There doesn't seem to be many people like you around. I'm glad I found your videos. I agree it's very disheartening when you try and have an interesting conversation with someone and all they seem to be knowledgeable on is who did what in this TV series or how much they can drink on Saturday night. Seems so few go beyond the mass media for their information. Since high school most of my interesting conversations take place online. I don't really know any interesting people in 'real life' :-/
I watched quite a few of your videos, and I really love you. I hope this world has more poeple like you in government leader position. And this world would be a much better place to live.
Hope to see more of your videos that would "wake up the world."
I agree with this video. Most people don't want to have a discussion for the sake of progression. They'd rather just shove their PoV down your throat so they can feel better about themselves.
on the whole i look for that ongoing discussion here, that point and counterpoint, or in the case of two who agree, even corrections and idea sessions.i do not feel i have much to input on your video simply because i am just a listener (who occasionally types responses or asks questions)> i do not produce anything.however, i wish that youtube had more of this kind of discourse tooltime.
Anarchy as you understand it is a strawman. Anarchists are not against governments, they are against STATES. The state is an organisation which has the exclusive right to use force. Governments can still exist in stateless societies.
Anarchists would be better off calling themselves anti-statists.
It is kinda like skydiving. For a short period of time you look suicidal falling through the air, then you release your parachute and are no longer falling but slowly gliding. Either way you are going towards the ground. Your means of getting there changes as the need arises. The free fall is the anarchy, quickly removing the distance from the goal, and the parachute is the new form of gov't to protect the freedoms we all value without splattering ourselves all over the goal.
I consider myself anarchist in the loosest of terms. I am against my corrupt fktard gov't. I want to see the gov't fixed but there are too many broken parts. We have the directions to build a near perfect gov't but cannot possibly go about building it with the current gov't in the way. So for a very short period of time I want to be an anarchist, being that I want my gov't destroyed. Immediately afterwards I have to stand against anarchy because it is complete lawlessness.
It sounds like you don't want people to respond to what you say unless they agree with you... I like you, tt, but that really makes you just as bad as the people you mentioned in your video.
At the top of the suggestion list while I'm watching you is a promo for farmville. Talk about boredom... people are so bored that their entertainment is boring. If you're that bored, maybe you need to move to a town with more colleges, and professors and theorists in it. But remember, life is mundane, finding beauty in it is much more fulfilling than finding fault.
a lot of people stumble across videos like these when they are relatively new to this type of video and are not familiar with what a straw-man even is.
You have to use humor and wit like colbert; anyone can ramble like autistic blob, but making taking a satirical angle to a philosophical/controversial issue and edutaining people while doing so will allow for a thoughtful and engaging dialogue (even if it is with a dumbass). get some pizazz and more people will watch.
I'd like sxephil if he weren't so vapid, and if, when he does address matters of substance, he didn't come off as so ignorant.
And I too am depressed by the vapidity of most people and their conversations. They drone on about how ugly someone's shoes are, then when I want to talk about economics or some new scientific breakthrough, they have the nerve to accuse ME of being boring.
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Does anyone know how long the NWO has been used to capture and distract gullible ppl? Generations. NWO = Easy fix ADD politics for the Ron Paul generation. Paul will always sound great...in speeches. "Let all the banks fail". Lehman did, & it nearly toppled the system. ("Well, what's wrong with that?" Buy gold, start over bla bla bla) The same with Zeitgeist (#1). Fed Reserve, the income tax unconstitutional & on & on. Tea Party Birchers? Hard times always brings out the crazies.
I can completely relate to how you feel about social conversations and the like. I usually find people's dialogue to be bereft of all meaning. I also find the need of others to win some kind of one-upmanship game, very tiresome. So, often i find after a short period in a social situation I have nothing to talk about with most people.
Also, often when u do find someone who engages or challenges your mind, others often try to make light of your conversation as if to speak with meaning is 'uncool'.
Your videos show you don't like people very much. I think that's why you're an annoying person. Maybe you have good qualities, but you're so miserable they don't come through.
If you liked people more you would be happier and not so annoying.
Tooltime, I envy you. You can turn on a camera and go. Im my videos I have to stick to a script else i'd be lost. Keep Them Coming Please...cya around...
I can think I can relate to some extent. I used to have big, lengthy often stimulating and engaging debates on my art sites but after a while, it just kinda... well, it basically became an asspat-fest from people who agree and a yelling match from people who disagree. I realized there really wasn't much debating going on, just people shouting their positions back and forth without even considering other people's points. It got boring and disheartening.
I've noticed that a lot of creationists who pride themselves as debaters, like Shockofgod and Nephilimfree, don't like the YouTube format BECAUSE it doesn't give them the opportunity to interrupt and misdirect. They like being able to make assertions that you can't investigate at the moment. Tactics like that can make someone seem like the victor in a debate, even if they're wrong. That's far more difficult, however, with the YouTube format, which leaves time for thought and investigation.
@DarkMatter2525 It's true haha, it reminds me of Nick Naylor from "Thank You For Smoking," where he just spews false facts about tobacco on TV and has someone clean it up after him.
The majority of youtubers came on to discuss atheism. Pretty much EVERY argument has been said about it. You can just share an old video instead of reinventing the wheel. Now all thats left are science enthusiasts, political activists and people with new ways to think about things. These aren't nearly as exciting as videos bashing religion. Youtube atheism seems to be dying, because the Religious haven't made a single new argument that doesn't fall flat on its face.
I watch your videos and at no point have felt the need to interject with my own opinion. Not even in the comment section if I recall correctly. As a to-be-graduated philosophy student the experience has been educational in some level. Plus I like to have background noise when I do other stuff like edit photos or paint, preferably talking.
You defend perceiving shades of gray instead of seeing everything in black and white. That means you're supporting the post modern cultural elite gnawing on our values and seeking to pollute our precious vital fluids.
Jeez, by the end of youre video I forgot what I wanted to say at the start of it, which was...
I was asking myself the same question about the plethora of strawman arguments put forth by youtube Christians. I think they are either trolling, dont watch each others or at least read the comments or are just to too pigheaded to admit to their strawmen. I think its a little of the first and a lot of the last.
@jellygiraffe The vast majority of Youtube christians are simply not interested in whether their arguments are true or not. They just want a set of words they can utter when an argument is made against their claim.
That's why you hear them use the exact same arguments twenty minutes after you've just thoroughly debunked them.
You never hear them say 'Good point. I'll have to re-think that', or 'I don't know' or 'Looks like I was wrong'.
Sadly I live in a very religious and superstitious country and most of the people I work with are heavily into sports or fashion, relative to their gender. So any conversations I try to start about things I am interested in are usually pretty brief. I do like watching people talk in circles when I ask things like "how can heaven be heaven for my religious relatives who love me if I am burning in hell for being an atheist?" Some of the rules they make up are hilarious.
Unfortunately this kind of behaviour is not limited to YT. Attended a standardisation meeting (where people claim to be rational) lately and made an argument that due to a range of challenges in a new field they are entering their current approach needs improvement. My claim turned out to be a herresy, and for the rest of the evening I was treated to one emotional irrational claim after the other (straw man, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, fallacy of single cause, argument from history, ...).
