@tbrown92030 "Shit Math and Logic DOUCHES Say".... I mean, damn! I worked with a lot of logic grads with superiority complexes, but damn, this guy takes it.
2:00 Can we please shut the fuck up about this woman and this incident forever? Please? I don't care which side you support (I can't really tell) but I think most of us would be happier if it was never brought up again.
It would've just been one among many jokes in this video unless you had raised the issue and guess what? Now we're talking about it. The best way to make something disappear is to not give it any attention at all
Any 'skeptic' who says that correlation implies causation but doesn't prove causation is mathematically and logically retarded, and should entertain the idea of not waxing retarded on subjects clearly beyond his or her grasp.
@skepticallypwnd well, you also seem to be a little uncertain about the operative issue before us. To make it explicit the issue deals with 'implies'; that you fail to know this says a little something about your understanding of mathematics and logic as well. To say that x implies y is to say that if x then necessarily y.
Again, people who say such things as I mentioned in my first comment demonstrate a poor understand of mathematics and logic. I've been called worse. =^_^=
@integralmath Most people use the word "implies" to mean 'strongly suggests' not 'if then' propositions. I'm positive you've been called worse... it's on your feedback page... DOUCHE
@skepticallypwnd this says nothing whatever inconsistent with my proposition; namely in that, those who use the language when discussion logical constructs fail to understand the topic on which they're waxing retarded. I fully accept that most people only poorly understand both mathematics and logic. I'm glad you agree. And yes, I've been called worse - by better people.
Also, I'm told that caps lock is cruise control to win on the these here intarwebz. =^_^=
@integralmath the retort "correlation implies causation, but doesn't prove causation" is designed for those who are used to the common usage of the word 'imply.' It doesn't mean that either person is stupid and shouldn't dabble in the sacred arts of math and logic. As much as trolls like you love the idea of alienating most people from math and logic. I also don't insist that my friends use the word 'intend' like a phenomenologist... (nice kitty face) DOUCHE
@skepticallypwnd there's nothing whatever to your assertion that people like me are why so many people are mathematically and logically inept. Particularly since I devote a rather large proportion of my time to remedying both situations for those who have a care for knowing more at the end of the day than at the beginning. If one cares to speak on issues of logic and mathematics, one should at least try not to sound unlettered while so doing.
@skepticallypwnd similarly, your latter analogy is inapposite, for I am not insisting that one use the word imply or its variants. Rather, the issue is in using it incorrectly when one is discussing a technical issue. I see this is, again, where logical constructs elude you. I like my kitty face so thanks. To the troll point, I must say that I'm at a loss. Pointing out an error that afflicts many self-styled intellectuals isn't, alas, trolling.
@integralmath Anyone that does not acknowledge that language is NOT static and IS inherently unstable in its use, or that even if it weren't so, that words can and do have more than one meaning and therefore must be interpreted in the context of their use is (lets see, how did you put it?) *socially* "retarded, and should entertain the idea of not waxing retarded on subjects clearly beyond his or her grasp."
@xguse for one, language isn't unstable, though it does change through time. There is nothing whatever inconsistent between your notice that words' definitions change through time. This implies, at base, that at any point in time there exists at least one definition for each word. To the extent that one word has multiple meanings, this is determined by context. In the context of maths and logic, one, and only one, precise, well-understood and universal definition.
@integralmath err, that was horribly edited. There exists one, and only one, precise definition for implies; it carries an exact and unambiguous meaning understood by all who are evenly mildly educated in either field.
'between your notice . . . and my observation'. Sorry about the horrible writing there.
@xguse your exposition here on semiotics is curiously naive. You point out an obvious feature of words (they have definitions, and the definitions change over the course of generational time), but demonstrate a lowbrow analysis of how these function within a syntactic and pragmatic structure pursuant to a given word's denotation.
Then again, what the hell do I know about what I speak? I'm only a mathematician / logician. It's not like I have any right to speak as though I know about them.
@integralmath I appreciate you contributing the important distinction here, but there are far more productive and helpful ways to make your points without being obnoxious. Alas, you've missed the point of why a skeptic would have to say that in the first place: the common use of "imply" is to mean "suggest". The phrase in the video is meant as a concession to that misunderstanding; restating the proposition in the way it was meant to be taken on first utterance.
@thplatypus and yet in response, our fair host here demonstrated he, too, was ignorant of the word's meaning in the context in which it would arise. It does no work whatever to incorrectly use a technical term of mathematics/logic in a conversation on a technical point. Of course, if one is just plain old ignorant of what it means, then it's expected one will just jack that up. Many self-styled intellectual skeptical atheists out there. So few actual ones; e.g., Rebecca Watson and that ilk.
