Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Bill Maher u0026 Richard Dawkins Discuss The 'Regressive Left'" video.
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
um, slander is just that. slander, fuckwit. it doesn't have to be a legal position, it's all slander, it's only a legal issue when you sue someone for it, dumbass. but slander always means one thing -- to portray someone in a demeaning way. you can sue because you can be inaccurate. that's why i mentioned it, gormfuck. because it's hilarious...what is he gonna do? not sue? so nothing? so basically you're whining (or was Harris whining too?) about a name-calling event? and then Cenk took it down...and you're still like uber-mad? LOL Harris ass-suckers are hilarious. PS: Cenk also is not a denier, just because he may have once been a denier, or had been influenced to believe as such. just like if someone were to, i dunno, convert from Islam to Christianity,then maybe to Atheism. but you're small brain cannot comprehend such things. like people having free-thinking capabilities.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Christians want to instate laws for the country, specified by their religions doctrine, and they say it's purely constitutional, which it's not...basically, a type of religious imposition on the people, like they are afraid of with Sharia Law. sorry but the constitution is the best law...and this is the point: it's the hypocrisy and media spin that Cenk addresses on TYT. most people are too stupid to understand the concept. he is always on the side of freedom -- but he knows not to continue to follow idiotic rhetoric that only serves to stir the pot, instead effectively pointing out blatant hypocrisies and fundamental errors in logic and reasoning, and understanding of politics and media production. this stuff flies over peoples heads and then they want to critique and share their opinions, more idiots follow, and parrot...and the idiots continue to rule, in numbers, as thus it ever was.
1
-
Cenk is referring the media bias when making reference to the comparisons -- ie, he's referring the media making blanket generalizations and then pundits making declarative statements against "liberals" or "gays" or whatever have you, and then getting away with it, skewing the narrative -- he battles that by questioning the comparisons that others make, by proposing other comparisons that seem absurd by comparison, because they are -- but he does this on purpose. you are one of the many whom do not understand this fundamental aspect of watching Cenk on TYT...that's the goal, to question the narrative being produced by corporate media outlets. you know they lie all the time, right? well, that's why Cenk does what he does, in that regard...to propose that when someone, anyone, does something like that, it's the same media spin as anyone else doing it, regardless what it's about.
and also, you can't really say that he used an argument like "oh the KKK bomb people too". what just like that? does he shrug his arms too? i've never seen it. i've only seen him make the odd comparisons that he then decries them as absurd, and warns the audience that his comparisons are to elucidate the way corporate media (and politicians) creates spin and skews narrative. he flat out tells the audience this -- and people like you just insist that he's an apologist, when he's the furthest thing from it. he decries Islam for their actions -- he decries media spin, and the lies perpetrated, and elucidates how they do that, and people still don't get that they're watching an explanation, and not an account of actual spin. the spin is in the spin of anything, not just things against/for Muslims, Blacks, or Mexicans. only these get brought up in the media alot more than anything else, so this is the subject matter that's covered -- and people seemingly get confused, after hearing enough times things that go against the media narrative, they then start getting mad at Cenk for trying to spin the narrative, when all he is doing is exposing the hypocrisy of the misleading spin already being readily bought.
if one keep saying "all terrorists in the US are Muslim" one'll begin to believe it, and then one'll hear something like "also there are Right-Wing terrorists" from Cenk, after discussing the notion of the first statement, and one'll say (presuming they are right-wing, far leaning) "that's just not true, he's making a faulty analogy!"
right! but the thing is, the statement that "all terrorists in the US are Muslim" (and this is what some people believe, that Islam is it, and there is no Christian terrorism, no right-wing terrorism, ect) is WRONG, whilst the second statement, in conjuction, is perfectly rational and reasonable and TRUE, but to make the analogy, even tacitly, IMPLIES SOMETHING, right? so when anyone in media does it, it's always a sham -- thing is Cenk openly discusses the subject matter on air, as it's addressed, and doesn't just make a false analogy, and then not address it's falsity. he addresses those in the media whom DO, though; and at the same time, he addresses those whom buy the media's false narratives and spin, by engaging them, and bringing the believers of the spin of corporate news out of the wood work to oust themselves -- all for the sake of having (or trying to have) an honest discussion, in a supremely dishonest media environment.
