Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "Follow the Science | 5 Minute Video" video.
-
10
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
@redblaze8700 "There’s no evidence that the 2020 election was rigged. "
Nonsense. There is plenty of evidence.
"Even Trumps own people couldn’t find evidence for such,..."
Except that they did.
"...even Trump-appointed judges ruled against the ridiculous claims from his legal team."
First, for the most party, they never investigated the evidence, so didn't rule against the claim; they declined to take on the cases.
Second, much of the other evidence of rigging was of things that a court would not take on because it wasn't illegal, like the mainstream media's fake news, the social media censoring pro-Trump information like Hunter Biden's laptop, etc.
However, it has not even been disputed that some election officials violated their own state government's legislation to help rig the election, such as telling vote counters to accept signatures of mail-in ballots without properly checking them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Evolution and creation is a silly debate, since evolution explains how not why."
Creation also explains how (God spoke it into existence), so you have a fail right there.
"They are not mutually exclusive, you can believe in both to an extent ..."
They are not mutually exclusive only if you have versions of each that are compatible. But evolution as understood by most scientists is necessarily naturalistic, without design, whereas creation is necessarily by design. Also, creation as described in the Bible (in six days, the earth before the sun, fruit trees before land animals, and much more) is absolutely incompatible with evolution.
"(majority of religious people believe in micro evolution for a start)."
Which is not actually evolution (the entire 'family tree' from the first organism to all that exist today), but just small changes without creating entirely new forms.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ur__ghost
"You are definitely speaking with privilege."
What privilege is that? And what's your evidence that she is?
"Unlike you, people have weaker immune systems and do not have someone else to rely on."
Are you saying that she is not a person?
"There's men, women, and non binary people. Just bc you disagree with it doesn't make them disappear"
True (the second sentence). But just because you claim that doesn't make it true. And the first sentence is false. Both the creator and modern science agree that there are two sexes.
"People vary so much you can't just define them in those 2 categories."
You can choose to classify people in as many categories as you like. You can divide them by age, nationality, number of children, what jobs they do, how much they earn, or whatever. But if you categorise them by sex, there are only two categories.
"there's male and female in sex but not gender."
There is not male and female in gender??
"Gender is related to mentality and how you feel,..."
Yes, it's a matter of opinion. So why are others forced to accept those subjective opinions?
"...people differ so much there's bound to be someone who wants to be something that's not binary or opposite from their body."
What they want and what they actually are may therefore be two different things.
"He and she (and they sometimes) basically ment how you looked, because if you had long hair you were assumed to be a "she" and vice versa, so it basically was never used in the definitive context."
This is false. What you're really saying is that because long hair caused people to assume you were female, then in cases that they were actually males with long hair those people were mistaken. It doesn't mean that those males with long hair were actually female. Males remain males and females remain females, something that has it's physical basis in their DNA, and which cannot be changed.
1
-
@ur__ghost Numbering your points is a good idea that I should think to use more often myself.
1. I don't consider that to have been said in a judgmental and clueless manner, and don't see what that has to do with privilege.
2. You're right. I didn't really think that you didn't consider her a person. But the comment didn't make much sense anway, and/or presumes too much. But I wasn't really wanting to comment on her comment about covid; it's not something that I would have said.
3a. Yes, some people identify as being 'black' when they are not, or being older or younger than they really are. In all those cases the identification is wrong, so I'm not sure of your point.
3b. Yes, God is, by definition, the creator. But I'm not pushing anything onto you; I'm making a comment. I'm not trying to sell you on God; I'm simply using history and design as a basis for my comments. And if you're expecting me to leave God out of it, then you're 'pushing' your atheism onto me. So why the double standard?
3c. So you're saying that there are vast number of kinds of a particular made-up concept? What relevance does that have to the real world?
4. Numbering is good, as long as one can tell what it refers to. I don't know what you're referring to here. And I never said that you could define men and women on the basis of their job; I've always said that it's on the basis of their biology.
5. Again, you're right; I didn't think you meant that. It was, however, what you said, and that being the case, it was not clear what you did mean.
6a. You didn't call them opinions, but that's what they are.
6b. "No one's forcing anyone to accept anything..." That is so blatantly false I have to wonder how you could possibly believe that to be the case. Jordan Peterson came to prominence because he refused to accept his university employer requiring him to use the wrong pronouns. A father in Canada was last week jailed for not using the biologically-correct pronouns of his child. My employer requires me to use a trans person's preferred pronouns or fact the sack. They are just a few examples off the top of my head.
