Dude. Tell me you aren't really surprised. ;-)
You know full well this is straight from the Trump chump playbook. Whenever challenged on the truthfulness of their claims they offer random "proof"...which is NEVER a truthful defense and usually actually proves exactly what they're arguing against, like this time....then they invariably actively ignore any further discussion on the subject to avoid having their nose rubbed in their mess.

That's the problem with blind faith in a convicted con man paired with well below average intelligence and a complete inability to reason or comprehend, it leads to (sometimes deadly) dishonest obstinate obstructionism based on obvious lies at it's best, and it's rarely that good.

Recent polls show that 41% of "Republicans" (Trump voters) actually believe Bill Gates is funding Covid vaccine research in order to secretly inject billions of people with microchips (they have no idea towards what ends, but they know it's true), and another 34% aren't sure but think it's likely true, only 25% are rational enough to say they don't believe it (but in private I bet they're less certain). Do you honestly believe one of these people has the capacity for rationality, truth, or reasoned discussion?

It does explain why republicans don't want to restrict firearms from the mentally defective, 3/4 of them would lose their rights on day 1.

Hey welfare queen,

you may like this https://web.archive.org/web/20190404212541/https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1xNQdypvyHcJ:https://medium.com/%40shewrites94/bring-
on-the-light-bf4e8c859058+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
(copy paste the whole link)

"I am not being paid to write my political opinions nor am I being hired by someone to do it. I am writing about this subject for the same reason I got into politics; I care for my local community and my global community."

" I love Russia with all my heart.... To President Putin, I say keep your eyes to the beautiful future and maybe, just maybe America will come to see Russia as I do, with eyes of love."

I see you took your socialist handout. You are obviously a very principled person.

"Scientists" who falsify data or skew experiments to get their preconceived results should be ignored and silenced....those who steal from the company they were just fired from deserve jail.

Just read her wiki page...only bat shit crazy conspiracy nuts believe the government and scientific community as a whole conspired to ruin her because she told the truth....She's disgraced because she made repeatedly proven false anti vaccine claims they want ignored, but antivax conspiracy nuts love her. Reality is she's an anti vaxer whose experiments proved to be faked and whose theories are just insane.

Judy Anne Mikovits (c. 1958) is an American anti-vaccination activist, conspiracy theorist and discredited ex-medical researcher. She has made discredited claims about vaccines, coronavirus, and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). As research director of CFS research organization Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI) from 2006 to 2011, Mikovits led a research effort that reported in 2009 that a retrovirus known as xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) was associated with CFS and may have had a causal role. However, the research came under fire, leading to an eventual retraction on December 22, 2011, by the journal Science.

In 2020, Mikovits drew attention online for promoting conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 pandemic, via the conspiracist YouTube video Plandemic[6] that were fact-checked and found to be either false or not based on scientific evidence.

Mikovits began to look for XMRV in her Chronic Fatigue Syndrome samples. In late 2008, a graduate student, who subsequently was hired as her technician, obtained two positive results from a group of twenty samples. He and Mikovits successively altered the experimental conditions until all samples gave a positive signal.

In 2009, Mikovits and co-workers reported in the journal Science that they had detected XMRV DNA in CFS patients and control subjects. Negative results were published soon after, disputing Mikovits's findings.

She's a fraud. Why else would Bobby love her so much?

He's on record saying exactly that. If you bother to watch his explanation about it he essentially repeats himself about using sunlight and disinfectant "on the inside". Mind you it's hard to tell what he's talking about 99% of the time because he's an incoherent gibbering fool who constantly changes the subject mid-sentence.

Know just enough to wonder:

1) She just announced she owns guns and where she keeps them with pictures of the gun safe. Ok, pros and cons to that.
2) She passed through line of fire of her husband/partner instead of getting the subject flat or circling around the other side. I think that's a no-no.
3) Why take him in the house in confined spaces instead of outside on the lawn when he exits? And then way too many people enter the house before the guy is restrained.

Next time we take the subjects to sci-fi night at the drive in.
I'm not sure I approve of super glueing 3d glasses to cuttlefish, even though reports I've seen claimed it's harmless and wears off fairly quickly.
*promote weird science

I didn't straw man anything. His argument was that the animal is about to "go through hell" in "a few days".

