Comments by "Coureur De Bois" (@coureurdebois) on "TED-Ed" channel.

  1. though keep in mind that "green energies" still produce similar amounts of pollution thanks to being manufactured from energy taken from non-renewable energies and the chemicals / compounds used to make up green energies cause nearly as much pollution. it's the whole "use an old petrol powered Volvo or buy a new Prius" debate, in order for there to be any actual pay off with green energy it must be used for 30+ years (which happens to be over the average life of 99% of your mass batteries used to store energy from solar or wind power) also keep in mind green energy produces far less energy and costs FAR more leaving billions with out power or energy to survive in places like Africa, northern Asia, and south america. so far green energy is really not that "green" at all, in fact the only reason it's being pushed forward is thanks to being politicized off of fallacious computer models / information.
    61
  2. since im black and Asian does that mean im blashian?
    31
  3. sticky dicks
    18
  4. thank god we will get judges that will judge based on the constitution NOT just how they feel (leftist ideals). Conservative means the interpretation of the constitution based on the actually constitution and not some flamboyant virtue signaling interpretation of it.
    13
  5. way toooooooooooo soon
    7
  6. Moises Munoz evidently you have not.
    5
  7. because otherwise far left extreme ideals would be changing everything every day.
    4
  8. yes, Canada has gotten progressively worse over the years. incriminating innocent people over something as minor as a fucking pro noun is a far over reach of government power. no group should receive special treatment, no religious group, no sexual orientation group, no skin color group. look at the case that went on for THREE YEARS over 2 boys who were hit with "wrong racial label law" in AUS, 3 years of their life GONE over IDENTITY POLITICS. "Judaism is I feel like it and I'm fine. I won't be charged for criticizing that religion" mean while in places like AUS, Germany, and UK criticizing a religion ( islam) can have you arrested and fined massively. "There is nothing in Bill C-16 giving more teeth against anti-trans speech than against anti-religious speech." it also exclusively states that you must IDENTIFY THEM BASED ON THEIR GENDER EXPRESSION, if you d not you're considered having committed a hate crime. genders like ECO gender, GENDER FLUID, a man who claims he is a woman YOU MUST conform and change your speech to PLEASE THEM or else you're going to PRISON. this is absolutely filthy, this is authoritarian ideals at work. "On another hand, the bill does say if you now incites the killing of every trans out there you could be criminally charged" there is a difference between SPEECH and A CALL TO ACTION if you claim you're going to kill gays or tell others to that is a call to action. if you claim you disagree with them and will not refer to them as a made up gender YOU are considered to have done the same thing. nothing but non-thought out arguments from you, half backed and easily refuted. seriously READ THE BILL check out Peterson
    3
  9. You do realize he has a yt channel, check out the rubin report. The college has listed him as a rouge deffector no im not joking. C 16 is being implemented already if you would have went to the link i showed you. And no, if my information was incorrect that would not be illogical. Illogical would be denying that peoples lives are being destroyed by legislation like this despite all the cases, facts, and evidance which is what you are doing now. In ca aus uk where free speech is regularly trampled for trigger culture. Like i said, you argument is absurd, its fact denying, and its illogical. You lost on guns so you jump to free speech you lost on free speech so you jump to Canada you lose there now you are claiming these people are all making this shit up? Peterson is not facing expulsion? Just because you say so? Naaa, you are just a pseudo intellectual.
    3
  10. i love the reagan jab, mean while we are destroying the private sector in the name of "goverment run" healthcare.
    3
  11. wut he said ^^^^^
    2
  12. Sm S well, crime statistics of the UK and Sweden might prove otherwise.
    2
  13. Kamizushi Akinari you are on a whole other level of cognitive dissonance. using false equivalences to make a point is a logical fallacy. no, there were no city destroying bombs, yes there were automatic and semi-automatic weapons. these things the founding fathers knew of and exclusively requested permission for. there were no cars back then, does that mean we should be banned from owning cars? answer this.
