Looks like a shift change. You guys should really try to stick to the character profile for @bobknight33. 🍎 🍌

Congratulations! Your comment on schmawy (Member Profile) has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Moved this to profile pages, better late than never.

I'll try to be brief....and fail miserably I expect.
I accept the fact that some theories I hold will be wrong, and cause failure. At least theories can be tested and discarded when proven false. Yes, some are so engrained it would take TNT to dislodge them, but they aren't unchangeable, beliefs are immutable.

No morality in that claim. Moral excuses might be 1) I minimize any suffering by buying mostly family farmed meats and 2) those lives only exist for human pleasure and substance. If no one ate cows and pigs, they would be extinct nuisance animals. (And chickens rare) If the animal has a nice, pain and stress free life, but in trade that life ends early, as long as the end is humane I'm not bothered. That's life it otherwise wouldn't enjoy at all.
Factory farms don't meet those requirements.
They're tasty is why I eat meat. It might be snide, but it's honest. Yes, I'm obstinate, I like meat, I'm not claiming it the most moral, ethical, ecological, or empathetic thing to do, but if done thoughtfully it's not the worst either.

My meaning with "it's not the worst t thing people do" was to reply to " I believe (assuming humans survive) humans will look upon this time of killing billions of animals for nothing but human pleasure with disgusting disgrace." with a few other examples of things worse that we will be judged for, not to distract or excuse. I'm not sure how that's a logical falicy. Tens of Billions of animals are killed horrifically for pure greed and not even used as food, that's a disgusting disgrace I could denounce.

I read the WHO study he was referencing and it said no such thing, I told him, showed him, he kept repeating the bullshit lies. I'm not receptive to people who blatantly misrepresent science. I don't rely on any industry produced studies for any decisions, that would be dumb. The study said certain highly processed and preserved red meats had some carcinogens, not any meat at any level is equivalent to two packs a day. My degree is general science, I can read a study.

Oh shit, nutritionfacts.org is Dr Gregor, the one who outright lies about scientific studies, and the one who made the false equivalency between tiny amounts of meat and constant chain smoking, he also loved to misuse "plant based" to mean vegan and claim the studies on plant based (not plant exclusive) diets proved vegan benefits when they really proved a mixed diets benefits. I've been deep down his rabbit hole, and found him incredibly unscientific and dishonest. I don't trust him one bit, sorry.

I've only known a hand full, including the one who introduced me to Dr Gregor, my aunt, uncle, and cousins, and a few here in hippy central where I live. Not one was honest, they acted like it was religion and took statements as gospel with no investigation and were forceful in their insistence that everyone agree.

I once ate fish and thought it was fine. Three years of marine biology cured me of that, so my theories are changed by facts. I promised myself to never learn too much about chicken, pork, or beef because I don't want to know what's in them unless it's broken glass. That's a conscious decision. There is no hell hot enough to scare me away from good bacon. That said, I do care that they have a good life before being harvested.

I'm willing to change behavior and thinking. I previously thought the fda was good at protecting us, I decided I couldn't trust that.

I make some decisions based on MY morality, some on self interest, some on group/global interest, etc. I'm not willing to make any based on someone else's morality, especially if they're pushy.

I have no clue who visits, but this is where I come, so it's where I speak up.

I always make the mistake of thinking people will be logical.

Moving reply to @eoe 's profile page

On my profile page, right under my name is my channel with a "manage" button, hitting that brings me to my modify existing channel page, and bottom right is an "abandon" button. I think we only get one channel per user. Does that help?

Er mer gerd....wasn't that somewhere on my profile page? So long ago....
I think you might have to abandon any current channel you manage to create another...at least it looks that way. @lucky760 , does that spark a memory?

The gallery has been accused of providing a platform for fascist, neo-Nazi and Islamophobic speakers and individuals who promote white supremacy and eugenics.

In the summer, it held a “Neo-reaction conference” which included a talk by Brett Stevens, a white supremacist who has lauded the “bravery” of Anders Breivik - the Norwegian white supremacist who killed 77 people in 2011.

Mr Stevens' writing was said to be an inspiration to Breivik.

After the attack, Mr Stevens, who edits a far-right website called Amerika, wrote: “I am honoured to be so mentioned by someone who is clearly far braver than I, no comment on his methods, but he chose to act where many of us write, think and dream.”

Mr Stevens comments on his blog, Amerika, where he says the “neoreaction conference” was hosted behind a “veil of secrecy", confirming the secret agenda of the gallery because you can't have a beneficial discussion of these issues when the discussion is hidden from one side of the issue. Clearly then this isn't an effort to facilitate “a dialogue between two different and contrasting ideologies” when the event is hidden from all but one ideology, right?

The gallery has leaked the identity of artists who exposed its activities to the far-right neo-Nazi website, Amerika.

The gallery has also hosted, Peter Brimelow, a high profile American anti-immigrant activist. He has been described as the “new David Duke” – the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

Mr Brimelow founded website VDare, which the Southern Poverty Law Centre describe as “a nonprofit that warns against the polluting of America by non-whites, Catholics, and Spanish-speaking immigrants.”


Ms Diego, the owner, described the left as “more like a fascist organisation than the real fascists”“I’m not even sure if I disagree with the Muslim ban. I see it also as a temporary measure in order for America to get sorted while they transition to another form of government,” She said: “Our position has always been that the role of art is to provide a vehicle for the free exploration of ideas, even and perhaps especially where these are challenging, controversial or indeed distasteful for some individuals to contemplate." But her actions, holding far right racist events in secret exposes that statement as pure bullshit.

