ED's Top 25 Logical Fallacies by creationists part 1

[scar504]

Wikipedia has spawned so many "brights" in these last few years.

[shizzleman8]

One sided argument becomes special pleading with the introduction of a double standard/prejudice. Foundaitonal bias < YOU not the ones you made the video for demonstrate that HERE based on your own personal belief of what someone else is doing. You got a case of your own Jose? Make that then. I study atheist arguments everyday. Yours is the absence of evidence for God. < That's why Dawkins won't debate Craig.

[DodoPandemic]

@shizzleman8 " I study atheist arguments everyday. Yours is the absence of evidence for God. < That's why Dawkins won't debate Craig." What does this have to do with this video? And what the hell are atheist arguments? And why should I care about why Dawkins won't debate Craig? Personally I think debating the existence or non-existence of any deity is pointless, and I am also not impressed with Craig's arguments, talking about special pleading.

[shizzleman8]

@DodoPandemic If you believe nothing exists without cause you're a creationist. You want help? Watch my 1st recommeded channel Open Philosophy videos.

Peace.

[shizzleman8]

You should go to college you're the worst logician I've ever come across. You're just copying and pasting then applying what your definition is in a biased way to erroneously constructed episodes that don't even match the material you've presented. Try taking an IQ test, not trying to embarrass you, but Dr. Craig's about 100 years ahead of your shitty arguments. Just answer me this, what exists without a cause?

[DodoPandemic]

@shizzleman8 The only one you're embarrassing is yourself, dude, and that's not because of the obvious fetish you have for WLC. "Just answer me this, what exists without a cause?" I find this typical, this question has nothing to do with this video. Secondly, if I can't answer it, doesn't make you right by default. But to answer it, as far as I know, nothing exists without a cause. "Try taking an IQ test" Hilarious, Dunning-Kruger effect in action, and it shows the vacuousness of your argument.

[shizzleman8]

@DodoPandemic Your entire presentation is ad hominems. Instead of addressing the arguments of those YOU'RE emotionally fixating on or making an argument of your own you're only offering prejudicial hearsay and personal attacks. In any argument/debate/court trial you can't define your opponents position as fallacious to start. < That's the BIG FELATIO! You necessarily have to have a position, I don't, I wouldn't tell you in a million years how I feel about anything because you're a retard.

[DodoPandemic]

@shizzleman8 Big fuck off to you creationist waste of oxygen. You have the nerve to accuse me of ad hominems?? Fuck off! you come to my channel and leave this verbal diarrhea which you seem to think is equivalent to a rational argument, well creotard you're miles off and to dumb to see why, even after I explained it twice to you, now crawl back to the cave you came from, hypocritical numb nuts.

[shizzleman8]

@DodoPandemic Piss poor insulting, just like your video. If you're going to make a video about fallacies just do it without making any. No doubt I'm condescending but I'm showing you something simultaneously. Just make a video about fallacies. The fallacy of the undistributed middle. < Just make one video on that for instance and leave the creation/evolution or God/atheism debates out of it.

I think I hear your mom and sister calling you for dinner, go see what she made you. < FUNNY!

[DodoPandemic]

@shizzleman8 Ok you're a troll, you cannot be this dense for real. Goodbye troll.

[AgeOfScience]

@shizzleman8 According to Dr. WLC, god exists without a cause. Care to explain how that puts him 100 years ahead of us rather than a few thousand years behind?

[shizzleman8]

You're missing a number of key elements in your straw man expalanation. A straw man is just the "dummy" argument, how easily it's refuted is not a consideration. Your example doesn't explain the original explanation of what exactly the Big Bang is, you're not making a distinction between the original argument and the one you assume is the "dummy". Dawkins has recently been referred to as a COWARD for refusing to debate Dr. Craig by dick's colleague Dr. Came in the TELEGRAPH, dick's the dummy.

[shizzleman8]

The title of your retarded upload is A FOUNDATIONAL BIAS FALLACY!

