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

  1. Dark-EyedTraveler No ... you just don't get the logic. Scientific questions are not settled in online (or offline) discussions amongst laypeople. They are settled through the scientific literature. ... where - if you participate and publish relevant research - you are by definition a scientist a certain degree of expertise in the field. In the same way Ken Ham can write as many books as he wants, create as many websites and videos as he wants and build as many museums and arks as he want ... he's still not participating in the scientific method and until he does, he's opinion on evolution is probably not worth wasting time on.
    2
  2. hoshnasi Nope  - it was about Ted Cruz. He said Ted Cruz was the only conservative who listed libertarians as people whos support he was seeking. I think that's a pretty lousy reason for liking a politician. Trump says he wants the support of black people ...
    2
  3. Trump is a creation of both the poisonous fact-free atmosphere the republicans have created and the rise af political correctness and SJW culture.
    2
  4. > "First, false equivalency. There's absolutely no person in the world that has died or suffered any negative impact due to climate change." Apart from being demonstrably false (*) ... the whole logic construction of that statement is absurd. That's like sitting in a car running 100 km/h against a brick wall and trying to refute the passengers protest with "No one in this cars has ever suffered any injuries". Your statement assumes at least a linear extrapolation of "the past" - an assumption which does not in ANY WAY take into account the problem as it is described. > "Second, who gets to decide what's dangerous nonsense? You?" No. Science. You know ... the same process which decided the earth was not flat - and not less than 10.000 years old. *: Just one example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/18/alaska-shishmaref-vote-move-coastal-erosion-rising-sea-levels
    2
  5. At the 10:55 ... "reality didn't matter" ... THAT'S the problem. ... and that's the problem Dave should address if he really takes "applying reason" seriously. This goes along with classical liberalism: Reason.
    2
  6. blurglide "I'm saying advanced life eventually WILL end when enough CO2 gets sequestered, primarily as sea shells and coral" Do you really think that's a more urgent problem than not destroying half of the biosphere and flooding all coastal cities within the next 200 years?  
    2
  7. blurglide "but you're presenting a false dichotmy" Before I spend time debunking the rest of your post... Are you seriously interested in knowing what's wrong with your claims which you must know are completely contrary to accepted science.
    2
  8. Eric Duprey Science which have went through the peer review process and have stood the test of time . ... it's really not that hard.
    2
  9. Eric Duprey I'm perfectly aware that fields like psychology is in major crises wrt. the peer review literature. But this is natural sciences... Please link me to the study that shows the peer review process in natural sciences is broken so even an overwhelming consensus can't be trusted.  
    2
  10. TheAnnoyingGunner My point was that 1) I'm aware psychology is a mess wrt. peer review (never cared much for it anyway) and 2) you cannot just transfer that situation to natural sciences. Of course things can slip through ... But you don't get multiple independent lines of evidence saying the same thing repeatedly if it's just wrong. PS: I didn't take it personally. I just want to be sure I'm as unambiguous wrt. what my argument is as possible.
    2
  11. I agree... My previous impression of Glenn Beck was that he was crazy. But he really surprised me as a man you can reason with here. The pastor spoke nonsense however...
    2
  12. "life" is not the only thing needing careful thought here... also things like "individual". Is it really so that a woman is in her full right to scratch of any amount of cells in her body, but at the moment of conception there's 1 single cell she is not allowed to touch? That seems ludicrous to me.
    2
  13. 11:44 ... did Dave just say Epstein was the "most scientific" ??!?
    2
  14. Andy Schryvers Well... I've not been too faithful in the church of Ra lately.
    2
  15. +umejiaku6 IMNSHO he make really shitty points. He just don't know what he's talking about.
    2
  16. jsgdk Yes... I regard my self as classical liberal and I fully get many of the arguments, but anarcho-capitalism is a evil and as utopian as communism.
