Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - IceSage

Pages: [1]
So, I've run into a kind of rough patch with the whole "vaccines and autism" debate. I'm unable to properly explain to someone what sources are credible and what aren't. Also, I'm unable to clarify how one actual scientific source can be more credible than another.

A few of my friends are 100% Conspiracy bogosity drones. They read on the internet that "Vaccines cause autism" in an actual scientific source, and use it to say, "Here, it does."

If I point them to another source that debunks this, their claim is "What makes that dismiss the scientific claim that says it does?"

I need some help in constructing a critical thinking set and guidance on how to explain why I believe the common scientific and accepted documents and papers in science, out-weight the links they hand to me after performing some Google-Fu.

At this point, it's getting confusing to me myself. I stopped by to see if Shane or anyone could explain it better.

Future Episodes / Bogosity is Bogosity!
« on: April 14, 2010, 08:50:53 AM »
It's almost 2 years... and there's still not another Bogosity episode. I propose that Bogosity is indeed bogosity.

However, if you make an episode about Bogosity being bogosity, then does that mean it's no longer bogosity?

Feel free to shuffle this thread somewhere else, or lock it or whatever you may wish to do with it. I'm just poking my head in to the forums to pry for a status update on the series. =P

I hope all is well.

General Discussion / Remind me to stop arguing with woo-woos.
« on: November 11, 2009, 10:18:34 PM »
I have this sad habit of replying to people who are apparently crazy as all hell... And then continue to debate with them even though they make no sense, or they get aggressive

I've been arguing with this guy for days now:

Perhaps I feel bad for people who believe in complete non-sense and get aggressive all the time. But, it just seems like people are hell bent on nonsense. This guy this real medicine should be dropped, and we should all be eating placebos.

General Discussion / Chadow's Back
« on: September 03, 2009, 01:34:52 PM »
Good ol' Chadbourne is back at it. I haven't watched whatever he uploaded, it's some promo to a DVD "they" (Who's they, the scammers he works with?) are making.

For some reason, he decided to reply to my almost 2 year old comment on YouTube, prompting me to read whatever jibberish he decided to make this time about how astrology is a "not science" that effects our world.

Honestly, I think this guy is nuts. After two years of his adventures on YouTube, and after several people telling them that he should just stop the non-sense, and just admit Astrology is bogus... He's still at it. But what scares me is his jibberish comments he makes.

I'm not sure if he's trying to be cryptic or what, but what he types isn't english anymore.

I'm not sure why I made a new topic for this, couldn't find the old one poking fun at him, and decided it was too silly for the astrology episode forum.

He still needs to come here, and explain this mystical "not science but effects the universe which involves science" theory.

Example of his jibberish to me responding 2 years late:

Yes, just finishing up the final touches. It's real science because it is. . . like a feactal is real science .. . ever wonder about the idea that there are a billion stars in a galaxy and a billion DNA particles ???

He also somehow found the time to delete over a hundred comments on most of his videos. (most of them anti-astrology)

I'm not sure how many people care, but this stuff is entertaining to me and it's an off-day.

General Discussion / Patriot Act
« on: April 21, 2009, 06:34:05 AM »
Hey Shane,

I was wondering something. You seem to be able to research, and properly clarify a lot of governmental / political stuff that in any other situation, I wouldn't be bothered to learn about. You do a great job at detailing out videos, very educational!

However, I was wondering if you could clarify about the Patriot Act, either in a response or a short video.

Basically, every time I read something about someone getting abused by authorities, someone automatically refers to the "Patriot Act." However, I was wondering if this type of reaction is a bit of a misconception of the act itself. (Or if it's completely accurate.)

For example, I saw a video on YouTube about a pastor who was stopped at a border patrol (Already inside the country, not at the border) who tried every excuse to search this man's car. The man refused to let them search the car unless they provided a warrant, etc. They claimed the dog's sniffed drugs from the guy's trunk, but according to the man, the dogs weren't anywhere near it, and when asked for the dogs to "detect" the drugs again, the authorities refused, twice, once by the pastor's request, another time by the "chief's" (or whoever's) request.

