Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "Secular Talk" channel.

  1. Nobody needs that. The wealthy already have too much power.
    1
  2. baddoggie101 I assumed that the comment was self explanatory, but I forgot that youtube doesn't have a minimum IQ test before use. Christianity - I was talking about Christianity, and the eye-for-an-eye teachings of the old testament. God drowned the entire planet according to them - thus he killed his own kids, innocent included - thus he would be a psychopath. Would you like me to use smaller words?
    1
  3. The massive anchor around Justice Democrats is Cenk Uyger. He has too much baggage, he's too much of an asshole, his ego is a massive liability, and he's too unpredictable. He's the Kellyanne Conway of your movement.
    1
  4. Utterly, utterly repugnant. If I have 500 books in my home, they call me a hoarder with a mental problem. This man needs to fucking spend his money and make the world a better place. And for the record, every person on this planet has more than the largest economy is the world: America, because none of us are trillions in debt.
    1
  5. He can't take it with him, so the fact that he still has almost a trillion means he's not doing enough.
    1
  6. Yes, I do accept your point here Joel about continual investment, and this story is utterly misleading. He has given away 28 billion - 25% of the money he has (90 not 80 billion). This story is somewhat misleading in assuming that his net worth will increase 90% in 20 years.
    1
  7. Sorry Alex, but you're categorically wrong on this issue. Both the Hite Report and the Kinsey report demonstrated unequivocally that people's sexuality is defined along a spectrum of behaviour from totally homosexual/lesbian to totally heterosexual. They also showed that a significant number of people who are heterosexual, have had gay encounters and fantasies at least once in the lives. As a recent TYT piece pointed out, the number of lesbian encounters in college now is far beyond the proportion of lesbians in society, but now that the stigma and morality is going, women are more willing to experiment. Thus, it is ENTIRELY consistent that people could have same-sex thoughts and fantasies, without being gay.
    1
  8. I love you pointing out the contradiction of Fischer's science claim and the way he just talks about demons as though they're a scientific fact, but your case about the alien limb plays 100% into his argument. Nobody would suggest that someone with two arms has an arm too many. There is clearly a damaged psychological or physiological process at play, most likely with the body's self imaging "software".
    1
  9. The reason WHY he released this info matters. He didn't do it because he cared so much about the integrity of the US military - he did it tp get even because of the way he was treated. So yeah, he's a traitor. The fact that his actions coincidentally, had a positive effect is mere happenstance. Save your tears for Edward Snowden - a hero in the truest sense of the word.
    1
  10. The two are not mutually exclusive. The government (or military in this case) absolutely need to be held to account, but the fact that Manning's petty act of revenge coincidentally brought to light malfeasance should not diminish people's concern for his treachery.
    1
  11. If I kick somebody in front of water truck and the truck swerves to avoid my victim and fortunately puts out a burning building, I don't get credit for saving the building. 35 years is harsh yes. In the old days traitors were executed. Not saying that was right, but highlighting the contempt with which traitors are viewed. Frankly, you'd elicit more sympathy from me if you simply argued that Manning was mentally disturbed.
    1
  12. My fear is that Clinton and Trump will steal Sander's ideas as their own because Sanders is so unassertive.
    1
  13. +XxkanerulesxX ALL sane people want his ideas, the most important of which is to stop the wealthy dominating the poor.
    1
  14. What a foolish rant Kyle. This is not about banning all drugs, or even this drug for all people - simply for people under 21. EXACTLY as many states do with alcohol. And YOU complain about this lack of nuance.
    1
  15. It's not additional punishment. It's ensuring that the state is not punished any more than it has to be, by having to support them. At the moment, someone commits a murder, and YOU AND ME pay more for their crime than they do - to the tune of thousands of $ per week. How is THAT fair? Making them contribute to their incarceration seems EMINENTLY reasonable to me. Cruel and unusual? Are you serious?! Every one of us has to pay our way in life. It's not cruel and unusual, it's taking responsibility. Something that many criminals have never done. I think that this would be an excellent start.
    1
  16. ***** The statistics are measured  as a percentage, not just an absolute number.
    1
  17. ***** Well clearly that's not true. You only have to look at the case  of Jerry Sandusky to see that. Schools are terrified that their reputations will be damaged, and have almost as big an incentive to cover up as the church.
