I'm not sure "coddled" is the right word. I believe there are very deep reasons why bob is the way he is. One reason is I believe he loves his family and his friends. I also believe he is looking for real answers for the conflict in his life.

He wants something but he doesn't know what it is. This becomes a problem for him for which he has no answer. In his effort to find the answer to his problem, the only thing he can do is pass his problem onto others and see if they can give him the answers he is looking for.

My comment to bob that started this conversation was to illustrate the hypocrisy in his quote. My comment to him were HIS own words. Although the quote is a good one it can be looked at in two ways. Was it a light that just turned on for him or was it a message to the people who give him shit for his beliefs?

I don't hate bob. I also know he is in a deep hole where there seems to be no way out. I think bob also knows, deep down, that I would never hold anything against him because he is in tough spot.

He knows what good is but, he has to protect those he loves. He can't turn on his friends and family.

I think the real reason bob sticks around here is because he may find the answer he's been looking for. I think that day may come for him.

As far as lowering myself, sometimes you really need to reach deep.

----------------------------------

Thank you @StukaFox. For me, Christmas is every day.

When people tell me they don't need a mask I usually end the conversation in a professional way telling them "OK, I'll see ya later but, you may not see me."

In part, yes, but not the current class. The old thinking was just never allow fires. We know better now, but still suffer from 70 years of poor management.

Um....what? He is in charge of 57% of forests in California, the ones burning, and has not done a thing to "fix" them, and instead blames governors for his failures on Federal land the governor's don't control. This has nothing to do with cities, and Trump leads ALL American cities, moron. Not just Republican led cities, which are few and small.

Really? Prove it. I see Trump encouraging armed thugs to go out and kill, praising them when they do, and never denouncing the violence on the right, not even the terroristic bombers and arsonists. Conversely, I've seen every Democrat that gets air time denounce rioting, looting, arson, and violence from ANYONE.

He's supposed to be the leader, the man in charge....everything that happens is his fault. If he refuses responsibility, he refuses the ability to do anything about it and abdicated leadership.
This didn't happen under Obama, but the cities were democratic then....so clearly it's not Democratic leadership causing unrest, what has changed? Hmmmm....let me think.

Btw, most killings have been right wingers killing others including police, not liberals with a few exceptions at most.

Humans have been using drugs since the first person ate the wrong plant and got high instead of dying.

If you look at most drugs in nature, it is almost impossible to OD on them IN THEIR NATURAL FORM.

It's only when we alter that using chemicals, heat, or modifying the plant's genetic code via cross-pollination that we get drugs that destroy people.

Conversely, drugs that have been distilled from natural sources have also saved millions from death or from chemical imbalances in their bodies.

Man made drugs keep me on a (mostly) even keel. Without them my life is hell. Not from addiction, but because my body's chemicals are out of whack.

Yet some man made drugs are poison and should not be used (or extremely rarely). Most opioids fall directly into that category. Still, it is the corporate greed and misuse of these drugs that make them an ignored epidemic.

I could go on, but TL;DR

Natural drugs are a gift to humankind. Man Made drugs are a mixed bag.

lol. at no point have i ever said, implied, or even thought that in this conversation or any other.

Woo boy, this is a doozy! The fact of the matter is a video comment section is not the place to have this conversation. There's too much to discuss, too many questions from one another that are best asked soon after they're conceived, etc. I frankly just don't have the time to respond to everything you said. Don't take this as acquiescence; if you'd like to have a Zoom chat some time, I'd be down.

In any event, I'll respond to what I find either the most important or at least most interesting:

Having theories is definitely the best way to go about most of the things you consider fact (for the moment), but the fact of the matter (no pun intended) is that at some point you'll need to use some of those claims as fact/belief in order to take action. And it's just human nature to, if one believes in a claim for long enough, it becomes fact, despite all your suggestions of objectivity. It's easy to say you're a scientist through and through, but if you're really someone who doesn't believe anything and merely theorize things, I think you'd be a sad human being. But that's a claim that I leave up to the scientists.

> Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious.

You think that's a defensible moral claim? I find that disgraceful. If you truly think your own pleasure is worth sentient beings' lives then... I don't know what to say to you. That strikes me as callous and unempathetic, 2 traits you often assert as shameful. This is my point. You sound pretty obstinate to at least a reasonable claim. To respond with just "they're tasty". You don't sound reasonable to me.

