Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Charisma on Command" channel.

  1.  @Nash9r  Link please? Not usually a drama fan but in Ellen's case it's cathartic in a way
    9
  2. @Young Man So you're making the assertion that life begins at conception. Some scientific evidence, please. Links
    8
  3.  @atiq.r  I've honestly never seen Ben in a constructive discussion— he uses these tactics at every turn. Discussions aren't determined by the setting of the debate, but by the attitude of the debaters. I'd love to be wrong, though— please show me a video wherein he doesn't use logical fallacies, speak quickly, or use one-liners ("taxation is theft"— okay, why?). In short, if you do have an example of him being respectful and both sides have time to clearly articulate their argument, I'd love to see it. Something like Peterson vs. Dillahunty.
    6
  4. Badmunky64 Part of the problem, as former Daily Show host Jon Stewart has mentioned many times, is the 24-hour news cycle. It started in the '90s with CNN and its 'fantastic' (profitable) coverage of the Gulf War. I especially despise the "I'm a reporter on the ground with my eyes squinted because things are tough out here but look at how valiant I am for doing it!" tactic. Fox, of course, copied the hell out of it, but leaned more towards newsrooms with one-on-one (anchor-viewer) messaging, hence its ability to project extreme views, while CNN has leaned into panel debates, giving the viewer the novelty (s)he wants and the false sense of superiority for listening to a 'discussion.' It really is a cancer. I'm not saying we should go back to the 'three channels' model, because I like options, but CNN should broadcast things from Ted Turner's collection in Cartoon Network to make profits, instead of creating drama from a dog with a cone on its head. Or something just as dull.
    4
  5.  @Epicness424  It is a snuck premise. There is no objective reason why this thing, in a mother's womb, can be considered a "baby" (because it isn't a defensible argument— I can't observe or measure the "baby-ness" of an object— it's a philosophical argument). Ben needs to use arguments that can be quantifiably and scientifically proven. He suggested it without defining his terms first— he snuck it in. Morality doesn't work when both sides have strong moral opinions. In other words, facts don't care about your feelings.
    4
  6.  Mike Forti  No, you're wrong. And you don't seem too bright, either. You think that a mother with a "big tummy" is a baby. If you sincerely believe that, answer me this: is a cell alive? You shed trillions of skin cells, sperm cells live and die inside you, every type of cell in your body is replaced in 7 years; so if they're alive, then you're committing murder all the time. At the moment of conception, a "baby" is just a single cell. Is that alive? When it splits, it's two cells. Would getting rid of two cells be murder? When the baby pops out, it's clearly alive, so again, think: when exactly is that pile of cells "alive?" Come back with a concrete answer, thank you. And maybe for once in your life, think logically about why there is a cutoff date for abortions. P.S. The left hasn't been "sneaking" anything- they've been yelling it at the top of their lungs. The right, however, plays dirty, because it knows what it does is immoral. So it has to be subtle until people don't realize what they're supporting (like hosing down black people in Birmingham) and it's too late. The damage is done.
    2
  7. Charismaniacs
    1
  8.  @Ltm2000  Because faith, by its very premise, requires a suspension of disbelief. Disbelief is the first step to understanding truth, because it motivates an individual to be curious and investigate the details of a matter further. What is the physical evidence of God that cannot be disproven? If you reply back with anything but the answer, you've chosen not to confront the truth, which is "there is none (bc God is be definition super-natural, "beyond physical,") or "I don't know of any." Simple.
    1
  9. I'll probably regret commenting before posting, especially because this can be interpreted as political, but.... I'd be willing to wager that Trump's 'genius' is less his master plan, and more a result of his years working in real-estate. I don't think he's book smart, so to speak, but he can read a crowd like nobody else, and knows how to get the two forward-looking emotions— fear and hope— churning in his voters. Again, classic sales tactic. I'd go so far as to say (given his financial history) that he's more of a salesman than a businessman, but he's damn good at it!
    1
  10.  @matheusg1473  That's not the way the human brain works. Suspension of disbelief in one area affects others, because topics aren't put into neat little boxes in our brain. Everything's connected, because we're animals, whose purpose is to connect various stimuli and reach conclusions to survive and (as a means to that end) maintain homeostasis, which includes proper brain function.
    1
  11. Pre-2012 Zuckerberg was human until the lizard overlords replaced him with one of their own SPREAD THE WORD #WOKE
    1