    1
  18. ***** There was institutional ignoring of his actions for a number of reasons, by an entire chain of people. The fact that he was eventually brought to justice  does nothing to strengthen your case. There are lots of catholic priests in prison too. I personally know of a teacher who was abusing girls, but the school didn't want the scandal, so he was forced to take a very early retirement rather than them going through the legal procedures. I agree completely with you that the catholic church has institutionally done far more to cover up child abuse - and indeed had global policies to hide it "for the sanctity of the church", but that doesn't disguise the fact that there is a higher amount of paedophilia amongst teachers, or that there are a wealth of reasons why schools are equally willing to downplay, ignore or outright cover up abuse amongst their staff. 
    1
  19. ***** It's impossible to know what extent universities have been covering up, and as each one is autonomous, they must be judged on their own merits. And of course, there have been archbishops who dealt with child abuse by their priests honourably. There's no doubt, the church has behaved deplorably, and that behaviour has not only been sanctioned, but even covered up from the very highest levels.
    1
  20. dan hay Blaming  ALL priests makes as much sense as  saying all people called Dan must be gay. They don't have collective responsibility.
    1
  21. dan hay You can't make any rational case for that assertion. 
    1
  22. dan hay I completely agree that there has repeatedly been a chain of command that both knew and systematically covered up child abuse within the catholic church. That's a disgraceful shame that they can NEVER live down. But to blame ALL priests is the same as blaming ALL Germans for WW2. Just as there were good Germans who actively sought to protect the Jews, there have undoubtedly been thousands of priests who wept at the way their brethren were behaving and did all they could to be honourable. However, I definitely agree with your conclusion, that the church should NOT survive this. And in a sense, in the western world, it hasn't. It's dying the dearth of a thousand cuts and in its Irish heartland has seen a massive turning away of the faithful.
    1
  23. ***** That was just a example. Schools then. Child abuse by teachers allegedly occurs at a higher incidence than in the priesthood. I'm really not excusing the church one iota. I'm simply pointing out that this problem occurs anywhere that adults come into regular contact with children.
    1
  24. ***** Sorry, was that comment addressed to me? 
    1
  25. ***** N, that's why I was clarifying. I presume you thought I was? 
    1
  26. TheDeadinside1 Agreed.
    1
  27. Certain areas will become unlivable, but others will become livable. And it's not as though the deserts were being used for farming. A move from fossil fuels is inevitable, as is the capacity for mass desalination. We'll have some rough decades as shitholes like America, China and India finally catch onto the fact that pollution has consequences, and finally starts to legislate, but mankind will be fine.
    1
  28. Couldn't agree more with your tactic. The problem is, the Democrats don't have a single testicle between them.
    1
  29. If you wanted to imply that their position was a result of father issues, it's more likely be theists, who fantasise about an all powerful, omnipresent, father figure. Project much Paul Vitz?
    1
  30. Manning's motivation: he was already a very mixed up young man. He was being bullied by his peers for his lack of manliness (and on this issue I feel nothing but sympathy for him). He tried to bring his military concerns to his superiors, which he saw as yet more dismissal of his very existence. Then a fit of pique, he released this information. Ultimately, it was not the calm, considered action of a man concerned about America's appalling military behaviour, with due consideration for the risk his release would expose troops to, it was the tantrum of alienated brat. We don't look at the Columbine killers doing the same thing with any sympathy, yet Manning potentially endangered far more lives, and any benefits are negated by his motivation in my eyes. The benefits were merely coincidental. If you're looking for a true hero, look to Edward Snowden, a man who gave up an idyllic life to let us know how the government was abusing us. I'm sorry but I will never call a trans person by the gender they are going to. If they want to change their name, fine. I'll call him Chelsea instead of Bradley. Names are simply family or personally designated identifiers. However, one's sex is chromosomal and until the day he dies he will be male, no matter how many drugs he pumps into himself or what he does or doesn't have on his chest or in his pants. Sex identifiers are for MY benefit not the person being identified, and I refuse to play this silly game of enablement. If someone suddenly decided that they wish identify as a tree or a dragon, should I use THOSE identifiers too? There are entire communities of idiots out there who believe that they are "otherkin" and want to be identified by their ridiculous kin names. Going along with that is not respectful. It fuels their mental illness. Would you agree with someone who believes that they have extra or fewer limbs tah their belief was correct out of respect or compassion? Don't get me wrong - I have no problem whatsoever with role play. Also, although I instinctively find it distasteful, I have no rational objection to people dressing and acting as the opposite sex so long as they don't trick potential sexual partners. But I won't be morally bullied by society into playing this ridiculous game that they want to play. As Camille Paglia pointed out, two of the signs of decadence that great civilisations show before collapsing out of weakness is uber liberality and gender fluidity. I won't play that game. And it WOULD come at a cost to me, because now I'M being part of his altered reality. But thank you for the courteous tone of your questions.