[shizzleman8]

You violated the law of parsimony (Law of succinctness) right off the bat dumbass. Just pick one adjective and get the fuck on with your ridiculous presentation. You wasted a minute of my life that you can never replace. God damn you ignorant piece of shit atheists, 25 logical fallacies creationists make? Fuctard you just violated the most important one being longwinded! Take the bar exam Jose Baez.

[DodoPandemic]

@shizzleman8 No they didn't, occam's razor has absolutely nothing to do with this video, since it just discusses their favorite logical fallacies often used by creationists, go fish idiot.

[shizzleman8]

@DodoPandemic When does a one sided argument become fallacious? I'm glad you asked that question.

In argument, being repetitious is an objectionable offense. Your presentation is what I'm proving is fallacious. It is exactly the definition of evey logical fallacy that you're prejudiciously ascribing to another's position. Hey, whatever friend, just saying. You want to malign every fallacy while attempting to prove your opponent is, whatever floats your boat. I came here to be taught.

[DodoPandemic]

@shizzleman8 I didn't ask a question, and to be honest, I'm not reading an answer to your own question as well. You leave a wall of text in which you make no points or sense and somewhere found it necessary to involve Dawkins and Craig to make your case. Of course lets not forget name calling and insinuations about my IQ, which sais more about you then it does about me. If you'd paid attention you'd notice that I am hosting this video, since ExtantDodo's channel was flagged at the time...cont

[DodoPandemic]

@shizzleman8 cont.. and I am not the maker, but you see dodo in the name and assume I made it. You want to come across as some sort of expert on argumentation ethics, but in doing so spew out fallacie after fallacy yourself. Not in the least, the fact that this video is not even trying to prove one hypothesis or another.

"Your example doesn't explain the original explanation of what exactly the Big Bang is.." Because it's not critical for explaining what a straw man argument is.  cont..

[DodoPandemic]

@shizzleman8 And that's the trend in your entire critique to this video, pointless and making no sense at all. I'll commit "an objectionable offense" and repeat that this video 'discusses their favorite logical fallacies often used by creationists' by giving a definition and showing examples of those fallacies, nothing more, but I guess you missed that.

[SoCaLPianoClub]

@DodoPandemic 'discusses their favorite logical fallacies often used by creationists' by giving a definition and showing examples of those fallacies < For the 5th time dumbass THAT"S FOUNDATIONAL BIAS. I said if that's what you're promoting in the process of explaining what it is whatever blows your hair back. While I'm stealing from you I'm going to teach you how you stealing from others is wrong. DUNCE. Add the fact that you're a GOD DAMNED last word freak and YOU'RE THE UPLOADER.

[iBlindGame]

WTC Investigation Fallacies:  watch?v=4ZrcDTjkIhI

[icefall1793]

This point can be called 0 OR 4, either is correct, just like in trigonometry 360 and 0 degrees have the same value, those making 2+2=0 OR 4. making the statement 2+2=4 not necessarily exclusive

[icefall1793]

we use a circular plane that starts over whenever we pass the top 0. If we segment the plane into 4 points (as an example, the number of segments can be infinity, but in this case i will use 4). Each segments representing a unit value. so we would have the origin point 0 north, 1 east, 2 south and 3 west. by using the logic used in the cartesian plane, we start at point 2 and move along the line two units, which would mean it goes back to the origin point 0. (continued)

[SevenRiderAirForce]

@icefall1793 You did not answer the question. You said that (2+2)modulo4 = 0, which it does. This, however, does not disprove the irrefutable fact that 2+2=4 every time. I am not surprised by the fact that I'm right and will be right for the rest of eternity. Mathematics is perhaps the only realm in which absolute certain exists.

[icefall1793]

@SevenRiderAirForce Yeah, In a older post i wrote a wrong statement, I meant to say that 2+2=4 is not an exclusively the only truth. But the discussion went terribly off topic xd

[SevenRiderAirForce]

@icefall1793 No, I'm pretty sure that it is an absolute, unquestionable, infinite truth that 2+2=4. If you want an explanation for what you did, you essentially defined a ring for which the additive property included a modulo, thus both adding parameters to and over-complicating the initial question. But, uh, yeah, outside of math, I can't think of any other realm for which absolute truth exists.

