This to freaking true---but people or groups do it because it works--usually by exploiting some fear---This leads to one thing since it is not going to stop anytime soon--BUYER BEWARE---THANKS FOR BRINGING THIS ONE UP--WELL DONE
... she's usually very logical and less likely to simply throw insults. Her quasi monotone voice lends itself more to discussing facts and focusing on critical thinking rather than name calling and yelling at one another.
Fear not, your voice does get through to some people. It's just that those who can get anything from it might not be part of a loud-mouthed passionate mob. You got me hooked on reading Alex Rosenberg's work, and I'm thoroughly enjoying it. Thanks for that.
How about disclaimers [ATTENTION] this claim has no valid sources and is not backed by any evidence. The author felt it was true and couldn't help put post it... haha
For many, faith and authority are valid sources for substantiating belief and those that cherish this opinion over reality are pathologically disinterested in confronting or even acknowledging their firmly held inconsistencies. I agree that proper evidence should be supplied when making a claim, but I have none for this one. Maybe I should retract this statement...
Oh, darn... ratings are disabled. Big thumbs up for expressing a thoughtful, meaningful and inspiring view about being responsible youtubers by providing meaningful and valid sources to what ever one chooses to assert as something being true.
I'm exhausted with the army of trolls who down rate my videos. Their actions have nothing to do with the content of my videos, so I no longer give them the satisfaction of thumbing my content down as a malicious game.
Why do you continue to deal with people like Gary who scream and don't understand or source their information well? Do you honestly think you are going to change them?
I continue because I want people to think. Will they? Very likely NOT, but I will continue to do this as long as he continues to label, abuse and parade his sad notion of what science is as TRUTH, I can't stomach it. "Do you honestly think you are going to change them?" No, probably not, but if it gets one person to REALLY research and think and THEN decide his or her views and not just buy into groupthink, I'll be happy.
Good vid. We already discussed this briefly on one of Pyrrho's videos about antilnatalism once, this is the factual flaw of the philosophy, even if it was valid the assertion that "life is a bunch of suffering and the beginning of life entails so much harm that it's not worth it" is dubious. Really? How in the world do you know that? Where is the psychological literature that substantiates that, have these people ever looked into positive psychology? That's just opinion and projection.
YT is about entertainment essentially. So drama and sensationalism sells here even in the quasi- and pseudo-intellectual circles of YT. If you scream, verbally abuse, and hold outrageous opinions, you get considerable attention and, in some cases, many subscribers. It has nothing to do w/ having a better position. It's about being more entertaining.
This is why I don't believe in anything I read, unless I reaserch it for myself. This was a great video, 2b. Makes me happy to know a thinker is always churning at the wheels. "If you believe in everything you read, then don't read." Research is the key to a greater understanding. Knowlege is painful, but rewarding.
Strumming your lyre again? Not all positions require a peer reviewed 100 page thesis to hold. I belief that liberal democracy is the best government. What's ironic is that 'Rationalists' like Sam Harris have actually made statements that some elements of such are 'irrational'. But that's because he's a fascist technocrat
I'm gonna object to the phrase "emotional claim/opinion" here. Not all invalid claims are emotional, and not all emotionally-charged claims are invalid. They are unrelated, and that cuts both ways.
And yes, you are wasting your time trying to convince the herpderps not to scream obscenities. I think you're better off ignoring them and focusing on the folks who are capable of understanding rational discourse. And even at that, it makes more sense to lead by example than to mommy-chide them.
"Not all invalid claims are emotional, and not all emotionally-charged claims are invalid."
Yes, someone can make a valid emotional claim, but if their claims are consistently based on superficial, badly understood, non-scientifically rigorous sources, they remain just that: Emotional claims.
As for your comment that I'm all I'm doing is "mommy-chid[ing] them". That is a insult you've based on your perception of my age and gender. It works here, but it does not elsewhere.
@2bsirius Ah. Yes, I see how you would think that. I did not intend that as an insult -- I call that behavior "mommy-chiding" without regard for the gender or age of the chider, even when I do it myself. But of course, this is the internet, you don't know me, so your assumption was a natural one.
There's another point worth making here. You are trying to tell me what my perception of you is, something you can't possibly know. Why is it your instinct to do that?
