Good point! Not to mention that a false DMCA (it was fair use after all) allows Potholer to sue amenakin for damages if he so wishes. On another note, one can also contact the chillingeffects website to reverse the DMCA.
Potholer is covered under section 8.1 subsection B of the UK ToS which both parties are subject to.
Section 8.2 refers to the termination of the right to access content that is removed
This does not refer to derivative works that include clips from the original content which was available on the website when the derivative work was created and posted
to make potholer's video and use the clip AFTER the original was removed could be a possible breach of 8.2
@paulchartley Not only does access terminate... but so does "...and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of..." 8.2 refers to "licenses" that are terminated.
@faro0485 And if potholer had used, distributed and prepared a derivative work using the clip AFTER the original video where the clip was taken from was taken down then 8.2 would come into play
These things were all done when AT THE TIME, the clip was available on yourtube and so 8.2 does not apply.
The purpose of 8.2 is to act against reposting of removed content by third parties, such as reposting music videos and movie clips after they have been removed by the original poster
@paulchartley ... no, if the clip is removed... it doesn't matter whether it's before or after, if it's removed at anytime, licenses expire, specifically to "display" as mentioned in 8.1 B.
Potholer is covered under section 8.1 subsection B of the UK ToS which both parties are subject to.
Section 8.2 refers to the termination of the right to access content that is removed
This does not refer to derivative works that include clips from the original content which was available on the website when the derivative work was created and posted
to make potholer's video and use the clip AFTER the original was removed could be a possible breach of 8.2
Potholer is covered under section 8.1 subsection B of the UK ToS which both parties are subject to.
Section 8.2 refers to the termination of the right to access content that is removed
This does not refer to derivative works that include clips from the original content which was available on the website when the derivative work was created and posted
to make potholer's video and use the clip AFTER the original was removed could be a possible breach of 8.2
@faro0485 Also, while you are telling people to refer to the Terms of Service...
Please refer to section 5.1, subsection J
you agree not to use the Website or the Services (including the comments and email features in the Website) for the solicitation of business in the course of trade or in connection with a commercial enterprise;
I hate to say this but Amena was breaching this clause a hell of a lot more than Potholer54 was breaching section 8.2
@IntoxicatedHumans Oh I haven't seen all of his rebuttals, but I have seen Lucas Films be defeated in their last two court cases.
No, atheists don't really rely on evidences, they rely on hurting people and bending things in their favour. Since they are of course eugenicists and a threat to humanity, it's to be expected of them. Morals aren't the flavour of any month for an atheist that's why it's "you got no proof copper" rather than "can I have some more food"
@mercatormac You want to know what I've been reading? Measuring the held notions of atheists can be measured by a) looking at the general population of atheists or; b) observing the origin of atheism promotion.
Do you want to see what factors make atheists pro-eugenics? Would you like to be open to learning?
@faro0485 So? Potholer didn't infringe any copyrights? You fail to see the analogy completely. As for the atheists: Gtfo troll.<3 Atheists don't find compelling evidences for any given deity, that doesn't make them either immoral or a "threat" to humanity. Some however, like myself, loathe religious people that take a huge shit on science, saying that it's "wrong" or "impossible" or "stupid".. Well at least we have proof for our claims, and shouldn't even have to argue in such debates.
@IntoxicatedHumans Potholer did infringe a copyright. He violated youtube terms of service 8.2.
As for the atheists, most of them were programmed into thinking like that. /watch?v=DDyDtYy2I0M
Please note, that science came from the muslims. The christians took it. And now the atheists have some how appropriated it thought at one time they were laughed at for their crack pot thinking (to which they actually still are but get away with it). Ah yea, proof like climategate.
@faro0485 'Science came from the Muslims' I don't know if this is true, but I do know that in the past they were indeed seen as the pioneers of science. Of course, they haven't added anything significant to science for centuries now (please except my apologies for any Muslim discovery I am ignoring here). The Christians then made the great discoveries, of course a great many of them were *prosecuted* for that. Because science showed them that their holy scripture is wrong.
@tiaxanderson I don't think science "came from" the muslims. The scientific method is the culmination of a long string of technological breakthroughs and steps along the path to an effective means of acquiring truth. The Egyptians and Greeks and Persians initially and many later cultures took part in the process. Muslims contributed considerably during their "golden period", but religion was not the main drive either way. Saying adding "muslim" as a qualifier to "scientist" is meaningless.
@8DX Isn't that exactly what I said in less prettier words? I quote faro0485 on science coming from Muslims and then I add that I don't think that's true.
@tiaxanderson Oh of course! I just felt your point warranted a second comment, because it's quite important to realise that science is pretty much the only egalitarian and non-discriminatory thing we have. A scientist when doing their job is interested in the truth, not in agendas, race, gender or religion (or sexual preference).