There is no such thing as an Anarchist. Everyone I ever met that called themselves one explained to me how they would manage the world. Everything they explained is a form of government. They're fucking idiots. Anarchy means chaos, the world in ruin, life as we know it ended. Wanting such a thing shows a serious lack of knowledge of politics, history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc.
@mikerules999 "how they would manage the world. Everything they explained is a form of government." that is the knock down argument against anarchy I have discovered as well.
@tooltime9901 I think you'd get a better idea of what Anarchy was from reading about it, rather than looking at individual (probably 14-year-old, or drug-addled) "Anarchists". Anarchy by no means denotes "Chaos", though that's not to say it's something practicable without some world-wide revolution -- you sure can't have a stateless society in a world full of states. Just a suggestion.
@FascismFetishist Also, an anarchistic society would naturally involve management of resources, as any civilisation, and I don't see how this strictly entails a "government". (to get more to the point of what you actually said rather than rambling)
@tooltime9901 Acutely I think this is a classic example of not understanding anarchy, the phrase "how they would manage the world" is a dead giveaway, under anarchy no one manages the world, people simply manage their own life and nothing more. Anyone attempting to describe how things would work under anarchy is at best making an educated guess. anarchy is not chaos or a world without rules, it is a world without rulers.
@tooltime9901 I think when people refer to this lack of government, they really mean a lack of formal, institutional governance; most of them believe is some kind of universal ethic (no harm principal, non-intervention, rational egoism, etc.)...
anarchy means literally "without ruler". It does not mean without rules or without a system of governance. Equalling anarchy with chaos is usually the rhetoric of conservatives. Usually anarchy is understood to be "something" a group of people come up with in group-discussion and then adhere to like anarcho-syndicalist or anarcho-capitalist ideas / groups. There are no leaders but rather people that make democratic decisions that they want to adhere to and are not posed upon them
@DKshad0w There is no point to Anarchy. Every Human who calls for it has know clue what Anarchy is. It would mean the total downfall of Human society and progress because we could do whatever we want and get away with it. Every man for himself.
@DKshad0w You seriously are an idiot. No government to manage society (Anarchy) means total chaos. Whether they think that they will live in a better world with Anarchy or not, it's not better, it is chaos. Stop trying to argue because you sound just like one of the many Anarchistic retards.
@mikerules999 Saying how they would like to see things done, how they would do things themselves, how they think they would work best, or how they think it MIGHT be done are NOT the same as imposing those those ideas on people with force or coercion. "Government" is not the issue, people self-govern all the time and it's perfectly fine, employers govern employees in line with contractual obligations and it's fine. The State, is the problem to "us" (me).
@Floridanon407 "how they would manage the world. Everything they explained is a form of government." that is the knock down argument against anarchy I have discovered as well. - Tooltime to me.
You are trying to argue because you are exactly like a Theist, you attack logical criticism as false when it isn't just because you are afraid of change. Anarchy = Chaos. No denying that. By definition it is exactly chaos. Who will pave roads? Who will give medical treatment? Who will go against crime?
Try to even state how it would be organized and then you aren't talking about Anarchy anymore. Any form of organization is a form of government. If you start making rules that people are not allowed to kill or steal, they you are already beginning to form a government. Grow up and learn to use your brain properly. Anarchy = Chaos and is the compelte and utter downfall of civilized society. END OF ARGUMENT!
@mikerules999 You're either being deliberately obtuse, or not listening. "Government" is not the problem, and organization is not antithetical to anarchy, people are social animals, we govern ourselves and voluntarily organize all the time. That order is as emergent as the order seen in nature with the development and diversification of life. Anarchy is not chaos, anarchy is the absence of archons; An-archy.
The problem is the State, the coercive monopoly of force.
@mikerules999 Not sure that that is the case, Mike. Yeah, you have it right, that IS the literal definition of anarchy. I think that anarchal political systems are ment to describe systems that have a little more fluidity than our current systems. I recommend you research anarchy movements in a little more depth as I can't give you much detail (I am just learning about them myself) but I agree the title is a little misleading. Most of us would love a more fluid, self correcting system right?
@elbowbiter1 No matter what some idiots from a Anarchist movement think. Civilized society is non-existent when there is Anarchy. That means that there is no order, no justice, no labor boards, no unions, no national security, nobody to distribute food to different cities from the farms, no laws, no rules, nothing. IT IS CHAOS. I know of Anarchist movements, they are a bunch of babbling morons.
@mikerules999 Like I said, there is a vast difference between the literal translation of the word, "Anarchy." and what anarchy means as a socio-political structure. So Noam Chomsky is a babbling moron? I find him quite informed, and articulate. Maybe you are right though, or maybe you are not as informed as you'd have me believe. I suppose we'll never truly know until we try one out.
"Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome." -Samuel Johnson
@mikerules999 I'm an anarchist and believe to have a pretty solid concept of a stateless society. But I would be happy if you or tooltime were able to prove it wrong, I'm always up for a challenge. Send me a pm if you're interested in a serious discussion!
@AlexanderReiswich Okay, but let's keep this public. Since Anarchy = Chaos and any retard saying otherwise needs to learn the definition of Anarchy and Government. Please explain to me how anything that any Anarchist says for how they will manage their country is not a form of government. Even Libertarianism is a part of government. NOTE TO ALL ANARCHISTS: GROW A FUCKING BRAIN. I don't care that there are a bunch of retards that have PH d's in the subject, they are idiots.
@mikerules999 1a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
-Merriam Webster Dictionary.
Chaos is confussion/ rule of 'chance'.
Anarchy is one of the most misunderstood words ever... Utopian Anarchy is based on the same rules as nature. ie Animals that live in the wild. The only problem with it, is the current mind set.
@mikerules999 The definition of government is a good place to start. A gov can be defined as an institution with the legal monopoly to create and enforce social rules. Any form of gov can be distinguished via this characteristic.
Proper anarchism would be a lack of such an institution. Rather, the ability to enforce social rules would be spread among all people.
I have good reasons to believe that this would not result in "chaos", but I can't go into much detail with those pesky character limits
Anarchy is not so much a lack of rules as it is a lack of rulers, there have been civilizations classified as "anarchist states" (an oxymoron i find to be very amusing) such as Spain in the 1930's after the Spanish civil war or Berlin after Germany surendered in ww2. In these societies no form of "government" had any control over the lives of the people but the peoples lives were still controled, they were just controlled by each other not outside others.
People are forever run by the natural survival instincts, for example people need food and in a time were previous exsisting system is incapable of providing this essential need to them, people resort to there own means of control. Anarchy because of the human condition of greed will forever be plagued by gang control which while is does not seem ideal, it can still be anarchy because these groups are not overseers of society but groups merely looking out for themselves.
So you see while from a realist standpoint life without control is not probable due to the human condition but anarchy can in fact exsist as anarchy is not a lack of any control, but a lack of enforced control from a certain classification of authority, government. As i said before anarchy would realistical become controled by gangs but the nature of the power would not negate the anarchist "state".
Influence does not mean government the mob certainly influences a lot of peoples lives but it is not a government. Anarchy does not mean chaos we just percieve that to be true because of our assumptions of what would happen in such a condidtion which are logically and historically accurate but that does not change the definition. And as for all these "anarchists" who want to control the world themselves, there a bunch of posers im sorry your view was influenced by their stupidity
@mikerules999 This is fallacy. And organization is not the same as government. Few anarchist believes in "chaos", VERY few.
