Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "The Rubin Report" channel.

  1. Dave ... you've just found the solution. We just need to get all the creationists and climate science deniers to watch "Contact" stoned. ... that would roughly half the number of problems the world faces.
    8
  2. Sebastian Lundh I must admit, - I've never had any use for Ayn Rand. Neither as an atheist, nor as a classical liberalist.
    8
  3. +Henrik Thorsen Yeah...
    7
  4. ... yeah ... Listeners would be advised to apply several grains of salt to many of the things he said.
    7
  5. ... and I have yet to hear a single scientist warn that (quote) "the world is gonna explode in a ball of fire" Are you sure you are trying to have an honest conversation?
    7
  6. Yeah... that basically seems like what's he's saying. We don't need to agree about atmospheric physics... we can just go each our way and pick our own preferred CO2 concentration and sea levels. Yeah... that'll work.
    7
  7. Bambi .On Toast "I think he's lost the open mindedness that his show was supposed to be about, instead only having an open mind for right wing/libertarian ideas." Nah... I would say that's the diagnose. Rather the open mindedness has turned into naively throwing softballs at way to many right wing ideologues. I'm a libertarian my self, but I cringe when I heard the nonsense many of these guy spout. I do agree though that he has failed the goal of exploring  the real liberal ideas and how to unite the real "liberals" (as it was originally meant)  who reject both the right wing hypocrisy of the republican party  and the regressive/SJW madness of the left.
    7
  8. "worried about gaya revenge" ... sigh ... or ... they have just looked at the physics and concluded that there's a cause and effect: If we keep emit CO2 at this pace, we'll make the planet largely uninhabitable.
    7
  9. ... or maybe the people skeptical of Trump just don't like being lied to.
    7
  10. blurglide ... yeah... it's much better to have moral being black and white and having a holy book to tell you which is which ... and a group of religious people to tell you have to interpret it, if you try to be too clever.  
    7
  11. ninisgreekronaldo No ... because spending 1 hour of your life listening to a guy you already know will fill you with BS if he find it useful is only something you do so many times ... I had enough after Crowder... Actually - in general, people being science deniers is a pretty good litmus test to know whether they are worth spending time on. ... I would equally not spend much time waiting for Ray Comfort to provide me with much wisdom about life. ... listening to him would only be for entertainment. ... and I don't find it funny anymore.
    6
  12. Luis Dias Except... Anita Sarkeesian is a con-artist. Michael Mann does science... and the overwhelming majority of the relevant scientific community agrees with him. With the same logic you could argue that Richard Dawkins was just like Anita Sarkeesian because he refuses to debate creationists. Science is not democracy. Not all scientific claims deserve the same respect. If you want respect for your scientific claim, go do the research and publish it in the scientific literature. Don't sit in a chair complaining that you have been the victim of SJW and blame everybody for being Anita.
    6
  13. Andy Brice ... to lately: "It's a hoax created by the Chinese".
    6
  14. The Rubin Report have had a stated goal of being (quote) "a forum dedicated to applying reason to the big questions of the day." Lawrence Krauss brings us a much needed bit closer to that goal ...
    6
  15. ... which is what "separation of church and state" means.
    6
  16. Hmm... Utopianism leads to the piling up of corpses. There's probably some truth to that... So ... isn't the idea of "Gods eternal kingdom" (or any version of "the afterlife") utopianism?
    6
  17. Personally - as a libertarian - I've been chocked about how many who call them selves libertarians who have completely misunderstod the ideology by thinking it makes sense to deny the science of climate change in order not to have to find a solution to the problem within the ideological basis.
    5
  18. ninisgreekronaldo " Peter Mogensen well then you must learn to listen carefully and distinguish between points that you agree/disagree with" ... and it seems you need to learn to listen carefully and take note of the arguments presented to you. Did you completely miss that there's not an infinite amount of time available? At some point you are going to have to decide what you are going to spend time on and what you are NOT going to spend time on. ... or specifically - which Youtube videos to spend time listening to and which NOT to. Everybody does this ... I'm pretty sure most of the Rubin Reports viewers are not spending too much time on TYT anymore. - They have (understandably) moved on to people who they think have a higher chance of not filling them with nonsense. So ... I've actually made good use of my time. Instead of listening to this guy who I ALREADY KNOW have a problem handling objectiveness and reason, I've spend my time listening to an interesting talk about the GNU debugger GDB. ... who knows... Maybe Dave Rubin will prove me wrong... Maybe the show hasn't de-generated into a parade of right-wing science deniers just because they are also happen to be annoyed by SJWs ....  otherwise I can easily find more content which is better use of my time.