    2
  17. umejiaku6 There are many ways to run a company into the ground, while extracting values from it, inflicting harm on people, declare bankruptcy, run from the bill and let the tax payers pay the damages. People speculate in bankruptcy. Trump even bragged about it. Not all companies have an interest in long term survival - as he suggests.
    2
  18. Taylor Adams > "The only thing that I think is missing from your description of the purpose of government is stuff like scientific research." Well yes... I understand that objection. Science - especially natural sciences - is very near to my heart. And I'm fully aware of that much fundamental research for many years have no obvious connection to the market. When they formulated quantum theory, no one predicted the Internet. The Danish government had the stupid idea a few years back of instituting a research-to-invoice program which resulted in deep cuts in basic research. I agree with you in the importance of such at-first seemingly non-profitable research. I've never really thought about how that should be connected to basic ideological considerations. I guess I've just regarded it as the obvious sane thing to do if you cared about science. I can assure you that the party program of the party I'm a member of does support government funding of basic research. I'll have to think about that... :)
    2
  19. +Craig Noah There can only be 2 explanations: 1) You knew it all in advance. 2) You are applying the filter Michael Mann talked about.
    2
  20. Michael Alexander II "Shit happens" is not an argument for making shit happen your self on purpose.
    2
  21. krix pop "I will call "Climate"   a  Science when it will actually produce indisputable facts." ... I'll advice you to read some climate science then and a little less WUWT and "Daily Mail" ...
    2
  22. Trump is just as much a creation of a republican party who have created this atmosphere of radical behavior in the last 8 years. The whole opposition to Obama based on his skin color and the birther movement.... the GOP have created this monster.
    2
  23. > Tine Woodbe Libertarianism is many things... as a geo-libertarian, I find many of Austin Petersons views naive or leaving out many important factors. The whole FDA discussion for instance, I feel is totally misguided. This is not about putting a gun to peoples head and "force" them to make "good" food. It's about ensuring transparency and providing customers with factual information which they couldn't otherwise get. We have rules about how much lead there can be in (say) water, mostly because if it was up to consumers alone to discover health problems it would most likely take far too long time where people got poisoned until Austin Petersons idea of basing it all on consumer reviews would "solve" the problem the capitalistic way.
    2
  24. CrusaderLogan ... and I'm sure it's not equally bad everywhere. But it sure would be hard to understand what fossil fuels are, if you are told the earth is only 6000 years old. ;-) Anyway... Alex's entire argument is bullshit.
    2
  25. So... we need to have Ken Ham on to "rebalance" the discussion about evolution.
    2
  26. Silverback fair enough.... same to you . Youtubes bad support for threading and tying a reply to a specific post can cause these confusions.
    2
  27. ***** I fully agree. ... 100% ... Not just based on Prager, (one nut case now and then can't hurt). But I think Dave has betrayed his original claim of wanting to "apply reason to the big questions of the day" with a long string of "stereotypical conservative ideologues" who all claim to be for "reason" and objectivity and science, but in fact are ideologically motivated to do everything but that. I guess Dave has just been so focused on the fact that they also were "at war" with the Social Justice Warriors and regressive that everything ended up being about that. Sad really... I had looked forward to a show with a classical liberal spirit which actually took reason an science seriously. And no! ... I don't think Dave enumerating all the leftists warm-feelings interviews he have had which I basically regard as without much substance as a good argument. Sure Margaret Cho is probably nice to talk to - but the conversation was hardly about "the big questions". I liked the Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, Ayn Hirsi Ali, Maajdi Nawaz, Christina Hoff Summers and many others, but they are by now completely drowned in the right wing "conservative" science denying ideologues  - like Alex Epstein, Crowder, Prager. ... and I've given up by now. This will never become the classical liberal hub where science and reason has an important role to play. Alone from the comment sections you can see that Rubin is now attracting more and more of these Prager, Shapiro, Moleneux fans who really couldn't care less about science and reason.... they just want to bash the leftists.