Sorry if I came out argumentative, I just have this intense long-term relationship with the YouTube comments section =8)-DX
@8DX Religion is the primary driver of science. The Quranic method was the cause of the philosophy that brought about our modern scientific method. We can look at the emergency of philosophies regarding knowledge, we can associate Greek origin from the Jews that left Babylonia after their exile.
@faro0485 "Religion is the primary driver of science." ?
Look at the scientific institutions around the globe as well as the history of the 20th century. You are completely wrong. Science has been driven by corporate interests (not saying that's bad), by government programs, by wars and politics and by a resurgance of enlightenment thinking.
Science cannot thrive without a separation of church and state, without freeing human minds to think however they want, to try everything.
@8DX You're mistaking technology for science. A person like Nikola Tesla didn't use science, he used his education and imagination to invent things. The science was behind his education, where conformation of points needed to be addressed. It's in a philosophy that we get scientific method. You can observe the Hot Fusion scene vs the Cold Fusion scene. You too may also wish to view: /watch?v=w1awvC1l7mM
@faro0485 OMG. You really grew up in the kook factory, didn't you. You're gonna say Edison invented the atom bomb and alternate current, next!
And NO. The scientific method is a method not a philosophy. Hypothesis, experiment, data, thesis, peer-review, experimental confirmation, evaluation, conclusion, consensus. Technology can come about without science, but science perfects not only technology, but also knowledge.
Religion never seeks knowledge, only belief and self-validation.
@tiaxanderson No... when I say science, I'm talking about methodology. That's the only thing relevant to science, the method. What persecution? Galileo? Galileo argued against philosophy, Aristotelian philosophy. The authority was rather under the thumb of Aristotelian methodology rather than Christian, let alone Islamic. Yeah well the Christians kings sent their children to study amongst the Muslims, and Almohad caliphs happily gave away documents to the Holy Roman Empire.
@faro0485 [continued] What I am saying is that because science is unfavourable for them, the religious factions discarded science in favour of their own pre-drawn conclusions as dictated by their doctrine.
You say it's a bad thing that we sometimes guess and have to change our minds. It's not. This makes science dynamic enough to be self-correcting. It may not be quick, but eventually all errors will be corrected because of new data, techniques and ideas.
@tiaxanderson ... /watch?v=w1awvC1l7mM You may wish to read up on At Tusi. Self correcting? God provides us the best method in the Quran. Well the biggest errors we see are those of Hume-ian kind.
@IntoxicatedHumans Potholer violated terms of service 8.2. The analogy... one Lucas Films could never claim, and failed to in their last two court cases. Atheists were brainwashed into thinking like that: /watch?v=DDyDtYy2I0M
And note that science came from God, we see the christians take it from the muslims, and the atheists be laughed at when they attempted it, but now they some how get away with climategate styled thinking.
@faro0485 "note that science came from God" What are you talking about? That's absurd. you're saying that something pretty much unprovable and unknowable, some magic sky-daddy that there is no evidence for, produced the whole body of current knowledge and the process called the scientific method which has shown to be the most effective way of discovering the truth (.. pause for breath ..) and you're talking about brainwashing?
@8DX You ask me what I'm talking about and then you claim that such a suggestion is absurd. Oh right, rhetorical question. Ah yes, it would be unprovable if we totally ignore history. I find it saddening that 1984 occured right before our eyes through the 1800s, and is strong today as never before.
Unfortunately you were brainwashed from the age of childhood through to your years of youthage. /watch?v=DDyDtYy2I0M
@faro0485 There's been several cases of the aforementioned, and the DMCA-claims have not been used properly. I love how people start whining when someone takes their video and then debunks it, then thinking "Why not pull a DMCA?" Nope, we aren't. :D The irony of a religious person saying atheists are brainwashed.. :3 Nope, science came from humans, you can't provide evidence that your god is more likely to exist than any other deity thus atheists has the high-ground. You should troll some less..
@IntoxicatedHumans Oh sorry, I shouldn't have said brainwashed... I should have said lobotomised. The brainwashing occurs before and makes them agnostic, then God goes ahead and makes the temporal lobe insensitive.
You're telling me what I am not allowed to provide, or what you will never accept? Atheists have the high ground? And I thought they were criminals and a threat to humanity.
8.1 When you upload or post Content to YouTube, you grant:
B) to each user of the Service, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such Content to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Service and under these Terms.
