Comments by "michael" (@michaeld4861) on "Rationality Rules" channel.

  1.  @justinshadrach829  Being attracted to children is totally different than raping a child you numbskull. A 5 year old cannot give consent to sexual activity. The Christians in the above video tried to debunk Gervais's argument about gay not being a choice by completely changing the argument into fucking kids. Not the same thing. Adults can give consent, children can't. And I see your comment below asking "what is a child?" But you fail to realize that just because something happens does not make it ideal or morally permissible. In some countries children are also being "allowed" to be sold into sex slavery. That does not make it right or lower the age of consent. There is a totally difference between having a preference and acting out that preference at the detriment of others. Take the BTK killer for example. He can watch all the weird porn he wants but the second he starts torturing women he's committing a moral atrocity.
    34
  2.  @rafaelrivera364  It doesn't make sense to scholars either lol watch some of his debates against people like Sam Harris (there's more but that's one where sam called him out during the debate) where peterson devolves into nonsensical equivocation like usual.
    21
  3.  @Frandahab  They are obviously different things and not related. Just because big business CAN use science to bias the playing field or twist it to political means does not mean that science is political. That's just fallacious. That's like saying money is inherently political. It's not, it's just money. Although it CAN be used by politics.
    5
  4.  @farisakhtar4824  Jesus was a jew though.
    3
  5. Well to be fair he doesn't have to get around the Entire world.... just the nice comfortable bits that can afford to feed him cookies. Proper motivation can provide miracles.
    3
  6. Peterson's critique of people saying "that wasn't marxism" is so stupid it's just ridiculous that he gets away with it. With that logic he could claim that everybody is wrong about everything ever because they can't go back in time and do a better job themselves. Which in the end has no bearing at all on the definition of something anyway. It's like claiming Hitler was a socialist and you can't claim otherwise because you can't go back in time and do a better job than him. Clearly he was not. God damn he's a fucking moron.
    2
  7.  @CathDamienn1776  Yes, but you see, if the "debunking" cycle has always been in existence and everything must have a cause, then who/what started it? Therefore god. lol
    2
  8.  @TheMickeymental  Your argument makes no sense. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the start of organic molecules or life. It simply explains how they change over time. Someone literally being able to create a person out of a rock is not necessary. And, yes, fossils do count as evidence. They are Literal evidence. That's like saying a bloody knife cannot be used as evidence in a murder case. And of course scientists will never have a perfectly preserved specimen of every organ of every species ever. How about this. Just provide 1 piece of evidence to the contrary. That's all it would take to dismantle. But of course you can't otherwise every science school book would be rewritten tomorrow.
    2
  9.  @TheMickeymental  You obviously have never had a chemistry class. or biology. If life can only come from life then logically life could not exist. Who's the asinine one again?
    2
  10.  @TheMickeymental  Lies can't be backed by evidence. lol
    2
  11.  @TheMickeymental  There has literally been documented proof of evolution happening with certain bird species, many insects mice, farm animals, any common pet such as dogs and cats. You can't argue against that. What do you think selective breeding is? So you're not erudite, you're just willfully ignorant.
    2
  12.  @TheMickeymental  Besides the definition of rational is using evidence to form you view, not random "god must have done it" nonsense. You fuckers are literally so backwards it painful. If nothing evolves explain how we have literally created new species. I'll wait.
    2
  13.  @TheMickeymental  Evolution happens in two stages. First is DNA mutations. Second is natural selection. If you can disprove just one of those I'll bow down and become your slave. First DNA mutations happen all the time. That how cancer occurs. This is indisputable. Plus if you have any idea how reproduction works you will surely know that offspring contain different DNA combinations than either parent. (It's a mix of both) So I just proved that. Second is natural selection. We bred tiny dogs that don't exist in nature by selective breeding. There I proved that too.