Basically, their course of action was to shatter both windows, slam the guy against his car window, taser him multiple times, and stomp on his head against broken glass.

Anyway, I made a comment, just some rambling, and then some guy responds with "Patriot Act."

As far as I know, the Patriot Act isn't used as a "use whenever, do-it-all excuse" to search a man's car for drugs. Mainly, I thought the act allowed a search if they found out through governmental information, that someone could be a possible threat or terrorist, allowing the government to search and arrest someone without a warrant promptly.

IS THERE a misconception of the Patriot Act, in which every time common border patrol officers or police officers do something without a warrant, or infringe on constitutional rights, it's allowed? Or are the people thinking this completely right?

I've tried to read the act for myself, and it didn't look like something that would be used for common police / border patrols in order to abuse their authority. It looks more like an FBI / NSA using the slightest excuse to quickly take down and spy on people, whether they're a terrorist or not. Not as an excuse for my local cops to come into my home for no reason.

So, was this guy's comment of "Patriot Act" accurate in this particular situation? Or is he applying a misconception?

You've probably seen the video I'm talking about already, but here's a link anyway:

General Discussion / VFX Forums - "Real Story on Piltdown Man"
« on: February 09, 2009, 01:32:36 AM »
So, the video on Piltdown Man Shane did was linked on the VFX forums.

This guy crapped out another post trying to refute the video. Certain users told him to come here if he was man enough to have a debate... as I highly doubt anyone from here, including Shane, would bother with VFX's site.

Quote from: Debate Crusher
So far the apologists for evolution are claiming that Piltdown Man wasn't excepted. Shane says one American scientist and one French scientist looked at Piltdown Man and rejected Piltdown Man.  Therefore, since these two men rejected Piltdown Man evolutionists never believed in Piltdown Man and evolutionists were never fooled.

It just happens also that Louis Leakey and Richard Leakey have both rejected certain aspects of the supposed ancestor of mankind, but other evolutionists reject the Leakey's claims, some even calling them fundamentalists (which they aren't).

So the logic error I'm trying to point out is that two people do not represent the consensus.

The consensus is usually represented by textbooks. And if a textbook comes from a prestigious university like Harvard or Yale,  that additionally reinforces the general opinion.

It just so happens that Piltdown Man was the consensus view in England and in America.  In America Yale and Harvard gave sanction to Piltdown Man in their TEXTBOOKS.

The Leakey's object to certain points of man from ape theory, yet their point of view is NOT the one represented in Textbooks.  No matter how much they had objected nobody cared. Even Mary Leakey got mad at Louis and took a hike.

The consensus view tends to filter down into popular culture. In fact Piltdown Man did filter down into popular culture.

HG Wells, in his History of the World, promoted Piltdown Man.  Piltdown Man was also featured in a semi-pop/science magazine, Scientific American.

The anti-Piltdown Man viewpoint was not part of pop sci culture during the time Piltdown Man was popular and represented in Harvard and Yale textbooks. Award winning, knighted Sir Arthur Keith was a highly trained scientist who fought hard for Piltdown Man.

Piltdown Man was later challenged by some scientist using Flourine dating method - a method which became refuted. So a bad method was used to refute Piltdown Man.   Piltdown Man could have been refuted if scientists had merely looked at the filed down teeth, or had drilled into the bones. Real fossils drill out powder.

Piltdown Man was not merely a hoax perpetuated by Dawson, but also by the British Museum. The British Museum knew of the hoax all along and merely wanted to get rid of the fossil. Normally, as evolutionist Lubenow has pointed out, evolutionists cannot handle real apemen fossils, as you may sign up to look at the fossils and then you show up at the museum and they tell you the building is closed for cleaning. Or you get there and they hand you a replica. Or, you get there and they let you look but not touch. Or you get 10 minutes and no touch. Or, inhouse scientists get to look at the fossils but outsiders or disputers do not.  That's the real world. There is no science here.