@thplatypus oh, and it's worth noting that I've yet to discover a non-obnoxious way to tell a dogmatic someone s/he doesn't know shit about fuck about anything s/he's waxing poetic on. Have you a suggestion which might alter this? I find that the religious are annoyed when I deny their dogmatic assertions in the same way that many atheist 'skeptics' are when I take them to task over their dogmatic assertions. At least in the latter case, there's an actual there there. But still . . .
@CrimsonRefractions as HILARIOUS as a "contribution to the promotion of equality" sounds, I thought it just might be funnier to include a line/moment/scene that even Rebecca has said has been blown way out of proportion. And in being able to laugh at such things, perhaps we can learn a lot about each other, ourselves, and our pursuit of equality... BAM nailed it!! Still promoting equality... You're welcome!
Fair enough I guess, still it wouldn't hurt to contribute to equality one way or another; plus I don't think most people will understand this scene at all.
Because we really do need more equality, and to get rid of another heap of old biases and stereotypes. Not only is it stupid to forgo half our intellectual prowess, it's also unethical.
Not sure how to implement this on your channel though, but merely inviting it if you see an opportunity, nothing more :)
Also, as someone completely aware of that elevator thing, it wasn't funny to me. Not sure about others, of course.
The rest of the video did make me smile though :) (And I don't know who thought of that superstition is bad luck thing, but that really is fucking hilarious; not to mention useful in real life :) )
The point was that the atheist movement needs more equality though, this cannot be denied. Everyone alive right now was raised in a more or less unequal environment. And most of the times you don't even notice these things, for instance, complementing female speakers on their appearance, whereas complementing male speakers on the contents of their speech.
Whether you agree with that elevatorthing or not is irrelevant to this. We need to treat people like individuals.
em...
I find non of these videos funny in the least...
I just do not get the "jokes", 'cus there are non in these...
GegoXaren 2 days ago
@GegoXaren That's the best joke yet.
therealjammit 2 days ago
Frickin' hilarious.
keydetpiper 2 days ago
My psychic powers tell me he was holding one finger.
smellmyfingersify 2 days ago
LOVED the elevator part.
awesomemaster1906 4 days ago
Love this. Peep Show!
rleeermy 5 days ago
These three videos just about summed up every thread in existence on the JREF.
evilyig 1 week ago
Lol Put like that we sound like a bunch of know-it-all dicks. This is hilarious. :D
Tamizushi 1 week ago
@Tamizushi but its all true so that last laugh is the skeptics haha
azurewrath2224 6 days ago
1:44 mark! Classic.
NoMayo 2 weeks ago
2:12
YES
Tr3xKuro 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Tr3xKuro 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Tr3xKuro 2 weeks ago
haha brilliant, classic! I use all of em, all of em, all the time hahaha
screenflicker1 2 weeks ago
I like to use, "No, I am not going to call you a liar next. Liars know they are wrong."
And I just saw one that made me laugh out loud:
"I once overdosed on a homoeopathic solution, but luckily a lifeguard was on duty."
And we can't forget the classic, "That was taken out of context." Guilty on both sides, but only right on one.
Utmoon 3 weeks ago
Poppycock!
perpiotrredman 3 weeks ago
Sometimes, "I don't know" is the smart answer.
lateralspin 3 weeks ago
Three episodes of material and not ONE reference to Bayes' Theorem?!
arimethia 3 weeks ago 3
@arimethia Foiled again! Damn you nit picky skeptics! Damn you!!!! (Aaarrgggg)
skepticallypwnd 3 weeks ago 7
this is really funny shit.
but dude, shave the sideburns... lol
tomorrowneverknows94 3 weeks ago 3
@tomorrowneverknows94 NEVA'!!!!
skepticallypwnd 3 weeks ago 6
Good ending.
54MProductions 3 weeks ago
"Correlation implies causation" should be "correlation does not imply causation".
bvssvni 3 weeks ago
They all sounded normal to me :-) I, too, need another bookcase
WendyLAPC 3 weeks ago
@skepticallypwned : I know at least one line for your upcoming "Shit Math and Logic Nerds Say" video. :-D
tbrown92030 3 weeks ago
@tbrown92030 "Shit Math and Logic DOUCHES Say".... I mean, damn! I worked with a lot of logic grads with superiority complexes, but damn, this guy takes it.
skepticallypwnd 3 weeks ago
Ah, now this one was pretty funny. My favorite is "Science doesn't know dick, it's a way of discovering dick."
juicykarkass 3 weeks ago
Holy crap, what is that amazingness with David Mitchell and Robert Webb behind your couch (at 1:50)? I must know.....
sambertobert 3 weeks ago
@sambertobert It's a poster for their series Peep Show. "Everything I know In Life I learned From Peep Show"
skepticallypwnd 3 weeks ago
We DO NEED to get Firefly back on TV...
rylraven13 3 weeks ago
1:40 Nice fez. Fezzes are cool.
atan0k 3 weeks ago 5
@atan0k so are bow ties ;)
rylraven13 3 weeks ago
@atan0k Thank you!
skepticallypwnd 3 weeks ago
Very nice elevator line. It made me bust out laughing!
