Comments by "Ungoogleable o_O" (@oO_ox_O) on "The Rubin Report" channel.

  1. Stride Tide  You distanced yourself from people with similar views on that topic or you distanced yourself from that view? Would you stop enjoying Nascar just because of the stereotypical audience in your particular region?
    17
  2. ***** > You can't prove or disprove God's existence. Same applies to the tooth fairy. I hate this statement because people who make it often haven't even made up their mind what they mean with "prove".
    6
  3. tsuich00i > But why do you actually hate it? Do I? How would you know? > Suppose I believed in this "tooth fairy"- when does this become a problem for you? Once you made decisions based on this belief and those decisions affect people I value negatively, e.g. when your belief is influencing how certain laws are written.
    5
  4. Way to misunderstand the "chemicals" argument people were making, it was generally about the definition of a "chemical" which encompasses everything and in case you mean "artificial" chemical then there is the issue of not being about to clear-cut decide what is "artificial" and what not (not to mention that this alone won't make it better or worse).
    3
  5. +Lovely Candice Their choice at 9 years of age as well?
    3
  6. +Lovely Candice 9 years olds are made to wear it because they are being sexualized, that's the motive.
    3
  7. +James Griffin Murder is per definition wrong. ;) But I know, you meant killing people, and to this day people think (e.g. death penalty) that it's OK so it's not as if all killing was considered murder… > Judeo-Christian religion is the oldest religion that exists. It traces it's origin to the very first Human to exist. Bullshit, and I have the feeling that you know it and you are just trying to troll here.
    3
  8. You are rational if you believe as many true things and as few wrong things as possible? What is true/false? Nobody truly knows, but it's rational to be lead by good evidence and healthy scepticism.
    3
  9. +Jkza The polytheistic problem can be simply solved with a hierarchy of gods… and you know what, this is the case in many polytheistic religions, e.g. branches of Hinduism.
    2
  10. +Mini Mini Counter example: Czechia and communism, after the fall of communism religiosity did not significantly increase but a lot of things got privatized and rules (e.g. for opening hours) cut back.
    2
  11. 1/10
    2
  12. They don't?
    1
  13. CzarTissue That's how you are trying to make your case? :->
    1
  14. +TGGeko All those candidates painting themselves as non-establishment by going crazy, like Trump.
    1
  15. +MarketAndChurch > he instead pushed forward this sort of faith in humanity, a sort of certainty that things have been getting better for the past few centuries, and, if we allow evolution to run its course Reminds me of libertarians and the free market. ;)
    1
  16. +Cliff Hanley nu-uh
    1
  17. Silverizael > And not even the chemicals he's been discussing, In that case he should clear up which ones he is talking about. > as science has long proven that they are perfectly fine. What's "percetly fine"? Sugar can kill you just as well as salt given the right amount and too much salt in foods can be a problem even if salt might be considered "natural" by some…
    1
  18. MrHardCash I think this map shows whether they have active laws (and not e.g. overturned laws as in some US states) in their books and could theoretically prosecute someone for homosexuality on its own. Whether the laws are enforced would be a much more complex question.
    1
  19. ARTEMIS_FOWL14s What about clothes made of two types of fabric?
    1
  20. ***** How nasty do you consider it? Comparatively?
    1
  21. Rubin Report But you would have the same issue with other salty stuff like grandma's bacon and this case they didn't use just salt back then but curing salts which are much more problematic.
    1
  22. ?!
    1
  23. heathen27 Me or *****?
    1
  24. +Bluemonsoon 1/10
    1
  25. +youtube fun I believe those numbers include the causalities of the civil war
    1
  26. bigraviolees but Reagan wasn't controlling the whole world
    1
  27. TheRobster2007 What's your point? Some are less harmless than others (Silver [E 174] < Vitamin C [ E 300]), some of them are even necessary to our survival. Except for E 605 (inside joke) none of these chemicals is considered poisonous in the sense of needing a  dangerous substances sign. ;)
    1
  28. playandrepeat You mean the e-mail talking about toxicity levels?
    1
  29. TheRobster2007 > is exactly that not all E numbers are safe Who claimed that? When a chemical has a E number it just means allowed in at least one EU country.
    1
  30. Martin Armenta crispbread?
    1
  31. taxiuniversum It's not about misunderstanding, it's about making the world a better place by teaching people to use words properly. ;) Besides, even if he had said "artificial chemicals" we would need to elaborate further what he considers "artificial" in order to have a good discussion. > emulsifiers > enzymes Like eggs? Milk? > anti-caking agents In a muffin? Anyways, quartz won't harm you chemically. > sweeteners Like sucrose, glucose, fructose? Maybe a sirup of fructose and glucose like, you know, honey? (where you also find "enzymes")  > colors Like saffron? > gelling agents Like starch, pectin or gelatin? > preservatives Like salt? > _in short, "chemicals" In short: scary names which all could be not possibly worse than DHMO (which kills people and is found everywhere). > U.S. internet trolls. Huh?
    1
  32. taxiuniversum > has only chemical colors There you using that word again without defining it properly, we can't have a discussion that way because you could e.g. move the goalpost by modifying what you mean by that world whenever I show you an example where something isn't harmful to you. > See GMO´s  [sic]  _for instance._ What I see is another example for a dumb word that is in use, at least it's better defined but by following the words alone one could assume that the act of "genetical modification" includes simple culturing and crossbreeding. > Here a list of the worst crap in food additives Interesting, but that's a different discussion from this. Words are either to be used properly or clearly defined beforehand if one wants to have a serious discussion, you wouldn't write a scientific paper and using "chemicals" in such a casual way.
    1
  33. taxiuniversum  > Yea what you are doing is nitpicking It serves a purpose to have a better discussion, like I mentioned to prevent goal post moving. > "But hey - `laboratory´ is too broad a term - isn´t the whole Universe one giant laboratory?" Heh. But seriously now, why would it matter if something was made in a laboratory? Truth might be, it sounds spooky, it might affect people emotionally, but do you want an emotional or a rational discussion?
    1
  34. taxiuniversum > As to GMO´s [sic]: They cause cancer, at least in tests on animals. All do or some do? Is it inherently because the process by which GMOs are created? See, what if I told you: "Halogens are dangerous, you inhale Fluorine or Chlorine and you're dead as can be proven in tests" would you then drop all salt and iodine? (hopefully not) > created by a mafia-like corporation Guilt by association… > Of course lab-created substances must not be dangerous to health - many modern medicines can only get created in labs, and save millions of lives. Do I have ANY problem with that? Most certainly not. Then don't try to use "lab-created" as an argument. > Decent producers, who use raw ingredients of a high quality can produce fruit juice without any ascorbic acid. Or they simply use fruits with more citric acid, because AFAIK that's an even better preservative
    1
  35. taxiuniversum  > as logic dictates that by definition NONE of their products can be trusted Interesting logic… > Or do you think they are just criminal and deceptive about some of their products Could very well be. Hitler built highways and was vegetarian, I have nothing against either, see why the guilt by association fallacy is problematic?
    1
  36. +han dler What are you talking about? Arguments for why religion, even if false, was a necessary evil? Because it has hardly anything to do with whether it's true.
    1
  37. +FlawedIntellect from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_homosexuality: > 'The [Catholic] Church, however, considers "homosexual acts" to be "grave sins", "intrinsically disordered", and "contrary to the natural law", and "under no circumstances can they be approved"'
    1
  38. > You all know what happened with McD's. It started to rot as well (except the fries I believe), watch the video again. The reason in that case was that the liquid was preserved unlike in the 14-years case were it got removed.
    1
  39. Makes sense, I bet also there's a larger profit margin.
    1
  40. Both under same conditions? Not in a way where the one could dry up faster than the other?
    1
  41. De facto it might still cause problems from the goverment in some of those light blue countries… North Korea? Also what about provincial laws in e.g. Indonesia, …?
    1
  42. andrew dacunto But distancing from what? From the non-believe in god(s) or just being public about it? OP specifically said that what changed was he/she considered him-/herself to be.
    1
  43. For bacteria that is. We don't have that much of an issue with quite salty/sugary stuff (if we drink enough). What do you think of honey?
    1
  44. those 50% cry while fapping
    1
  45. Would you say that kids these days "have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise"?
    1
  46. Huh? But sex isn't always straight (pun maybe indented) either, think about transgendered people (now it's "gender" again?)
    1