4 ms·
Your first quote criticising the book starts with "I didnt read this book". Probably sums up what the book would be complaining about. No experience, didn't ac
by DarkmSparks 1y ago
Your first quote criticising the book starts with "I didnt read this book".
Probably sums up what the book would be complaining about. No experience, didn't actually do any fact checking, makes claims we are supposed to just believe and call it science.
Second video doesnt seem to have any content from the book either.
Color me surprised.
- dmbche 1y agoSo you dodn't watch the video but have things to say about it? Glass houses heh? And the book is a pile of trash
- DarkmSparks 1y agoWhy should i watch a video about a book when the person explaining the book starts by explaining they never read it? Thats Sabines whole position about the attack on science (Ive not read her book, but have watched her videos) Science doesn't care if the person making nuclear bombs is a sex pest.
- dmbche 1y agoWhy do you share your opinion without having examined the information available? And : Second video First video seemingly was just to show she did indeed write for that book And wait - you've not read the book? But you are here defending it ? Want to take a stwp back and think about what you're doing here? And second video moght be a good start.
- DarkmSparks 1y agoI examined the information. Im criticising the idea that scientific findings can be undermined with accusations of undesirable sexual preference. They cant, to think they can and try to do so is stupidity of the highest order, I would have loked an actual review of the book, even though i didnt expect to find, nor did i find one in the sources. The only reason I checked the sources was to confirm that stupidity continued in the sources and that they contained nothing of value.
- dmbche 1y agoYou didnt read a book and didnt watch 2 videos, and now have to share your take with the world. Thank you dearly.
- DarkmSparks 1y agoSo I did my bit Could you clarify if you are saying there was anything other than a lot of logical falicies known as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Or if the only criticisms of the book are logical falicies.
- dmbche 1y agoWhy would you ask me when you can watch the video itself instead of talking about it Edit0: cant reply further somehow. This isnt a debate and the only supported claims you have done are that you didnt read the book or watch the videos - your claims are moot. I recommend the feeling of grass in the palm of the hand.
- DarkmSparks 1y agoI have made the claim the only criticisms of the book are logical fallacies. (That I have found) Not 100% clear if you agree or disagree, but the way this works now, is short of any further criticism that isnt a logical fallacy, is just assume you agree with the book and have no valid criticism of it. Thanks for the recommendation, think I'll grab a copy and read it for myself. Just about to finish deaths end and was wondering what to read next.
- thot_experiment 1y agoAnd you didn't watch the 4 hour video detailing the contents of the book and the character of the authors lmao.
- DarkmSparks 1y agoI jumped through the 4 hour video and at no point did i find any reference to the content of the book. Just 100% ad hominems. Anyone that has to resort to ad hominems already lost the argument.