News:

There is also the shroud of turin, which verifies Jesus in a new way than other evidences.

Main Menu

Re: Post YouTube videos that don't suck!

Started by Buddy, October 27, 2012, 08:45:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dave

Quote from: joeactor on May 25, 2018, 11:46:37 PM


Good example of lousy presentation and accoustics (especially with those accents)?!
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

joeactor

Quote from: Dave on May 26, 2018, 05:01:03 AM
Quote from: joeactor on May 25, 2018, 11:46:37 PM


Good example of lousy presentation and accoustics (especially with those accents)?!

Agreed. Whatever it is they're selling, they're doing it badly...

xSilverPhinx



:rofl:

Perhaps the Royal Wedding wasn't so boring to watch after all!
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Arturo

It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Arturo

It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

No one


Tom62

Here a very interesting, though-provoking video, from one of my favourite YouTube atheists. This time however talking about  censored speech.

The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

joeactor

Quote from: Tom62 on June 01, 2018, 07:22:06 PM
Here a very interesting, though-provoking video, from one of my favourite YouTube atheists. This time however talking about  censored speech.



Good one. I can see his points on this...

Davin

Quote from: Tom62 on June 01, 2018, 07:22:06 PM
Here a very interesting, though-provoking video, from one of my favourite YouTube atheists. This time however talking about  censored speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qevIPcAUjbQ

Wow, there is so much in that video that is not well thought out. "Debunked" is not a very good descriptor for the video. It was very difficult to watch and there was much cringing.

The idea that free speech should not be prioritized, is a misrepresentation of the other side. Let's say that you have a field of different food stuffs. Now everyone agrees that all the food should be free to grow, but the cabbages become the favorite of wild rabbits. Under this naive idea presented in the video, we should do nothing about the cabbages. If all the food is equal, then we can't do more to protect the cabbages than we do for other things. There is an ideal world, actually billions of them, but we live in none of them. Sometimes we have to do things that should and would not be required if we lived in one or many of those ideal worlds, judging actions as if we lived in one of those ideal worlds is childish and ill borne.

The Nazi guy got his point across and there was no one there to receive his speech. The right to free speech is not the same as the right to be heard by the people of your choosing. While the people did not act very well, he was not arrested nor detained for his little sign. Using examples like this is known as cherry picking and is a dishonest tactic.

People do not have rights to speak at campuses. Or to speak at specific places. The places they may want to speak at have rights as well. Again, the right to free speech is not the same as the right to be heard, but this guy seems to keep on conflating them.

No one is restricting Nazi speech. Not giving a platform to someone is not the same as denying them free speech. That's not licensed speech either, no one is issued a license. Nazi's and the KKK keep getting their permits to march and protest, they have their rights. No one gets the right to make other people spend money and resources to allow them to speak somewhere.

I agree with the right to free speech, but this guy in the video is trying to take it from the right to speak freely, all the way to forcing other people into doing things for those speaking. He is even implying that one should listen to things just because they disagree with it. That's fine in small amounts, but it gets tedious especially if the speech I disagree with is irrational.

Otherwise, other little bits mixed in were alright. I didn't find it very interesting. Even Nazis have the right to free speech. Even people I disagree with have the right to free speech. But, because the guy kept trying to drive his point in I'll repeat my counter, I don't have the right to force a university to put me up on a stage to talk to an audience.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Arturo

Quote from: Davin on June 01, 2018, 09:07:47 PM
Quote from: Tom62 on June 01, 2018, 07:22:06 PM
Here a very interesting, though-provoking video, from one of my favourite YouTube atheists. This time however talking about  censored speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qevIPcAUjbQ

Wow, there is so much in that video that is not well thought out. "Debunked" is not a very good descriptor for the video. It was very difficult to watch and there was much cringing.

The idea that free speech should not be prioritized, is a misrepresentation of the other side. Let's say that you have a field of different food stuffs. Now everyone agrees that all the food should be free to grow, but the cabbages become the favorite of wild rabbits. Under this naive idea presented in the video, we should do nothing about the cabbages. If all the food is equal, then we can't do more to protect the cabbages than we do for other things. There is an ideal world, actually billions of them, but we live in none of them. Sometimes we have to do things that should and would not be required if we lived in one or many of those ideal worlds, judging actions as if we lived in one of those ideal worlds is childish and ill borne.

The Nazi guy got his point across and there was no one there to receive his speech. The right to free speech is not the same as the right to be heard by the people of your choosing. While the people did not act very well, he was not arrested nor detained for his little sign. Using examples like this is known as cherry picking and is a dishonest tactic.

