Richard Dawkins and Peter Boghossian- June 5, 2015 @ Portland 5 Center for the Arts
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 08. 2015
- Richard Dawkins in conversation with Peter Boghossian on June 5, 2015 at the Portland 5 Center for the Arts.
This event was sponsored the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science. For more, go to www.richarddawkins.net
Become a Member of the Foundation Today!
www.richarddawkins.net/join
Get Peter's book, 'A Manual for Creating Atheists': www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating...
Video recorded and edited by: Victor Levine
I became a member of Richard Dawkins Foundation today.....i am fully supporting his ideas....
You mean the idea that alien's spawned life on this one? That's is a foolish thought made by a smart scientist.
@@chadster3248 He doesn't say he thought that has happened, in fact he doesn't think that has happened. But he does agree that it's not an impossibility.
@@chadster3248 kind of an oxymoron...you can't say a scientist supports something which has not been proven, which I know you said idea but you're still making a comment about it which means it's taken to some degree of seriousness. As the commenter directly above me rightfully pointed out Dawkins doesn't throw it around like fact, he says the theory is possible. Because it is and no one can say otherwise at the current time. He uses the term: "complete cycle"...I think of that as if we sent out bacteria which landed on a meteor and developed into intelligent life millions-billions of years down the road, then WE are the aliens which the hypothetical idea would be referring to
Dawkins' custom ties made by his wife are the best.
How can you not love Dawkins? So interesting, polite and intelligent.
+John He was polite in this one.. haha. But not always. I think he's great too, but sometimes his blunt remarks lose their effect on religious people simply because they're.. blunt. And they're taken as insults. Sometimes he words his arguments in ways that are clearly insulting, and when you do that you will lose the educational factor of them. eg "Well you believe that because you're an idiot" (from a different video).
I'm not religious at all, but this is one part he needs to work on. All of his effort goes to waste when he drops lines like that.
"Well you believe that because you're an idiot"
He really said that!?
+John It was something along those lines.. or maybe "well I don't 'believe that/agree with that' because I'm not an idiot", then he would go on to explain why. He hasn't always been known for gentle words.. but many times he's clean.
I kind of can't blame him though. Think of how many of these open discussions he's been in, the types of deeply religious people he has come across in his career doing this.. it would certainly start to drive one insane after a while, constantly hearing religious nonsense-- and one might let out a negative comment here or there.
I don't think he would ever directly call someone an idiot for their theism like you stated previously. He might call ideas, concepts or ideological entities idiotic, but this is not an attack on people.
John Well I wasn't specific on why he called them an idiot, or their idea idiotic. But like I said, his efforts will be lost to many regardless when he makes statements like that.
I've been searching to find an example to show you, but I haven't had any luck so far.
He's still my favorite guy to watch when I'm viewing religious topics.
Bravo, Richard Dawkins. You're my hero. If only others would simply listen to you.
Dawkins... love you ❤️
"I will not give publicity to Deepak Chopra." Fucking brilliant way to end it right there. Awesome video, really appreciative of the full upload.
That Wooist crap is so off the mark
these guys are complete rockstars
i absolutely love his inability to answer all questions,it just demonstrate how humble he is.
Dr. Lawrence Krauss sits in the audience and most of the questions is related to physics and cosmology! Nice job organizers...
They were trying cut down on cringe, Lawrence brought too much of it
Dawkins talks such beautiful English ,
Please do some of these in England!
Prof. Dawkins, brilliant as usual. I think what he's trying to say is: 'Look, just enjoy your life now that you have that chance.' Fuck it, would you really want to live eterly? I'm 42, been around the world, experienced loads of different things. The idea of living forever would fucking horrify me
Been watching/following Richard Dawkins for a while now; just discovered the Foundation (on side note, love Asimov's Foundation as well!) and wasted no time joining. It is great to see this work out there.
Greatness Shines Through Forever..Stupendous discourse...Dawkins is unbelievably perfect..
We have confidence in Science not faith!
+Peter Velzen WE HAVE FAITH IN SCIENCE !
+Peter Velzen Exactly, PeterVelzen.
If adding fertilizer to plants helps those plants grow every single time, and it works 100% of the time 100,000+ times, then it's not faith at all that's causing us to believe that fertilizer helps plants grow. It's just knowledge, informed by verification and utilized successfully in other applications. It'd just be a proven theory at that point, not faith. And, if it ever failed one day, then we'd stop believing it as strongly. That's how it's not faith.
