Just, the audacity. fuck.

let me be as clear and direct as I can be: I have no interest in the personal sexual lives or private decisions of people i'm not married to.

@bobknight33 Do you want the United States of America to make decisions about what gender an individual can be or has to be?

Let us say that a human being has XX Male Syndrome https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/46xx-testicular-difference-of-sex-development/ where the person would present as male although have XX chromosomes, have a penis and testicals that are non functional sexually, and will NOT grow facial hair but WILL grow breasts.

Which bathroom should the person use? You want to answer don't you? See? that's the difference between you and me. I don't fucking care where this person takes a shit just as long as it's not on my front porch.


YOU, meanwhile, for someone tossing around accusations of "groomer" (grooming is defined how again? ohhh right you do things so that the child does what YOU want kind of like training a dog i imagine)
YOU seem to have a lot to say about what they do and dont do sexually. What they do or don't do with their genitals. What in the fuck kind of person spends their time dictating what children can do with their genitals or not and wants to tell them where to shit and what drinking fountain to use "HEYYY that's a water fountain for non-queers only!"


What
the
fuck

is your problem?


HOW in your mind can YOU be the one strongly opinionated on what these kids do or dont do and you go out of your way to advocate for that and support politicians who think alike

How can THAT be,, AND you are accusing the people who are disinterested in the insanely personal and private decisions of gender and sexuality, the people who don't care about that stuff and want to leave it to the individuals, but you

YOUUUU want to tell them what bathroom to use and which sports teams they cna play on and which hospitals they can get care at and if they can receive care as a person who is transgendered YOU (the one wanting to make decisions about kids genitals via your elected officials, YOU) YOU are calling someone else a groomer.


FUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUU


You groom animals because you want X behavior to happen, and you don't want Y behavior to happen.


YOU, are doing the thing, where you're doing stuff... that leads to the modification of behavior. Do you understand that?

I don't think they could have found a bunch of more disinterested extras to participate in that video lol...

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?

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?

Ding ding ding.
Give that man a cigar.

I say it's even worse...we each have multiple, varying definitions of words like those that change (in our minds) based on context, but there's no way to transmit to the listener which of those variations are intended with any consistency unless you spell out exactly what you mean every time.

That gets tedious.

That said, I was thinking along the lines that you can't do opposites at the same time, you can't be in the light and dark (literally) together, but you can love and hate the same person at the same moment, but you can't love or hate someone you have complete disinterest in. Love and hate, in that sense, are two sides of the "emotionally invested" coin.

Hate is a form of love. You have to care about someone to hate them.
One opposite of love is the same as the opposite of hate, disinterest.
-discuss

No, making the argument that one is not as bad as the other isn't the same as making excuses. It's exactly what he said, they're both unacceptable, and he's trying to define the spectrum.

I have a touch more time, so let me go back to your first example.
Yes, if some dude broke my leg, yes I would appreciate that they didn't murder me.

Obviously, I don't want either thing to happen, but justice is about assigning degrees of a spectrum to an infinite number of variables of what is decidedly wrong. Please admit, it's at least imprecise to have a one-size-fits-all justice system.

I won't repeat the examples already given that should have laid bare the problems equating what should be corrected gingerly vs using a heavy hand, but I want to reiterate that they ring true for me.

NSFW warning:

I've had bad dates where I've been made to feel awkward. Believe it or not, I've been in a sexual encounter where I've been forced to hmmm... finish... inside a girl when I didn't want to. We had been together a short time and she was ENAMORED with me, and I felt 'meh' about her. (don't put your dick in crazy)

Long story short, I'm strict about using birth control so I'm not making kids when I don't want to. Although, in the heat of the moment, I'm not above a tried and true pulling out for lack of a better option. This had been the plan going into the sexual encounter, but when I let out a warning about a climax, instead of helping me push her off, she pushed her hands against my shoulders and clamped her thighs onto me. I objected "wait!!! no!!!" but not being a fucking Buddhist monk with complete control over every muscle in my body, well, you can imagine where it went from there.


Shortly thereafter, she started asking me what I thought about this or that baby name and it became clearer what she was really after. (yes really)

I waited for confirmation that she wasn't pregnant and we broke up immediately after, because of that and a general disinterest that I had towards her as a person.

