Continuing with CallMeConvay

Creationism Isn't a Conspiracy Theory and Enabling a Precocious Child is Not Exploitation! · Continuing with CallMeConvay · Some More Threads Under Emma Thorne's Video about "Helen"

My full initial comments on Emma Thorne's video are on the post

Creationism Isn't a Conspiracy Theory and Enabling a Precocious Child is Not Exploitation!
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/01/creationism-isnt-conspiracy-theory-and.html

The post was updated with lots of debate already, so some that a certain CallMeConvay added comes here.

A

under my comment:

6:39 "On a divisive adult topic that this kid doesn't have any interest in ..."

Apart from "kid" which is a rather capricious way of adressing children, why wouldn't she?etc.

which already shows some of the debate with him in the first post, from which I link to here after this is published.

CallMeConvay

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes it does. Chemistry experiments are done with gravity in mind - you can't get away from that variable. If gravity was any different, all chemistry experiments would have to be redone, and there would be different results. The same goes for electromagnetism. Both forces must be acting on the subject, and if you change an input so must the output, unless you change the other input(s) to compensate. Hence, all experiments would have to be redone. (I)

YEC doesn't claim scientists are incompetent, it claims they are liars. That they are brainwashing the unenlightened masses. That we have been brainwashed (as you yourself have proven). YEC is a conspiracy theory. (II)

Niche != Cultured, buddy. You need to check your definitions, your English isn't even close here. (IV)

Science is data, and there is most certainly Data Science. Psychology isn't a scam, you were taught this because it's a standard brainwashing technique. Anyone who explains to you that you've been brainwashed is a lying, cheating psychologist! They can't be trusted! Thinking otherwise is most certainly a conspiracy theory. Conservatives and the religious are morally, ethically, and logically in the wrong, and they use deflection like that to whine and complain. (III)

You were exposed to bullying the moment your mother drilled an idea into your head with such fervor that you would foolishly defend that idea in public schools, where any and all groups will mercilessly bully each other for 12-20 years. That's on her, not us. (V)

"This elected representative, elected by popular vote of the people, and beholden to them, is a tyrant!" - a whiny 'lil bitch. (VI)

Buddy why the fuck are you still talking about goats. Goat. The farm animal. That has nothing to do with 'kid' or 'capricious'. Sure, it's a common belief that the word originally referred to goats (it was actually hedgehogs, by the way), but it isn't used like that anymore. The origins of words means pretty much nothing when they have a more modern definition. Again, your English is 30 years past its due date. Move on, buddy, you're making no sense. (IV)

[...] It finally happened. I found someone so off the pseudo-intellectual deep end that they actually think they're pulling off better English than a native speaker. Listen buddy, håll käften. You don't know what you're talking about, and your rabid defense of your mismatched sentences makes it show. Your English is passable for conversations, but don't try to pass it off as equal, or superior, to any native speaker's. I'd compare it to a scam email, at best. (IV)

Hysteric refers to someone with hysteria as both noun and adjective, buddy. Hysterical works, "in hysterics" works, but plain old Hysteric doesn't. Again, your English isn't perfect. You're welcome, I corrected you free of charge. English tutors usually cost a decent amount. (IV)

I wasn't referring to you there, I was referring to the girl in the video. You know, the subject of the video you're complaining on. She is absolutely being exploited by her parents, as you sorta were when they convinced you to preach your YEC to a "captive" public school audience, but I wouldn't call that so significant as exploitation, more like plain old negligence with a healthy dash of incompetence. Then again, it is brainwashing. . . (VII)

Attacking YEC is a pastime of mine to be sure, and making sure Creationists know damn well they're morons is an important aspect of that. I mean, I can't just let YEC position itself as a near-equal debate to Evolution when they're not on the same plane of existence. I'm worried about all Creationists, that's why I care to comment. But no, I'm not particularly worrying about YECs getting bullied when actually innocent groups get treated worse for. . . acknowledging climate change and systematic inequality and other such obvious topics. (VIII)

Yeah pal, you should definitely listen when a native speaker corrects your English. At worst, it's an opportunity to improve your English and make your overconfidence less overconfident. (IV)

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "If gravity was any different, all chemistry experiments would have to be redone, and there would be different results."

Oh, you mean if one said gravity had a different value, those particular experiments which involve seeing how fast things react in particular circumstances would have to be redone!