@IntoxicatedHumans Oh isn't that lovely, 8.1 B talks about anyone using any material as said? ... Did I forget something, no... you forgot 8.2. And since you quoted 8.1 b), you can go ahead and read 8.2
@faro0485 So you can upload something, wait for someone to use it another video, remove the original and then file a DMCA? That's just another way of being ignorant and not wanting to take responsibility. It would not hold in any case, fortunately :)
@IntoxicatedHumans No... that's the terms of service. But what was worse, was a man who grew up with a moustache was so terrified by one woman he had to ridicule her to the best of his ability. And for what reason? She just read one book and made a book review to her fans. I can only imagine how atheist women must feel when they're being denied their thoughts (vis-à-vis Skepchick).
@faro0485 It's what 8.2 says, when you remove something, the above agreement gets terminated. But NOT for content uploaded when the content was still on youtube. Your arguments seem to dwindle, puny troll. He's not afraid of her. Can't you in your empty mind consider that some people on this globe values science highly (as that's the thing that e.g makes us able to argue even though we're thousands of miles apart). Why would such a person sit and just watch how she gets everything wrong?
@faro0485 Also, ridiculing in general is a great way of showing how skullfucked their thoughts are from time to time. Just as we can ridicule various gods to make it clear how laughably stupid the idea is. You can go ahead and ridicule science all you want (Implied that you can). :D In these times people aren't living in the dark ages where some people can go about spreading false information without anyone taking affair. She was spreading false information, mate. Regardless of sex and religion.
@faro0485 Yeah, of course it is. You don't want to admit that ridiculing is the best way to show that something's just plain stupid because it doesn't supports you cause. <3 Just keep hiding behind ignorant statements, if that floats your boat. Funny how the theory of evolution is the most accurate theory we have, and still you claim the truth is something else? Can't go on with a one man army forever, hun.
@IntoxicatedHumans I don't think Appeal to Ridicule benefits anyone. It brings out the nasties. /watch?v=aL1pNq6x69Q
The theory of evolution is a biological theory, and does not include electromagnetic theories of conciousness or even magnetoception. The line between accurate and deceptive... is always a thin line.
@faro0485 It does. For everyone except the ridiculed. And generally, one cannot be ridiculed unless something stupid has been done :) When did that have ANYTHING to do with either evolution, what she said, what potholer said, or anyone else said? Keep to the core of this argument or just kindly but firmly remove yourself from the computer and draw some fresh air OUTSIDE.
@faro0485 Also, magnetoception fits under the theory of evolution perfectly. All traits an animal has should either be beneficial or else it will be removed. Just as humans. We lost our tail because it was no longer beneficial, same as birds would develop magnetoception as they are the worlds most industrious travelers, many depending on each other to find a shared place to mate, regardless of which of the four corners said birds come from. All you need is a brain to think with.
@IntoxicatedHumans Magnetoception isn't just in birds. And I did also mention the term "electromagnetic". I'll send you a link... and since you think we need a brain to think with, what's this: /watch?v=fI1624SwYnI
Hmm, someone should forward this to the folks over at TechDirt. Perhaps they'll cover it, and then another million people or so will get to hear about how someone uses DMCA's to silence criticism against her public commentary.
Shouldn't there be some kind of warning system of making false Hate Speech and false DMCA claims? I mean specifically about users whose community number in the thousands and who (pretty much) all want to see YouTube kept as a fair debate forum? (rather than a facile make up promotion and Hijab advice line)
I feel a disturbance in The Force.......it seems like Mr. Lucas' lawyers getting ready to submit a lawsuit of some kind......gah! I can't see anymore, The Force is not strong with me!
I'm not even going to waste my time clicking on the link to her website. Is the starwars theme because Amenakin's name is similar to 'Anakin' Skywalker, who became Darth Vader, one of the most evil characters in the starwars films? Not the best choice ever, but then she appears to make a lot of bad choices.
I don't think it is so much that people missed the lightsabre thing. I noticed it right away. I think that what really happened is that people generally don't give a shit if she uses it or not. She just needs to leave well enough alone...and maybe learn to be able to take criticism.
I don't think she deserves any leniency on this matter. Enough is enough. There's already too much abuse going on on YouTube - and they've shown that they'd rather favor the bigger channel than make the right decision. I'm certain that they'll listen when a giant like LucasArts/Lucasfilm comes knocking. Way too many people have been let off the hook, and obviously they don't learn their lessons without feeling some pain. I want to hear Amena's NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
i tried sending Amenakin a well reasoned and polite PM.
..COMMENT PENDING APPROVAL. Hmmm, methinks i wont get a reply. .. mind you, she's probably a little busy wading through all of the messages in her vastly swelling inbox.
Something tells me she regrets the day she heard the name Potholer.
Potholer54 is an internationally respected reporter and to most here on YT is one of the most, if not the most respected YTer. If this dumb bunnies bronzed age bloodthirsty myth was true, she would not need to resort to censorship. I bet she wishes she never said anything about evolution.