    2
  14.  @luisfilipe6253  Yes, I refuse to believe a computer could create a new program due to glitches too. The watchmaker analogy is really a poor analogy. First the universe is run by chemistry. Every atom has a binding affinity or attraction to every other atom via electrons (or lack thereof). (Really learning a little chemistry would clear a lot of this up honestly). There's no god adding new info lol that would not make us able to selectively breed things because then we wouldn't get what we are aiming to. So DNA doesn't always copy 100% and things like viruses can actually insert new chains of letters into your DNA and when those extremely tiny changes occur it can sometimes cause accidental changes to the organism such as a different eye color. Sickle Cell is a good example of a simple DNA mutation that can cause a noticeable change. Sometimes these changes are bad, most of the time they do nothing at all, and sometimes they are advantageous. Now, that advantageous one has a better change of surviving and passing on that advantage to its offspring. Those offspring have offspring of their own and somewhere down the line one of them has another mutation that causes another advantage. Over a super long period of time the mutations add up along the way. That is evolution. This is commonly seen in birds that develop different beaks due to only the birds with specific beaks having an advantage in getting a food source. We have also created different species like mice, dogs, cats etc by selective breeding which takes advantage of their different DNA profiles to create a new offspring that does not look like the "original" (this in not done in 1 generation btw but many just like with Gregor Mendel). I hope I explained that somewhat okay. See the watchmaker analogy doesn't work because it claims that the watch just came together all at once which is impossible. Things have to change subtly and slowly over time. No wave is going to make a watch. No human parents are going to have an alien baby that's another species. That's just not how it works.
    2
  15.  @luisfilipe6253  yes we both agree glitches don't create new computer games. You are clearly not getting it. You are just willfully ignoring and strawmaning what I'm saying.
    2
  16.  @luisfilipe6253  Computer glitches don't create NEW data. Whereas mutations can be added. Theres a mutation humans get all the time where people inherit too many genes from their parents. Cells divide to create new cells and sometimes errors in cell division and errors in chromosome duplication happen. Down syndrome is having a third copy (or part of a third copy) of chromosome 21. That would be more info than either parent had. New info, longer DNA, more room for mutations. Computer glitches don't create new info, they just break down old info. Since computers are not alive and don't go through cell division on a daily basis there is no way for them to acquire new or longer programs.
    2
  17.  @luisfilipe6253  Proof? Chemistry has proof. Can you say the same about a god? Or are you denying the existence of water?
    2
  18.  @MadebyJimbob  What is a hypothesis if not a prediction? Also wouldn't the cause be Gravity and the effect be the bending of light or space-time or just general attraction? Isn't gravity more firmly established by astronauts jumping and landing back on the moon? Why does the moon (or anything with mass especially a large mass) attract objects if not for gravity?
    2
  19. They keep rewriting the bible just like Napoleon rewrote the rules painted on the barn in Animal Farm. I'm certain they will come out with a new version soon.
    2
  20. Yes! This is precisely what I was thinking to, although you said it more concisely. Many of the things they showed in the video as being homeopathy, like plain water, don't even quality as homeopathy since they have no effect. How can "like cure like" if there is no effect? That's why I was so confused that he showed actual research stating that homeopathy is not an effective cancer treatment. Like WTF I would hope not since that would mean it would have to cause cancer. It sounds like homeopathy is two things. 1. just water or something super diluted to the point of having no effect. 2. Something that does have an effect which is used to treat symptoms resembling that same effect.
    2
  21. nice analogy
    2
  22. Secularism is apparently when minorities get tired of being publicly executed and decide to protest for basic human rights. 😲 The horror! But if they win and humans get rights the world will end according to Dennis... wow, he's one bold bastard.
    2
  23.  @griz063  Sure but the other side effect is that if you string them all together equivocally they make a whole bunch of nonsense and prevarication in which Peterson is an expert. I've noticed that not only does he rarely say anything important but he rarely says anything at all. In fact, most of his talking is just making up new definitions for already defined words.
    2
  24. Buddha said to reduce suffering at least 500 years before Jesus was even born. Therefore every Christian is actually a Buddhist and they just don't know it and are representing it incorrectly.
    2
  25. "Universities, the places with the most ridiculous ideas, where people make up their own ideas about life" ... yeah Dennis, it's called freedom, you should give it a try. How dare people have their own thoughts and ideas, what is this, Hell?
    2
  26.  @AveChristusRex  Nature doesn't have intent. therefore nothing with your definition is natural.
