Why CosmicSkeptic Likes Annoying People
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 січ 2022
- This clip is taken from an event that took place on November 21st, 2019. It features Genetically Modified Skeptic - / geneticallymodifiedske... - and Holy Koolaid - / @holykoolaid
If you like Cosmic Skeptic content, please consider supporting the channel at / cosmicskeptic
When I read the title, I thought “annoying” was an adjective.
Same haha. Maybe it was intended to be click baity?
Same lol
"I'm going to make mine short" proceeds to make his the longest lmao
I haven’t shown any of Drew’s videos to my Mom, but interestingly, I did see her watching the video about Young Living being a cult by herself.
She’s still buying from Young Living unfortunately, but not much can convince her. I’m still furious at the company for convincing her to buy a tiny jar of rose oil for over $200 (though she has spent much, much more than that on all the other combined oils and whatnot).
So sad
For what it's worth, even I've shown a lot of Alex's videos to my mom.
Thanks Alex for keeping us on our toes
I try to translate everything you guys say, exactly as you say it to my mother.
I don't know why I don't just show her your videos!
I think she wouldn't really bother to see them but maybe I should try
Which language do you speak with your mum? I have the same issue, except I don't know the technical words well enough in Kannada (the language I speak)
@@ankushds7018 Greek!
But my mother is really stubborn too, I don't know even if the videos would help
Why?
I understood who Holy Koolaid was the moment he spoke
Yeah he has a distinctive voice
hang on that’s Drew next to you! Where I found this channel from! Cool to see you guys together. Can’t wait to debate with you in the future
"Trojan Horse Marketing". So kind of like the title of this video....lol
my mom doesn't speak english.
genetically modified skeptic you lost
“Why Arguments from Design Are Bad” is to the point. I’d have a good idea of what I was getting into. I have seen several “atheists can’t answer…” videos, so that title was not interesting. Hearing GMS say he wanted to obscure the content via the title os very disappointing. I watch far fewer videos from channels that use click-bait titles. “Must watch,” says to me “probably don’t watch”
It might be the audience that should be blamed rather than him. He did clearly imply that he wanted to be straightforward and to the point, but it doesn’t work with the majority of UA-cam audience. And his videos and platform will do well if he uses his obscured clickbaity method. If you care about the cause, which is to normalize questioning dogma and theism, it will be no pain or hardship to tolerate those titles.
@@rayepenber6446 You have a point, but there are enough good videos that I usually watch only the ones with descriptive titles. He also mentioned only one video, so we don’t know how many of those people were put off by a “click-bait” title and watched fewer subsequent videos of his.
@@scienceexplains302 Yup. All he said is that that video did really well. I guess taking a thorough look would be nice. But he has intuitive experience with all of them too. Well whatever the case, I hope he makes a good compromise between being straightforward and getting as many views as possible.
I disagree with you on torture of prisoners. Torture is not effective way of getting the truth. People will say anything to make the pain stop, and most subjects are innocent and don't even have the knowledge. Look up what happens on Guantanamo Bay
Who are you disagreeing with that is pro torture?
Torture is an effective way at getting to the truth, granted the person knows the truth
@@carnivorous_vegan You live a very contradictory existence, Mr Carnivorous Vegan
Alex for Prime Minister of the UK!
so you're saying we should all of us start agreeing with you on everything to piss you off
Interesting..
I actually have sent a few of Drew's videos to my mom 😂 I guess his marketing scheme is working 🤷♂️
no link to the full video?
"Something new". Then please talk about Tom Clark's essay "Death, Nothingness and Subjectivity". Sam Harris did.
רגע מה יש קהילה אטאיסטית בארץ?
ISWYDT...
Alex was in Israel? Amazin'
Yeah in the Mahar's atheist converse
I got an ad for the ball hammock underwear. WTF.
Oh, Annoying is a verb, not an adjective...okay that makes sense. Kinda annoying though.
I might not have clicked if I thought it was a verb from the beginning.
Haha same
I like how the title is clickbaity and you feel stupid after watching the video just as they guy on the left of Alex described
Genetically Modified Skeptic
Cosmic skeptic accept the debate challenge of Daniel Haqiqatjou he gave you few months ago on twitter instant of smearing cowardly attacks on Prophet Marriage with Aisha in debates with xtian appologetics
Shut up, daniel haqiqatou made it clear, that killing apostates is acceptable, and that there is nothing wrong with child brides, debating this will make alex lose his humanity and descend to a level of hypocrisy and immorality which is despicable.
@@mohammedphilonous6856 why don't you try to refute him academically
Hint ( you cannot)
@@mohammedphilonous6856 Child is social construct there is no object age to say that someone below it is a child.
@@TawheedPromoter Souds kinda pedo to me...🐻
Plz restate that in other words if you didnt mean that.
@@TawheedPromoter the appeal to authority is something that has been demonstrated over and over to be stupid, and yes I cannot academically debunk what is not academic and simply primitive, killing innocents and abusing children is something I take pride in not being capable to engage in any conversation about it
CosmicSceptic a sign of success is a SUBJECTIVE opinion you hold. just like you think your parents DMEONSTRATE wha tLOVE is. why don't you RETURN to your loving parents house where eyou learned about love. you chose to separate yourself from who gave you love. now that is IRONY. Jesus returned to his fathers love.
Jesus was the Lord of Slavery.
That is hardly love.
@@moonshoes11 no, Jesus will end slavery when he returns. Jesus is king bu sonly when he returns for his authority to rule. actually neither do you know what love is. 3000 years a go god put the command to love into the LAW. your country has not had the sense not use the law to get ppl to love. and before eyou say, you can't force ppl to love. atheists force christians to love because of Jesus. Jesus is the new law. rofl.
@@gjeacocke god also put slavery into the law 3000 years ago, so he can suck it
@@cyber_rachel7427 did he? what is the DEIFNITION of Hebrew slavery compared to the definition of black slavery that you are conflating the two as being equal. you have slavery to farm workers. do you buy FAIRTRADE products? if you don't you are creating SLAVES> god put LOVE into the Mosaic LAW> you missed that in all your education and wisdom
@@gjeacocke i'm not conflating the trans-atlantic chattel slave trade with the types of Slavery ordered by God. I'm sure you've read a million and one apologetic articles soothing your conscience by telling you that Hebrew slavery was different, and that we atheists just don't know the difference, and that Hebrew slaves would be looked after, and let go... you won't have seen those apologists tell you that the Bible explicitly makes those 'nice slavery' rules apply only to their fellow Hebrews. Technically they were also banned from kidnapping foreigners to be used as slaves, but absolutely no restrictions were placed on buying slaves, and God outright orders the young virign girls to be taken as wives (read 'sex slaves') after the Hebrews slaughtered their families and culture
I do buy fairtrade actually, yes. I also do my best to avoid companies which engage in practices I find unethical. I am also relatively left-leaning when it comes to economics, and so vote, lobby, and donate for causes which seek to end exploitative labour and the very separation between worker and the full fruits of their labour that is intrinsic to contemporary capitalist economics.
Where is the love in the mosaic law? Hint: being told youre only allowed to violently beat your slaves, but not kill them, is not 'love'. And the only reason one would think so, is to handle the cognitive dissonance that comes with believing your omnibenevolent god was okay with beating slaves
FIRST!
Oh wow I'm early to the party
Amen to that.
I love your content and I disagree on a few things you belive. Such as I'm an anti-natalist/ efilist and you aren't... yet
Antinatalism is actually not reasonable. You start from the assumptions that life is generally net negative. That is a fallacy.
@Aadi anti-natalism or efilism? Or both
@@RanEncounter i mean there are other arguments for anti-natalism outside of Benatars asymmetry argument.
For example an argumentative style Alex uses for veganism.
Is it wrong to inflict/pain suffering to another person/ animal/ sentient life unnecessarily?
I assume you say yes.
Whats really the difference between that and Is it wrong to bring life into a world where we know the person/ animal/ sentient life will feel pain/ suffer and eventually die. Nor is it necessary to bring that person into being. Keep in mind people have different thresholds of pain physical and mental. And no one knows if their child will live a healthy long life it is wishful thinking.
I don't think anyone has the chance to play that lottery with another being life. That child won't grow up to be a little you. It could have mental illness or get in a car crash and be paralyzed beginning for euthanasia in a system that has is illegal a miserable life a prison in their own body. Every day that is someone's kid and their parents never thought it a possibility.
