Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

What's really ironic about this argument is that it actually works against atheism. You have an ape-like creature, it has a baby... but now this* baby is a "human" with real value and human dignity? That makes no sense. Why do humans have any more value or worth than... a fish, a spider, or a rock? The answer is we don't. This is the truth on atheism, and this is why atheist regimes didn't hesitate to murder anyone that got in their way, the same way we indifferently poison ants that annoy us. What's the difference? Let me put it this way. If you believe humans have actual value, and that there's a real and meaningful moral difference between stepping on an ant vs stepping on a baby, you should categorically reject atheism.show more

Darwin to Jesus

77,468 subscribers

30,185 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & Politik Bildung Gesundheit & Wellness

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Ibbitson: "In some ways, the most distressing thing about this administration is that it lies over and over and over again through its teeth. Other governments don't lie. If you have an agreement with the UK or with France or with Australia, you have an agreement. But if you have an agreement with the US now, you just have a piece of paper. And is it worth anything more than the paper that it was written on? We don't know, because Donald Trump."

Ibbitson: "In some ways, the most distressing thing about this administration is that it lies over and over and over again through its teeth. Other governments don't lie. If you have an agreement with the UK or with France or with Australia, you have an agreement. But if you have an agreement with the US now, you just have a piece of paper. And is it worth anything more than the paper that it was written on? We don't know, because Donald Trump."

Scott Robertson

27,774 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

I stood on the steps of the Supreme Court Monday . Donald Trump has done real things for MAHA. I believe that. But when the Department of Justice shows up to defend Bayer and Monsanto against the American people, against the health of our children, I have to say: you got this one wrong. Liability protection for corporations that poison people is not a conservative value. It is not a Republican value. It is not a Democratic value. It is not an American value. It is the opposite of a free market. It is the government putting its thumb on the scale for corporations that are losing in court because their products are causing cancer. Every child in this country deserves to be healthy. That is not a political statement. That is the only statement that matters. So in the words of the President himself: we are going to fight, fight.

I stood on the steps of the Supreme Court Monday . Donald Trump has done real things for MAHA. I believe that. But when the Department of Justice shows up to defend Bayer and Monsanto against the American people, against the health of our children, I have to say: you got this one wrong. Liability protection for corporations that poison people is not a conservative value. It is not a Republican value. It is not a Democratic value. It is not an American value. It is the opposite of a free market. It is the government putting its thumb on the scale for corporations that are losing in court because their products are causing cancer. Every child in this country deserves to be healthy. That is not a political statement. That is the only statement that matters. So in the words of the President himself: we are going to fight, fight.

Del Bigtree

147,529 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

David david friedberg says we need to close tax loopholes: "Literally everyone's going to hate me over this, but it's the only way." "Any time there's a loophole that lets people transfer one asset for another without paying tax on the gain, because it's called a tax-free transfer, you have to cut all that." "If you don't cut all that, then people are compounding value without paying taxes when they're realizing value along the way." "That's what's unfair about the tax code today. If you invest in a company, a startup, and it goes well, it's not really fair for you to take the money you just made in that startup and not pay your tax and go buy another stock and keep growing your value." "And for the inheritance tax, there should be a step-up." "People don't realize this, but this is another problem, which is if you die and you have a large asset base, your inheritors get to use the original, the value transfers, and they get the step-up on their basis." "So now when they ultimately sell, no one paid the delta between what you paid and what they got it at. No one paid that tax." "But none of it matters if we don't stop the wasteful spending on housing, education, and healthcare."

David david friedberg says we need to close tax loopholes: "Literally everyone's going to hate me over this, but it's the only way." "Any time there's a loophole that lets people transfer one asset for another without paying tax on the gain, because it's called a tax-free transfer, you have to cut all that." "If you don't cut all that, then people are compounding value without paying taxes when they're realizing value along the way." "That's what's unfair about the tax code today. If you invest in a company, a startup, and it goes well, it's not really fair for you to take the money you just made in that startup and not pay your tax and go buy another stock and keep growing your value." "And for the inheritance tax, there should be a step-up." "People don't realize this, but this is another problem, which is if you die and you have a large asset base, your inheritors get to use the original, the value transfers, and they get the step-up on their basis." "So now when they ultimately sell, no one paid the delta between what you paid and what they got it at. No one paid that tax." "But none of it matters if we don't stop the wasteful spending on housing, education, and healthcare."