So let me show you my conclusions.

1. Shane says two scientists dispute Piltdown Man.   The two leakeys dispute apeman history.

2. Piltdown Man is published in Harvard and Yale textbooks.

3. Anti-Piltdown Man was not published in Harvard and Yale textbooks during that time.

4. A point that is always neglected is the fact that it took some 40 years before Piltdown man was exposed as a fraud, but a method that is no longer considered valid.

5.Piltdown Man tricked down into popular media - HG Wells, science fiction author, and his books, and Scientific American.

6. Shane doesn't mention the 40 years, the refuted flourine method, and the Harvard and Yale textbooks. Nor does he mention the filed down teeth.  Shane doesn't mention Sir Arthur Keith.

7. "Doesn't Mention" is a name that evolutionists should call their own.

Anyone called Doesn't Mention is someone who is not scientific, nor objective.


So, what's the response, Shane? (Aside from the fact that he just typed several lines of bullshit.)

General Show Discussion / Main Page needs fixed.
« on: January 18, 2009, 09:36:29 PM »
I've been wanting to post this for awhile. I was hoping I'd fix it on my end, or it would fix itself.

However, the Veoh playlist on the main page doesn't really work properly.

The first part of the playlist plays without sound, and sometimes plays REALLY REALLY Fast. The 2nd (9th) episode fails to load at all. Then it seems to be good from there, somewhat.

However, I think people, if other people are having this problem... I can't be the only one... Will be turned away from the site if they can't really watch the episodes properly.

Can you investigate for me please Shane? Thanks.

I'd like to send people to the Veoh versions rather than the youtube versions when possible. (They work fine on their own, but the site playlist bugs out.)

General Discussion / VenomFangX has forums, rofl.
« on: January 16, 2009, 04:23:52 AM »
First off, unless you really don't give a crap... Don't visit his site and forums. Especially if you're very "anti-venomfangx" in way. The existance of them is to stretch his small epeen. If you do visit, get an ad-blocker or install NoScript with FireFox, so he can't get money.

If you honestly don't care, go ahead and look, but I don't encourage it.

Why do I bring up this topic?

Well, I think it's surprising that VenomFangX allows such forums to exist. Atheists and Fundie nutjobs are all over the place, debating.

I registered under a fake alias that I don't use for my youtube, or bogosity username. I registered, expected to be banned within 2 minutes because I've been spreading my "ATHEIST PROPAGANDA."
So far, I've done a good job of surviving the wrath of VFX.

Does that mean he's not banning and censoring people? Nope. He does this, quite a lot. It's of no surprise.

However, he does actually let debates go on, and continue, even when they make good points. However, he'll neither look at them, or he'll reply, and ignore them.
If you're going 1v1 with him, he'll ban you (and a ban automatically deletes all your posts.)

He'll claim there was "something offensive" in the post, when we all know there isn't.

However, I think he's done a good job of not going POWER CRAZY with the bans. As, a lot of people are still there debating.

Heck, I've survived the forums. Yes, I've been on the forums for the past 2 days arguing with crazy nutbags.

But, here's the real reason for this post:

I went head to head with VenomFangX in a topic about Evolution...

... and I now feel like killing myself.

This is the part where I stop posting and fail to explain what I mean by this... and wait until you post and guess and have pity on me and send me flowers and candy to try to cheer me up... then I follow up with what I meant after a few posts. But let's see if you can guess what I meant by what I said first.

Future Episodes / End of the World
« on: January 06, 2009, 02:05:15 AM »
You know what's popular? End of the world conspiracies, theories, etc.

I know you briefly talked about it in the "Bible Codes" episode. But there's more to it than just prophecies in biblical documents, etc. There's a ton of crackpot theories ranging from Meteors, to the sun spontaneously exploding.

You already have a good list of "future episodes" but I'm bored and decided to toss this out.

