Comments by "Iain Mc" (@iainmc9859) on "How to Lie With Statistics (and get away with it)" video.

What, do you mean like an ex-President found guilty of multiple felonies ...
1
On average, more than 50% of the time, relatively speaking the illustrations of classical paintings in Unsolicited Advice's videos will have no objective relation to the point being made anything other than to re-enforce the viewers acceptance that Unsolicited Advice's taste and classical education is generally above that of the ordinary Joe on the street, and thus is to be more trusted ... is this Correlation, Causation and Attribution combined ?
1
@nostalji93 Hey, at least he admits to his viewpoint ... rather than pretending he's objective.
1
@nostalji93 Lets break it down into two parts: 1, Sandy accepts that he has a viewpoint from a certain perspective. 2, This perspective may result in a particularly subjective opinion. I am presuming, of course, that the other commenter believes in their own objectivity rather than accepting their own individual subjectivity.
1
@nostalji93 I have definitely not tried to answer your questions on Sandy's behalf, I merely said that Sandy has stated he has a viewpoint he is coming from. As you ask about all the 'horrible things claimed in the Bible' that you cannot mention because 'yt' (Bible, YouTube ?) would censor you, I simply presume you come at it also from an individual subjectivity that differs from Sandy's. To answer your question 'So what's your point?', I make a point about accepting that each of us comes to a discussion from a subjective viewpoint. I am not in a position to question or query either of your positions on any issue, as you haven't stated them. You may 'prefer it' if nobody else responds to your comment ... but that really isn't the way that an open channel like YouTube works and as long as that 'dude' is polite and not abusive in an open society then I guess you'll just have to live with it. As you said in your original comment, 'you don't have to answer' (although, technically, I haven't asked you a question).
1
@nostalji93 There is no contradiction. Sandy states his background immediately; perhaps in contrast to the raising of undefined yet 'horrible stuff' in the Bible. I remain neutral in relation to religious, faith or biblical matters. Neither implying agreement or criticism of anyone's religious beliefs or lack of them. The value I share is in being aware of ones own subjectivity, which is a key principle of philosophy; rather like awareness of Confirmation Bias in Science. If you are not interested in a 'pointless exchange' or 'BS', why do you answer/respond ?
1
@nostalji93 Yeap, asking offensively tinged questions could easily be mistaken as a lack of objectivity and an eagerness for disputation. All I did was hold the mirror up until you realised it. Now are you surprised that it elicited no response from Sandy ?
1
@nostalji93 As you offensively undermined Sandy's self-espoused 'fundamentalism' in your very first comment and as your eagerness for disputation is evidenced in your responses, perhaps the reflection is a little uncomfortable to stare at. I am not trying to save you, who would I be saving you from; Sandy, YouTube, God ... Yourself ? Feel free to reject other's subjective opinion or unsolicited advice.
1
@nostalji93 What appears to be evidenced is your annoyance at being queried on your initial comment to Sandy. What is obvious is your inability to resist sliding into personal abuse rather than constructing a balanced rebuttal. Luckily I have a thick enough skin to ignore it. Let's try to get back to the two essential points that we began with: 1, Sandy, from his single comment, states he has a background perspective on philosophical debate. This admission is be commended, I hope we agree. 2. The only thing we may differ on is what the 'horrible things claimed in the Bible' are, and how subjective our different opinions may be on this. When you say 'sins' are you referring to 'original sin', breaking the ten commandments or more modern, as opposed to biblical, interpretations; and can we have a reasoned discussion without being patronising or personally abusive ? I'm interested in your viewpoint, without the need to go into personal details on an open forum.