[icefall1793]

Continuing the post: Also, if you look with TOK eyes, you will notice that the problem with the whole religion vs science debate is that both sides' arguments are based upon the beliefs of each group, without considering the other's. If you get to read essays or papers on the three main theories of justification for knowledge, you will understand that absolute truth is not achievable, we might make working theories that seem to cover almost everything but not "everything".

[icefall1793]

Sir, I see you are extremely biased as well, i have seen the same amount of logical fallacies in anti-god arguments, not only in creationist arguments, when it comes to try to teach fallacies please put your bias aside, thanks.

[SevenRiderAirForce]

@icefall1793 It's the same number, not amount, of logical fallacies, and while it is of course possible for anti-god arguments to contain them, they are used exclusively by theist arguments.

[icefall1793]

@SevenRiderAirForce lol... no... go learn some tok, logical fallacies are used by everyone in any situations. In fact you made a logical fallacy yourself. "exclusively" is a very absolute word, careful how you use it, since it can make your whole premise fall apart.

[SevenRiderAirForce]

@icefall1793 2+2=4, exclusively. Likewise, theist arguments are exclusively fallacious. If you happen to find one that isn't, I'd be happy to change the latter statement, but given that no one has done that even once yet, let's just I doubt anyone ever will. If you wish to be ever so technical, I'll say that theist arguments have been exclusively fallacious so far. Absolutes are not always fallacious.

[icefall1793]

@SevenRiderAirForce First, I don't see the point of bringing 2+2=4, because this can be proven wrong easily.

Two, never said that using absolutes are fallacious, dont make assumptions, I said that they can make a premise fall apart.

Three, I am not personally theist so i don't really know arguments they use (I am neutral). I have seen many fallacious argument in both sides.

[SevenRiderAirForce]

@icefall1793 Okay now I'm hooked. Disprove 2+2=4.

[icefall1793]

@SevenRiderAirForce As you may know, when ever we make a calculation through a function (in this case f(x)=x+x) we are using the linear plane of X to solve the question. In the Cartesian plane the value of X can range from negative infinity to positive infinity. Whenever we add, we are basically moving a certain amount of units with a origin point. In the case of 2+2, we are moving frmo point two to two point to the right of it, 4. Let's say that instead of using the cartesian x plane... (next)

[talibanchristian]

I see you like the thesaurus.

[ibeliuslearner]

I find it rather hypocritical that you would start your video by using the "poisoning the well" fallacy as an introduction to a video that criticizes the use of fallacies. You do this by ridiculing the creationists even before people get to hear your arguments. This does not serve the cause of truth or science.

[anarimus]

@ibeliuslearner Creationists do not further the cause of truth or science. They often take logical fallacy to the level of high art.

[bbizzy89]

@ibeliuslearner why would you assume that the maker of this video wants to serve the cause of truth and/or science. perhaps the maker of this video has a vendetta against creationists?

[SkullTom812]

Idiotic, I go to this video to hear about someone intelligent discuss logical fallacies, but your just crying over the belief of theists. Theism isn't something to waste your time crying over, just ignore it and read some actual Philosophy.

[ErnilEnNaur]

Good video, but I agree that creationists are hardly the only people who use logical fallacies. We all use them sometimes, though not on purpose I hope.

[spaceoreo]

I know it's fallacious to say it, but it's still hard to give credence to anyone with a beard and no moustache.

[rivmikant]

@spaceoreo , you can always tell how eccentric a guy is by their facial hair.

[Barkspawn]

I'm a transitional form between my parents and my kids.

The kid's stumbling actually contains a hidden gem - transitional forms are still species - archaopteryx and tiktaalik "already is an animal whatever it is". Every animal is a transitional form (provided it produces offspring) between one organism and another, and every species is a transition from one species to the next (provided it has an "offspring" species).

[jscottupton]

Why are you limiting this to "illogical creationist arguments" ? There is illogic everywhere.

[casanovakreg]

you would be surprised how often "intelligent" people commit these. check out learnlogicalfallacies

[Cait711]

I don't mean to be a smart ass, but you use fallacies in some of your explanations of the people you're arguing against in this video. And if you meant to do that, well, then I just love you.