That was when I was ehh? 19? idk, somewhere around there. More than 10 years ago at least.

But I digress, did what she did feel a little 'rape-y' to me? I said no, It was something we talked about beforehand, setting up parameters, etc. but it ended up just being a bad experience. Because of that bad experience I never really talked to her again. She does some kind of work in 3d printing now last I checked.

I don't think it's crazy to not want her to lose her job, and not want to file criminal charges against her, --- and this is key --- because even though something happened that was non consensual, I don't consider what happened rape, and I would NEVER equate what happened to me to what happened to all of Weinstein's victims because they fall on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Neither one was okay, and one is worse than the other.

I almost skipped watching this one after having seen the previous trailers/teasers, which had no indication of any real plot. This one actually provides some decent story details which make it look like it might have some potential.

OK, I've gone from "actively disinterested" to "will check reviews when it comes out".

This one certainly rings very true to me.

Who else spent their late teens and early twenties trying to maintain a cool disinterested facade before eventually realising that it was unbearably lonely because anybody who tried to get close to you invariably slipped into a coma? o/

Would he say the same thing on a busy street to a man waking by with no interest in him?

If the answer is 'YES' then a) I can't believe he's not hoarse given the number of people one passes in a given day in NYC and b)it's not an example of gender-specific inappropriateness... but c) it's still anti-social because the body language (which men read all the time) clearly indicates a lack of interest in being stopped. These are the streets of a subdivision or Iowa City down town (don't get me wrong, I love Iowa City). Most people in New York to not greet random strangers in the street.

The exception to this is people whose jobs require approaching strangers - you know beggars, street vendors, promoters, and those guys who solicit for charity. Please notice that no one who might fall into those categories were included in the video, despite the fact that in NYC she definitely walked past all 3.

If the answer is 'NO' (IE he didn't 'greet' the disinterested camera man who walked by first but did 'greet' the disinterested woman) then the comment is both anti-social AND gender targeted. He's targeting a woman he doesn't know, when every ounce of her body language is saying that she doesn't want to be bothered. That's not friendly, that's more likely a attempt (conscious or subconscious) to exercise power over the woman walking by.

Pakistan, yes. I think we have at least a small force there. Not at all sure about the others, but likely we've got some there.
Those are not the only places we've droned, not even the places we've droned the most. Try Afghanistan and Iraq. You just hear about it more when we do it in places we aren't technically 'at war' with.

It makes little difference what the delivery system of the explosive is, that's why I always wondered what the big deal is about suicide bombers. They're just another delivery system, a low tech, radar cloaked delivery system. It's the bombing/indiscriminate killing that matters. Right? Not the delivery system.

Drones have their proper uses, and improper uses. Bombing someone you can see is setting up a booby trap to kill you or allies is appropriate. Bombing people based on their height is an improper use. This has little to do with the drone, and more to do with the leadership and their 'rules' for who's a target. For me, it's not about 'drone vs manned aircraft' though, it's 'giant bomb vs precision assassination'.

Do you think Obama is watching a little screen deciding 'bomb that guy, and that building'? He is not involved at that level, and you know it. I don't trust a disinterested tech thousands of miles removed from their actions to do the right thing, they've proven they can't be trusted, and they're the one's that matter in this instance. That said, if there were much better rules for engagement and they were draconically enforced, I would have little problem with keeping expensive planes and pilots out of danger.

My daughter has been leading on her robotics team; in the particular format they're in, there's a huge number of things on which they're judged, not just how the robot works in competition. Most of the rest of the team has been disinterested in anything but tinkering with the robot, but due to a lot of hard work and yes, leadership from my daughter, they won state and are going to regionals. However, there's been a lot of sexism on the team (and from mentors)--nothing too overt, but it's there. Basically, the boys on the team would all be happy to have my daughter on the team so long as she was quiet and just kind of let them look at her, but since she's trying (successfully) to improve the team's performance, she's "bossy" and has been told she needs to work on her tone.

I've been present for a lot of the team working time, and I'm 100% fucking sure that if she were a boy, everyone would be talking about what a great leader she was.

Fact of the matter is that people do respond differently to the exact same input delivered by people of different genders, and we should work to change that. It's not about the specific word "bossy", it's about the different standards of what's allowable based on gender. The fact that you guys are fixated on the one specific word suggests to me that you completely missed the point in a rush to defend the rights of the poor, oppressed guys who are obviously being victimized by another "word ban".

