Comments by "snuffeldjuret" (@snuffeldjuret) on "PragerU" channel.

  1.  @CedWii360  if you think that "We also need to start using renewable energy and stop being solely dependent on fossil fuels. Not just because of "Climate Change" ..." I don't get why you also think that "This was a very persuasive argument."
    1
  2.  @CedWii360  a fine response I think :). Given that, I still don't think Jordan's response to her was any good as we have no way of knowing her. I find it a bit hilarious that PragerU uses that as the way to deal with climate change, at the same time as their kind bashed Greta for not focusing on China instead of she doing what Jordan suggests. In general, the right that accepts AGW only say one thing: Don't look at us, look at China. They are the bad people.
    1
  3.  @reson8  because I disagree that his point applies to this situation, I am surprised you couldn't figure that out. "Besides, i wasn't replying to you anyway." Looks like I committed a serious crime then...
    1
  4. hehe yea I was like, what? So Jordan's argument is that people should become activists all of them?
    1
  5. so to all you who like this video, what are YOU doing against global warming? How are You improving YOURSELF so that you are not such a burden on the planet?
    1
  6. I don't particularly like PragerU and I understand why people criticize it/you, but when they shut people up where are they to go but here to make their voices heard?
    1
  7. so you are against democracy then I presume? :P
    1
  8.  @medusaskull9625  isn't voting something you do in order to improve your country? So people who haven't improved yourself.... ?
    1
  9. the questions the sheep followers of PragerU can never answer.
    1
  10.  @cosmopolitanbay9508  both are forcing change on other people.
    1
  11. depends on what you eat.
    1
  12. she really has nothing and you can see it on her body language
    1
  13.  @ReiEmeraldTakedo  tangent?
    1
  14.  @ReiEmeraldTakedo  You: Seems like a tangent to me. Me: tangent? You: Not in the slightest. Me: ???
    1
  15.  @ReiEmeraldTakedo  I was asking why you think corbin mcnabb's original comment was a tangent. It certainly did not seem like "an abrupt change of course" to me, if you looked at the video and read Tim Biagen's comment.
    1
  16.  @ReiEmeraldTakedo  the video doesn't have to substantiate the claim, it just have to build on the premise. You can argue about the premise if you like, which both Tim and Corbin does. So there is nothing tangential about it. I am honestly really confused about what you want to accomplish here.
    1
  17.  @ReiEmeraldTakedo  read again. I said "build on the premise", not "build a premise" as you said. Vast difference. What you explained is arguing the premise. The thing is that prager U doesn't say everyone will vote dem though right? If they do, PLEASE QUOTE and provide time stamp! So Tim isn't contradicting anything by saying that he won't vote dem. Tims comment is essentially utterly stupid, and so is all of yours. "Dropping in to make a declarative statement about whether or not the Dems rely on immigrant votes seems tangental to whether or not Tim is going to vote Dem, especially when he's already stated he won't be." You have gotten it all backwards. Tim is responding to a declarative statement about whether or not the Dems rely on immigrant votes. There is nothing tangential here. Again, what are you trying to accomplish here? I really can't understand, and boy am I trying. Forget about the most idiotic discussion about the definition of a tangent or what this comment or that comment is about. What do you want to accomplish here? I am listening.
    1
  18. so what to you do for the climate?
    1
  19.  @cavaleer  the ocean absorbs as much CO2 as it creates.
    1
  20.  @blainefriess9243  there are more things that determine local temperature than global levels of CO2. That is why.
    1
  21.  @abloogywoogywoo  ultimately though we don't understand anything. We have to make decisions on our best understandings.
    1
  22.  @MikeOzmun  all I can say is that I disagree, since you weren't very specific.
    1
  23. hey hey hey, don't change others. Start with your own moral character, you know.
    1
  24. who is saying we don't have it "better"? If you define "better" as "happier", I think the happiness index might prove you wrong.
    1
  25.  @KazzArie  what was his point with asking the question, regarding action against climate change? That we have a lot we can do ass a society since we live in such abundance?
    1
  26. so then why are these conservatives so against leftist women having abortions?
    1
  27.  @ChipperWilliams  I don't watch CNN and Al Gore is not a scientist. Why do you think I watch PragerU videos from time to time?
    1
  28.  @ChipperWilliams  that is not being "not truthful", the comment is there for you to read. What I did was a reference to what I said. The core of what I said is just that. Maybe you don't know the English expression "All I said"? Anyway, good try! I did not expect any different reaction, but it is a bit funny to see someone punch back twice as hard at the same time as they preach not punching in the first place. You are done with my idea that PragerU is not telling the truth 100% of the time? You really think they are? Honestly?
