Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"PragerU knows it's audience. It knows that confirmation bias is a powerful thing and that the viewers will use this video to reinforce their contrarian beliefs about climate science, ecology, epidemiology, and even evolution in extreme cases."
And the mainstream media knows their audience. It knows that confirmation bias is a powerful thing and that its viewers will use their articles and videos to reinforce their beliefs about climate science, ecology, epidemiology, and evolution.
So your point is? Other than including the word "contrarian" solely on the basis that they don't agree with the left? That is, the left is, of course, correct, and anyone with different views must be "contrarian". After all, the left needs to make an insult somewhere, given that they have trouble actually making a rational argument.
"But not by people who never went to college, who are this channel's target audience..."
Why did you just switch from the teacher to the student? That's a false equivalence.
"...and who most certainly don't have a legitimate reason to doubt peer reviewed scientific research."
Other than all the known problems with peer review? Sure, no other reason. For example, the climate scientists who wanted to take over a peer-review publication that was disagreeing with them. Or the fact that peer review tends to reinforce popular views and weed out unpopular ones even if the unpopular ones have evidence? (I think peer-review is a good thing if done properly, by the way.)
"If this man is a well educated scientist,..."
He apparently is.
"...he has a right to try to disprove things through research."
Glad you agree. He also has a right to teach us ignoramuses (as you seem to think we are). And yet, before you even see the video, you're trying to undermine its legitimacy.
"Uneducated viewers have no legitimate reason to believe they know better than modern scientists though."
Thanks for slandering all of us as "uneducated". You seem to have a very low opinion of your fellow man. But you are wrong, in any case. I do have legitimate reason to believe that I know better than modern scientists in the case that their conclusions are based on worldviews that I don't agree with. As is the case with evolution, which is a claim about history, (not empirical science, because the past cannot be observed, measured, tested, nor repeated), and which is based on a principle that excludes supernatural explanations even if they are true. Why should I accept the conclusions of scientists with that bias?
1
-
I don't know for sure. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, or at least that is the language that we have the earliest extant manuscripts of it in.
However, I seriously question your claim that "Moses did not speak or read Hebrew, he spoke Aramaic.". Moses was raised in the Egyptian royal family, and would have spoken some form of Egyptian. But he was very likely bilingual, or perhaps even knew several languages. What's your reason for thinking that Hebrew was not one of his languages?
Further, there is a lot of misinformation about when Moses lived. According to the Bible, it was (just from memory; I might have this wrong) around 1500 BC, but if you try to apply that to Egyptian history, it won't make a lot of sense, because Egyptian chronology is full of holes. So various people have tried to determine when in Egyptian history the exodus happened and come up with quite different answers. And as the Egyptian language changed over time that then affects which Egyptian language was in use in Moses' time.
Which all suggests that it's not an easy question to answer.
1
-
1
-
@kiwiman358
"still not proof or a source on "burning all the major cities" "
Yes, he did exaggerate. But he's not otherwise materially wrong.
"...there were very few in comparison to all the peaceful protestest..."
A claim I would not accept without evidence, given how widespread the violence was, even in the vicinity of reporters calling it mostly peaceful.
"...most importantly these cases have been condemnd by almost all of the people who supported the cause..."
You mean like the now VP raising money to bail out these people? Oh wait, that's the opposite of condemnation. Perhaps you mean like the journalist who questioned whether the constitution said that protests had to be peaceful. Oh, no, that's also the opposite of condemnation.
"... on the other hand, people on the right are still defending or denying the insurection."
You mean that largely-peaceful protest in which a very few people got violent and no more than a few hundred even trespassed (peacefully)? And in which the only person killed was an unarmed white woman shot by a police officer? I don't deny that happened, but I do deny that it amounted to an insurrection in anything more than a pedantic technical sense, and certainly that it was the greatest threat to democracy that America has seen, as claimed by the loony left that want to demonise anything that Trump was involve with, even falsely claiming that he caused this kerfuffle.
1
-
@kiwiman358
"...he was also wrong, as only a few builings ever took any damage through the protests..."
Define what you mean by "few".
