I know it's an out of context quote, but goddamn this is going to be a fantastic sound byte to shut people down with. Thank you, Richard, for this valuable contribution to the counter-attack on the war on reason.
I hate how people use the whole 'just a theory' argument when they don't know the definition. Theories are based on FACTS and EVIDENCE, the concepts/explanations are created from these FACTS and EVIDENCE. The theory of evolution is a concept from the evidence of life evolving and the facts of mutation, adaptation, natural selection etc etc
We have pictures that astronauts have taken of the earth, it is round. We have used trigonometry in the past (hundreds of hundreds years ago) to deduce the shape and size of the Earth.
@gratedrawur so sine you used ad hominem and i used ad hominem back it proves your point? you're an egg bro that just thinks because some people right shit in a book about science it's magically real.
WAAAY out of context. Dawkins was quoting someone he disagrees with. See watch?v=PaOTu5xelPQ starting at 7:22. Thumbs up to stop the spread of misinformation.
I just feel a big lack of respect for people who believe differently than he deos. And this makes his ideology just another "ism". I mean can't people think what they think without bragging about it and without making everything else look bad? That's the sad anology of this guy to religous leaders. Who needs an orgnisation if you are a real critic and you think for your own? In the end those organisations are all about the social effects of subcultures and not about the "truth".
@CommentAccountA I would hope so. Were you really the first person to get that name without any extra numbers or letters? And is there a B, C, etc.? Sorry, I'm intrigued.
@CommentAccountA It's not just irreligionism that's like it. A large amount of christians, for example, would go on about how you're damned and how you're going to hell because you don't beleive. No offense but that's worse than asserting science's interestingness.
Since I don't know the question to which he says this, I would agree science is interesting, REAL.......SCIENCE that is. Evolution is not, or should I say Macro-evolution is not real science.
@UnknownUserName4267 (Also there is no other theory. No other hypothesis, even. It's like comparing the germ theory of disease with the drug fueled conjecture that maybe disease is caused by magic.)
@ChocolateFlux Evolution is very much a theory, and it will always be a theory. A scientific theory is simply an explanation of how something happens backed with loads of evidence. The more evidence, the stronger theory. It should also be able to predict things and explain more than the previous theory.
But no matter what happens, a theory can never become anything else than a theory.
The thought that occurred to me as I watched this was 'why is he so ludicrously excited by his own joke, which isn't that funny'. Oh boy oh boy he said the fuck word and directed it towards people who think science isn't interesting! So hilarious. What he fails to recognize is that the majority of his opponents do not find science to be uninteresting. Of course, he won't address those.
@wishingwellspring - He was quoting the editor of New Scientist Magazine and he was obviously talking about science not atheism. But thanks for the totally misinformed comment.
@wishingwellspring - Because he was not talking about atheism he was talking about science only. He was also quoting someone else after pointing out he did not take such a harsh stance against those that are not interested in science. So he doesn't "fail to recognize" anything as you suggest and who are the "opponents" of science you referred too? The flat earth society?
You obviously have a bug up your arse because he is an atheist and are inventing some opposition to science.
@WillShakespeare2007 Sorry, I suppose I was a bit confused about his subject but who he is and what he stands for is still important when I make comments about his character. As you see, I take offense at his attitude and methods of discourse. He frequently appeals to emotion and cultured popularity of opinion, instead of logic. My comments regarding his behavior, which constituted the majority of my post, still stand.
@twooffour "The thought that occurred to me as I watched this was 'why is he so ludicrously excited by his own joke, which isn't that funny'. Oh boy oh boy he said the fuck word and directed it towards people who think science isn't interesting! So hilarious. " Was entirely relevant nonetheless. I also don't have any opposition to science. People who draw conjectures instead of examining the rational evidence of my logical statements will, of course, misunderstand the relevancy of my main point
Please tell me how that completely false analysis of the 7 seconds in this clip are "entirely relevant" or even any relevant in light of the joke's actual context.
Maybe you should live up to your standards and examine the evidence (which is, in this case, a 2 minutes clip to the right which doesn't require years of study to interpret) instead of drawing bullshit conjectures?
@twooffour First, note who's being hostile here. Hostility generally indicates personal issues. And no, his joke still isn't funny and he's still ludicrously excited by it. His entire demeanor exudes the fact that he thrives off the emotional attention and adulation of self-styled 'intellectuals' who can't be bothered to frame their own opinions and so rely on his. My evaluation of his behavior remains the same, whatever the context, and the point of my post was an analysis of his behavior.
"His entire demeanor exudes the fact that he thrives off the emotional attention and adulation of self-styled 'intellectuals' who can't be bothered to frame their own opinions and so rely on his."
How so, and how do you derive this information from a 7 second clip where he tells some anecdote?
There is no connection at all - if you wanna claim that he likes people to listen to him uncritically, find some quote that actually supports it. (Seeing as how he insists on the...
"My evaluation of his behavior remains the same, whatever the context"
That's because you're a dimwitted, pseudo-intellectual armchair psychologist.
Your evaluation isn't only terribly flawed by a gigantic non-sequitur leap (that laughing at your own joke somehow implies narcissism, which it doesn't necessarily, or the desire for "emotional attention" from a flock, which it doesn't AT ALL), it's also built around the assumption that he's.
.. telling a joke of his own, while actually he tells a humorous quotes by someone ELSE that he finds funny and expects his audience to laugh at, as well (which they do - so basically, this shows that he has an adequate humor metre).
Anyone else would've long reevaluated their own position after learning this new information, but you still try to insist on your "analysis" and this being "his joke", "whatever the context".
@twooffour No. It's true that I misunderstood the context of his joke, I thought it was aimed at religious idiots when it was aimed at other idiots. However, this doesn't matter. It is actually a very small, irrelevant point. My evaluation of his behavior is the same. It isn't a funny joke, not witty or strong. He laughs and enjoys the laughter of others in a very visible, obvious fashion. This isn't a man with enduring character. He is a cheap fellow looking for adulation.
