As usual, Bobby gets it 100% backwards and grammatically incorrect.

Republican policies always require a Democratic solution.

Supermarkets aren’t closing due to high crime, they largely never existed in these neighborhoods. More idiotic lies by the moronic pathological liar.
Whole foods? In a low income neighborhood? Who could have predicted that would fail? Only anyone with an IQ over 17…so not bob or the people who tell him what to think.

Edit: The hilarious irony with your position, bob, is that “defund the police” (admittedly a terrible name) had the goal of deTASKING police away from mental health calls (and other minor civil issues) that police tend to escalate into serious problems, charges and/or injuries or death requiring massive responses and burning resources when a mental health professional could usually de escalate the situation and get the patient proper medical care without incarceration or worse. It would allow police to focus on crimes like shoplifting, crimes you claim closed these never-existed supermarkets in low income area food deserts.
Side note, so you know, police funding hasn’t actually been cut. It’s still going up in almost every department in every state.

Who last balanced the budget, Bobby? Does your cult addled brain remember…or do you insanely think the answer is Trump? Likely the latter, despite him adding more to the debt and deficit than any two term president, and don’t ignore that he injured the state of the union more than any issue or person in history….and is a rapist.

Jane you ignorant slut…..MY tangent straw men!?! Lol!!! You mean like how many ultrasound techs I’ve known!? Or what my personal hands on experience is….as if one can only have an opinion on abortion or knowledge of the stages of development if they are ultrasound techs. Aaaaaahahahaha. That must be good meth.
Ok, here….again…. Illiterate Fool: you aren’t so blatantly hypocritical that you are both anti choice and anti mandatory vaccination, are you?

No one said it makes one a doctor besides you. Another paper tiger you set up for yourself. It’s not clever, you aren’t “winning”, you need your Ritalin.

My degree is general science, so I’m actually qualified to answer general science questions like this one. What’s your degree in again?

Bob, if you won’t or can’t read, there’s no point repeating myself again….Your question, replete with grammatical errors, was answered multiple times above. Reading comprehension is obviously not a strong suit for you.

In short, my hands on knowledge is decades of science education well beyond biology, necessarily including basic medical education (like topics like this), a continuing curiosity about how things work that keeps me up to date on most mainstream science including medical breakthroughs and quackery like your arguments, and ties to the Stanford medical community because my mother edited all their publications for decades, forwarding me the most interesting advancements they made, often before they were published.

Now, again I ask…what’s your personal experience on this topic? I’m absolutely certain it’s less, there’s no way an 8th grade dropout works in medicine. You have no experience and no education, no understanding, no knowledge at all, just what bubba dun told you down to da boars nest.

It’s what there is at 6 weeks. The whole thing is less than a newt in the egg, no limbs, 1/2 the size of a pea….the heart isn’t formed at all. Get someone to read for you, watch a film, this isn’t hard info to find if you remove your head from your anus. Look at real medical sites, not anti abortion propaganda sites, they lie, exaggerate, and obfuscate.

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?

Do you really think he could read out a long and complicated string of letters and numbers without multiple mistakes? He can't even read or write a simple, grammatically correct sentence.

I still spell "weird" wrong all the time because of that i before e bullshit.

Still, I'm glad English is my first language. Really I am truly sorry for anybody that has to pick it up second. Maybe it's not the worst (no/little grammatical gender!) but the hodgepodge of different spellings and pronunciations is awful.

Nothing is ever simple. I'm just not properly explaining what I was saying -- Jon Stewart went off and did his public speaking, crowd organizing thing with this belief in something that he couldn't quite define. He lost his mojo, in a way, saw that he was naked, bereft of his staff. Any talking/figure head with a staff of writers or information feeders can be comparable to other leaders of a similar make up. Trump and Stewart are reality tv stars of a similar make up.

Dag suggested that the writers of the Daily Show are what created Jon Stewart as we know hom, and so I ran with the idea that he, like the figurehead and reality star, Donald Trump, are products of other people's opinions -- this, when left to their own devices, while successful entertainers, they realize the emperor's clothes are transparent and now they have to rely on their own smaller slice of knowledge. Not that Stewart is dumb, but Stewart without writers and correspondents, is a similar archetype to Trump. Stewart's writers and correspondents, including the man whose show he is on in this clip, are akin to the media that Donald Trump treats like his writing staff. But instead of leaving the Daily Show, Trump is leaving *most* of the media, revealing he is not as knowledgeable without his sources.