Even Christians surely know this, cuz if you ask them, "How do you know there's a mechanical problem with your car?", they don't say "I have faith"; they'd say, "I heard it making a strange noise on the highway that it's never made before" or "the engine sputters at stop signs". So obviously, they know what thinking in terms of logic and evidence is, despite this silly, transparent dissimulation of not seeing any difference.
@@happybird4942 Well doesn't science now teach us that there are 72 genders or your a Nazi? And that if we don't give communists power and control of everyt the climate will destroy the earth in 12 years?
I have learned to develop critical thinking to trust in things, but I will NEVER believe in them.
Except that seemingly according to philologists the root to confidence in latin is confidere literally meaning "with faith". So with that root your sentence would be, "We are with faith in science not faith."
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/con-
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fide
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/confidentia
Conversation begins at 2:51
Great questions!
WoW this blew my mind !
Thank you - awesome ;-)
Peter’s laugh is right on!!
1:02:30 Peters stock dropped right there. Up until that point, I liked what he was saying. At that timestamp, he responded in exactly the way the guy asking the question was describing. And then in the most eloquently way, Richard nailed the correct answer to the question. Bravo.
I don't understand nobody can prove aliens, and nobody can prove god ,so why go for aliens, scientifically evolution has been shown to be so cruel and impossible there are apes on the planet and man ,with all the advances in science where is the missing link, none has been found
Excellent!
I like how they say keep the questions short and the first fucking guy goes on for ages
"If people aren't hurting anyone, who cares if they believe in a talking snake."
*Their children*; had they understood what reasonable thought was, and had any slight critical thought based on reality, might feel *greatly offended* and *deeply troubled* to think about these *hilariously unreasonable* and demonstrably *ridiculous*, nonsensical "data".
Starts 3:42
Its so ccool that I independently arrived at the same possibility as Carl Sagan . . We may be the first .
Legends..
I'm not sure if I understand his answer "about feeling pain and whether we should be using animals". It seems like his answer was "a dodge". Clearly - the person asking the question wanted to see whether RD would try and justify causing pain by the abuse / use of animals. I don't think that was addressed.
Can we please set up a debate between Deepak Chopra and leonard Mlodinow? After their little encounter during the Harris-Shermer Vs. Chopra years ago, I would have thought something would have happened by now.
I wonder if there about the same amount of planets as number of molecules in one mole
"Apologetics is just a very sophisticated form of confirmation bias" so true
Is it very sophisticated or needlessly complicated ?
To correct one questioner around 1:01:being against water fluoridation is not "anti-scientific". There is plenty of science and empirical evidence which suggest it is not needed / doesnt work for caries. In fact, only a very few countries in this world use water fluoridation, yet have acceptable amounts of cavities per person. "Currently about 372 million people (around 5.7% of the world population) receive artificially-fluoridated water in about 24 countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ireland, Malaysia, the U.S., and Vietnam"
water fluoridation is in itself quite anti-scientific since its actually not very effective yet its used.
Love those random awkward claps :)
Definitely a Portland crowd.
"Was that English? I'm not making fun of you." That's the definition of making fun of someone.
He seemed like a jerk through much of the Q&A
I love Robyn Blumner and miss her articles in the St. Pete Times.
We often throw around numbers like a million or a billion but both are almost impossible to grasp without math. So here's an attempt to bring them into something we can try to "get".
Imagine you start counting at a rate of 3 numbers per second... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... a manageable rate. Forget about saying numbers out loud but keep going at that rate without stopping for anything (like sleeping or eating). I've done the math.
You'd get to one thousand after 330 seconds or five and a half minutes. You'd get to a million in 3.8 days. You'd get to a a billion in ten and a half years counting 3 numbers per second, 24 hours a day.
Now consider that EVERY ONE of those numbers at 3 per second is a WHOLE YEAR. That's a billion years. Do that three and a half times. That would take 36.6 years or about half a life time.
Life has been evolving for that many years, each reproduction being a similar but subtly different version of its parent all competing for limited resources. Is it any surprise that after that amount of time, we see what we see around us now?
If you dispute that life has been evolving for that long then you're simply wrong (and undoubtedly religious).
And while we're at blowing our minds, we know that our galaxy, the Milky Way, has about 100 billion stars in it. Don't bother to fine tune my claims, it's irrelevant to this discussion and it's approximately correct.
The speed of light is so fast that it could circle the Earth 5 times in 1 second! At that unbelievable speed, the NEAREST STAR would take 4 years to get to! THE NEAREST STAR out of 100 billion!
