This whole "sciencemotherphucker" vs TMW is pissing me off

[ErickStevens]

in on 86 page thread

[Andrew_S]

in on 86 page thread where people post their "correct" views and truly don't give a **** what the others are even saying and should just say **** it and go and pick up something heavy

Awesome post, on spready.

[RugbyTank]

I still don't understand your "say my name 3x like Candy Man approach"

[illiniStrive]

I'll leave it there. Stay safe.

[Brandon0212]

You are born and then you die.

Just be a good, respectful person in life and everything will be fine.

[mynameisuntz]

To treat other humans who are simply uneducated or disagree with your stance with no respect is contemptible without question. I think any morally serious person will agree with this.

Remember this day, gentlemen/ladies. This is where the thread was won.

[CutItUp9759]

To treat other humans who are simply uneducated or disagree with your stance with no respect is contemptible without question. I think any morally serious person will agree with this.

Touche... touche...

[imccarthy]

I suppose that makes me not only an opportunist but a terrible person also. I have the sheer audacity to put correct information and say others are wrong and why without attacking anyone. LoL

So much for serious discussion.

To treat other humans who are simply uneducated or disagree with your stance with no respect is contemptible without question. I think any morally serious person will agree with this.

Yeah yeah yeah. Troll harder.

I don't mind uneducated people if they genuinely desire to learn. Those that don't should be treated with contempt. With regard to people disagreeing with me... it depends entirely on what it is about which we are disagreeing. If someone is wrong I'm not going to NOT tell them that they are wrong out of some false sense of "respect".

We live in a society that loves the concept of "subjective reality". I don't.

Remember this day, gentlemen/ladies. This is where the thread was won.

Are you going to defend your idiotic implication that Richard Dawkins "really does no good"? I want to see this.

[JasonDB]

So much for serious discussion.

Again I would offer you friendly advice. You have chosen to enter a game of politics and public perception the moment you started making videos with the intent of growing your channel and when you directly engaged other channels such as the Hodge Twins... regardless of what you claim you have done... and your tactics show full well you know that because you are a master of playing to people's fantasies while presenting the facade of appealing completely to "science and truth" as well as tapping into the same thing the religions you have open contempt for have done for all of recorded history... playing into people's need to believe in something on a deep level.

That advice is: Winning arguments is invariably a Pyrrhic victory, Ian. It breeds ill will and contempt from those you defeat, and those who adore them. It creates enemies that you will eventually have to crush completely and remove from the picture or they will be a thorn in your side indefinately. Win victories with actions (I didn't argue with you I dispayed an action and led by example in the above video I linked for the thread).... never with arguments. Its just advice though, do whatever the **** you want to do.

[illiniStrive]

Using a public platform to spew nonsense to hundreds of thousands of people is contemptible without question. I don't think any morally serious person can disagree with this.

I'm content with leaving this as two ships passing in the night. I've never understood the common desire to be a populist, and never will - in fact I'm quite suspicious of it.

I'll leave it there. Stay safe.

So much for serious discussion.

Yeah yeah yeah. Troll harder.

I don't mind uneducated people if they genuinely desire to learn. Those that don't should be treated with contempt. With regard to people disagreeing with me... it depends entirely on what it is about which we are disagreeing. If someone is wrong I'm not going to NOT tell them that they are wrong out of some false sense of "respect".

We live in a society that loves the concept of "subjective reality". I don't.

Are you going to defend your idiotic implication that Richard Dawkins "really does no good"? I want to see this.

so...

where do I collect my nutmisc prize?

[43Steelers]

so...

where do I collect my nutmisc prize?

Pointless & unfunny post is pointless & unfunny...
no one has responded to your former post, so you felt the need to 'bump' it. Strong attention whore.

[mynameisuntz]

Are you going to defend your idiotic implication that Richard Dawkins "really does no good"? I want to see this.

I won't actually. I can certainly concede Dawkins does good, but not very much relative (keyword) to what he could be doing if he were, well, nicer. The vast majority of his work has been reinforcing what people already know; those who already accept evolution are now more knowledgeable about it. But do you think he has done much to build bridges? Not at all. He has only convinced those who were already able to be convinced (he was merely the agent). He is more concerned with intellectual superiority than doing humanistic good. Einstein has talked about this kind of mentality in science; he's not much of a fan.

My language was too strong, and I misspoke by saying "no good." At the same time, I was talking about you and not Dawkins.

Don't you believe in hard determinism? How do you reconcile treating people poorly solely because they disagree with you (which is not a conscious decision)?

[midcoastking33]

Words, words everywhere. but not a drop of importance

[Chuck2600]

To treat other humans who are simply uneducated or disagree with your stance with no respect is contemptible without question. I think any morally serious person will agree with this.

This.

Ian does not make it easy for people on these forums to like him.

[PhiSig2298]

Pointless & unfunny post is pointless & unfunny...
no one has responded to your former post, so you felt the need to 'bump' it. Strong attention whore.

She secretly has a crush on Ian & I don't think she's the only one.

[mynameisuntz]

He's not treating people poorly if they are disagreeing with him in a respective manner though.

Wait what? If he is saying insulting things to those who are uneducated/disagreeing with him, then that is treating them poorly.

[imccarthy]

I won't actually. I can certainly concede Dawkins does good, but not very much relative (keyword) to what he could be doing if he were, well, nicer. The vast majority of his work has been reinforcing what people already know; those who already accept evolution are now more knowledgeable about it. But do you think he has done much to build bridges? Not at all. He has only convinced those who were already able to be convinced (he was merely the agent). He is more concerned with intellectual superiority than doing humanistic good. Einstein has talked about this kind of mentality in science; he's not much of a fan.

My language was too strong, and I misspoke by saying "no good." At the same time, I was talking about you and not Dawkins.

I don't feel that I have some sort of obligation to not say what I think just because what I think happens to be offensive to some people. If someone rejects the scientific method because they hate that beta virgin ginger fa**ot Ian McCarthy then I think that says much more about them than it does about me. Anyone that thinks like that is simply a fool.

Don't you believe in hard determinism? How do you reconcile treating people poorly solely because they disagree with you (which is not a conscious decision)?

Again, I don't treat people poorly *just* because they disagree with me, unless they maintain particularly egregious views.

The determinism question is a good one, and one I'd love to discuss at length, but I don't think this is the forum for such a discussion.

[illiniStrive]

Pointless & unfunny post is pointless & unfunny...
no one has responded to your former post, so you felt the need to 'bump' it. Strong attention whore.

lol, I shouldn't be surprised that an ignoramus like you isn't able to read context clues (you know... things like quoting... bolded words... that sort of thing)

She secretly has a crush on Ian & I don't think she's the only one.

already taken, babe

[greekmanman]

lol actually a pretty good discussion so far

edit: also who is steelers ?

[mynameisuntz]

I don't feel that I have some sort of obligation to not say what I think just because what I think happens to be offensive to some people. If someone rejects the scientific method because they hate that beta virgin ginger fa**ot Ian McCarthy then I think that says much more about them than it does about me. Anyone that thinks like that is simply a fool.

What is your goal with your videos? And I agree about the last statement you made, of course.

Again, I don't treat people poorly *just* because they disagree with me, unless they maintain particularly egregious views.

The determinism question is a good one, and one I'd love to discuss at length, but I don't think this is the forum for such a discussion.

Do you require a new thread for such a discussion? I would genuinely like to hear what you have to say on that matter.

[43Steelers]

lol, I shouldn't be surprised that an ignoramus like you isn't able to read context clues (you know... things like quoting... bolded words... that sort of thing)

lol, I understood your post. It wasn't funny; it was pointless as well as idiotic. Get over it seriously.

[illiniStrive]

lol, I understood your post. It wasn't funny; it was pointless as well as idiotic. Get over it seriously.

[imccarthy]

What is your goal with your videos? And I agree about the last statement you made, of course.

I'm not sure that I can say that I have any singular goal in making my videos. I've come now to the point that it's just something I do. It's as much a part of my life as anything possibly could be. I'm motivated by what I see as great ill in this industry as well as the fact that I now have a certain viewership that wouldn't let me get away with NOT making videos.

I hope that doesn't come off as overly evasive.

Do you require a new thread for such a discussion? I would genuinely like to hear what you have to say on that matter.

As you wish sir. My fear is that people like illini will trash the thread, as she's doing now.

[illiniStrive]

As you wish sir. My fear is that people like illini will trash the thread, as she's doing now.

'sup boo

[Lvisaa2]

I don't mind uneducated people if they genuinely desire to learn. Those that don't should be treated with contempt.

This is where I kind of check out. To believe that the only thing that makes a human worthwhile is their desire to learn and/or their intelligence seems shortsighted. I know the basics of nutrition, but have little desire to delve much deeper, does that make me deserving of contempt?

With regard to people disagreeing with me... it depends entirely on what it is about which we are disagreeing. If someone is wrong I'm not going to NOT tell them that they are wrong out of some false sense of "respect".

Where have I stated you couldn't disagree? There is a marked difference between respectfully disagreeing and going above and beyond to mix your disagreeing with insults and personal attacks.

We live in a society that loves the concept of "subjective reality". I don't.

Are you assuming that you have an idea of what the real objective reality is? The only thing that is consistent in science is that there is constant adaptation to the current running theory. It'd do you well not to assume that the current finding are the end-all.

[mynameisuntz]

I'm not sure that I can say that I have any singular goal in making my videos. I've come now to the point that it's just something I do. It's as much a part of my life as anything possibly could be. I'm motivated by what I see as great ill in this industry as well as the fact that I now have a certain viewership that wouldn't let me get away with NOT making videos.

I hope that doesn't come off as overly evasive.

Just doesn't answer my question directly, but I don't immediately assume you are being purposely evasive. Personal gain or amusement? Utilitarian purposes? Trying to inform the masses?

As you wish sir. My fear is that people like illini will trash the thread, as she's doing now.

Incoming thread.

[LegosInMyEgos]

I can deal with this turn of events.

Hard determinism is necessary if you want to entertain empirical scientific advancement. To argue against hard determinism is essentially to argue against the validity of the scientific method.

The only way in which hard determinism could be "wrong" is if somehow the universe isn't subject to a strict cause and a effect relationship, or if current/past/future events are interdependent of each other and there is some kind of dual causality that is way above my ability to comprehend.

Long story short, if you deny hard determinism, you pretty much deny that our universe functions in a cause and effect manner. Quantum relatively DOES NOT account for any sort of "free will" and its thrown out in a self contradictory manner.

1. If its random, its again NOT free, its random.

2. If something causes the apparently random nature of atomic particles, then its just that, something CAUSED it.

[LegosInMyEgos]

blah, why do we need a new thread?

I have grown attached to this one.

[mynameisuntz]

blah, why do we need a new thread?

I have grown attached to this one.

Just for this side topic. Ian's request, and I like the idea of discussing it separately as well.

[imccarthy]

This is where I kind of check out. To believe that the only thing that makes a human worthwhile is their desire to learn and/or their intelligence seems shortsighted. I know the basics of nutrition, but have little desire to delve much deeper, does that make me deserving of contempt?

At no point did state that "the only thing that makes a human worthwhile is their desire to learn and/or their intelligence". A person can easily be extremely curious, extremely well-educated and extremely intelligent but nonetheless contemptible. I don't think I need to draw you a picture to know what I'm getting at. And no, I wasn't specifically referring to questions of nutrition - I was referring to curiosity in a much more broad sense.

Where have I stated you couldn't disagree? There is a marked difference between respectfully disagreeing and going above and beyond to mix your disagreeing with insults and personal attacks.

I never said that you said that I cannot disagree, lol. Of course there's a distinction as you've described.

Are you assuming that you have an idea of what the real objective reality is?

Uh... yes? I'm not a postmodernist, if that's what you're asking. I admit to not particularly understanding the grammar of your question.