Anyway, I was following the logic as laid down by dag's logic for why Jon isn't as funny or put together. I also know that good leaders put themselves in other people's shoes before giving advice to other leaders. Stewart MUST do this because he is a decent figurehead, but Trump doesn't -- that's why the media questions him on what biographies he is reading; leaders are supposed to put themselves into their rivals AND heros shoes as a matter of critical self analysis -- so, Stewart is speaking to the media almost as if he is also putting himself in Trump's shoes and speaking about how his own writing staff and correspondent's left him and succeeded.

Stewart has a 4 year contract with HBO. He will have the structure and writing teams he needs. Trump should utilize the media, including books and newspapers, and follow the subtext Jon laid out here.

Edited for spelling, grammatical errs and additional context. Done editing.

For some reason, I cannot fix my grammatical mistakes.

@SquidCap Yeah , yeah, yeah, blah, blah, fucking heard that spiel before with similar leading verbiage and script. OMG, 'designed to kill living things', please?! Any 'thing' can kill a living thing by design or otherwise combined with a little thing we humans being like to call will-power.

If it can blah if it can't blah, remove it from the public, blah....how about, that's fucking fascism, eh? Read a fucking book or, crawl please up out of your carefully constructed fairyland, which I'm sure is a comfortably wondrous place, and ask someone for the clue you don't have.

Representative government??? Please....Again, get a clue.

Having more guns will just. Just keep saying 'just'. Makes everything work out grammatically and get's your point right across doesn't it...AND, it JUST might match the one on your head....the point being...there, see it?? Sticking the fuck out. :0

These sorts of arguments heavily weigh on definitions. What do you mean when you say life? Natural selection may not explain the presence of the first 'blueprint molecule' (which would probably be much simpler than anything we'd recognise now as DNA) but it can and does explain the massive expansion of data contained within that molecule.

A good definition is that something is alive when it is embedded with genetic information, and you can only apply the idea of natural selection to living systems. Non-living systems follow the laws of physics, not natural selection.

Similarly, what do you mean when you say 'information'? Clearly you aren't using the word in the way most people do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

I think that definition covers the sense in which I am using it. The information in DNA is stored as a genetic code with language, grammatical syntax, meaning, vocabulary, error correction and many other features.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/

DNA is more sophisticated than any code we have ever developed, and that is understating the case. It has a language, grammatical syntax, error correction, vocabulary and meaning. If you read the article you will see that scientists were stunned to find a hidden code operating within the code. Even a superficial understanding of DNA is enough to see that it is not by any means "primitive" but actually it is advanced beyond our capability to understand it.

That isn't the argument though, that DNA is sophisticated, which it is. The argument is that the information in DNA is proof of design. What that design is intended to do is another question. You may look at certain features and say, here is a terrible design, simply because you don't understand the intentions of the designer. Only a super-intellect could have designed DNA, and I don't think that is going out on a limb by any means.

From your own source:

"Noun. 2. dribble - saliva spilling from the mouth,"

But then I wasn't trying to be grammatically correct in the first place. You could have been right and I would have still meant dribble. I will always mean dribble.

And this is why I hate comment sections. Look what it does to people. Terrible. Truly. I'm done dribbling my dribble/drool/drivel/verbal diarrhea here.

Was with him until futured/futureless. It's one thing where the word for something doesn't exist and it alters behavior, but where it's merely a difference of grammatical structure I'm skeptical. Even if phrasing is different, a distinction is still clearly being made.

I don't know how rigorous the relationship is but I would think a great deal of cultural factors are in play beyond religion and simple socio-economics like income. The origins of the language and the cultural factors associated with that might be a good explanation for the grouping.

Yeah. It should be: "Car goes slow. Train goes fast."

That would make this title grammatically correct.

The guy's from Poland. He has a good excuse for grammatical errors. What's yours?