"...the lie ... is simply not true."
Well, if it was true, it wouldn't be a lie, would it!
"...the lie that the protests led to whole cities burning down is simply not true."
A claim that I can't say I've ever heard in serious conversation. A lot of buildings being burnt in a lot of cities, yes, but "whole cities"? I can't say I've ever heard of that claim. It sounds rather like a straw-man.
"...when it comes to wheter or not the protests were peaceful, most sources claim that 93 - 95% of the protests were peaceful, which is a good amount in my oppinion."
That depends on your perspective. In some circumstances five to seven percent is a high figure, whereas in other circumstances that would be considered a low figure. It also depends on how violent. From what I saw, there was far too much violence, and certainly a lot more than the 6th January incident.
"...of cource this will not change your mind as you said that you dont care about the evidence."
I said no such thing. Ouch! I did say that! I meant "A claim I would not accept withOUT evidence..." I've corrected that.
"Kamala Harris did not personally bail any protesters out, she only advertised a fund for bailing out protestors."
I never said that she did personally. I said that she was "raiding" (sic; another typo I've fixed) money to bail people out. Which advertising for the fund qualifies as.
"...regardless Kamala Harris does not represent BLM or any protestors, so she doesn't matter."
It matters to your claim that "these cases have been condemnd by almost all of the people who supported the cause".
"I have not seen any journalists question whether protesters have to be peaceful,..."
I said that from memory, and I was incorrect in mentioning the constitution in that. But it was CNN's Chris Cuomo who said "Please, show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful." That exact quote should be plenty for you to confirm the claim.
"...even if they did, it is fine to question and discuss the constitution. "
He wasn't questioning the constitution, he was trying to justify or downplay the violence.
"...none of this actually matters much, because what matters is that most of the protesters have many times condemd the looters and violent protesters."
That's not in evidence.
"...the definition of insurection is "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government" "
Like the BLM etc. rioters did? They were never described as insurrectionists. And the 6th January protestors were not revolting against the government, but against the 'stolen' election. And yes, it was 'stolen' at the very least in how the mainstream media had a constant attack on Trump for four years, in how the social media censored pro-Trump view, etc. There are also good grounds, even if not proof, for thinking it was rigged in other ways too.
"...this is definitly what happened on jan 6."
No, not definitively. Technically, perhaps, but not really.
"...it is historical that any group of people have "invaded" the capitol."
I don't know what you're trying to say there.
"...any on the right can't accept what happened and the consiquenses it could have had"
The reason I can't accept that the election was a fair one is because the evidence says otherwise.
1
-
@kiwiman358
"somewhere around 5%"
Five percent of all buildings? That's a LOT!
"The violence of the protests compared to the Jan. 6. Insurrection have very little to do with the definition or the consequences of the insurrection."
True, but it has a lot with how that one incident is compared to the widespread, far more violent, BLM 'protests'.
"No, Kamala Harris doesn’t represent the opinions and ideas of the BLM protesters,..."
You claimed that "these cases have been condemnd by almost all of the people who supported the cause". Harris clearly supported the cause. You're now moving the goal posts.
"...the protesters condemning the looters actions, which can be seen though interviews and from actual representatives of the protestors intents opinions."
I believe that I have seen otherwise, but I don't know where to find that now, so I won't take that further.
"... its one guy saying something stupid."
That "one guy" is a prominent CNN reporter, and there was also the CNN reporter who claimed that the protests were "mostly peaceful" while standing in front of a fire set by 'protesters'.
"Whats more interesting is that you still believe that the election is stolen, despite all reliable evidence,..."
What reliable evidence?
"I could say the same thing for Bernie, who did not get much good publicity from the media either,..."
Nothing as bad as Trump got.
"In addition, bad publicity from the media doesn’t mean the election was stolen."
I didn't claim that it does. But wall-to-wall bad publicity and censorship does.
"In the end through all the court hearings, ..."
Most cases were not taken up by the courts for various reasons. That is, they did not actually investigate.
"...there has been no evidence of the election being stolen."
False.
"Provide one source that proves otherwise."