    1
  29.  @ChipperWilliams  you claim "You have shown yourselves to be a insulting troll and a name caller. Just calling it like I see it." yet you didn't cite anything? You know the definition of "refer to" right? "to talk about or write about (someone or something) especially briefly : to mention (someone or something) in speech or in writing" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refer%20to I was referring to myself, keeping myself brief so of course I didn't include the irrelevant stuff. If you want to repeat something you have said, you cite it. I saw no reason to do so as the quote is easily accessible to everyone :P. I don't give a shit about the picture of me, I can prove it by calling you a dumb ass :P. The irony is that I am way too nice to you, you deserve much more ridicule :P. If you ask me something, I will respond. What is happening here is that you refuse to respond to my question about if PragerU always tells the truth 100% of the time. Why is that?
    1
  30.  @ChipperWilliams  I literally never said "But you said!" :P Not sure how you think I am the snowflake here, it is you who cannot deal with the video being pure crap and PragerU not speaking the truth 100% of the time. It is you who whine like a little bitch because I called you Mr. Sheeple. Now that is a snowflake if I ever saw one. Peace out, troglodyte.
    1
  31. @islanti we are not listening to the democrats, we are listening to the scientists. There are no people that are as neutral as scientists. They just enjoy figuring out how things work.
    1
  32. ironically, I interpret Prager's stance on this as a great supporter for what he seems to be against. So I second "Dennis Prager's ignorance is alarming."
    1
  33. well said.
    1
  34. it is indeed difficult to choose side, but the extreme left is easier to live with than the extreme right.
    1
  35. counter culture is great, but it has to be true.
    1
  36. he is not blind, he just lies for money.
    1
  37. so let the climate scientists lead then.
    1
  38.  @garetclaborn  relative see level change for Manhattan is totally relevant when we examine the statement "human settlements always move due to nature and even at 1 inch per year families will move on their own with no problem. of course the sea level change rate is not even close to that" How reliable is the Dutch model in the long run?
    1
  39.  @garetclaborn  if you don't think it is relevant, I wonder what you mean when you say "last time i checked human settlements always move due to nature and even at 1 inch per year families will move on their own with no problem. of course the sea level change rate is not even close to that". How do you move a skyscraper? If you want to argue the merits of the Dutch system, "last time i checked human settlements always move due to nature and even at 1 inch per year families will move on their own with no problem. of course the sea level change rate is not even close to that" is irrelevant. The Dutch system works now of course, that you cannot dispute. Will it work in the future, with climate change? That is a more interesting question. Will the Dutch model withstand the future challenges? This you have not addressed.
    1
  40.  @garetclaborn  you have clarified nothing, you have just repeated yourself. Surely you must know the difference.
    1
  41.  @garetclaborn  attention? are you kidding me? no one but you and me care what happens here. I just wanted to engage in a rational discussion with someone with a different understanding than I have. Are you telling me I should not?
    1
  42.  @garetclaborn  Which is why I didn't bring it up. I just picked a heavily populated place to highlight that you cannot move a skyscraper (not that I think you think, but to show the irrelevance of your comment about human settlements moving). You brought in another idea into the discussion. My question is not about the specific place, so I think it is possible to answer my question anyway, I just chose something concrete to make the discussion less vague. I would however argue that dealing with the water level issue becomes even more important if we have places sinking as it is. Maybe there aren't many places that do, but it hardly makes it less important. To show you how honest I am, let's chance city. Let's talk about Stockholm, another city by the water. How are they supposed to deal with the rising sea levels?
    1
  43.  @garetclaborn  so you don't want a genuine conversation?
    1
  44.  @garetclaborn  if you knew anything about how to have a constructive dialogue you would not say that. It is a shame, but honestly not that surprising.
    1
  45.  @garetclaborn  character assassinatio? what? please quote me where I did. My point was never shown invalid. That is what the dialogue is for, to examine our statements. You don't show it is invalid by saying so, you have to make a thorough logical argumentation, based on honest interpretation. You have answered, but we have to examine the answers to know if they are valid ones. You are doing everything you can to not engage in a genuine conversation with me. Why? Instead of talking trash about me, how about you actually practice what you preach and engage with me, in a genuine conversation?
    1
  46.  @garetclaborn  I think it is pathetic that you shy away from having a genuine conversation at the same time as you claim you want to have one. What a hypocrite. I am under no obligation to accept hypocrites, and the adult thing to do is to condemn them.
    1
  47.  @garetclaborn  everyone who reads this can see that I time and time again try to have a genuine conversation but you time and time again try to avoid it. You are the one running away, I haven't given up on having a genuine conversation yet. I am using the "genuine conversation" phrasing as that was what you said I didn't want to have, so I am here declaring that it is absolutely what I want to have. Let's talk. My agenda is to recognize the truth whatever it is. Is yours?
    1
  48.  @garetclaborn  yet again I am disappointed by your side of the fence, and you wonder why you have so little support for your ideas? As soon as a person want to engage in a rational discussion this is how you behave? smh
    1
  49.  @garetclaborn  lies? c'mon dude. Is this how you rationalize your behavior? I would benefit from man made global warming being a hoax, and so would you. Why do you give up? Don't you want people to see things as you?
    1
  50.  @BiggMo  considering propaganda defined as "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view." it fits very well. Misleading information, check. Promoting a political cause, check.
    1