search results matching tag: stone age

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (52)     Sift Talk (3)     Blogs (1)     Comments (135)   

Gutfeld: This is a hot, steaming pile of crap

newtboy says...

😂😂😂😂
I guess you forgot you claimed you don’t watch cable or FOX at all bobby. Another lie you yourself proved false. Such a silly boy.
😂😂😂😂

Pew says only 40% of Republicans and 20% of democrats think homosexuality is “wrong” and should be discouraged, Bob….and that’s people still willing to say they’re republicans, a rapidly shrinking subset.
Gallup says under 30% overall agree with you.
Your claim “most Americans” agree with you is more made up bullshit, and I think you know it.
Not even most republicans do.
You are consistently on the wrong and unpopular (not always the same thing) side of every issue.

His category? Is there another non funny far right “comedian” that doesn’t make jokes, only vitriolic attacks bigots laugh at on tv? Not that I know of…it’s easy to be the highest rated far right “comedian” when you’re the only one. As the only hyper bigoted right wing late night talk show contrasting with at least 6 self competing talk shows (that don’t compete with him because they’re comedy shows, not a far right whine and bitch fest), if he didn’t have the “highest ratings” it would be disastrous. Bigots like to watch and be bigoted with other bigots. If you combine centrist (what you call leftist) talk shows ratings, he’s a sad little blip. He’s the only choice for the right, the right that’s so divorced from sanity they think hating homosexuals isn’t bigotry because they say homosexuality is wrong.
“But…he beat The Daily Show”….only after Trevor Noah retired and they have no host. Try again.

Higher ratings do not in any way contradict my statement, bob. He’s still a cold pile of shit you love to shovel into your empty head.

No hate!?! So, you’ve never watched him at all, not once for one second, because I have and he’s 100% hate. His “jokes” are nothing but snide insults. He’s never made a joke.

Have you ever mowed on Saturday, or had your kids mow? Ever eat shellfish? Ever wear a cotton poly blend? All 3 are just as sinful as homosexuality, and call for the same punishments. How much do you protest red lobster bob? How many times have you ransacked a tjmaxx? How often have you stoned your children to death for working on Saturday, the sabbath the commandments demand you remember and keep sacred (not Sunday, that’s the Christian sabbath, and there were no Christians when the 10 commandments were given).

No hate, he just hates gays….and blacks, immigrants, atheists, young people, Muslims, liberals, centrists, reporters, working women, truth, honesty, reality, etc….but no hate. 😂
He’s nothing but hate, xenophobic fear driven hate by insecure ignorami for insecure ignorami. He’s definitely your guy.

“Sinner side”. 😂 There it is. It’s about your bigoted interpretation of religious dogma that you think should be law, Christian sharia law. You have no clue what kind of backwards murderous Stone Age civilization that begets, do you? Hint, it makes Muslim sharia law look positively enlightened and permissive.
Religious nonsense is always the wrong side, listening to hypocritical zealots that themselves pick and choose what parts of their religion to follow and cudgel others with and what to ignore based on whatever is good for them at the time is the wrong side…or have you picketed schools for allowing blended fabrics or serving pork lunches? Why not, they’re grooming your children to sin. Have you lobbied to ban blended fabrics, shellfish, for a return of and enhancement of blue laws extending to every judeo-christian sabbath and with the biblically prescribed death penalty, just in case, etc? No, because you don’t really believe in the Bible, you only abuse it by trying to force your chosen “beliefs” on others.

Bob, you have never even glimpsed the “right” side, and you live on the wrong side looking away from the correct side while shouting insults behind you. Only you don’t see it. 🤦‍♂️

bobknight33 said:

Funny you are fooled again.
He has higher ratings in his category..

No hate just most american do not buy into the gay crap.

Again you are on wrong side or reality.

Sinner side is wrong side.

Disagreement About Masks at Christmas 2021 in Math Class

newtboy says...

@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.
🤦‍♂️

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

The restriction is about groups of people being unsafe. It is not about any one group.
The decision makes it restrict one group and not others. No Jedi conventions, but Christian, Jewish, or Muslim churches/conventions are ok?
Utter bullshit, I hope every religious nutjob gets covid and churches are held liable, maybe we can end the stone age superstition that rules and ruins lives.

Stop your divisive ignorance and join civilization.

bobknight33 said:

Clearly you fail to see the how the restriction limits 1 group and not another.