    1
  31. No, I'm not vindictive at all, but I do get extremely angry about this new world where reality is whatever people say it is, no what it independently is. I don't capitulate to that. There is an objective reality that exists regardless of people's feelings on the subject. You say that Paglia said that gender fluidity was a symptom of decline. So you seem to be agreeing with my position. It is only when a society is in decline that it shows symptoms such as a willingness to allow people to define their own reality, rather than facing the objective reality we all actually inhabit. But I think that the most important comment you made was this: "I would just be kind to others until I knew more, and the more I learn, whilst I'm still confused and think some of it's bullshit, the more I realise that this bare minimum makes sense, at least for someone that goes so far as to change their physical gender through surgery and hormone therapy." I am perfectly kind to others. I know two trans people, and even though both of them CLEARLY suffer from significant mental issues apart from their alleged trans genderism, I address them by their preferred names, and don't correct when they use their preferred pronouns. However I do not, and probably will not use trans pronouns unless I see some definitive evidence that these are merited beyond their appearance. But the massive issue is whether or not it is ACTUALLY kind to play along with their game. given that so very many m>f transexuals appear to be simply people who cannot cope with their homosexuality, and all f.m transexuals live in a society that superficially confers advantages to males such as strength, status, and camaraderie, there is at least a case to be made for looking beyond the surface. And what if the feelings are genuine but simply the sign of a psychological disorder, how can it possibly be kinder to help these people to avoid reality? That's like going along with a parent's delusion that their dead child still lives. No decent person would play along with those delusions. Rather, they'd take action to fix the problem. The fact that there is such a massive rise in transgenderism suggests to me that there is a component beyond the mere fact that it is now safe for actual trans people to come out. We now live in a society that rewards specialness and victimhood. Children will often accept negative attention rather than no attention, and I wonder of there is a component of that involved. Furthermore, and this is where I get furious, SJW society is massively pandering to this at schools. When you see schools for children as young as 5 offering a choice m/f/t on admission papers, and doctors providing reassignment surgery to preteens, it makes me furious. Studies show that a large percentage of kids who think they are trans, actually grow out of that or simply grow up to be gay if left to their own devices. Society is performing irreversible surgery on kids who can barely wipe their asses without someone to help them make the decision, yet we're supposed to believe that they have the self knowledge and analytical skills to make decisions that will affect the rest of their lives? No no NO. Not on my watch, not if I have anything to say about it. Could there genuinely be people who are in some way trapped in a body that is the opposite gender to their brains? Yes, entirely, although you'll first have to show me in what ways a newborn male and female brain is wired differently, and there is apparently now new scientific opinion that suggests that no such biological differences and that it is all learned. So, bottom line, in what other areas of existence do we consider the "kindness" of going along with someone's sincerely held fantasy (albeit ones with maybe a grain of truth) as the default position? Belief in god? Nope,. Belief in Elvis or aliens? Nope? Flat Earth, 9/11 conspiracy, Sandy Hook false flag, pizzagate, illuminati, lizard people, phantom limbs, ghosts, homeopathy, spirit healing? No no no. So why should trans people be an exception?
    1
  32. I have NEVER said people shouldn't think for themselves Cindy, but even if I HAD expressed such a sentiment, why would that be contradict ME having opinions?