Molly O’Shea

29,964 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

“the idea that I have in some way helped or affected another human on this planet is a really wonderful thing, and it’s hugely rewarding. thank you for all of you that like to let me know that” - florence pugh

“the idea that I have in some way helped or affected another human on this planet is a really wonderful thing, and it’s hugely rewarding. thank you for all of you that like to let me know that” - florence pugh

sophia

44,368 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

The best founders in the world like Elon Musk or tobi lutke “go ultra-hardcore on deletion and simplification.” Luca Ferrari says Bending Spoons employs this idea of “Relentless Simplification” across their businesses: “Humans have a tendency to add complexity and do things that destroy value.” “If you leave an organization, almost any environment unattended, and you don't provide guidance in this regard, it will tend to become more complicated. People will add parts. It could be expanding a team or adding a step to a process, or adding an entire new process. If it's a product, adding a feature to the product. New rules. It applies to almost any human endeavor.” “People tend to add pieces, they very rarely remove pieces.” “If you don't make a conscious effort to achieve simplicity, and avoid this increasing value-destroying complexity, that's how we got to our modern society with all the bureaucracy and complicated regulation.” “We have this principle whereby we ask everyone who works here, every time someone is suggesting that we should be adding complexity, the burden of proof is on those making that suggestion. The people who support the thesis that we shouldn't be adding complexity don't need to prove it. They just have to raise a flag and say, ‘I don't think we should.’ The burden of proof is on those who want to add complexity.” “The other part of relentless simplification is that we want people to be on the lookout for existing complexity and suggest that we should remove it.”

The best founders in the world like Elon Musk or tobi lutke “go ultra-hardcore on deletion and simplification.” Luca Ferrari says Bending Spoons employs this idea of “Relentless Simplification” across their businesses: “Humans have a tendency to add complexity and do things that destroy value.” “If you leave an organization, almost any environment unattended, and you don't provide guidance in this regard, it will tend to become more complicated. People will add parts. It could be expanding a team or adding a step to a process, or adding an entire new process. If it's a product, adding a feature to the product. New rules. It applies to almost any human endeavor.” “People tend to add pieces, they very rarely remove pieces.” “If you don't make a conscious effort to achieve simplicity, and avoid this increasing value-destroying complexity, that's how we got to our modern society with all the bureaucracy and complicated regulation.” “We have this principle whereby we ask everyone who works here, every time someone is suggesting that we should be adding complexity, the burden of proof is on those making that suggestion. The people who support the thesis that we shouldn't be adding complexity don't need to prove it. They just have to raise a flag and say, ‘I don't think we should.’ The burden of proof is on those who want to add complexity.” “The other part of relentless simplification is that we want people to be on the lookout for existing complexity and suggest that we should remove it.”

David Senra

304,537 Aufrufe • vor 5 Tagen

🗣️ Bryson DeChambeau: "Realizing how big this world actually is - yeah, golf in the States is massive and it's one of the most impressive markets in the world for sure, but realizing that there's others out there, as well, and that there's an underserved market was something that we saw and thought that it would be an amazing opportunity for us to grow the game globally, and that's what LIV has done" "I think as I look at it now, what's really impacted me the most is the cultural barriers that get broken down, in a good way, with the game of golf. Everybody comes together. I think that's what's really special about LIV. I think that's what's really special about the game of golf" "We'd be doing ourselves a disservice if we didn't continue to do that. I think there's value in the States. There's value outside of the States. There's a way to match both" #LIVGolfKorea | Crushers GC

🗣️ Bryson DeChambeau: "Realizing how big this world actually is - yeah, golf in the States is massive and it's one of the most impressive markets in the world for sure, but realizing that there's others out there, as well, and that there's an underserved market was something that we saw and thought that it would be an amazing opportunity for us to grow the game globally, and that's what LIV has done" "I think as I look at it now, what's really impacted me the most is the cultural barriers that get broken down, in a good way, with the game of golf. Everybody comes together. I think that's what's really special about LIV. I think that's what's really special about the game of golf" "We'd be doing ourselves a disservice if we didn't continue to do that. I think there's value in the States. There's value outside of the States. There's a way to match both" #LIVGolfKorea | Crushers GC

LIV Golf

60,620 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."