    2
  27.  @AveChristusRex  "He shall not be punished" literally means it's ok. You need to go back to school and learn to read man. They can at least teach you that.
    2
  28.  @callbook8989  lol Dopey claimed that heretics were the ones "forcing their opinions upon everyone else and insulting people's religions".... but yet they are the ones who were burned alive for believing the "wrong" religion..... irony is dead.
    2
  29. Nobody says that eggs don't increase cholesterol, they just have a minority of industry funded studies showing that eggs are better for cholesterol levels than say lard. Or one study compared a person with egregiously high cholesterol levels and told them to eat 2 eggs a day. What do you know adding an extra 2 eggs on top of the other 8 they were already eating plus the 2 Mcdonalds meals a day had little impact on their cholesterol. Once you realize that the food industry works the same way that the tobacco industry used to it makes a lot more sense. I mean think about this, in the US it is actually illegal for advertisers to call eggs "safe" or "healthy".
    1
  30. I love the expression on that old guys face after Stephen shuts his ass up. He's just utterly at a loss and probably thinking "wow, the wizard is gunna be mad at you".
    1
  31. "but they could originally interbreed" No, they cannot interbreed, that was their ancestors that could. Which by definition is not them. That's what not being able to produce offspring means. Either that or yes they could "originally" interbreed, (if they were their ancestors and not themselves) in which case evolution did occur and so either way he states it he just contradicted himself.
    1
  32. nice point. Yeah, they assume they know "the truth" before they even go over the evidence and are therefore justifying their position by only considering arguments or evidence that support their "conclusion". But, in his defense, we do see technicalities happen almost like dramas sometimes. Just look at Bill Cosby!
    1
  33. yeah but have you read all the most prominent scholars and philosophers debating the merits of not collecting stamps? Also, how dare you! Are you not aware that those that don't collect stamps are condemned to and afternoon once a week of being thrown in a pool full of jello? and then being sprayed with gold paint to act like a robot in the park for 1 hour on the 2nd saturday of each month ending in an odd number.
    1
  34.  @clng5550  The first Buddha let his wife become a monk and that was back in a time when women were not allowed to and she formed her own nunnery (group of female buddhists).... also many books have been written by female monks. I think sometimes temples separate men and women but it's more about limiting distractions than about gender equality.
    1
  35. So... his argument is basically "if you can't understand it, then it must be false"? Also, what "technicality" or "procedural error" could there possibly be for a GOD? like... what? There's no such thing as a procedural error for the existence of an almighty deity. Also, isn't there a saying about people that keep looking to the right are lying? (okay I'm pretty sure that's just a myth but seriously, this guys eye movements scream "I'm makin' shit up!")
    1
  36. 10:20 - What the Fuck!?!?! So the village folk want to rape the inn keepers guests (men) and he says "no, please don't rape my guest, I have two virgin daughters you can do with as you will". My god, the more you read about the bible the worse it gets. How could anyone implore people to rape their innocent virgin daughters. Makes you sick.
    1
  37. I wish I could say otherwise but this is probably tame compared to much of the other Fox news bs. I just wish my parents could see how stupid that network is. They actually think its a great UNBIASED new channel. Poor Dawkins, why was he even invited on. Probably just to ridicule him with a barrage of too many nonsensical points that he couldn't possibly hope to answer within 5 seconds in order to make him look bad to push their own ridiculous views on their viewers. "See he didn't answer all the questions therefore he's wrong and we are right, Hurray. Humans can't pollute the world, Evolution never happened, and big oil and factory farming are our friends cause I'm heavily invested and don't like losing money!!"
    1
  38.  @natp8387  lol There is nothing wrong with carrots and bananas or whole grains. Literally some of the healthiest foods on earth.
    1
  39. I really liked the animation style. Very fitting and loved how the pictures warped or transformed.
    1
  40.  @Silent33091  I mean this is technically the idea of vaccination. Tiny amounts of a virus triggers your immune system to make antibodies. Its just that this idea doesn't work in any other context since other contexts don't utilize the immune systems functions.
    1
  41. Why do they have to make it sound so much more complicated than it is? An action without a cause. The prime mover. lol Damn! It's always easier to sound right when nobody has a clue what the fuck you're talking about.