    2
  28. Charles Badger Thanks for your well articulated input. I have a few comments... "he talks to people like Shapiro and crowder because they accept him" Yes... well... that might be. But if he really wanted to start a new tradition of reason based liberalism, the there are actually people out there "on the left" who can be a part of building that. I don't like the "left/right" dichotomy. - for one reason that they mean very different things in US and Europe. (just FYI: I regard my self as classical liberal (geo-libertarian)). There are people like Sam Harris, Maajid Nawaz and I've tried to suggest to Dave to have Jerry Taylor of tne libertarian Niskanen Center Think tank on. But what doesn't help if you want to recapture the word "liberalism" for the classical liberal reason based approach is to have an overwhelming number of conservative and (for the most part) fact-free ideologues on. It might be that they "accept" Dave, but he is also then just running to "the other side" of the entrenched left/right picture of US politics. I know he say that he isn't and that he don't agree with many of them.... and I believe him. But that doesn't really change fact that while he is sitting there throwing softballs to people like Prager and giving them a platform to spout their nonsense the real reason reason-based approach to the real world is being left on the TODO list. And while he is cozying up to his new ideologue friends on the conservative side I tell you - he is loosing those of us who were on the classical liberal page and who took reason and science seriously from the beginning. Another FYI ... I do acknowledge that some of these conservative ideologues are actually worth talking to. I believe that, say,  Ben Shapiro could be interesting and in the last Interview he didn't actually say much I found controversial. He has still proven himself elsewhere to be an ideologue who happily sets reason aside if it suits his ideology. Crowder is just a loudspeaker IMHO. - as witnessed by his interaction (or lack of) with Peter Hadfield. He has no interest in objective truth. > "That personally bugs me. Instead of dismissing me or someone else as an intellectual because we disagree, try to educate; they might find that we agree on more than most realize." That understandable.... but if you have read other of my comments elsewhere, I try - when people show an honest interest in discussion - to actually address the subject matter and explain my viewpoint (or the science) with references and evidence. However... I've also spend the last 8 years trying to explain and educate conservative and anarch-capitalistic ideologues like Crowder and Epstein in climate science and I must say that the only place I've met an equal amount of  dogmatism and ideological motivated denial was the years before that when I discussion evolution with creationists. ... It's very rare that you meet a person like Steven Crowder or Alex Epstein who is actually interested in an objective and reason based discussion of the scientific facts of the real world. They have an agenda - which (to put it shortly) is : Reject everything coming from what they regard as "the left" at any cost. I don't have high hopes for these ideologues.
    2
  29. I was about to say "Thank god someone at TYT finaly treated Sam Harris fairly". ... but then I learn you're not at TYT any more. :(
    2
  30. As far as I understand, the reason Hillary was not prosecuted, was precedence. ... which as an IT person who find that what she did was utterly wrong... makes me wonder whether common law isn't really the problem here. This SHOULD be punishable.
    2
  31. 4:44 ARRHHHGGGG.... My brian hurts. This is NOT a "healthy" discussion any more than having Ken Ham spout nonsense about "Creation Science". When people as Steven Crowder demonstrates SO clearly that they have NO interest in actually understanding the problem and engaging in a rational discussion on one topic, why should we trust them to do it on any other topic? How is Steven not just wasting our time?
    2
  32. Darren Corrigan My concern was mostly that what people experience as "certainty" is highly subjective. Many religious people accuse atheists for claiming to be "certain" that god does not exist. Should we then be suspicious of atheist? Nahh... Dawkins definition makes it explicit when there's good reason to believe something.
    2
  33. Irony I know I know.... I was referring to what religious people (wrongly) accuses atheists of.
    2
  34. ... I knew I had reason to be suspicious of the humanities since high school ;)
    2
  35. russell d Well ... that just turned your argument into an unsubstantiated accusation. Which specific criticism of the Republicans do you think is "Just because they are republicans" ?