"Wanting such a thing shows a serious lack of knowledge of politics, history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc." Not know this difference between anarchy and chaos show a serious lack of knowledge of politics, history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc
I don't care what they believe in. Anarchy equals chaos. Libertarianism, where the people govern the people ,is still government.. now a government that would easily fall apart. Democratic government with an even mix of Capitalism and Socialism is the best form of government.
@mikerules999 Did you forget to proofread?.... "where the people govern the people, is still government." Ya, that is the dictionary definition of "democracy". Seriously, man. You just don't know what these words you are using even mean. "Anarchy", "libertarianism", "democratic", "capitalism" and "socialism" all appear in 3 sentences. Most are used wrong and it's a good bet you don't know what ANY of them mean.
@mikerules999 you don't understand because you old and old and also more old. we anarhist see the truth once goverment was taking off the surface of the EArth man we will all live forever, ridding on dragons and unlcons. hay man if its cool it must be true, the logic of us anarchist
On another note, on peoples rhetoric and the seeming unknowingness of the irrelevance to the point at hand. I think in the awkwardness of not knowing how to respond to a weighty point, they feel they are now in COMPETITION, and thus PLAY to win. Where as the true critical thinker only plays for truth. In this early fundamental deviation in PURPOSE we can never have quality discourse.
you're totally right, most conversations people dont actually listen to what you have to say. but they just hold their thought in their head while they wait for their turn to talk...its garbage. most people just want someone to talk at, not with.
I know exactly what you mean. At least, I hope I do. It would be ironic if my post turned out to be an example of what you're talking about.
Something similar happens with me. I'll make a point, but instead of responding to it, they will attack one specific thing I said, as if my entire argument depended on that one thing I said, when it doesn't. They'll also interpret idiomatic statements literally.
Anything to divert attention away from my actual argument so they don't have to address it.
I feel so much the same way about people... excepting i don't find people borring, perhaps they me.. lol. As u say always looking to interject, can't accept u might have a detailed position. Just for info, perhaps u know, perhaps others would like to know.. bla bla... Benifit of the doubt - aka? - Principle of Charity? I thought it a good concept from Crit thinking ... think u can wiki
One of my communication teachers says the average person is only able to listen to about 40 words before they disconnect from what they are hearing. Talk about frustration.
@elbowbiter1 I only really watch him for news updates then go from there. He has some good points on things and can sometimes be funny, but overall I'd rather get most of my news from the Atheist community or from things like Huffington Post. Be thankful though that he isn't a Perez Hilton clone.
Every philosopher I've ever read rambled on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on . . . . clearly you were a philosophy major.
seems i misunderstood, at the end of the video you said something like you are for the government doing this and this because you are not against them completely, that is indeed a stupid idea.
oh but don't get me confused with crazy NWO global governance conspiracy theorists, even though i do think 1 global government would do what the state wants to do even better (in general control our lives more)
Good points tooltime. Communication over the Internet allows people to contemplate each other's points and respond to them thoroughly as opposed to a live conversation. Of course, you still can have a meaningful conversation with someone face-to-face, but it's a lot harder to do because of the way human psychology is as you mentioned. I find it hard to have conversations with people in real life because I always want to talk about big and controversial ideas; others just want to blow smoke.
ok seriously. Can you end a video with your tone of voice going down and with a second of silence? It ends abruptly everytime; like in the middle of a speak-stream. It's annoying.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I've been trying to make a video like this one for months but you beat me to it. I have some other points to make.....don't know how I will do it yet ;)
I have a relative who believes in the NWO, and I've watched the movies, and I can't get bare to watch more then 20 minutes of it, and all the movies are like 3 hours long, 3-8 hours long. There is a David Ike video where it's just some black guy sitting there talking about the new world order and reptilians for 4 fucking hours straight, nonstop.
Anyway, when ever we debate this, they always pull the "Oh ya, the government would never do anything wrong" and "you think the government is this wonderful, caring group of people who can do no wrong" and REPEATEDLY every single time they say that I say "NO! I hate the government! I dont trust them and they have done fucked up shit and this is the fourth time I've told you this!" I feel like I am talking to a creationist, which makes sense since they use the same logic.
"It was like I stepped out of my body and saw myself actually listening to this man's worthless drivel—but it wasn't him who looked like a moron, it was me,"
I agree with your comment at the end about talking to people vs. youtube.
Youtube gives people time to think about what you say in its entirety. Also, if it makes them mad if gives them time to cool off.
Youtube inspires thought. There are downsides, but I've learned a ton on here.
Still, people say "Youtube, that's just a bunch of random peoples opinions." So. SysyphusRedeemed is a Philosophy instructor. Some people on here know what they're talking about.
It's not just video-makers that get this. I don't know how many times I've said something in a comment and people will either rip apart what I didn't say or bastardize things I do.
Another thing I've noticed is that people think that if they correct your spelling then you're stupid.
I can't double-check every comment, and I'm certainly not perfect. Doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.
Ask any good defense attorney, they will tell you that absolute strict adherence to class room rules of logic would have them losing most of their cases. The reason many of these fallacies are so common is because they work on the average person.
@tooltime9901 awesome. love it when starsign charakter attributes are wrong (horoscope is always generalized bs). i occasionally discuss this with friends who are not born just between 2 starsigns because they happen quite accurately.to their character description. the only pisces i know is a woman with no backbone compared to you (which in her case fits to pisces :D) only thing which would really suit i'd say would be the thoughtfullness ;) anyway. have a nice evening
Sometimes when I watch a video I agree with I think "well he didn't cover this but it's okay cause I know he's probably aware of it" or something along those lines. For some reason though when I don't agree and have personal feelings about it I rage over it. Gotta watch out for that.
I've noticed that a lot of people cant seem to think on a middle ground, they think everything is black or white and go to extremes. Like the whole right wing, left wing thing. They only see things one way or no way at all.
Tooltime Unless I am mistaken, we Atheists do occasionally bash the Pope for his Nazi past, and Catholics for the Nazi affiliation, and religion for their brutalities in general, and we most often use examples for all those from varied contexts and from times older than 50 years. Similarly, referring to past government actions may have a certain value in a meaningful line of thought. It could indicate potential government behaviors. What the fuck about that is a pain in the ass to get then?
@graphattic The pope wasn't a Nazi he didn't have a choice but to join the Hitler Youth. I'm Presbyterian (Yes.. Protestant) so I'm not a huge fan of the pope nor Catholicism but he hadn't a choice on being affiliated with the Hitler youth.
@NewAccountFFS Its besides my point. My point is such rumor has its use, and it is its use that I am commenting on. Also, a man covering for pedophiles as an adult in authority, is really beyond any NAZI relation he could ever have.
@graphattic How do I keep forgetting about him covering up for Paedophiles... *FACEDESK* Oh and if I'm not mistaken the Legal age to have sex in the Vatican City is about 12 or 13? Regardless of the fact there's about 300? temporary residents non of whom are likely to be under 60, it's still disturbing.
Oh and I don't believe in God, it's just cultural religion for me, if that even makes sense at all.