"It's true that I misunderstood the context of his joke, I thought it was aimed at religious idiots when it was aimed at other idiots."
Actually, it wasn't aimed at ANY idiot, and it wasn't his quote to begin with.
He was criticized by a co-debater to be too feisty/condescending/unsympathetic, lowering his effectiveness at educating people, and he responded by citing an even "worse" (and obviously tongue-in-cheek) example from a respected science magazine.
It is to me, maybe because I understand its context.
"He laughs and enjoys the laughter of others in a very visible, obvious fashion."
Yes, at the joke OF SOMEONE ELSE.
He cites SOMEONE ELSE'S quip and joins the collective laughter.
At any rate, laughing at your own joke and enjoying the laughter by others is a natural sentiment and doesn't in any way point to some "weak character"...
@twooffour I know it's a quote but honestly that doesn't make it any better, it's still what he is projecting of himself to the audience. Quoting people when they're wise, meaningful, and thought-provoking is one thing - but quoting a base joke isn't worthy behavior. And yeah, laughing at yourself and enjoying the adulation of others in that situation does point to weak character. How many people have you dated who get irritated when you giggle at your own jokes, whether they're quotes or not?
You know, the difference between an intellectual and a pseudo is that the former adapts his view to its correction, while the latter adapts his defense tactics.
"it's still what he is projecting of himself to the audience."
No, he's sharing someone else's wit.
"but quoting a base joke isn't worthy behavior."
It was supposed to be FUN, not "worthy". Comic relief in the middle of what certainly was a 95% serious debate / speech.
You know, the difference between an intellectual and a pseudo is that the former adapts his view to its correction, while the latter adapts his defense tactics.
"it's still what he is projecting of himself to the audience."
No, he's sharing someone else's wit.
"but quoting a base joke isn't worthy behavior."
It was supposed to be FUN, not "worthy". Comic relief in the middle of what certainly was a 95% serious debate / speech.
You know, the difference between an intellectual and a pseudo is that the former adapts his view to its correction, while the latter adapts his defense tactics.
"it's still what he is projecting of himself to the audience."
No, he's sharing someone else's wit.
"but quoting a base joke isn't worthy behavior."
It was supposed to be FUN, not "worthy". Comic relief in the middle of what certainly was a 95% serious debate / speech.
You know, the difference between an intellectual and a pseudo is that the former adapts his view to its correction, while the latter adapts his defense tactics.
"it's still what he is projecting of himself to the audience."
No, he's sharing someone else's wit.
"but quoting a base joke isn't worthy behavior."
It was supposed to be FUN, not "worthy". Comic relief in the middle of what certainly was a 95 percent serious debate / speech.
You know, the difference between an intellectual and a pseudo is that the former adapts his view to its correction, while the latter adapts his defense tactics.
"it's still what he is projecting of himself to the audience."
No, he's sharing someone else's wit.
"but quoting a base joke isn't worthy behavior."
It was supposed to be FUN, not "worthy". Comic relief in the middle of what certainly was a 95% serious debate / speech.
"base" it is in the context, well - the irony in the quote is that one one hand, the person saying it produces public scientific education (and it's expected that such educators might care about public knowledge), on the other hand, obviously only those interested will look into it and there's nothing the authors can do about it.
The quote conveys a shrewish capitulation towards this issue, playing on the stereotype of the nervous, snobby scientist spending all day in the lab
"base" it is in the context, well - the irony in the quote is that one one hand, the person saying it produces public scientific education (and it's expected that such educators might care about public knowledge), on the other hand, obviously only those interested will look into it and there's nothing the authors can do about it.
The quote conveys a shrewish capitulation towards this issue, playing on the stereotype of the nervous, snobby scientist spending all day in the lab.
"base" or primitive it is, well, it's blunt but effective, and pretty funny if you think about the context (but you clearly haven't done that as you've just learned it from me).
"And yeah, laughing at yourself and enjoying the adulation of others in that situation does point to weak character."
How so?
"How many people have you dated who get irritated when you giggle at your own jokes, whether they're quotes or not?"
Maybe you've never been out with friends, because that's the kind of situation where people constantly make quips or references and burst out in laughter together with everyone else. It's completely natural, and your attempt at armchair psychology is just cheap.
Maybe if you could find something else that's wrong with Dawkins, you wouldn't desparately try to cling to some "unfunny" one-liner he once made in some conference.
@twooffour I don't pick people like that to be my friends. Also there's plenty wrong with Dawkins, like his logical incapability (despite his pretense of rationality). There are three kinds of appeals: pathos, logos, ethos. You can't credibly answer a logos question with a pathos answer but he does it and people eat it up because they don't truly understand rationality. Regardless, this is the comment I made for this video. I'm not desperate, I'm defending it because I think it is correct.
"base" or primitive it is, well, it's blunt but effective, and pretty funny if you think about the context (but you clearly haven't done that as you've just learned it from me).
"And yeah, laughing at yourself and enjoying the adulation of others in that situation does point to weak character."
How so?
"How many people have you dated who get irritated when you giggle at your own jokes, whether they're quotes or not?"
"base" or primitive it is, well, it's blunt but effective, and pretty funny if you think about the context (but you clearly haven't done that as you've just learned it from me).
"And yeah, laughing at yourself and enjoying the adulation of others in that situation does point to weak character."
How so?
"How many people have you dated who get irritated when you giggle at your own jokes, whether they're quotes or not?"
False analogy.
Being able to predict audience laughter and say something...
... and say something you know others will be funny, shows social competence, and not fearing to laugh yourself shows self-confidence.
Unless you're an Aspie, you can easily understand from the way Dawkin's starts smirking at the end of the phrase and turns to the challenger (and the immediate burst of laughter from the audience and colleagues) that this is, indeed, what's happening here.
Social competence and adequate sense of humor, as opposed to insecurity.