[GreenEarBuds]

strawman!!!!

[Primordialfan1]

I love your videos man. :)

[skud9999]

And to every one that gave me a "thumbs down"...nice logical responses. If I wrong, show me where.

[TheHomelessCripple]

I like chicken

[skud9999]

Atheists also commit every logical fallacy that you stated. As a matter of fact you are committing several logical fallacies in this video.Example:

0:57-Foundational Bias/Ad hominem argument

1:25-Appeal to emotion(He wants his ideas tought in classrooms)

1:28-Quote mining.(throughout video)

4:51-Burdon of proof(races=species?)

6:54-Hasty generalization(All of them?)

7:03-Appeal to spite(you like him more?so what?)

7:06-Appeal to pity/bandwagon(obviously? So what if you cant?)

Double standard?

[annpetasupporter]

@skud9999

"4:51-Burdon of proof(races=species?)"

Race as we define it socially like black, asian, white, native american, etc. is not the same as the meaning of race in biology.

[skud9999]

@annpetasupporter The Quote is "Please note that Darwin maent "races" to mean the equivalent of "species".

He wasnt talking about how we define it socially, he was refering to what Darwin ment by it. Darwin is the subject. He needs to back that up with a statement from Darwin. Unless we are to just take it on his authority.

[annpetasupporter]

Well, seeing as how Darwin was a biologist, and that is kind of how the word race is used in biology (it means subspecies, not species, but close enough), it's not much of a leap to assume that Darwin meant at least subspecies, not race in the way you are thinking. And, in the video clip he provided, based off of Darwin using the word race, the guy claims he's a racist, which really shows his ignorance in biology.

[skud9999]

@annpetasupporter

I agree that calling him a racist on this basis seems a bit unfounded but the issue is that the guy that made the video made a claim and had no evidence to back it up. He basically refutes Ken Hamm's argument (I think it was Ken Hamm, he makes lame arguments of that type pretty regularly) the same way you did, by an appeal to popularity or authority (Im at a public computer right now and I cant listen to it). All people make logical fallacies, not just creationists.

[annpetasupporter]

@skud9999

"the guy that made the video made a claim and had no evidence to back it up"

Well, I thought I did a good job at explaining why it wasn't much of an assumption to assume that he meant "species" (or more accurately "subspecies") instead of races and that you don't really need to have evidence for it, that you just need to understand the meaning of the word "races" in a biological context.

[annpetasupporter]

@skud9999

"He basically refutes Ken Hamm's argument (I think it was Ken Hamm, he makes lame arguments of that type pretty regularly) the same way you did, by an appeal to popularity or authority"

Please point me to where I made an appeal to popularity or authority...

"All people make logical fallacies, not just creationists."

Agreed, but creationists seem to use them the most often for their main arguments...

[skud9999]

@annpetasupporter

It is fallacious to make a claim and not back it up with evidence. He just asserts that Darwin didnt mean "race" rather that meant "species" with no attempt to validate the point.

[annpetasupporter]

@skud9999

"It is fallacious to make a claim and not back it up with evidence. He just asserts that Darwin didnt mean "race" rather that meant "species" with no attempt to validate the point."

Do I really need to repeat myself here? Seeing as how in biology, race means subspecies, you don't need evidence to back that up. If you just repeat yourself again, I'm just not going to respond. I already responded to the same exact argument at least twice before. This is now the third time.

[skud9999]

@annpetasupporter

Appeal to the popularity of a particular authority. In this case, the biological community. You cannot determine weather or not he is a racist by the way the biological community defines the word "race" only by how Darwin (the subject) defines it.

One question for you to better illustrate the issue.

If a racist biologist said "Race A is superior to race B." could you determine if he was a racist or not by that statement?

[annpetasupporter]

@skud9999

"If a racist biologist said "Race A is superior to race B." could you determine if he was a racist or not by that statement?"

Talk about fallacies. This is an obvious straw man. That's not what darwin said at all. This is the what he said...

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for life"

HUGE difference...