@NewAccountFFS What you do makes sense. What the Pope or other religious leaders do not make sense. Do not take it too personally. The guy aint related to the Jesus I knew when I was christian, and he certainly aint the representative specimen of a christian.
That's why I like books. They make you think, and in my case pick up my pen, usually preferred above conversations. But when the content of books is basically nothing more than shit, you can put them away and not look at it again. Somehow people consider it to be rude when you walk off in the middle of a conversation.
@NewAccountFFS Really? The ones I talk to seem to borderline worship the ground the jewish people walk on for religious reasons. End of the world type bullshit.
@melowar78 Weird, I've never met one like that. My family who are Jewish get off on the fact people hate them, no idea why... they put it down to pure fear.
The best one is (Not sure how TRUE it actually is) that Jews are the ones who enforced "Multiculturalism" to try & stir up CIVIL war between Christian Europe & Muslims. Saying that the upcoming Royal wedding in the UK has terrorist threats on it already.. good luck to 'em, Royalists + Soldiers = wont get near the Royals.
@melowar78 According to Wikipedia, most NWO/Illuminati conspiracies started as a right wing thing, and it is only recently that they have become more wide spread.
Have you considered closing your videos to comments? You clearly can't handle people pointing out things that you are obviously aware of, but seem to conveniently ignore. Quite frankly, many seem to comment on YOUR rhetorical strategies, but you seem completely oblivious to that, judging by your surpise at the response you get.
Maybe it's time to point out that not everything is about you, either. People often post comments that build upon what you've said, they're not always challenging you.
@SAsgarters Why? A decent number of videos are based on comments, and some are arguable some of the best videos he has. They are topical darts that lead to good material. Why waste a good thing?
Fuck I want to have a reunion with tooltime, matt dillahunty, dpr jones, aron ra, thunder foot, the amazing atheist, and just talk.
pigin007 1 month ago
There doesn't seem to be many people like you around. I'm glad I found your videos. I agree it's very disheartening when you try and have an interesting conversation with someone and all they seem to be knowledgeable on is who did what in this TV series or how much they can drink on Saturday night. Seems so few go beyond the mass media for their information. Since high school most of my interesting conversations take place online. I don't really know any interesting people in 'real life' :-/
jakebowkett01 5 months ago
I feel you brother.
keirzev 7 months ago
I watched quite a few of your videos, and I really love you. I hope this world has more poeple like you in government leader position. And this world would be a much better place to live.
Hope to see more of your videos that would "wake up the world."
Drahevil 9 months ago
(Another person reluctant to socialising and relates to given information in the video)
Rexonius 9 months ago
lol... there are others like me out there.
(Is that an egocentric observation?)
8644371 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you are not whit us you are against us
I really hate it when people are thinking this
If you are not whit us you are against us=FAIL
ThePeacefulAtheistt 10 months ago
Comment removed
ThePeacefulAtheistt 10 months ago
Well I watch these yours videos and many others just becos I want learn english and like adobt infulense and some others reasons that I dont know
Engravingsful 10 months ago
I have long hair. ZOMG I have long hair.
I agree with this video. Most people don't want to have a discussion for the sake of progression. They'd rather just shove their PoV down your throat so they can feel better about themselves.
boburanus69 10 months ago
ya i was thinking about the long hair thing, people like all the sudden think your soome uber-hippie peacy liberal
timesizwierd 10 months ago
on the whole i look for that ongoing discussion here, that point and counterpoint, or in the case of two who agree, even corrections and idea sessions.i do not feel i have much to input on your video simply because i am just a listener (who occasionally types responses or asks questions)> i do not produce anything.however, i wish that youtube had more of this kind of discourse tooltime.
practicalmagic9 10 months ago
Anarchy as you understand it is a strawman. Anarchists are not against governments, they are against STATES. The state is an organisation which has the exclusive right to use force. Governments can still exist in stateless societies.
Anarchists would be better off calling themselves anti-statists.
cincofone 11 months ago 2
Anarchy is probably the stupidest ideology on earth.
Alaron251 11 months ago
It is kinda like skydiving. For a short period of time you look suicidal falling through the air, then you release your parachute and are no longer falling but slowly gliding. Either way you are going towards the ground. Your means of getting there changes as the need arises. The free fall is the anarchy, quickly removing the distance from the goal, and the parachute is the new form of gov't to protect the freedoms we all value without splattering ourselves all over the goal.
ShaggyShagz13 11 months ago
I consider myself anarchist in the loosest of terms. I am against my corrupt fktard gov't. I want to see the gov't fixed but there are too many broken parts. We have the directions to build a near perfect gov't but cannot possibly go about building it with the current gov't in the way. So for a very short period of time I want to be an anarchist, being that I want my gov't destroyed. Immediately afterwards I have to stand against anarchy because it is complete lawlessness.
ShaggyShagz13 11 months ago
I agree with the point you made about a lot of people talking about irrelevant things. I wish I knew more people that talked about the things you do.
DrunkonaMission 11 months ago
It sounds like you don't want people to respond to what you say unless they agree with you... I like you, tt, but that really makes you just as bad as the people you mentioned in your video.
DragonRomer 11 months ago
Does that mean your brother's an april fool?
JamesJimRaynor 11 months ago
At the top of the suggestion list while I'm watching you is a promo for farmville. Talk about boredom... people are so bored that their entertainment is boring. If you're that bored, maybe you need to move to a town with more colleges, and professors and theorists in it. But remember, life is mundane, finding beauty in it is much more fulfilling than finding fault.
heartwings1123 11 months ago
Thats one awesome background!
Alkoholwioslaidziwki 11 months ago
"I'm too lazy to do that" -bahaha yes!
Thank you for the video, ones like this are nice to see.
Keep it up :)
spineshiver91 11 months ago
good vid
Maxell720 11 months ago
ur aging
Maxell720 11 months ago
Who the fuck is Sexy Phil??? lol
(just making a point, mind you... I probably don't wanna know)
DTiberius 11 months ago
@DTiberius you joined YouTube in 2006 and you don't know who he is yet? facepalm..
mikerules999 11 months ago
a lot of people stumble across videos like these when they are relatively new to this type of video and are not familiar with what a straw-man even is.
Grace88Anderson 11 months ago
You have to use humor and wit like colbert; anyone can ramble like autistic blob, but making taking a satirical angle to a philosophical/controversial issue and edutaining people while doing so will allow for a thoughtful and engaging dialogue (even if it is with a dumbass). get some pizazz and more people will watch.
ravebritt 11 months ago
@ravebritt implying this is easily done
k1llk1ngph30n1x 11 months ago
I'd like sxephil if he weren't so vapid, and if, when he does address matters of substance, he didn't come off as so ignorant.
And I too am depressed by the vapidity of most people and their conversations. They drone on about how ugly someone's shoes are, then when I want to talk about economics or some new scientific breakthrough, they have the nerve to accuse ME of being boring.
TheMessianicManic 11 months ago
It ended on the world "bored." Why do I feel so unsatisfied?
Gettinghitonattheban 11 months ago
HI5 sxephil!!!....lmao, numbers do not equal importance, only acceptance, just keep doing you man
CrimsonDragonStar 11 months ago
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
L2pMetalfan 11 months ago
danger0usknowledge 11 months ago
I can completely relate to how you feel about social conversations and the like. I usually find people's dialogue to be bereft of all meaning. I also find the need of others to win some kind of one-upmanship game, very tiresome. So, often i find after a short period in a social situation I have nothing to talk about with most people.
