Comments by "Zudabaker" (@Vyrus36) on "Big Think" channel.

@Kornknealious beautiful rebuttal. It's almost like your completely inept in a debate.
33
@Kornknealious likewise, all you've done is sit here and cry wolf. It's called the argument from fallacy, or the false form argument, or argumentum ad fallacy, the bad reasons fallacy, or the fallacist's fallacy. Until you present an argument outside of that, I don't think anyone should bother paying attention to you.
30
@Kornknealious so what you're saying is you don't have any argument outside of your argument from fallacy?
19
@Kornknealious yet here you are responding. And I could say the same for you. But instead I feel it's important to let you know that your debate tactic is the lowest form of argument.
19
@Kornknealious it's like, are you capable of forming an original thought or argument or are you just a reactionary psuedo-intellectual who uses fallacies to hide behind their inadequacies? I am refusing to play your game, instead I'm asking you what you're actual opinion and view on the topic is.
13
@Kornknealious in the case of every revolution ultimately what has been the determining factor is the ability to keep well educated and honest people in charge. As in multiple people who may disagree but are well equipped with knowledge and plans. It's not a question of what I would do or what plan I think would be best. It's a question of who would be leading post revolution and what their plans would be. Whatever it is that ends up leading going forward will need to have a high combined IQ, have ready made plans, and a lot of composure to pull it all off. The ultimate deciding factor I've seen in a revolutions failure or success comes from a few places. 1. Does your leader try to take revenge after gaining power? 2. Does your leader try to rule by a diverse committee or by a narrow set of views and rules? 3. Does your leadership want to stick it to the other side and gloat? Or do they learn from their opposition and adopt ideas that work? 4. Does your leadership understand how to balance public opinion with what they believe is the best course of action? Ultimately, what you or I think doesn't matter. What matters are results and prosperity. We may disagree on how to get there, but a good revolution includes everyone in mind from the farmer to the protester, to the civil servants, to the criminals and the wealthy.
13
@Kornknealious come on, I'm waiting for your psuedo-intellectual response where you don't accomplish anything except for announcing fallacies.
10
I gave my position. Now let's hear yours and we can debate.
9
@Kornknealious or are you going to side step me now after using an inexplicable amount of argument from fallacy?
9
@ericcartmann you try to emulate Cartman who is basically a selfish Rayndian niahlist. That says enough about how much stock we should put in what you say right there.
5
@schmoborama I think what is implied is the people on the left who are most adamant about a revolution haven't thought it through or even attempted to get on the same page about what comes next. I live in Portland, and the people protesting here can't even agree if they want a tankie style Stalinesque revolution where we smash the capitalist system with a hammer then turn around and end up like old Russia and haven't read beyond the first chapter of the communist manifesto. We have the Marxists who want to believe in a flowery idealistic version of Communism that has never existed on earth. We have the market socialists who want to see the means of production shared with loose guiding regulations on the economy and letting the government ultimately decide on what media and merchandise are acceptable but there is little to no private ownership. And then we have the confused capitalist that thinks they're a socialist, yet doesn't understand that "Nordic socialism" is actually just democratic capitalism with emphasis on a strong social safety net.
4
@Kornknealious we can start by calling you a hypocrite for using a hasty generalization to call all liberals lazy and then following it up with saying someone else's rebuttal was a hasty generalization? You litterally overgeneralized an entire political party. Why do that then turn around and pretend you care about logic?
4
@Kornknealious see, your already calling what I'm doing side stepping and I haven't even had a chance to respond. You couldn't be more predictable. Thanks for playing indeed. You're a psuedo-intellectual, who thrives on argument from fallacy. And yes, it is a hasty generalization. You understand what that term means right?
3
@Kornknealious no, you refused to debate before one could even take place. Then, once I gave you a response that didn't feed into your preconceived bullshit, it was too real and intimidating for you to muster a response. You're even a coward online.
3
@denierdev9723 the fact the pandemic happened is proof we need a better social safety net. Military security, aka an armed force, is like having a security guard at a building. They can stop intruders, disrupt theft, notify the police of suspicious activity and respond to orders to help in a tactical approach. A social safety net, is like you're valet, janitor, ECT, everything else that goes into that building to keep it clean and user friendly. If you put all of your money into security, you don't have any money left over to make it user friendly. Maybe this can help clear up some confusion? Also, I have been homeless, and I do talk to the homeless, and I live on the coast. Human migration is a huge deal. The reason why most people migrate to coastal cities is because they have the most opportunities for underprivileged people. If other areas actually offered things like healthcare and food, the homelessness problem would be spread thinner and wouldn't be as impactful. Furthermore, the fastest growing homeless populations are the elderly, students, veterans, and disabled. Our most vulnerable citizens. Reminds me of a quote I heard once. "A nation is like a hospital, or a fire crew. There are people that must work together to be successful. But when a decisive issue rears its head, balls can be dropped, and the people we are supposed to protect, end up being the ones who suffer the most." Have we lost sight of who it is we are supposed to be protecting in this battle of ideals?
3
@jimbartosevich498 it doesn't matter if you are armed or not. A coup is a coup even if you have one dude and a squirt gun. It'd be a hysterical attempt at a coup, but it would still qualify if it meets two criteria. 1. What was the intentions of the event? 2. What would have happened if they succeeded? If the answer is to overthrow the election results, and if by succeeding would try to establish their candidate over our elected results, then it's an attempted coup at worst, an inserection at best. In this scenario, intentions make all of the difference.
