Comments by "snuffeldjuret" (@snuffeldjuret) on "DeSantis ASSAILS Doctors Who Perform Transgender Surgery On Kids: 'They Need To Get SUED'" video.

what is making public education look bad is people like Katie who defends this lunacy.
3
Katie should look in the mirror, people should take what she says with a severe overdose of salt.
2
@PamelaCurry if it is not happening, no harm in banning it then?
2
oof, Katie is just so, so bad. Not oleyjmme bad, but close!
1
@hrs2044 what makes you think you know more than OP?
1
@hrs2044 lack of evidence is just that, lack of evidence, not proof of the opposite. OP might even have seen evidence, but didn't present them to you.
1
@hrs2044 "So only OP has seen any evidence of this?" No reason to believe that. "Fox, Newsmax, and OAN have yet to catch wind of any of this?" Aren't they constantly talking about this? "Sorry but the onus is on the person making a claim of some event happening." Sure, but if we are sticking to the rules of logic etc, you can't claim it isn't happening. Only thing you can claim is that there is little to no valid evidence of it happening. "Until then, it's clearly not" As I mentioned earlier, that is not how knowledge is determined.
1
@hrs2044 you can claim it, but that doesn't necessarily make it true, it is just a relevant claim. Regarding evidence, it is important to point out that we are always talking about publicly available evidence, as we could not speak about anything outside of that. I am not sure what "this" specifically refer to, so I can't say either way.
1
@hrs2044 I don't think that is how relevancy is defined, maybe you are thinking of validity? Again, what is even "this" referring to? How are we to know which part of the video OP referred to in their comment? "Works for me" Sounds like a dangerous mindset. It sounds like you have assumed the conclusion and tries to conform reality to that conclusion.
1
@hrs2044 "It's a dangerous mindset to require evidence in order to believe a claim by a random YT poster?" Are you intentionally trying to misunderstand me? "Sorry, but I'll stick with needing evidence before blindly accepting wild accusations about something" When did we ever discuss blindly accepting things? "The real danger is simply believing anything you read on the internet based on nothing more than faith alone." Actually, the real danger is nuclear war, so what is your point?
1
@hrs2044 I don't have an issue with you wanting to see evidence, I have an issue with you saying it is false because evidence wasn't provided in this one instance. I have been very clear on this, so not sure why you haven't gotten that. I don't think climate change can reasonably be as destructive as a nuclear war tbh, but either way the point is that talking about what "the real danger is" is only ever used to shut down conversation. Why talk about what OP said if the real danger is something different?
1
@hrs2044 "Umm.. because what the OP said is precisely an example of the danger that I spoke of." Isn't it the opposite? OP didn't believe what was said in the video (thing on the internet), instead countered with personal experience? "Meanwhile, ur the one who brought up the idea of any "danger" by saying my mindset was just that." It is a dangerous mindset when it comes to determining the validity of a claim, which is what the discussion is about. It is close to impossible to make an honest determination of the validity of the claim if you beforehand have decided the validity of it. "Looks like you were the one trying to shutdown the conversation by completely deflecting with...... nuclear war?" It was an example of how pointless it is to talk about "the real danger" in a conversation as it serves no other purpose than shift the conversation away from what it is about. You might not have seen it when you did it, but you sure saw it when I did the same but exaggerated thing.
1
@hrs2044 "Nope, I was talking about making wild unsubstantiated claims with no evidence." Yeah... that's the same thing. "That's what OP did." But they did not simply believe what was said on the internet.... "And it's not "dangerous" to be skeptical ..." Don't conflate skeptical with dismissive, they are separate things. "... rather than accept it blindly sans evidence. " False dichotomy. "The danger I spoke of is absolutely related to the discussion at hand of believing things without evidence." Related, but not relevant. "You just deflected with......nuclear war?" Now you are just arguing in bad faith here, is that your goal?
1
@hrs2044 in case you replied to me last comment, yt decided not to show it to me.
1
@hrs2044 "Well I guess even YT has decided that you completely derailed this thread ..." Yeah I am going to ignore you if you double down on bad faith behavior. You are the one in the youtube doghouse, and that for a reason, not I. Deal with it.
1
@hrs2044 "My post is visible for all to see." Did you look at it from another account or logged out? "Can't say the same bout sum of ur posts." I can see all mine when I am logged out and watching from another browser, so I seriously doubt this claim of yours is true. Are you making things up? "And I'm not the one with the bad faith argument, seeing how you brought up nuclear war, ..." I explained to you why I mentioned it, but you cling on to your misinterpretation of the point for dear life to not have to talk about the actual subject, that is arguing in bad faith.