Nether is right. SCOTUS is correct.

Student - D'Souza to convince him life starts at conception

newtboy says...

And you realize I say that as a man who lives in a country where men usually make these decisions for women without even basing their position in science or fact. I can only hope to insert some into the discussion about WHY it should be the incubator's choice of whether or not to be one...not some random group of guys, not the inhuman parasite, not some misinterpretation of stone age fables that say nothing on the subject, but the womb owner who should control the womb.

Yes, I got money out of them, but not for that.

BSR said:

And you realize you say that as a man who has no womb. You can only base your argument with science without having an incubator of your own.

I realize there are times when a woman can make a decision to abort as in rape but I also realize a woman may not abort in the case of rape.

I can't even imagine what it would feel like to be pregnant.

A decision I would not want to make. But I say that as a man.

For the record "Pro choice."

Leave it up to the incubator. After all, she's the one that has to live with her decision. The father is secondary. If she makes a decision you don't like, cowboy up. That's why you're the man. If she makes a decision she regrets, support her. That's why you're the man.


EDIT: newt's profile page.

I once threatened to sue my parents for depriving me of the bliss of non being through a willful and wanton act of conception.

BTW, did you get any money out of them?

shinyblurry (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

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?

shinyblurry said:

Romans 10:9-10

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved

When you do that, believing that Jesus died for your sins, God will save you and make you a new person. You're good if you don't care where you are going after you die, if you leave it as you believe up to chance. Yet the evidence that God exists is undeniable, and the coming of His Son Jesus Christ was predicted by prophecies going back thousands of years. So you're not really leaving it up to chance because the scripture tells you that you have no excuse for ignorance.

Romans 1:18-20

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse

You would say, I am sure, that you haven't seen any evidence for God but the scripture says you have and you have suppressed the truth about it. I believe scripture and in our conversations I am sorry to say you are always poisoning the well of reasoned debate with mockery and ridicule. What is behind that is a heavy bias and angst which keeps you from seeing who God is. Being obstinate against the truth of Gods word is foolish. Why not give God the benefit of the doubt and at least ask Him to show you if what I have been telling you all of these years is true?

Sexual Assault of Men Played for Laughs

newtboy says...

Using violence, torture, and the backing of the Russian military, and after numerous failed coup and assassination attempts he took and held tenuous control. Torture hardly played a huge roll or he would have been successful the first time, or the second. He retained and increased that power in the 70-80's by spending his huge amounts of oil money on the people, mostly not by torturing them (except for Kurds).

The "others in the room" we're his forces, not random people who murdered for him out of relief. He didn't hand weapons to an adversarial group he was convincing to follow his lead by having them kill those who wouldn't. I mean...WHAT?

You use fear mongering as proof torture works? Um... ok.

Since what I've been discussing is torture working to get sensitive, useful information, not the long term terrorism and brutal oppression of a population, I'll just move on.
Yes, despots can ride nations into the ground by making the populations powerless and fearful until those populations revolt. Yes, an iron hand and willingness to make your population stone aged can allow you to hold on a long time. Yes, torture can be part of that, but only one small unnecessary part, a strong military willing to murder unarmed civilians is what it takes, torture or not.

Wow, now you think the U.S. military taking out Saddam proves torture works because ...force and violence?

Strength vs weakness is what worked, not torture or terrorism, that's why he failed, brought down by a coalition of locals and Americans with his military deserting him in droves when he needed them most.

Torture is not a functional interrogation technique nor a means to foster loyalty, only fear. Fear only works until someone adds hope to the equation.

bcglorf said:

Saddam took control of an oil rich nation of 30+ million people using violence and torture.


He had them record his clinching moment on video, where you can still watch him drag out a visibly broken man(well agreed to have been broken through torture, Saddam deliberately flaunted this), and has the man read out a list of names of co-conspirators. Sure, Saddam undoubtedly wrote the list himself, but he was already powerful and feared enough it didn't matter and this evidence was enough. The co-conspirators were hauled out for execution, and the others in the room were fearful/relieved enough that when they were ordered to perform the executions themselves they did.

Saddam then ruled Iraq for another 24 years before he was forcibly removed by foreign powers, not any manner of domestic uprising.