6c. What's the evidence of hate?
6d. "...or limit someone..." Like I am limited by my employer in what I can say? Again, why does this only work one way?
6e. "...people are going to get angry and DEFEND themselves." Like I am going to defend my right to use biologically-correct pronouns and argue the case that there are only two sexes (and that genders is a meaningless invention to get around that). So why is it okay for them to defend themselves but people who disagree with the trans agenda are criticised for it?
6f. I can identify as a four-year-old Asian girl, but it doesn't change the fact that I am an adult Australian man.
7. Being born a man or woman does define them as a man or a woman. Sure, it doesn't determine what jobs they will have, what clothes they will wear, what preferences they will have, but it does define them as being a man or a woman. Otherwise biological facts become meaningless.
8a. "Pronouns are based on personal preference" On the contrary, they are based on what sex you are. He, him, and his are used of males, and She, her and hers are used of females. Your claim is just factually wrong.
8b. But even if it was correct, my personal preference is to use biologically-correct pronouns when referring to people. So why is my preference not allowed? Again, double standards.
1
-
@ur__ghost
3a: You're correct, and as such have to fall back on gender being different to sex, which is an invention (in the worst sense of the word) that is meaningless.
3b: I didn't consider it rude; I'm used to comments like that. Apology accepted. Rather, I consider it useful to point out inconsistencies in people's arguments, which that was.
"that some people don't believe in god so the reasoning is meaningless to them". You're absolutely right. But part of my point is that what one believes about God will affect views on other things, such as transgenderism. In other words, it's an attempt to get the conversation away from superficial considerations and down to root causes.
4a. "I was referring to what стѣйшій Патріархъ керіллъ previously said". That would be in your comment before your previous comment, but in your previous comment, where you said "I don't know what you mean by this", you were referring to me; I didn't know which part of my comments you were referring to.
4b. "However I meant you cannot define women as the dishwasher and men the lumberjack" and "...previously said, "Men are masculine, strong and work, [snipped]"
I understand what you are getting at now. But to be fair, he didn't say that was a definition. He said " behaviours typically go hand in hand in every culture. Men are masculine...[snipped]"
6b. "Using the correct pronouns is easy..." I don't think so. For me to go against decades of correct use is not easy.
"and shows respect.". Being truthful with them shows respect.
"If a teacher (or other) does not respect a student (or person)..." The issue is not about whether one should be respectful (one should), but about what constitutes showing respect.
"It's harassment." No, it's being truthful, which can be done respectfully. Calling it harassment is merely an attempt to justify imposing a particular lie on people.
6e (new number). "Plus, teenagers with no income are left homeless because their parent refuses their identity (lgbt+)." First, one bad response (treating someone badly) does not justify another (forcing people to use incorrect pronouns). Second, while a child is living with their parents, their parents have a right to expect the child to follow their standards. The parents, not the children, are in charge.
6c. I know, you said "skipped some cuz idk how to respond". So you have no evidence of the hate you claimed. So why use the insulting term if you have no reason for using it?
6d. Doesn't change anything. The law in some places limits what critics of transgenderism can say. That my example was a (lawful) company policy doesn't change my point.
"Many countries it's legal to murder someone just for liking the same gender as themselves, or (not sure about this>) wanting to be a different gender."
Many? Yes, there are a few (probably not for "liking" but at least for acting on that desire). But if you're just talking about those sorts of countries, then that doesn't explain the anger from the transgender activists in the West, which I would have thought is what we were talking about.
8a. If he really is a guy, and is not deformed or had his testicles removed surgically, then yes, I AM sure. Why wouldn't I be? They are, of course, part of what being a man is.
"if someone dislikes the pronouns you refer to them as, they should be allowed to politely correct you"
But if I dislike the pronouns that they want me to refer to them by, why doesn't my preference count for my language? And if they want me to use pronouns that are incorrect, why shouldn't I be allowed to politely correct them? Yet again, this is an argument that is only used one way. And why should they be allowed to "correct" me when I'm not, in fact, incorrect?
8b. "Your "preference" hurts people." If you're talking about physical hurt, that's nonsense. If you're talking about hurt feelings, then they should learn to accept that not everyone agrees with them. And if you don't like that answer, then why don't you argue that their preference hurts me? Again, the argument is only used one way. That's hypocrisy.
"When someone refuses to see someone as something they are, they feel stuck and it hurts."