Also, often when u do find someone who engages or challenges your mind, others often try to make light of your conversation as if to speak with meaning is 'uncool'.
Christopholaes 11 months ago
its must be great being a superior person. Whats it like ? Must be a drag having to live in this world of bores, my hearts pumping piss for you
JOOGAL1111 11 months ago
Your videos show you don't like people very much. I think that's why you're an annoying person. Maybe you have good qualities, but you're so miserable they don't come through.
If you liked people more you would be happier and not so annoying.
The2qs 11 months ago
@The2qs Sometimes its not easy to like people, no matter how great some people may be.
ArielannaDragonBlood 11 months ago
Tooltime, I envy you. You can turn on a camera and go. Im my videos I have to stick to a script else i'd be lost. Keep Them Coming Please...cya around...
rounder421 11 months ago
200 pointed to a particular argument? What *that* says is they don't read the other comments...
Philosification 11 months ago
Yehbut yehbut doo! its the Wayouts they're invading Bedrock! run for your lives!
Kindertautenleider 11 months ago
Hey Peter, how is it that you have snow/ice in your background in April, where are you shooting from?
unless its not snow and I'm just blind ;)
coolbeens21 11 months ago
Your videos are great lately, awesome sound and video quality, and you are a lot more eloquent than when i subscribed to you. :D
jabajabajaba12345678 11 months ago
Intelligence is your burden. "Woe from Wit". You know.. maybe if you were simpler - life would have been more enjoyable :)
x86freak 11 months ago
Today's been a good day for videos from my point of view, and this was no acception
niriop 11 months ago
Oh, have I got a new one for you:
tooltime, you look like a Kids in the Hall character in a Kids in the Hall sketch. So there!
MrStillmans 11 months ago
Yeah, you have to be a masochist to be a YouTuber.
jeb31415 11 months ago
@jeb31415
...I mean if you are hoping that most viewers will give you the benefit of the doubt, etc...
jeb31415 11 months ago
Comment removed
Thunderharald 11 months ago
I listen to you while playing GW :P helps keep my mind sharp.
Darthmas2242 11 months ago
I can think I can relate to some extent. I used to have big, lengthy often stimulating and engaging debates on my art sites but after a while, it just kinda... well, it basically became an asspat-fest from people who agree and a yelling match from people who disagree. I realized there really wasn't much debating going on, just people shouting their positions back and forth without even considering other people's points. It got boring and disheartening.
Bobbiethejean 11 months ago
I've noticed that a lot of creationists who pride themselves as debaters, like Shockofgod and Nephilimfree, don't like the YouTube format BECAUSE it doesn't give them the opportunity to interrupt and misdirect. They like being able to make assertions that you can't investigate at the moment. Tactics like that can make someone seem like the victor in a debate, even if they're wrong. That's far more difficult, however, with the YouTube format, which leaves time for thought and investigation.
DarkMatter2525 11 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 It's true haha, it reminds me of Nick Naylor from "Thank You For Smoking," where he just spews false facts about tobacco on TV and has someone clean it up after him.
Alex703rockstar 11 months ago
The majority of youtubers came on to discuss atheism. Pretty much EVERY argument has been said about it. You can just share an old video instead of reinventing the wheel. Now all thats left are science enthusiasts, political activists and people with new ways to think about things. These aren't nearly as exciting as videos bashing religion. Youtube atheism seems to be dying, because the Religious haven't made a single new argument that doesn't fall flat on its face.
anubis2814 11 months ago
@anubis2814 I think your right. I've noticed it lately. Now their all turning on each other, sad.
Christopholaes 11 months ago
the new back round is distracking]
ThePhilosophyFan 11 months ago
I watch your videos and at no point have felt the need to interject with my own opinion. Not even in the comment section if I recall correctly. As a to-be-graduated philosophy student the experience has been educational in some level. Plus I like to have background noise when I do other stuff like edit photos or paint, preferably talking.
Wuggynaut 11 months ago
You defend perceiving shades of gray instead of seeing everything in black and white. That means you're supporting the post modern cultural elite gnawing on our values and seeking to pollute our precious vital fluids.
EpifanesEuergetes 11 months ago 2
Yeah. I suck at arguing in real life. The internet is easier.
volbla 11 months ago
Jeez, by the end of youre video I forgot what I wanted to say at the start of it, which was...
I was asking myself the same question about the plethora of strawman arguments put forth by youtube Christians. I think they are either trolling, dont watch each others or at least read the comments or are just to too pigheaded to admit to their strawmen. I think its a little of the first and a lot of the last.
jellygiraffe 11 months ago
@jellygiraffe The vast majority of Youtube christians are simply not interested in whether their arguments are true or not. They just want a set of words they can utter when an argument is made against their claim.
That's why you hear them use the exact same arguments twenty minutes after you've just thoroughly debunked them.
You never hear them say 'Good point. I'll have to re-think that', or 'I don't know' or 'Looks like I was wrong'.
They simply don't care.
Skindoggiedog 11 months ago
Sadly I live in a very religious and superstitious country and most of the people I work with are heavily into sports or fashion, relative to their gender. So any conversations I try to start about things I am interested in are usually pretty brief. I do like watching people talk in circles when I ask things like "how can heaven be heaven for my religious relatives who love me if I am burning in hell for being an atheist?" Some of the rules they make up are hilarious.
jellygiraffe 11 months ago
Unfortunately this kind of behaviour is not limited to YT. Attended a standardisation meeting (where people claim to be rational) lately and made an argument that due to a range of challenges in a new field they are entering their current approach needs improvement. My claim turned out to be a herresy, and for the rest of the evening I was treated to one emotional irrational claim after the other (straw man, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, fallacy of single cause, argument from history, ...).
timeofwonder2009 11 months ago
ohhhh your voice is like chocolate tooltime lol
thramagen 11 months ago
There is no such thing as an Anarchist. Everyone I ever met that called themselves one explained to me how they would manage the world. Everything they explained is a form of government. They're fucking idiots. Anarchy means chaos, the world in ruin, life as we know it ended. Wanting such a thing shows a serious lack of knowledge of politics, history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc.
mikerules999 11 months ago 19
@mikerules999 "how they would manage the world. Everything they explained is a form of government." that is the knock down argument against anarchy I have discovered as well.
tooltime9901 11 months ago 16
@tooltime9901 I think you'd get a better idea of what Anarchy was from reading about it, rather than looking at individual (probably 14-year-old, or drug-addled) "Anarchists". Anarchy by no means denotes "Chaos", though that's not to say it's something practicable without some world-wide revolution -- you sure can't have a stateless society in a world full of states. Just a suggestion.