If that is all true (and I read through much of the linked study and made little sense of it since I'm not a nutritionist and only took one semester of advanced molecular biology, it was particularly technical and hard to follow), then golden rice seems to be the exception.
As I read it, 55-70% the RDA was the maximum vitamin A that could be expected, with the range being quite large. (oddly they cite a 200 gram rice dose given in the study has 1.3mg b-carotene/3.8 to get .34mg retinol, then a 100 gram dose is estimated to provide 55-70% EAR , then they say a 50 gram dose, a more reasonable amount for children to eat, would provide the same amount as the 100 gram dose did?) Even if it can supply 1/2 the daily allowance of vitamin A (which I'm not sure it can from the study you cite), that still does not make it 'safe' to release into the 'wild', or 'better' than natural, easy to grow alternatives as unknown long term side effects have not been studied. It may be better than doing nothing, or even better than natural alternatives, but without long term studies we simply can't know. That's my main point.
$10K a year is not much for a farm to make, most small farms make far more than that, but also need to spend all they make to keep going. That limit seems to say they DO intend to charge most farmers for this seed eventually. If that's $10K a year profit, I'm OK with that.
I would say we should hold up potentially life saving technology until we know the unintended side effects, we should not experiment on the needy (or the public in general) and claim it's in their best interest. We certainly should not do it in secret, as in non-labeled gmo's.
Monsanto is not the only bio-tech company that acts like this, just the most public. Most GMO creating bio-techs are pitbulls about protecting their 'intellectual property', even when it floats onto someone's property without their knowledge.
I stand corrected, she did say that. I missed it. I do not claim they don't have higher yields, I think that's their whole point and I think they do a decent job of producing more. I just don't see that higher yields are worth the possible long term damage and I think more, longer term, double blind studies need to be done by disinterested parties. Long term side effects can take a long time to show up, and with something this new to the food source, it deserves careful consideration, not profit driven usage.
Again, 'golden rice' is an exception if you are correct. My limited experience is with Monsanto corn and soy, which seem to be in a different category. Most GMOs are not made with variety, and ARE made to have a clear adaptive advantage, so I made an assumption that 'golden rice' would be the same. My bad. Even with that though, the genes WILL end up mixing with some other non-gmo rice, making it difficult or impossible to ensure your crop is not gmo of that's what you want. They may not dominate, but if they end up causing cancer in 10 years, and by then 99% of rice is 'contaminated', then what? I just think safety (edit: I meant to say forethought) is the better part of valor, and better that a few go without today than open the possibility of all going without tomorrow when patience and thoughtful examination can prove safety. Of course, I'm not going blind of vitamin A deficiency or starving from lack of corn...so perhaps my opinion doesn't matter.
To a few of your other points, if gmo's are safe, prove it (Monsanto and the like) and do it incontrovertibly and publicly, then we'll all want them. If the argument is that 'stupid hippies have convinced everyone they're bad, so we have to sell them in secret', that argument doesn't hold water in my mind. Monsanto could certainly afford a public service campaign if the science was in, but the LONG term studies aren't done yet.
Teaching someone to grow peppers or other vegi's seems easier than modifying a crop and spreading the seeds, it takes about 5 minutes and adds variety. I think that's better than treating them as un-teachable and experimenting on them.
...and I agree with the scientists in sciencemag, destroying the test fields isn't helpful and answers nothing.

Dude-Speed Racer was a sensory-overload mind-fuck of a recent forgotten film with a sheit script and disinterested actors who seemed stultified from making an entire film in front of a green screen.
Craptacular is how I'd describe it.

Ahh, but you ignore the idea that the "stricter" gun control most likely to pass does not make more rules, it simply requires that the existing rules be effective EVERYWHERE.
To reuse the auto analogy, the no background check at gun shows is like saying you don't need a license to drive if you start your drive on toll roads because they are "private" roads. This loophole exists no where because it's ridiculous, dangerous, and impossible to enforce.

To your second point, freedom would only be a good teacher if every crime committed was successfully prosecuted. Because most crimes go unsolved, freedom becomes a disinterested substitute teacher showing a 1960's film strip.