We're not talking about refusing to see someone as they are. We are talking about refusing to see someone as they are not. To put that completely differently, your statement is loaded, in that it assumes something (that a male can legitimately consider himself a female) that is the very point being contested. You (rightly) said that an argument based on God existing won't have any meaning for someone who doesn't believe in God, yet you are making an argument based on the idea that transgenderism is legitimate to someone who doesn't believe that.
"It's not that hard to ask "what're your pronouns?" "
It's pointless, if I can already tell what they are. And even the question is nonsensical. They are (in this case) pronouns that belong to the English language, not to that person. They are not "their" pronouns, but English pronouns. If we understand English, we know what the correct pronouns are. The question itself is pandering to nonsense.
I guess the numbering is not going too well.
1
-
@kiwi7872 So you're quoting three left-leaning sources as that is supposed to be definitive? Why?
"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed."
That is, made-up.
"This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy,..."
Associated by who, and correctly or otherwise? The word "norms" kind of gives the game away. Sure, there are some characteristics that are more common in females than males, and some that are more common in males than females. But they are not definitive. So while some girls might like things that we typically associate with boys and vice versa, they don't mean that those persons are actually the other sex/gender. Because they are just norms, not infallible indicators.
"there are more than 2 genders (this one is from joshuakennon)"
Who is he that makes him an authority on this topic?
And I notice that in your quote of him, he doesn't name what those other genders are. Instead, he equivocates by switching to talking about chromosome abnormalities.
And that last point is the problem with SciAm too. They seem to think that genetic copying mistakes are definitive, rather than recognise them as the copying mistakes that they are.
The fact is that God created man (i.e. the man kind, or mankind ) male and female (Genesis 1:27). That's two sexes. But thanks to our rejection of Him, things have deteriorated since, so we are riddled with genetic copying mistakes (geneticists have counted about 100 or more being added for each generation), some of which involve additional chromosomes. But of course the religious views of SciAm and others (such as the view that we weren't created by God) colour their thinking.
1
-
@kiwi7872
"There is no such thing as left leaning sources..."
Yes, that is a known phenomenon where people of the left fail to realise their own bias, thinking that only other people have bias. As such, the claim is complete bunkum.
"...you say they are left leaning because it doen't fit your narrative..."
Not so. There are other claims that don't "fit my narrative" that I would not label as left-leaning.
"...if you will source some 'right leaning' sources, I'l be happy to debunk those)"
Of course. Because the left-leaning ones that you don't recognise as such reflect reality and everyone else is wrong. Not because of evidence, but because the left cannot be wrong.
"I have stated quotes from the literal world health organisation"
Yes, I saw that. That's why I dismissed that quote as being from a left-leaning organisation.
"...there is no such thing as chromosome abnormality..."
Because you say so? Or do you have some objective reason?
"...people who are intersex or androgynouse are not abnormal."
False in two respects. First, "abnormal" can simply mean different to normal, and it is simply a statistical fact that they are in a small minority, hence not "normal". Second, and if you want to use the word differently, their chromosomes are, as I mentioned, the result of a copying mistake. (And, I remind you, we all have copying mistakes, just not all the same copying mistakes).
"also don't use religion as a source for this (religion has biased sentiments)"
I wasn't using "religion" (depending on how you define that). I was using history and design. I was referring to how humans were designed, as related by historical records. But if you want to label that "religious", then your rejection of that can also be labelled "religious", which means that you're basing your rejection of my argument on your own "religious" views (that God did not create us that way, presumably).
"religion has biased sentiments"
We all have biases, including scientists. One common one in science is the bias that supernatural explanations must be rejected even if true.
"Give me sources that show there are only 2 genders..."
I already gave a source for there being only two genders. But your religious views caused you to dismiss that out of hand.
"...and that gender and sex are the same thing."
It's pretty obvious that it amounts to the same thing, when (a) we are expected to use sex-based pronouns as gender-based pronouns, and (b) we are expected to use "gender" to determine which sex-based team a sports person can play in or which sex-based toilets a person can use. It is blatantly obvious that "gender" is a replacement for "sex", with an invented, meaningless, distinction. I'm sure that I could find a source saying as much, but then you'd dismiss it as 'right-leaning' (which it no doubt would be), so I might as well just give you the logical argument above.
1
-
@kiwi7872 The source I mentioned is Genesis 1:27
From your previous comments I expected you to be atheist to some degree, so that's no surprise.
Most government bureaucracies are left-leaning, probably because the left, unlike conservatives, usually believes in big government, so left-leaning people go for government jobs. But in this case we are talking about the organisation that covered up the covid actions of communist China.
I don't follow what you're getting at with your comment about liberal views, and what distinction you might be trying to draw between liberalism and neo-liberalism.
Yes, I gathered that you don't think that people with more extra chromosomes (we all have more than two; the normal number (yes that word 'normal' is quite appropriate) is 46 (23 pairs)) are not abnormal, but that doesn't make it true. I meant no slur by the use of the word (they can't help how many chromosomes they have), but the simple fact is that 46 is normal in the sense of most common, but it's also the case that 46 is obviously how we were designed, and any more (or less) is not how we were designed. That could be analogous to a car that somehow (i.e. by accident) has an extra spare tyre (no much of a problem) or that somehow has square wheels (that is a problem). Things work best when they are as designed; when something has extra bits or missing bits (not by design), it typically causes problems.
I'm a Christian, and in line with that I'd be roughly Conservative politically, but I wouldn't consider myself fitting exactly with any particular political designation.
1
-
1
-
@ur__ghost "I said "all" things they're doing, like only looking at biased arguments that support themselves"
I'm not only looking at biased arguments that support my views. I also look at opposing views, to see what they have to say.
"(btw most of pro-trans that talk about real trans experience that I've seen look at both sides, and debunk your points, unlike anti-trans people who just seem baseless) "
Which is the complete opposite of my experience. Including in discussions with you.
"I say you have a superiority complex because I assume you feel you don't have the need to explain yourself when your response it just "you're wrong" or "that's false" or "that's made up" because you think your answer is right without knowing why"
I tend to only make those sort of comments without evidence or reason in response to someone else making assertions without evidence or reason. If they provide evidence or reason, I will in return. If they think it's okay to make bald claims, then why can't I do likewise?
"And I do not think I'm right, as I've stated I was never 100% sure about what I said..."
I never meant it in the sense of thinking I'm infallible. Rather, I sure enough I'm right to say what I say, which I presume is what you're doing too. If you're simply not that sure, then why make statements as though they are fact?
"however there's more evidence on the left side (that I can comprehend/take in) ..."
Well, that's what the left likes to think, but I beg to differ.
"so for now unless your side comes up with a convincing argument that's not exaggerated and doesn't dehumanize people, I'd rather be a left" "
In other words, unless my side does what your side often won't do, then you won't listen? It's the left that call us names, like transphobics, and worse, and tries to silence people on the other side rather than listen to them. That's why we have the term "cancel culture", because the left do this as a matter of routine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CliffBurton-py2jc Further, it's also based on a fallacy. Men and women typically or on average differ from each other (in ways other than the purely physical). But those differences are not defining ones, and there is a lot of overlap, with both men and women sharing the same characteristics to at lest some extent. Yet the trans activists treat them as defining. So if women typically take on more caring roles, for example, then a man that likes caring for others thinks that makes him a woman. (Yes, that's a gross simplification, but I'm illustrating the principle.) But caring for others is only typically done by women, not exclusively so. So a man that cares is not evidence at all of that man actually being a woman.
In fact, I'd like to know how to reconcile these two arguments, both put to me by the same person: a) Apart from some physical differences, there is no difference between men and women; b) a trans woman (for example) is a man who considers that he is really a woman in a man's body. But how can b) be true if a) is true? The two ideas are incompatible.
1
-
1
-
@geryleier4577 "Of course there is a logical contradiction."
No, that's not a logical contradiction. The contradiction you're claiming is a contradiction between the claim and the evidence, not a logical contradiction.
But the word "proof" is a problem. Both sides can provide evidence, but science doesn't do proofs, and history (which that book is) is not really studiable by empirical science.
"Your argument only works if you make the presupption that god exists."
If you're referring to my particular claim of contrasting the infallible God and fallible man, then yes, that's correct. But then your argument only works if you presuppose that God doesn't exist (or doesn't get involved or similar). So both of use are working from presuppositions. Why is yours correct?
"If you look first what you can proof and what not, you will come to another conclusion."
Again, that word "proof". But no, suppositions come first. In fact science depends on Christian suppositions. Loren Eiseley: "The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."
So if you presuppose no God, you can't do science except by adopting essentially Christian ideas for no good reason, in which case you've lost the very argument you're trying to make before you even start.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@loganmyers1489 No, don't link to pages upon pages of research. Link to one to start with, and I'll engage with it. And I'm not a sea lion.
Climate research (at least the questionable part) is mainly models about what will happen in the future, which is of questionable value in the first place, but then given that so many of them have been wrong, it's not just questionable but demonstrably unreliable.