Proves that it was stolen? I already said that there is evidence, but not necessarily proof. Or a source that proves that there is evidence ?
1
-
@kiwiman358
"I meant 5% of protests not being peaceful, nothing to do with buildings."
One things that annoys me is people only half-answering questions, and therefore not really answering. You claimed that "…as only a few buildings ever took any damage through the protests…" So I asked what you meant by "few". Your answer was "somewhere around 5%", without saying what that was five percent of. Now you claim that it was nothing to do with buildings, but you explicitly referred to buildings.
"No, it doesn’t, few people portray the insurrection as a violent attack or whatever,…"
Not true. The frequently call it both violent and deadly.
"The claim about BLM protests being “far more violent” has very little proof and there is no evidence that anyone has been killed by protesters during the protests."
There were numerous people killed by the BML protests. You could only deny that by drawing a distinction between the peaceful protests and the non-peaceful protests and rejecting the non-peaceful ones as not actually protestors.
"Additionally, the right claims there was only a white woman killed by police who died from Jan. 6., but this is not true, because in the aftermath of Jan. 6. Up to 4 police officers have committed suicide, most likely because of the insurrection,…"
I note the unverified "most likely". And that you concede that they weren't killed by the protestors, despite your desperate attempts to link them.
"…nor do I think Kamala supported the cause at all, she used it for populism, nothing more."
Okay, so her support was not really support because you think she had a different motive. Got that.
"…that other guy was not wrong saying “mostly peaceful” which is true statistically."
Maybe, although that's not in evidence. But the media didn't call the 6th January incident "mostly peaceful". Because they have an agenda.
"Evidence:"
Ummm, yeah? Well, there's a lot of stuff there, so I can't go through it all, but from the quick look I've had of it, I'm not convinced.
campaignlegal: It tends to quote only critics, not defenders. It's coverage of the Maricopa audit is clearly biased, again citing mainly critics of it, and not defenders. It's labelling of the Arizona Senate's intensive audit as "highly questionable" is clear bias, and their claim that it's "methods of doing a recount are not transparent" is blatantly false, or at best cherry-picking, given that its methods were very open, fully explained, and broadcast live.
apnews: The reporting is very one-sided. I have no doubt that some of the claims about voter fraud, etc., were false. But this report simply picks out the ones that go against Trump, omitting the ones that support him.
I've given Wikipedia a miss, given that it's definitely biased and doesn't even claim to be truthful.
I skipped the second apnews one.
aljazeera: A story about Dominion suing news outlets, a case that is yet to be conducted, is not "evidence".
And it's been shown that the fact-checking organisations are biased and inaccurate too, so that's hardly a good source.
"Show one source which proves otherwise, the burden of proof is on you."
Did any of them (not that I saw), refute the evidence of social media censorship of news favourable to Trump?
"Well, I disagree, Trump at least had Fox News and OAN to help him, unlike Bernie."
But Trump had many more outlets against him, parroting the Democrats invented charges.
"Sure, censorship might, but Trump was not censored, ..."
Nonsense. First, I didn't refer just to direct censorship of Trump. What about the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story and the newspaper that ran it? But even Trump was censored in that the mainstream media often didn't accurately report what he said and did. That he was free in -some venues to speak does not mean that he was not censored in others. That's just misleading spin.
"And no, bad publicity does not reduce the elections legitimacy."
Deeply deceptive publicity does.
"Wrong again, you keep lying, are you bad faith or don’t do research?"
Not wrong, not lying, no bad faith, and I've done research.
The reuters link is another so-called 'fact checker' by journalists, that actually 'fact-checks' a different claim, a Facebook post that claimed that “Not one court has looked at the evidence and said that Biden legally won. Not one” Even that report concedes that a case brought by Texas was not investigated by the court. It doesn't mention that when Trump tried to bring the same case, it was also dismissed without being heard.
"Provide it then."
I have; the election interference by much of the mainstream media and social media.
"You’re admitting it is a conspiracy theory without proof or evidence then, well what a waste of time."