BTW. when I informed her nicely that evolution is a fact, she blocked me.
I never thought of that. I mean, I'd been to her channel and noticed the Star Wars connection, but...man, this just keeps getting worse and worse for her, doesn't it?
what a bad english accent.
RobertPetrick 3 weeks ago
why ?? to use the purple bar?
LadyLaylaHajar 5 months ago
Brilliant video.
intolerance100 5 months ago
to the bone
swinewarrior 5 months ago
FAIR USE!
lol this was an odd drama, all the Amenakin and potholer stuff.. Didn't she say she's a biology teacher?
8DX 5 months ago
That's hilarious - Lucasfilm shows no mercy over people appropriating its intellectual property.
Oops!
geffel 5 months ago
Good point! Not to mention that a false DMCA (it was fair use after all) allows Potholer to sue amenakin for damages if he so wishes. On another note, one can also contact the chillingeffects website to reverse the DMCA.
PowerOfTheMirror 5 months ago
@PowerOfTheMirror Refer to Terms of Service section 8.2
faro0485 5 months ago
@faro0485 YT ToS 8.2 does not apply
Potholer is covered under section 8.1 subsection B of the UK ToS which both parties are subject to.
Section 8.2 refers to the termination of the right to access content that is removed
This does not refer to derivative works that include clips from the original content which was available on the website when the derivative work was created and posted
to make potholer's video and use the clip AFTER the original was removed could be a possible breach of 8.2
paulchartley 5 months ago
@paulchartley Not only does access terminate... but so does "...and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of..." 8.2 refers to "licenses" that are terminated.
faro0485 5 months ago
@faro0485 And if potholer had used, distributed and prepared a derivative work using the clip AFTER the original video where the clip was taken from was taken down then 8.2 would come into play
These things were all done when AT THE TIME, the clip was available on yourtube and so 8.2 does not apply.
The purpose of 8.2 is to act against reposting of removed content by third parties, such as reposting music videos and movie clips after they have been removed by the original poster
paulchartley 5 months ago
@paulchartley ... no, if the clip is removed... it doesn't matter whether it's before or after, if it's removed at anytime, licenses expire, specifically to "display" as mentioned in 8.1 B.
faro0485 5 months ago
@faro0485 YT ToS 8.2 does not apply
Potholer is covered under section 8.1 subsection B of the UK ToS which both parties are subject to.
Section 8.2 refers to the termination of the right to access content that is removed
This does not refer to derivative works that include clips from the original content which was available on the website when the derivative work was created and posted
to make potholer's video and use the clip AFTER the original was removed could be a possible breach of 8.2
paulchartley 5 months ago
@faro0485 YT ToS 8.2 does not apply
Potholer is covered under section 8.1 subsection B of the UK ToS which both parties are subject to.
Section 8.2 refers to the termination of the right to access content that is removed
This does not refer to derivative works that include clips from the original content which was available on the website when the derivative work was created and posted
to make potholer's video and use the clip AFTER the original was removed could be a possible breach of 8.2
paulchartley 5 months ago
@faro0485 Also, while you are telling people to refer to the Terms of Service...
Please refer to section 5.1, subsection J
you agree not to use the Website or the Services (including the comments and email features in the Website) for the solicitation of business in the course of trade or in connection with a commercial enterprise;
I hate to say this but Amena was breaching this clause a hell of a lot more than Potholer54 was breaching section 8.2
paulchartley 5 months ago
@paulchartley solicitation refers to spamming... you forgot to read 5.1 F
faro0485 5 months ago
lol awsome vid man, my fav part was the end "in the world" reminded me of topgear for some odd reason ;) (ooh do we have a copyright violaiton here?)
8809aj 5 months ago
Irony, we haz it.
Wolfau5 5 months ago
Nice. POP her.
cadeere74 5 months ago
Sweet, I'm the 666th view.
busterbox 5 months ago
I tip my virtual hat to you sir.very well done, indeed.
GoneApostate 5 months ago 2
I love the YT atheist community. Everyone takes care of their own.
PyreOfFate 5 months ago
@PyreOfFate Atheists... always trying their best to "headshot" the little person, especially if she's a woman.
Not only are they a threat to turning humanity into Soylent Green sheep, they love the evil.
faro0485 5 months ago
@faro0485 Have you seen his rebuttals to male theists then? You know, atheists rely on evidences instead of making things up.. as you are now <3
IntoxicatedHumans 5 months ago
@IntoxicatedHumans Oh I haven't seen all of his rebuttals, but I have seen Lucas Films be defeated in their last two court cases.