CarnieKing 3 weeks ago
2:00 Can we please shut the fuck up about this woman and this incident forever? Please? I don't care which side you support (I can't really tell) but I think most of us would be happier if it was never brought up again.
RubilacEx 3 weeks ago
@RubilacEx Awww, I'm sorry... Are you really asking comedians to stop doing satire because it makes you feel uncomfortable? ... DOUCHE
skepticallypwnd 3 weeks ago 7
@RubilacEx
It would've just been one among many jokes in this video unless you had raised the issue and guess what? Now we're talking about it. The best way to make something disappear is to not give it any attention at all
mansanraps 3 weeks ago
I actually laughed at "It was Flavor-Aid, not Kool-Aid." I am guilty.
bslatner 3 weeks ago
The elevator bit? Instant classic!
Simontlm 3 weeks ago 14
@Simontlm I give most of the credit to Perry Como
skepticallypwnd 3 weeks ago
@skepticallypwnd So do I
TMThesaurus 3 weeks ago
"No, science doesn't know dick. It's a method for discovering dick" pure gold
Sorngard13 3 weeks ago 2
Hehe, nice 'elevator gate' joke.
tooyjfwn 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from skepticallypwnd 2
Propter, not procter.
TomConger 3 weeks ago
@TomConger are you sassing me in eskimo talk?
qtzlctl2012 3 weeks ago
HOLY SHIT GET FIREFLY BACK ON TV!!!!
howaboutthat987 3 weeks ago
Elevatorgate guy ftw!
AstronautDown 3 weeks ago
My favourite part is the Monster Talk music.
funkmon 3 weeks ago
Any 'skeptic' who says that correlation implies causation but doesn't prove causation is mathematically and logically retarded, and should entertain the idea of not waxing retarded on subjects clearly beyond his or her grasp.
integralmath 3 weeks ago
@integralmath I'm not sure what causation has to do with being bad at math, but thank goodness you're here... DOUCHE
skepticallypwnd 3 weeks ago 8
@skepticallypwnd well, you also seem to be a little uncertain about the operative issue before us. To make it explicit the issue deals with 'implies'; that you fail to know this says a little something about your understanding of mathematics and logic as well. To say that x implies y is to say that if x then necessarily y.
Again, people who say such things as I mentioned in my first comment demonstrate a poor understand of mathematics and logic. I've been called worse. =^_^=
integralmath 3 weeks ago
@integralmath Most people use the word "implies" to mean 'strongly suggests' not 'if then' propositions. I'm positive you've been called worse... it's on your feedback page... DOUCHE
skepticallypwnd 3 weeks ago 5
@skepticallypwnd this says nothing whatever inconsistent with my proposition; namely in that, those who use the language when discussion logical constructs fail to understand the topic on which they're waxing retarded. I fully accept that most people only poorly understand both mathematics and logic. I'm glad you agree. And yes, I've been called worse - by better people.
Also, I'm told that caps lock is cruise control to win on the these here intarwebz. =^_^=
integralmath 3 weeks ago
@integralmath the retort "correlation implies causation, but doesn't prove causation" is designed for those who are used to the common usage of the word 'imply.' It doesn't mean that either person is stupid and shouldn't dabble in the sacred arts of math and logic. As much as trolls like you love the idea of alienating most people from math and logic. I also don't insist that my friends use the word 'intend' like a phenomenologist... (nice kitty face) DOUCHE
skepticallypwnd 3 weeks ago 2
@skepticallypwnd there's nothing whatever to your assertion that people like me are why so many people are mathematically and logically inept. Particularly since I devote a rather large proportion of my time to remedying both situations for those who have a care for knowing more at the end of the day than at the beginning. If one cares to speak on issues of logic and mathematics, one should at least try not to sound unlettered while so doing.
integralmath 3 weeks ago
@skepticallypwnd similarly, your latter analogy is inapposite, for I am not insisting that one use the word imply or its variants. Rather, the issue is in using it incorrectly when one is discussing a technical issue. I see this is, again, where logical constructs elude you. I like my kitty face so thanks. To the troll point, I must say that I'm at a loss. Pointing out an error that afflicts many self-styled intellectuals isn't, alas, trolling.
