Comments by "snuffeldjuret" (@snuffeldjuret) on "David Pakman Show" channel.

  1. yes, definitely, without any doubt.
    2
  2.  @Vanadisphoto  so by "may very well" you mean "definitely"?
    2
  3.  @Vanadisphoto  hehe OK :D.
    2
  4. why did all the leftist who think Trump is the new Hitler wish him well?
    2
  5.  @Liftheavyrustylbs  same here!
    2
  6.  @moosepocalypse6500  it sounds like we are pretty much in agreement then, which is nice but not absolutely needed. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions, as I am not sure what and how to think about this it helps to hear what other people think :). I don't know how the rules are for essential medicine that some people need, that may improve performance in certain situations, which seems like a similar and thus interesting situation.
    2
  7.  @susangreene3060  you haven't seen the compilations of Biden being creepy creepy?
    2
  8.  @junior1able  forgive me if my English isn't perfect, I am Swedish. "Now I guess he's shifted the narrative to him calling the media's claim of his lack of response a hoax." He did that over 3 weeks ago: https://youtu.be/ELOZ6fU20Sk?t=214
    2
  9.  @DG-BB  he literally said "and the rest of the world".
    2
  10.  @derfnoslein1178  Why do you think Trump is my master? Because I care about the truth? Is that really how you want to characterize this, that truth is something Trumpsters care about and no one else? :P Also, you should probably tell mister boolord that Snopes is very good at fact checking. That would be the constructive thing to do, not tell me who already know :P.
    2
  11.  @robertgrant7864  herd testing or herd immunity?
    2
  12. @family lowe or West Nile Virus, Ebola Virus, MERS etc... The list is quite long!
    2
  13. I presume that is easily solved for running, but team sports must be a nightmare.
    2
  14. you don't understand the reasoning at all?
    2
  15.  @AnnaBucci  are you really sure about the local level thingy? You've never heard of any case at all? I was mainly thinking about young age sports, but also, heard about Laurel Hubbard?
    2
  16.  @jons9621  haha. Very funny. I understand that you think everyone did as you did it yourself.
    2
  17.  @joemercieca4794  he meant that the democrat perpetrates the hoax that Trump is doing to little about the virus. Obviously he did too little, but that is till what Trump meant. It becomes very clear if you actually listen to what he said, and more than just one sentence.
    2
  18.  @jons9621  do you seriously think I am a fan of Trump? If so, you really need to rethink your view of people. I am not even American, so it is beyond my why you all won't support Bernie.
    2
  19. Beijing Biden is the big thing. Kid fiddler not so much these days, it seems Biden have learned what and what not to do.
    2
  20. how do you know so much about Norway and Finland?
    1
  21. I think the measuring stick is about Biden eating babies :P.
    1
  22. ironically, in Sweden we don't even vote for Prime minister. As I understand it, that is the same in many/most European countries.
    1
  23. cancel culture is a legitimate issue.
    1
  24.  @BrainToMush  "On the spectrum of threats to humanity, it's toward the bottom of the list." We should be able to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. You can dismiss all issues using this rhetoric. "Also, the right is more guilty of cancel culture than the left. " I'd challenge you on that one. Do you have any recent example other than maybe Kapernick? "Neither of them came to his defense when he was fired." Was he good at his job? "The FCC has been regulating what is allowed on TV and radio since the beginning of those platforms. The difference now is that the internet opened up the playing field so common folk can now broadcast to the world and some of said peons can't get it through their Neanderthal skulls, that some dialogue is not suitable for unfettered dissemination." And how is this related to Gina? Who said basically the same thing Pedro said a few years earlier, yet he gets to keep his job. Also, what did Disney say about that region in China with the Uighur muslims? "Shapenile and Chowder certainly have not acknowledged that" They have, they talk about it all the time.
    1
  25.  @BrainToMush  "I said both Shapenile and Chowder called for Kaepernick's firing." I did read that. If you want to have a conversation, you need to do better on your part.
    1
  26.  @BrainToMush  "And who the hell is Gina? Who is Pedro? Do you mean that racist frog meme? You're digging deep, Man." The fact that you ask these questions shows you are not that informed about this. Both are actors on the Mandalorian. Gina got cancelled for the same thing Pedro did. Pedro is a leftie, so not cancelled. Funny how that is, huh? ;)
    1
  27.  @BrainToMush  "You need to do better on your part." So lead by example, then.
    1
  28.  @BrainToMush  why should I even dispute your points when you have no interest in a constructive conversation?
    1
  29.  @BrainToMush  how so?
    1
  30. but not through violence, you are conflating things.
    1
  31.  @DayneAW  you are conflating their violence part with their desire to political and social objectives part.
    1
  32.  @DayneAW  correct, they generally don't instigate violence, but they defend themselves when they are attacked. Proud Boys actually has a screening process, and kicks out extremists, so I think it'll be hard for you to actually find solid evidence that they actually use violence to accomplish political and social objectives. I would suspect that if a known Proud Boys member was integral in the Capitol raid, we'd never hear the end of it. I am easily persuaded with evidence though, so please enlighten me if I have missed anything.