3
It's the cycle of life. Except seen through a different scope. The life of a society is marked by adversity and revolution. Adversity at it's foundation, and a revolution at it's end to create adversity. Meaning, it ultimately depends on how bright and honest your leaders happen to be during the time of a revolution. At the end of a civilization cycle, it's usually kicked off with severe distrust between social, political, and economic standings, which, needs to be disassembled so they can continue to keep going, or else it risks cannibalizing itself (economically speaking) to the point all land and wealth (not money, wealth, what you own that can be inherited) are owned by a subclass of rulers and everything else is more or less just rented at their mercy. Of course, society has never fully engulfed itself like that, and it's in large part to, the revolution. Pray you have bright leadership.
2
@jannguerrero like I said before. It ultimately depends on if bright, and honest leaders emerge afterwards. You can see this in the difference between having Napoleon as a leader post revolution vs our founding fathers. Or Stalin post revolution, vs John A McDonald post revolution. It seems to me, that the quality of a revolution is very much dependent on the quality of your leadership post revolution.
2
@land_and_air1250 I think what he's saying is the left has some guilt in the line of instigation. As in, the left prodded the right with a sort of superiority complex and elitist attitude. Obviously, even when you're in a bar, the first person to swing is more in the wrong, always, but you'd have to be kind of blind to not see the prodding and backhanded speech that lead to it. Democrats tend to treat Republicans like uneducated, backwoods, morons and to pretend that hasn't been insulting or problematic is wrong. The Republicans Cary a bulk of the blame for throwing the first punch. But that doesn't mean the Democrats don't cary any blame. Stop viewing your countrymen like they are idiots who don't care about the nation.
2
@Mcgif21 🤣
1
@ericcartmann like I said before. You idolize a Rayndian niahlist. No one should listen to what you have to say.
1
It's the cycle of life. Except seen through a different scope. The life of a society is marked by adversity and revolution. Adversity at it's foundation, and a revolution at it's end to create adversity. Meaning, it ultimately depends on how bright and honest your leaders happen to be during the time of a revolution. At the end of a civilization cycle, it's usually kicked off with severe distrust between social, political, and economic standings, which, needs to be disassembled so they can continue to keep going, or else it risks cannibalizing itself (economically speaking) to the point all land and wealth (not money, wealth, what you own that can be inherited) are owned by a subclass of rulers and everything else is more or less just rented at their mercy. Of course, society has never fully engulfed itself like that, and it's in large part to, the revolution. Pray you have bright leadership.
1
@land_and_air1250 basically what I was saying is one party is only guilty of the same mud slinging that's been going on for over a decade and the other is guilty of escalating it to violence. Don't act like the liberals being over zealous with their insults is a new trend. This has been going on since the 90s. And yes, this country has been indoctrinating it's children into specific mindsets. The same ones that are predominantly what is seen as acceptable by white westerners. Obviously one side has more of the blame. But when there is plenty of blame to be passed around it helps to look in the mirror before justifying the whole two wrongs ideal. Someone has to be the bigger person eventually. If you believe it's obviously not going to be the Republicans, then that only leaves one party of influence to take up that mantel. All and all, if you want an educated and informed populous, you'll spend time educating and informing them instead of mocking them when you can't understand why they saddled up for their side. Because the truth is, I'm willing to bet you do understand why they are that way, but you frankly don't care enough to educate and correct that behavior. It's easier to call it out and mock it. But then, all they do is double down on their crappy notions, no one learns anything, and we're all back at square one. Why didn't I think of that?
1
@land_and_air1250 after all, it takes two parties to create a fight. If you don't care about it now, then didn't care about it then, and you wont care about it years down the road either. American indifference towards holding their own accountable is what got us here. If we continue that trend, then it's only going to get much worse. If no one is willing to be the bigger person, then we will continue to live in a nation ran by disfunctional children and bullies.
1
@jimbartosevich498 it's in the definition. This isn't an assertion, it's in the discription of a coup and a inserection. If they had successfully garnered aspects of the military and police to co-operate with them, it would have been a coup. You just don't want to admit it because you're a follower of the man who would have been placed as president if they would have been successful.
1
@jimbartosevich498 but let's play this ultimate "it was non violent and they just wanted the truth," rhetorical out and say they did do a revote. And what if Trump still lost? Would you say it was rigged again and again until Trump won?
1
@jimbartosevich498 so when you do come down from that pedastal you stand on and get back down to reality let me know. Until then know that no one gives a fuck about you or your opinion. They only care about educating someone in bad need of one.
1
It's the cycle of life. Except seen through a different scope. The life of a society is marked by adversity and revolution. Adversity at it's foundation, and a revolution at it's end to create adversity. Meaning, it ultimately depends on how bright and honest your leaders happen to be during the time of a revolution. At the end of a civilization cycle, it's usually kicked off with severe distrust between social, political, and economic standings, which, needs to be disassembled so they can continue to keep going, or else it risks cannibalizing itself (economically speaking) to the point all land and wealth (not money, wealth, what you own that can be inherited) are owned by a subclass of rulers and everything else is more or less just rented at their mercy. Of course, society has never fully engulfed itself like that, and it's in large part to, the revolution. Pray you have bright leadership.
1