General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

A T
The Alternative View
comments

Comments by "A T" (@AT-bq1kg) on "The Alternative View" channel.

Previous
1
Next
...
All

Ireland were treated badly yesterday but they have managed to recover economically whereas the Carribbean not so much. But it's true that colonialism wasn't the only contributing factor
9
Yes, the reparations were paid to the slave owners when the UK passed the slavery abolition act in 1833. You should really catch up on history! 😂
6
@jamesavery2 But the cheap labour conspiracy isn't compatible with the cashless society conspiracy 😂 which one is it?
4
Are you a lawyer? 😂
3
@newton18311 Yes it was. In 2015
3
Most people's second language is English. So it makes sense to come here. Secondly the acceptance rate in France varies from 25% to 40%. That crossing is not easy, why would they risk their lives to get here if all they needed to do is stop in France. It makes no sense. 70-80% of small boat crossings when processed turn out to be genuine asylum cases. Lastly, the fallacy present in the claim that asylum seekers are illegal economic migrants because most of them are males of fighting age is known as the "hasty generalization fallacy". This fallacy occurs when a conclusion is drawn based on insufficient or selective evidence. In this case, the assumption that being a male of fighting age directly correlates with being an economic migrant rather than a legitimate asylum seeker overlooks the individual circumstances of each person. Many asylum seekers are fleeing persecution, violence, or conflict in their home countries, and gender or age alone does not determine the validity of their asylum claims. This reasoning simplifies a complex issue and ignores the broader context of why individuals seek asylum.
3
The fallacy that often occurs when someone labels another person as a "Marxist" in a debate, particularly in a dismissive or accusatory manner, is known as the "straw man fallacy." This fallacy involves misrepresenting or oversimplifying the opponent's argument to make it easier to attack or refute. By labeling someone as a Marxist, the commentator may be attempting to paint the individual as extreme or radical without engaging with their actual arguments or positions. This tactic diverts attention from the substantive issues being discussed and can serve to polarize the debate rather than foster constructive dialogue. Additionally, this approach can also illustrate a form of "guilt by association," where the accused is linked to a negative connotation of Marxism without a fair assessment of their beliefs or arguments.
2
Labeling someone as a "Marxist" in a debate can be considered intellectually dishonest for several reasons: 1. Misrepresentation of Ideas: It often involves mischaracterizing the person's views. Instead of accurately representing their arguments or beliefs, the accuser simplifies or distorts them to fit a negative stereotype associated with Marxism. This prevents a fair and honest discussion of the actual points being made. 2. Avoidance of Substantive Argument: By resorting to name-calling or labeling, the commentator may evade engaging with the real issues at hand. This tactic shifts the focus from the argument's merit to a personal attack, undermining the quality of the debate. 3. Polarization: Such labeling can contribute to an "us versus them" mentality, fostering division rather than understanding. It can alienate audiences and discourage nuanced discussion, which is essential for intellectual discourse. 4. Appeal to Emotion: Calling someone a "Marxist" can evoke strong emotional responses based on preconceived notions or fears about communism or socialism. This emotional manipulation detracts from rational debate and can lead to a breakdown in constructive dialogue. 5. Lack of Nuance: Political and economic ideologies are often complex, and reducing someone's beliefs to a single label fails to acknowledge the nuances in their views. Intellectual honesty requires recognizing and engaging with this complexity. Overall, such tactics undermine the integrity of the debate and hinder the pursuit of truth and understanding.
2
@davidpollard1139 And your point is?
2
@Maccaboy1984 Like I said, I don't know anything about it.
2
@stue2298 I disagree. Haiti (a French colony) was the first government to abolish slavery in 1804. In Europe the Danish West India Company banned the importation of slaves in 1803. The British passed the slave trade act in 1807 and abolished slavery entirely over the empire by 1833. At the same time there was also a movement in the United States. It was more of a collective movement rather than simply "British values" that made up the abolitionist movement across the globe.
