Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "David Pakman Show"
channel.
-
17
-
16
-
@zayan6284
What? That's simply not true.
"Life" doesn't begin at a single, fixed point- that's the issue with your mentality.
If you want to define life as the moment of conception, then there is no difference between an abortion and picking your nose. You're dispelling cells from your body in both cases.
If you want to argue that "life" starts with sentience, then you've got to ask what, exactly, that is. According to most biologists and embryologists, it begins with the full formation of the nervous, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems. In other words, around 22 weeks, the current legal cutoff.
If you want to define "life" as potential human life, then you're stuck back at the same question. What is human life? Is it a cell (millions of which we routinely destroy, both consciously and unconsciously), or sentience? (whose date has already been determined, and which modern abortion practices respect).
Sorry dude, but you need to accept that you're wrong.
There is no clean starting point for "life." The world isn't so black and white, there are no perfectly good or bad guys here.
12
-
11
-
@ZackWolfMusic
Lmao dude which university are you studying at, what major?
I have a hard time believing that you're in aerospace and refuse to accept the fact upon which all of our global navigational systems are based.
If the Earth is flat, why can't I see the North Star from any place on Earth at night?
Why are some constellations only visible from certain places on Earth (and they aren't far apart either- according to the flat Earth model, I should be able to see the Southern Cross from Catalonia in Argentina, and also be able to, from the northernmost tip of the same country. I can't.)
That rules out the possibility that the atmosphere "clouds your view," because the distance between two points equidistant from the Equator (or, in your model, the Ring?) is smaller than the distance between two points in the Northern Hemisphere (or "semi-circle") from both of which the North Star is visible.
In other words, the boundaries where the atmosphere "gets too thick" blocking the view of fucking gas giants (or "Firmaments"), is completely put of line with reality, and conflicts with the observable properties of our atmosphere.
If I can see the same stars from Mongolia and Norway, why can't I see them from Egypt and South Sudan? Because the Earth is a sphere.
Not to mention there are complete videos of rockets with cameras attached going to space.
Though if you dismiss it as fake, then you'll have to provide evidence that the video had been doctored, and if you can't, then you're admitting that evidence does not matter to you, because you leave no room for your worldview to be challenged if everything that you disagree with just happens to be "fake."
That and, because of the force of gravity, anything as large as Earth would collapse back into a spherical shape under the weight of its own gravity.
Oh, and the Earth faces the moon at different angles throughout the month, but always casts a circular shadow; something impossible with a disc.
10
-
And Republicans wonder why they're the last group that it's okay to hate in this country 😂 the broad stereotype fits damn near perfectly!
Usually from the South, Bible-thumpin, loves hamburgers and meat in general, poor, obese, poorly educated, proud, loud, is obsessed with tactical-grip everything (because the government will obviously come at his door one SWAT member at a time), hates the environment, loves trucks, mowing the lawn, football, wears Oakleys, doesn't understand technology....
the list goes on and on. They're a distinct 'type' in American culture.
10
-
10
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@monadyne
You're operating under the presumption that we're here solely to debate the merits of his ideas and nothing else.
This is YouTube comment section, not a Socratic Seminar, so of course we're going to talk about his character.
Is anyone faulted for liking their presidential candidate as a person when making a choice? No?
Then let us discuss, thank you.
Also, there is plenty wrong with his ideas (not least of which that IQ is a subjective measure, and that 'capacity to learn', or intelligence, can be improved with practice, and whose average score worldwide increases yearly, forcing the testmakers to change the test measuring a supposedly inherent trait. Or that intelligence is measured in a number of different ways, about half of which are not covered by the test.)
And that's just his insistence that IQ is a reliable measure of intelligence. We can get into his ideas about race if you'd like.
~~~
My point is, don't try to police the YouTube comment section. Your individual comment isn't going to stop the shitshow, so sit back and enjoy.
8
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Playing devil's advocate here, some recent comments from Mesa and Camacho supporters (Morales opposition party leaders) have outlined the allegations of fraud beyond simple delays in between the quick count and official count, including default electronic registration of people who didn't vote (dead, out of country, etc) as Morales supporters, and hand-tampered ballots.
Of course, the report is (I think) published by the OAS, which leaves me suspicious, but it is important to remember that Morales has been accused of what Trump recently did- packing the Supreme Court with ideologically likeminded justices to get major decisions through in his favor. Unfortunately, even though Bolivia was prospering under him, it doesn't leave him immune to power grabs. We likely won't see the truth for a long time, especially if the OAS report has any U.S. fingerprints on it.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
Shad Jones
As awful as Putin is (human rights and press-wise), I'd prefer him over a CIA-backed candidate on our new elections, following his 'disappearance.'
Russians are not fond of West-friendly leaders— under Yeltsin, Russia may have been free, but it was piss-poor, and had its national wealth largely robbed by investors.
Not trying to diss Ben Franklin here, but he wasn't correct:
Safety is worth a loss of Freedom, because you can't be fee when you're starving, or when you're dead. Self-determination doesn't guarantee prosperity, especially when you're constantly barraged by foreign interests, something the U.S. had the luxury to avoid in its infancy as a nation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, funny enough, Abrahamic religions largely assume that people are inherently sinful- hence the Fall of Man at the end of Genesis. So from a theological point of view it makes perfect sense. Of course the Bible implicitly makes clear that nobody wants to die just because they know they'll be cured of a disease, or are promised happiness in the afterlife, but conservatives have a knack for twisting ideas to their benefit.
You mention atheists have somewhat opposite views, and I would agree, but only partially. Dharmic religions are more consistently positive about human nature, but fail to see its capacity for evil. Atheists, on the other hand, don't have a system of beliefs, so they go either way. Really depends on personal experience as you (presumably) choose not to follow any one rigid philosophy. So before you dismiss all religions, look carefully. You might come to the conclusion, as I have, that humans are just self-interested, and their behavior will be a mix of nature, nurture, and that instinct. Or maybe not.
Cheers
2
-
2
-
2