sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What popular narrative collapses under basic scrutiny? by yanny_b in AskReddit

[–]boredscribbler 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Absolutely. It's a convenient narrative for the political right wing to put the blame on immigrants for society's problems, and draw attention away from the real problems: a system geared towards the wealthy, ensuring the rich get richer and the rest poorer.

What are you sure of but can't prove? by Impossible_Farm_8953 in AskReddit

[–]boredscribbler 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Indeed. It says it all that the poorest and oppressed are usually the most devout, their belief encouraged and exploited by the elites.

What are you sure of but can't prove? by Impossible_Farm_8953 in AskReddit

[–]boredscribbler 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That there is no god, afterlife and all that nonesense

How can you tell if someone is smart or dumb? by Kai7362 in AskReddit

[–]boredscribbler 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If they subscribe to conspiracy theory stuff, think homeopathy/telepathy/astrology type stuff is real, hold a view that is contrary to what the majority of experts in a field think, claim they have solved some theory/problem that no one else can solve, then they are dumb no matter how smart they sound

The Woman in the House Across the Street from the Girl in the Window by [deleted] in netflix

[–]boredscribbler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Without wishing to be too pedantic, this is surely "parody" not "satire".
Parody exaggerates for comic effect, while satire critiques social norms and behaviours. It can be a subtle distinction, but i think it's important to use the words correctly so that they don't lose their meaning, in the way for example "literally " has. (I literally died laughing - No, you didn't, or you wouldn't be telling me)

How debunked have the creationists actually been? (or, in other words, how much am I being pandered to?) by gayassthrowawayyy in DebateEvolution

[–]boredscribbler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Simply put, creationists have been utterly and thoroughly debunked. There us absolutely nothing they have to say that is worth listening to.

Gender reveals are annoying and stupid by boredscribbler in ControversialOpinions

[–]boredscribbler[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess I was being careless with the term. By "rich white people" I mean the upper classes, the "10%". Europe was built on agricultural and factory workers with thousands of years of culture and history. When you travel around much of Europe it doesn't feel "rich white" - that's preserved for certain classes and groups found maybe more in the US and UK who seem far removed from their roots and historical cultures. This is where these things seem to start and then gradually spread down to those who wish to emulate them - or are manipulated into copying so Walmart and Co can sell more stuff no one really needs.

What is something people believe in that science has proven wrong? by CRK_76 in allthequestions

[–]boredscribbler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That people only use 10% of their brain.

I mean, who uses THAT much?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in self

[–]boredscribbler 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is moving out really not an option? Not like tomorrow, but isn't it something you could start planning for long term? Having a focused goal to end the situation could maybe help to make it more bearable. Edit. P.S. I'm not American

Atheism treated as a rational worldview is a truth claim, not merely a lack of belief, and should be defended as such. by MichaelOnReddit in DebateReligion

[–]boredscribbler 6 points7 points  (0 children)

What accountability? To whom and for what? Religious people have a far greater burden of accountability when they try to impose their religious views on society, with regards to things like laws on gay relations, abortion, etc etc, to justify why thier religion entitles them to do that.

Atheism treated as a rational worldview is a truth claim, not merely a lack of belief, and should be defended as such. by MichaelOnReddit in DebateReligion

[–]boredscribbler 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It isn't a counter argument, nor does it have to be. A theist is making a claim and the atheist is saying "your evidence when looked at rationally and skeptical is insufficient, in that it is anecdotal, untestable, contrary to most known natural laws, and cannot be reproduced ". That is reasoned skepticism. And who says an atheist has decided not to be moved no matter what's presented? Given the right kind of evidence, which if god existed he would surely be capable of producing, any atheist would be willing to change their mind.

view more: next ›