Comments by "Philip B" (@philipb2134) on "PragerU" channel.

If someone said. "people have always died, they've died of many causes, and they continue to die: therefore there's no need to worry about the raving maniac pointing a loaded Glock at your forehead"... would you find that reassuring? Yet it is the same line of argumentation we find in this video.
24
I don't hate "conservatives".; I do resent when they pretend to be "conservative"yet want to change things to where they never had been.
8
PragerU is not University - not even close.
4
+superdubman999 The choice was not between innocent civilians being killed or not - but which ones, and how many. It is a decision similar in nature to a doctor either amputating a limb, or letting the patient die. Under normal circumstances, a doctor would never amputate a limb, sometimes it is necessary.
2
+Nick Nickl Science is not an entity with agency: so it obviously can't be omnipotent. * To an immense extent, Science is a process of correcting errors. That is a key feature of the scientific method. To protest that there are errors to be found in a continuous process of detecting and correcting errors... is no more insightful than remarking that football players play with footballs.
2
+James Robert Clark W "Hurricanes are not a result of global warming. We have had far fewer, not more." What is your trend time framework?
2
+M Rey Giving "the government" more power is not always a bad thing. For starters, mandatory quarantines have saved indeed many lives. Given your attitude, I would suspect that you're American, and on the right wing. I would invite you to take a closer look at other electoral advanced "western" democracies, and not that many of them defer much more power to their respective governments, yet retain similar levels of freedom as do Americans. True, in some of them you won't have the right to keep firearms at home - but OTOH they give their citizens freedom from want, and freedom from fear in ways that Americans can barely comprehend. Your opposition seems to be based on political grounds alone. Could you please explain why there might not be any opportunity to devolve power to address man-made climate disruption factors... down to the community level? But, let's get back to the topic at hand. Do you accept or deny that * certain gases, among them CO2, trap heat in the atmosphere? * that a sharp increase in atmospheric CO2 will trap more heat, and so result in temperatures higher than would be the case if there were not this increase in CO2?
2
+James Clark I have no experience of politicians - heavy handed or otherwise - saving me. What are you alleging?
2
+James Clark Do you dispute that greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere? Or do you deny that GHGs are building up in the atmosphere at a rapid rate? Or is it perhaps your contention that the atmospheric concentration of GHGs had reached a threshold past which there is no further heat-trapping effect?
2
+TrueReality All - repeat, all - theories are "made up": they first are formulated by the human mind. Classical electromagnetism, for example, was not revealed in stone tablets engraved by bolts of lightning. By definition, theories are the product of human thought. In this video, the presenter states that the climate has always been changing. Is your quarrel with him? Do you contend that the planet is not experiencing a rising trend i mean global temperatures? If so: what is your peer-reviewed source? Do you dispute that CO2 and some other gases trap heat within the atmosphere? If not: is it your contention that the effect has essentially maxed out, and that additional CO2 can not trap more heat than already is occurring? As to your question: why aren't we afraid of the ozone layer anymore? We never were afraid of it - instead, we were afraid of its rapid disappearance as was observed in polar regions: since it's what protects us from intense deadly UV radiation. Our fears have much abated because we acted: we recognized the danger, and implemented the treaty instrument known as the Montreal Protocol to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals such as CFCs.There are still alerts in Australia and especially in the bottom tip of South America, where the threat persists and yet triggers public emergencies warning citizens to take shelter from the heightened solar danger. If you live in Ushuaia, worrying about the hole in the ozone layer is truly not a thing of the past. For my part, I am more worried about the shorter-term threat from ocean acidification caused by humans burning fossil fuels.
1
+Eduard Arnautu Quite a few have been affected indeed; however, there are no peer-reviewed epidemiological studies which conclude that we have all been so affected - at least, AFAIK. You would not have written anything so counter-intuitive unless you had evidence, right? Please produce it.
1
The prevalence of the term, "denier"... instead were a gentle and respectful offered alternative to the more invective ^3 term, "idiot". Take a hug of compassion where you can get one. Go ahead, you really want this - because you represent the soft cide of humanity.