People do not have rights to speak at campuses. Or to speak at specific places. The places they may want to speak at have rights as well. Again, the right to free speech is not the same as the right to be heard, but this guy seems to keep on conflating them.

No one is restricting Nazi speech. Not giving a platform to someone is not the same as denying them free speech. That's not licensed speech either, no one is issued a license. Nazi's and the KKK keep getting their permits to march and protest, they have their rights. No one gets the right to make other people spend money and resources to allow them to speak somewhere.

I agree with the right to free speech, but this guy in the video is trying to take it from the right to speak freely, all the way to forcing other people into doing things for those speaking. He is even implying that one should listen to things just because they disagree with it. That's fine in small amounts, but it gets tedious especially if the speech I disagree with is irrational.

Otherwise, other little bits mixed in were alright. I didn't find it very interesting. Even Nazis have the right to free speech. Even people I disagree with have the right to free speech. But, because the guy kept trying to drive his point in I'll repeat my counter, I don't have the right to force a university to put me up on a stage to talk to an audience.

Oprah had a segment a long time ago where she had KKK members on her show and they ran rampant with their rhetoric. She later said that she would never do that again because she realized she gave them a platform to gainer attention. And she has the right to do that. She owns the show. She had her name on it. And the same with Universities. They have the right to let in who they want. The fact the Universities got pulled into all these a couple years back blew the whole thing up and made it all complicated and difficult to deal with. So now you have communist shills trying to push into that by saying "the elites" don't want that to be heard. And then you have the idea that what you mentioned is that everyone should listen to ideas that that don't agree with. And again I'll echo you and say that does get tedious. Also some people have specific triggers on their mental state as not one person is perfect, and saying one thing can trigger that reaction in someone. And that also got blown out of proportion when people started using the word "trigger" as a bad thing and people like that are "snowflakes" and should be perceived as weak and not taken seriously and met with hostility. Again I want to say that were communist shills but I digress. The recurring thing that I am seeing here is that anyone who would get in their way by having a rebuttal is taken out of the equation before they get the chance all the while proposing their ideas. It's a well coordinated movement and this is not by accident. Someone is behind this and the kinds of people who make videos like these are being used. They are a tool to garner some sort of traction for something bigger.
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Recusant

I'll just point out that in the US, publicly funded universities have to make a very strong case for refusing to offer a platform to any particular speaker, especially if the speaker has been invited by students of the university. This is because their use of government funds makes them subject to the 1st Amendment. Generally, such universities choose alternative means to try to prevent a speaker from taking the stage (charging security fees for instance), or end up allowing the speaker on campus.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Arturo

I don't think many Universities are publically funded. Those would be called community colleges I think. Universities are usually privately funded by the students tuition and and books I think. I wouldn't be surprised if they had other ways to gain money though since that is they way banks are as well. Which is why they don't suddenly collapse whenever they give out a loan. They actually use money that people give them in certificates of deposit that they hold onto for several years while gaining interest in your account. So it wouldn't be surprising to me if Universities had some other clever way to gain money.

Also since the financial crisis in 2008, I think a lot of the government had to step in and clear out the bankrupted students and pay their student debts which put the Universities and Colleges into the debt of the government on a social and political scale. Since they kept them from failing, they are able to control what they are doing. And they can let them fail at any point they want unless the Universities continue to do what the government tells them to. I see a lot of that happening in different ways. they went after Facebook for their private data mining and selling but just this time last year they passed a law that allowed the ISPs that privilege. So it's really an underhanded move that allows them to tip the scale into a biopoly of the information market between the ISPs and the all powerful Google. And to be fair, Google probably has so much information that they can blackmail just about anybody they want without having to spend a single dime in lobbying.
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Davin

Universities do have to make strong cases, but it's ultimately not so much a first amendment issue as it is a school one.

Almost all universities in the US take government money. I can't think of one that doesn't. Part of taking government money should mean that they should also comply with the same rules that the federal or state governments who give them the funding follow. And that is part of the rulings that work out for schools who are found in violation of things like forcing prayer on students. Universities, so far I think, have been very good about allowing people to speak, they rarely ever turn anyone down, so I don't have too much of a problem with them as a whole. Sometimes they dis-invite people I think should speak.

What's odd to see, is that the people that are so loud talking about how Nazi's should always be allowed to speak, are almost completely silent when non Nazi, non racist, or non fascist speakers are denied. Again, counter to their own narrative of saying all speech should be allowed equally, they defend Nazi's and racists much more loudly than others. It's thin, so it's odd how people can't see through that facade.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Tank

If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

joeactor