    1
  33. Sorry, watching my weight...
    1
  34. Jeez, 87 years old. Just die already won't you Pat, and take Donald with you.
    1
  35. Yeah, and the US used to stand for freedom. What's your point? Groups and nations change.
    1
  36. So Trump should sacrifcie the country to Trump over this one issue? Obama should have done this years ago, but now he's left it so late, the greater good is that Trump doesn't get in. That said, America's credibility is forever tarnished by this issue. They can NEVER lecture any other nation on human rights thanks to Guantanomo.
    1
  37. Now I remember why I stopped watching you. The fake outrage, the pseudo moral high ground: a perfect Cenk Uyger wannabe.
    1
  38. You're out of your mind. There's NO other politician in America who would be wasting time tweeting at random people at 3am in the morning. No other politician who would be so desperate to watch TV that he leaves intelligence briefings early. No other politician with Trump's combination of undeserved confidence and ignorance that they would stomp across the political world stage as he has. And bad as they are, there's no other politician who would be so urgently, blatantly self serving. If you don't see that then you're not as sharp as I thought you were.
    1
  39. Kenny Smith Well pointed out Kenny. 
    1
  40. That 3 trillion is not exclusively from the value of BRIITISH assets. It reflects EUROPEAN uncertainty. So when people claim that Britain was unimportant to Europe, just remember. If Europe had treated us better and been more democratic, it would not have gotten into this position. The EU brought this upon themselves.
    1
  41. It's a shame he didn't show tis kind of fortitude earlier in his 2nd term, but well done for doing it at all.
    1
  42. Very good Kyle.
    1
  43. Absolutely disagree. Free speech was not conceived of for "assholes and pricks" nor for trolls, it was conceived of to protect dissenting opinions. I couldn't be happier that Milo has been slapped down by Twitter. I just hope he gets similar treatment everywhere he goes.
    1
  44. The masses voted for Trump. End of debate.
    1
  45. "This "End of debate" was just too over-the-top stupid to be resisted ^^" No, you simply failed to understand or think about it. Kyle said he has faith in the masses. The masses voted for a man who even BEFORE the election made it perfectly clear that he was a monster, yet they STILL voted for him. There really is no debate to be had about Kyle's lack of wisdom in trusting to the masses to make the right decision. The masses in Nazi Germany needed their country to be put down by the rest of Europe before they "saw sense". The masses are frequently astoundingly irrational, cowardly bullies. To suggest that one has faith in them is a fool's statement not borne out by history.
    1
  46. "There was a fuckload of documented voter fraud. " I don't think there was. There were thousands of duplicates in multiple counties due to people moving, but that doesn't equate to fraud. There were also thousands of people registered who are dead, which is also absolutely normal so long as these corpses are not voting. These two are a normal part of the electoral processs, and are routinely dealt with by poll clean ups. There were also ludicrous claims that undocumented immigrants were voting against Trump despite the fact that it's impossible for them to vote. There were also CLAIMS of voter machine hacking, but again not a single demonstrated case. Furthermore, the assumption that any fraud was AGAINST Trump, in spite of the only hacking being in his favour must surely give you pause? But if you are aware of actual, documented, proven significant levels of voter fraud, not the mere suggestion that duplicate registrations perpetuated by Trump and media such as Fox, and Alex Jones or the odd isolated case, I'd be most interested to see it.
    1
  47. My point is simply that relying on the wisdom or the integrity of the masses (masses - large percentage of the population), is not borne out by history. I could make the statement "the world is roughly spherical" and there would always be a hundred pedants who want to argue that no it's actually an oblate spheroid, and ten lunatics who want to argue that it's flat. The fact that some people want to argue EVERY point is not an indication that there is a need to do so.
    1
  48. He appeared to me to simply mix up his names on Egypt, but for you to say that America should just have a blanket policy on every foreign conflict seems unbelievably naïve and asinine. So the US should treat North Korea the same as Iraq? China the same as Libya? What a simplistic belief.
    1
  49. Yeah, and this is the country that thinks it has the right to export morality to the rest of the globe?
    1
  50. Applying Western values to foreign countries is arrogant and ill-advised. I agree completely that US and European companies should not be permitted to go to these foreign countries for labour simply because the absence of labour laws in their countries enables worker exploitation. However, unless we are all prepared to pay massively more for products and risk these workers losing their subsistence incomes entirely, this issue is not as simple to tackle as your portray Alex.
    1