1
-
another parrot with no actual brain of his own. he doesn't deny the Armenian genocide. i have looked it up. he wrote an article, as a conservative pundit, actually decrying the Turkish president denying the genocide, whilst other AMERICAN c's ALSO deny the genocide, as it fits in with the proclaiming that it didn't fit "the definition" of genocide, to specifics, which helps conservatives (like those in Japan) whom want revisionist history (like Confederates). actually in the article (have you actually read it? i mean the ACTUAL article?) he poses questions about the genocide and shares that he's not so sure if it happened the way people claimed it did, or not -- basically, an open ending -- being a conservative pundit, he would have had to take that position. so now that you've been given facts...go along now. you'll keep doing what you're doing.
"And Cenk had a headline (which he had to retract) comparing Sam Harris To sarah palin"
that's the big claim to fame Sam ass-suckers point to, is it? damn, first i've ever heard someone mention anything of it...LOL, slander@! GASP! Sam Harris would have sued! HAHAHAHAHA just about anyone can sue for slander, you fucking gorm. LOL, that's the big offense? AHAHAHHAHAHAHA
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Who said Harris 'changed his mind", child?"
you did when you reversed the fucking argument in a tu quoque, as you did above, citing that because Sam had changed his mind, he's all fine and dandy, and beyond criticism, but yet, when HE HADN'T updated, according to your ridiculous comparison, he was still beyond reproach from Cenk...but yet, at that same time, you say Cenk is not beyond reproach, (if you're following the logic of your constituent here, whom you're trying to support, flailing) even if he updates and changes his "errors" -- all whilst exclaiming that Cenk cannot have been right about Same Harris, EVER, whilst Sam Harris INDEED had updated and nuanced his silly nuclear option plan...probably because there were glaring holes in said plan.
1
-
actually child, my understanding of a straw man is exactly what it is. you pose an argument that is supposed to address someone's statements but you use said argument to address either side issues (or in other words misrepresenting the issue and thus the argument) that are not directly causal or relevant to the statement one is addressing. i did not address any argument or statement that you made, since you made none. you just repeated and reversed what someone else said. that's not an argument. hence, i was not arguing with you. hence my comment was no straw-man. that is fallacy fallacy. silly no? but you're a child in a big boys body, whom has some toys. =) also Tu quoque is exactly your defence. and it's just that. you support those whom say that Sam Harris is beyond reproach, that you can't question his past remarks and use them to scrutinize what he says now, but yet they don't hold that regard for Cenk. you support these people, and hence are just as culpable in attempting to stabilize that weak and pathetic defence. illogical. irrational. and totally ironic.
PS: ADDENDUM: nah, i am a more stream-of-consciousness sort of writer. i don't plan out my writing, or in this case, typing. but you can keep bloviating all you want, gorm.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"That's not what I did."
ya it is -- quote:
"Defense of Torture was posted in 2005 and has been updated and "clarified" since. You think evolving opinions or explaining misunderstandings is a bad thing? If so (to refit a punchline from a detestable hillbilly comedian) you might be a regressive..."
which is what was said about Cenk, that he has "updated" his worldview, and which is true, and people ARE allowed to do so, which you claimed as well, above...yet, you do not hold that same argument for Cenk, so why are you using it against his declaiming Harris as merely "updating" instead of having been right all along; why are you insisting that that person didn't want anyone to change their views...he wasn't saying that...he said "Harris changed his views in a year after the interview" ie "Cenk and Harris should be able to change their minds on issues" -- as you've said...but the people you then aim to defend by attacking his position, are those whom said the opposite, that Cenk can't backpedal, because he said what he said once already, and he can't change his mind without appearing the liar. that's why you are a hypocrite, like the others, and why you were addressed.