> You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to.

Aw, come on @newtboy, I thought better of you than to give me a logical fallacy. The fact that you're resorting to logical fallacies wwould indicate to me that either you're confronting some cognitive dissonance, otherwise why would you stoop to such a weak statement?

> I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" ...

There is a lot of scientific research (not funded by Big ___) that is currently spouting this "bullshit". What happened to your receptive, scientific, theory-based lifestyle? It's true nutrition science is a fucking smog-filled night mare considering how much money is at stake, but I find it telling that a lot of the corporations are using the same ad men from Big Cigarette to stir up constant doubt.

Again, I find it peculiar that you are highly suspicious of big corporations... except when it comes to something that you want to be true.

Again, this is my point. Take a moment, take a few breaths, and look inside. Can you notice that you're acting in the exact same fashion as the people you purport to be obscenely stubborn?

Check out NutritionFacts if you want to see any of the science. Actual science. I would hope that it would give you at least somedoubt and curiosity.

That's a true scientist's homeostatic state: curiosity. Are you curious to investigate the dozens (hundreds?) of papers with a truly non-confirmation-biased mind? How much of a scientist are you?

> I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me.

This, for me, raises all sorts of red flags. That's quite a sweeping claim.

> Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

So, you're willing to make decisions based on self-interest and not morality? Well, duh. Everyone does that. It doesn't sound like you had a self-reflective moment. It sounds like you merely had a self-interested decision based on the risk to your own health.

And finally, all your talk about Bob -- of course he acts, consistently, like a twat. I just don't like feeding trolls. I don't think there's anyone on Videosift who's on the precipice and would be pushed over into the Alt-right Pit by Bob's ridiculous nonsense.

> Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies.

Ironically, I think science has disproved this. Facts don't change minds in situations like this. There are lots of articles on this. I didn't have the wherewithal to dig into their citations, but I leave that (non-confirmation-biased) adventure for you. [1]

---

I knew I wouldn't make this short, but I think it's shorter than it could have been.

Lastly, I'm with @BSR; I do appreciate your perseverance. Not everyone has as much as you seem to have! Whenever I see Bob... doing his thing, I can always be assured you'll take most of the words from my mouth. [2]

[1]
Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

This Article Won’t Change Your Mind - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/

Why People Ignore Facts | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/why-people-ignore-facts

Why Many People Stubbornly Refuse to Change Their Minds | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/201812/why-many-people-stubbornly-refuse-change-their-minds

Why Facts Don't Always Change Minds | Hidden Brain : NPR
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/743195213

[2] This comment has not been edited nor checked for spelling and grammatical errors. Haven't you got enough from me?

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by ant.

If the remarks being contradicted are not only smug they're also ridiculous, devoid of fact, racist, and or dangerously stupid (like insisting in May that Coronavirus is a hoax that's not dangerous and is a "nothing burger", and everyone should be back at work), and contradicting them with facts and references and +- 1/4 the disrespect the original remarks contained makes people vote for Trump, that does indicate they were already trumpsters imo.

Edit: It's like Democrats have a high bar to clear, but Republicans have no depth too deep to stoop to.

Trump changes Bob's beliefs daily, every time he changes a position Bob changes his belief to make the new position seem reasonable to him. He is not consistent. No other opinion matters to him.

I don't hold beliefs, I have theories. It's easy to change your theory when given new information, I do all the time. Beliefs don't work that way, so I avoid them as much as possible.

Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious. I would eat people if they were raised and fed better, but we are polluted beyond recovery imo.

You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to. Killing for sport seems worse, so do kill "shelters", puppy mills, habitat destruction, ocean acidification, etc....I could go on for pages with that list. I try to eat free range locally farmed on family farms meat, not factory farm meat. I know the difference in quality.

I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" (yes, someone insisted that was true because they didn't care it wasn't, it helped scare people, I contradicted him every time he lied.) The difference is, I could agree with some of their points that weren't gross exaggeration, I agreed that excessive meat eating is horrible for people, I agree that most meat is produced under horrific conditions, I would not agree that ALL meat is unhealthy in any amount and ALL meat is tortured it's entire lifetime because I know from personal experience that's just not true. We raised cattle, free range cattle, in the 70's. They were happy cows that had an enjoyable life roaming our ranch until the day they went to market, a life they wouldn't have if people didn't eat meat.