    5
  19. Growing babies artificially is a terrible idea. No... the rules have not changed. There are several studies showing that the baby's contact to the mother before and after birth is very important.
    5
  20. +Bauks You obviously didn't care to listen to what she actually said.
    5
  21. I had to look up the definition of "Constitutional conservatism" ... since to me that sounds mostly like an oxymoron. Many of the founders were classical liberals in direct conflict with "conservatism" ... just read Thomas Paines ridicule of Edmund Burke. Also ... I don't see how Ted Cruz is honest about small government. As soon as he can see it benefit his religion he's all for controlling the individual life of others. To me he seems more like a Theocrat. When I read the definition of "Constitutional conservatism" I find statements like: * "freedom of religion is paramount to the Constitutional Conservative" * "atheism also being a religion as it requires beliefs which must be taken on faith" I call Bullshit. That's a typical cop-out for religious people when trying to impose their religion on others and circumvent secularism: To deliberately misunderstand what "atheism" actually is and call it "a religion". Complete nonsense... How anyone with intellectual honesty can can claim to be "Constitutional conservative" escapes me.
    5
  22. Dave... there's an answer to the tax question: Georgism.
    5
  23. Yeah ... the "modern left" (if that's what we should call them) has rejected reason. - but so has the "modern right".
    5
  24. I seriously doubt Cenk is capable of that by now. He goes into fantasy land every time he seems something he can smear Harris and Maher with. ... I suppose the same is true for Dave.
    5
  25. Ben M Have you considered that I have heard and understood all Dave Rubins explanations of why he does like he does. ... and I just respectfully disagree and think he is utterly naive. I'm not at all convinced by his arguments.
    5
  26. This guy doesn't understand Atheists.. - or rather science. Science does exactly what he speaks of wrt. "Wonder" ... only difference: Science is not afraid to say "I don't know" about stuff it hasn't yet figured out. Science doesn't pull explanations out of thin air.
    5
  27. Nobody claimed Science was a democracy. Science doesn't advance by consensus, but unless you're an expert in the field doing your own research you'd damn well better listen to the consensus. JUST AS when you go to the hospital medical science doesn't advance by a group of doctors having a consensus opinion on your diagnose and treatment - but you'd damn well better listen to them. More specifically: The 97% didn't reach their opinion by voting.
    5
  28. No, I don't think so. I'm perfectly capable of rejecting islamic totalitarian nonsense without believing in a different imaginary friend.
    5
  29. But in the process you seem to forget that liberalism and conservatism is fundamentally different. You have been saying that "old school liberals" and "old school conservatives" should realize that they are not opposed. Well... they are Dave. And I would say it's a misunderstanding of classical liberalism if you don't see the differences to conservatism. - at least some forms of conservatism. Especially the authoritarian and regressive kinds.
    5
  30. +matt sinco "On climate change, check out the 31,000 scientists who signed a petition asking for a chance to argue that the current "consensus" is flawed. " How can I take you seriously when you spout such uninformed nonsense. Go look into the story behind the "Oregon petition". I have must admit, I have little patience for such fact-free arguments. It speaks volumes about your ideological bias.
    5
  31. +matt sinco You are approaching relativism here. The fact-free aspect of the Trump administration is orders of magnitude larger than anything you have seen in otherwise enlightened western democracies. It resembles what you find in 1984-like authoritarian regimes. Here's just a recent example: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language-censorship-emails
    5
  32. Cheese in Denmark? I think we would have more important issues to report about. ... The cheese is fine, thanks... as always.
    5
  33. "he people who constantly go on about Trump playing 4-D chess and whatever are just borderline cultists who will support anything as long as it "triggers" liberals." Yeah... it certainly seems so. I'm not a "liberal" in the US sense. I'm not even a US citizens. I'm "liberal" in the European sense, but I care about facts. If Scott Adams did too, he would not just sit there and faint at the thought of the "genius" in the White House and brag about his ability to know how he operates. Then he would use his alleged "skills" to help actually decent people caring about facts to persuade those who were still blinded by Trump lies. If he really thinks that facts matters for outcome he should not just sit there drooling while the most fact free president in history ensures horrible outcomes.
    5
  34. "Science denial. Yes, because science is all about static dogma." Great ... then let's continue having the "debate" about homeopathy then.
    5
  35. Well ... Frum is more right about most things than almost anyone else associated with the republican party.
    5
  36. Most classical liberals who haven't drunk the anarcho-capitalistic cool-aid of the mainstream libertarian movement are realistic :)
    5
  37. Why do originality matter wrt. politics? If the policy is the right one, why would it matter if it was one persons "original" work?