Now consider that we can see hundreds of billion galaxies and there are more that we can't see because of the speed of light limitation. Each one will have billions of stars.
With that in mind tell me that you think a god created the Universe just for us.
On a side note what do you think the odds are that there isn't any other intelligent life out there? We may never meet them because they're so far away but if we do then that means there's a fundamental law of physics we haven't yet discovered that gets around the speed of light limitation set forth by Einstein and which has never been shown to be wrong.
An Atheists view of reality is of a Universe nearly 14 billion years old, astonishingly complex, fearsome even, but full of awe, we are but sparks in the vastness, energetic, bright but transient, brief, we are humbled before its grandeur and beauty, but against all the odds we are alive and in that life we are greater than even the most powerful Star, for we are a part of this Universe that has become conscious, we are a part of this Universe that can open its eyes and gaze upon its self in wonder, this view is more majestic, with more breath and depth than a dogma that states the Universe is younger than the original stories that describe its creation by a Bronze Age Deity, we are not the playthings of a petulant God, a God who shrinks as we grow, let go of your fear, let go of your superstitions, shake off the shackles that keep your spirit in bondage and join us, we are free to live our lives, to do good because its right, not out of fear of eternal punishment, you have one life, its yours, take responsibility for it, live, do not fear Death, the matter you are made of has been on its journey for billions of years, it has been forged in Stars, blown on Stellar winds, flown the skies and swam the Oceans and will continue after you have gone, you are unique in the Cosmos, but brief and transient, a spark in the void. Live, your life is more precious than you can possibly imagine.
Eloquently written!
You should get a job as an ambassador for the Richard Dawkins Foundation.
Sarcipious A I agree with your summary but a personal preference is to refer to their hypothesis if it can even be granted the status of hypthesis as the invisible magic sky fairy hypothesis. I deem that to be more descriptive than simply calling their leprechaun god.
michael bowman Id love to have that job !
ozdorothyfan The word "God" to me, is the same thing as "leprechaun" or "Sky daddy". none of these is real. Thus, "God" is just as descriptive a name for there hypothesis as the "invisible snail giraffe of the flying sea monkeys" . Now where did that tea pot go....?
Sarcipious A Well said. It is my experience that what is commonly referred to as the unconscious or instinctual aspects of living beings is far more conscious than the little self reflective function that people refer to as "I", which is really a function that developed to add another level to the ability of the human organism to survive, but which itself is isolated from the much higher level of consciousness of the primal organism, and which when it is come into contact with by this "I" is frequently assumed to be of a supernatural nature or assumed to be God or a god or some such, merely because its level of functioning and consciousness is so much higher than the self-reflective functions of thought-centric-consciousness that they have no recourse other than to assume they have experienced something of a supernatural nature.
he came here.... AND I MISSED HIM?!?
Peter: just because you personally do not understand something does not mean it does not exist. You can imagine that we are alone in the universe, and ignore the stars/suns that exist, because YOU do not understand them, but do not expect others to put on those blinders.
The origin of language (around 42:00 on)
Ugg:- "Ugg"
Ogg:- "Ogg"
Ugg:- "Charmed. I'm very pleased to meet you old bean"
What are the circumstances for supernatural answer be the best solution of cecular problem? Manhattan project was a ceculat entity and a big one. Bhagavad Gita was answer coming from supernatural source.
I was there and I didn't go and Richard AND Lawrence were there? FUCK! Well, at least I got to meet David Silverman today.
Anyone here after the unfortunate incident that befell on Boghossian?
What was that? Do tell.
that feeling when the mic has no pop filter - 2:44 to skip the horror
can we get some better questions?
And a better interviewer :p
I came out as being atheist . People were shocked because they like me . They are being told that atheists are nihillists and astoundingly lonely and unhappy . That also they do not know what they reject . That anger is all an atheist has . None of that applies to me .It makes them question the words being unloaded on them in church . The more times you can passively prove a pastor wrong the more likely it is that people in your sphere that believe bwgin to rely on their own abilities .
So neither one of them is a physicist but they put forward statements such as 'it has a ring of plausibility' and 'if string theory weren't true, it'd be a waste'.
I thought they both agreed 'I don't know' was a good answer...
omg portland oregon?
Okay..