    2
  14. Kamizushi Akinari no, it says the right to BEAR ARMS, it means people can own fire arms for ANY REASON, its not your right to take away a fundamental human right from others. also you cant have a militia if the people dont have arms my cognitively dissonant friend.
    2
  15. "The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence." this is absolutely disgusting, forcing people to bend to the will of others on a whim.
    2
  16. and what is my ideology? i am merely using history, logic, and facts. and yes, i just posted the C-16 BILL. forcing people in public to call people pronouns they want OR else you could face prison and being fired is a disgusting over reach of power.
    2
  17. I implore you to actually READ the bill i just posted the bill, and i just SAID exactly what you said. if i want to be called a LADY despite looking exactly like a man and say a teacher, or waiter calls me a MAN they are now fucking criminals. FACTS and LOGIC. you just said it yourself.
    2
  18. sounds like you have not, it modifies CRIMINAL LAW and makes average people fucking criminals. you should take a look at Jordan Peterson's current situation. also you should watch this, its a good little in depth take on it. youtube com/watch?v=cTyYGHBVBr0
    2
  19. YoloSwegLord5000 YoloSwegLord5000 hes trying to change the subject now that hes been intellectually dominated. he really has not given a single factually or logically supported argument.
    2
  20. excuse me? i don't differentiate? have you seen what you're replying with, massive logical fallacies and straw man arguments that hold no value to the original topic. "but in the real world they aren't." wrong, Mr Perterson is not only going to lose his job but may also face jail time / fines for NOT USING the pronoun one student DEMANDED that he say. the issue with this written legislation is that it does not differentiate between a call to action and free speech, in fact they don't even mention it. the legislation is entirely up to the DEFENDANT to categorize. JUST like the 2 boys in AUS whom were also accused of something similar (race instead) for 3 fucking years they were on trial... 3 years.... over someone being "offended" "not about how you imagine it could be enforced in your distopian imaginary world." the issue is laws are being enforced like this, not just in Canada but places like AUS, UK, and Germany as well. i have offered you examples as well. your entire argument has been refuted, you lack logic and facts, you purely push an argument by using straw man arguments and logical fallacies. take your own advice and start trying to distinguish between your Utopian, illogical, ignorantly, inept world view and the real world. don't worry i'm here to help you with facts and logic, after all its my job to educate the ignorantly inept such as yourself
    2
  21. your mom
    1
  22. +Windoge Wizardly way to build a straw man argument. on top of that your logic is further flawed with the recycling comment, keep in mind that recycling requires a massive amount of energy and transportation. companies like westrock and kimberly clark whom are leading recyclables are continuously shipping items / material through the use of non-green energies. this does not even include the refurbishing of items received into functioning products. all of which are made from non-environmentally friendly materials.
    1
  23. ***** trust me, this is normally their arguments. its always a logical fallacy and one that could be used to ban anything. we could easily use his argument to ban cars, sugar, bikes, and kitchen knifes.
    1
  24. what? there were 2 purposes for the 2nd amendment, you should read it some time. there are multiple letters sent by the writers and contributors of the 2nd amendment which also support the right for self preservation and personal arms. also news flash you cant have a militia if the people have no arms.
    1
  25. a comment born of ignorance, you're wrong, they had semi automatic weapons, also they were allowed to have cannons, Gatling guns, and other major weapons of war.
    1
  26. holy false equivalency. i was replying to your point that it was just muskets. no there were semi-automatic and automatic weapons. the founding fathers new that there were more than ball and powder single shot weapons. (for personal defense) stay on topic now.
    1
  27. there were no cars back then, does that mean we should be banned from owning cars?
    1
  28. Kamizushi Akinari so you're saying, just because cars are not in the constitution that does not mean they are automatically banned? look, you answered your own question on fire arms. good job you have no right to ban them, and the founders did in fact know about automatic weapons. trying to make a false equivalency and jump to NUKES is a logical fallacy of an argument and one i already answered.