    5
  38. No... this channel is about (quote) "applying reason to the big questions of the day" ... and unless you are a science denier, that involves science.
    5
  39. Wrt. the ending... If we can't figure out how to stop destroying the Earth climate, then what makes us think we can terraform Mars or Venus to be a replacement?
    5
  40. > Topphat18 It works perfectly well in Denmark. We have a healthcare tax and doctors in hospitals are employed by the public. The local doctor you go to first are independent private companies under contract with the government. ... and all he myths we are hearing from the political campaign about single payer systems are simply not true. If you are sick - you get treated ASAP by very professional staff. It's beyond me why Americans want to punish them selves on the specific area.
    4
  41. ***** "Why don't you actually listen to what Klavan, Crowder and Cruz have to say on Climate change." I've sat through hours of video with Crowder, Listened to the entire Cruz Senate hearing about climate change. ... and dozens other science denying fools. And I've equally spend time to hear what Klavan had to say about the subject. So ... at what point can I say I've heard enough? ... never? ... I suppose you listen to every TYT show just to be able to say you have listened and "agree to disagree" ? ... rigth? And yes... Steven Crowder is a climate science denier... fair and square. I can say that because I HAVE ALREADY listened to hours of nonsense from him on the subject.
    4
  42. James Ch ?!?!? ... First of all. Nothing in my post can be constructed as a claim that "the left" never denies science. Secondly ... You don't have a clue about my political standpoint, so how can you construct criticism of a conservative as some kind of defense for "the left".  ??? Thirdly ... the left being idiots and denying science (like say, the green party having had homeopathy in its program) is IN NO WAY an excuse for other to also deny science. I have a hunch you are just getting defensive and throwing out a "you too" knee jerk reaction.
    4
  43. Lewa500 ... you can "bother" other people if you are a spineless apologist for things which should be criticized. So "not bothering" those you should "bother" can actually bother someone else.
    4
  44. Non sequitur. You can easily get "enemies" (as in harsh critique) as a result of never actually standing up for anything - even if you claim you do.
    4
  45. The Epikoros I didn't advocate that Malthus was right. I argued that his critiques lacked imagination when dismissing the basic principle that the world is finite. And it is finite. It has nothing to do with ideology. It is neither a libertarian view or a non-libertarian view. It's physics. In the end it's a simple fact that the world only receives a certain amount of energy from the Sun. (from which most renewables ultimately generate their energy). We have learned that we cannot indiscriminately burn the saved up Sun energy from geological time. (we hit the limit there too). There's also a limited amount of Nuclear energy available in the end. And there won't get any more land - actually the opposite seems to be true. Fusion energy might be able to effectively push the limit so high that it doesn't matter in practice, but it's a race against time to invent that technology... and right now we're loosing it.  
    4
  46. Hmm... Bill Nye has done a really important work to address a really important problem by giving people access to actual facts- maybe the biggest problem humanity. And I have a really hard time believing he actually meant what Gad Saad accuses him of. He has said that climate change was a factor in the Syrian drought... but the "solar panels" stuff ... ??? ... Is there a reference, or is Gad Saad not being honest? I know the problem Gad Saad tries to address is important - but so is the one Bill Nye addresses. Please don't misrepresent opinions.
    4
  47. Luis Dias You are not getting it ... not only did they know about the concept, but their internal research were practically arrived at the same conclusions that IPCC would first publish in the nineties. ... and which is btw. basically the same overall conclusion as we have today. This is not just knowing of the topic... they had results and conclusions like we do today. Please... before throwing anymore swearwords and accusations against me... read up on the topic.  
    4
  48. Luis Dias Well... let me enlighten you with some facts then: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
    4
  49. Luis Dias "What, is Exxon stopping their shareholders from reading IPCC reports?" Exxon knew about this as early as 1979 ... when exactly was the first IPCC report released? ... and when did Exxon start funding  misinformation about climate science? Do you also think the Tobacco RICO case was baseless?
    4
  50. Jack Allen ... well... some times it's a good thing to be able to name those who you are thinking of. - like it's possible with terms like "creationist". It's not a choice between having a name and having a good fair and honest dialogue. I would be glad to have a short word for "Those who reject the scientific consensus position on anthropogenic global warming without evidence to back their claims" ... (like we do wrt. evolution and "creationists") ... But if you think you do not fall in that group and actually do have good evidence to back your position, then I would happily have a fair and honest conversation. ... but FYI - I don't think what Alex did was that - fair and honest.
    4