If that were true for everyone, there would be no children in foster care.

It doesn’t take children to expand your limits, they just give you no choice. I found I can go weeks on < 5 hours sleep a night all by myself, I became more patient just by getting older, I’m more compassionate because I’m not a thoughtless teenager anymore, no child required. I also retained my sanity (what little I started with).
Sure there are some good times for the parents, but not so much for the public at large. Overall making more people with the massive glut of humanity that exists has a negative value. I wrote a thesis on this, called “the fallacy of the intrinsic value of human life”. Got an A. Horrified my writing class. Double win!!

@bcglorf
Reading bible passages in class as “something we can all agree on” is the definition of proselytizing to a captive audience….and outside of private religious schools is totally inappropriate.

It’s not “fun” to be ostracized in public because you believe different mythology or are smart enough to ignore all stone aged mythology…..really only disbelieving one more myth than the believers.

Getting the season completely wrong because you don’t know it was chosen to make it easier to use religion as a political tool is a bit different from “the exact date being inaccurate”. It’s an outright, bold faced, well documented lie, created as a political ploy from the 4th century used to degrade and absorb Zoasterism/Mithraism in order to control the masses politically. That is absolutely a “credibility” issue, and if you don’t get it, that’s an education and/or ethics issue. Christianity has many major credibility issues, being “created” (codified) as a political tool is just one of them. Stealing almost every bit of the mythology from previous religions and denying it is another.

Yes, the misuse of Fauci clips out of context is another issue of truthfulness here, but those who are intentionally ignorant of the reality they just lived through are lost and not worth wasting my breath on. As anyone with two brain cells knows, the first, “you don’t need to wear a mask in public” was recommended at that time because a massive mask shortage meant health care workers had to reuse paper masks sometimes for months during a major pandemic, (and clearly they needed priority on the limited supply) not because we had information saying they weren’t useful….but that’s a minor detail of history I feel only brain dead ignoramuses consider in question, relevant, or factual, and they have discarded fact, truth, reason, and logic in favor of their cult of personality….so there’s no real point arguing with them. Just let them get Covid and hope for EIA.

Preaching one religion in a public class room and claiming “we all agree” is a continuation of a much more pernicious, long term, continuing battle for the religious freedom our country was founded on, and I find it outrageous and anti American that you dismiss it as nothing. I can only hope your children’s teachers aren’t a vastly different, contradictory religion than you and they don’t teach your children that everyone agrees with their religion, not yours, and don’t use proveable fallacies to make their point….but if they do I’ll be here to dismiss your concerns.
🤦‍♂️

No good apples. None. It's a fallacy.

sincerely doubt there will be any ka-ka thrown his way as his world is likely the fellowship of the fallacious fearful.

check out that list. spun spuriousness signaling his slide into spooksville. the shadowlands. just the crush of it might alienate him further. w/o fox not a lot of zombie-right channels left.

just hope the most that the cognitive dissonance leads to is cake overindulgence, crying to 'country' music, and shouting at a licensed therapist.

otherwise...https://youtu.be/YedqV4Gl_us?t=61

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?

1:13 The human species is not built particularly well for critical thinking
4:23 Logical Fallacies are the enemy that lives in your brain
6:40 The thing that is more satisfying than winning arguments
10:53 The trait that humans have that may get us through it all

It's a joke though, it's not supposed to fair, honest, accurate otherwise, it's just supposed to be funny.

Setup 1: We all presumably are familiar with Trump's "sleepy Joe" nickname and constant criticism of Biden's fitness.
Setup 2: Trump explaining at great, great length why he walked slowly down a ramp because of how treacherous it was.

Punchline: Joe Biden literally running up said ramp.

That's funny. Crying about inaccuracies or fallacies in it is like saying chickens don't roam freely so how can so many be crossing roads?

Don't forget, his whole plan is based on the mistaken assumption that it's only dangerous to old people.

This from the same group that lost their minds over the fallacy that universal health care would include creating "death panels" that would decide if grandma was worth giving medical care.

"Truth is truth"... (in response to an attempted well-poisoning fallacy) i had no idea until now how much I've been wanting to hear someone say that...

That depends on which bible you mean....there are many.

Really? Lost to history?! Hardly....lost to the ignorant and uneducated maybe, but even atheists like me know full well Jesus the man was a Jew, and definitely not a European or "white". Roman/Italian artists knew this, but worked for a Roman church so portrayed him in their image.

Genetic purity?! Lol. I guess that means no one has EVER become Jewish, you're either born one by two pure Jewish parents or not. Hardly reality, and would reject nearly every person in Israel (or elsewhere). Just because there is a long standing religious/cultural taboo against marriage outside the culture, it still happens, as does conversion. Racial/genetic purity is a fallacy debunked by genetic testing.

Prophecy is a leap. No prophecy has been correctly interpreted until AFTER the events supposedly prophesied occurred. It's ridiculous to go back after the fact and claim "see, now that I know exactly how to interpret the unclear prophecy I couldn't decipher before, it's a 100% perfect prediction" but never be able to predict the future. That's the same nonsensical logic mediums use.

The second temple was also the third, since the true second temple was originally a rather modest structure constructed by a number of Jewish exile groups returning to the Levant from Babylon under the Achaemenid-appointed governor Zerubbabel. However, during the reign of Herod the Great, the Second Temple was completely refurbished, and the original structure was totally overhauled into the large and magnificent edifices and facades that are more recognizable. Logically, the third temple was the one destroyed by Romans, the second replaced by Herod but the new one was still called the second temple anyway. (To avoid contradicting prophecy? ;-) )

If the dome of the rock, the second most holy place in Islam, is destroyed, expect Jerusalem to follow soon after, as that will definitely start a religious war between nuclear powers.

Herodotus is credited with using the term Palestinian first, in the 5th century BCE as an ethnonym, making no distinction between Arabs, Jews, or other cultures inhabiting of the area. Romans adopted the term as the official administrative name for the region in the 2nd century CE, "Palestine" as a stand-alone term then came into widespread use, printed on coins, in inscriptions and even in rabbinic texts.

I think you are confused about the history, here's a primer...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel

The area was populated by various people's including Jews until the Jewish–Roman wars of 66–136 CE, during which the Romans expelled most of the Jews from the area (well, really they arguably left voluntarily because they refused to be second class citizens barred from practicing their religion freely) and replaced it with the Roman province of Syria Palaestina, the Arabs were already there, not invaders or immigrants. When Assyrians (Mesopotamians) invaded in circa 722 BCE, they ruled empirically, meaning only the Jewish ruling elite left, returning in 538 BCE under Cyrus the Great....so no, the Arabs didn't just settle after the Jews were dispersed.

It's patently ridiculous to say the Arab nations were unprovoked, Jewish illegal immigration led to a hostile takeover of the region by illegal immigrants with rapid expansion of their territories into their neighbors continuing through today. The Jews defeated the Arabs thanks to American backing and exponentially better hardware. It was only their right if might makes right, and the Arab nations are under no obligation to let them keep what they stole any more than the Jews were obligated to let the Arab nations retain control in the first place. If Iran, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or any combination can take it, by your logic they have every right to do so.

I do agree, in the end there will be more conflict until the area becomes uninhabitable....largely because every religion's prophecies end with them in control, and no one wants to admit it's all nonsensical iron age tribalism at work.

Were you raised in a Christian home? The solution to this problem is that no one is ignorant. That’s what I showed you when I quoted Romans 1:18-21. It teaches that it’s not that you are ignorant of Gods existence, its that you suppress the truth in unrighteousness and thus deceive yourself. You made the comment about the stupidity of the generation of Noahs day rejecting their own mercy, but that is exactly the same thing you are doing by rejecting Jesus Christ.