My argument tldr no one has the right to unnecessarily inflict suffering on another and by the very nature of bringing someone into existence they will feel pain to varying degrees in their life and you don't know if they can handle it. No person has ever asked to come into existence but people ask to leave it every day, aka suicide.
@Aadi antinatalism is the belief that it is immoral to bring sentient life into existence. People have varying arguments for why. Basically there is the asymmetry argument, the net pain argument, and then there is the one I told to the other lad in the comments her about unnecessary suffering.
Efilism is basically LIFE spelled backwards. Is a belife that there is something inheritly wrong with life itself, that all sentient life is in a cycle of reproducing and suffering which we force on to the next generation. Efilism believes its wrong for all life to reproduce and perpetuate the suffering. And that by life itself existing unnecessary suffering will always persistent and be forced upon other new life.
Basically they are movments that would as a result end the human species if everyone practiced it. Hence why most people don't want to accept it. But I belive the arguments are pretty sound.
If you listen to Spotify I can send you the Antinatalism podcast, if not I can like some arguments and antinatalism discussions if you'd like.
@@brandtgill2601 "Is it wrong to inflict/pain suffering to another person/..."
No. Many thing can be painful and beneficial for you. The word unnecessarily is doing all the heavy lifting here and I don't see how you can have some objective say on what kind of suffering is worth the benefits of life.
"Whats really..."
You are only focusing on the negatives as I already said. Now you even dropped the word unneccesarily from the pain. This is already an unreasonable argument. You don't have a way to determine what is neccesary or not.
You could easily argue for any religion with your argument. Just define the religion you picked to be neccessary and you are done. Or everything outside of the religion unneccessary.
See how ridiculous it sound when the word neccessary is used as arbitrarily as you do.
Before you make any of your argument you will need a way to see what is neccessary and what is unneccesary, but I don't see how you can determine that because we don't have an objective goal.
This is the problem with anti-natalism. It makes assumptions that are not reasonable.
Hm, this makes me wonder if content creators actually believe in what they are saying or are they just trying to get views? Does Alex actually believe what he's sharing or is it a $$$ making scheme?
I think in principle he does believe what he preaches, however the way in which he puts it across may be dependant on the audience. I don’t think he goes as far to become in-genuine though
Being familiar with a UA-camrs general salary, especially under 1,000,000 subscribers, It’s very unlikely that Alex is using this as a money making scheme. He very well could support himself in part by UA-cam, but he definitely is not making bank.
In addition, Alex‘s field of study has been in theology, philosophy, and moral ethics, so it makes sense that on a platform, that would be the type of thing he would speak on. He’s clearly passionate about those and it makes sense that his UA-cam channel would focus on things that he’s learned about whilst at university.
I would also want to bring up the point that I’ve been watching his videos for quite a few years now and I have had topics that I’ve completely agreed with him on and fervently disagreed with him on. He doesn’t quite seem to be pandering to anyone group of people especially as his ideas have changed as he’s learned more. He doesn’t hesitate to tell you if he changes his mind, and if he does he shows you the reasons why. I think of all skeptic UA-camrs, he’s probably the least likely to be in it for the money, but I also would posit that most small UA-camrs are sharing information on UA-cam for the act of sharing, not for the money.
The channels that are in it for the money are the ones that are well over a few million, post intense clickbait with mindless content, and I genuinely don’t believe that most philosophic, religious, or skeptical channels fall within that category.
Yes, doing a 180 on his channel and talking about veganism despite it being unpopular with his audience and causing him to lose subscribers was definitely all for the $$$.
If it's only about money then he'd be pretending to be a Christian.
@@Sam-ky3su truth
I'm a christian and my diet is based mainly on animal products. I disagree with most of your positions. I think that some of your strongest beliefs, like a vegan diet being at all possible for humans, are easily refuted. However, I do enjoy your videos because of how you approach subjects.
So what is your moral justification to pay for sentient beings to be tortured and slaughtered?
refute it then if it’s so easy
I know hundreds of vegans that are completely healthy and you can find millions of them anywhere, stop being so closed-minded and grow up. Also, god isn't real.
You are against science then
I have an entire playlist dedicated to people like you. "Jesus is vegan" watch it.