2
Just contuing shouting over someone is a sign of low intelligence
2
@bettyswunghole3310 It doesn't work like that. We live in the greatest country in the world, with the greatest justice system in the world, if you commit a crime it's your fault, nobody else's.
2
@labouraredangerous Every single country in the world have strict and specific laws prohibiting incitement to violence The only countries who's laws are vague are Somalia Yemen Libiya South Sudan
2
@offthecuff7. The fallacy in this situation is known as the Ad Hominem Fallacy, specifically a type called Tu Quoque (or "you too"). This fallacy occurs when someone responds to an argument or criticism by attacking the person making the argument instead of addressing the argument itself. In this case, the critic is implying that the activist's position on asylum seekers is hypocritical because they are not personally taking asylum seekers into their home. Instead of engaging with the activist's arguments or beliefs about asylum, the critic is focusing on the activist's actions (or perceived lack thereof) to discredit their stance. This does not provide a valid counterargument to the activist's views on asylum policies or the treatment of asylum seekers.
2
@j606ywt Sorry did you ask what relevance is Frances acceptance rate to us? 😂 That's so obvious that I didn't feel the need to mention it as I would have insulted the readers intelligence. But if you must know it's relevant because not all asylum seekers applications are granted in France so they try the UK
2
Who's built the infrastructure for the B.E? Free of charge. Think now ...
1
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
1
 @BDKool Yes let's get rid of all dissenting voices so that only an echo chamber remains. 😂
1
@BDKool No. But why are you encouraging people with different points of view to go elsewhere? That kind of behaviour results in echo chambers.
1
@BDKool I'm simply seeing lots of instances of people with different perspectives being discouraged to debate. There doesn't seem to be much genuine truth seeking going on, just an echo chamber
1
@BDKool you said "you not find a better channel to watch?" That's actually not very helpful language and it very much communicates that you're not interested in allowing a diversity of opinions on here. The original comment was not genuine either so I wondered why you even responded? Was it to send a message to all dissenters maybe?
1
We should never ever ever leave the ECHR
1
 @thevoid6818 Yes. It's called national socialism 😂
1
 @thevoid6818 Because not all forms of socislism are left wing. It's really is that simple 😂
1
When someone resorts to labeling others as "Marxists" or using similar labels during a debate, it can suggest several things about that individual: 1. Lack of Engagement with Ideas: It may indicate that the person is more interested in winning the argument than in genuinely engaging with the ideas being discussed. This suggests a superficial understanding of the topic. 2. Polarized Thinking: Such labeling can reflect a black-and-white worldview, where complex issues are oversimplified into categories of "good" and "bad." This mindset can limit their ability to appreciate diverse perspectives. 3. Emotional Reactivity: It may reveal that the individual is responding emotionally rather than rationally. This can suggest a fear or strong opposition to ideas associated with Marxism, which may cloud their judgment. 4. Desire for Control: Using labels can be a way to assert dominance in a conversation. It allows the person to frame the debate on their terms, potentially stifling opposing viewpoints and maintaining control over the narrative. 5. Resistance to Complexity: It can indicate a reluctance to engage with the complexities of political and economic ideologies. This resistance can prevent meaningful dialogue and understanding of different viewpoints. 6. Potential Insecurity: Sometimes, resorting to name-calling or labeling can stem from insecurity about one's own beliefs. By attacking others, the individual may be trying to bolster their position rather than strengthening it through reasoned argument. Overall, such behavior can reflect a tendency toward intellectual dishonesty, a lack of critical thinking skills, or an unwillingness to engage in constructive dialogue.
1
@martinluckybramah The point is not to take sides, it's to understand what is illogical about a debate.
1
@thequagmire7882 You don't understand what is going on. This is not about depriving genuine farmers, it's about taxing the elites who are using the purchase of farmland to avoid paying inheritance tax. Be careful of grifters who use this as a way to justify their hate for labour
1
@snakeman9902 The point of the information I share is so you can develop awareness of how you're being used. Yes naturally we all fall on a side, I fall on the left side, but I don't believe everything everyone on the left says, there is half as much bs on that side as the other side.