By the way, here's what one of the experts, Christopher Dummit, said:
"The problem is: I was wrong. Or, to be a bit more accurate, I got things partly right. But then, for the rest, I basically just made it up. ... Everyone was (and is) making it up. That’s how the gender-studies field works."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@redblaze8700 "Watch this and tell me that there is no evidence that proves evolution and disprove creation"
First, I pointed out the difference between evidence and proof, but you have ignored that. I never claimed that evolution doesn't have any evidence. I said that science doesn't do proofs, so evolution has not been "proven". Similarly, I never claimed that there is "no evidence" that goes against creation.
Second, having looked at numerous anti-creation videos that fail abysmally to make a sound argument, I'm not about to spend the best part of an hour watching this one. How much have you looked at the arguments for creation (from the creationists)?
However, having said that, I am prepared to look at a bit of it, and have done so. And, I must say, it starts of better than most I've seen. For about two minutes, then goes downhill. It adopts the fallacious position that science is the way to study the past (ignoring recorded history, for example) and it makes other disputable claims, and it does make claims for evolution that are not true. But I won't leave those points as bald claims; I'll give actual examples.
At about the 2-minute mark, it lists three "predictions" for evolution and creation. However, the predictions themselves have several problems.
1. (E) we should see a chain of gradual and progressively related fossils marking the evolutionary advancement of life.
(C) we would not expect to see a chain of morphing taxonomy. Creatures in the past should bear close resemblance to present-day organisms.
"progressively related" is not an observation, but a conclusion drawn from observations. "a chain of morphing taxonomy" is not possible in the sense that you can't see something static (the fossil record) morphing (changing). That A changed into B is not an observation, but a conclusion.
Yes, according to Darwin, we should observe a finely-graduated change of fossils. The problem is that we don't.
And yes, ignoring ones that have gone extinct, we do see creatures in the past bearing close resemblance to present-day organisms. Even one of the supposed oldest, blue-green algae (from memory) is indistinguishable from its living counterpart.
So no luck for evolution there.
2. (E)we should see objective proof of the uniformitarian principle – that natural laws have always operated invariably in the past as they do now in the present.
(C) we would see the principle of catastrophism – that evidence exists that demonstrates cataclysmic event left indelible marks upon the earth's geography.
The uniformitarian principle is not about the natural laws, but current processes. It's not about whether laws change or not, but whether processes (such as how much erosion occurs in a given time) operate at the same rate. The old (non-biblical) view of multiple catastrophes (the Bible only proposes one catastrophe) was abandoned because it tended to support the Bible, not because of observations contradicting it. Observations have, however, led geologists to re-embrace a limited form of catastrophism, because uniformitarianism is insufficient to explain it all.
So no luck to the evolutionary view there either.
3. (E) we should be able to accurately date rocks and fossils with simple dating methods that would yield expected and sufficient time for evolution
(C) we can closely estimate age of the earth based on biblical records.
It simply doesn't follow from evolution that one should be able to accurately date rocks and fossils, especially with simple dating methods. What it would predict is that if they can be dated, it should show sufficient time for evolution.
However, "age" is not a property of anything that can be measured. Rather, some other property, such as relative values of certain elements, can be measured, and from these measurements an age can be calculated if all the assumptions involved are correct. Some of those assumptions can be shown to be incorrect, and some of those assumptions assume the long-age view, which makes the argument circular. For example, carbon dating supposedly shows artefacts that have been around since before the time of Noah's flood, proving that the flood couldn't have happened. However, the flood would have upset the quantities of carbon 14, making the ages around then look older than they really are. But carbon dating assumes that the flood didn't happen, so doesn't adjust for that. As such, the claim that carbon dating contradicts the flood account is assuming what it attempts to prove, i.e. a circular argument.
Further, many/most dating done on items of a known age (i.e. known from history, not one of these dating methods) gives incorrect ages. So if it doesn't reliably work on objects of known age, why trust it on objects of unknown age?
The dates only support the evolutionary requirement because that's what they've been selected to do.
And of course you can closely estimate the age of the earth based on biblical records. Numerous people have done it for centuries with close agreement.
So no luck with the evolutionary view there either.
Whew! i watched up to about the six minute mark, and could point out other fallacies for most of that. But this is long enough already. If you have a particular claim or two in that video that you think are convincing, relate them and I'll address those. But I saw nothing in there that creationists have not already answered.
1
-
1
-
1