    1
  42. If Peterson thinks that Crime and Punishment was an argument for the existence of god then he has clearly never read the book.
    1
  43. First, Raskolnikov didn't have every rational reason to kill. Just because people don't like someone is not reason enough to murder them. lol What is Peterson thinking? Second, he killed an innocent girl that he was actually trying to free. Deliberately. Peterson just leaves that part out entirely. What were his reasonable motivations there? And he can't claim self-preservation because that doesn't justify killing an innocent person who is NOT trying to harm you. I, somewhat recently, read Crime and Punishment and I can't remember Raskolnikov using the excuse that there is no god to justify his murder once. He does claim that great men throughout history have used murder for the greater good and deludes himself into thinking that committing murder with "altruistic intentions" must be a prerequisite characteristic of great men. And so he thinks that if he can commit murder and bring some (what he has deluded himself into thinking is good) into the world then therefore by definition he must be a great man, similar to Napoleon. He basically just wants to bolster his ego. We all feel good when putting down someone we think is wrong. Raskolnikov accepts god in the end because he's been taught that Jesus forgives all sins which will assuage his guilt (that he has the ENTIRE book btw) for murdering innocent people (at least the niece was 100% innocent) where as society condemned him and sent him to Siberia. Accepting religion gives him a mentally easier way to repent and assuage his guilt. Oh, sorry I forgot, all athiests are just pretending they don't believe in a god.
    1
  44. It's funny how they keep saying the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and the slavery condoned in the bible were different. But I've read many books where the two overlap. For instance, slaves where transported by the priests to and from Japan in the 1500-1600's hence the persecution of Christianity throughout Japan from the 1600's onward. Because Tokugawa realized that his people were being kidnapped by the church and taken from Japan to be sold overseas, not to mention the pope had declared Japan as the territory of the Spanish (I believe) when he split up the rights to the 'undiscovered territories'. If someone comes into your country and tells you they own the whole place unbeknownst to you and your government and tries to take over and also starts enslaving your people, you'd kick them out by force as well. lol Also, Father Valignano actually gifted Nobunaga an african slave named Yasuke.
    1
  45. What an epic video!
    1
  46. All this talk of an objects potential to be burned or smashed or fall to the ground just sounds stupid to me. Of course and action can have an effect on an object. Ben you don't need to explain that lighting wood on fire makes it hot. Just say "there has to have been a first action to have a first cause in the universe, therefore god". I just actually saved Ben a shitload of potential time. That time now has the potential for Ben to actually do something useful with it and rethink his life, philosophies and manner of speaking.
    1
  47.  @luisfilipe6253  I've already stated the difference. Computers do not make errors. Their circuits bread down. It's all based on electricity running smoothly through the it's circuitry. Computers do not undergo cell division or DNA replication or viral DNA changes and therefore cannot create new or longer info accidentally.
    1
  48.  @luisfilipe6253  chemistry isn't a material thing and therefore doesn't have to come from nothing. Second, I don't think everything came from nothing either. Besides, that's not proof. You do know what proof is right? Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it came from nothing or that a god must have created it. Your feeble human mind is not omniscient. lol
    1
  49. ", for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others" What about marrying a 6 year old is moral? And it certainly does not protect the rights of others free speech if someone is offended by words about their ridiculous belief in magical beings. Imagine if I start a new religion in which Hitler is my god and then someone insults me by saying "Hitler was an atrociously bad person for killing Jews and he should have been burned for it" and then I can sue them for insulting my religious beliefs?!?!?! "My god was not immoral, he just had sex with 6 year olds". For Fucks Sake. anyone implying that having sexual relations with 6 year olds or owning slaves is okay is most certainly not upholding public safety, prevention of crime, rights of others, or the protection of health and morals.
    1
  50. "when you make a substance illegal, the people who were criminals before are criminals after" Yes but that does not make people who become criminals by this new law criminals BEFORE the law was passed. Damn he's an idiot. Someone who drank alcohol before and after the prohibition was not a "criminal" until alcohol was made illegal. A slave who ran away from their master was not a criminal before and after running away. Most people think a criminal must be morally wrong for their action but the law is not always moral or ethical.
    1