"You should look that term up while you're at it, child. Your misunderstanding of the form, function and definitions of every fallacy you've evoked is flawless. Meaning you've failed to comprehend the meaning of every fallacy you've named. It's sad really. Amusing. But sad, too." what's sad is you not being able to comprehend that i was using his own rhetoric, and thus his own logic, to prove that he was using fallacious logic. and you agree. and thus, you're an idiot, because you can't even understand that i pointed to your own logic to derive the argument -- because that's where YOUR argument falls apart. simple as that.
(also this is what happens in rhetorical argument. there is nothing but bedrock assumptions here, on your part, and william dishrag)
"Reread your initial appearance for both retarded amusement and elucidation on the tu quoque as a textbook example."
this hilarious example is brought to you by: someone who understands logic, and whom can point out people's hypocrisies. he was using the logic, that you declaim as fallacious...well, then we both agree. it was. that's why i pointed it out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
yeah, but the thing is, you don't HAVE an argument AT ALL...you have some fallacious conjecture, at best. postulations are not argument, you're correct. but when have you EVER made an argument? you've merely defended william dishrag, and i've shown his and your "logic" to be inherently twisted. you say straw-man, when there is none (i represented and explained his fallacious reasoning -- that's pretty apropos,and also not a straw-man), and you say that you using his argument wasn't tu quoque, which is exactly what it was. "you support those whom say that Sam Harris is beyond reproach, that you can't question his past remarks and use them to scrutinize what he says now, but yet they don't hold that regard and courtesy for Cenk. you support these people, and hence are just as culpable in attempting to stabilize that weak and pathetic defence. illogical. irrational. and totally ironic."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tu_quoque#Tu_quoque_in_response_to_support
1
-
1
-
"You think evolving opinions or explaining misunderstandings is a bad thing?"
he never said that. and it was in response to:
" Cenk has definitely been a slandering provocateur on this issue in order to discredit and silence these people. "
no one has slandered Sam Harris with undue reasoning. people do not misunderstand Sam Harris' position, they just simply think his position is foolhardy and dangerous and condemnable. but to condemn Cenk for "slandering Harris" by simply calling his position idiotic, when it is, and then A: presume that Harris' position was ever up-to-snuff with any tenable opposition, whilst B: presuming Cenk was always to be considered wrong, while C: Harris had to "update" his arguments -- as clearly if they needed to be updated, then they were clearly unable to hold the water Harris suspected, nor his fanboys -- well, that's just inexcusably wrong.
PS: "Again, infant, clarification =/= change"
if he needed to clarify his argument, it wasn't a sound argument, it was a confused and muddled argument -- which would account for Cenk and everyone else not buying it, and seeing it's glaring holes.
"Well, I'll only answer the last comment that shows up when I reply so you should maybe reconsider that."
this isn't done to convince you of anything. this is done to show that the defence of Harris is specious, whilst the defence of Cenk is rational, considering peoples confusion over what constitutes a failure is misconstrued, as they think that Cenk cannot disagree with Harris, and he cannot wholly insist on Harris clarifying his argument, to make it make more rational sense.
1
-
PS: ISIS has no nuke capabilities, and no ability to strike the US directly from their location. hence, Harris' nuclear first strike plan is fearful and regressive dookie (and also "not as bad as" illogical dookie, at that), that idiots like. PPS: i confused you for someone else. either way, tu quoque is applicable, because within this comment line, people asserted that Sam Harris can clarify and change his views, whilst at the same time, condemning Cenk and calling him a "regressive", because he simply disagrees with Harris, and among other things, such as "he's a genocide denier", and then he's not only condemned for that, but for trying to change and/or clarify his views, ie change in respect to the genocide denial accusation (bullshit) and clarity to his position ad infinitum that Islam is not a good religion and proposes bad ideas, and causes chaos in fundamentalist Islam. he does this, he gets bashed...Sam Harris does this (this clarity -- nothing to the genocide denial claim), he gets praised. this is a tu quoque, and you are in defence of it. to say but Sam Harris "clarified his views" and applaud him for it, while condemning Cenk for doing the same. questioning him on his logic; and if it so needed clarity, you can't fault him for questioning the logic, when it is faulty; but yet, people do fault him for it,whilst at the same time praising Harris for the same thing they condemn Cenk for doing just the same; which is appeal to hypocrisy or tu quoque.
