]

peoples sex lives is their own business. we shouldn't be legislating the shit we should leave that shit in the streets where it belongs. no one should get special privileges just because they've found love. Single people should get more benefits because they're On their OWN. makes no fucking sense.

[TheAngryCanuck]

But see I've already researched this in Canada. The reason why the number isn't higher is becuase immigrants tend to be socially conservative and do not support gay marriage. Keep in mind that Mexico has one of the lowest divorce rates in the world so if you removed the immigrants the number wouldn't be so weight down.

But it just goes to show how you don't do research and allow the far left (Zogmitcriss) to program you into believing something that isn't there to begin with.

[gratex]

there is nothing to learn from your videos other than how you delude yourself. You do not understand that leftists fight for your freedom, and want you to live happily without these delusions that ultimately harm you and the rest of society.

[TheAngryCanuck]

"You do not understand that leftists fight for your freedom"

Lol.. that is historically true. very very remotely true, but it's like saying unions are formed for workplace safety. While there *was* truth to that a long long time ago, it's morphed into corruption and no longer serves that purpose.

The far left want to control, censor, and take away freedoms.

[valhala56]

Shut the fuck Canuck. I'm a white male, so stop crying and get a job you pussy.

[martialarm]

Are you guys like the WWE - argue and fight in public and arrange your next battle behind the scenes?

Really just like your American politics.

[fireproofed]

I have to admit that i didn't watch your whole vid. I love you though

[martialarm]

Are you guys like the WWE - argue and fight in public and arrange your next battle behind the scenes?

Really just like your American politics.

[MadBadVoodo]

Five Stars!!