I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me. The fact checking part of my brain goes on high alert when talking with them about health or other issues involved in meat production, with excellent reason.

Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

Here's the thing, Bob consistently trolls in a condescending, self congratulatory, and bat shit crazy way. Turnabout is fair play.
As the only person willing to reply to him for long stretches, I know him. I've had many private conversations with him where he's far more reasonable, honest, willing to admit mistakes, etc. (Something I gave up when he applauded Trump lying under oath because "only a dummy tells the truth under oath if the truth might harm them, Trump winning!") When someone is so anti truth and snide, they deserve some snidely delivered truth in return. Bob has proven he's undeserving of the civility you want him to receive, it's never returned.

Bob does not take anything in from any source not pre approved by Trump. I've tried for a decade, and now know he only comes here to troll the libtards. It doesn't matter if you show him video proof and expert opinions, he'll ignore them and regurgitate more nonsense claiming the opposite of reality. He's not trying to change minds, in case you're confused. He's hoping to trick people who for whatever reason refuse to investigate his factless hyper biased claims and amplify the madness. That he comes here to do that, a site he regularly calls a pure liberal site (it's not) is proof enough to convict him of just trolling.

Trolls deserve derision.

I spent years ignoring his little jabs, insults, derisions, and whinging and trying hard to dispassionately contradict his false claims with pure facts and references, it was no different then.
While privately he would admit he's wrong, he would then publicly repeat the claims he had just admitted were bullshit. When he started supporting perjury from the highest position on earth down as long as they're Republican but still calls for life in prison for democrats that he thinks lied even not under oath, he lost any right to civil replies imo. He bought it when Republican representatives said publicly in interviews that they have no obligation to be truthful with the American people, and he applauds it and repeats their lies with glee.

Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies. How long are you capable of rebutting them with just fact and references when they are smug, snide, insulting, dangerous, and seriously delusional if not just purely dishonest?

Rebuttal?

*dupeof=https://videosift.com/video/Key-Peele-Text-Conversation-1

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Mordhaus. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Bob, stop watching shit on YT, stop watching TV, stop using your phone. Start using your brain and come up with an opinion yourself rather than parroting whatever random shit you just watched without critically thinking about it.

So far you haven't had an actual opinion on anything, you haven't had a conversation about anything. You just spout one liners and then post some other fucking trash. You're a joke.

sounds like the ultimate answer.
a final solution.


🦜 bob's bunk would inspire this conversation during his arrest...

bk: "what are you doing"
'better' person (bp)*: "arresting you!"
bk: "why - what for?"
bp: "for being a bad person!"
bk: "no i'm not!"
bp: "are you disagreeing w/me?"
bk: "yes! yes! i am!"
bp: "then you're a fool too!"

*strange that 'bp' could stand for bad person also?

could throw in matthew's 'judge lest thee be judged' routine but the plank in the eye gag doesn't bring in the ha-ha like it use to.
(it's a very old joke)

Your video, Ducks having a conversation, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

yeah i've lost my patience, the republican governor in my state is trying to conjure up new virus by i shit u not, this is what happened

day before school starts in the state = students and staff need to wear a mask at all times in indiana (unless in 3rd grade or younger)

day after school starts = students do NOT need to wear a mask as long as they are 3 feet apart - teachers still do

https://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/coronavirus-watch/coronavirus-watch-indiana/indiana-school-mask-requirement-amended/


------------------

-There is no point in trying to rationalize with his type.
-He doesn't care and is unaffected if there are reasons or facts that run contrary to what he believes.

He just hates liberals. PASSIONATE HATRED is what drives people like that is what I've learned in the past weeks.

I asked someone to wear a mask at CVS and got "I have SEEN a video of Hillary Clinton torturing young children and dancing in the nude around them as a fire burns. The blacks WON they want you to wear a mask. BUT I AM NOT A SHEEP - I SAWWWWWWWWW THE VIDEO OF IT WITH MY oWn tWo EyEs!!! YARE YOU GONNA TELL ME I DIDNT SEE IT? IT'S SATANIC!~"


me - "dude..."


There's no point in arguing with someone like that who is not arguing/conversing in good faith. The only reason he doesn't sound crazier is because he's typing instead of yelling.