"Ok guys, 15 second questions" first dude talks for 2 minutes hahaha
I couldn't agree more with these guys about everything. When they ask what can be done to help people accept science and reality, though, I would point out that you simply can't help people who don't want to be helped. It almost seems to me like spiritual euphoria is a form of addiction. I am not saying it is useless to present people with facts--some will open their ears and minds--but I fear many are lost causes.
Selective breeding can zoom pass natural selection. Maybe this could happen in other parts of the universe.
Language and grammar are just as important as the commitment to reason .Critical thinkingis not the only subject that is being neglected in schools .
The insistence on calling rational skepticism atheist ices out the moderate believer from the worth of rational skepticism . If you can get a believer to apply rational skepticism with any regularity they will no doubt come to a point where they recognize they inconsistently use this great tool when it comes to their beliefs . Thats the crack in their foundation worth exploiting .
Why do so many people tell stories instead of asking questions?
The main argument for carbon-based life is that carbon-based life is based on three of the top four most common elements in the Universe. Hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. Helium and Neon numbers 2 and 5 of the most common elements are both inert gases. So life on Earth is made from the most common elements it stands to reason that other life will be made of the same stuff.
It's not merely to do with abundance, Carbon can catenate so it can more easily form long chains leading to complex molecules.
But what if being intelligent actually makes a creature more likely to ignore pain if there is going be a better gain in the future and thus they'd have to feel pain even worse just so the preservation instinct can still do its job and override the intelligent response.
1:01:42 Value system disorder.
Can you give an example of an animal who can suffer/feel pain yet not think/reason in response? 1:05:00
Isn't conditioning a part of reasoning?
Elephants and other nonhuman animals mourn.
you guys just like dawkins cause he is I've of the few humans who ever spoke a language properly
I was trying to imagine relatively complex life arising without natural selection, couldn't. Didn't even think of a God or gods, didn't cross my mind until I thought of what other people believed. The idea that people who have access to hard earned knowledge and fact can instantly come to the irrational conviction that 'god did it!' beggars belief, its lazy and defeatist... its insane.
According to Richard Dawkins, many species of animal may possibly experience pain more acutely than humans - so isn’t it logical for his followers to promote vegetarianism/veganism wherever possible ? (Campaigning against Vivisection as well as factory farming).
Where "is" the Portland Atheist community?
Richard Wood Portland, as a guess. :-)
rationalmartian But which Portland?
Adrian I'm crossing my fingers for Portland Oregon!
Edit : I just looked, it is Portland Oregon.
Yes it is Portland, Oregon.
Is there a secret handshake I been missing?
Richard Wood
I'm here in France actually...
In the absence of evidence, we have to go with theories.
String Theory came from multi-dimensional mathematics and it solves some of the tricky questions that earlier theories struggle with. That gives it credibility but is in no way proof of its correctness.
if they could get rid of the fanboys id like this alot better.
Including Peter.
I want to know what these chaps have to say about most of the Astronauts coming out and saying they have seen alien life.
Diabolous3x Most astronauts do not come out saying they have seen alien life...
Start with Gordon Cooper and follow the yellow brick road down the rabbit hole and eat some bread crumbs along the way.
guess who would sneak in the selfie? ;)
Dr. Dawkins suggests that computers will attain self awareness at some point in the future. If that is the case, would computers believe that humans are god? Likewise if evolution brings humans or some other sentient being to the point where they can determine the beginning of the universe and then to re-create the beginning of the universe, and if they did re-create the universe and created life in that universe, would the creator of that universe be similar to a god?
Understand the trick is a whole different thing to performing the trick yourself.
The host is very inconsistent in which audience members he rudely stresses. Especially ones that obviously are a bit nervous. Kind of a buzzkill, doesn't really help.
Yes, Lol even though most of these comments are 7 years old, I've been posting all over them what an ass he seemed to be. Glad you noticed it too.
but I agree with everything else
The thoughts Richard Dawkins is presenting in reaction to a question from the audience regarding the apparent ( ... ?)evolutionist origins of religion are interesting, but not worth believing without any scientific evidence ... until scientific evidence is being brought forward his thoughts remain speculation, which can be believed or which cannot be believed. I hope Richard will soon present us with at least some scientific evidence.
At 1:07 Dawkins cites pain as what it is: nature´s way of telling you something´s wrong. He then cites its being painful. Yep. It is. He then adds that the same signal might be sent by just having a kind of red flag which could go off in your brain instead.
This is very similar to the scene in Heller´s novel Catch-22, where two severely injured men talk about the function of pain and one asks why you might not just have a large red light on your head which could flash, for that would constitute a painless method: Nature´s Way Of Telling You Something´s Wrong. czcams.com/video/y7FLsjDjgLk/video.html
The other thinks for a while and then says, "Yeah. But you´d look silly with a big red light flashing on your head."