I did no such thing. So can I accuse you of lying? I explicitly said that there is evidence, and yet here you are claiming that I admitted to there being no evidence. That's pretty good evidence of you lying. (Not to mention your claim that your comment was nothing to do with buildings.) Or failing to read what I wrote. And I never even mentioned it being a conspiracy. You simply made that up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@100percentSNAFU
"So, ask a scientist which one it was, and the answer you will get is that nobody knows."
While your overall response is great, this line is not. Some scientists may answer that, but others will answer with one of the three explanations you mention. In summarising the views of Alan Guth, one of the leading Big Bang theorists, Discover magazine said this:
"The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything."
So Guth would answer with your first explanation, despite that being contrary to cause and effect, a basic principle of science.
Others go with the second option, of the multiverse, often said to have been invented or become popular precisely to avoid the third option. Of course that is an evidence-free metaphysical explanation, so, strictly speaking, outside the realm of science.
The third option is therefore the only one with any credibility. But because that implies a God to whom we are all answerable, many don't like that answer so will opt for one of the other two bizarre answers.
"...because none have been proven."
Actually the third one has been "proven", depending on what is meant by that word. That is, there is sufficient evidence for the third option to have convinced people, which amounts to it being proven in their minds.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExistenceUniversity
"It's a misconception that you cannot prove a negative."
The misconception is that I made that claim. I said that you can't prove a universal negative. I can prove that there are no matches in this matchbox, but not that there are no matches in the entire country, because it's impossible to search everywhere in the country.
"Is there a tea cup in orbit around the sun? Did anyone make a cup and send it into space? No"
How do you know nobody did?
"God is interacting with the world, but the world cannot interact with God."
And yet people do all the time.
"God and physics are opposite, ..."
In what way? I am not my house, but that doesn't mean that I'm the opposite of a house. Which I made by the way (albeit by hiring builders). We both exist, even though one is a living thing and the other isn't (so in that limited sense we are opposites).
"physics exist because it is physical ..."
Huh? That doesn't make sense.
"...the universe is full of physical objects."
You've checked every part of it, have you? Actually, the statement is false anyway. The universe contains information, numbers, etc. that are not physical.
"... the universe is full of physical objects. Therefore god is opposite to reality."
You seem to have overlooked that, in one sense, God is outside the universe. So no, your argument is garbled, and your conclusion simply doesn't follow from the premises.
"You cannot prove a negative if you are a skeptic that reality exists. "
As I have shown above, I can prove a (non-universal) negative. And I most certainly believe that reality exists. The physical reality we experience was created by God.
"You give me any "fact" about God and I will demonstrate why and how it is counter to reality, and why it would mean this character must be fictional."
Okay. God is eternal. He has no beginning. He exists outside of time. (Pre-emptive response: your experience of reality not being eternal is of physical reality not being eternal, but God is not physical.)
1
-
1
-
@ExistenceUniversity
"I think your issue is that you think your beliefs need to change to have something to be proved."
I'm not sure what that means, but "proof" is not an absolute, but is more a case of being convinced by the evidence, which will vary from person to person.
"To non-insane people that don't believe in "outside of reality",..."
I don't believe in outside of reality, but I don't consider the physical universe to be all of reality. Rather, it's just all of physical reality.
"...your requirement that God is outside the universe..."
That's not a requirement of mine. That's just the nature of things.
"...is the evidence that god doesnt not exist as nothing can be outside the universe."
Why do you think that nothing can be outside the universe? Simply because you define the universe as everything that is? If that's the case, then you would indeed be right. But if the universe is defined as the entirety of the physical, then you need not be right.
"I can prove that your schizophrenia invisible friend is imaginary, it won't cure your schizophrenia and you will continue to BELIEVE."
You seem to be under the delusion that my views are not based on evidence. You would be wrong. Christianity is an evidence-based view. Beliefs do come into it, though, such as the belief that the supernatural is a possibility to be considered. And as for proving, you have now twice failed to refute my claim about God that you said you would.
"If you stop believing and engage in reality, god cannot fit into it."
We all believe. Belief is simply assent to an idea. You assent to the idea that God doesn't exist, i.e. you "believe" that God doesn't exist. The question is whether a particular belief is evidence-based or not. Therefore, you can both "believe" and "engage in reality". The two are not mutually exclusive. Hence your conclusion that God cannot fit into it does not follow from your premises.
"What came before God? Who created him? Your believe requires an infinite regress, which is also counter-reality."
Simply false. There can be no "before God", because that requires time, but time is part of God's creation. He exists outside of time. Further, that means that he doesn't have a beginning, and therefore He was not created. This is basic biblical teaching, which you should know if you knew what you were talking about. Therefore, there is no need for an infinite regress.
The naturalistic view, on the other hand, does require either an infinite regress or a miracle, but without a miracle-worker. The Christian view is sensible, in that it proposes a cause (God) for the beginning of the universe. Do away with that, and you have a universe that has either existed forever (physically impossible, given thermodynamics) or that had an uncaused beginning. That is contrary to our understanding of reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@magatism
"Yep, and you are known by the fruits of destruction you bring on your own people."
STILL making up things.
"Your response is typical to that of the Islamist brigade who claim the same. They too ask for evidence when confronted with logic".
Another falsehood. When I'm confronted with supposed logic, I counter it with logic. I only ask for evidence (which I've not actually done explicitly in this discussion) when people make bald assertions, i.e. without logic or evidence.
"It's written in Bible in black and white, what more evidence do you as a Christian require."
Yes, that parable is written in the Bible. That's not the issue.
"All you are saying is that Jesus told stories which do not mean what they mean."
Not true. I'm saying that Jesus told a story (there's only one we've talked about) which doesn't mean what YOU claim it means.
"The parable is simple, an authorative figure trusted his servants, they stole from him, he sent his son, they killed him and then the master sent his soldiers to deliver justice."
There's a bit more to it than that, but loosely, yes.
"Now compare this with life of Jesus and voila you are proved to be a fake Christian."
That simply does not follow from your previous comment. You have not shown how that parable means that I'm a fake Christian.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mylittledashie7419
"Maybe that I've literally just finished 4 years of university, no one told me I needed a "safe space", ...
Okay, but that only shows that it's not the case in your particular experience. That doesn't mean that it's not true in other places, and I don't believe for one moment that anybody's claiming that it's true in every case.
"...clearly I'm not completely afraid of anyone with differing opinions to my own."
You had already effectively said that, and I'd already agreed that that was a fair point to make.
"If the brainwashing of university students is truly so ubiquitous, how come I literally never once encountered any political beliefs from my professors, or the university as an establishment?"
As I said, I don't think anybody's claiming that it's everywhere. But on the other hand, would you recognise it if you did encounter it? People who only hear one side often don't even realise that there IS another side that they're not hearing. Or, to put it another way, what formed your views such that you so readily dismiss the conservative views found on PragerU? Typically, it's parents, peers, mainstream media, social media, or the education system, and not necessarily in that order in terms of influence.
"...I'm sure PragerU has provided ample, peer-reviewed studies that prove how much it "actually" happens."
Given that they didn't actually make any claims about how much it happens, that's not a fair point to make.
"This would still be their safe space."
Not so, and not so even by your own logic, at least as I understood it. You rightly rejected his claim about you having a safe space by the fact that you came here. A safe space is where you avoid hearing alternative views. You came here, so you're not avoiding it. You don't know that he doesn't go elsewhere, so you don't have grounds to say that this is his safe space, i.e. he stays here to avoid hearing other views. I think the issue here is what is meant by "safe space". It's not where you go after hearing opposing views, but to avoid hearing opposing views.
"PragerU is just a hub of right wing circle-jerking and confirmation bias."
Not in evidence.
"They make you believe stuff just by saying it over and over again,..."
Not so. First, they don't "make" you believe anything. Second, they give evidence and/or reasons and/or logic to help you believe. Unlike the left in many (not all) cases).
"...not by actually making good arguments, and providing valid sources."
Again, untrue. They typically make good arguments, and they typically provide valid sources.
1
-
@mylittledashie7419
"Yes, I'm very confident I would've noticed if all of a sudden my professors had started spouting leftist talking points."
