Comments by "Louie Berg" (@louieberg2942) on "Professor Dave Explains" channel.

  1. FLerf Dave was not there to engage honestly, so I think it's fine he got beat down a bit.
    7
  2. James' Tour de Force of Stupidity.
    4
  3. 19:32 It was obvious for everyone who speaks English, that the cadence in that sentence was building towards a "but". Ballsy move to cut it and use it anyway. You hear him inhale to continue.
    4
  4. You could have acted, with knowable consequences, but did not. Watching as a person drowns, knowing that you could have safely helped them, does impact culpability doesn't it?
    3
  5. We do need a return ticket for them, because by then a large part will be disabused of their ridiculous notion. Hopefully.
    2
  6. This is pointless. I'm all for debate, but debating Kent is pointless. He is a willfully ignorant man OR he is stupid beyond redemption. This ninny thinks that octoploidy leads to giantism. More chromosomes -> big. If that is genuinely his level of understanding after being in the field for 30 years, he cannot be saved. He does not want, or is unable, to understand the opposing view.
    2
  7. I'm always a little saddened when people dismiss philosophy as something that isn't or cannot be very rigorous. Several science educators have contributed to this notion, with some openly invalidating the usefulness of philosophy. Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye are two such educators, whose views on philosophy I find... puzzling to say the least. I'm glad to see this introduction mentions there's so much more to philosophy than just asking if you can clap with one hand.
    2
  8. Yeap, Stanford Encyclopedia has always been a huge help.
    1
  9. They really do fit the mold of typical flat earther. Their senseless, wanton scepticism goes in all directions. MSM is fake, governments are out to trick you, sinister shadow organisations do stuff for reasons etc. I wonder what happened to these people during their lives. Can't imagine it's a happy story.
    1
  10. Some claim they truly cannot, because of multiple layers of protection by various navies. It feeds into their conspiratorial thinking. Those layers of protection are kind of there... to prevent people from doing something very very stupid. There are safer ways of going there, but those are (of course) dismissed as guided tours where they don't show the super secret stuff.
    1
  11. Myeah, Meta-ethics, normative ethics, applied ethics would roughly be the fields for moral philosophy. "Ethics" is a little vague on its own.
    1
  12. I'm going to response to myself. I came back two weeks later and managed to last 10 minutes more. Kent is acting in bad faith or he is completely clueless. The latter option is so severe in Kent's case, he should not be allowed to make any kind of executive decision. He would be severely, severely impaired.
    1
  13. Neil DeGrasse Tyson... is that you?
    1
  14.  @penguiin12  It had the opposite effect on me.
    1
  15. I'm generally in favour of "polite" debates, but I definitely understand why you did not do it here. Weiss is a known entity and his motives are plain: he is a con man. You can already see him try to lay a foundation for a strategy at the start by asking those questions. You succesfully batted those away. People like Weiss cannot be given the slightest bit of ground, because they will see that as an opportunity to at least retreat to "well, you have your opinion and I have mine" and continue conning people. Weiss' position is objectively and provably false, Weiss' MO is known to be slippery and disingenuous, Weiss is not genuinely looking for truth: Weiss was fair game for Dave in this debate.
    1