It’s not about being good enough to come to God. My heart was wretched when God found me but I did respond when He reached out to me. I didn’t respond perfectly but He used it and led me to faith in His Son. If you began to reach out to God He would respond to you in a way you will be able to perceive.

When the bible says God is good, it means He is morally perfect. That is Gods definition of good. No man except one has ever met that definition and therefore is unable to qualify for salvation without an atonement for their sins. The one who met that requirement is the man who never sinned, Jesus Christ.

Well, it’s a fallacy to say that the origin of the message dictates the truth of the message. A good message can be spoken by a bad messenger.

Secondly, it hasn’t been debunked. I know the atheist websites you visit tell you it has been, but it hasn’t. There are good reasons to believe in God that a reasonable person can and should believe .

When I say too difficult, I don’t mean by sheer human effort. Human effort is completely useless in achieving a good result as a Christian. That is why it is found to be too difficult because to come to Christ means taking up your cross and following Him. Yet properly understood it isn’t difficult in the sense that it can’t be done. We can get into a discussion about that in another reply.

You are also using fallacious reasoning to compare Jesus, a historical person, to Xenu, a fever dream of scientology or the flying spaghetti monster. All possibilities are not equal, neither are all Messiahs equally credible. The life of Jesus is a matter of history and not our imaginations. I gave you lines of evidence which you dismiss without even investigating them. Jesus is the prophesied Messiah of the Old Testament. Indeed He is the only possible person who could be the Messiah since He is the only one who fulfilled the 70 weeks of Daniel prophecy which predicted the year of the Messiahs death. Are you interested in talking about that?

When you say you’re a good person, what do you mean by that?

When I die, I expect I'm going back to where I was before I was born....nowhere.

Obviously this "evidence" is not undeniable...I, and hundreds of millions....actually many billions deny it.

Religopolitical propaganda has no bearing on real life unless you make it. Christian scripture is political, compiled and edited by men with an agenda to make people more easily controlled. That is simply an undeniable historical fact.

You do realize that there are other "undeniable" scriptures from other religions that contradict your chosen dogma, right? You deny all of them, I just deny one more than you do.

I must be really special, because God has made no such thing evident, in fact he gave me the ability to reason which makes evident the fallacy of supernatural entities and powers and makes any creator totally unnecessary, superfluous, and infinitely unlikely.

It's reason that lets me see what "God" is....a tool for civil control and a soothing but baseless answer to the questions of the unknown.

I've told you many times, God is free to reveal himself at any time. He has not done so in any way shape or form, but his fans have offered mountains of proclaimed evidence that was all self referencing circular logic, stone age tribal nonsense, and fantasy fables, and nothing more. If he exists, it's his will to have me not believe. Plain and simple.
My heart is as opened to Jesus as anyone else....but he has to show up and work his way inside. So far he's a total no show, and I'm not holding a table reserved for anybody and pretending they're present. Mot has made more of a substantial showing than Yahweh...should I be serving him?

Apple quality has consistently gone down hill after Steve Jobs (could be post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacy, but whatever).
AppleCare is a must nowadays, backups are a must (iCloud or local)- Apple treats their devices as throwaway, regardless of the cost. They just want you to buy a new one, and sadly most people do.
My 2012 MacBookPro (last model that is field-upgradeable) is a tank, but I won't buy a new one when it dies. I've seen 1/3 of 2018 MacBookPros ($2500) have random lockup issues and need to be replaced.
I'm still trying to get data recovered from my wife's 2015 MacBook (wouldn't turn on 1 day, no drops, no water, just dead).

That is an argument, but is fallacious.
Those already well practiced in self enrichment are more likely to continue. Satisfying greed makes it stronger, not weaker.

Go to soy bean country and tell them that, or someone who works for the federal government, or contracts with them, or makes a living serving them. I think you'll find things have changed for more people than you seem to think.

Gratefully he has been less effective at most of his ideas than he claims, or we would be fighting off the wolves coming for the national carcass.

Fallacious premise...butter never left.