OK...Apologies if my initial assumption was wrong. I'll just return to my original point which was that too much time here is spent on the defence of emotional claims and a stubborn refusal to base those 'defences' on facts.
I appreciate your clarification. I'm not sure if my error was the result of my 'instinct' but it's good to get more background on your thinking.
I'm trying to lay a finger on what bugs me so much about the assertion that claims without citation are invalid. In part, it's the 500 character limit, and in part it's the nature of open discourse. Nearly all the citing I do in online debate is about getting the semantics right -- y'know, "can we agree on X, Y, and Z" and then proceed. The third, perhaps greatest, part is that I think it's dangerous to throw one's judgment into the hands of experts.
@2bsirius Of course...while writing this I just realized that I may be thinking of citing an argument, rather than citing a fact. Facts, of course, ought to be supported by something outside oneself. The construction of an argument is something else. I spend a lot more time argument v. argument rather than fact v. fact, which might be why I was thinking that way.
I back up Symbiotic Farming with existing examples and research that shows the concept as valid :3 Nobody listens to me though -____- apparently ending world hunger and the reliance on petrol isn't edgy enough for youtube -_____-
This to freaking true---but people or groups do it because it works--usually by exploiting some fear---This leads to one thing since it is not going to stop anytime soon--BUYER BEWARE---THANKS FOR BRINGING THIS ONE UP--WELL DONE
riseingstardust 3 months ago in playlist More videos from 2bsirius
You should watch ZJemptv (zinnia jones)
... she's usually very logical and less likely to simply throw insults. Her quasi monotone voice lends itself more to discussing facts and focusing on critical thinking rather than name calling and yelling at one another.
scottiepotie 3 months ago
I can't imagine how anybody could hate you.
QuantumGh0st 3 months ago
Fear not, your voice does get through to some people. It's just that those who can get anything from it might not be part of a loud-mouthed passionate mob. You got me hooked on reading Alex Rosenberg's work, and I'm thoroughly enjoying it. Thanks for that.
Incrediblemouse5 3 months ago
How about disclaimers [ATTENTION] this claim has no valid sources and is not backed by any evidence. The author felt it was true and couldn't help put post it... haha
VolansTheNaturalist 3 months ago
For many, faith and authority are valid sources for substantiating belief and those that cherish this opinion over reality are pathologically disinterested in confronting or even acknowledging their firmly held inconsistencies. I agree that proper evidence should be supplied when making a claim, but I have none for this one. Maybe I should retract this statement...
VolansTheNaturalist 3 months ago
Oh, darn... ratings are disabled. Big thumbs up for expressing a thoughtful, meaningful and inspiring view about being responsible youtubers by providing meaningful and valid sources to what ever one chooses to assert as something being true.
thedeeliciousplum 3 months ago
@thedeeliciousplum
I'm exhausted with the army of trolls who down rate my videos. Their actions have nothing to do with the content of my videos, so I no longer give them the satisfaction of thumbing my content down as a malicious game.
2bsirius 3 months ago
@2bsirius Ah, yes. That is definitely understandable. Thanks for sharing what you do.
thedeeliciousplum 3 months ago
Why do you continue to deal with people like Gary who scream and don't understand or source their information well? Do you honestly think you are going to change them?
4lch3m15t 3 months ago
@4lch3m15t
I continue because I want people to think. Will they? Very likely NOT, but I will continue to do this as long as he continues to label, abuse and parade his sad notion of what science is as TRUTH, I can't stomach it. "Do you honestly think you are going to change them?" No, probably not, but if it gets one person to REALLY research and think and THEN decide his or her views and not just buy into groupthink, I'll be happy.
2bsirius 3 months ago
Uprated.
slobomotion 3 months ago
Good vid. We already discussed this briefly on one of Pyrrho's videos about antilnatalism once, this is the factual flaw of the philosophy, even if it was valid the assertion that "life is a bunch of suffering and the beginning of life entails so much harm that it's not worth it" is dubious. Really? How in the world do you know that? Where is the psychological literature that substantiates that, have these people ever looked into positive psychology? That's just opinion and projection.
StabbyRaccoon 3 months ago
YT is about entertainment essentially. So drama and sensationalism sells here even in the quasi- and pseudo-intellectual circles of YT. If you scream, verbally abuse, and hold outrageous opinions, you get considerable attention and, in some cases, many subscribers. It has nothing to do w/ having a better position. It's about being more entertaining.