Deutsch Explains

72,475 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

🚨ELON MUSK: "We need to have fire breaks and we need to clear the brush back away from houses and we need to make sure the reservoirs are full but due to a bunch of environmental rulings you can't do that in California because it might hurt some red-legged frog or something like that. There's a fish called the Smelt and we have far more fresh water runoff into the ocean than we should on the theory that it helps this one little fish that likes this fresh/salt water mix. But there's no evidence of this. So we should have more fresh water. This is just an example, but we would have saved a lot of trouble if we had done that."

🚨ELON MUSK: "We need to have fire breaks and we need to clear the brush back away from houses and we need to make sure the reservoirs are full but due to a bunch of environmental rulings you can't do that in California because it might hurt some red-legged frog or something like that. There's a fish called the Smelt and we have far more fresh water runoff into the ocean than we should on the theory that it helps this one little fish that likes this fresh/salt water mix. But there's no evidence of this. So we should have more fresh water. This is just an example, but we would have saved a lot of trouble if we had done that."

Autism Capital 🧩

850,705 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

David Sacks: We have no choice but to take the Mythos threat seriously “Anytime Anthropic is scaring people, you have to ask, is this a tactic, is this part of their chicken little routine, or is it real? With cyber, I actually would give them credit in this case and say this is more on the real side. It just makes sense that as the coding models become more and more capable, they're more capable of finding bugs. That means they're more capable of finding vulnerabilities. That means they're more capable of stringing together multiple vulnerabilities and creating an exploit. I do think that every company, or IT department, or CISO that is managing code bases should take this seriously and use the next few months to detect any dormant bugs or vulnerabilities and rollout patches. If everybody does their job and reacts the right way, then I do not think it will be the doomsday scenario. But we have no choice but to take this seriously.”

David Sacks: We have no choice but to take the Mythos threat seriously “Anytime Anthropic is scaring people, you have to ask, is this a tactic, is this part of their chicken little routine, or is it real? With cyber, I actually would give them credit in this case and say this is more on the real side. It just makes sense that as the coding models become more and more capable, they're more capable of finding bugs. That means they're more capable of finding vulnerabilities. That means they're more capable of stringing together multiple vulnerabilities and creating an exploit. I do think that every company, or IT department, or CISO that is managing code bases should take this seriously and use the next few months to detect any dormant bugs or vulnerabilities and rollout patches. If everybody does their job and reacts the right way, then I do not think it will be the doomsday scenario. But we have no choice but to take this seriously.”

The All-In Podcast

123,041 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

🚨 Ricky Gervais on God & Why The Universe Exists - "Why is there SOMETHING rather than Nothing" “I’m an agnostic atheist. Technically everyone’s agnostic… no one knows whether there’s a God. We don’t know." "An agnostic atheist is someone who doesn’t know there’s a God or not, as no one does. So you’re not convicted of your atheism?” Atheism isn’t a belief system, it’s simply rejecting the claim that there is a God. Are you an agnostic atheist too? Or do you believe? What’s your take? Drop it below 👇

🚨 Ricky Gervais on God & Why The Universe Exists - "Why is there SOMETHING rather than Nothing" “I’m an agnostic atheist. Technically everyone’s agnostic… no one knows whether there’s a God. We don’t know." "An agnostic atheist is someone who doesn’t know there’s a God or not, as no one does. So you’re not convicted of your atheism?” Atheism isn’t a belief system, it’s simply rejecting the claim that there is a God. Are you an agnostic atheist too? Or do you believe? What’s your take? Drop it below 👇