1
"...Judging from your reply, you are a european leftist who has never visited USA.." DEAD WRONG. i was born In the USA, and I live here now. I used to have to commute through Harlem, and admit that I often felt fear - but it that was not unjustified, nor was I alone in this. South Bronx was worse, as was Bed-Stuy. There are parts of cities such as Miami or LA where outsiders do not go - out of fear. I doubt you would easily be persuaded to take a 3-hour casual stroll alone through South Central between 10 PM and 5 AM.. Another figment of your diseased mind is your hallucinating that I had made any "argument of Americans living 'fear of guns'. " I had done no such thing, and in fact I quite enjoy handling guns with care, and using them responsibly. I have friends and family who live in remote areas, and fully support that they arm themselves for protection. What i had done in my comment, however, was to point out that the the right to keep firearms at home is uncommon in Europe. A lot of hard working Americans live just one paycheck from disaster; one bad injury, and you rapidly go bankrupt. If you think this does not cause fear and anxiety, you're just plain stupid. Speaking of which - you wrote. "deaths by guns is a tiny percentage compared to deaths of americans by cars". Well..., that's a weird way of interpreting the official figures: in 2013 there were 32,719 motor vehicle fatalities (per NHTSA) vs 33,169 deaths related to firearms (per CDC&P). According to WHO - in 2012, an estimated 372 000 people died from drowning worldwide - with low- and middle-income countries accounting for 91% of unintentional drowning deaths: so even if the US accounted for every single death by unintentional drowning, that would be 33480 - slightly more than US gun deaths. Actually, according to CDC&P, the 2005 - 2009 average annualf atal US drownings came to 3,880. You: "...for starters america does not even ranked in top 100 nations where most murders occur." That might be true, but it's also irrelevant. Much of the world is in conflict, or has weak institutions. Let's instead compare what is more credibly comparable. Based on UNODC figures: the US, with a rate of 3.8 per 100,000, comes in 4th among 28 members of NATO, 3rd among 34 OECD members. You are just so full of crap.
1
+MALayhee700 Not a fan of due process, are you? Oh, and by the way, lots of people took lots of shit in those days. If you worked in a factory or a mine, and the boss passed by: you would stop what you were doIng, stand up, take off your cap, and bow - no matter where you were, except in church. If WWII vets had had the internet in 1900, they would mostly later have been too old to serve in the armed forces roughly FOUR DECADES AFTER 1900. Most of the service members were younger than 39 or so at the outbreak of WWII. Basic arithmetic is not your strong point either, is it?
1
+MALayhee700 "And the genocide of 2 million Germans after Berlin's fall( internment camp deaths) was that sub human Eisenhower's idea." No. And your proposed figure of 2M Germans who died under some regimen of genocide post May 8, 1945, deserves to be examined for veracity. The brutal and murderous retaliation against ethnic Germans after the fall of the Third Reich occurred mostly in central and eastern Europe, well beyond the remit and control of the Western allies. Ethnic German communities, such as the Sudeten Germans, suffered heavily. There were hardly any "ethnic German" communities West of pre-war Germany - a few scattered communities in the Netherlands, Eupen and Malmedy in Belgium, and the citizens of Alsace and Lorraine who had overwhelmingly voted to be part of France when given a free and fair plebiscite. Ethnic Germans west of the Rhine were not purged or expelled after the armistice.
1
+InfernosReaper Nanking was the only well-known incident where Germans turned up in trench coats, flashing Nazi party badges... and they we the good guys. {nod2TFT} That's how nasty the brutalization of Nanking was: that it could make even Nazis cringe at the brutality, and try to get it toned down . Nazi Germany had asked Japan to back down from its vicious cruelty in Nanking. That did not succeed. Some among them might have come from, studied in, had a sweetheart from... Dresden. Apart from the above: the suffering of the populations of both Nanking and of Dresden, served absolutely no plausible military purpose whatsoever.
1
+taha srori World rankings are invalid because the various countries operate under entirely different parameters. For example: in some countries, if a person is raped multiple times by the same perpetrator, that will only be recorded once; in other countries, each incident will be reported separately. In some countries, it is legally impossible for a spouse to rape the partner. Some police forces treat a victim with compassion, while others shame the victim, or worse - and that surely has an effect on how likely a victim were to report a crime. One can compare apples and oranges, but ranking them is not to be taken seriously.
1
+dude What do you know of the effectiveness and speed the Soviet forces might have shown in an amphibious assault on Japan? SU did not have the landing capability to initiate and to sustain such a campaign. The topography of Japan is nothing like the rolling plans of north-central Europe, ideal for tanks. instead, taking on the Japanese would have involved warfare similar to the Italy campaign. Dream on.
1
+dude At that point Manchuria was a peripheral objective, the armies in place stranded and essentially incapable of influencing the outcome of the war. Beating them was not an easy task, but it was also redundant. What was needed was rapidly obtaining the surrender, and that required subjugating the home islands. The Soviets simply did not have the capability to conquer Honshu from the North at any rapid pace - if at all; OTOH in the South the terrain was far more favorable, and the Western Allies had far better resources and were better equipped to do so, they were vastly more experienced in this type of warfare.
1
PrsgerU is NOT a university. It's a blast for right-wing propaganda.
1