I wish they wouldn't take questions from the audience. I've never heard so many idiotic questions in one session! Luckily, Dawkins is pretty masterful at turning a stupid question into an intelligent statement about something else.
String theory is claimed by physics to be only a theory, not fact.
Peter Boghossian is unworthy to be on that stage. He isn't there to joke to make the crowd laugh, he is there to educate the audience, to present things from a different perspective. His questions are asked in a bad manner, and the dialogue from his part it's not polite.
Plus his demeanor during the Q&A sucked.
He ruined this whole video for me, such a twat
If there is evidence for something then you don't believe it. I think we use the word belief for faith, but we should stop using the word belief for scientific claims.
RD The Great 👍
2:18 -you're welcome.
2:30
What are the diffferences between chances and facts ? It seems that Richard Dawkins is equating them without any critical scientific thinking. In Dawkins's thinking chances have become facts.
Plato
said reality is created in the mind and if we can change our mind we can change
our reality?`
Does that not make perfect sense, in that if our reality is being held within
the makeup of our brain function, and we can change that function by believing
enough, or having faith, then how is that different from SOMEONE saying “If you
have enough faith, you can say to the mountain cast thyself into the sea, and
it shall be done”?
Now, I don’t know if it is appropriate to ask Richard Dawkins, or his
sidekicks, to respond to such a genuine question, for he never comes from
behind his myriads of pseudonym’s, or he says that he never debates creationists,
which is a lie since he has posted videos of him doing just that. Which means
all he has to do is to call everyone who asks questions “creationists” and he
doesn’t have to answer any questions, apart from the Dorothea Dixers arranged
for him?
The Jews created the concept of God in an evolutionary process. Saul/Paul created the concept of Jesus.
Terrible host, imo
+Ashton “Nauct” Simmons I know right. He's a bit of a prick.
+Ashton “Nauct” Simmons He did seem rude. I mean a girl goes up and says "this is exciting, what advice do you have for someone who is trying to be thoughtful in a generation that can't seem to be bothered?" and he asks her if she was speaking english? He also hassled people about prefacing, when he did plenty of it himself, and the internet audience is no more excited about hearing him speak than anyone else asking questions.
+Ashton «Nauct» Simmons Richard dawkins is a delusional fool.
PuppetMaster What do you mean
+PuppetMaster [citation needed]
When Dawkins says there could be a billion other life forms out there... does he mean a billion other planets which harbour life? He can't mean a billion organisms
Post your favourite quotes. Here's mine: "Every man who belives in God is automatically stupider than me" ~Richard Dawkins
Ozjasz Rurkowski My favorite quote is: "Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll
Ozjasz Rurkowski Perhaps you should post a quote Dawkins or Boghossian actually made during the presentation.
Ozjasz Rurkowski "It's a virus of the mind."~ Richard Dawkins, speaking about religion
Ozjasz Rurkowski
"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Max Planck
Sagan Worshipper eventually?
Ugh, sightly annoyed that Dawkins never answered the question about whether or not is was ethical for us to use animals for pleasure. Instead he directed the conversation to likeness and pain. I'd like to hear his opinion on the question asked.
It gets brought up in Peter Singer's interview on this channel
It's time for the secularists to write a leather-bound book of reason and sensible values that people can commit to and follow instead of a Bible and a Quran etc........
Kind of, except that defeats the whole idea.
Science literally told us that the moon would be a blood moon a few days ago. Those people that believe in god/religion had absolutely no problem in trusting the science to be out on their porches that night. Yet, when it comes to how it all started, how old the earth is, when the dinosaurs lived, suddenly there's an indifference and science is wrong? Faith wouldn't have told you to go out that night I can assure you. It's quite comical when you think about it.
"we're too busy LOLing and YOLOing"
"i don't understand, can you.. i don't.. what?"
"was that English?? I don't even.. I'm not making fun of you but.."
No, that's literally what you're doing. You're actively laughing at youthful lingo and dismissing it as an illegible and useless question, *because she is young AND OMG JARGON*. Just because you aren't "hip with the kids 420 XD LMFAO" doesn't mean their thoughts aren't valid.
lol
He seemed like such a dick the whole Q&A
Religion is a product of evolution? So what? The dinosaurs were a product of evolution too.