General Discussion / So, I debated religion....
« on: December 02, 2008, 08:23:02 PM »
On the World of Warcraft forums.

Yes, quite an odd place to debate religion. People like to troll their Off-Topic forum constantly with a bunch of nonsense. The trend is to, either to be an ass, be sarcastic, or cause chaos... and make a topic about religion.

Anyway, I don't bother replying to most of them because usually the people aren't serious about discussing it, but there was one thread I sort of wedged myself into:

I was probably wrong on some things about the Big Bang theory, and the universe, etc. And I didn't have any sources to cite what I was saying at the time. But a good chunk of what I was debating I believe somewhat solid.

Anyway, if you people are bored, I thought the topic might be worth a read through for some of you.

I'm the poster "Xaviel."

Please do correct and educate me, where I failed to make any valid point, etc etc. Flame away. I want your thoughts and opinions.

Future Episodes / Fan Deaths!
« on: November 15, 2008, 06:56:14 AM »
I'm slightly joking, but this could be really fun to make fun of.

(There could be a mini-episode about "Silly Bogosity" that doesn't require a huge episode.)

For those who don't know what I'm talking about... It's the completely woo-woo idea that sleeping with a fan on, running all night, can suffocate and kill you.

(And yes, tons of people believe this. To the point in that in certain countries fans come with a "Sleep Timer." Although, the sleep timer could be to conserve energy, but whatever.)

Future Episodes / Philadelphia Experiment
« on: November 04, 2008, 03:51:33 AM »
I'm sure you all already know what it's all about.

In a nutshell, we apparently had the technology in 1943 to try to render a boat invisible by phasing it's molecular structure so that light could be bent, making it be cloaked. Instead of cloaking it, it was phased, teleported, and when it finally stabilized... members of the crew were stuck inside of parts of the boat, through matter, and other people have vanished and are claimed to be half-phased teleporting around somewhere to this very day. (You won't find this in the wikipedia page, but there's so many stories about this story out there...)

In reality some crazy crackpot contacted some astronomer / writer or something of the sort about the experiment, and rumors spread on from there.

Something like that.

Anyway, people honestly believe the experiment took place. A lot of woo-woo's take it farther.

There was a video on YouTube that perfectly shows how crazy these people are (they have conventions) but I can't find the video anymore. It was some guy interviewing some old guy, (I think he claimed to be a "professor") and was giving him all the information about the experiment and how the patent office is withholding various proof of the experiment's existence... and you have to know the correct patent number because they keep changing it every day randomly, etc.

I wish I could find the video, it's hilarious.

But yeah, Philadelphia Experiment is some pretty popular bogosity... and would make a hilarious episode.


(PS. Yes, the audio is focused on the Left channel... Gotta love horribly made videos!)

General Discussion / Fan Mail / Hate Mail
« on: October 25, 2008, 09:36:25 PM »
I was going to put this in episode suggestions... But...

Do you get a lot of Fanmail / Hatemail (Or PMs on youtube, rather) from people? Anything interesting that could be shared or compiled into a video? Something that answers and promotes logical thinking in a "Rapidfire Bogosity" style, covering all the mail and questions / hate that's been sent to you?

Episode 4: The War on Drugs / You just stop taking the drug!
« on: October 24, 2008, 08:56:30 AM »
Hey Shane, the war on drugs video was excellent... But one, and only one thing kind of bothered me about this video. There was one point where you said, If you don't want to take drugs " just stop taking the drug!"

Even though that is the solution to most drug related problems, that seems like an odd thing to say. Most people who take drugs are usually addicted to them and can't just "stop taking the drug." The rest of the video was fine, and this one statement really doesn't matter... but I found it an odd choice of words to use.

I've never used drugs before, but I bet if any heavy drug users saw your video that statement would've made them go, "lol, wut?"

Edit: This isn't a major topic of discussion, just trying to get the ball rolling on some of these episode forums.

Pages: [1]