Presumably, 2H2 + O2 would still => 2 H2O if Brown's gas were lit.

Don't overdo your case ... when we look for explosion plus water, we don't try to measure how fast it goes bc of gravity being this or how slow it goes bc of gravity being that value.

"Both forces must be acting on the subject, and if you change an input so must the output, unless you change the other input(s) to compensate."

Again, you are just speaking of when gravity is supposed to be another value (a practical result not all values have).

Again, you are only speaking of very few experiments in this case, like seeing how fast a magnet drawn by an electromagnet over a table moves .... for electromagnets moving magnets, you don't need even that.

So, no, if I denied gravity were what Newton thought it was (which Einstein seems to do anyway), that would not affect any experiments in chemistry or electromagnetism at all. Only if I changed the value of it would I land up with different values or reaction speed or strength of electromagnetism in the few experiments which were about testing that - so obscure I haven't even heard of them, I can just imagine it ...

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "YEC doesn't claim scientists are incompetent, it claims they are liars. That they are brainwashing the unenlightened masses. That we have been brainwashed (as you yourself have proven)."

Science teachers, science journalists, people like yourself, that's not scientists.

I claim these people are brainwashing each other, scientists themselves, and the masses into an exaggerated and disproportional respect for scientists who are on some levels incompetent.

So no, I was not myself demonstrating that scientists were out to brainwash people into a theory they don't believe themselves, I have not myself proven YEC a "conspiracy theory" unlike what you claim.

CallMeConvay

@Hans-Georg Lundahl So you're arguing that. . . science teachers and journalists are convincing scientists that Earth is old and they. . . don't do science and take it at face value? Yeah fucking right, a scientist doesn't take content in their own field at face value, and certainly not from a non-scientist at that.

Not only have you not understood that YEC is a conspiracy theory, you're incapable of accepting it. You'd have to accept that you've been an idiot for 50 years, and most certainly sacrificed a lot to keep that reality intact. I'm not foolish enough to think that my YouTube comments could get you out of your little world.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay Yes, I am arguing that.

By now no scientist alive arrived before schools and Nature and Smithsonian Magazine started pushing Evolutionism.

" you're incapable of accepting it."

Fortunately, I'm not very likely to accept your fit of hysteria as actual fact, no.

CallMeConvay

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You need to learn how science works my man. Evolution isn't just floating out there in arbitrary science land, it's a core tenant of all of biology and any study relating to life at all. You can't just take out Evolution and still be able to discuss why Elephants exist.

And there's a big fucking difference between reading a magazine, or even a textbook, which says "Evolution exists" and blindly believing it does. Fuck I've proved evolution exists by doing simple data analysis on DNA, and I'm not exactly a scientist. Anyone working in the field of biology proves Evolution every time they do an experiment.

As for your last paragraph, you're just proving my point. You dismiss my arguments as "hysteria" because you're in too deep to backtrack now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "it's a core tenant of all of biology and any study relating to life at all."

Core tenants of a field are the most prone to being ideological.

"Fuck I've proved evolution exists by doing simple data analysis on DNA"

Such as?

"and I'm not exactly a scientist."

I believe you.

"You dismiss my arguments as "hysteria" because you're in too deep to backtrack now."

And you aren't?

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "Science is data, and there is most certainly Data Science."

Not everything that's accepted as science is as certain as raw data.

"Psychology isn't a scam, you were taught this because it's a standard brainwashing technique. Anyone who explains to you that you've been brainwashed is a lying, cheating psychologist!"

You show why psychology is a scam - it involves so much guesswork about what happened to someone else in the unrepeatable past.

"They can't be trusted! Thinking otherwise is most certainly a conspiracy theory. Conservatives and the religious are morally, ethically, and logically in the wrong, and they use deflection like that to whine and complain."

The latter pretty much shows upfront what kind of morality, ethics and "logic" one can expect from psychologists.

Meaning it is a partial art of bullying, not an impartial science on how personalities work.

A very clear example. A Christian who is concerned with some item or person having the gematria 666, or that number being stamped to sth, has a phobia according to them. Hexakosio etc. phobia.

But a Jew who overreacts to everything Nazi and everything remotely reminiscent of it (Germanic mythology, Christian versions of Fascism, Christians not Germanic Pagans and also not into Fascist régimes with outlooks reminidng them of Fascism or with a geeky love for Germanic mythology, you name it ... even Inklings!) for some obscure reason (or if it's just partiality) hasn't got any swastikophobia, na ...

Since he didn't answer

I answer remaining points (under A) on the post, but not on the thread.

IV

Absent

answer to the point:

Niche != Cultured, buddy. You need to check your definitions, your English isn't even close here.

There is a difference between verbal understanding, admitting they are not the same word, and contextual understanding - I was making the point that cultured people have a huge tendency to be niche. One goes off and plays flute, another does riding, a third is an Evolution Geek, a fourth is a Creationist Geek. If one is into "that's not a normal interest" (or "regular stuff") "for that age" one is placing oneself in the less cultured masses where everyone does about the same thing.

Buddy why the fuck are you still talking about goats. Goat. The farm animal. That has nothing to do with 'kid' or 'capricious'. Sure, it's a common belief that the word originally referred to goats (it was actually hedgehogs, by the way), but it isn't used like that anymore. The origins of words means pretty much nothing when they have a more modern definition. Again, your English is 30 years past its due date. Move on, buddy, you're making no sense.

I appreciate the irony of "it's a common belief that the word originally referred to goats" ... I share that common belief.

[...] It finally happened. I found someone so off the pseudo-intellectual deep end that they actually think they're pulling off better English than a native speaker. Listen buddy, håll käften. You don't know what you're talking about, and your rabid defense of your mismatched sentences makes it show. Your English is passable for conversations, but don't try to pass it off as equal, or superior, to any native speaker's. I'd compare it to a scam email, at best.

I did not say I was "pulling off" an overall "better" English, I said my English is more complete as to familiarity with different expressions and longer sentence structures. His complaint about "mismatched sentences" shows the incompleteness.

Hysteric refers to someone with hysteria as both noun and adjective, buddy. Hysterical works, "in hysterics" works, but plain old Hysteric doesn't. Again, your English isn't perfect. You're welcome, I corrected you free of charge. English tutors usually cost a decent amount.

Basically, I consider him equivalent to someone suffering from hysteria. I also consider Bill Nye an even worse case.

Yeah pal, you should definitely listen when a native speaker corrects your English. At worst, it's an opportunity to improve your English and make your overconfidence less overconfident.

I feel a certain familiarity with the situation ... I learned the expression Dunning Kruger pretty quickly while on internet as early as in early 2001 - by someone thinking me an illustration of the concept.

That my feeling of being "better" (I prefer "more complete") at languages not my own should be considered part of it just might come from an episode while I was in prison in 1998. I was learning Spanish. Another inmate had South American origins and a Spanish father. When that Spanish father illustrated "vosotros" (informal plural you) with "vosotros en la familia" he (the South American) imagined "vosotros" was European Spanish for "nosotros" ... some people would have preferred me to throw away the Spanish books and go entirely by what the South American told me.

Generally, it is a fact that foreigners learning a language from books tend to learn a more formal and literary and in that sense more complete form of it than the colloquial mastered by the native speakers. I am not saying I have equal fluency or anything like that, just that the correction is superfluous.

V

Absent

answer to the point:

You were exposed to bullying the moment your mother drilled an idea into your head with such fervor that you would foolishly defend that idea in public schools, where any and all groups will mercilessly bully each other for 12-20 years. That's on her, not us.

It's a great case against sending teens to public schools. And it's not on her, since she twice over allowed me homeschooling.

What is on people like "Convay" is sympathising with sending teens to public schools.

Also, he has no case for anyone drilling anything into my head with fervour - the bullies tried to, but didn't succeed.

VI

Absent

answer to the point:

"This elected representative, elected by popular vote of the people, and beholden to them, is a tyrant!" - a whiny 'lil bitch.

A nice thing to tell a Jew in Germany in 1938 ...

Elected governments are sometimes tyrannical.

All four states of the Northern Countries have for decades tyrannised Gipsies, Lapps and Esquimeaux by eugenics, meaning those most examplifying the particular lifestyles were often prevented from getting children or for getting more children than they had. I call that tyranny - and I suppose "Convay" would as well. Either way, it was not on some dictator taking power away from elections, it was on elected governments, in Sweden a PM called Per Albin Hansson. It only ended in the 1970's.

For 19th C. England, it's arguable that some laws against labour unions were tyrannical, same observation there.

VII

Absent

answer to the point:

I wasn't referring to you there, I was referring to the girl in the video. You know, the subject of the video you're complaining on. She is absolutely being exploited by her parents, as you sorta were when they convinced you to preach your YEC to a "captive" public school audience, but I wouldn't call that so significant as exploitation, more like plain old negligence with a healthy dash of incompetence. Then again, it is brainwashing. . .

I wasn't preaching, I was arguing ... oh, wait, to some uncultured proles of Atheist convictions, expressing Atheism is arguing whatever style you use, however preachy it may be, and expressing Christianity is preaching, even if it takes the form of argument ...

It is absolutely not in any way shape or form a certainty that the girl is exposed to any kind of unleasantness for it, since she's in the US - in some states and in some ways a freer place than Sweden.

VIII

Absent

answer to the point:

Attacking YEC is a pastime of mine to be sure, and making sure Creationists know damn well they're morons is an important aspect of that. I mean, I can't just let YEC position itself as a near-equal debate to Evolution when they're not on the same plane of existence. I'm worried about all Creationists, that's why I care to comment. But no, I'm not particularly worrying about YECs getting bullied when actually innocent groups get treated worse for. . . acknowledging climate change and systematic inequality and other such obvious topics.

How come I am reminded of a Danish prole who assured me it was his obligation to the Danish constitution to tease Swedes ...

This type of personality, in this type of expression, not just defty working to humiliating someone over a bad argument, but openly uttering humiliating sentiments galore to deflect from all and any issues, is one I do not belong with.

As to it being his pastime, I thik he got enough when it came to me ...

B

under the comment:

16:45 She might have been the person who dragged her parents to Dinosaur adventure land in the first place.

Just because she loved the swings doesn't mean she only cares about the rest bc told to!

after some debate with "Hm Grraarrpffrzz" (his or her own chosen handle, I didn't make it up).

CallMeConvay

No, she wasn't. It doesn't show up on an 11-year-olds advertisements, and any half-baked parents can tell what it is before you get to the gates.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay You obviously misread what I actually wrote. Your refutation doesn't deal with it.

CallMeConvay

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Well, as has been the standard, the English is lacking as hell. But either way, no. An 11-year-old girl isn't going to learn about Dinosaur Adventure Land unless her parents (or church I guess) talks about it. And they're obviously not doing that for the swings.

And again, an 11-year-old isn't going to give a shit about the YEC and anti-science bullshit that she's being exposed to unless it's, ahem, "emphasized" by her parents (again, and church I guess).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "An 11-year-old girl isn't going to learn about Dinosaur Adventure Land unless her parents (or church I guess) talks about it."

I think I already stated, I never said the parents didn't talk about it first.

I just mentioned she might have been the one nagging about it.

After all, it was an expense for the parents.

"And again, an 11-year-old isn't going to give a shit about the YEC"

According to your "base group" which would equally prove 11 year olds don't want to learn ballet, don't want to learn guitar, don't want to learn astronomy (which I very much wanted at age 8), etc ...

Most 11 year olds do care about the things the parents care about. So, if parents care about YEC, so do their 11 year olds.

C

under my comment:

15:40 Could it be that far bigger channels resent family vloggers simply because they are often Christian and making Christianity attractive?

after some debate with "Hm" (etc)

CallMeConvay

I mean, yeah that's part of it. Trying to spread your religion with child laborers is disgusting, no matter which religion it happens to be. But in general, it's the "child laborers" part that matters, far more so than the "spreading religion" part of it. You know, 'cuz it isn't just the Christian ones getting hate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay Has it occurred to you that the parents are perfectly capable of shielding the children from both too much work load and too nasty comments?

Have you any kind of reason to assume the girl actually already had to deal with bad comments?

"Trying to spread your religion with child laborers is disgusting, no matter which religion it happens to be."

Including Evolutionism? EVERY boy interested in Evolution and Dinosaurs and wanting to bash Creationists must also go?

There is one in France. He's probably at university now, but I recall and linked to a video from his middle school days, seven years old.

D

under my comment:

14:54 No, "we" have not legally recognised it's harmful for children to be seen when in factories or chimneys, "we" (well, Sweden too) have legally recognised:

• coal particles (both chimneys and mines)
• hot furnaces in factories
• heavy machinery falling down in factories

are all harmful for children's bodies.

CallMeConvay

Brush up on your English, that's exactly what she said. The "to be seen" doesn't [...] exist. And countries (including Sweden and the US/UK) have recognized that it's bad for children as a whole to be child laborers, not just that it's bad on their bodies. It's also horrible for your brain and individuality, and certainly your mental health in general.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay // The "to be seen" doesn't |..] exist. //

It is harmful + to + verb (active or passive, present infinitive).

It does. Your "regular English" is an incomplete English.

One could also turn it around and drop the it:

"verb + -ing + is harmful" ("being seen on social media is harmful")

"that's exactly what she said."

Well, those things she enumerated along with social media are harmful to bodies - while being seen on social media isn't harmful.

"have recognized that it's bad for children as a whole to be child laborers,"

Are children banned from doing cinema now?

"It's also horrible for your brain and individuality, and certainly your mental health in general."

David did some shepherding that wasn't bad for his ... and you are hysteric, insofar as you seem to suffer from severe hysteria.

E

under my comment:

12:40 No, my dear patronising wimp, we don't have to do sth!

People of your level of hysteria ruined my teens.

with its follow up.

CallMeConvay

You're, what did you say, in your 50s? There weren't exactly people going crazy for evolution in the 70s and 80s, but there were certainly people who would try to, you know, break your indoctrination into a dangerous and anti-science belief system?. . .

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "There weren't exactly people going crazy for evolution in the 70s and 80s,"

You haven't seen the Swedish Social Democrats. 1983.

"there were certainly people who would try to, you know, break your indoctrination into a dangerous and anti-science belief system?"

Dangerous and "anti-science" connect how?

They certainly did try to "break my indoctrination" in ways that came far closer to breaking me.

F

under my comment:

12:03 The 11 year old girl is not a "mini version of Kent Hovind" because she shares his Creationism or even the bad parts of his theology (Baptism, Anti-Catholicism, Teetotalism read into the Bible ....).

I was not a mini version of my mother because I shared her theology, more or less. Including Creationism. etc

CallMeConvay

"Indoctrinating someone in the image of another doesn't make them a mini-[enter person here]". Uh, yes it [...] does. I'm no mirror image of either of my parents, but when you teach a kid to believe what you (or someone you idolize) believes, that's exactly what you're doing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay No, one has a separate character from one's parents no matter how much one shares of their belief system.

I wish one could say one has a separate character from one's teachers no matter how much they remold one's belief system compared to from home, but they often try to reshape characters as well.

In senior high school, I was a stunted version of myself, because some hysteric persons with too much power wanted to protect me from being a "mini version of my mother"' which I was very much not at all anyway.

Thanks for showing our readers you are into propagating same kind of hysteria and same kind of harm that CPS do to children and to teens. I hope that to some of them it discredits you.

@CallMeConvay By the way, quotation marks are for quotations, not for own distortions.

"Indoctrinating someone in the image of another"

as you put it was not my actual words.

G

under my comment:

11:34 "their favourite criminal conspiracy theorist"

I lobbied to get him out of prison. But apart from whether he's innocent or criminal, his charges were not about his "conspiracy theory" etc.

CallMeConvay

Um, yeah, Hovind's fraud was directly related to his peddling of Conspiracy Theories. . .

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay No, indirectly, namely in how he filed taxes or paid workers.

@CallMeConvay But thanks for showing you are a Commie who imagines US is Soviet Russia where YEC was criminalised ....

H

under my comment:

11:05 Apart from "high school education" (is that as far as you got in Evolution?) and "bullshitter" - what about an Atheist saying "God knows ..."?

CallMeConvay

Improve on the English my man, this comment means jack shit.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay Improve yours.

I think Emma knows what I am saying even if you don't.

I a

under my comment:

10:39 "most Evolutionists aren't very nice"

OK, you haven't seen abuse, but you assume she has. etc.

CallMeConvay

This is another "I'm sure everything is fine because it would suck for my argument if it wasn't". Moving on.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay Actually, it was first of all Emma's "I'm sure everything is horrible, because it would suck for my argument if it wasn't"

It sucks for families if the societal presumption isn't "everything is fine" until otherwise proven.

I b

under my comment:

9:37 Have you seen any abuse under this girl's channel?

I see you speaking of the abuse she could get. etc.

CallMeConvay

Yes. There are Conspiracy Theories on the Internet, abuse and anger are fucking guaranteed. And child YouTubers are commonly abused by their parents in some way. The only reason to think this particular little girl is being protected is because if she wasn't you'd be in a shit position. And obviously not, YT commenters have no etiquette. Source: I read YouTube comments.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "abuse and anger are fucking guaranteed."

There is no guarantee the child is exposed to them.

Mother or father could go deleting comments that aren't OK for children to see.

"And child YouTubers are commonly abused by their parents in some way."

That's the agenda you want to push, but you have done nothing zilch and nada to prove.

@CallMeConvay Plus, if "abuse and anger are guaranteed - against an 11 year old girl - that says something about the civilisation level of Evolutionists!

J

under my comment:

8:00 As I recall, the conspiracy theories you grew up with genuinely were conspiracy theories.etc.

CallMeConvay

They're more or less the same fucking theories. Your English is falling behind here, so let me explain: A conspiracy is a secret plan by a group to do something harmful. A Conspiracy Theory is a Theory that a group exists to do something harmful. YEC is a Conspiracy Theory peddling that science, governments, and mainstream religion pretends that the Earth is billions of years old in order to oppress and disenfranchise "true believers". Chemtrails are also a conspiracy theory yes, but it's a Theory, which means that it is incorrect by default. The Watergate Conspiracy is NOT a Conspiracy Theory because it's been proven true. YEC hasn't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "A conspiracy is a secret plan by a group to do something harmful."

Yes. Note "secret" ...

"A Conspiracy Theory is a Theory that a group exists to do something harmful."

... in secret and hiding their real intentions.

That's not like "a group exists that is actually doing harm, openly, even if they don't realise it" - if it were, you'd be a prime example of a conspiracy theorist against Creationists.

"YEC hasn't."

Evolutionism hasn't.

@CallMeConvay Convenient for you to pretend I misunderstand the English, so you don't have to deal with me saying you misunderstand YEC ...

K

under my comment:

7:52 It's pretty common for parents to tell their children what to believe.

Obviously, at a certain point in time, KKK was very much against Catholic parents doing so,etc.

The latter documented by Candace Owens:

WHAT IS THE KKK UP TO TODAY? | Ep. 81
Candace Owens Podcast, 26 Jan. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vZWRgOUsUo

and after debate with "Hm Grraarrpffrzz"

CallMeConvay

It is absolutely preferrable for children to be taught by. . . teachers. Parents can only pass down what elementary, almost always flawed, understandings they have. It is the career of a teacher to have as fewer misunderstandings, and the most complete base of knowledge needed to teach their subject.

Just because lots of parents teach their children to believe doesn't mean it's a good thing, especially when that belief is harmful to that child's future, like say, YEC.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay The general outlook and the facts are two different things.

YEC isn't harmful to anyone's future unless people like you make it so.

Meaning certainly people with your outlook, I don't know your position, could be involved too.

Most facts teachers can provide (and I could be a language teacher and you could profit from me) are less important than the general outlook.

It's preferrable to have it from home rather than from strangers breaking down one's parents' influence, until one is oneself ready to step away from some things the parents taught. That's a different thing from having parents "corrected" (overruled) by dictatorial school teachers in a system of compulsory public education like the KKK wanted from 1868 ....

CallMeConvay

@Hans-Georg Lundahl YEC is absolutely harmful to your future. Good luck becoming a respectable scientist or respectable person outside of the YEC "community" in general. You have to accept such delusions that you're at a serious disadvantage at the minimum.

I don't know why you think that a teacher, you know, someone who's job it is to teach, is going to be worse at teaching literally anything than a parent unless that parent is themself extremely qualified at a specific subject.

I certainly don't know why you think you could ever be an English teacher so I'll assume you're referring to teaching Swedish, to which I say no thanks. Believe me, it's a weird "flex".

Learning from parents only leads to outdated knowledge and copy-cat ideas and ideals. It isn't fucking preferrable to being taught in a public school system. Advocating for the education methods of the 1800s is impressively stupid.

Your KKK example is [...] stupid, people try to manipulate any system, it doesn't matter if they don't succeed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay I'm saving some for the last.

" is going to be worse at teaching literally anything than a parent unless that parent is themself extremely qualified at a specific subject."

General outlook and specific subject don't coincide.

"I certainly don't know why you think you could ever be an English teacher"

Unlike you, I am aware that you can say both
Smoking is bad
and
It is bad to smoke.

Unlike you, I am aware that "smoking" can be replaced by any present participle, and "to smoke" by any infinitive - including a passive one.

But I wouldn't want a classroom full of prole unteachables like you.

"only leads to outdated knowledge and copy-cat ideas and ideals."

Outdated knowledge is granted for some special subjects, which is less important. On a subject the pupil needs to know for his carreere, he can update ...

Copy-cat ideas and ideals - well, I'd be better off copying my family's than my teachers'!

That's the exact point.

"Advocating for the education methods of the 1800s is impressively stupid."

Why are you doing it then? Did you miss the point that your ideas and ideals on the subject are copied from 1868 KKK ones?

"it doesn't matter if they don't succeed."

But they did succeed in giving the US a Department of Education.

They did succeed in making homeschooling and private schools less readily available in the US.

So, now for what I actually saved for last:

"Good luck becoming a respectable scientist"

Thank you for showing how scientists, both in reality, as you show, and by our standards, are victims and not conspirers ... they are obliged by the group pressure to be Evolutionist before they even start their carreere.

"or respectable person outside of the YEC "community" in general."

Oh, "respectable ... in general" - that's admitting you are involved in bullying! You disrespect YEC.

That means, yes, being YEC is in some places a disadvantage, because of the bullying by people like you.

L

under my comment:

7:35 Being 11 doesn't stop one from having thoughts on evolution.

CallMeConvay

Yeah it kinda does. No 11-year-old is pondering the origin of species unless they're told to. The girl isn't a supergenius, they're a normal kid.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay So, if I wondered what "mutations" could bring around a fish to become an amphibian (in fact mutations don't do that kind of things), at age 6 when reading a children's book on evolution, that makes me a "super genius"?

You really show you are Plebeian, no culture at all, no comprehension people who are more cultured than you are usually more niche than you.

Thanks for discrediting yourself once again!

M

under my comment:

7:13 So, when you were 11, you were making no arguments about any theoretical matters?etc.

CallMeConvay

When you're 11 you don't publish conspiracy theories about the existence of dinosaurs and age of the earth. The "theoretical matters" you worry about are why the sky is blue, or how far you can see from the top of a mountain.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay At 11?

I had been told those things way earlier.

Thanks for showing once again your background is a culturally undernourished one!

@CallMeConvay Plus obviously she was not voicing a conspiracy theory.

Even if you think YEC is ultimately that, it has lots of other arguments to offer, and you bet those would be what are shown forefront at Dinosaur Adventure Land.

N

under my comment:

6:11 Neither the child, nor the parents are considering that the Creationist content is "embarrassing"etc.

CallMeConvay

Are you seriously under the impression that. . . Conspiracy Theory videos aren't controversial? It's a predetermined outcome of making one of them, you don't need to be a fucking genius to figure it out. Even IF the parent's were so fucking dull that they didn't realize it until the first Conspiracy Theory video, it would be negligence not to realize as much after the fact and act accordingly by taking that video down and releasing no new ones.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay If your English hadn't been in the fog of a prole who never learned to read, you might have noticed:

1) controversial does not mean embarrassing
2) and YEC, especially as voiced by an 11 year old, is not a conspiracy theory

" they didn't realize it until the first Conspiracy Theory video, it would be negligence not to realize as much after the fact"

Neither Emma, nor you, have so far shown that "Helen" was in any way, shape or form exposed to trauma.

You argue it should have happened, must have happened, therefore it did happen - you haven't shown it did.

O

under my comment:

6:03 Your enumeration of possibilities ...etc.

CallMeConvay

The parents had to allow her to do it. She can't do it herself, and it's against ToS for her parents to allow it. An no, there is a 0% chance she wanted to make the videos worthy of mention on her own, she's a little kid, not a conspiracy theorist. The parents had to allow monetization themselves, they didn't stumble into it. Option 3 isn't a fucking option.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "An no, there is a 0% chance she wanted to make the videos worthy of mention on her own, she's a little kid,"

Your "zero % chance" is worth zero as an argument.

"The parents had to allow monetization themselves,"

Do you know for a fact the videos are monetised?

Do you know for a fact that the money isn't put on a locked bank account? Which she accesses at 18 or 21.