FascismFetishist 11 months ago
@FascismFetishist Also, an anarchistic society would naturally involve management of resources, as any civilisation, and I don't see how this strictly entails a "government". (to get more to the point of what you actually said rather than rambling)
FascismFetishist 11 months ago
@tooltime9901 Acutely I think this is a classic example of not understanding anarchy, the phrase "how they would manage the world" is a dead giveaway, under anarchy no one manages the world, people simply manage their own life and nothing more. Anyone attempting to describe how things would work under anarchy is at best making an educated guess. anarchy is not chaos or a world without rules, it is a world without rulers.
bbb695 11 months ago
@tooltime9901 I think when people refer to this lack of government, they really mean a lack of formal, institutional governance; most of them believe is some kind of universal ethic (no harm principal, non-intervention, rational egoism, etc.)...
cheeseit126 11 months ago
@mikerules999
anarchy means literally "without ruler". It does not mean without rules or without a system of governance. Equalling anarchy with chaos is usually the rhetoric of conservatives. Usually anarchy is understood to be "something" a group of people come up with in group-discussion and then adhere to like anarcho-syndicalist or anarcho-capitalist ideas / groups. There are no leaders but rather people that make democratic decisions that they want to adhere to and are not posed upon them
Lutzifer31337 11 months ago
@mikerules999 "how they would manage the world." I think you're missing the point of Anarchy....
DKshad0w 11 months ago
@DKshad0w There is no point to Anarchy. Every Human who calls for it has know clue what Anarchy is. It would mean the total downfall of Human society and progress because we could do whatever we want and get away with it. Every man for himself.
mikerules999 11 months ago
@mikerules999 Anarchy ≠ Chaos. Chaos isn't what anarchist are advocating. No one said there will be no consequences from actions.
DKshad0w 11 months ago
@DKshad0w You seriously are an idiot. No government to manage society (Anarchy) means total chaos. Whether they think that they will live in a better world with Anarchy or not, it's not better, it is chaos. Stop trying to argue because you sound just like one of the many Anarchistic retards.
mikerules999 11 months ago
@mikerules999 Saying how they would like to see things done, how they would do things themselves, how they think they would work best, or how they think it MIGHT be done are NOT the same as imposing those those ideas on people with force or coercion. "Government" is not the issue, people self-govern all the time and it's perfectly fine, employers govern employees in line with contractual obligations and it's fine. The State, is the problem to "us" (me).
Your "refutation" of "anarchy" is lazy.
Floridanon407 11 months ago
@Floridanon407 "how they would manage the world. Everything they explained is a form of government." that is the knock down argument against anarchy I have discovered as well. - Tooltime to me.
You are trying to argue because you are exactly like a Theist, you attack logical criticism as false when it isn't just because you are afraid of change. Anarchy = Chaos. No denying that. By definition it is exactly chaos. Who will pave roads? Who will give medical treatment? Who will go against crime?
mikerules999 11 months ago
@Floridanon407 pt 2
Try to even state how it would be organized and then you aren't talking about Anarchy anymore. Any form of organization is a form of government. If you start making rules that people are not allowed to kill or steal, they you are already beginning to form a government. Grow up and learn to use your brain properly. Anarchy = Chaos and is the compelte and utter downfall of civilized society. END OF ARGUMENT!
mikerules999 11 months ago 2
@mikerules999 You're either being deliberately obtuse, or not listening. "Government" is not the problem, and organization is not antithetical to anarchy, people are social animals, we govern ourselves and voluntarily organize all the time. That order is as emergent as the order seen in nature with the development and diversification of life. Anarchy is not chaos, anarchy is the absence of archons; An-archy.
The problem is the State, the coercive monopoly of force.
Floridanon407 11 months ago
@mikerules999 Who governs the government? All you are is a presuppositionalist..
DKshad0w 11 months ago
@mikerules999 Not sure that that is the case, Mike. Yeah, you have it right, that IS the literal definition of anarchy. I think that anarchal political systems are ment to describe systems that have a little more fluidity than our current systems. I recommend you research anarchy movements in a little more depth as I can't give you much detail (I am just learning about them myself) but I agree the title is a little misleading. Most of us would love a more fluid, self correcting system right?
elbowbiter1 11 months ago
@elbowbiter1 No matter what some idiots from a Anarchist movement think. Civilized society is non-existent when there is Anarchy. That means that there is no order, no justice, no labor boards, no unions, no national security, nobody to distribute food to different cities from the farms, no laws, no rules, nothing. IT IS CHAOS. I know of Anarchist movements, they are a bunch of babbling morons.
mikerules999 11 months ago
@mikerules999 Like I said, there is a vast difference between the literal translation of the word, "Anarchy." and what anarchy means as a socio-political structure. So Noam Chomsky is a babbling moron? I find him quite informed, and articulate. Maybe you are right though, or maybe you are not as informed as you'd have me believe. I suppose we'll never truly know until we try one out.
"Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome." -Samuel Johnson
elbowbiter1 11 months ago
@mikerules999 I'm an anarchist and believe to have a pretty solid concept of a stateless society. But I would be happy if you or tooltime were able to prove it wrong, I'm always up for a challenge. Send me a pm if you're interested in a serious discussion!
AlexanderReiswich 11 months ago
@AlexanderReiswich Okay, but let's keep this public. Since Anarchy = Chaos and any retard saying otherwise needs to learn the definition of Anarchy and Government. Please explain to me how anything that any Anarchist says for how they will manage their country is not a form of government. Even Libertarianism is a part of government. NOTE TO ALL ANARCHISTS: GROW A FUCKING BRAIN. I don't care that there are a bunch of retards that have PH d's in the subject, they are idiots.
mikerules999 11 months ago
@mikerules999 1a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
-Merriam Webster Dictionary.
Chaos is confussion/ rule of 'chance'.
Anarchy is one of the most misunderstood words ever... Utopian Anarchy is based on the same rules as nature. ie Animals that live in the wild. The only problem with it, is the current mind set.
helioncry 11 months ago
@mikerules999 The definition of government is a good place to start. A gov can be defined as an institution with the legal monopoly to create and enforce social rules. Any form of gov can be distinguished via this characteristic.
Proper anarchism would be a lack of such an institution. Rather, the ability to enforce social rules would be spread among all people.
I have good reasons to believe that this would not result in "chaos", but I can't go into much detail with those pesky character limits
AlexanderReiswich 11 months ago
@mikerules999
Anarchy is not so much a lack of rules as it is a lack of rulers, there have been civilizations classified as "anarchist states" (an oxymoron i find to be very amusing) such as Spain in the 1930's after the Spanish civil war or Berlin after Germany surendered in ww2. In these societies no form of "government" had any control over the lives of the people but the peoples lives were still controled, they were just controlled by each other not outside others.
IronyHasDisappoint 10 months ago
@mikerules999
People are forever run by the natural survival instincts, for example people need food and in a time were previous exsisting system is incapable of providing this essential need to them, people resort to there own means of control. Anarchy because of the human condition of greed will forever be plagued by gang control which while is does not seem ideal, it can still be anarchy because these groups are not overseers of society but groups merely looking out for themselves.
IronyHasDisappoint 10 months ago
@mikerules999
So you see while from a realist standpoint life without control is not probable due to the human condition but anarchy can in fact exsist as anarchy is not a lack of any control, but a lack of enforced control from a certain classification of authority, government. As i said before anarchy would realistical become controled by gangs but the nature of the power would not negate the anarchist "state".