1
@hrs2044 "YT hid one of ur posts long before it hid mine" Which one is that? Provide some evidence for your claim ;). They hid your second comment here, so clearly they hid yours before your false claim that they have hidden any of mine. Like dude, I have looked at it, you can't lie yourself out of this one. "so they clearly saw ur attempts at derailing this thread long before" That is not at all how that system works, so here you are against trying to interpret reality to fit your assumed conclusion ;). I really, really hope you don't believe your own nonsense here, that would just be sad. "And yes, ur lame attempt at explaining why u brought up nuclear war is laughable as its neither related nor relevant to this thread." That is your opinion, which is incorrect. You brought up "the real danger" and I responded to that, so the fault is on you. You are grasping at straws trying to save face here. "My point was at least related, as you yourself admitted." Mine was related as well as it was about the real danger, that is why I used it as an example. Related but not relevant.
1
@hrs2044 "Ahh, so u admit youve replied to a hidden comment of mine before ..." Even hidden comments often appear in the notifications, but not always. That is just how the system works. Also, didn't you claim I had gotten comments hidden, that you still replied to? You need to keep your story straight... "derp" You really should be above such commentary when talking about something you don't know how it works. Be humble. "no amount of rationalization will convince anyone that nuclear war is in any way related to the topic" But related to "the real danger", hence why talking about the real danger was irrelevant. "Your attempt to shutdown this conversation" You are the one that actually stopped talking about the actual subject, so it really isn't becoming of you too harp on about this. You dropped everything to just repeat bla bla "nuclear war" bla bla. That is on you, you are in control of your own actions. "and make it all about what posts you can or cannot see" Now this is an interesting twist. I informed you that there probably was a comment I couldn't see, as you can see how many replies have been made even if they are hidden. For reasons unknown to me you felt the need to turn that into something malicious. That really isn't good my friend, that really isn't good. This would be so, so much easier for you if you assumed I was a rational and honest person and then acted accordingly. Instead you misinterpret everything I say towards the malicious end and act accordingly to that, but that only makes you look bad as there is no malice from my part. This bad boy Snuffeldjuret is a complete figment of your imagination.
1
@hrs2044 "Yes I did reply to a hidden comment of yours, never claimed otherwise" Then what did you mean with "You just exposed urself."? "cuz as everyone knows (and u urself admitted) you can still view notifications of a post (even if it's hidden) and read the message if it's directed specifically to you." Not all of them, you don't get a notification for all directed to you. "So how bout getting ur stories straight." Straight as an arrow, the problem is that you don't know how youtube works. "You can see some notifications of a hidden post, but not others?" Yes. "Repeat" Don't repeat, stay on topic. Imagine if I was to blabber about you bringing up climate change, that would be ridiculous. This really isn't the face saving nugget you think it is. "If ur goal was to shutdown conversation" You are the one that shot down the conversation. Lets see if this is true. Last thing I wrote about the topic was: "Nope, I was talking about making wild unsubstantiated claims with no evidence." Yeah... that's the same thing. "That's what OP did." But they did not simply believe what was said on the internet.... "And it's not "dangerous" to be skeptical ..." Don't conflate skeptical with dismissive, they are separate things. "... rather than accept it blindly sans evidence. " False dichotomy. Ball is in your court, you who really wants to talk about the topic. Put your money where your mouth is.
1
@hrs2044 "You posted today that you couldn't see a comment of mine, but then u just admitted you were able to see and reply to a hidden post of mine from the beginning of this thread. So you can see all my posts (even if they're hidden)," Incorrect, I can only see those I get a notification for, and I didn't get a notification for all. Not sure how many times I have to tell you this... you are trying way to hard to "get me", so you end up with failed attacks like this... "(because this is becoming boringly repetitious)" That is your fault for fixating on irrelevant things. Take some responsibility. "the OP has provided zero proof of their claims" True. "and there are no reports of this on even the most far-right news outlets" Depends on how you define "across a district", or rather quantify I guess. How do you quantify that? Do you think OP would have the same definition? "I'm more than justified to be both skeptical and dismissive" Within that premise, sure, but you can't claim it isn't happening, which is my whole point.