No, atheists don't really rely on evidences, they rely on hurting people and bending things in their favour. Since they are of course eugenicists and a threat to humanity, it's to be expected of them. Morals aren't the flavour of any month for an atheist that's why it's "you got no proof copper" rather than "can I have some more food"
faro0485 5 months ago
@faro0485 *feeds the troll*
tiaxanderson 5 months ago
@tiaxanderson Stop feeding yourself.
faro0485 5 months ago
@faro0485 But I'm hungry~
tiaxanderson 5 months ago
@faro0485 Please provide evidence that atheists are eugenicists.
mercatormac 5 months ago
@mercatormac You want to know what I've been reading? Measuring the held notions of atheists can be measured by a) looking at the general population of atheists or; b) observing the origin of atheism promotion.
Do you want to see what factors make atheists pro-eugenics? Would you like to be open to learning?
faro0485 5 months ago
@faro0485 Please provide evidence that atheists are eugenicists.
mercatormac 5 months ago
@mercatormac Can I at least know if you're human and not brainwashed?
faro0485 5 months ago
@faro0485 So? Potholer didn't infringe any copyrights? You fail to see the analogy completely. As for the atheists: Gtfo troll.<3 Atheists don't find compelling evidences for any given deity, that doesn't make them either immoral or a "threat" to humanity. Some however, like myself, loathe religious people that take a huge shit on science, saying that it's "wrong" or "impossible" or "stupid".. Well at least we have proof for our claims, and shouldn't even have to argue in such debates.
IntoxicatedHumans 5 months ago
@IntoxicatedHumans Potholer did infringe a copyright. He violated youtube terms of service 8.2.
As for the atheists, most of them were programmed into thinking like that. /watch?v=DDyDtYy2I0M
Please note, that science came from the muslims. The christians took it. And now the atheists have some how appropriated it thought at one time they were laughed at for their crack pot thinking (to which they actually still are but get away with it). Ah yea, proof like climategate.
faro0485 5 months ago
@faro0485 'Science came from the Muslims' I don't know if this is true, but I do know that in the past they were indeed seen as the pioneers of science. Of course, they haven't added anything significant to science for centuries now (please except my apologies for any Muslim discovery I am ignoring here). The Christians then made the great discoveries, of course a great many of them were *prosecuted* for that. Because science showed them that their holy scripture is wrong.
tiaxanderson 5 months ago
@tiaxanderson I don't think science "came from" the muslims. The scientific method is the culmination of a long string of technological breakthroughs and steps along the path to an effective means of acquiring truth. The Egyptians and Greeks and Persians initially and many later cultures took part in the process. Muslims contributed considerably during their "golden period", but religion was not the main drive either way. Saying adding "muslim" as a qualifier to "scientist" is meaningless.
8DX 5 months ago
@8DX Isn't that exactly what I said in less prettier words? I quote faro0485 on science coming from Muslims and then I add that I don't think that's true.
tiaxanderson 5 months ago
@tiaxanderson Oh of course! I just felt your point warranted a second comment, because it's quite important to realise that science is pretty much the only egalitarian and non-discriminatory thing we have. A scientist when doing their job is interested in the truth, not in agendas, race, gender or religion (or sexual preference).
Sorry if I came out argumentative, I just have this intense long-term relationship with the YouTube comments section =8)-DX
8DX 5 months ago
@8DX It just looked like you disagreed with me but then proposed the exact same idea (at least, to me it seemed that way). Anyway, cleared up now.
tiaxanderson 5 months ago
@8DX Religion is the primary driver of science. The Quranic method was the cause of the philosophy that brought about our modern scientific method. We can look at the emergency of philosophies regarding knowledge, we can associate Greek origin from the Jews that left Babylonia after their exile.
faro0485 5 months ago
@faro0485 "Religion is the primary driver of science." ?
Look at the scientific institutions around the globe as well as the history of the 20th century. You are completely wrong. Science has been driven by corporate interests (not saying that's bad), by government programs, by wars and politics and by a resurgance of enlightenment thinking.
Science cannot thrive without a separation of church and state, without freeing human minds to think however they want, to try everything.
8DX 5 months ago
@8DX You're mistaking technology for science. A person like Nikola Tesla didn't use science, he used his education and imagination to invent things. The science was behind his education, where conformation of points needed to be addressed. It's in a philosophy that we get scientific method. You can observe the Hot Fusion scene vs the Cold Fusion scene. You too may also wish to view: /watch?v=w1awvC1l7mM
faro0485 5 months ago
@faro0485 OMG. You really grew up in the kook factory, didn't you. You're gonna say Edison invented the atom bomb and alternate current, next!
And NO. The scientific method is a method not a philosophy. Hypothesis, experiment, data, thesis, peer-review, experimental confirmation, evaluation, conclusion, consensus. Technology can come about without science, but science perfects not only technology, but also knowledge.
Religion never seeks knowledge, only belief and self-validation.