    2
  36. I Love Secular Talk ah man ... that's karma :)
    2
  37. realhiphopfan 1 That's why I have time and time again suggested to Dave that he brings on people who are right-wing/libertarian/conservative which actually respects reason an science. In other words.. .drop the Steven Crowder kind of guest. Bring on conservatives like Bob Inglish, or Climate scientist Kerry Emanuel. ... or libertarian Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen center. But of course... if you actually don't care about reason, logic and science and only care about bashing SJWs ... by all means... Have Steven Crowder and similar on again and again ... It'll just be without my funding.
    2
  38. Keksi Alex Jones is concerned about anything and everything.
    2
  39. TMA2 I think I can agree with that.  - kinda. I get impatient for actual information when I listen to Kulinski though. He spends too much time ranting. Pakman is more to the point and better researched. I worry about Dave sliding to the right, and I agree Prager was an example. I don't agree with about the guest video for PragerU though. I think Dave nailed it (except calling classical liberalism a conservative cause - that's nonsense). And I do think Dave treats his right wing guests with kids gloves way too often. I very much fear that the result will be that the people searching for a reason, science and logic based liberalism will leave the Rubin Report and the audience Dave will be left with is the fact-free right-wing Ayn Rand anarcho-capitalist crowd and it's all end in just bashing SJWs .
    2
  40. You gotta wonder ... Why don't the republicans not have people like Michael Steele as candidates? ... and why do people like Michael Steele put up with the crazy.
    2
  41. MadBrainBox I've heard more than one physicist saying that the biggest danger to the survival of the human race is our own stupidity.
    2
  42. 4:00 More BULLSHIT. Do Steven Crowder really believe the way you settle science is by asking a non-scientist questions about carefully crafted talking points and if he can't give a clear answer then the science is wrong? Why do we entertain this nonsense?
    2
  43. Why do we always hear Americans talk about that the US is where everybody wants to go ?? No we won't ... Couldn't dream of it. I'm perfectly happy living in an actual democracy where facts matter. Sure... Cubans come to the US? ... have you looked at a map? Where should they go otherwise?
    2
  44. Faisal, ... I'm pretty sure most of the vitriol towards Mr. Lewis was not because he endorsed Hillary, but because he tried to make it look like Bernie had not been a part of the civil rights movement.
    2
  45. Cataline Brinno Who said I "denied cultural identity" ? I just object to these religious people in Denmark trying to define that their specific way of life is the definition of "Danish". (one reason being that I know how the idiot spokesperson for the party who said it has a long history of using political power to promote his religion). I feel "Danish" and I will very much defend much of how Danish society works. But I'm not going to hit other people in the head with not being "Danish enough" if they don't share my views on religion.
    2
  46. +Diimaa Yeah .. .I get it. A "snotty Radical Atheist" is one who doesn't shut up and know his place.
    2
  47. Atheist Nick Sure... If you Identify as "muslim first" then you are obviously not "danish" ... but then you have also moved the definition of "danish" to being subjective - about how people feel them selves - and not by some objective criteria on whether you attend church. I'm perfectly fine with "Danish" being about what you feel in your heart. But then - for the purpose of knowing who to take in as citizens - I think it's much more relevant whether those people actually want to live in a society with secular liberal values, freedom of speech and gender equality. Heck! ... even an American would be welcome if he didn't have theocratic or autocratic tendencies. (sorry Trump, sorry Pence)
    2
  48. > Diimaa I certainly hope you are able to compartmentalize the concept of acknowledging history and tradition and the concept of actually believing that the fairy tales are true.
    2
  49. +Diimaa So... do you believe you self that any of your ranting makes it more likely that there actually is a supernatural being and an afterlife? ... or are you just ranting?
    2
  50. +Diimaa > "Actually I believe there is a supernatural being that expects you to worship Him and if you don't, metes out punishments of various degrees from small to final." Yeah ... I figured that much. You are of course perfectly entitled to believe that, but if you want to impose that belief system on the rest of society, I find that offensive regardless of whether your supernatural being is named Jahve or Allah. - I don't find it a "joke".
    2