1
@hrs2044 "hmm.. u didn't get a notification yet sumhow you had the foresight to post "hey I don't know if u responded or not, but just in case ya did, I can't see it"" As I said, I noticed that the amount of replies went from 19 to 20 or what the exact number was, and I suspected it was you who replied. I know that happens, which is why I asked. "Please, just give it up." Or maybe, just maybe you entertain the idea that someone actually might know something you don't know. Isn't what I say the most likely, the least complicated story? Why on Earth would I make this up? The story doesn't make sense if I am not telling you the truth. Have the decency to assume I make sense if you don't have the knowledge to determine if I do or don't. "As for irrelevant things, how bout you not try to shut down the convo by bringing up irrelevant things like nuclear war, hmm?" You started it by bringing up "the real danger". You really should drop that as you have no legs to stand on. YOu finalized it by continuously avoiding the topic and instead repeating that line. How you can't see this irony is puzzling. "Take ur own advice and take responsibility for ur own obvious irrelevant deflection." You are the one that keeps talking about the irrelevant stuff. Heed your own advice and just stop. "Finally, I'm glad we can both agree that neither u nor the OP has provided any evidence of the claim that was originally made" I never claimed otherwise. You should have assumed we agreed on that, but for some reason you went out of your way to interpret everything I said in a uncharitable way. "therefore I remain both skeptical & dismissive until such time that any evidence is put forth." And that is fine, like I just said. What I say is an error of yours is declaring that just because evidence isn't provided, the opposite has/ought to be true. To reiterate: "Evidence of absence and absence of evidence are similar but distinct concepts. This distinction is captured in the aphorism "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Often attributed to Martin Rees or Carl Sagan, versions of this antimetabole appeared as early as the 19th century." Now finally do you get my point? I am not here to provide evidence for OP's claim (just like you), it never was, it was just to point out your erroneous logic.
1
@hrs2044 "is the same reason u deflected with nuclear war" Except I didn't deflect, you are the one deflecting by saying the conversation is now over because I responded to you talking about "the real danger". "As for danger, you brought it up initially by claiming my way of thinking was "dangerous," so don't lecture me about not having any legs to stand on." But that is relevant. When discussing what something means or is, having a predetermined conclusion is dangerous as that can cloud your judgement. This is things you really should know already, unless you have quite many years left in school. Maybe you have, and that is fine, but if that is the case, you really shouldn't be as confident that you know everything in life already. "I simply replied with my take on what is dangerous." And that is fine, and I replied how it wasn't relevant so I asked you what your point was, and then you went on your tirade repeating the same line over and over again avoiding the conversation. "You can do it, but when I do it's wrong?" Not at all, I literally said I did the same to show you in an obvious way how it is not constructive. I already explained this to you. "And yes, I see ur point, so if it makes you happy I'll amend my original post" That is all I ever wanted, you didn't need to invent this straw man of me with nefarious motives. "and which posts ur able to see or not." Do you really think it was wrong of me to say that there probably was a comment you made that I couldn't see? Really, is that what you are saying? You wrote it for me to see, right? So when I didn't see it, I made you aware of it. How on Earth can you complain about this?
1
@hrs2044 "Sorry buddy but what I brought up was just as relevant as well." And that is fine, but the way you want about it when you thought I said something irrelevant was completely different. I explained why I found it irrelevant, you shut down the conversation and repeated your line, ironically claiming I shut it down. "Your opinion on what's dangerous is no less relevant than what I identified as dangerous." That is a matter of opinion. "They're both opinions" Mine is actually a part of good practice, it is essentially boiled down to "don't jump to conclusions", maybe you have encountered it before. "which it subsequently did." You are too funny, that was all on you as that was your choice. You seriously have to kid me here, right? You can't honestly believe what you are writing. "Pretending u didn't see my hidden comment was clearly part of that" Just imagine being me and being correct, what should I think of you? That is the problem people like you have when you argue, you rely your entire rhetoric on something you can't know, and when you are in the wrong your entire facade crumbles. "cuz u saw my first one and even responded to it." The difference being that I got notification for the first one, not the second one. It really isn't that hard. The fact that you think it is absolutely impossible for you to be wrong shows you have a lot of growing up to do. I'll leave you with this, follow this and it will do you good: "In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation." As the initial issue is resolved and you'll never come to terms with how much you misinterpreted me and refused to even consider what I wrote, I'll bow out now and give you the last word if you are desperate enough to have it (if the first sentence is fine, I'll even read it).
1