    1
  33. you are such a good person.
    1
  34. "Conspiracy theory is the refuge of simple unintelligent people." Don't think that one is true mate. A lot of intelligent people go for them, as they are more able to connect dots.
    1
  35. do you know who John Sullivan is?
    1
  36.  m jones  my point is that you can see him in video egging people on, and talking about how he's gonna buy a trump hat, and saying that he frequently uses the "I'm just here to film" excuse. Also: ""John has been kicked from the #SaltLakeCity and #Portland protest scenes due to alarming behaviors including grifting/profiteering, self-promotion/clout chasing, sabotage of community actions, threats of violence, and — maybe most disturbingly — ties to the far-right," Rebellion Baby wrote. "In short — John's brother, James, is the co-founder of a pro-Trump org called 'Civilized Awakening,' and has strong ties to Proud Boys — even having spoken at a Proud Boy rally. The brothers' polarized political stances conveniently bolster the other's public personas. Activists in these cities recommend that he be barred from community actions and totally avoided."" John is nobody's friend, he just wants to see things burn. Sounds familiar? What happened in Portland after Biden's inauguration again? A fun little thing on the side about who's supporting his grifting? "Accused Capitol rioter John Sullivan sold video footage he recorded at the Jan. 6 siege to NBC and CNN for $35,000 each, according to new court papers." Despicable.
    1
  37. how would you go about criticizing soros and what he does with his money?
    1
  38. it will be really interesting to see how that turns out.
    1
  39.  @theoretisch4429  oh no, consistency is really important. Bad is in the eye of the beholder, and you will always think of your ideological enemies as bad, but if they are consistent you can achieve things together.
    1
  40.  @theoretisch4429  "Such bad argument." Not at all, you just didn't try hard enough to understand my point. The alternative to consistency is being against anything you are for, and for anything you are against. Something you actually see people not only think in the dark, but openly argue for. Like, let's not give Trump a win by passing criminal justice reform. "If someone is consistently against helping the people." Ben is not consistently against helping people, so not a very good example. "Plus the Conservative don't believe that there is a human made climate change respectively if it is a real threat." You are living in the past on this one. "But republicans think its only a good idea if their own pockets get filled" If you want to come off as a reasonable person, writing this is not a good idea.
    1
  41.  @theoretisch4429  "The Republican party is a joke rn." I thought we were talking about Ben? "That wasn't "just another option" he was denying facts. Calling covid a hoax." Did Ben say this? If so, citation needed. "claiming there was voter froad in the millions is the biggest joke of all." Did Ben do this? If so, provide evidence, either as a quote or video clip. The latter is preferred as the context is often important when understanding what people say.
    1
  42.  @theoretisch4429  "Well, he is a strong supporter of the party that is denying reality. Do you wanna tell me that still supporting the party after all this doesn't tell you something about his beliefs?" But we were talking about him. Also, this statement would have more value if there were more than two real options. Regarding your link: "Fiction: “The idea that the Arctic ice is disappearing is nonsense.” Fact: Arctic sea ice goes ..." My alarm bells go off here, because if he actually talked about "Arctic ice", the rebuttal can't be about "Arctic sea ice". The crucial difference here is of course the land ice on Greenland, which vast majority is within the arctic circle. I am not cherry picking here, it was literally the first thing I read, and I don't see a reason to read and comment about more until we have talked about this. Focus is our friend here. "Imagine having that stance on something proven to be real." You should not use the word "proven" in this context. Climate science is way too complex for that. There is a big pile of evidence, but there is still a lot of uncertainty, like: "The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) stated that "there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely to be less than 1 °C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5 °C and 4.5 °C and very unlikely greater than 6 °C"" "The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is the long-term temperature rise (equilibrium global mean near-surface air temperature) that is expected to result from a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration"
    1
  43.  @theoretisch4429  "Plus he claimed that "patriot prayer is not a white supremacist group"" I usually go with ADL on these kind of things, and they say: "Similarly, members of Identity Evropa/AIM and TWP have joined Proud Boys and fellow right-wing group Patriot Prayer events in Portland." They do not have a page for Patriot Prayer like they have Proud Boys, but an interesting note could be that they do not classify Proud Boys as "a white supremacist group". Are you against the ADL? "He also is homophobic." You can argue that, but you can also argue that he is just against gay marriage.
    1
  44.  @theoretisch4429  ""I'm not cherry picking here" and then you go on and do exactly that." Dude, it is not cherry picking if I comment on the very first thing I read. I am really disappointed in you for going there, really disappointed. "And well even that uncertainty doesn't change a thing about the fact that the human made climate change is real." But what it does is makes it very important that we are accurate in what we are saying, because if we are not, why should we demand Ben is? "When you look at the stuff he said like "the climate has always been changing" yeah ofc it has but he made this argument to argue that what happens rn now is just what happened in the past. But that's not true." Why should I trust that you interpret what Ben says accurately? You had nothing to say about the Arctic ice - Arctic sea ice distinction, so if I go by the evidence I see, I have no evidence that you are good at interpreting what Ben says. I would probably trust you more if you didn't accuse me of cherry picking, but as you did I really have to suspect you are not an honest actor here.