Do you know for a fact it isn't simply giving her pocket money?

P

under my comment:

4:33 Do you know for a fact the channel is even monetised?etc.

CallMeConvay

It's [...] easy to check if a channel is monetized. Google it. And it doesn't matter what the parents are doing with that money, they're profiting off the labor of an 11-year-old girl. It couldn't matter less how that money was made and for what it's being used.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "Google it."

Since Emma chose to not disclose either girl's name or channel name, I can't.

Are you too Alzheimer affected to know you have to have a search term to google sth?

"And it doesn't matter what the parents are doing with that money,"

You seriously should be calming down from your Hysteria!

But thanks for showing our readers it is not about principles normal people identify with, for you it's about hysteria and getting it satisfied.

Q

under my comment:

2:00 The child is arguably having a youtube account by parental permission - or acting in the parents' account.

CallMeConvay

Oh my god you made so many of these nutjob comments, what a treat!. Her account is treated as her account, and children under 13 aren't supposed to be on YT at all. No technicalities will get you out of this one. Her channel simply shouldn't exist in this form.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay Again, Motorsport Gigantoraptor - a boy who seven years ago, in middle school made pro-Evolution videos, obviously with his dad's approval.

Footnote on previous post: Évolutionnisme et Endoctrinement - l'ADLC#3 M - Gigantoraptor, 10 mai 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWaWGwQ2xDk While comments have been disabled (even now, seven years later, when even the younger boy should at least be a teen and the older should be adult!) they weren't when I made this response post: Deux arguments à propos l'évolutionnisme, entre moi et Motorsport Gigantoraptor https://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2015/05/deux-arguments-propos-levolutionnisme.html And for some reason, the boy being poster child for his parents' (or one parent's?) pet peeve about the way other parents "indoctrinate" their children hasn't involved getting the youtube taken down ....

R

under my comment:

4:15 You are basically presuming:

• the parents are driving this, rather than the girl simply nagging till she got it
• and therefore the girl could be driven too far by such exploitative parents
• and therefore the girl could have a genuine and undetected burnout etc.

CallMeConvay

No, Emma isn't "presuming" that this girl didn't want to make videos, she's "presuming" that the hate speech, conspiracy theories, and adult debate sphere that ended up putting her in situations that no 11-year-old should be in.

And no, it is NOT likely that the girl chose to make videos discussing conspiracy theories in which the real concepts would be going over her head, forget the convuluted bullshit conspiracy versions of them. I'm sure the hamster videos and such are something the girl is quite interested in, no complaints there other than she needs to wait a couple years.

I find it [...] hilarious that you thing it is MOST LIKELY that an 11-year-old is "peddling" or at all discussing complicated questions of science and history at all, forget on a YouTube channel while they're at it not just because they have to but because they fucking want to. That's a warped world view, at fucking best.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay She is very definitely presuming this when discussing burning out.

Why would Creationism be an "adult debate sphere" and a "situation no 11-year-old should be in"?

A French Evolution believer allowed two boys to lambaste Creationists as "conspiracy theorists" and other things, while the younger of them was obviously barely more than a toddler - doing facepalms when his older brother did.

"NOT likely that the girl chose to make videos discussing conspiracy theories"

Why are you speaking of "conspiracy theories" in the first place?

"in which the real concepts would be going over her head,"

Not more than Evolution for eleven or thirteen year old Evolutionists.

"forget the convuluted bullshit conspiracy versions of them."

Again, what is "convoluted" and "conspiracy" even doing in your criticism?

Is that your standard way of maligning Creationists?

"not just because they have to but because they fucking want to."

So, discussing science and history at all is reserved for males of what minimum age, on your view?

CallMeConvay

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Presuming burnout isn't a presumption when it's the commonplace result.

YEC is a conspiracy theory discussing in-depth aspects of religion and science. 0% of 11-year-olds are interested in it by coincidence.

You still haven't figured it out bud. YEC is a conspiracy theory. Plain and fucking simple.

Creationists are Conspiracy Theorists, by definition. They disavow science (at least the applicable fields) as an attack on their beliefs. That's a Conspiracy Theory.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay I think part of our debate here got deleted ... it's still on the blog.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay Sorry, my bad, that was under 6:39, the long one.

But your previous comment is definitely regurgitating things you already said there.