[skud9999]

I was trying to make a point. I didnt say Darwin was a racist. I pointed that out earlyer. Im only pointing out that your logic is circular.

Darwin is not a racist because he used the word "race" because in the biological community "race" means "species".

Circular Reasoning supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.

A confused student argues: You cant give me a C. Im an A student!

Darwin is not a racist he's a biologist!

[annpetasupporter]

@skud9999

Okay, but I also said that b/c of the context, you could tell what he meant was species (or subspecies, or whatever). I understand that biologists can also be racist and that based solely off of the comment "Darwin is not a racist because he used the word "race" because in the biological community "race" means "species"", that I would be wrong, that there are racists who would use to word race (an a social context) and would claim that some races are superior.

[skud9999]

I agree to an extent. I obviously disagree with Ken Hamm, as I said before. It is my personal opinion that he is deeply illogical in that he holds to his view point as if they were written by God himself. I have watched debates between him and old earth Christians and you would think that he believes the OE Christians were inspired by Satan.

[skud9999]

Your assertion that "the word "races" in a biological context" is an appeal to the authority of the biological community making it an appeal to the popularity of a particular authority. By your logic, it would be impossible that he could mean races as in ethnic background. Its like saying biologists cant be racists because the word "race" means "species".

[skud9999]

""All people make logical fallacies, not just creationists."

Agreed, but creationists seem to use them the most often for their main arguments."

As do non-creationists.

[annpetasupporter]

@skud9999

"As do non-creationists."

I obviously disagree, but we aren't going to go anywhere with this...

[skud9999]

@annpetasupporter

That was my point. It was a silly assertion on your part.

[annpetasupporter]

@skud9999

"That was my point. It was a silly assertion on your part."

I'm not sure which comment of mine you are referring to but I'm guessing the thing about the random guy on the street. Okay, I don't actually think that was your point, but you are just claiming that now, based off of what I read in your earlier comments. But, I see what you are getting at. Neither of us know exactly what point the person conducting the interviews was trying to prove.

[annpetasupporter]

@skud9999

That's not an appeal to authority or popularity. I never said biologists couldn't be racist, but that in the context of what he was saying, it was obvious (if you know the meaning of races in a biological context) what he really meant. I feel like you are really stretching with a lot of these arguments that we are using fallacies...

[annpetasupporter]

@skud9999

Also, the ad hominem fallacy you claimed he made wasn't an ad hominem fallacy. He wasn't making an argument there. He wasn't saying their arguments are wrong b/c of what he said.

[skud9999]

@annpetasupporter

I'll go with you on that. Hes just a Immature, ridiculous, asinine, confused, false, phony, idiotic, unconvincing, unscientific, unreasonable, ignorant, illogical, incorrect, silly youtube video poster.... and here's why....

Yes, the ad-hominem attack is not only his argument, its the entire premise.

His argument in a nutshell...

1. You will see that Creationists are (insert various/mutiple insults here).

2. Heres some edited video clips/assertions that prove it.

[annpetasupporter]

@skud9999

"You will see that Creationists are (insert various/mutiple insults here)."

Um, no. He said that the creationist arguments that he's about to present are and then he uses the rest of the video to prove it. Anyways, he's not saying the arguments are wrong b/c they are stupid or whatever. Now, that would be an ad-hominem.

[skud9999]

Ok, I conceded on the ad hominem attack. Your right, he technically is not doing that. What he is really doing is poisoning the well.

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form: 1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented. 2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

[skud9999]

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make.

[skud9999]

However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims.

[annpetasupporter]

@skud9999

"However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make."

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that...

"This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims."

I don't think that was intentional on his part, but I will concede that he did in fact "poison the well".

[skud9999]

I really appreciate that. ^_^ *NOTE* I hate the fact that when you try to express things like this in a post it sounds like sarcasm, however I assure you that it is not.

[annpetasupporter]

@skud9999

Also, the same goes with the appeal to spite. That wasn't a part of his argument. He was just saying he likes the kid more.

[skud9999]

Your right. Sorry about that. What do you think was the point in saying "we like the kid in the clip waaay more than Ray Comfort.."? It seems it was guilt by association and not an appeal to spite.