    1
  45.  @theoretisch4429  "Who argues in bad faith so often." I'm not going to take your word for it. "He advocates for state rights but as soon as women make use of state rights to get an abortion he is offended." This is actually not as hypocritical. Just because you are for states right doesn't mean you have to agree with all decisions the states makes. Think about it. "Plus him being against gay marriage is already enough to not stand by his side bc he obviously isn't interested in equality." But he is consistent about it ;). "But so are a lot of his supporters and that's why they watch him.. Just have to take a look at his comments" His supporters are nicer than what people say they are though.
    1
  46.  @theoretisch4429  "Do you seriously think the discrimination of minorities is okay, bc he is consistent in his discrimination?" That is not what we are talking about. As I said before, if you didn't read: "The alternative to consistency is being against anything you are for, and for anything you are against." That would not help reduce discrimination, but rather the opposite. "I don't know about that." So you believe people who don't like them are too charitable when they describe his fans? When does this ever happen when you speak of a group you don't like? "And better doesn't equal good." Of course not, but making them out to be worse people than they are is also not good. "ThErE ArE wOrSe PeOpLe" That is not what I am doing though. I am not saying you should be nice to them because there are worse people out there, I am saying they are not as bad as you think. I wonder, do you honestly read and try to understand what I say? Because it feels like I have to repeat myself here...
    1
  47.  @theoretisch4429  "You act like the only alternative to being consistent (against the right of a certain minority for example) is being against anything I am for" I am talking about ideologically consistent, as in not a flip flopper and holds relatively few to no contradictory views (we all do though). If you think I act that way, and it puzzles you. Assume I don't, because I a, not. THat will make it so, so much easier for you to understand my point. Apply "the principle of charity". "Well if I "don't like" someone in his comment section it is bc they don't believe in equality and discriminate minorities." And you will then use that dislike to exaggerate their positions, it is only human. You should not excuse that behavior, you should work on minimize it. That is what good people do. "And? That doesn't make them good people." That is not what I am saying. I am saying that progress comes from accurate criticism. "And it would be harmful to normalize them and say "well they are not as bad as you think"." Are you saying it is harmful to speak the truth?
    1
  48.  @theoretisch4429  "Believing in equality and applying that value to your positions is incredibly consistent if you want to argue about that." Yeah I am not arguing against that. There are obviously more than one set of consistent thoughts out there :P. "If someone discriminates minorities and his excuse his that he is consistent.." But that is not what we are doing. I am arguing that consistency should be commended, even though you dislike the person, as the lack of consistency is even worse. In the spectrum of inconsistency to consistency, you can't achieve more than consistency, so when that is achieved it should be highlighted for how ideological disagreements should be handled, with consistency. "Then congrats on being consistent on discrimination of that minority." We are talking about over all consistency. "But it goes against my values so therefore I wouldn't ever defend someone for their discrimination. Period." But as no one is perfect, so I hope you will never defend anyone for anything, as no person is perfect and thus hold bad views. Especially if we judge us today by future's standard. "Well you could bring that argument if they actually wouldn't believe what I'm saying they believe." But we talked about this, you talked about climate science and brought up a source that could be exaggerating Ben's position. And you failed to address how that source didn't exaggerate what he said. You see, when you make claims, you have to back them up with actual evidence, and if the evidence points to the opposite, they actually don't believe what you are saying they believe. Ben and his supporters are two different things, but you making claims is the same, not matter if it is about him or your supporters, you should be able to back up what you say with evidence. "When I say they discriminate gays by saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry then this is discrimination and not an exaggeration" The exaggeration could be calling them homophobic for it. "Well then say that and don't say they aren't as bad as I think." Should I really have to? "And being against gay marriage is as wrong as it gets." Then you don't need to exaggerate, by assuming they are against it because of their homophobia, if that is what you do. Or is that just for Ben, not his fans? "Where exactly did I say that? I didn't say that in the sentences you quoted." You said: "And it would be harmful to normalize them and say "well they are not as bad as you think"." Sometimes they are as bad as you think, sometimes they are not. You say that it is harmful to normalize them as a blanket statement, no matter if they are as bad or not. The only logical conclusion is that you think speaking the truth can be harmful, and in this case is. "It is harmful to normalize people who have a stance that is discriminating minorities." Then say that :P. I am not sure I agree, as pushing them away doesn't seem to help, so maybe the opposite will? Have you heard about Daryl Davis? Look him up, really interesting stuff!
    1
  49. but he just mentioned soros though, that is one guy.
    1
  50. what is true and what is myth about him?
    1