Don't tell me that nobody else in Iraq wanted the job for that quarter century, instead Saddam's brutal methods were successful in keeping his hold on power throughout that time. None of that makes his methods 'right', but to declare that the methods are ineffective is just silly. Doubly so if you observe his hold on power wasn't removed by crowds of peaceful protesters rising up removing him in a bloodless coup, but rather through the use of more force and violence than Saddam could muster in return.

The Stone Age Tribe on a Banned Island You Can't Visit

newtboy says...

By "just fine" I meant surviving, which for natural animals as groups today is actually doing far better than most.

Is it a bad thing that there are no more stone age tribes? By my estimation, absolutely. I value diversity for many reasons, but mostly as a safety net against the totally unpredictable. For some unfathomable reason, something about being pure stone age might be advantageous.

I 100% agree about the option part, but offering them that option itself destroys their world viewpoint and eventually their civilization, proven time and time again with other tribes.

I honestly don't think there is a "right" answer, any course of action (or inaction) has it's own inherent dilemmas and moral traps. As a probable last example of unadulterated natural humanity, conservation seems to be paramount....but that's just like, my opinion man. ;-)

Edit: maybe I was over influenced by ' The Gods Must Be Crazy'....I thought clearly things were better without that coke bottle.

ChaosEngine said:

"they were doing just fine with stones"

Were they? What was the average life expectancy? How about childbirth mortality rates? Hell, how's their dental health?

Obviously, a bit of iron isn't going to fix those problems, but it might make them more efficient hunters. Maybe their diet has improved because of this?

"Now there aren't any known pure stone age people left at all now"

Is that necessarily a bad thing? We had the stone age, we grew out of it.

I feel like it's easy for us to want to preserve their way of life, but no-one is giving them the option. If presented with a choice, most people wouldn't opt for a neolithic lifestyle. Even the so-called "paleo" adherents aren't really living that way.

I completely get where you are coming from, but part of me also feels like we are keeping humans in a zoo.

I honestly don't know what's the right answer.

The Stone Age Tribe on a Banned Island You Can't Visit

ChaosEngine says...

"they were doing just fine with stones"

Were they? What was the average life expectancy? How about childbirth mortality rates? Hell, how's their dental health?

Obviously, a bit of iron isn't going to fix those problems, but it might make them more efficient hunters. Maybe their diet has improved because of this?

"Now there aren't any known pure stone age people left at all now"

Is that necessarily a bad thing? We had the stone age, we grew out of it.

I feel like it's easy for us to want to preserve their way of life, but no-one is giving them the option. If presented with a choice, most people wouldn't opt for a neolithic lifestyle. Even the so-called "paleo" adherents aren't really living that way.

I completely get where you are coming from, but part of me also feels like we are keeping humans in a zoo.

I honestly don't know what's the right answer.

newtboy said:

they were doing just fine with stones. Now there aren't any known pure stone age people left at all now, are there?

The Stone Age Tribe on a Banned Island You Can't Visit

newtboy says...

I dunno...that stuff you mention is also pretty harmful from some perspectives.
Introducing far less technology to other hidden tribes has changed them immensely, and usually for the worse. I feel somewhat bad that they're suddenly thrust into the iron age through no fault of their own...they were doing just fine with stones. Now there aren't any known pure stone age people left at all now, are there?

ChaosEngine said:

*fascinating. There is a real-life Star Trek Prime Directive thing happening here.

Obviously, we don't want to introduce disease to these people, but I'm pretty sure we have some stuff (medicine, plumbing, refrigeration, Stephen Colbert, etc) that would make their lives better. Interesting ethical conundrumm.

A Brilliant Analysis of Solar Energy into the Future

Queens of the Stone Age - Go With the Flow

siftbot says...

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Queens of the Stone Age - Go With the Flow

Penn Jillette on Atheism and Islamaphobia

diego says...

it was the closest he came to acknowledging that "bringing democracy" is a euphemism for "bomb them to the stone age"

if people want to insist on profiling terrorists, they should try and be as accurate as possible- being muslim is a terrible filter. where they are from is a much better indicator, especially if they're from a war zone (take your pick- just in pakistan hundreds of innocent children have been killed just by drones over a 5 year period).

i'm pretty sure lightning is still more of a threat than terrorism. in fact i just looked it up: 1 in 7 million for lightning over 9 years, 1 in 3.5 million americans killed by terrorism in 30 years vs 1 in 1.15 thousand iraqi civilians killed in 5 years.

i wonder what these terrorists guys are all butt hurt about? oh right, we declared war on them and have been actively bombing them for over a decade, so easy to forget!