Interstellar

344,181 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Interesting argument. If we were to steel man this and represent it as a syllogism I think it would look like this: 1. God is perfect 2. A perfect being would only create perfect things 3. The world is imperfect 4. Therefore, a perfect God could not have created this world ...And then we'd further conclude a perfect God doesn't exist. The problem is with premise two, for a number of reasons. Firstly, what does it mean to be perfect? To be perfect is to lack for nothing, to be without flaws, to be fully actualized. But only God is like that, so the only way for God to make something perfect would be to make another God exactly like Himself. But there's a problem with this because the second God couldn't be exactly the same since he had to be created, rather than simply existing by his very nature. So logically speaking God can't create something perfect. This means that if* God creates, God can only create things that are imperfect. So now that we've established that God can't make something perfect, I guess the question is... why would God create? Here's a thought. Ontologically speaking God is the greatest conceivable being... would the greatest conceivable being create things? Or not create things? It seems obvious that creating is greater than not creating. An artist that creates no art wouldn't be much of an artist. If this is correct, it means God will create, and from my first argument God will create something imperfect... something flawed. Something lacking. Another thing worth pointing out is that as humans we knowingly create imperfect beings. We know when a baby is born, it's not perfect... yet we choose to do it anyway. Why? Is our desire to bring new life into the world something evil or wicked? I don't think so. I think it comes from our love for each other and our understanding that giving life is a blessing, even if that child screws up, even if they suffer, their life is a blessing. If God is good, wouldn't He want to bless something with the gift of life, the same way we do? I don't see why not. From this I think it follows that if God exists we'd expect to be in some sort of imperfect or flawed reality, and that's exactly what we find ourselves in. But how does atheism explain the existence of a flawed world? To say that something is flawed is to say it's not how it should be. But how can the world be flawed if atheism is true? On atheism the world just... is. It's not meant to be any sort of way. To be consistent the atheist would have to say reality isn't flawed, which is obviously absurd. This means that not only can Christianity explain the world we find ourselves in, it predicts it logically. Atheism on the other hand would have to predict a totally neutral world with no flaws, no issues, no evil... and no one in their right mind would say that's the world we find ourselves in. So this argument not only fails, it gives us more great reasons to reject atheism.

Interesting argument. If we were to steel man this and represent it as a syllogism I think it would look like this: 1. God is perfect 2. A perfect being would only create perfect things 3. The world is imperfect 4. Therefore, a perfect God could not have created this world ...And then we'd further conclude a perfect God doesn't exist. The problem is with premise two, for a number of reasons. Firstly, what does it mean to be perfect? To be perfect is to lack for nothing, to be without flaws, to be fully actualized. But only God is like that, so the only way for God to make something perfect would be to make another God exactly like Himself. But there's a problem with this because the second God couldn't be exactly the same since he had to be created, rather than simply existing by his very nature. So logically speaking God can't create something perfect. This means that if* God creates, God can only create things that are imperfect. So now that we've established that God can't make something perfect, I guess the question is... why would God create? Here's a thought. Ontologically speaking God is the greatest conceivable being... would the greatest conceivable being create things? Or not create things? It seems obvious that creating is greater than not creating. An artist that creates no art wouldn't be much of an artist. If this is correct, it means God will create, and from my first argument God will create something imperfect... something flawed. Something lacking. Another thing worth pointing out is that as humans we knowingly create imperfect beings. We know when a baby is born, it's not perfect... yet we choose to do it anyway. Why? Is our desire to bring new life into the world something evil or wicked? I don't think so. I think it comes from our love for each other and our understanding that giving life is a blessing, even if that child screws up, even if they suffer, their life is a blessing. If God is good, wouldn't He want to bless something with the gift of life, the same way we do? I don't see why not. From this I think it follows that if God exists we'd expect to be in some sort of imperfect or flawed reality, and that's exactly what we find ourselves in. But how does atheism explain the existence of a flawed world? To say that something is flawed is to say it's not how it should be. But how can the world be flawed if atheism is true? On atheism the world just... is. It's not meant to be any sort of way. To be consistent the atheist would have to say reality isn't flawed, which is obviously absurd. This means that not only can Christianity explain the world we find ourselves in, it predicts it logically. Atheism on the other hand would have to predict a totally neutral world with no flaws, no issues, no evil... and no one in their right mind would say that's the world we find ourselves in. So this argument not only fails, it gives us more great reasons to reject atheism.

Darwin to Jesus

57,850 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Stephen Wolfram just posed the most disturbing thought experiment about AI, and nobody has an answer for it. Wolfram: “Imagine humans are all in boxes. We’re all Darth Vader, inside these boxes, but you can’t actually see the human inside.” Civilization continues identically. Every human hidden in a machine. You see the output, not the person. Wolfram: “The world is operating, great paintings are being produced, but you can’t see any of the humans. All you see is a bunch of boxes doing human-like things.” Civilizational Turing test. If the external world operates the same, are humans contributing anything essential? Wolfram: “The world is operating as before, maybe even better than before. If you knew there were humans inside those boxes, you would say great outcome.” That’s the paradox. Know humans are inside and it’s a golden age. Remove that knowledge and it’s just machines producing results. Does the value change? Wolfram forces the question. Do we value creation or creator? If the art is identical, does consciousness behind it matter? Wolfram: “You can’t tell there are any humans. It’s just a bunch of Daleks operating.” From outside, machines behaving like humans look identical to actual humans. The show continues. Universe doesn’t register the difference. As AI capabilities expand, this stops being abstract. AI produces indistinguishable art, music, science. Does human creation retain special status? Why exactly? Wolfram isn’t answering. He’s exposing the void where our answer should be. If outcomes are identical, is human involvement meaningful or just attachment to how things historically worked? We assume human participation makes civilization valuable. If results don’t change either way, that assumption needs justification we’ve never properly given. Real test isn’t whether AI replicates output. It’s whether we can explain why human output matters more when the results are indistinguishable. If we can’t, we’re heading toward a future where civilization functions perfectly and whether humans are actually inside the boxes becomes irrelevant to everything except the humans wondering if they matter. And at that point, are we necessary or just witnesses to a system that would operate identically without us, asking questions that have no impact on anything except our own sense of purpose?