PPS: not that that invalidates your argument...your agreeing with Harris' slippery slope "not as bad as" nuclear-first-strike against-camel-riding-desert-dwellers-with-no-nukes-to-strike-the-US-with logic -- this all invalidates your argument for me.
1
-
PPS: also, Sam Harris = slippery slope fallacy. "we need to attack them first, if they have a nuclear capability, because they try and kill us as soon as they can, so we need to nuke them as soon as 'IF' arrives"
no IF. there is no IF. not yet. and IF they were to get a nuke, or nukes...there are special forces that are classed with the abilities to go in and seek and destroy the nukes -- so no, we don't have to nuke them first -- we just need intelligence, like we have plastered all over the middle east, and then we need to send in JSOC or whomever handles Nuclear Weapons, and let them attempt to handle the situation with carefully planned tactics and, with a solution, that'll be clean and not be a disproportional response to an area already destabilized, and not to mention the ethics involved of the murder of innocent lives in the area, that are not involved in sectarian violence.
Sam Harris ignores all this, and all his fans suck his ass, and hate on anyone who'll point out this glaring fallacy in logical reasoning, and then Sam and his idiot supporters will say: "but he said IF" -- yeah, well, we're not at "IF" and even IF we were, it still doesn't discount the glaring lack of rationality and logic on Harris' part, and it doesn't discount his slippery slope and "not as bad as" fallacious reasoning.
yeah, not as bad...but what's even less bad is, oh i dunno, not nuking the country for no good reason, and just going in and destroying the nuke before they even have the ability to launch, and/or, destroy their capabilities, before any completion of any silos. -- can they even build any place for missiles? ... let's just presume for the sake of argument they can, i guess...since -- i think, at least -- it'd satisfy the crowd. facepalm
1
-
yeah, i noticed he was just using other people's ideas to inform his worldview, and is as such defending the other person's (in this case Harris) idea, tooth and nail. well, i'm sure he'd like to actually address my last comment, and assuredly, he'll find it is not an "argument" (and he'd be right, they are statements and they hold propositions within, holding truth values) -- but let's see if he can actually show how i am wrong in my statements -- let's see if he can actually show they are wrong with those great polemics of his, and perhaps he can grant us the pleasure of seeing him formulate an argument that's sound against my propositions. (PS: before he calls me lexiconically challenged proposition: Logic. a statement in which something is affirmed or denied, so that it can therefore be significantly characterized as either true or false.)
thing is no one here needs to make an argument...as there is no argument, as he has noted. that doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to prove me wrong by asserting himself and showing me how i am wrong in my statements.
1
-
the IQ test, what IQ test, gormfuck?
what is the determination, anyways, save an IQ test? how is someone's opinion on Islam a factor? it's an opinion. i mean, statistically speaking, more people die from car accidents and other random accidental bullshit like that, than they do from mass shootings and terrorism combined. so basically Islam and it's 'danger' is statistically irrelevant, in the overall aspect of what is dangerous versus what's non-dangerous. not that it's an excuse for the prevalent violence and, yes, 'danger' within Islamic nations, and within the religion's scriptural dogma, and within the ideology; don't mistake an explanation with an excuse, as this isn't an excuse, like i've said. so what's the determining factor, in regards to recognising danger within Islamic culture, that relates to IQ? or in your words, what's "the IQ test", you speak of. tell us O wise one. you know, without ad hominem, dickhole.
"Are you still here after the ass pounding you took, princess? Seemed you enjoyed the pounding this 'cockmaster' provided you after all."
yeah, this popped up in my notifications. i'm "still here", faggot.
1
-
"You poor thing. Even the notion of an IQ test confounds your dumb ass. As I said, buttercup, you're unqualified to speak on what does and does not constitutes intelligence."
oh YOU...a random idiot commenting on youtube does not an IQ test make.