1
@nostalji93 I accept you apology regarding being rude and dismissive, lets move on. I don't understand why you were so defensive as I only responded to your initial comment to Sandy as I found Sandy's comment genuine and open, where I found your comment combative and dismissive to his whole world view. My 'quick assumption' was that you were looking for a response to oppose, you just got it off me not Sandy. I don't think that was 'bad faith' as it was borne out by subsequent responses; I doubt that a young fundamentalist would have either the confidence or dialectic background to wade into that discussion, as your summing up of the OT as 'horrible' would probably have put him off, as may have your jumping from gender specific pro-noun to another. Sandy's avatar icon is ostensibly male, he spells his name the male way, and as a Christian Fundamentalist I'm presuming he may be disinclined to be gender neutral; if unsure its acceptable to describe someone as 'they' when referring to them in the third person, (it might be worth noting here I'd probably not agree with much of Sandy's 'fundamentalist' viewpoint; its worth also noting his concept of ;fundamentalism' may not be either yours or mine) and I appreciate that you wanted a discussion coming from someone of a different religious viewpoint - which I didn't give you. I don't think that dismissing the whole of the Old Testament as 'horrible' is justified. There are elements of both the Old and New Testaments that I would describe as 'dubious' in the modern timeframe but as the Bible is an anthology of so many different authors over a long period of time, not to mention multiple translations, from Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin then English, then it is not surprising there are different viewpoints within it; different Christian denominations also have their own preferred editions. There were also several Councils in the early Church to decide what was Canonical and what to simply leave out, which isn't agreed upon by all denominations, particularly the western and Orthodox churches. In reference to my original phrasing and re-phrasing using 'background' 'perspective' and 'viewpoint' ; all I was trying to say was that Sandy was making it clear he was aware he was subjective ... I was less sure from your initial comment to him you were aware of your own subjectivity, and it took a few responses for you to say so. I just kept responding until you stated it. There was no 'virtue signaling' or religious/faith viewpoint expressed throughout any of my responses (except included, in passing, in this response). I was genuine in saying I'm neutral on such things (also taking into account my own background/subjectivity). There was no constructive criticism offered as you didn't appear to have any defined stated viewpoint on any matter of religious theology (or statistics); your comments appeared to be merely aimed at myself for querying you. Although I can swear like a trooper, there's a time and place. Responding to a stranger online, even one that you perceive as annoying, with you immediately telling them their saying BS doesn't come across well. If you feel I have contradicted myself or become incoherent in any way I'd be willing to try to clarify my meaning, the same goes for any direct questions you think I've dodged. I too found it difficult to follow your narrative/meaning at times. They do say that America and Britain are two countries separated by the same language, I'm assuming you are American as you called me 'Dude'.
1
@nostalji93 I wouldn't say that English was most Americans first language either 😊. Perhaps it might be an idea just to say English isn't my first language right at the beginning of any lengthy conversation. Your English is a darned site better than my German. I don't know how old you are, presumably older than Sandy and younger than myself (mid 50's). There was a female singer in the mid-sixties called Sandie Shaw. In truth I was quite sexist in presuming a respondent on a philosophy channel was male and then checked his avatar afterwards. I still don't know if you dismiss the whole of the OT entirely or on what basis, moral, historical or if its just pre-Christian. I possibly (probably) came in too quickly on your response to Sandy but as you realise you'd probably closed it down with the OT comment. My concern (objective) initially was that a young man might innocently walk into having to justify his faith to someone else but not have the ability to do so, the context was a vlog about statistics and not religious belief after all. As to myself I was brought up in 'Faith' schools, what type isn't really relevant. I studied Greek and Roman history at college, where I picked up an appreciation of philosophy and dialectics. I then went on to study the Reformation at university but from a historical viewpoint not a theological one. I then went into teaching. I'm more interested in how religion shapes culture rather than holding any particular faith strongly myself. Respecting everyone's right to differ without necessarily agreeing with them. Now semi-retired. If there is a take away from this its, if I can use a British phrases, not to go in like a bull in a china shop i.e. you can do a lot of damage quickly. Using words that could be perceived as negative usually results in people not listening to what you have to say; even if your points are relevant and succinct and your curiosity is genuine. I'm not trying to 'save you' in any way. We can only do that from within. Take care.
1
@nostalji93 There's no 'one size fits all' way of dealing with understanding other people's perspectives on life. There's another old English phrase, you've got two ears but only one mouth for a reason, in other words listen twice as much as you say. Education isn't everything, having a true and honest spirit, mixed with a little humility is more important. I probably spent more time studying the Wars of Religion (Thirty Years War) than anything else and how politics took over from religious conviction. I can't say that anybody comes out of the 15/16th century looking particularly gallant or saintly, Erasmus probably came closest to being moderate in his words and actions. Its fine having strong convictions but when you start killing people over it you need to take a step back, not that I'm a pacifist either, I definitely don't have the courage to be a martyr of any sort. I've got no idea if Sandy would have been offended ... I know him less than I know you. If it particularly bothers you I'd put a singular comment in in response to him directly just stating you intended no malice and leave it at that. Find your own path, tread carefully, trust your instincts, we can learn from each other but we may come to different conclusions, don't be weighed down by regrets, start each day afresh ... Nobody can teach you more than you can find out for yourself, and don't spend your life listening to stupid old men who haven't got their own shit together either 😁
1
@nostalji93 I forgot to recommend a You Tube channel you might be interested in 'Let's Talk Religion'. If the creator has a subjective position it is that of a liberal minded westerner, which in my book isn't a bad place for a human being to be coming from.
1