    1
  29. Kamizushi Akinari it says the right to bear arms, arms meaning weapons which can be used by your person. semi-automatic, automatic, and other weapons were available during thee writing of the constitution.
    1
  30. Kamizushi Akinari and? we do regulate fire arms? whats your point? that does not mean you have the right to ban or take arms away from people. like i said your argument is a fallacy.
    1
  31. "Again I shall ask, why can't I own a nuclear weapon?" i have debunked this point multiple times already, i am not going to keep replying to something i have confronted multiple times. "If you want to stick with your argument that it's because using a nuclear weapon would have dire consequences" this was never my argument, i merely stated the idea of jumping from personal arms to nuclear weapons clearly requires a level of cognitive dissonance not yet seen. "then I agree that it's a good reason, but that has nothing to do with how the second amendment was written." the right to bear arms, its exclusively set apart and supported by personal letters by the founding fathers that automatic and semi automatic weapons were included in ARMS. trying to make a false equivalency to a weapon that cannot even be carried, operated alone, or used for personal defense is a pathetic and illogical argument. "That's a reinterpretation, it's treating the constitution like a "living document"." the issue is your position is lacking harmony and logic, its inconsistent. the living document was written WITH THE INTENTION OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT BEING USED FOR AUTOMATIC AND SEMI-AUTO WEAPONS, not single shot muskets. we regulate fire arms already being un-able to own automatic weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and of course nation weapons (like nukes) your position is just inconstant and fallacious.
    1
  32. what? did you even read what i wrote? O_o are you ok?
    1
  33. no, i am taking about history and facts, arms means GUNS as personal letters from the founding fathers BACKS UP. these letters included ordering "arms" which were semi-automatic weapons. statements and speech's also represent the right to personal arms. this is facts, this is history, this is basic logic which you seem to lack.
    1
  34. this is why you seem to lack logic, in order to have a militia the people must be armed. and no, unless you watch TYT whom are intellectually disingenuous and try to convince you that militia means police (even though there was police during the time of the 2nd amendment). you would need to forgo FACTUAL and HISTORICAL evidence to commit the mental gymnastics you are acting out right now.
    1
  35. incorrect, based on context and history the founders wrote THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS with the intent of the people HAVING ARMS and historical events show this to be true. facts and logic are best when speaking on this subject not pseudo intellectual personal interpretation. and no, you cannot have a militia if the people do not have a means to acquire arms
    1
  36. no, i am not saying you want to ban all guns, but as history has shown (like in the UK and AUS, and soon Canada) the events are repetitious 1st limit what kind of guns, 2nd restrict munitions, 3rd use media to push anti-gun propaganda, 4th ban guns (like the mandatory buy back in AUS). once you give up a right YOU DON'T GET IT BACK. not sure how many times we must repeat history before we understand that. right now we ban certain magazines, automatic weapons, and mass destruction weapons. if we keep going there will be nothing left. also i am from Luxembourg but i currently live in the US. where i am from guns are banned, what the media does not tell you is that 75% of all gun crime is committed by ILLEGAL gang violence in inner cities and because the US has far more large cities there is more crime. (inner cities in Europe reflect similar crime rates of course not gun crime but more Knife, robbery, and rape crime) thanks to the US having far more cities this skews the level of crime.