1
@snakeman9902 It's not about looking at both sides of the argument. It's about educating oneself in logical thinking. This is not something that comes naturally to humans, we need to learn it
1
@snakeman9902 The statement contains a few potential fallacies that can be identified: 1. Ad Hominem: The opening comment suggests a bias against the other person's political stance ("You fall on the left? Shocker.."), which can detract from the argument by attacking the person rather than addressing their points. 2. Straw Man: The phrase "Thanks for your education on awareness" implies that the other party is being condescending or overly preachy, which might misrepresent their actual argument. This can divert from the original issue being discussed. 3. False Dilemma: The assertion that "most others do" make up their minds after considering both sides could imply that there are only two options (agreeing or disagreeing) without acknowledging the complexity of people's opinions. 4. Appeal to Emotion: The statement emphasizes respect for differing opinions, which can be a way to appeal to emotions rather than focusing on rational argumentation. 5. Ambiguity: The phrase "certain guests do deserve to be questioned" is vague and could lead to varied interpretations about who qualifies as a "certain guest" and what criteria are used for questioning.
1
@thequagmire7882 It's not about food. It's about getting the people who are holding you back, the people who are actually responsible for your lack of public services to contribute their fair share. Who owns all the farmland in the UK? It ain't genuine farmers
1
@snakeman9902 Forget about your opinion. What about the capacity to analyse? What is it about people and their obsession with their opinions? Opinions make people stupid
1
@snakeman9902 The logical limits of the human mind without critical thinking skills can be quite significant. Here are some key points to consider: 1. Cognitive Biases: Without critical thinking, individuals are more likely to fall prey to cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, where they only seek out information that reinforces their existing beliefs. This can lead to a distorted understanding of reality. 2. Superficial Understanding: Lacking critical thinking skills can result in a shallow grasp of complex concepts. Individuals may accept information at face value without analyzing its validity, leading to misconceptions. 3. Difficulty in Problem-Solving: Without the ability to critically analyze a situation, people may struggle to identify effective solutions to problems. This can result in poor decision-making and ineffective responses to challenges. 4. Emotional Reasoning: Individuals may rely heavily on emotions rather than logic when forming opinions or making decisions. This can lead to irrational conclusions and actions based on feelings rather than facts. 5. Resistance to Change: Without critical thinking, people may be less open to changing their views or adapting to new information. This rigidity can hinder personal growth and learning. 6. Misinterpretation of Information: Critical thinking is essential for evaluating the credibility of sources and understanding the context of information. Without it, individuals may misinterpret data or fall for misinformation. 7. Limited Perspective: A lack of critical thinking can lead to an inability to see issues from multiple viewpoints. This narrow perspective can stifle creativity and innovation, as individuals may not consider alternative solutions. 8. Failure to Question Assumptions: Individuals without critical thinking skills may accept assumptions uncritically, leading to flawed reasoning and conclusions. This can perpetuate stereotypes or unfounded beliefs.
1
@snakeman9902 Critical thinking is primarily a learned skill that can be developed and enhanced over time. Here are some key points about how critical thinking is acquired: 1. Education and Training: Formal education often includes components that teach critical thinking. Courses in philosophy, logic, science, and social studies encourage students to analyze arguments, evaluate evidence, and consider different perspectives. 2. Practice and Experience: Critical thinking improves with practice. Engaging in discussions, debates, and problem-solving exercises helps individuals refine their analytical skills and learn to approach issues more critically. 3. Reflection: Taking the time to reflect on one’s own thought processes and decisions can enhance critical thinking. This involves questioning one's assumptions, biases, and reasoning patterns. 4. Exposure to Diverse Perspectives: Interacting with people from different backgrounds and viewpoints can challenge existing beliefs and encourage open-mindedness. This exposure fosters critical evaluation of ideas and arguments. 5. Mentorship and Guidance: Learning from mentors, teachers, or experienced individuals can provide valuable insights into effective critical thinking strategies. Feedback on reasoning and analysis helps individuals improve their skills. 6. Problem-Solving Techniques: Learning specific problem-solving methods, such as the scientific method or structured decision-making frameworks, can provide tools for approaching complex issues critically. 7. Continuous Learning: Critical thinking is not a one-time achievement; it requires ongoing effort and a willingness to learn. Staying informed about new developments in various fields can enhance analytical abilities. In summary, while some individuals may have a natural inclination toward critical thinking, it is largely a skill that can be cultivated through education, practice, and experience. Developing critical thinking is an important investment in personal and professional growth.