I can't speak to the student/Jordan Peterson thing without knowing all the facts or I might end up as wrong as the title and description of this video, which is pure lies btw.
I feel it's likely the video she played actually promoted hatred and violence directly, not just that it included one person who had a different political affiliation like you indicate, but I don't know.

After how you erroneously described this event/video, I'm not so sure I can trust your explanations. Sorry.

Again, all this info is in the links provided.

Lol. It was a good joke to those of us with a sense of humor about Trump's narcissism and his inability to accept he's not "a perfect human being" (his words).

I think he means Trumpsters.
For someone who claims he doesn't like Trump, you sure bend over backwards to defend his inability to walk down a not steep ramp. It's not clear you don't like him, it is clear you strongly prefer him to Biden, but why? Please give 3 specific juxtapositions/examples.

Trump isn't even the leader of his administration. He's incapable of leadership. He holds the position of leadership but without the ability.

Um...I'm pretty sure he was talking to Trump, or do you also talk yourself up unsuccessfully, doing nothing useful, just whining? Lol.

Edit:
Hmmm...looking at your profile a question comes up....are you just another Bobknight33 sock puppet? He started one every few weeks right when your account started, timing and political position line up perfectly, and like all the others you've never posted a video. Color me suspicious. Seems like every right winger that comments here started their account within weeks of each other and you all only comment except the main account, bobby, who does post videos. Hmmmm.

Why does Trump have a Paul Rudd mask on in that profile pic. That looks weird.

And, man, lol. Watching years of your dancing... it's like a ballet dedicated to spiraling into your own fears. You got staying power, I'll give you that.

@newtboy,
"Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out."

I'd argue bored maybe more often than confused. Although if we want to say that most of the problems society faces have their root causes in human nature, I think we can agree.

"I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise"

Here is where I see healthy skepticism distinguishing itself from covering eyes, ears and yelling not listening.

Our understanding of the global climate system is NOT sufficient to make that kind of high confidence claim about specific future outcomes. As you read past the head line and into the supporting papers you find that is the truth underneath. The final summary line you are citing sits atop multiple layers of assumptions and unspecified uncertainties that culminate in a very ephemeral 50% likelyhood disclaimer. It is stating that if all of the cumulative errors and unknowns all more or less don't matter. then we have models that suggest this liklyhood of an outcome...

This however sits atop the following challenges that scientists from different fields and specialities are focusing on improving.
1.Direct measurements of the global energy imbalance and corroboration with Ocean heat content. Currently, the uncertainties in our direct measurements are greater than the actual energy imbalance caused by the CO2 we've emitted. The CERES team measuring this has this plain as day in all their results.
2.Climate models can't get global energy to balance because the unknown or poorly modeled processes in them have a greater impact on the energy imbalance than human CO2. We literally hand tune the poorly known factors to just balance out the energy correctly, regardless of whether that models the given process better or not because the greater run of the model is worthless without a decent energy imbalance. This sits atop the unknowns regarding the actual measured imbalance to hope to simulate. 100% of the modelling teams that discuss their tuning processes again all agree on this.
3. Meta-analysis like you cited usually sit atop both the above, and attempt to rely on the models to get a given 2100 temperature profile, and then make their predictions off of that.

The theme here, is cumulative error and an underlying assumption of 'all other things being equal' for all the cumulative unknowns and errors. You can NOT just come in from all of that, present the absolute worst possible case scenario you can squeeze into and then declare that as the gold standard scientific results which must dictate policy...

Edit:that's very nearly the definition of cherry picking the results you want.

kind of random, but dude, is your profile picture carrying a body bag? you should hide that shit

Andy Ngo is a liar. Multiple times on different platforms he's spread outright lies. When he got fired for telling lies, he turned around and wrote an article titled, "Fired for Reporting the Truth".

As far as I can tell, he's never been entirely honest about anything he's presented in the media.

He is not a journalist. Journalists may be biased about the stories they choose to tell and the slant they put on those stories, but there must be some attempt at honesty, or it's just rabble rousing, and inciting to violence. He incites others to do violence upon Muslims regularly through his lies, so wouldn't it be poetic justice if he received some of his own back?

In any case, the guy's so dishonest it wouldn't surprise me at all if the attack was staged in an attempt to raise his profile in conservative circles. And if that turns out to be the case, are you going to apologize for spreading these lies, @bobknight33 ?

Somehow I doubt it. You have about as much honesty as Ngo does.

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?

Accidently posted in my own profile by quoting myself. Duh.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keep in mind that Spock was half human. Otherwise he would have just been cold AI. Only dead people are cold.

Somewhere, out there, are a group of kids in a garage learning and practicing to use the weapons they chose to fight with. They are honing their skills and putting every effort into being marksmen.

Their weapons of choice have been proven to be highly efficient and affective in a clandestine way. Not by design but by happenstance.

Their dream is to be the next big hit rock band.

What did you dream?
It's alright we told you what to dream -Pink Floyd

But to make it to the top their words and crafted notes must penetrate the heart where they will be stored and remembered when the time comes. The message:

Seems I'm not alone at being alone
A hundred billion castaways
Looking for a home -Sting

The people who are violated by those that hate are sent to a place that is very hard to reach. They only hope someone will hear them. Outside the wall.

You can hear them in music.

Isn't this where -Pink Floyd

This is where you come in. Don't forget your mighty pen. Your dream is at stake.

I mistakenly thought this was a website where adults over the age of 18 and at least that old mentally as well discuss videos. Imagine my disappointment when I clicked on the profiles of some of the comments to some of my favorite videos.