"Having to ask also presents further evidence of your necessary disqualification from intelligent discourse. I'll give you a hint though: Knowledge of global, social and political situations (past and present) are just a few factors in determining intelligence. You're welcome."
we're talking about an intelligence quotient, fagmo. not intelligence as to wit socio-political acumen and insight, you crass blowhard cockmaster. LOL
"You obviously still don't know what an ad hominem is, child. This is also apropos to the Dunning-Kruger effect you labor so mightily and insuperably beneath. Do look up the term at you convenience."
insuperable, that's nice, you get that in a translation of some classicist text? i love that word, too. it's fancy. but yeah, no, i know what an ad hominem is, moron. what you're illogically committing to, to get your "point" across, is called "argumentum ad hominem, through guilt by association". do try harder. or wait...do you want me to Latinize it a bit, make it a bit more contusive to your ego? i know you like it. also: you still haven't shown me the determination of what makes an intelligence quotient with what is presented here, in this comment line. where's your argument or explanation? you're great, though, at prevaricating and avoiding having to make a counter-argument. bravo sophist-bullshitter. LOL
"Faggot? Now that's just blatant projection, princess. You're not fooling anyone."
you're the one implying you wanna fuck me in the ass, faggot.
1
-
1
-
"Perhaps while you're failing to look up words you can pretend top discover what 'quotient' means in relation to intelligence. If only you could comprehend such complexity..."
we aren't talking about 'a quotient in relation to intelligence'...we are talking about the IQ or Intelligence Quotient Test, ie, the TEST, that is given to produce an IQ SCORE. not any of the prevaricating evasion you have dribbled off your chin.
"We of some modicum of intellect call it 'education'."
hedge more. first we are talking about you showing me where there is an IQ Test within this comment thread...then you want to reduce it to "a quotient of intelligence" that you're trying to point out to me (my lack thereof, you say), then you say it's 'education' you're talking about...make up your fucking mind. oh wait, you're just making more fallacious counterarguments.
"Obviously not, cupcake, you used it wrong."
good luck showing that, because i obviously didn't "use it wrong".
"You really are a mindless fuckwit, aren't you? That was rhetorical, princess. Of course you are. Mashing words together does not make them coherent, kiddo. If you make a positive claim regarding a logic fallacy, you must follow up with a demonstration of said fallacy. It is not enough to make the assertion, child. Had you been familiar with logic at all you'd have known this and not have to be told. Further compounding the proof of your utter vacuity. By all means continue. I enjoy watching you morons flounder under the burden of your own failed statements."
i'll point it out: "As I said, buttercup, you're unqualified to speak on what does and does not constitutes intelligence."
i'm unqualified? that statement itself is unqualified, and it's also an ad hominem. moron.
"Contusive. That term does not fit or mean what you think it means buttercup. Mulligan?"
it means to injure without breaking the skin. a contusion; leading to bruising. stfu, moron. yes, you can say it was reification, but the fact is, when i say ego, i am making a play on words. it makes responding to you more pleasant, to try and have some fun.
"Still too much irony for you to parse, I see. Again, apropos."
i never said you produced a non-existent IQ test, you proposed that. hence, i am referring to you, clearly, and accurately, cocksmear.
"I didn't imply such a thing. I directly stated that it occurred and you obviously enjoyed it. Ass fucking alone does not make one a 'faggot', princess. You're clearly female so the term does not apply."
no, i'm pretty sure you did. i called you a cockmaster, and you said something like, oh i dunno, "Seemed you enjoyed the pounding this 'cockmaster' provided you after all" which sorta insinuates that you'd like to fuck me in the ass (or that you did, but sadly we all know this is just projection; now that's ironic, according to the record here. hmmm.) also, i'm clearly a female? lol, no. terrible attempt at a reversal of what you were implying. also, you doubled up your comment, there, Cochise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
LOL i am a regressive SJW how can i not see that? again...begging the question. you are an SJW regressive, dude, how can YOU not see that? -- you're educated with two degrees? in what? and a high IQ? again, what does that show? nothing. -- oh and that last part, that was rather poetic, lovely rhymes. i ply my own trade, gormless cockmunch and no education was needed -- numb nuts. being self-taught, well, that was a treat for me -- maybe not so much for you, though, miss 2 degrees. (gasp, who could have imagined your enlightened wisdom though? get laid, get a job, ect ect...nice, real good argument there, you raging cancer bubble.)