1
@snakeman9902 Have we spoke before?
1
@Liberty-Jamie Far right is a legitimate label. Marxist isn't. This person is not a Marxist.
1
@snakeman9902 1. Far right is not a word. It is a term 2. So because it's been overused means it's useless as a description? Is this your idea of critical thinking?
1
@snakeman9902 The statement contains several potential logical fallacies: 1. Hasty Generalization: The claim that "Far Right" is the most overused word may not be supported by sufficient evidence. It generalizes based on personal experience without accounting for broader contexts or examples. 2. Straw Man: By framing "Far Right" as a "bogeyman," the speaker may be misrepresenting the arguments or beliefs of those who use the term negatively, rather than addressing the actual concerns of those individuals. 3. False Dichotomy: The distinction between "Far Right" and other political labels (like Marxist) suggests a binary choice, implying that one is legitimate while the other is not. This oversimplifies a more complex political landscape with various ideologies. 4. Appeal to Emotion: The use of terms like "bogeyman" evokes an emotional response and may distract from a rational discussion about the merits or flaws of far-right ideologies. 5. Ad Hominem: If the statement implies that critics of the far right are using the label merely to instill fear, it could be seen as attacking the motives of those individuals rather than addressing the substance of their arguments. 6. Slippery Slope: The suggestion that the label "Far Right" is used for a specific reason could imply that labeling leads to further negative consequences without fully explaining or providing evidence for that claim.
1
@snakeman9902 No, I don't have an alternative account
1
@snakeman9902 You don't understand far right ideologies. There are many of them. Marxism is one narrow far left ideology, so if you use it to describe someone you better make sure you know what you're talking about
1
@snakeman9902 Starmer is centre left/progressive. His politics have nothing to do with Marxism
1
@snakeman9902 This is what I mean. You're demonstrating my point beautifully. You need to adopt a spirit of accuracy and honesty and learning facts. Don't leave it upto your natural mind to "analyse", instead learn the tools of analysing and then apply them to yourself so that you discover what is true. You're regurgitating bits and bobs of some of the right and far right tropes you're hearing from political commentators on YouTube . I even saw some of Matt Goodwin in there with his silly appraisal of the far right. Do your own research. Research is not about repeating what you hear in a far right echo chamber.
1
@snakeman9902 Regurgitating bits of Matt Goodwin and David Starkey is not an argument
1
@snakeman9902 If you use inflammatory words on YouTube or sequences your comments get banned. Mine too. It's not a great platform for debate I agree
1
@snakeman9902 I can only deflect if you make an actual argument. Just making baseless assertions without any reasoning and or even evidence to support it is not an argument
1
@snakeman9902 It's interesting that you say "who is Matt Goodwin?" This points to the nature of echo chambers. You have adopted a trope that is being used by the far right and you didn't even know where it came from. It originally came from Matt Goodwin.
1
@snakeman9902 You are regurgitating far right tropes. There is a far right, it has been studied in depth since ww2
1
@snakeman9902 Correct, not everything that the far right believe in is wrong. Nobody with any capacity to reason is saying that. Why do you think that far right = "wrong"?
1
@snakeman9902 When the label "far right" is used it's not used to describe your identity. You need to understand that ok? It's not personal. It's a way to describe a set of ideologies that some people live under
1

Previous
1
Next
...
All