... and say something you know people will find funny, is a sign of social competence, and not being afraid to laugh yourself shows self-confidence.
It only gets awkward if no one else laughs - if everyone DOES, the joker laughing himself will be seen as a confirmation of funniness by an accepted authority figure.
So unless you're an Aspie, you can clearly see from the way Dawkins starts smirking towards the end of the sentence and turns to laughingly to the left, with...
... the audience in tow, that this is exactly what's happening here.
"I don't pick people like that to be my friends."
Well then don't, but it's obvious by now that your selectiveness in this regard, as well as your "observation" here, is based on snobbiness, social dyslexia, and maybe a good deal of personal insecurity as well.
Oh no, Dawkins told a "base" joke instead of something "thoughtful and worthy"... people who are like that aren't worthy of your attention.
the audience in tow, that this is exactly what's happening here.
"I don't pick people like that to be my friends."
Well, then don't - but it's obvious by now that your selectiveness in this regard, as well as your interpretation of this video, is based on inflated snobbery, social dyslexia and probably a good deal of insecurity as well.
Oh no, Dawkins quotes something "base", rather than something "worthy", that's not worthy behavior... and no, people who, unlike me, are actually funny and know when they're funny without fearing awkward reactions from others, are still lame, because I said so - except no one else can see that.
Yea, lol.
"I'm not desperate, I'm defending it because I think it is correct."
Desperate to convince yourself that you are, when it's clearly, clearly not the case.
Oh no, Dawkins said something that is "base", rather then "thoughtful", shame on him... and no, people who, unlike me, can actually tell when they're being funny and know their audience won't disagree, are still lame, because I say so - but no one else see that.
Mhm... lol.
"I'm not desperate, I'm defending it because I think it is correct."
Oh no, Dawkins said something that is "base", rather then "thoughtful", shame on him... and no, people who, unlike me, can actually tell when they're being funny and know their audience won't disagree, are still lame, because I say so - but no one else see that.
Mhm... lol.
"I'm not desperate, I'm defending it because I think it is correct."
michaeldim1-I guess that makes sense. By your own interpretation you are half-assed as well and you'd have to be to write a comment where you contradict your viewpoint while trying to validate it at the same time
to be honest, the whole "lets blame the worlds problems on religion" thing is getting dull. Power have always been the problem; whether thats the palpacy and the crusades, or the soviet union and the Holodomor, blaming another worldview for all the shit going on today is only going to make things worse, not better.
@caliente5542 so you don't think it's a concern that peoples self awareness is so low that they still submit to religion given the total lack of physical/solid evidence of any deity? I agree the tirade shouldn't be against religion, it should be about raising peoples ability to question their beliefs and what they have had shoved down their throats, whether thats religion, media or corporations feeding you bullshit through advertising
Oops, did we scare you too much? Nobody is going to stop you from believing in ol' daddy wizard up the sky. Sorry we told you the truth about reality):
@SaintTroll you are the one troll i admire....you understand what trolling is, it's not about being offensive, it's about showing people the stupid thoughts that occur to whomever may be opposed to the video being watched(most of your comments are following that train of thought...and that sort of trolling is art!)....so trolls like you actually help, but then there are many tight-wads that don't understand it....in fact you'd probably reply that i'm deluded....lol
@SaintTroll and furthermore since i acknowledged one possible response that answer leads yet another possibilty and that is a sarcastic "you are right" followed of course in a long stream of sarcasm and promises of rewards for my correct answer...but now i think that reply changed to you are dumb, or you have no life....and now the only reply left is no reply...the ultimate sign of disambiguation!(because if you are in that class of troll you couldn't admit to it cause it goes against your game)
If Richard Dawkins is able to joke when discussing atheism, it shows how ridiculous religion is. He perpetually wins arguments in favour of atheism even with a sense of humour, whilst those for a religion resort to seriously and brutally preaching, and falling flat.
@Nogli I don't really get what you're trying to say... you can make jokes even if you're not right at all. Being humorous doesn't make you right in itself, lol. Not that i'm religious or anything...
For truly great swearing though, the only real benchmark is a laid back Canadian slipping the F-bomb in to a sentence as if they were handing out conversational diamonds.
All the rest of us sound harsh and aggressive in comparison.
Dawkins is sexy, and if you don't agree, you can fuck off.
leightonsfc 1 week ago
I really love this video!!! :)
ikeshel 1 month ago
Coming from an atheist, this man is a prime cunt.
splitfeeds 1 month ago
@splitfeeds If your saying that because of this video then read the description.
195ashes 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
@195ashes Didn't see that.. apologies. But I still think he's a dickhead regardless of this video.
splitfeeds 1 month ago
I know it's an out of context quote, but goddamn this is going to be a fantastic sound byte to shut people down with. Thank you, Richard, for this valuable contribution to the counter-attack on the war on reason.
Mriya6 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
Related videos > ...and I'm a mormon
Wut
ComradeMagnum 1 month ago
The theory of relativity is also 'just a theory', but if it didn't work, your GPS would not work.
TheMaskedUgly 1 month ago
I hate how people use the whole 'just a theory' argument when they don't know the definition. Theories are based on FACTS and EVIDENCE, the concepts/explanations are created from these FACTS and EVIDENCE. The theory of evolution is a concept from the evidence of life evolving and the facts of mutation, adaptation, natural selection etc etc
Its not that hard to understand...
evidesmc 1 month ago
evolution is just a theory like gravity or the earth being round. I mean, can you prove the earth is round? Have you actually been to this "space"
SuperFREEXBOXLIVECOD 1 month ago
@SuperFREEXBOXLIVECOD
Not sure if serious . . .
We have pictures that astronauts have taken of the earth, it is round. We have used trigonometry in the past (hundreds of hundreds years ago) to deduce the shape and size of the Earth.