1
-
LOL, i wouldn't need any muscle. it's a pejorative term that might as well be used to cuss at anyone with dissenting views. what you addressed was not ironic. he was pointing out the fact that people do, in fact, call people SJW, (like you just did me, at least tacitly, with the muscle remark), when they've not made any attempt to silence criticism or do anything an SJW "supposedly does". and i agree that the pedagogy is spreading an out of control regressive liberalism, i just don't feel to use the terminology, because i have my own, and more precise terminology...pedagogy, and idiots, are words that suffice. but thanks for helping prove mine, and the other gentleman's point.
1
-
i don't really mind ad hominems. as long as they aren't used to try and prove the argument. but yeah...aren't we merely agreeing at this point? have we reached the bed rock? i don't like SJWs, and i don't think the term is "a problem", i think it's easy use is a problem. and yeah, the term is dumb as fuck, but someone else coined it...oh well. it's apparently really popular. it "means" something, i guess...it denotes something, is more like it, though. it doesn't really mean much, except as a pejorative, as the commenter said, and he was right. and what does it "mean" or denote, rather...it denotes someone who is neatly offended and/or "triggered" by things that they feel they should be able to simply stop, or insist should be banned or should be ignored, ect ect, basically wildly entitled neo-hippy kids.
but then the term is used many a time over to simply declaim people and put them down INSTEAD of posing an argument to an opposing position they don't like...THAT to ME is the DEFINITION of the whole denoting of the crowd. when someone does just that -- and like you said, it's that "they are unwilling to have an argument using rational means of discourse rather than adhominem".
so what do i call those people? SJW+?
1
-
1
-
1
-
+saro ban "You say "spot on, Kyle", then go on a rant that's the opposite of what Kyle said. Apparently you regressives can't help but misrepresent even those you agree with."
can you actually be serious? he didn't make a rant that's the opposite...he made a couple sentences that was running parallel to his argument, that people tend to call people "regressive" just simply for disagreeing with them. that happens. those people are idiots. you might be one of those people. anyone can say "oh well, you support Islam because you think they deserve to not get ridiculed" . LOL. yeah. i think they shouldn't be ridiculed because they're human -- but their religion can be questioned and ascertained as something to be mocked, sure -- but do you mock the person? no. that's called Ad Hominem, and it's counter-productive...but yet, if i say this, i get called regressive, by some. these people are the idiots i am referring to. are you one, i should ask, rather...so are you?
1
-
actually, if you hold ridiculous ideas the logical thing to do is to ridicule the ideas -- NOT THE INDIVIDUAL -- to do otherwise is ad hominem and is counter-productive if you're aiming to change the minds of the people that have said bad ideas.
" but if when exposed to better ideas, they dump on them and tell me to go to hell, then they get ridiculed, and it would be brought on by their own ridiculousness"
sure, that's not the same thing as what i was talking about, though. if they ridicule you, or they simply refuse to listen to reason, i'd have no problem insulting them. i'm just saying it's not productive if the person simply has a different viewpoint or opinion than you, to ridicule them. it's more productive then to stick to attacking 'the ideas' and not the person. much more likely to change their minds, that way.
1
-
i never questioned your "technique". PS: i never said you shouldn't ridicule. i said, "anyone can say oh well, you support Islam because you think they deserve to not get ridiculed -- you shouldn't ridicule because their human"
ie, it's no excuse to ridicule for the sake that they are Muslim, if you're going to ridicule them for being human as well -- but you should ridicule their ideas, though shouldn't ridicule them for being human, and should stick to ridiculing and attacking their ideas, instead of simply fearing and/or fighting with all Muslims, just because they're Muslim.
"No, if I say you are wrong because you are stupid, that is an ad hominem"
ad hominem simply means attacking the person. that's it. it can be used in a variety of contexts. you are referring the common logical fallacy. i am simply referring the instance of attacking someone's character (ie they're Muslims hence must likely believe in Sharia Law) as opposed to their ideas, solely (ie he believes in Sharia Law and ect).
1