I've been called worse . . . by taller people.
integralmath 3 weeks ago
@integralmath Anyone that does not acknowledge that language is NOT static and IS inherently unstable in its use, or that even if it weren't so, that words can and do have more than one meaning and therefore must be interpreted in the context of their use is (lets see, how did you put it?) *socially* "retarded, and should entertain the idea of not waxing retarded on subjects clearly beyond his or her grasp."
xguse 3 weeks ago 2
@xguse for one, language isn't unstable, though it does change through time. There is nothing whatever inconsistent between your notice that words' definitions change through time. This implies, at base, that at any point in time there exists at least one definition for each word. To the extent that one word has multiple meanings, this is determined by context. In the context of maths and logic, one, and only one, precise, well-understood and universal definition.
integralmath 3 weeks ago
@integralmath err, that was horribly edited. There exists one, and only one, precise definition for implies; it carries an exact and unambiguous meaning understood by all who are evenly mildly educated in either field.
'between your notice . . . and my observation'. Sorry about the horrible writing there.
integralmath 3 weeks ago
@xguse your exposition here on semiotics is curiously naive. You point out an obvious feature of words (they have definitions, and the definitions change over the course of generational time), but demonstrate a lowbrow analysis of how these function within a syntactic and pragmatic structure pursuant to a given word's denotation.
Then again, what the hell do I know about what I speak? I'm only a mathematician / logician. It's not like I have any right to speak as though I know about them.
integralmath 3 weeks ago
@skepticallypwnd Your videos are funny...DOUCHE!
qtzlctl2012 3 weeks ago
@qtzlctl2012 Nice lol
skepticallypwnd 3 weeks ago
@integralmath I appreciate you contributing the important distinction here, but there are far more productive and helpful ways to make your points without being obnoxious. Alas, you've missed the point of why a skeptic would have to say that in the first place: the common use of "imply" is to mean "suggest". The phrase in the video is meant as a concession to that misunderstanding; restating the proposition in the way it was meant to be taken on first utterance.
thplatypus 3 weeks ago 2
@thplatypus and yet in response, our fair host here demonstrated he, too, was ignorant of the word's meaning in the context in which it would arise. It does no work whatever to incorrectly use a technical term of mathematics/logic in a conversation on a technical point. Of course, if one is just plain old ignorant of what it means, then it's expected one will just jack that up. Many self-styled intellectual skeptical atheists out there. So few actual ones; e.g., Rebecca Watson and that ilk.
integralmath 3 weeks ago
@thplatypus oh, and it's worth noting that I've yet to discover a non-obnoxious way to tell a dogmatic someone s/he doesn't know shit about fuck about anything s/he's waxing poetic on. Have you a suggestion which might alter this? I find that the religious are annoyed when I deny their dogmatic assertions in the same way that many atheist 'skeptics' are when I take them to task over their dogmatic assertions. At least in the latter case, there's an actual there there. But still . . .
integralmath 3 weeks ago
"What's more likely? She was lying, mistaken, or the LAWS OF PHYSICS WERE BROKEN?"
MagnusIan 3 weeks ago
@1:50 invasion slayer!
MegaDrAdams 3 weeks ago
Assuming the last scene was a reference to Rebecca Watson?
It'd have been a lot nicer if you had just forgo-ed that mess and made a nice contribution to the promotion of equality.
CrimsonRefractions 3 weeks ago
@CrimsonRefractions as HILARIOUS as a "contribution to the promotion of equality" sounds, I thought it just might be funnier to include a line/moment/scene that even Rebecca has said has been blown way out of proportion. And in being able to laugh at such things, perhaps we can learn a lot about each other, ourselves, and our pursuit of equality... BAM nailed it!! Still promoting equality... You're welcome!
skepticallypwnd 3 weeks ago 17
@skepticallypwnd
Fair enough I guess, still it wouldn't hurt to contribute to equality one way or another; plus I don't think most people will understand this scene at all.
Because we really do need more equality, and to get rid of another heap of old biases and stereotypes. Not only is it stupid to forgo half our intellectual prowess, it's also unethical.
Not sure how to implement this on your channel though, but merely inviting it if you see an opportunity, nothing more :)
CrimsonRefractions 3 weeks ago
@skepticallypwnd
Also, as someone completely aware of that elevator thing, it wasn't funny to me. Not sure about others, of course.
The rest of the video did make me smile though :) (And I don't know who thought of that superstition is bad luck thing, but that really is fucking hilarious; not to mention useful in real life :) )
CrimsonRefractions 3 weeks ago
@CrimsonRefractions That incident was bizarre. Someone hits on someone, and it's the end of the world. Ridiculous.
kablamo9999 3 weeks ago 2
@kablamo9999
The point was that the atheist movement needs more equality though, this cannot be denied. Everyone alive right now was raised in a more or less unequal environment. And most of the times you don't even notice these things, for instance, complementing female speakers on their appearance, whereas complementing male speakers on the contents of their speech.
Whether you agree with that elevatorthing or not is irrelevant to this. We need to treat people like individuals.
CrimsonRefractions 3 weeks ago