IronyHasDisappoint 10 months ago
@mikerules999
Influence does not mean government the mob certainly influences a lot of peoples lives but it is not a government. Anarchy does not mean chaos we just percieve that to be true because of our assumptions of what would happen in such a condidtion which are logically and historically accurate but that does not change the definition. And as for all these "anarchists" who want to control the world themselves, there a bunch of posers im sorry your view was influenced by their stupidity
IronyHasDisappoint 10 months ago
@mikerules999 This is fallacy. And organization is not the same as government. Few anarchist believes in "chaos", VERY few.
"Wanting such a thing shows a serious lack of knowledge of politics, history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc." Not know this difference between anarchy and chaos show a serious lack of knowledge of politics, history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc
no2religions 10 months ago
I don't care what they believe in. Anarchy equals chaos. Libertarianism, where the people govern the people ,is still government.. now a government that would easily fall apart. Democratic government with an even mix of Capitalism and Socialism is the best form of government.
mikerules999 10 months ago
@mikerules999 Did you forget to proofread?.... "where the people govern the people, is still government." Ya, that is the dictionary definition of "democracy". Seriously, man. You just don't know what these words you are using even mean. "Anarchy", "libertarianism", "democratic", "capitalism" and "socialism" all appear in 3 sentences. Most are used wrong and it's a good bet you don't know what ANY of them mean.
no2religions 10 months ago
@mikerules999 you don't understand because you old and old and also more old. we anarhist see the truth once goverment was taking off the surface of the EArth man we will all live forever, ridding on dragons and unlcons. hay man if its cool it must be true, the logic of us anarchist
abarrathemaster 7 months ago
@abarrathemaster I really hope that's sarcasm.
mikerules999 7 months ago
@mikerules999
Its a form of government, yes, but the point is that its a form of direct democracy.
SwiftyMcVeigh100 6 months ago
On another note, on peoples rhetoric and the seeming unknowingness of the irrelevance to the point at hand. I think in the awkwardness of not knowing how to respond to a weighty point, they feel they are now in COMPETITION, and thus PLAY to win. Where as the true critical thinker only plays for truth. In this early fundamental deviation in PURPOSE we can never have quality discourse.
Hythloday71 11 months ago
Maybe I'm just being vain, but i cant help but think that your referring to me at one point. (in a not nice way)
EricTheNihilist 11 months ago
I totally relate to this Peter. Listening and comprehension seem to have gone out of style.
skepticoz 11 months ago
you're totally right, most conversations people dont actually listen to what you have to say. but they just hold their thought in their head while they wait for their turn to talk...its garbage. most people just want someone to talk at, not with.
you learn more listening than you do speaking
thisscreensucks 11 months ago
I know exactly what you mean. At least, I hope I do. It would be ironic if my post turned out to be an example of what you're talking about.
Something similar happens with me. I'll make a point, but instead of responding to it, they will attack one specific thing I said, as if my entire argument depended on that one thing I said, when it doesn't. They'll also interpret idiomatic statements literally.
Anything to divert attention away from my actual argument so they don't have to address it.
Macaii 11 months ago
I feel so much the same way about people... excepting i don't find people borring, perhaps they me.. lol. As u say always looking to interject, can't accept u might have a detailed position. Just for info, perhaps u know, perhaps others would like to know.. bla bla... Benifit of the doubt - aka? - Principle of Charity? I thought it a good concept from Crit thinking ... think u can wiki
Hythloday71 11 months ago
One of my communication teachers says the average person is only able to listen to about 40 words before they disconnect from what they are hearing. Talk about frustration.
NLPNVC 11 months ago
@NLPNVC TLDR
skepticoz 11 months ago
Sxephil annoys the piss out of me.
elbowbiter1 11 months ago 7
@elbowbiter1 I only really watch him for news updates then go from there. He has some good points on things and can sometimes be funny, but overall I'd rather get most of my news from the Atheist community or from things like Huffington Post. Be thankful though that he isn't a Perez Hilton clone.
mikerules999 11 months ago
@mikerules999 Well to each his own of course, he must be doing something right to have so many subscribers.
elbowbiter1 11 months ago
Yah but....you have long hair. Therefore your entire argument is moot.
Glad we had this conversation.
unclexbob 11 months ago
Every philosopher I've ever read rambled on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on . . . . clearly you were a philosophy major.
PropheciesofWar 11 months ago
why not simply ignore such instances of stupidity? it's clearly a self-indulgent thing that can't be brought to reason, pain in the ass that it is.
fifh89 11 months ago
Geese?
RyuuMakato42 11 months ago
You remind me of someone, but I can't think of who.
AsAboveSoBelow01 11 months ago
I couldn't agree more about the point you made on how boring conversations get most of the time. Might be why I'm so attracted to youtube.
MirageScience 11 months ago
I'm starting to believe that corporations have more power than any govt, is that considered a conspiracy theory?
MrNemy86 11 months ago
seems i misunderstood, at the end of the video you said something like you are for the government doing this and this because you are not against them completely, that is indeed a stupid idea.
MirageScience 11 months ago
oh but don't get me confused with crazy NWO global governance conspiracy theorists, even though i do think 1 global government would do what the state wants to do even better (in general control our lives more)
MirageScience 11 months ago
Um, if you are for the state you are for taxation because that's how it gets its money. and if you are for taxation your insane.
it should be obvious once pointed at that taxation is theft.
oh and don't say contract theory because that a load of shit.
MirageScience 11 months ago
wascally yeahbut...
baraqiyal 11 months ago
Good points tooltime. Communication over the Internet allows people to contemplate each other's points and respond to them thoroughly as opposed to a live conversation. Of course, you still can have a meaningful conversation with someone face-to-face, but it's a lot harder to do because of the way human psychology is as you mentioned. I find it hard to have conversations with people in real life because I always want to talk about big and controversial ideas; others just want to blow smoke.
minisiets 11 months ago
ok seriously. Can you end a video with your tone of voice going down and with a second of silence? It ends abruptly everytime; like in the middle of a speak-stream. It's annoying.
Neotracer64 11 months ago
I love your backdrop! But where the hell are you that at this time of year water is still frozen over?
AyeYirMa 11 months ago
You took the words right out of my mouth. I've been trying to make a video like this one for months but you beat me to it. I have some other points to make.....don't know how I will do it yet ;)
ghostofdayinperson 11 months ago
I have a relative who believes in the NWO, and I've watched the movies, and I can't get bare to watch more then 20 minutes of it, and all the movies are like 3 hours long, 3-8 hours long. There is a David Ike video where it's just some black guy sitting there talking about the new world order and reptilians for 4 fucking hours straight, nonstop.
jay666KJ 11 months ago
@jay666KJ
Anyway, when ever we debate this, they always pull the "Oh ya, the government would never do anything wrong" and "you think the government is this wonderful, caring group of people who can do no wrong" and REPEATEDLY every single time they say that I say "NO! I hate the government! I dont trust them and they have done fucked up shit and this is the fourth time I've told you this!" I feel like I am talking to a creationist, which makes sense since they use the same logic.
jay666KJ 11 months ago
gee... I'm sorry for making strawman comments.
cguevara12 11 months ago
one of the first things i noticed during my social development was how much people interjected and cut me off when i was in the middle of talking.