8DX 5 months ago
@8DX ... /watch?v=PgkPaDHUSdc
faro0485 5 months ago
@faro0485 Oh, I'm sorry.
I should've said unintelligent, uneducated and naive. I know lots of people like that: some of my best friends.
Apart from that, last time I watched that clip I didn't realise Dave was or acted so high during that interview.
8DX 5 months ago
@tiaxanderson No... when I say science, I'm talking about methodology. That's the only thing relevant to science, the method. What persecution? Galileo? Galileo argued against philosophy, Aristotelian philosophy. The authority was rather under the thumb of Aristotelian methodology rather than Christian, let alone Islamic. Yeah well the Christians kings sent their children to study amongst the Muslims, and Almohad caliphs happily gave away documents to the Holy Roman Empire.
faro0485 5 months ago
@tiaxanderson please look up Francis Bacon, the 1st Viscount of St Albans (1561-1626)
He is the guy who kicked philosophy out of science and created the scientific method and is often referred to as being the father of empiricism
Far from being a muslim, he was an Englishman and served as both the Attorney General and as the Lord Chancellor of England.
paulchartley 5 months ago
@faro0485 [continued] What I am saying is that because science is unfavourable for them, the religious factions discarded science in favour of their own pre-drawn conclusions as dictated by their doctrine.
You say it's a bad thing that we sometimes guess and have to change our minds. It's not. This makes science dynamic enough to be self-correcting. It may not be quick, but eventually all errors will be corrected because of new data, techniques and ideas.
tiaxanderson 5 months ago
@tiaxanderson ... /watch?v=w1awvC1l7mM You may wish to read up on At Tusi. Self correcting? God provides us the best method in the Quran. Well the biggest errors we see are those of Hume-ian kind.
faro0485 5 months ago
@IntoxicatedHumans Potholer violated terms of service 8.2. The analogy... one Lucas Films could never claim, and failed to in their last two court cases. Atheists were brainwashed into thinking like that: /watch?v=DDyDtYy2I0M
And note that science came from God, we see the christians take it from the muslims, and the atheists be laughed at when they attempted it, but now they some how get away with climategate styled thinking.
faro0485 5 months ago
@faro0485 "note that science came from God" What are you talking about? That's absurd. you're saying that something pretty much unprovable and unknowable, some magic sky-daddy that there is no evidence for, produced the whole body of current knowledge and the process called the scientific method which has shown to be the most effective way of discovering the truth (.. pause for breath ..) and you're talking about brainwashing?
No we did it - humans created science.
8DX 5 months ago
@8DX You ask me what I'm talking about and then you claim that such a suggestion is absurd. Oh right, rhetorical question. Ah yes, it would be unprovable if we totally ignore history. I find it saddening that 1984 occured right before our eyes through the 1800s, and is strong today as never before.
Unfortunately you were brainwashed from the age of childhood through to your years of youthage. /watch?v=DDyDtYy2I0M
faro0485 5 months ago
@faro0485 There's been several cases of the aforementioned, and the DMCA-claims have not been used properly. I love how people start whining when someone takes their video and then debunks it, then thinking "Why not pull a DMCA?" Nope, we aren't. :D The irony of a religious person saying atheists are brainwashed.. :3 Nope, science came from humans, you can't provide evidence that your god is more likely to exist than any other deity thus atheists has the high-ground. You should troll some less..
IntoxicatedHumans 5 months ago
@IntoxicatedHumans Oh sorry, I shouldn't have said brainwashed... I should have said lobotomised. The brainwashing occurs before and makes them agnostic, then God goes ahead and makes the temporal lobe insensitive.
You're telling me what I am not allowed to provide, or what you will never accept? Atheists have the high ground? And I thought they were criminals and a threat to humanity.
faro0485 5 months ago
@faro0485 Also, you forgot:
8.1 When you upload or post Content to YouTube, you grant:
B) to each user of the Service, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such Content to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Service and under these Terms.
Umad?
IntoxicatedHumans 5 months ago
@IntoxicatedHumans Oh isn't that lovely, 8.1 B talks about anyone using any material as said? ... Did I forget something, no... you forgot 8.2. And since you quoted 8.1 b), you can go ahead and read 8.2
faro0485 5 months ago
@faro0485 So you can upload something, wait for someone to use it another video, remove the original and then file a DMCA? That's just another way of being ignorant and not wanting to take responsibility. It would not hold in any case, fortunately :)
IntoxicatedHumans 5 months ago
@IntoxicatedHumans No... that's the terms of service. But what was worse, was a man who grew up with a moustache was so terrified by one woman he had to ridicule her to the best of his ability. And for what reason? She just read one book and made a book review to her fans. I can only imagine how atheist women must feel when they're being denied their thoughts (vis-à-vis Skepchick).
faro0485 5 months ago
@faro0485 It's what 8.2 says, when you remove something, the above agreement gets terminated. But NOT for content uploaded when the content was still on youtube. Your arguments seem to dwindle, puny troll. He's not afraid of her. Can't you in your empty mind consider that some people on this globe values science highly (as that's the thing that e.g makes us able to argue even though we're thousands of miles apart). Why would such a person sit and just watch how she gets everything wrong?