DanaGarrett 3 months ago
This is why I don't believe in anything I read, unless I reaserch it for myself. This was a great video, 2b. Makes me happy to know a thinker is always churning at the wheels. "If you believe in everything you read, then don't read." Research is the key to a greater understanding. Knowlege is painful, but rewarding.
zombeepictureshow 3 months ago
Strumming your lyre again? Not all positions require a peer reviewed 100 page thesis to hold. I belief that liberal democracy is the best government. What's ironic is that 'Rationalists' like Sam Harris have actually made statements that some elements of such are 'irrational'. But that's because he's a fascist technocrat
cehbeach 3 months ago
@cehbeach
"Not all positions require a peer reviewed 100 page thesis to hold..."
No, they don't, but claiming that a view is scientific and then using a superficial Wiki article is nothing but a sad joke.
2bsirius 3 months ago
@2bsirius Then you should put a delimiter on your statement saying you were talking about science. It's not clear in your video
cehbeach 3 months ago
i have fairies at the bottom of my garden
lapisredux 3 months ago
@lapisredux
So did Arthur Conan Doyle. His faeries were a hoax, but I feel sure yours have been scientifically verified, right?
¦:¬)
2bsirius 3 months ago
@2bsirius well i,m waiting for the neutrino verification...i wouldn,t want to steal their thunder:)
lapisredux 3 months ago
I'm gonna object to the phrase "emotional claim/opinion" here. Not all invalid claims are emotional, and not all emotionally-charged claims are invalid. They are unrelated, and that cuts both ways.
And yes, you are wasting your time trying to convince the herpderps not to scream obscenities. I think you're better off ignoring them and focusing on the folks who are capable of understanding rational discourse. And even at that, it makes more sense to lead by example than to mommy-chide them.
missmollygrue 3 months ago
@missmollygrue
"Not all invalid claims are emotional, and not all emotionally-charged claims are invalid."
Yes, someone can make a valid emotional claim, but if their claims are consistently based on superficial, badly understood, non-scientifically rigorous sources, they remain just that: Emotional claims.
As for your comment that I'm all I'm doing is "mommy-chid[ing] them". That is a insult you've based on your perception of my age and gender. It works here, but it does not elsewhere.
2bsirius 3 months ago
@2bsirius Ah. Yes, I see how you would think that. I did not intend that as an insult -- I call that behavior "mommy-chiding" without regard for the gender or age of the chider, even when I do it myself. But of course, this is the internet, you don't know me, so your assumption was a natural one.
There's another point worth making here. You are trying to tell me what my perception of you is, something you can't possibly know. Why is it your instinct to do that?
missmollygrue 3 months ago
@missmollygrue
OK...Apologies if my initial assumption was wrong. I'll just return to my original point which was that too much time here is spent on the defence of emotional claims and a stubborn refusal to base those 'defences' on facts.
I appreciate your clarification. I'm not sure if my error was the result of my 'instinct' but it's good to get more background on your thinking.
2bsirius 3 months ago
@2bsirius Yay, I love conflict resolution.
I'm trying to lay a finger on what bugs me so much about the assertion that claims without citation are invalid. In part, it's the 500 character limit, and in part it's the nature of open discourse. Nearly all the citing I do in online debate is about getting the semantics right -- y'know, "can we agree on X, Y, and Z" and then proceed. The third, perhaps greatest, part is that I think it's dangerous to throw one's judgment into the hands of experts.
missmollygrue 3 months ago
@2bsirius Of course...while writing this I just realized that I may be thinking of citing an argument, rather than citing a fact. Facts, of course, ought to be supported by something outside oneself. The construction of an argument is something else. I spend a lot more time argument v. argument rather than fact v. fact, which might be why I was thinking that way.
missmollygrue 3 months ago
yea, youtube is a rumor mill
BespokeGroupUK 3 months ago
YT... it's just a filthy habit
¦:¬]
TWITfromURANUS 3 months ago
I back up Symbiotic Farming with existing examples and research that shows the concept as valid :3 Nobody listens to me though -____- apparently ending world hunger and the reliance on petrol isn't edgy enough for youtube -_____-
PinkProgram 3 months ago