MilkmanDan said:

Really fuckin' good.

"There are refugees who are suffering in a way that history will not be kind to us for ignoring" gave me chills.

Primitive Technology: Forge Blower

newtboy says...

Beat me by that much.
And so, primitive technology leaves the stone age behind and enters the iron age.
This guy's videos are always *quality

Trump Praises Saddam

bcglorf says...

For starters, I have to oppose the implied thought that Saddam's reign of terror was preventing this sectarian violence. His rule through the Suni minority to wage genocides against the Kurdish and Shia majority and decades of brutal repression of same all served to make the sectarian hatred and violence worse. Tally up the hundreds of thousands he killed through genocide, the million plus he killed in the Iran-Iraq war and everyone that died by direct execution or deliberate starvation level poverty and compare it doesn't stand out as starkly and objectively a desirable alternative to today.

Now if you ask what would I do differently it depends on what level of power I've got to act with. Ideally, we can go back to first Iraq war and have Bush senior march on Baghdad. This would've aborted one of Saddam's genocides. Equally importantly, this would have kept the Shia Iraqi population's view of America as a liberating force. The standing in the desert and watching Saddam slaughter them thing still carried their mistrust of American forces after Saddam's actual removal later. That singularly stupid move of leaving Saddam in power, at the urging of most of the planet, drove the Shia population of Iraq back to Iran as their sole sympathetic ally.

Next step, after the removal of Saddam, whether we can do it back then, or only a few years ago as it really happened is to truly setup an occupation government. You don't bring stability to a region by immediately trying to transition to a democracy before the shooting has even stopped. The occupation government would be run by somebody with actual knowledge and experience with Iraq, rather than as Bush senior did by sending in a guy with zero experience and a two week lead to brief himself. The task you should place on this leader, is to setup a federated Iraq, with distinct and autonomous Shia, Sunni and Kurdish states. The occupation government would dictate things after taking input from Iraqi's rather than holding them to the tyranny of the majority as Bush and co allowed. The occupation would setup an initial constitution defining what laws and agreements spanned all three Iraqi provinces/states and what extent of autonomy they had to define their own systems of government. The American military's job would be to enforce this very basic constitutional framework. Each Iraqi state/province would be aided in setting up their own governments with a transition plan again dictated not voted upon. The transition plan would define the point in time when each state transitioned from occupation rule to a self determined future and rule of law.

The above plan on the whole would work, but Bush and co couldn't have managed post Saddam Iraq more poorly if they had actively tried to.

If zero time travel is allowed and we are to 'fix' things today, you need a lot MORE power. You need an army the size of America or Russia's and the political will to spend several years doing things the public will hate you for. The end game is still the same as above, a federated Iraq kicked off under a dictatorial occupation. To get there from today though you need to create stability. You need to take an army and march it across the entire country. As each city is cleared of militants you take a census of everybody and keep it because you need it to track down future militants. In entirely hostile locations like were ISIS has full rule, you bomb them into the stone ages before marching the army in. The surviving population is given full medical treatment. Now, as for sorting militants from civilians though, you do NOT use American style innocent until proven guilty justice. Instead, any fighting age males are considered guilty until proven innocent. This level of rule of law needs to remain in place until stability can be restored. You of course guarantee lots of innocent arrests, but your trying to prevent massive numbers of innocent deaths so it's required. As you stabilize the nation you can relax back to innocent until proven guilty and work on re-integrating the convicted.

You'll note that although the methods I'd declare necessary above are by any count 'brutal', they do not extend into Saddam's usage of genocide, torture and rape as the weapons of choice.

Lawdeedaw said:

Not to poke or prod, but then what would you do to stabilize the country? His fear only worked if he killed harmless civilians, otherwise it wouldn't work at all. It's an all or nothing there.

The democratic government, hardly a corrupt government as the media would have you believe, is actually worse by far now than when Saddam was in power. (Yeah, that's hard to believe...but with the mass terror attacks, beheadings, raping of the Yazidi, unpredictable poverty, and the crime by non-terrorists, it is...) So with wholehearted empathy, I ask again. What would you do to help this even-worse situation?



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon