Comments by "filonin2" (@filonin2) on "David Pakman Show"
channel.
-
171
-
39
-
31
-
30
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
20
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Thexdmattx
Wrong about the heart skipping a beat:"When you sneeze, the intrathoracic pressure in your body momentarily increases. This will decrease the blood flow back to the heart. The heart compensates for this by changing its regular heart beat momentarily to adjust. However, the electrical activity of the heart does not stop during the sneeze."-http://www.uamshealth.com/heartmyth
Wrong about origin of the phrase:"The phrase has been used in the Hebrew Bible by Jews (cf. Numbers 6:24), and by Christians, since the time of the early Church as a benediction, as well as a means of bidding a person Godspeed.[4][5] Many clergy, when blessing their congregants individually or corporately, use the phrase "God bless you".[6]
National Geographic reports that during the plague of AD 590, "Pope Gregory I ordered unceasing prayer for divine intercession. Part of his command was that anyone sneezing be blessed immediately ("God bless you"), since sneezing was often the first sign that someone was falling ill with the plague."[7] By AD 750, it became customary to say "God bless you" as a response to one sneezing.[8]"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_bless_you
4
-
4
-
4
-
Mephistahpheles
Believing in things for which there is no evidence because they make you happy is not valid reasoning to believe in something and once you teach someone to believe in things without evidence, you've entered very dangerous territory as beliefs inform actions. I have no need to disprove your claims as you have not supported them at all and they can therefore be dismissed. The reason the OP said that god must be complex and therefore must have a complex nature is that theists claim that since the universe is complex, it therefor it must have a creator (watchmaker fallacy). Refuting his point only serves to refute the theist point as he was simply using an extension of their logic to defeat them. Your attempt to further extend the logic however is self defeating, because if either god did not need a complex creator or god is not necessarily complex, then the universe did not even need a complex cause or creator and could have arisen naturally. As to refute your claim that unicorns and gods cannot be proven, you'd simply have to find unicorns somewhere or a being that could demonstrate powers only a god could have, like creating universe at will or juggling galaxies or turning all of space into Swiss cheese. It's not hard to prove positives. Further, if we're talking about Yahweh and not a god in general, Yahweh is disprovable. He didn't exist and was plagiarized from the Sumerian war god. He also makes mistakes, yet is supposed to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thomas He's a fascist. Racism is pretty much a given when you're a a fascist as you need a group to scapegoat.
fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm/
noun
noun: fascism; noun: Fascism; plural noun: Fascisms
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
synonyms:authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy; More
Nazism, rightism;
nationalism, xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism;
jingoism, isolationism;
neofascism, neo-Nazism
"a film depicting the rise of fascism in the 1930s"
(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
Yeah, he's for an authoritarian, right wing government and has pledged to violate international law and the Constitution if elected. You seem to be the one who misunderstands fascism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
weallnonothing Well, I could see the batteries helping in one way. During peak hours, when most electricity is used, you could partially rely upon the batteries and lessen the drain on the grid, lessening the need for more power plants. You could then recharge the battery overnight when demand is much lower. This would be more efficient for power plants because they are most efficient when they are run at a steady state in their optimal rpm, ie, not changing the amount of power they make. If you could smooth out the power demand into a near constant level with batteries, you could get some fuel savings right there. This does come at the environmental cost of manufacturing huge amounts of batteries, but new, cheaper, faster charging aluminum based batteries will be arriving soon. Now that'll be a game changer.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
juan chapa
Yeah, I go to college 5 days a week as I'm getting to the point in my degree where the classes are mostly 4 days a week, with varying days. I can only work on the weekends, so I never have a real day off except in the summer, unless I'm taking summer school. The financial aid I get to keep, which amounts to almost $3k per year, I mostly spend on food and rent and utilities. I haven't had cable for the past 5 years, and haven't had a working car for 4 years. If I ever want to go anywhere, I have to borrow my gf's car, which is also a 24 year old POS but I keep it going. She's earlier on in her major and it's not a science major so she's still able to keep the classes on two days per week and work 5, although she was able to overlap 1 work and school day off last semester. She makes nearly triple what I make too as my job is corporate and literally no one ever gets a raise regardless of performance. Her job is a franchise, she's been working there 8 years and her boss/franchise owner is nice and gives regular raises.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Brian b
It is not splitting hairs to point out the difference between individuals and society as a whole, and your own argument defeats itself. You- "I presented an argument that SCOTUS has no constitutional duty to protect (here I eluded to the original post) the public." Then you say "I then cited case precedent where SCOTUS has decided, every time, that there is no duty for police to protect people, but rather to protect 'society'
Society, 'the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.'" as if it were supporting your argument. Society is not an individual. Society is the public. Further, your own link says that for decision 8, "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public." I'm not trying to obfuscate the point of the conversation, I'm pointing out a rather obvious problem with your argument, one in which I share the side with you. If you do resort to ad hominem though, know that it would be ironically childish now that you have accused me of it, and it would only weaken your position through obvious fallacy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Heiner Lilje
Why would you need to slaughter anything to take stem cells for one? Second, you can just keep taking cells from the ones you already have. They multiply forever as long as you give them nutrients. Even if for some reason you needed new stem cells, you can induce skin cells to become them, no need for killing. This of course won't change the fact that nearly all farm animals would then be superfluous and would no longer be kept, and hence wouldn't be alive to begin with. As far as tofu nor being discernible, maybe with burgers, but not for any actual cut of meat. So, if no animal slaughter was needed and whole sides of beef, etc. could be grown, you'd be fine with eating meat? If so, we are in agreement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+oudguitar
"it is not a public argument. it was an effort to mock and insult Christians which is acceptable to do in the current Cult of social justice communism."
So you're going to use "cult" as an insult? What could possibly be more obvious projection? You're in a cult, defending it, don't use "cult" as an insult; it hurts your own argument. Furthermore, it's nonsensical since cults are religion, and I'm not religious. You also seem to not know what communism is. I'm certainly not for all property being owned publicly, where are you getting this nonsense? The strawman you are building doesn't even look like me kid.
"just ask yourself honestly if somebody were to put on a bunch of yarmulkes and say a prayer of gibberish or perhaps Muslims were imitated at the beginning of a town hall meeting."
I assume you meant this to be a complete thought. I know, paint thinner is a helluva drug. I'm also going to assume it ended with "... would I be ok with them being allowed to speak?" Well, if I was in a secular country where Jews or Muslims were attempting to insert their backwords and idiotic ideologies into governemnt, then abso-fucking-lutely bucko. You see, that's the difference between you and me, besides the lack of inbreeding on my parent's part. I'm logically consistent.
"since you're ideologically possessed I know I doubt you have the mental capacity to think outside of your cult secular doctrine of hating Christians."
Ideologically possessed? By.... what? Wanting evidence for ludicrous sky-fairy claims and wanting equal treatment for all religions and power in government for none? I guess my head is a spinning and I'm vomiting green lol.
I don't hate Christians, I hate their religion and all religions. Religion is a cancer upon mankind. Only religion demands you believe without evidence; to believe absurd, monstrous claims on faith alone. No thanks junior, I'll reserves my beliefs to that which is supported by facts and keep my government the way it was intended to be; secular.
"but trust me sunshine you're little little clever comment there isn't coming from you"
Where's it coming from kid, the devil? Lol, grow up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AnEntropyFan
Yes they are in open traffic, yes they are viable, they are already on the road. Here is an excerpt from just the road testing of the google car: *"In 2012, the test group of vehicles included six Toyota Prius, an Audi TT, and three Lexus RX450h,[15] each accompanied in the driver's seat by one of a dozen drivers with unblemished driving records and in the passenger seat by one of Google's engineers. By May 2015, that fleet consisted solely of 23 Lexus SUVs.[21]
Google's vehicles have traversed San Francisco's Lombard Street, famed for its steep hairpin turns, and through city traffic. The vehicles have driven over the Golden Gate Bridge and around Lake Tahoe.[4] The system drives at the speed limit it has stored on its maps and maintains its distance from other vehicles using its system of sensors.[22] The system provides an override that allows a human driver to take control of the car by stepping on the brake or turning the wheel, similar to cruise control systems already found in many cars today.[3][23]
On March 28, 2012, Google posted a YouTube video showing Steve Mahan, a resident of Morgan Hill, California, being taken on a ride in Google's self-driving Toyota Prius. In the video, Mahan states "Ninety-five percent of my vision is gone, I'm well past legally blind". In the description of the YouTube video, it is noted that the carefully programmed route takes him from his home to a drive-through restaurant, then to the dry cleaning shop, and finally back home.[24][25]
In August 2012, the team announced that they have completed over 300,000 autonomous-driving miles (500,000 km) accident-free, typically have about a dozen cars on the road at any given time, and are starting to test them with single drivers instead of in pairs.[26] Four U.S. states have passed laws permitting autonomous cars as of December 2013: Nevada, Florida, California, and Michigan.[27] A law proposed in Texas would establish criteria for allowing "autonomous motor vehicles".[28][29]
In April 2014, the team announced that their vehicles have now logged nearly 700,000 autonomous miles (1.1 million km).[30] In late May, Google revealed a new prototype of its driverless car, which had no steering wheel, gas pedal, or brake pedal, being 100% autonomous.[31]"*
That is only for the Google car, many other manufacturers have models as well, some of which will be available in 2017-2020 which you could have known if you looked at the link I provided. Look it up before you continue to display your ignorance. Also, you may want to look into logical fallacy while you are at it, ad hominem against me is the opposite of a rebuttal. Try getting some evidence to back your point, although that will be difficult as you are incorrect.
1
-
1
-
AnEntropyFan
You are clearly refusing to read the articles and are still using ad hominem against me. You are making me sad :(. I cannot state this any clearer, these cars are fully autonomous, they drive themselves entirely without human interaction except for the entering of the destinations. You just get in and tell them where to go. They stop for read lights, drive the posted limit, and have cameras and radar to see the world and to detect unexpected obstructions. You would know this if you would do some research or had even read what I posted. A 95% blind man is being driven around town by himself. He can't even see the instruments. How autonomous do you want the cars to be? Do you want them to also do your job for you after they drive you to work? You seem to be confused as to strawmen as well as ad hominem. A strawman would be me constructing a false version of your argument, then attacking it. What I did was disagree with your argument, then provide evidence that countered it, which you preceded to ignore. Honestly, I don't understand why I still need to convince you. It is an easily confirmable fact that my position is true, you simply keep dismissing it out of hand because of personal incredulity, another fallacy BTW. Google it. Oh, since you let me know that you still don't understand ad hominem and do indeed need it defined, here you go good sir: "An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments" Now that you have a firm understanding of this particular fallacy as well as others, I hope that our conversation may continue on a more civil level, no more poisoning the well either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
AnEntropyFan
None of your arguments matter, the cars are already on the road, driving right now in heavy traffic whether you think it is possible or not. You are arguing that reality isn't happening sir. You may as well be arguing about the impracticality of setting up a world wide communication network for people to communicate with. It's already been done bro. The cars are already able to detect and avoid unexpected obstacles using their radar, actual sentient machines are unneeded in this task. I will put this in bold and all caps so that you are sure to take note, THE CARS ARE FULLY AUTONOMOUS, THEY ARE DRIVING THE BLIND IN HEAVY TRAFFIC AND IN ALL WEATHER. IT IS ALREADY REAL. I apologize for that, but I've already told you and demonstrated these facts through evidence to no avail. If you think your arguments are valid, please show us how the problems you bring up are stopping autonomous cars, even though they are already on the road? When you say that these cars are not fully autonomous, what do you mean? They certainly don't fuel themselves nor do they drive themselves to the shop for repairs if you don't tell them to, but if you mean all the tasks of driving and parking, then they are fully autonomous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AnEntropyFan There we go! A perfect example of a strawman, you've got it now. I defined an autonomous car as being able to drive "entirely without human intervention from one destination to the other," which is what cars are designed to do and what they accomplish, requiring NO HUMAN DRIVING INPUT. Predator drones are not designed to go to a battlefield and kill autonomously, which is why it's pretty easy to argue that they aren't. They are perfectly capable of flying to and from the target by themselves though, using their sensors to avoid unexpected inflight obstacles. Now if cars were designed to kill people, and human operators took over when it was time for that, then you wouldn't have a straw man. The cars would not be completing all of their task autonomously, they would only be partially autonomous kill-mobiles. These autonomous cars are only designed to drive however, and they are always watching in all directions with radar for sudden obstacles and it's pretty unlikely that a car would judge something as large as a child as traversible. The cars can actually tell the distance and size of the obstacle better and can react more quickly than humans. Seems like most objects that large would cause damage to most vehicles. I don't know the specific reaction algorithms of the vehicles we are speaking about have, perhaps you should ask the engineers or do some research yourself into the matter if you doubt? Regardless of your fears, these vehicles are already on the roads, already reacting to unexpected situations, some are even planned to not have steering wheels, and some are already driving the blind. No one was helping the car drive the blind guy around. If someone cuts the car off or an animal runs in front of the car, it's the car's task to react, and IT DOES.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ryan Swanson
I like to think of the human species as the sexual organs of the Earth. She's in the young teen years right now, just starting to fill out. We're giving her acne, she's all knees and elbows and she's not looking as cute as she used to when she was a little girl, but once she's matured into a woman and spread herself (life) to other worlds she will bloom once more into something more beautiful than she ever was, with daughter worlds providing new homes to the DNA that formed from the very primordial rocks and waters of her birth. We are the vehicle for the spreading of life to other worlds. In time, we will even rework worlds to suit the life that Earth became. Humans are troublesome organs, but they will serve Earth as her loins just by doing what we always have done, explore new areas and take life we prefer or that hitchhikes along for the ride. We will bring life to a seemingly dead portion of our galaxy, something that will last far after our species has retired to the pages of history. Damn, gotta smoke less reefer, makes me wax poetic lol.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
leerman22
You don't need to refine biofuels, and if you're getting your electricity from fossil fuels, it's more efficient to burn the fossil fuel and turn the heat energy directly into kinetic energy in an ICE than to burn it to generate heat in a boiler, which generates steam, which turns a turbine, which then turns a generator, with losses at every conversion. Then you still need to transport the electricity, store it, then turn it back into kinetic energy, all with additional losses to heat. If you can get your electricity from nuclear, wind, solar or something like that, you'll be one the right track, but we aren't there yet. Biofuels also don't need to be transported long distances because the organisms create the fuel on site. Biofuels are really just another form of battery, you are converting sun light into liquid fuel and it is carbon neutral as the carbon used to make the fuel comes from the air, just like growing and burning your own firewood is carbon neutral.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ihartevil
You need to take a chill pill man, it is possible to not know something with absolute certainty, but to also hold a belief in it. Unicorns for example. Do you think unicorns are real? If not, you are an a-unicornist. If you think they are real, you could be called a unicornist. Do you know for certain that unicorns are not real? Do you have proof or irrefutable evidence? If so, you are gnostic in your disbelief in unicorns. Gnostic means that you know. If you don't believe in unicorns because of the lack of evidence for the existence of unicorns however, but are open to the idea of evidence for unicorns possibly existing, then you are agnostic in your belief in unicorns. Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms. But why take my word for it? Just read what Thomas Henry Huxley wrote when he invented the word agnostic: "Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable." According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in the strict sense, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1