DR000 1 month ago
@DR000 and you think that those pics aren't photoshopped? LOL dumbass, also reddit is for faggots you homo
SuperFREEXBOXLIVECOD 1 month ago
@SuperFREEXBOXLIVECOD
ahaha, fuck off troll
Either that, or you're a dumb fuck who I'd just end up wasting time trying to explain basic science too. PS. COD is a shit game for noobs.
DR000 1 month ago
@DR000 "I acknowledge you're trolling and I'm still mad"
you're a failure you know
SuperFREEXBOXLIVECOD 1 month ago
@SuperFREEXBOXLIVECOD
LOL NICE ONE FAGGOT. Your mom's a whore, you're a disappointment to your parents, and I'm blocking you.
And you're probably a virgin or shit with girls.
DR000 1 month ago
@DR000 someone sounds mad, I think you need to redefine "troll"
SuperFREEXBOXLIVECOD 1 month ago
@SuperFREEXBOXLIVECOD you are a child
gratedrawur 1 week ago
@gratedrawur if I'm a child you're an unfertilized egg
SuperFREEXBOXLIVECOD 1 week ago
@SuperFREEXBOXLIVECOD Your response proves my point.
gratedrawur 1 week ago
@gratedrawur so sine you used ad hominem and i used ad hominem back it proves your point? you're an egg bro that just thinks because some people right shit in a book about science it's magically real.
SuperFREEXBOXLIVECOD 1 week ago
@SuperFREEXBOXLIVECOD WOAH SHIT, you used LATIN! Gotta say, kid, that's pretty fucking INTIMIDATING!
gratedrawur 1 week ago
@gratedrawur Is it harder for you to understand since I used a word differing from your MURRIZANIZED grade school level english?
SuperFREEXBOXLIVECOD 1 week ago
@gratedrawur btw checked your tumblr you look ugly AF LOLOLOL XD
SuperFREEXBOXLIVECOD 1 week ago
WAAAY out of context. Dawkins was quoting someone he disagrees with. See watch?v=PaOTu5xelPQ starting at 7:22. Thumbs up to stop the spread of misinformation.
TheNatealator 1 month ago 8
@TheNatealator thank you sir
1337Tempest 1 month ago
@TheNatealator Dawkins was quoting someone he agrees* with
Earo16 1 month ago
fuck off dumbass
niettzt 1 month ago
@niettzt Please tell me that wasn't aimed at Richard Dawkins
sheepdog2c7 1 month ago
@sheepdog2c7 of course wasn't bro :b kk
niettzt 1 month ago
In other examples, the proton-motive
force may be used as the source of energy to “pull” calcium
ions into the mitochondrion; to drive the events of mitochondrial
fusion; and to cause specifically targeted polypeptides to
enter the mitochondrion from the matrix.....
I was doing cell bio and we were talking about evolution..... any creationists on here?
iliveon 2 months ago
I could see this video a thousand times and would make me laugh every time :D
Mangotsson 2 months ago
There is no god because the facts aren't always as they seem.
Like the way we sweat for no reason.. and then we smell and then we are forced to have a fucking shower...
Dimitri0809 2 months ago
@Dimitri0809 ...what?
MrEarlander 2 months ago
@Dimitri0809 lol what
Task5003 2 months ago
And anyway, he's quoting someone. Stop saying he's arrogant and stuff. :l
trappingnoobs 3 months ago
This Video is Full of WIN!!!...
Genarian 3 months ago 23
as arrogant as religious leaders
CommentAccountA 3 months ago
@CommentAccountA did you ever heard the word "humor"?
Mimesis552007 3 months ago in playlist Fun
@Mimesis552007
Isn't that what he honestly thinks? Where's the humor in that than?
CommentAccountA 3 months ago
@CommentAccountA I dunno what he thinks and i really doubt about that... But it actually doesnt matter... that WAS just HUMOR!
Mimesis552007 3 months ago
@Mimesis552007
I just feel a big lack of respect for people who believe differently than he deos. And this makes his ideology just another "ism". I mean can't people think what they think without bragging about it and without making everything else look bad? That's the sad anology of this guy to religous leaders. Who needs an orgnisation if you are a real critic and you think for your own? In the end those organisations are all about the social effects of subcultures and not about the "truth".
CommentAccountA 3 months ago
@CommentAccountA 1. It was just a joke. 2. Science is interesting, if you don't agree you can fuck off.
rpsmith014 3 months ago 2
@rpsmith014
lol
CommentAccountA 3 months ago
@CommentAccountA I like your account name.
rpsmith014 3 months ago
@rpsmith014
me too
CommentAccountA 3 months ago
@CommentAccountA I would hope so. Were you really the first person to get that name without any extra numbers or letters? And is there a B, C, etc.? Sorry, I'm intrigued.
rpsmith014 3 months ago
@rpsmith014
don't know if there's a B and C, but I tried a lot of names and all were taken. Do you know how many users there are on youtube? gotta be a lot.
CommentAccountA 3 months ago
@CommentAccountA It's not just irreligionism that's like it. A large amount of christians, for example, would go on about how you're damned and how you're going to hell because you don't beleive. No offense but that's worse than asserting science's interestingness.
trappingnoobs 3 months ago
Comment removed
CommentAccountA 3 months ago
Comment removed
CommentAccountA 3 months ago
@CommentAccountA
He was actually quoting someone from New Scientist magazine.
UnknownUserName4267 2 months ago
Since I don't know the question to which he says this, I would agree science is interesting, REAL.......SCIENCE that is. Evolution is not, or should I say Macro-evolution is not real science.
vbirdieb 3 months ago
@vbirdieb You sir, are a dipshit.
johsonug92 3 months ago
@vbirdieb
Utterly wrong, Evolution has more evidence for it than any other theory. Your ignorance is scary.
UnknownUserName4267 2 months ago 42
@UnknownUserName4267 (Also there is no other theory. No other hypothesis, even. It's like comparing the germ theory of disease with the drug fueled conjecture that maybe disease is caused by magic.)
