Comments by "TeeKay" (@teekay_1) on "Triggernometry" channel.

@adrianseanheidmann4559 "I have like 4-5 father" Are you saying your mom never figured out who it was?
26
Just tell them that the people currently in charge are idiots and that in fact, his potential is unlimited; lesser people will always try to bring him down.
16
It is a fact that "journalists" do not have high IQ, but they do have a good recollection of what they're told. And with high IQ generally comes curiosity, which of course most journalists lack. That's why most journalists only parrot what they're told, they have no curiosity beyond that.
12
@stevejones2310 Hardly settled. When you have governments saying "settled science", hold onto your wallet.
4
@adrianseanheidmann4559 Don't get angry at your mom like that. She was just a kid when it happened.
4
@michaelpettersson4919 Well, the justice system works just fine because the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "absolutely certain". But when you demand we change our way of life, spend 10's of trillions of dollars, you need to be "absolutely certain"
3
@JJRM8 Oh, that's not really true. The hockey stick curve is nonsense as well.
3
@MrAkaacer There is no science hierarchy which determines what's true and what's false. Science is a methodology, dependent on data. If you have no data to support your hypothesis, you're not a scientist, regardless of your degree or reputation.
3
The more I think about Oppenheimer, the more I realized what Nolan was going for.... the guy who was the hero for a couple of years was ultimately brought down by the same people who built him up as a hero. Which makes the ending a complete anti-climax. But when I think through the movie, I think the 3rd act was overly long, but that's a small price to pay for the first 2/3's of the movie. It's still brilliant and thought-provoking.
2
@estelarodriguez3611 Yes, but ordinary people believe there is a science hierarchy that determines what is true or false, so if a government scientist says it (it used to ) have some weight. Even if you believe peer review is important, that's not how it works. The reality (as you say ) is that science is a methodology for testing a theory.
2
Brianna Wu is wrong. Democrats lost because their policies are Bat Sh** crazy. Literally crazy. Like not something normal people want. You screwed up the economy, you screwed up women's sports, you screwed up schools, you screwed up everything you put your grubby hands on. You hate white men. In fact, you hate all men. You pushed DEI. You did things that nobody asked you to do. Trump is actually a moderate democrat, but he had to leave the party because Democrats are B.S. Crazy. Ronald Reagan was a moderate Democrat but he had to leave because Democrats are God D*mned crazy. And the real issue is you cannot trust Democrats not to bring the craziness back if you get in power again. In a normal culture, Democrats would be shunned for the damage they've done over the past 8 years.
2
@namasi7070 What we've learned is the collective wisdom of the human race and folk advice that our ancestors learned over the last 100,000 years still holds far more weight than scientist and climatologist with a degree and 3 years of experience in the real world.
2
Two phrases in popular use are antithetical to science: 1) Settled Science 2) Trust the science Bonus quote "They hate me, because I am the science"
2
In saying that, the doubt that starts is whether governments are giving grants to support a particular policy. A lot of bad science is done that way.
2
@JJRM8 Yes of course, but our data set is woefully incomplete in terms of being able to ban CO2 as a pollutant. That's pseudo-science.
1
People who say they "believe in the science" can't even explain what science is. The low point for science in this country came about when Fauci said "*I am the science*". The little turd was an administrator, not a scientist, and a highly politicized administrator at that.
1
As I've pointed out many times. Journalists have good memories for facts but they tend to have average or below average IQ. Why the reporter keeps talking about "rebel groups" is not clear, but his tiny brain cannot let go of that phrase.
1
People are now beginning to understand why a check on government with our first amendment is so powerful and why government actors really don't like it (Obama and many other government officials keep saying we need to change the first amendment so the government can combat "misinformation")
1
I think it's the opposite. The rise of "non-traditional" media has been responsible for the dishonesty of the MSM. They're trying to hang on to viewers with outlandish lies, and it's impossible not to take seriously the idea that most are taking money from political parties which has accelerated their decent into complete lies and chaos. Because other than that, there's no explanation for CNN or MSNBC actually surviving, unless they are either organs of political parties or they are owned by wealthy individuals trying to drive a specific narrative or both.
1
@markschwartz7480 You can just block that kind of nonsense
1
Weren't puberty blockers first used by the East Germans to ensure their young girls could compete in the Olympics long past the age when puberty would've normally hit?
1
It's not about fault. The left has failed as a political force. They're recycling ideas from the 1930's. The most powerful the left was after the Revolution in Russia when they instituted far left policies, which led to the deaths of millions of people all over the world. Progressive ideology always leads to violence, death and suffering. And eventually they get to the point where they can't explain what a woman is. The left has been political force which has caused censorship, primarily because the left cannot withstand even a small bit of logic. And then they justify it by essentially saying "well, it's rude to say that". That's what free speech actually is. As soon as you say "I agree with free speech, but...." you don't really believe in free speech. So explain to us again why the left is morally superior.
1
Remember Obama sent billions in cash transported on planes. It seems highly likely that Obama was setting up Iran as a counterweight to Israel, which is borne out by his obvious anti-Israel bias (and he did grow up in a Muslim country). And the nuclear deal was actually a terrible deal since it didn't stop Iran from getting any weapons, it had not real way to verify, and Obama's team afterwards laughed at how they fooled the press into supporting it. As to why Biden did it as well, hopefully people realize at this point with the books and news that Biden was never in charge of his own administration; there was a hidden committee that was actually calling the shots, and most of them were part of the Obama administration.
1
@Nat_BLSK As one of my physics professors said many years ago. "Science doesn't determine truth, science develops theories and data. If you're looking for truth, I suggest you take a course in philosophy"
1
@brucelittleboy3594 ...and it's easy to do if you have the data . A scientist without data is just giving an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions....
1
@ajs41 Are you comparing Europeans like people from the UK with people from Kazakhstan? Guilty conscience?
1
Harris was installed because her name was attached to the $250M Joe Biden had already raised. If the Dems would've dumped Kamala, they'd have to give the $250M back to donors. Thus this was based on money, not candidate viability.
1
@sarupadilla You're missing his point. A citizen has the right to protest. Someone on a temporary visa does not. These two cases are not the same no matter how much you want to conflate them.
1
@angrytedtalks Every human is a citizen in some country, and is subject to the laws of that country.
1