I prayed that I would be wealthy, but God doesn't work that way. So I robbed a bank, and prayed to God for forgiveness.
The audience is terrible. I get the impression, most these people are not very intelligent at all, they just happen to blindly follow an intelligent guy. Sadly, it seems they don't really get what dawkins arguments are all about and they just enjoy a kind of pop culture :/
For example the woman who gave the introduction.. that was just cringeworthy.
It was, frankly, I was a bit embarrassed, makes atheists look just as bad as religious speakers. "We are the best and everyone else is stupid". Yuck. Not gonna win over respectable minds with that crap.
Plus when Peter was thumbs up and thumbs down-ing the audience with the question about people who hate or love Dawkins, that was as gross as well.
We like Dawkin's idea, not for some cult of personality.
sounds like a copout on the animal cruelty question
Cruelty is harm for its own sake
Zac Luyckx.. commented:
‘’What dawkins does isn't atheism... I don't dislike him for being an [anti-theist] atheist, I dislike him for being a man blinded by ambition.''....
Excellent point... ambition, and its primary consequence, the contemptible capitalistic element of greed, is the primary motivation for ''popular'' anti-theist individuals (I deign to call them atheists anymore, an atheist wouldn't engage the delusional in the specifics of their delusion, therefore, I find it equally delusional.) When individuals utilize only the ''stupid'' level of their otherwise ''genius'' capable brain, it is disappointing...
When it can be shown, by example, that individual human enlightenment happens without the human concept of a god or not-god involved, that will the point at which all religions will dissolve... in the bright of truth...all ''information masquerading as knowledge’’, residing in your subconscious mind, will is made moot in the bright light of truth... take that, religionists... take that, anti-religionists... welcome home, atheists worthy of the sobriquet...
Applaud afterwards, not during. It's not a concert and you shouldn't sing along either.
There's some severe butchering of mannerism today. Chuckle if you find things funny, that's natural and intended.
I'm still in my 20's - and I learned how to fit a crowd by being observant, even though I have never held any kind of big speech, and even though nobody taught me how to behave I understand how it could be extremely abruptive.
This thing that "anything goes" is too much at this point. Understand when it's you-time and not. You don't need to be seen or heard all the time.
' just a comment'
I don't understand why the audience laughs at inappropriate times. When Dawkins said, "It could be that there are as few as a billion other lifeforms elsewhere," people laughed. I'm assuming that they were laughing at the fact that one billion doesn't sound like a small number, but when dealing with things in space, it's quite a small number. These people must not be very familiar with basic science.
Also, the "young atheist" lady who said that "yolo" and "lol" weren't abbreviations needs to go back to elementary school and learn what abbreviations are. Plus, she needs to not use texting terms while speaking. Those aren't becoming of the self-appointed term for atheists as "Brights."
IKeepBadCompany I took it as if they were laughing at how small the number was, that's what I was thinking anyways. I didn't think about it at the time.
The "young atheist" was bringing your problem to mind by using "yolo" and "lol." It sounded very much like she was insinuating with her question that it was a problem for young people to use terms like that and live in their phones all of the time. Using those terms are a good way get the point she was making about modern pop culture in reference to social media, I was surprised that they couldn't understand her, the audience clearly did.
lostperfection05 I guess this goes to show that two people can watch the exact same thing, and have two very different interpretations of the event. This is a perfect example of why eye-witness testimony is unreliable. Your interpretations may be right on both accounts. Even so, those were both weird events that stood out to me.
+IKeepBadCompany I couldn't agree more. I've always argued that eyewitness testimony is garbage evidence.
My interpretation could be the wrong one as well, as with both accounts I was going on memory of something I listened to once, while doing cardio exercise, that I never thought I'd have to make a statement about. The accuracy could hardly be labeled as solid.
Cheers :-D
lostperfection05 At any rate, it's nice to see this discussion from both sides (and civilly at that). I'm a grumpy old man (even though I'm only 31), so I took the pessimistic view. You seem to have a better outlook on life, because you took everything from a positive point of view. I'm really impressed that you were working out whilst watching this video. You were working your mind and your body at the same time. Well-done! Cheers!
IKeepBadCompany Thanks, all too often I take the pessimistic view, maybe working out had something to do with it, haha. I never thought about it like that "working the body and mind," that's awesome, I'm a fellow old man at 32.
The suicide question was a good one, and the FACT that men killed themselves more often (successfully) than women is somewhat common knowledge. It's disappointing they'd shut the question down because he didn't have specific sources to cite...