IntoxicatedHumans 5 months ago
@IntoxicatedHumans "display"
faro0485 5 months ago
@faro0485 Also, ridiculing in general is a great way of showing how skullfucked their thoughts are from time to time. Just as we can ridicule various gods to make it clear how laughably stupid the idea is. You can go ahead and ridicule science all you want (Implied that you can). :D In these times people aren't living in the dark ages where some people can go about spreading false information without anyone taking affair. She was spreading false information, mate. Regardless of sex and religion.
IntoxicatedHumans 5 months ago
@IntoxicatedHumans No... ridicule is a form of fallacy. It's one that proves Quran 83:29-36, how? Those who hate the truth, laugh at it.
faro0485 5 months ago
@faro0485 Yeah, of course it is. You don't want to admit that ridiculing is the best way to show that something's just plain stupid because it doesn't supports you cause. <3 Just keep hiding behind ignorant statements, if that floats your boat. Funny how the theory of evolution is the most accurate theory we have, and still you claim the truth is something else? Can't go on with a one man army forever, hun.
IntoxicatedHumans 5 months ago
@IntoxicatedHumans I don't think Appeal to Ridicule benefits anyone. It brings out the nasties. /watch?v=aL1pNq6x69Q
The theory of evolution is a biological theory, and does not include electromagnetic theories of conciousness or even magnetoception. The line between accurate and deceptive... is always a thin line.
faro0485 5 months ago
@faro0485 It does. For everyone except the ridiculed. And generally, one cannot be ridiculed unless something stupid has been done :) When did that have ANYTHING to do with either evolution, what she said, what potholer said, or anyone else said? Keep to the core of this argument or just kindly but firmly remove yourself from the computer and draw some fresh air OUTSIDE.
IntoxicatedHumans 5 months ago
@faro0485 Also, magnetoception fits under the theory of evolution perfectly. All traits an animal has should either be beneficial or else it will be removed. Just as humans. We lost our tail because it was no longer beneficial, same as birds would develop magnetoception as they are the worlds most industrious travelers, many depending on each other to find a shared place to mate, regardless of which of the four corners said birds come from. All you need is a brain to think with.
IntoxicatedHumans 5 months ago
@IntoxicatedHumans Magnetoception isn't just in birds. And I did also mention the term "electromagnetic". I'll send you a link... and since you think we need a brain to think with, what's this: /watch?v=fI1624SwYnI
faro0485 5 months ago
Ah, I love the Internets.
ZeroUK1234 5 months ago
The sound of the lightsabre would also come under copyright as well.
magottyk 5 months ago 5
You sir, are brilliant! Bravo! :)
tanyavs1 5 months ago
Hmm, someone should forward this to the folks over at TechDirt. Perhaps they'll cover it, and then another million people or so will get to hear about how someone uses DMCA's to silence criticism against her public commentary.
corkbender 5 months ago
She's more in violation of trademark than copyright, but otherwise your video is no less pertinent and otherwise spot on. :)
BionicDance 5 months ago
A purple Ewok has been beheaded with a light saber! :D
Juicexlx 5 months ago
I don't anything about copywrite law, but I do know internet law. This video is an example of malicious ownage with intent to embarrass.
soundslave 5 months ago 7
Oh shit... Paul, you are a miracle. Forget what you try to preach, you are a miracle sent from God, to give us the lulz.
Parabol0086 5 months ago
Could Lucas Films sue for deformation of Dearth Vada's character?
I mean, does he want Muslim Barbie going round with half his name? Not exactly Dark Lord is it?
calmreason 5 months ago
Shouldn't there be some kind of warning system of making false Hate Speech and false DMCA claims? I mean specifically about users whose community number in the thousands and who (pretty much) all want to see YouTube kept as a fair debate forum? (rather than a facile make up promotion and Hijab advice line)
calmreason 5 months ago
Ouch, this is going to sting.
falchion49 5 months ago
I feel a disturbance in The Force.......it seems like Mr. Lucas' lawyers getting ready to submit a lawsuit of some kind......gah! I can't see anymore, The Force is not strong with me!
rohanwotan2 5 months ago
I'm not even going to waste my time clicking on the link to her website. Is the starwars theme because Amenakin's name is similar to 'Anakin' Skywalker, who became Darth Vader, one of the most evil characters in the starwars films? Not the best choice ever, but then she appears to make a lot of bad choices.
mystereed72 5 months ago
I don't think it is so much that people missed the lightsabre thing. I noticed it right away. I think that what really happened is that people generally don't give a shit if she uses it or not. She just needs to leave well enough alone...and maybe learn to be able to take criticism.
savageecho 5 months ago
LMAO! Absolutely sublime!
finitekosmos 5 months ago
EPIC fail! EPIC sarcasm! EPIC irony! EPIC idiots!