1. Ray Comfort (refer to argument premise 0:57) is wrong.

2. We (association) like this random guy more than Ray.

3. We are right, therefore Ray is wrong.

It just sounds like hes saying that because we (the right ones) like him more than Ray (the wrong ones), Ray is wrong. Poor argument at best.

[skud9999]

Also I'm not even sure that "man on the street" even qualifies as a logical fallacy. It needs to be taken on a case by case basis.

If you want to see what random people think about a subject, then how else would one go about it? Especially if the premise of the argument is that some people think in a particular way.

Now the editing process may fall under the category of "quote mining" by that is a claim that must be backed by evidence and not just assumed.

[annpetasupporter]

@skud9999

"It just sounds like hes saying that because we (the right ones) like him more than Ray (the wrong ones), Ray is wrong. Poor argument at best."

No, it seems to me more like the opposite. He likes the random guy more than Ray, b/c he is right, and dislikes Ray, b/c he is wrong.

[skud9999]

I thought you said the kid was uneducated?

If you discount the kids answer based his circumstance, then the fallacy is Circumstantial Ad Hominem, A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own.

[skud9999]

Also it is an attempt to posion the well.

[skud9999]

It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican,

Or "The kid claims X, but he is a random man on the street, so his claim is false."

[annpetasupporter]

@skud9999 "The kid claims X, but he is a random man on the street, so his claim is false."

But, I don't think that's what the author of the video meant to say. He was saying, I think, that a random kid's claim on the street doesn't prove creationism, or something. That's what I got out of it...

[annpetasupporter]

@skud9999

"the claims stand or fall on their own."

Yes, I know. What I was saying was that since he didn't know that there are transitional fossils (or maybe he just couldn't come up with any on the top of his head), that that means he's uneducated on the subject, b/c there are a lot. I wasn't saying that his claim wasn't true b/c he was uneducated, just that his claim wasn't true well b/c it wasn't true and that's what made him uneducated, for not knowing there are transitional fossils.

[annpetasupporter]

@skud9999

The same goes with appeal to pity. He wasn't trying to gain sympathy for an argument. He was just making a joke.

[skud9999]

He was attempting to undermine the credibility of the kids answer as an illustration of how a lot of people believe in Darwinian evolution without considering some key issues. His basis for the lack of credibility of the kids answer is an assumed circumstance, "he obviously just got out of bed".

[annpetasupporter]

@skud9999

His main argument was that you can't use random people off the street who don't know much about evolution and ask them whether or not there is evidence to support it as evidence there is no evidence to support it.

[annpetasupporter]

@skud9999

The lack of credibility of the kid's answer was due to simply the fact that just b/c a lot of people don't fully understand all of the evidence supporting evolution, that doesn't mean it isn't out there, just that a lot of people are uneducated about it. You're not seriously believing that his argument was actually a credible one are you???

[skud9999]

@annpetasupporter

"an illustration of how a lot of people BELIEVE in Darwinian evolution without considering some key issues."

[annpetasupporter]

@skud9999

"an illustration of how a lot of people BELIEVE in Darwinian evolution without considering some key issues."

Where are you getting this from? I don't see that anywhere in this clip. The only way you know that was the point of the "man on the street interview" was if you saw the entire thing, not just the clip the author of this video provided. Also, how does showing that some random people off the street aren't that educated about evolution help creationism in any way?

[skud9999]

it doesnt show it in the clip but the point Ray was making with the "man on the street interview" is to illustrate how people believe in Darwinian evolution prima facie.

According to his definition of the fallacy, if Ray randomly stopped Darwin himself, it couldn't be admitted as evidence solely on the fact that it was random chance that got him the interview...oh the irony.^_^

You cant ought right exclude arguments made in this fashion. The context of the interview is the key issue.

[LulzyNews]

intro is WAY too long.

[c3066521]

Too many adjectives bro

[secube]

whers the sound

[DodoPandemic]

I can still hear it

[BearWindAppleyard]

@secube wait 'till 0:21

[sockpuppetsfromhell]

Thank you for posting these.