Venaloid

I'd be very interested to see this debate. ‪@drcraigvideos‬

2 weeks ago | [YT] | 2

Venaloid

The murder of Charlie Kirk is not a turning point. Politically motivated attacks have been happening for years, and people who prefer vibes over values have been cheering them on the entire time. Remember when Paul Pelosi was beaten with a hammer as the attacker searched for Nancy? Charlie Kirk called the attacker a patriot, and Donald Trump Jr. (not quite a rando on TikTok) tweeted out a picture of underwear and a hammer as his new Paul Pelosi Halloween costume (WTF bro?). The murder of Charlie Kirk, and the celebration of political violence is, unfortunately nothing new, and it’s astonishing that ‪@Shoe0nHead‬ thinks otherwise.

Frankly, I suspect that Shoe0nHead is disturbed by the murder of Charlie Kirk because he was not a politician, but a political commentator, like she is. The murder of Charlie Kirk seems to have made Shoe realize that she might actually be in danger, even though this should have been obvious from all the recent politically motivated killings we've seen (usually against left-leaning types like her, no less).

Additionally, at 17:00 in her video, she recoils at the apparently novel idea that people would want, not HER dead, but people just LIKE her. But American Evangelical Christians have been celebrating almost exactly this for decades: they celebrate the idea that you and I are going to be eternally consciously tormented. Well, not you and I specifically, because some of these Christians are our friends and family members, but people exactly *like* you and me: socialist liberal atheist types. I’ve cut those people out of my life because, you’re right, I’m not comfortable being friends with people who, in another life, would spit on me and tell me I deserve it. However, you seem surprised to just now be learning about this dynamic. Again, this is not a turning point, this has been happening for decades.

And finally, as Three Arrows pointed out in his video response to you, Charlie Kirk was not “just a guy”, he was an extremely influential political activist. If Charlie Kirk was “just a guy”, then Martin Luther King Jr. was also “just a guy”. If the murder of Charlie Kirk was a turning point for the United States, then we already turned that corner on April 4, 1968. When MLK was murdered, I guarantee there were people cheering for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh0el...

You only believe this is a turning point for America because you are ill-informed, or you have amnesia.

1 month ago (edited) | [YT] | 2

Venaloid

When the leopards finally eat *your* face, how will you respond?
“It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment” - Charlie Kirk

3 months ago | [YT] | 14

Venaloid

​‪@FriendlyAtheist1‬​ People like Kat Grant are needlessly obfuscating the difference between sex and gender, and this is a major point of contention we could easily resolve. So let me ask you: do you think sex and gender are two different things? If so, can you tell me what those words mean to you? I think they *are* two different things, and the LGBT community used to be very vocal about this distinction. Roughly speaking, sex is what's between your legs (biology, your body, genetics and phenotype), while gender is what's between your ears (psychology, your mind, thoughts and behaviors that tend to be more typically found in males or in females). I learned this distinction from my LGBT friends in high school 15 years ago, and I still agree with it. Furthermore, I'd say that the words "male" and "female" are best used to refer to a person's sex, while the words "man" and "woman" are best used to refer to a person's gender. This simple framework very neatly explains trans and non-binary people: they just have a gender (psychology) which is atypical for their sex (biology), and that's okay, just as gay people have a sexual attraction which is atypical for their sex, and that's okay too.

But our side of this debate now seems to be saying that sex and gender are just, like, whatever anyone wants them to be. Female? Woman? Sex vs gender? Eh, it's all just whatevs brah. The words don't mean anything anymore in our conversations. We are refusing to define what we mean by "male", "female", "man", "woman", "sex", and "gender", because we're scared of offending each other. Biologists like Coyne and Dawkins see us using words like "male" and "female" in these vague ways, and this sounds kind of ridiculous to them as biologists.

Granted, they are not expressing this disagreement in the most clear manner, and I certainly would not endorse the aspersions they are casting at trans people along the way, but I think it's clear that this issue of terminology is a key point of contention which we are needlessly creating for ourselves.

7 months ago (edited) | [YT] | 4

Venaloid

‪@PineCreekDoug‬ proudly doesn't read thoughtful replies to his arguments (at least, not on issues of gender). Instead, he spends that time making AI shorts to repeat his original argument. Like any good Christian apologist, he is intellectually lazy when it suits him. Cameron Bertuzzi must be rubbing off on him.

1 year ago (edited) | [YT] | 5

Venaloid

‪@PineCreekDoug‬ is very well-practiced with his rhetorical tools, but he is overly eager to apply them to every topic he has an opinion about. In this example, Doug appears to believe that being transgender is equally as baseless as feeling the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. In response, I pointed out that many other “only in your head” conditions could be seen this way, such as autism, sociopathy, depression, etc., but all of these things have well-established diagnostic criteria, which is why we generally accept that autism and sociopathy and trans people are real, not just faking it or “playing” for emotional reasons. Doug simply ignored those counter-examples, like a Christian apologist ignoring slavery in the Bible. In his video, Doug asks a good question, and applies his rhetorical tools well, but hasn’t considered how his argument could be applied to other things he believes are real. He likes to have fun, but sometimes you need to sit and reflect a bit first.

1 year ago (edited) | [YT] | 8

Venaloid

I promise to not turn this channel into a politics channel, I might even make a separate channel for that, but this is what Trump-appointed judges will continue to do to my country, and it scares me. That is all.

1 year ago | [YT] | 19

Venaloid

Short and sweet takedown of how Jordan Peterson intentionally plays dumb.

1 year ago | [YT] | 3

Venaloid

This might be my favorite bit of the debate. Dinesh claims to have read his Bible many times, but he never noticed that the sun was created after the Earth. This is what happens when you commit strongly to a religion before reading the terms of service carefully.

1 year ago | [YT] | 9

Venaloid

Notice how the hosts don't really dive into any of the arguments for why they believe God is good, they just name drop the arguments, give a high-level overview of them ("A good God is simpler for some reason") and move on. Maybe I missed something?

1 year ago | [YT] | 5