I wouldn't expect them to "suddenly" do it. So that's not convincing.
"Literally the only thing I can vaguely think of as a "left wing" belief that was touted by one of my professors, was... the existence of climate change. "
However, you make a strong point there, in that you show that you recognise that as a left wing talking point.
"I rejected the idea that this is my safe space."
I don't think that's what you did, but as I said, I think the issue is of what a 'safe space' actually refers to.
"What is this very video if not a right-wing circle jerk about how spooky leftists control the universities,..."
Whether or not this video is an example of that depends on whether or not they are correct. You're making a circular argument: PragerU is bad because they are wrong. Here's my evidence that they are bad: they are wrong.
"Which for the record, is a proven phenomenon."
Citing Wikipedia is not likely to convince me, but I'm not questioning that the phenomenon exists. The question is whether that's the case here.
"Yeah, logic based on men made of straw. This is the confirmation bias I was talking about."
Again, not in evidence. Yes, this might be the confirmation bias if you're correct. I don't believe that you are.
"Anyone on the left can see how PragerU will constantly tell you "what leftists are like", and "why they believe what they do" and how wildly inaccurate they are about it."
Except that I can see for myself that they are correct. No, not in every details, but (not in a university) I have encountered leftists just like some of their descriptions, and I'm in a completely different country.
"If you don't already agree with PragerU, it's clear how much the misrepresent, how much relevant information they deliberately leave out, ..."
I agree with them because it fits with other things I have seen. So yes, I "already agree" in a sense, but that agreement is evidence-based.
"...the fact that they never leave links to their sources,..."
Simply false. In the description below many of their videos, they have a link to "FACTS & SOURCES, Transcript, and Quiz", and that page has links to sources.
"Again, I can tell you first hand... they don't."
If I was able to post pictures here, I'd put a screenshot. But they do.
"...only to find they've quoted someone out of context, or cherry picked data,..."
I've heard claims like that (not necessarily about PragerU) many times, only to find that the claim is false. I can't say whether you're wrong or not, because you've provided no examples, but experience tells me to be sceptical of that claim.
"...or completely ignored the conclusions of the people who's information they're pinching."
First, that you refer to them as "pinching" the information shows that you're not being fair. Citing someone is not "pinching" information.
Second, there's nothing wrong with what you accuse them of. That is, there's nothing wrong with citing the facts someone provides while reaching a different conclusion from those facts. I've often seen cases of an expert saying "This is the evidence I've found and this is the conclusion I've reached" where the conclusion doesn't have to follow from those facts, and it's perfectly legitimate to reach a different conclusion.
"Genuine question, how many PragerU videos have you looked at the sources for?"
Not many. On the other hand, I have looked at a handful of anti-PragerU videos and can see that their opposition is ideological and their arguments don't hold water.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@therick363
"Saying everything we see it because of a God is a belief and interpretation. "
No more so than saying that it's all because of nature, or chance, or whatever.
"Saying because we can’t explain something…therefore it can only be God? Weak argument."
That wasn't his argument. You misrepresented him. He gave evidence in support of the creating having been designed.
"Evolution is one of the most scientifically demonstrated and evidence backed theories there is."
Utter nonsense. Even if you were correct to say that it's scientifically demonstrated and evidence-backed, it's certainly not "one of the most".
"You think alllllll the scientists and teachers would teach a lie for this long and get away with it?"
It's not a lie, if you define that as them claiming things that they know are not true. On the contrary, they really believe it. And yes, they get away with it because of active suppression of the creationary alternative, and because people don't want to believe God did it.
"If it’s a hoax then it should be easy to demonstrate as such..."
Like phlogiston and other past scientific beliefs, it's a 'ruling paradigm' in science currently, and so people won't accept that it's wrong even when it's demonstrated to be wrong. J.B.S. Haldane (I think it was) said that you won't find wheels and magnets in nature, and you won't find 'out of place' fossils (rabbits in the Precambrian was his example). And yet we have since found wheels and magnets in nature, and fossil pollen in the Precambrian. So evolution has been falsified (there are many more examples), and yet people still believe it.
1
-
1
-
1