CropDuster33 11 months ago
"It was like I stepped out of my body and saw myself actually listening to this man's worthless drivel—but it wasn't him who looked like a moron, it was me,"
That just about sums up my Youtube experience :-)
RDaneelOlivaw2 11 months ago
you over analyse things like me, except you're smarter
MrStripyHead 11 months ago
@MrStripyHead And less 'rapey'
fatkat444 11 months ago
I agree with your comment at the end about talking to people vs. youtube.
Youtube gives people time to think about what you say in its entirety. Also, if it makes them mad if gives them time to cool off.
Youtube inspires thought. There are downsides, but I've learned a ton on here.
Still, people say "Youtube, that's just a bunch of random peoples opinions." So. SysyphusRedeemed is a Philosophy instructor. Some people on here know what they're talking about.
UncomfortableSilence 11 months ago
There is no way to get every point across.
It's not just video-makers that get this. I don't know how many times I've said something in a comment and people will either rip apart what I didn't say or bastardize things I do.
Another thing I've noticed is that people think that if they correct your spelling then you're stupid.
I can't double-check every comment, and I'm certainly not perfect. Doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.
UncomfortableSilence 11 months ago
Ask any good defense attorney, they will tell you that absolute strict adherence to class room rules of logic would have them losing most of their cases. The reason many of these fallacies are so common is because they work on the average person.
bamboo4tameshigiri 11 months ago
hey peter. out of curiosity. what's your starsign? :)
TaoriUTS 11 months ago
@TaoriUTS Pisces. lol
tooltime9901 11 months ago 2
@tooltime9901 awesome. love it when starsign charakter attributes are wrong (horoscope is always generalized bs). i occasionally discuss this with friends who are not born just between 2 starsigns because they happen quite accurately.to their character description. the only pisces i know is a woman with no backbone compared to you (which in her case fits to pisces :D) only thing which would really suit i'd say would be the thoughtfullness ;) anyway. have a nice evening
TaoriUTS 11 months ago
My Aunt will pick one word out of my point and that's it.
TheUnillogical 11 months ago
This has nothing to do with what you're talking about but I just wanted to say...
what a fucking background. XD
Blackjack030190 11 months ago
If it weren't the real world it would be funny. :)
philhellenes 11 months ago
See that guy in the background jerking off? Thats me!
fyourcouchnigga 11 months ago
Is that a green screen?
cpdp999 11 months ago
Im watching this video naked and covered in butter. Wanna lick it off?
fyourcouchnigga 11 months ago
Sometimes when I watch a video I agree with I think "well he didn't cover this but it's okay cause I know he's probably aware of it" or something along those lines. For some reason though when I don't agree and have personal feelings about it I rage over it. Gotta watch out for that.
Shalek 11 months ago
@Shalek If they make a simple little mistake I go off on one and rage like a whore on crack.
NewAccountFFS 11 months ago
I've noticed that a lot of people cant seem to think on a middle ground, they think everything is black or white and go to extremes. Like the whole right wing, left wing thing. They only see things one way or no way at all.
CyberSpectrumND 11 months ago
Tooltime Unless I am mistaken, we Atheists do occasionally bash the Pope for his Nazi past, and Catholics for the Nazi affiliation, and religion for their brutalities in general, and we most often use examples for all those from varied contexts and from times older than 50 years. Similarly, referring to past government actions may have a certain value in a meaningful line of thought. It could indicate potential government behaviors. What the fuck about that is a pain in the ass to get then?
graphattic 11 months ago
@graphattic The pope wasn't a Nazi he didn't have a choice but to join the Hitler Youth. I'm Presbyterian (Yes.. Protestant) so I'm not a huge fan of the pope nor Catholicism but he hadn't a choice on being affiliated with the Hitler youth.
NewAccountFFS 11 months ago
@NewAccountFFS Its besides my point. My point is such rumor has its use, and it is its use that I am commenting on. Also, a man covering for pedophiles as an adult in authority, is really beyond any NAZI relation he could ever have.
graphattic 11 months ago
@graphattic How do I keep forgetting about him covering up for Paedophiles... *FACEDESK* Oh and if I'm not mistaken the Legal age to have sex in the Vatican City is about 12 or 13? Regardless of the fact there's about 300? temporary residents non of whom are likely to be under 60, it's still disturbing.
Oh and I don't believe in God, it's just cultural religion for me, if that even makes sense at all.
NewAccountFFS 11 months ago
@NewAccountFFS What you do makes sense. What the Pope or other religious leaders do not make sense. Do not take it too personally. The guy aint related to the Jesus I knew when I was christian, and he certainly aint the representative specimen of a christian.
graphattic 11 months ago
Go to this video, "illusion of superiority":
watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y
And read the comments section then tell me what kind of rhetorical strategy theman77777777232 is using.
zarkoff45 11 months ago
So basically Peter, you are saying that you talk too much to simpletons.
FluidDeconstructor 11 months ago
That's why I like books. They make you think, and in my case pick up my pen, usually preferred above conversations. But when the content of books is basically nothing more than shit, you can put them away and not look at it again. Somehow people consider it to be rude when you walk off in the middle of a conversation.
psychotica81 11 months ago
Conspiracy theorists tend to be extremely Rightwing lately, why do you suppose that is Tootime? Or am I wrong in my observation?
melowar78 11 months ago
@melowar78 Loads of Conspiracy Theorists hate Jews, but claim they just hate "Jewish banksters who are trying to take over the world" LOLLLLL.
NewAccountFFS 11 months ago
@NewAccountFFS Really? The ones I talk to seem to borderline worship the ground the jewish people walk on for religious reasons. End of the world type bullshit.
melowar78 11 months ago
@melowar78 Weird, I've never met one like that. My family who are Jewish get off on the fact people hate them, no idea why... they put it down to pure fear.
The best one is (Not sure how TRUE it actually is) that Jews are the ones who enforced "Multiculturalism" to try & stir up CIVIL war between Christian Europe & Muslims. Saying that the upcoming Royal wedding in the UK has terrorist threats on it already.. good luck to 'em, Royalists + Soldiers = wont get near the Royals.
Off-topic, SORRY!
NewAccountFFS 11 months ago
@melowar78 According to Wikipedia, most NWO/Illuminati conspiracies started as a right wing thing, and it is only recently that they have become more wide spread.
tooltime9901 11 months ago
Great video! you have to really go out of your way to meet people on your own level.
Antistar211 11 months ago
Did your camera die?
cararacs 11 months ago 3
@cararacs more or less, so i cut it there because it sort of made sense
tooltime9901 11 months ago
Have you considered closing your videos to comments? You clearly can't handle people pointing out things that you are obviously aware of, but seem to conveniently ignore. Quite frankly, many seem to comment on YOUR rhetorical strategies, but you seem completely oblivious to that, judging by your surpise at the response you get.
Maybe it's time to point out that not everything is about you, either. People often post comments that build upon what you've said, they're not always challenging you.
SAsgarters 11 months ago 3
@SAsgarters Have you considered not behaving like an asshole pointing out stuff?
zalmanusa 11 months ago
@zalmanusa Yes.
SAsgarters 11 months ago
@SAsgarters Why? A decent number of videos are based on comments, and some are arguable some of the best videos he has. They are topical darts that lead to good material. Why waste a good thing?
skiddlecrumms 11 months ago
I greatly enjoyed this video
Professoranton 11 months ago