SEThatered 5 months ago
sooooo, who wants to tell Lucasfilm/arts? I really think she deserves it
IVscythia 5 months ago 2
I don't think she deserves any leniency on this matter. Enough is enough. There's already too much abuse going on on YouTube - and they've shown that they'd rather favor the bigger channel than make the right decision. I'm certain that they'll listen when a giant like LucasArts/Lucasfilm comes knocking. Way too many people have been let off the hook, and obviously they don't learn their lessons without feeling some pain. I want to hear Amena's NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
blackwolf1200 5 months ago
@blackwolf1200
"I don't think she deserves any leniency on this matter."
No. No leniency. None whatsoever. She did something unforgivable and must pay the price to the full.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
epic... :)
nordic84 5 months ago
Methinks Amena is getting that crocoduck, not for the evolution misconception itself but the sheer amount of fail surrounding this debacle.
akylae101 5 months ago
i tried sending Amenakin a well reasoned and polite PM.
..COMMENT PENDING APPROVAL. Hmmm, methinks i wont get a reply. .. mind you, she's probably a little busy wading through all of the messages in her vastly swelling inbox.
Something tells me she regrets the day she heard the name Potholer.
bonnie43uk 5 months ago
i lol'd
notnegotiation 5 months ago
Potholer54 is an internationally respected reporter and to most here on YT is one of the most, if not the most respected YTer. If this dumb bunnies bronzed age bloodthirsty myth was true, she would not need to resort to censorship. I bet she wishes she never said anything about evolution.
BTW. when I informed her nicely that evolution is a fact, she blocked me.
itsasin1969 5 months ago
:-)
rozeboosje 5 months ago
So much awesome, mere words don't cover it. XD
419Films 5 months ago
It's all that fasting, makes the mind go soft...or is it the other thing, you know, the guide book they read. Weakens the brain I reckon.
XXXPopeBenedictXVI 5 months ago
Well, anyone alert Lucas Arts yet? I can't cuz I use their music in one of MY videos! lol
no2religions 5 months ago
@no2religions but you're not making money of it right?
IVscythia 5 months ago
LOL pwnage!
smash70 5 months ago
I never thought of that. I mean, I'd been to her channel and noticed the Star Wars connection, but...man, this just keeps getting worse and worse for her, doesn't it?
OgreVI 5 months ago
EPIC FAIL for her :P:
LogicalThinker667 5 months ago
"Stupid is, as stupid does."
nishbrown 5 months ago
Also 'Anakin (Skywalker)' and Amena becoming Amenakin.
Plus the phrase 'im a Jedi' and the vid 'How to wear a Hijab like a Jedi'
Is Jedi now public domain because of the religious following? Not sure:-/
calmreason 5 months ago
:-)
SiriusMined 5 months ago
'I didn't get rich by letting thieves ride off my marketing'
Is a likely comment be the defendant.
calmreason 5 months ago
Hypocrisy facial moisturizer is da best!
ONESPECIES 5 months ago 2
that's going straight in my pwn stash. Bravo
PlanetBongoSan 5 months ago
Bullseye!
gamutman 5 months ago
Why is it I think Amenakin won't be on youtube much longer?
comslave 5 months ago
Anyone ever tell you that you sound like the voice from little big planet video game?
BusinessEdgeRadio 5 months ago
Carefull, she might DMCA you for having a snapshot of her stolen intro.
Zlibservacratican 5 months ago
pwned XD Some people just don't get it. Commentaries and Peer Reviews for the WIN
jason34207 5 months ago
Lucas Films certainly won't be suing her, so it seems a bit moot.
yermomsboxx 5 months ago
don't forget the hoojab!!
Haradin32 5 months ago
Beautiful
Artifactorfiction 5 months ago
PWND
marcarmstrong88 5 months ago 20
Gee, I wonder which case would get the book(severe fine for copyright infringement) thrown at it?
saxmanchiro 5 months ago
BOOM...Headshot
stripymccatpuss 5 months ago 36
*Stands and applauds enthusiastically* Well done Sir!!! Bravo!!!
agamimnon423 5 months ago 3
Good one.
Templehatchet 5 months ago
PWNAGE FTW
Dar0A0Nakk 5 months ago