""""""truth""""" (not enough quotes in the universe for his name 😄

why is pangburn eat golf clubs?

such a bad argument

hey pang

well uhhh

that might have been a bad idea.

uhhh

well no one should kill anyone

i would like to see like one of those universe/earth sims do a simulation of the world getting flooded to see what would happen - anything like that out there?

for sure most if not all the ocean life would have died, all plants would be dead. then you would have the incest problem make most species all screwed up and die off most likely.

so i think that if it happened, then everything would be dead by now

not to mention you would need a bigger boat.

everything would be dead passerby, everything.

everyone is dead, Dave, everyone is dead. They are all dead.

cant plant the seeds - ground is ruined. animals eat each other and die off. inbreading would kill them off rather quickly

water is full of salt - dirt is screwed. everything is dead Dave

you dont nead soil???? wut

lol

also you know how long it takes to grow food? what are you eating?

everything would be dead Dave, everything is dead if world wide flood happens, all dead. We wouldnt be here

oh brother

yah no I'm done with this guy.

Well

Pang posted video

people did not/do no like video

so I said that might have been a bad idea.

topic is a - uh.. hot button do not talk about topic

religion can be strange

why are you asking this - odd question?

If you could in fact provide evidence of a global flood, then I would say to write it as a scientific paper, get it published, pier reviewed, then collect your noble prize, else you are simply wasting time/energy.

k time to get offline

@ThePangburn I've watched a lot of your topics, and I enjoy that you do not shy away from them, I did email you ages ago wanting to talk to you about skeptical things and logic - so I am new to you but not new to your ideas and such 🙂 its a sad state to see the comments turn on you, some might have a point, others might not - this is one of those "off limit" topics, and I agree there should not be such topics, but it might be a "bad idea" in the sense that it will turn many against "you" / your content. Maybe it will leave you with the audience that you want to gather in the end, but my "feeling" was "bad idea" -

On to the logical side - I see a burden of proof being a possible issue here, saying that (X) is not true is still something that has to be supported by some argument, in this case you have a negative case to prove. My thought would be to first define what being for (X) would be/look like. The examples comments gave of Maps/Nomaps on twitter, the "Cutie" show on netflix, the talks on TEDx about this - there were two if I recall. If those do not "count" against your stance, then what would? Also, out-line a solid argument with syllogism if possible, or perhaps an essay format with the thesis statement and supporting ideas. You could go the root of finding what treatment "works" on this group of people - in Germany, for example, they have no laws requiring them to report what is said in therapy treatments, thus that group of people can get mental help without worry of cops going after them, thus there is less of the people who are this way. (perhaps) - is this a mental issue might be a way to go, but there you might have to dig up papers on it and do a lot of research - its called a mental illness - are people "born" this way, if so, what should we "do" should we "Deprogram" them? should we look into genetic engineering to avoid the problem in the first place? what are the possible solutions you have to offer?

Rather then just telling people what "not" to do - something that has been shown to be less effective - negtive reinforcement works less then positive, tell people what "to" do - that is, rather then telling people to not do this hashtag (not that hashtags should matter but that is a whole other topic!) but to do (X) in its place that doing (X) will effect/solve the problem at hand, if indeed there is a problem.

Looking at the video from logical analysis I would say that there are several fallacies here:
Formal: Failure to give an argument. You simply state what you think is true without anything to back up this idea.
Informal: Shifting burden of proof. (Inferred) people might see you saying to prove you wrong / give you evidence you are wrong is a shift of burden of proof. I say inferred because its not outright.
Informal: Mind reading/special knowledge: that people who say "destigmatize" are doing so for (X) reason. No one can know what reason any given person has for doing (X) thing.
--mind reading/special knowledge is a logical fallacy that I've come up with (it might have an actual fallacy that is agreed upon that I am unaware of) the fallacy is when someone says they know why person did/did not do (X) or what a person was thinking or what a person's intent was. To know such a thing would take special knowledge or the ability to mind read, hence the name(s) of the fallacy. --

These are my conclusions for this video and I hope that you find my input and critical feedback to be of use to you, I still would love to talk logic with you at some point. 🙂

kk me off now *poof*

A video being colloquial does not negate it from critical analysis of logic. Your free to discard my fallacy of course - I suppose Bulverism comes close to what I'm thinking about. you wanted skeptical feed back, so I did my best to give you mine.

or maybe Appeal to motive is closer. - eh no matter.

also there is in fact a mind-reading fallacy already, at least so claims this webpage http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm - number 74. Seems very close to what I was trying to say.

here was a small poll that I found - very small sample size of how many people want to do (X) to those who actually committed a crime https://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/138424-what-do-you-think-should-be-done-with-repeat-offender-child-molesters

god these woke ass racist people sicken me

"Whiteness" - fml we are all human.

geez

re - follow police orders

vs """news""" https://theintercept.com/2020/08/22/police-shooting-wellness-check-sandy-guardiola/ it says after making the headline that she was shot in bed the following: "the evidence clearly suggests that Ms. Guardiola was shot while she was reaching for her weapon and that at no time did she pose a threat to Sergeant Kadien.” - umm I'm sorry say again - how could she reach for a WEAPON AND NOT BE A THREAT?! - see this is why people distrust the police , bad bad bad reporting - its lopsided - tilted to the cop being the bad guy. - this is how it seems to go for a lot of these cases where you get these cherry picked clips online of (X) PERSON SHOT IN BACK but of course no mention that the guy was diving into his car - or "WOMAN SHOT IN BED" without the fact that she was reaching for a firearm.

yes - its sad that people get killed - and cops should, ideally use tasers first - but my point is that "news" seems to - and correct me if I am wrong here, be on a very negative slant against police officers.

There are plenty of possible reasons - the news, broadly speaking wants money - they get that via ads/clicks/ratings - more views more ad's will pay top dollar - headlines that bate people are more trendy - but there might also be politics at work - there might be a motive that is only known to the top, it might be that they do not like the police - plenty of possible answers.

wut.

poe is strong poe