    1
  37. the 2nd amendment protects the 1st amendment, the right to self preservation, and it acts as a deterrent to government tyranny. in places like AUS and UK where guns have been banned laws are passed on the regular that limit free speech, take liberty, and force people to serve the government over small and inconsequential actions (like not using a proper pro noun). the 2nd amendment keeps the government in check keeping the government from enforcing liberty infringing laws. (why? it's simple the people have the means to fight back and resist laws which infringe on personal rights and constitutional rights)
    1
  38. " I want whatever policies will tend to make a society more peaceful" then you would support guns, after the banning of guns in AUS crime increased in every single statistic, rape, robbery, murder, ect removing guns from innocent law abiding population did not curbed crime or violence it just shifted it lets not ignore the FBI crime statistics of the US where more uns are present they have LOWER CRIME RATES THAN IN EUROPE. your position is illogical and dissonant. "it's clearly not as simple as "guns don't kill people, people kill people". how so? mental health in Switzerland is amazing and their gun crime is incredibly low despite being armed per captia much higher. "In any case, the constitutionalist argument is bogus." seeing as i have refuted every single point you have layed out with the argument this really is unfounded and horrifically ignorant. explain this further, why is it bogus
    1
  39. what does gun violence have to do with incarceration rates? like i explained in my other comment the US has far more LARGE cities than other European countries. and like other European countries large cities tend to reflect similar levels of CRIME. because the US is much larger and has more concentrated metropolitan the US has a skewed crime per capita.
    1
  40. having a gun does not suddenly mean you can commit crimes and resist the state. come on what kind of argument is that? really... seriously lacking logic. "I mean if guns were good enough to present the government from infringing on your freespeech, they should be good enough to prevent the government from your ability to do drugs" what? what kind of jump is this... this has no value in this conversation, if anything it would be an argument for me. if the government cant even stop illegal immigration OR DRUGS then how would banning guns stop guns? if anything law abiding citizens would no longer be able to acquire guns and criminals would be able to get them "Regardless of your personal stand on drugs, surely you understand that guns don't make a distinction between the state infringing on your rights and the state enforcing a reasonable law?" these arguments are completely unfounded and irrelevant to the topic, in comparison to India, AUS, and UK guns make it much harder for the state and government to pas laws that effect personal rights and free speech. history proves this, if your government becomes tyrannical it is legal to over throw it (yes its actually in the constitution) "In any case, if I had cited the incarceration rate as proof that guns lower crime, your refutation would still have failed." and? i just debunked this tangent of an argument that holds no value in this conversation. "After all, both Australia and the UK (the two countries you named) have a higher percentage of their population living in cities than the USA." actually that is false, only 79% of people in UK live in cities, in AUS its slightly higher at 89 the US is at 81%, good try though. also that still does not account for the number of metropolitan cities.
    1
  41. no, committing a crime then saying "oh well i have a gun so its fine" is not an argument, just like if i use a knife and commit a crime im not suddenly exempt from the crime because i did not use a gun (im using your own logic) its a illogical and unfounded argument
    1
  42. again your argument is simply illogical, if you violate a law having a gun does not make you immune to the consequences JUST like killing someone with a knife does not make someone exempt from killing someone. i said it protects against government tyranny and disincentives the government from passing whimsical laws on a populace which can resist and protect themselves, the 1st amendment is protected by the second KILLING, ROBBING, and BREAKING laws are not protected by the 2nd amendment. your straw man arguments are getting very boring, they are illogical, and have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment
    1
  43. yes, but not nearly to the extreme we see in Canada, UK, Germany or AUS which limit free speech, attack personal property rights, and diminish liberty. like Bill C-16 in Canada (they know there will be no backlash or resistance) which FORCES you to use a pro noun that someone WISHES to be used (like attack Apache helicopter) or in Germany where the government arrests you for not being hospitable to Syrian migrants.
    1
  44. incorrect, bill C-16 forces businesses and EMPLOYEES to perform and adhere to speech and the bills regulations regarding speech. other wise you will be recorded as having committed a HATE CRIME against any special snow flake which is punishable by prison or fines. its a disgusting over reach of government power.
    1
  45. yes
    1
  46. yea look at the skhrehli dude who bought the medical company for aids medication... oh wait....
    1
  47. oh god the SJW shit
    1
  48. Cat i knew
    1
  49. #PLANTLIVESMATTER
    1