My counter is that the animal is not going to go through hell (not abused) and will be living for more than a few days. I backed that assertion up with facts that I am familiar with for the subject matter. I didn't even mention other inaccuracies about the butchering process that really have nothing to do with the animal going "through hell" since it has been rendered unconscious before anything happens.

Does every fact in his description have to be 100% false for his overall analysis to be repudiated? Seems like a high bar for challenging an opinion.

apparently he's an idiot even on subjects he's formally trained in, just like his father.

@eric3579 @newtboy

https://videosift.com/faq#posting_guidelines

If you create an account solely to post a video for whatever reason, but do not actually participate in VideoSift in any other way before or after, you may be considered a spammer/self-promoter and your account is subject to banning.

But you love Trump for exactly that reason, he's an emotional 14 year old who is no professional and who has no place on the world stage spouting fear with out a wisp of knowledge of almost any subject excepting swindle and con.

She, on the contrary, has a decent grasp of this subject....both the science and the politics driving the science. Probably why she won the Alternative Nobel prize....https://videosift.com/video/Greta-Thunberg-Wins-Alternative-Nobel

That's the morality and ethics of the right, if you don't like but can't debunk the message, personally attack the messenger and give no quarter, even if they're young children.

A 14 year old is no professional and has no place on world stage spouting fear with out a wisp of knowledge of the subject.

The tool deserve any and all criticism as she put herself out there in public space.

Guess you a fool also for buying into her space.

If they get bored and stop listening, they'll get confused, won't they? I think they often get bored because they can't follow along, it's incredibly boring to have someone drone on using statistics and measurements you don't grasp and won't remember on a subject you also don't grasp.

I agree, but so far, measurements have consistently been outpacing the estimates, almost never the reverse.

What they tend to do is come from that incomplete data and incomplete analysis to model the absolute best case scenario to dictate policy, not the worst. That's absolutely what the U.N. report does, and it's not clear to most how much is left out, like infinitely better melting models (the measured melting in Greenland is already at the rate not predicted to be reached until 2075 in the UN's published estimations) and feedback loops we already see in action like melting methalhydrates and permafrost, both outgassing massive amounts of methane. Sane policy makers DO assume the absolute worst modeled outcome, then suggests policies to avoid it, at all cost when that worst case is extinction. Since measurements are consistently as bad or worse than the worst case scenario modeled, the only rational thing to do is assume that will continue and plan for the worst....you know, like they taught in preschool, hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Your house burning down is an unlikely worst case scenario, but I bet you have smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and support the fire department. Good planning is to assume you WILL have a fire and plan to minimize the damage.
Or, terrorist attacks. The likelihood you'll be killed in a terrorist attack is exceptionally low, but we spend untold billions and sacrifice liberties to combat a worst case but unlikely scenario.

Prudence is the better part of valor.

Edit: as to most problems society faces, I suggest they are likely ALL a function of overpopulation....no question imo when it comes to the apocalyptic problems. Pollution, resource mismanagement, ecological destruction, etc. None would be disastrous with 1/10 the population.

I'm just saying I like being clear/careful to distinguish between emotional, moral and factual argumentation.

If the subject were instead vaccinations, you could as easily have a child pitching an anti-vax message and pleading with the world to listen to the 'facts' that they present. It might make people more willing to listen, but it should NOT change our assessment of the accuracy of the facts.

Supplanting argument from emotion, authority and various other subjective/flawed approaches is THE defining advantage of the scientific method. Blurring that line is damaging, regardless of the intentions or goals.

Honest question. What is the distinction between trans-gender and trans-race?

At least in Canada we are rapidly building into law not merely protections for gender identity, but legal requirements for others to also recognize/embrace people's chosen gender identities(forgive me, I know at least in Canada choice is the wrong word but I'm mentally lapsing on a better one).

Yet, trans-race is still dealt with as a joke, with the trans-race individuals an acceptable target of ridicule.

My own opinions don't sit as far out on the left, but watching those that are content with both declaring trans-gender identity an inalienable fundamental right to the extent that MtF athletes must be allowed no matter how clearly their 'choice' was biased by getting to be #1 in their sport., but then ridiculing anyone claiming trans-race is hard for me to reconcile.

Anybody else able to provide a rational difference between the two? It looks to me like an entirely subjective I agree with one but not the other thought process, but maybe that's just my ignorance?

Wanted to like this as i love the subject matter, but his hyper personality/speaking and constant attempts at being funny is more than i can take. Feelsbad