Flyborg 2 months ago
@UnknownUserName4267
Evolution isn't really a theory anymore.
ChocolateFlux 2 months ago
@ChocolateFlux Evolution is very much a theory, and it will always be a theory. A scientific theory is simply an explanation of how something happens backed with loads of evidence. The more evidence, the stronger theory. It should also be able to predict things and explain more than the previous theory.
But no matter what happens, a theory can never become anything else than a theory.
InterbredRollmops 1 month ago
The thought that occurred to me as I watched this was 'why is he so ludicrously excited by his own joke, which isn't that funny'. Oh boy oh boy he said the fuck word and directed it towards people who think science isn't interesting! So hilarious. What he fails to recognize is that the majority of his opponents do not find science to be uninteresting. Of course, he won't address those.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring - He was quoting the editor of New Scientist Magazine and he was obviously talking about science not atheism. But thanks for the totally misinformed comment.
WillShakespeare2007 5 months ago
@WillShakespeare2007 Uh, how exactly was my comment misinformed? It still stands with what you told me.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring - Because he was not talking about atheism he was talking about science only. He was also quoting someone else after pointing out he did not take such a harsh stance against those that are not interested in science. So he doesn't "fail to recognize" anything as you suggest and who are the "opponents" of science you referred too? The flat earth society?
You obviously have a bug up your arse because he is an atheist and are inventing some opposition to science.
WillShakespeare2007 5 months ago
@WillShakespeare2007 Sorry, I suppose I was a bit confused about his subject but who he is and what he stands for is still important when I make comments about his character. As you see, I take offense at his attitude and methods of discourse. He frequently appeals to emotion and cultured popularity of opinion, instead of logic. My comments regarding his behavior, which constituted the majority of my post, still stand.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring
"As you see, I take offense at his attitude and methods of discourse."
The only thing we "see" here was a lame misunderstanding of the clip. You said nothing about "appeals to emotion".
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour "The thought that occurred to me as I watched this was 'why is he so ludicrously excited by his own joke, which isn't that funny'. Oh boy oh boy he said the fuck word and directed it towards people who think science isn't interesting! So hilarious. " Was entirely relevant nonetheless. I also don't have any opposition to science. People who draw conjectures instead of examining the rational evidence of my logical statements will, of course, misunderstand the relevancy of my main point
wishingwellspring 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
Please tell me how that completely false analysis of the 7 seconds in this clip are "entirely relevant" or even any relevant in light of the joke's actual context.
Maybe you should live up to your standards and examine the evidence (which is, in this case, a 2 minutes clip to the right which doesn't require years of study to interpret) instead of drawing bullshit conjectures?
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour First, note who's being hostile here. Hostility generally indicates personal issues. And no, his joke still isn't funny and he's still ludicrously excited by it. His entire demeanor exudes the fact that he thrives off the emotional attention and adulation of self-styled 'intellectuals' who can't be bothered to frame their own opinions and so rely on his. My evaluation of his behavior remains the same, whatever the context, and the point of my post was an analysis of his behavior.
wishingwellspring 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
"First, note who's being hostile here."
Seeing as how neither I am being hostile nor Dawkins, then yea, who's being hostile?
"Hostility generally indicates personal issues."
If you wanna call the normal, run-of-the-mill annoyance towards stupidity an "issue", then hey, fine.
"And no, his joke still isn't funny and he's still ludicrously excited by it."
It's not his joke.
twooffour 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
"His entire demeanor exudes the fact that he thrives off the emotional attention and adulation of self-styled 'intellectuals' who can't be bothered to frame their own opinions and so rely on his."
How so, and how do you derive this information from a 7 second clip where he tells some anecdote?
There is no connection at all - if you wanna claim that he likes people to listen to him uncritically, find some quote that actually supports it. (Seeing as how he insists on the...
twooffour 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
.... opposite almost all the time).
"My evaluation of his behavior remains the same, whatever the context"
That's because you're a dimwitted, pseudo-intellectual armchair psychologist.
Your evaluation isn't only terribly flawed by a gigantic non-sequitur leap (that laughing at your own joke somehow implies narcissism, which it doesn't necessarily, or the desire for "emotional attention" from a flock, which it doesn't AT ALL), it's also built around the assumption that he's.
twooffour 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
.. telling a joke of his own, while actually he tells a humorous quotes by someone ELSE that he finds funny and expects his audience to laugh at, as well (which they do - so basically, this shows that he has an adequate humor metre).
Anyone else would've long reevaluated their own position after learning this new information, but you still try to insist on your "analysis" and this being "his joke", "whatever the context".
You, sir, are a clown.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour No. It's true that I misunderstood the context of his joke, I thought it was aimed at religious idiots when it was aimed at other idiots. However, this doesn't matter. It is actually a very small, irrelevant point. My evaluation of his behavior is the same. It isn't a funny joke, not witty or strong. He laughs and enjoys the laughter of others in a very visible, obvious fashion. This isn't a man with enduring character. He is a cheap fellow looking for adulation.
wishingwellspring 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
"It's true that I misunderstood the context of his joke, I thought it was aimed at religious idiots when it was aimed at other idiots."
Actually, it wasn't aimed at ANY idiot, and it wasn't his quote to begin with.
He was criticized by a co-debater to be too feisty/condescending/unsympathetic, lowering his effectiveness at educating people, and he responded by citing an even "worse" (and obviously tongue-in-cheek) example from a respected science magazine.
twooffour 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
Obviously, you still don't get the context.
"It isn't a funny joke, not witty or strong."
It is to me, maybe because I understand its context.
"He laughs and enjoys the laughter of others in a very visible, obvious fashion."
Yes, at the joke OF SOMEONE ELSE.
He cites SOMEONE ELSE'S quip and joins the collective laughter.
At any rate, laughing at your own joke and enjoying the laughter by others is a natural sentiment and doesn't in any way point to some "weak character"...
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour I know it's a quote but honestly that doesn't make it any better, it's still what he is projecting of himself to the audience. Quoting people when they're wise, meaningful, and thought-provoking is one thing - but quoting a base joke isn't worthy behavior. And yeah, laughing at yourself and enjoying the adulation of others in that situation does point to weak character. How many people have you dated who get irritated when you giggle at your own jokes, whether they're quotes or not?
wishingwellspring 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
Alright pal, that's it... you're a hamster.
You know, the difference between an intellectual and a pseudo is that the former adapts his view to its correction, while the latter adapts his defense tactics.
"it's still what he is projecting of himself to the audience."
No, he's sharing someone else's wit.
"but quoting a base joke isn't worthy behavior."
It was supposed to be FUN, not "worthy". Comic relief in the middle of what certainly was a 95% serious debate / speech.
twooffour 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
Alright pal, that's it... you're a hamster.
You know, the difference between an intellectual and a pseudo is that the former adapts his view to its correction, while the latter adapts his defense tactics.
"it's still what he is projecting of himself to the audience."
No, he's sharing someone else's wit.
"but quoting a base joke isn't worthy behavior."
It was supposed to be FUN, not "worthy". Comic relief in the middle of what certainly was a 95% serious debate / speech.
twooffour 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
Alright pal, that's it... you're a hamster.
You know, the difference between an intellectual and a pseudo is that the former adapts his view to its correction, while the latter adapts his defense tactics.
"it's still what he is projecting of himself to the audience."
No, he's sharing someone else's wit.
"but quoting a base joke isn't worthy behavior."
It was supposed to be FUN, not "worthy". Comic relief in the middle of what certainly was a 95% serious debate / speech.
twooffour 4 months ago
Alright pal, that's it... you're a hamster.
You know, the difference between an intellectual and a pseudo is that the former adapts his view to its correction, while the latter adapts his defense tactics.
"it's still what he is projecting of himself to the audience."
No, he's sharing someone else's wit.
"but quoting a base joke isn't worthy behavior."
It was supposed to be FUN, not "worthy". Comic relief in the middle of what certainly was a 95 percent serious debate / speech.
twooffour 4 months ago
Alright pal, that's it... you're a hamster.
You know, the difference between an intellectual and a pseudo is that the former adapts his view to its correction, while the latter adapts his defense tactics.
"it's still what he is projecting of himself to the audience."
No, he's sharing someone else's wit.
"but quoting a base joke isn't worthy behavior."
It was supposed to be FUN, not "worthy". Comic relief in the middle of what certainly was a 95% serious debate / speech.
As for how...
twooffour 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
"base" it is in the context, well - the irony in the quote is that one one hand, the person saying it produces public scientific education (and it's expected that such educators might care about public knowledge), on the other hand, obviously only those interested will look into it and there's nothing the authors can do about it.
The quote conveys a shrewish capitulation towards this issue, playing on the stereotype of the nervous, snobby scientist spending all day in the lab
twooffour 4 months ago
"base" it is in the context, well - the irony in the quote is that one one hand, the person saying it produces public scientific education (and it's expected that such educators might care about public knowledge), on the other hand, obviously only those interested will look into it and there's nothing the authors can do about it.
The quote conveys a shrewish capitulation towards this issue, playing on the stereotype of the nervous, snobby scientist spending all day in the lab.
Given...
twooffour 4 months ago
"base" or primitive it is, well, it's blunt but effective, and pretty funny if you think about the context (but you clearly haven't done that as you've just learned it from me).
"And yeah, laughing at yourself and enjoying the adulation of others in that situation does point to weak character."
How so?
"How many people have you dated who get irritated when you giggle at your own jokes, whether they're quotes or not?"
False analogy.
Being able to predict audience laughter
twooffour 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
... or insecurity or over-inflated ego.
Maybe you've never been out with friends, because that's the kind of situation where people constantly make quips or references and burst out in laughter together with everyone else. It's completely natural, and your attempt at armchair psychology is just cheap.
Maybe if you could find something else that's wrong with Dawkins, you wouldn't desparately try to cling to some "unfunny" one-liner he once made in some conference.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour I don't pick people like that to be my friends. Also there's plenty wrong with Dawkins, like his logical incapability (despite his pretense of rationality). There are three kinds of appeals: pathos, logos, ethos. You can't credibly answer a logos question with a pathos answer but he does it and people eat it up because they don't truly understand rationality. Regardless, this is the comment I made for this video. I'm not desperate, I'm defending it because I think it is correct.
wishingwellspring 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
"base" or primitive it is, well, it's blunt but effective, and pretty funny if you think about the context (but you clearly haven't done that as you've just learned it from me).
"And yeah, laughing at yourself and enjoying the adulation of others in that situation does point to weak character."
How so?
"How many people have you dated who get irritated when you giggle at your own jokes, whether they're quotes or not?"
False analogy.
Being able to predict audience laughter
twooffour 4 months ago
"base" or primitive it is, well, it's blunt but effective, and pretty funny if you think about the context (but you clearly haven't done that as you've just learned it from me).
"And yeah, laughing at yourself and enjoying the adulation of others in that situation does point to weak character."
How so?
"How many people have you dated who get irritated when you giggle at your own jokes, whether they're quotes or not?"
False analogy.
Being able to predict audience laughter and say something...
twooffour 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
... and say something you know others will be funny, shows social competence, and not fearing to laugh yourself shows self-confidence.
Unless you're an Aspie, you can easily understand from the way Dawkin's starts smirking at the end of the phrase and turns to the challenger (and the immediate burst of laughter from the audience and colleagues) that this is, indeed, what's happening here.
Social competence and adequate sense of humor, as opposed to insecurity.
twooffour 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
... and say something you know people will find funny, is a sign of social competence, and not being afraid to laugh yourself shows self-confidence.
It only gets awkward if no one else laughs - if everyone DOES, the joker laughing himself will be seen as a confirmation of funniness by an accepted authority figure.
So unless you're an Aspie, you can clearly see from the way Dawkins starts smirking towards the end of the sentence and turns to laughingly to the left, with...
twooffour 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
... the audience in tow, that this is exactly what's happening here.
"I don't pick people like that to be my friends."
Well then don't, but it's obvious by now that your selectiveness in this regard, as well as your "observation" here, is based on snobbiness, social dyslexia, and maybe a good deal of personal insecurity as well.
Oh no, Dawkins told a "base" joke instead of something "thoughtful and worthy"... people who are like that aren't worthy of your attention.
twooffour 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
the audience in tow, that this is exactly what's happening here.
"I don't pick people like that to be my friends."
Well, then don't - but it's obvious by now that your selectiveness in this regard, as well as your interpretation of this video, is based on inflated snobbery, social dyslexia and probably a good deal of insecurity as well.
twooffour 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
Oh no, Dawkins quotes something "base", rather than something "worthy", that's not worthy behavior... and no, people who, unlike me, are actually funny and know when they're funny without fearing awkward reactions from others, are still lame, because I said so - except no one else can see that.
Yea, lol.
"I'm not desperate, I'm defending it because I think it is correct."
Desperate to convince yourself that you are, when it's clearly, clearly not the case.
twooffour 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
Oh no, Dawkins said something that is "base", rather then "thoughtful", shame on him... and no, people who, unlike me, can actually tell when they're being funny and know their audience won't disagree, are still lame, because I say so - but no one else see that.
Mhm... lol.
"I'm not desperate, I'm defending it because I think it is correct."
Desperate to convince yourself of that, exactly.
twooffour 4 months ago
Oh no, Dawkins said something that is "base", rather then "thoughtful", shame on him... and no, people who, unlike me, can actually tell when they're being funny and know their audience won't disagree, are still lame, because I say so - but no one else see that.
Mhm... lol.
"I'm not desperate, I'm defending it because I think it is correct."
Desperate to convince yourself of that, exactly.
twooffour 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
"You can't credibly answer a logos question with a pathos answer but he does it and people eat it up because they don't truly understand rationality."
So if your issue is with other things Dawkins says, you should take it there and detach it from this joke.
Because this clearly has nothing to do with "answering to logos with pathos" - he's answering to criticism with compliance and humor.
twooffour 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
"You can't credibly answer a logos question with a pathos answer"
And how does he do that here?
twooffour 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wishingwellspring
"You can't credibly answer a logos question with a pathos answer"
And how does he do that here?
twooffour 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wishingwellspring
"You can't credibly answer a logos question with a pathos answer"
And how does he do that here?
twooffour 4 months ago
"You can't credibly answer a logos question with a pathos answer"
And how does he do that here?
twooffour 4 months ago
@wishingwellspring
"You can't credibly answer a logos question with a pathos answer"
And how does he do that here?
twooffour 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wishingwellspring
"You can't credibly answer a logos question with a pathos answer"
And how does he do that here?
twooffour 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wishingwellspring "You can't credibly answer a logos question with a pathos answer"
And how does he do that here?
twooffour 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wishingwellspring
"You can't credibly answer a logos question with a pathos answer"
And how does he do that here?
twooffour 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wishingwellspring "You can't credibly answer a logos question with a pathos answer"
And how does he do that here?
twooffour 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"You can't credibly answer a logos question with a pathos answer"
And how does he do that here?
twooffour 4 months ago
The way he immediately looked to his left for approval from his peers shows that he relies on them for support.
M45t3rChI3F 7 months ago
@M45t3rChI3F That is how science works and how healthy human beings work, well done.
Tunewill 6 months ago
@M45t3rChI3F
Actually, this is a response to a guy on the left, so that's why he turns to him :)
Dork.
twooffour 4 months ago
The fact that Richard can joke about such matters shows that he doesnt need to worry, his beliefs have a steady foundation in truth and reason
jamesc1994 7 months ago
@jamesc1994
Actually, anyone can joke (except if something is too "holy" or fragile in their mind), humor is one of the most used defense mechanisms.
twooffour 4 months ago
This is what should be written in the front of all science text books.
Ichiboy900 7 months ago
@Ichiboy900 yeah like the books in school xD
6ch6ris6 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I Agree!
I will not fuck off =^_^=
BlankPicketSign 7 months ago
michaeldim1-I guess that makes sense. By your own interpretation you are half-assed as well and you'd have to be to write a comment where you contradict your viewpoint while trying to validate it at the same time
bleach4613 9 months ago
@bleach4613 You should note, you have to put ' @ ' in front of their name, else they won't be emailed or notified that you've replied.
Also, that comment was written over a year ago, I don't think there's much point in arguing with them, you're a tad late.
jackamatyus 8 months ago
i will pray for all of you jew sinners
Roosterswe 9 months ago
Damn I want to say that to the idiots in my biology course. Science is interesting.
majorblood87 10 months ago
6 people can fuck off.
SageKatakuna 11 months ago
the science of my foot up your ass is very interesting!
kiwininja100 1 year ago
to be honest, the whole "lets blame the worlds problems on religion" thing is getting dull. Power have always been the problem; whether thats the palpacy and the crusades, or the soviet union and the Holodomor, blaming another worldview for all the shit going on today is only going to make things worse, not better.
caliente5542 1 year ago
@caliente5542 so you don't think it's a concern that peoples self awareness is so low that they still submit to religion given the total lack of physical/solid evidence of any deity? I agree the tirade shouldn't be against religion, it should be about raising peoples ability to question their beliefs and what they have had shoved down their throats, whether thats religion, media or corporations feeding you bullshit through advertising
schr4nz 1 year ago
LOL HAHA he said the F word... and then he said science and woow no way he did that ahhahaaha..
Admirturano 1 year ago
science created nazism you fucking sinners i hope you all burn in hell
for He will save me and leave you penis
Roosterswe 1 year ago
@Roosterswe Kindly go kill yourself. (Perhaps I should say "slaughter", as you are hardly above any animal.)
Iced1992 1 year ago
@Roosterswe SCIENCE created Nazism? SCIENCE?!
fdnlt 1 year ago
@Roosterswe Hitler was Roman Catholic.
UncleCthulhu 1 year ago
@UncleCthulhu &urMOM2!
fuduzan5562 1 year ago
@Roosterswe leave you penis???????
jbfarley 1 year ago
@Roosterswe obvious troll is obvious
Unclesamslair 1 year ago
@Roosterswe
you are such a fucking idiot.
mrwho995 1 year ago
@mrwho995
you're an unsaved soul and i feel sorry for u as u burn in hell ok sry repent siner
Roosterswe 1 year ago
@Roosterswe
LOL
learn how to spell and use grammar properly.
mrwho995 1 year ago 3
@Roosterswe HAHA!!
ahoyhoy1990 1 year ago
@Roosterswe Science is deez nuts.
zZSnapplesZz 1 year ago
@Roosterswe it also created the device you use to make retarded, false statements -.- quit trollin bro
IHaveAPodXTLive 1 year ago
@Roosterswe
Oops, did we scare you too much? Nobody is going to stop you from believing in ol' daddy wizard up the sky. Sorry we told you the truth about reality):
No it's pathetic, really.
starsoffyre 1 year ago
@starsoffyre
im sorry i will pray for your soul
Roosterswe 9 months ago
@Roosterswe
Thank you. I know that the Great Flying Spaghetti monster will pardon my soul.
starsoffyre 9 months ago 2
lol, best argument in the world:D... Science is fuckin best! Its ineresting, funny and you cant live without it
NeedForMadnessSVK 1 year ago
and the 5 people who dont like this video, you can fuck off
morvelification 1 year ago
I love him!
idcgaming 1 year ago
)))))))) +100000!!!!!
bambinenok 1 year ago
Lulz!!!
Prowl4Ever 1 year ago
I agree with him on that.
tuuLi 1 year ago
Science is lame. It can't even explain how God made plastic (and the other elements).
SaintTroll 1 year ago 73
@SaintTroll I hope you are a troll, because that was one of the dumbest comments I have seen.
desager1 1 year ago
@SaintTroll Yes. I see wat u did thar.
tanderullum 1 year ago
@SaintTroll theres no such thing as God you weapon
bencoyle1 1 year ago
@SaintTroll
Nice name...
so hard not to respond.
I would have had you not had that name.
Fail troll is fail.
Seracinfinity 8 months ago
points and laughs @Seracinfinity
You just typed 93 characters, not responding to my comment.
Who fails?
SaintTroll 8 months ago
@SaintTroll The guy who counted the characters.
Seracinfinity 8 months ago
Comment removed
Smeogul 8 months ago
Comment removed
SaintTroll 8 months ago
@SaintTroll This made me smile Mr.Troll. Congrats.
88lava88 8 months ago
@SaintTroll omg so dumb ... god don't even exists :))
Revolteh666 7 months ago
@SaintTroll I was going to say "Can't tell if troll or just very stupid", and then I saw that your name is SaintTroll so I was like oh okay.
damandatwin 6 months ago
@damandatwin You and the other guy need to learn what sarcasm is.
oopsIdidasuper 5 months ago
@SaintTroll you are the one troll i admire....you understand what trolling is, it's not about being offensive, it's about showing people the stupid thoughts that occur to whomever may be opposed to the video being watched(most of your comments are following that train of thought...and that sort of trolling is art!)....so trolls like you actually help, but then there are many tight-wads that don't understand it....in fact you'd probably reply that i'm deluded....lol
xxxslayerxxx666 6 months ago
@SaintTroll and furthermore since i acknowledged one possible response that answer leads yet another possibilty and that is a sarcastic "you are right" followed of course in a long stream of sarcasm and promises of rewards for my correct answer...but now i think that reply changed to you are dumb, or you have no life....and now the only reply left is no reply...the ultimate sign of disambiguation!(because if you are in that class of troll you couldn't admit to it cause it goes against your game)
xxxslayerxxx666 6 months ago
@SaintTroll Your Lame Science Is Interesting If You Dont Agree You Could Fuck Off :P
YourBoyIsaiah 4 months ago
Best. Response. Ever!
Science, it's a verb now!
myblackabyss 1 year ago
lol xD tahats true
GotMan911 1 year ago
dawkins is a cunt but this is some good shit
Mesarphelous 1 year ago
Oh, wow, this totally made my night.
riotreality 1 year ago
amen to that! Praise science!
Unclesamslair 1 year ago
If Richard Dawkins is able to joke when discussing atheism, it shows how ridiculous religion is. He perpetually wins arguments in favour of atheism even with a sense of humour, whilst those for a religion resort to seriously and brutally preaching, and falling flat.
At least that's how I feel.
Nogli 1 year ago 37
@Nogli I don't really get what you're trying to say... you can make jokes even if you're not right at all. Being humorous doesn't make you right in itself, lol. Not that i'm religious or anything...
pr0f0 7 months ago
@Nogli
Theist debaters are capable of irony as well - Jewish ones especially ;)
twooffour 4 months ago
fair enough!
joewhittles 1 year ago
@PandorasLuckbox lololol
michaeldim1 1 year ago
Best Video ever!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahaha :-)
Johnnyfortune82 1 year ago
Nice one Professor Dawkins.
For truly great swearing though, the only real benchmark is a laid back Canadian slipping the F-bomb in to a sentence as if they were handing out conversational diamonds.
All the rest of us sound harsh and aggressive in comparison.
biggest23 1 year ago
hehe Dawkins rules!
ZerqTM 1 year ago
That's the best video I have ever watched!
Johnnyfortune82 1 year ago
lmao dawkins runs shit XD
herbivore007 1 year ago