Stephen Wolfram just posed the most disturbing thought experiment about AI, and nobody has an answer for it. Wolfram: “Imagine humans are all in boxes. We’re all Darth Vader, inside these boxes, but you can’t actually see the human inside.” Civilization continues identically. Every human hidden in a machine. You see the output, not the person. Wolfram: “The world is operating, great paintings are being produced, but you can’t see any of the humans. All you see is a bunch of boxes doing human-like things.” Civilizational Turing test. If the external world operates the same, are humans contributing anything essential? Wolfram: “The world is operating as before, maybe even better than before. If you knew there were humans inside those boxes, you would say great outcome.” That’s the paradox. Know humans are inside and it’s a golden age. Remove that knowledge and it’s just machines producing results. Does the value change? Wolfram forces the question. Do we value creation or creator? If the art is identical, does consciousness behind it matter? Wolfram: “You can’t tell there are any humans. It’s just a bunch of Daleks operating.” From outside, machines behaving like humans look identical to actual humans. The show continues. Universe doesn’t register the difference. As AI capabilities expand, this stops being abstract. AI produces indistinguishable art, music, science. Does human creation retain special status? Why exactly? Wolfram isn’t answering. He’s exposing the void where our answer should be. If outcomes are identical, is human involvement meaningful or just attachment to how things historically worked? We assume human participation makes civilization valuable. If results don’t change either way, that assumption needs justification we’ve never properly given. Real test isn’t whether AI replicates output. It’s whether we can explain why human output matters more when the results are indistinguishable. If we can’t, we’re heading toward a future where civilization functions perfectly and whether humans are actually inside the boxes becomes irrelevant to everything except the humans wondering if they matter. And at that point, are we necessary or just witnesses to a system that would operate identically without us, asking questions that have no impact on anything except our own sense of purpose?

Dustin

198,212 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Brooke Rollins: "The dignity of work is real. That is a foundational American value, that the government should not support you from birth to death. The Democrats obviously don't believe that. The more people on government -- legal and illegal -- the more voter base that they believe they have."

Brooke Rollins: "The dignity of work is real. That is a foundational American value, that the government should not support you from birth to death. The Democrats obviously don't believe that. The more people on government -- legal and illegal -- the more voter base that they believe they have."

Aaron Rupar

32,701 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

"I don't have the file that says, 'Oh, this wasn't a UFO, it was actually a demon.'" ~VP JD Vance 🛸 UFOs: Apparently, VP Vance Doesn't Listen 🙉 Vance: "[Joe Rogan] thinks they're extraterrestrials." (What Rogan actually said.) Rogan: "Is this something that's far more bizarre and something that is interdimensional, from another planet, whatever, fill in the blank?" (That convo was a lot more involved and nuanced, and I'll link to it in the replies. Or, you can watch/read it here. ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬆️ ⬆️ ⬆️ ~~~ Bryce Crawford (Bryce Crawford): "You have access to more information and things than the average bear. I mean, you have Top Secret-access. Has anything that you've learned from this job convinced you that the spiritual world is real, since getting that access?" Vance: "So, you know, like, I haven't seen anything that says okay, there's a clear spiritual dimension to this particular problem. You know, like, I don't have the file that says, 'Oh, this wasn't a UFO, it was actually a demon.' "I have this strong view. I actually kind of got into an argument with Joe Rogan about this, who I like a lot, by the way. But Joe thinks they're extraterrestrials, and then I'm sure a lot of people think it's all fake. And my attitude is, if they are real, isn't it as likely that they're angels or demons as they are extraterrestrials? But like, I don't have like, a Top-Secret file that sort of proves that one way or the other." (There may be files and evidence that tells us more about what we're dealing with, but if it's in a WUSAP, I doubt the VP would have/get access to that stuff.)

"I don't have the file that says, 'Oh, this wasn't a UFO, it was actually a demon.'" ~VP JD Vance 🛸 UFOs: Apparently, VP Vance Doesn't Listen 🙉 Vance: "[Joe Rogan] thinks they're extraterrestrials." (What Rogan actually said.) Rogan: "Is this something that's far more bizarre and something that is interdimensional, from another planet, whatever, fill in the blank?" (That convo was a lot more involved and nuanced, and I'll link to it in the replies. Or, you can watch/read it here. ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬆️ ⬆️ ⬆️ ~~~ Bryce Crawford (Bryce Crawford): "You have access to more information and things than the average bear. I mean, you have Top Secret-access. Has anything that you've learned from this job convinced you that the spiritual world is real, since getting that access?" Vance: "So, you know, like, I haven't seen anything that says okay, there's a clear spiritual dimension to this particular problem. You know, like, I don't have the file that says, 'Oh, this wasn't a UFO, it was actually a demon.' "I have this strong view. I actually kind of got into an argument with Joe Rogan about this, who I like a lot, by the way. But Joe thinks they're extraterrestrials, and then I'm sure a lot of people think it's all fake. And my attitude is, if they are real, isn't it as likely that they're angels or demons as they are extraterrestrials? But like, I don't have like, a Top-Secret file that sort of proves that one way or the other." (There may be files and evidence that tells us more about what we're dealing with, but if it's in a WUSAP, I doubt the VP would have/get access to that stuff.)

Joe Murgia

62,025 Aufrufe • vor 13 Tagen

CHRIS PRATT: "God is real. You are imperfect. But there's a powerful force that designed you that way. Accept that, and you will have grace. And like the freedom we enjoy in this country, that grace was paid for with somebody else's blood ... don't take it for granted."

CHRIS PRATT: "God is real. You are imperfect. But there's a powerful force that designed you that way. Accept that, and you will have grace. And like the freedom we enjoy in this country, that grace was paid for with somebody else's blood ... don't take it for granted."

The Conservative Alternative

15,422 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Let me give everyone just a little common sense test. It may be that I retired from the United States Air Force, that the answer is crystal clear to me and maybe a bit more challenging for others. So the guy on the left is claiming to be the president of the United States of America. He claims his name is Joe Biden but we know Joe Biden is dead. He faced a military tribunal and was executed. So really do you really think that a president of the United States of America gets off a plane and gets into some random dudes vehicle? Only someone that doesn't know anything about the military would think such nonsense. Or are you someone that has a great deal of common Sense and critical thinking ability and can see this motorcade on the right and know that that's what a presidential motorcade looks like and that means the president is really in there. This so happened to be president Trump on his way to South Carolina rally. So is the real president on the left side or is the real president on the right side? This really should be a no-brainer but of course we know liberals absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt or no brainers they have no brains, they have no common sense, there are cognitive dissonance is all messed up, and they have zero critical thinking capabilities. By the way even former presidents don't have motorcades that look like that for anybody thinking that the excuse for it. So-called president gets in an Uber carrying his own luggage and people can't wake the hell up.

Let me give everyone just a little common sense test. It may be that I retired from the United States Air Force, that the answer is crystal clear to me and maybe a bit more challenging for others. So the guy on the left is claiming to be the president of the United States of America. He claims his name is Joe Biden but we know Joe Biden is dead. He faced a military tribunal and was executed. So really do you really think that a president of the United States of America gets off a plane and gets into some random dudes vehicle? Only someone that doesn't know anything about the military would think such nonsense. Or are you someone that has a great deal of common Sense and critical thinking ability and can see this motorcade on the right and know that that's what a presidential motorcade looks like and that means the president is really in there. This so happened to be president Trump on his way to South Carolina rally. So is the real president on the left side or is the real president on the right side? This really should be a no-brainer but of course we know liberals absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt or no brainers they have no brains, they have no common sense, there are cognitive dissonance is all messed up, and they have zero critical thinking capabilities. By the way even former presidents don't have motorcades that look like that for anybody thinking that the excuse for it. So-called president gets in an Uber carrying his own luggage and people can't wake the hell up.

Truth Awakening

1,755,751 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren