I'm a Muslim, therefore I won't issue a business license to restaurants and grocery stores if they plan to sell pork products. I'm a Mormon, therefore I won't issue a liquor or tobacco license to bars or gas stations because those products are against my faith I'm a Hindu, therefore I won't issue a gun license or allow a military recruitment station to be set up because my religion is largely founded upon pacifism. I'm Amish. I won't allow your building permit because you plan to put plumbing and electricity in your house. I wonder if Mike Huckabee would stand up just as hard, tall, and proud for those positions.
+RyanReacts Newfrickinshow Right? I'm a Nihilist, therefore I won't employ any religious people to do any job that can or may issue anything to anyone. Welcome to the unemployment line, where my nihilist brethren will promptly tell you to piss off because they won't be issuing you assistance.
And this doesn't even exclude the fact that religious views can be easily exploitive; a person can make up a religion to pursue an agenda if we lived in this kind of society.
Atheists rule out a creator... But yet they put unproven eternal vacuums and multiverses in its place! Hilarious! Atheists believe in magic, without the magician!!
@@fairwarning007 They're saying that atheists believe in things we can't understand just like theists do. I don't think they know that no one actually claims that infinite space and multiverse theory are fact. Basically "Takes one to know one"
Attaching news clips to your video is not a violation of copyright. News shops do it all the time under fair use. However, it's a violation of "RUclips law". In "RUclips law" you get burned for any attachment that their crawlers detect *could* be a violation.
+thought2007 Totally agree! RUclips Content ID sucks for the video producer and is slanted to prevent THEM (RUclips) from getting sued - at the cost of the producer. Fair Use? Ha ha ha ha ha! they never heard of it! What is ironic is how UNEVENLY the "RUclips law" is applied! (In a way, this is a good thing or RUclips would be a wasteland of "kitten in a cup" videos - the only thing that they'd ever allow) Content ID is such a BAD system, There are SO many videos that violate the "RUclips law" and get away with it, while others get creamed within 30 seconds of a video posting. Example of how bad this gets, SONY got a DISNEY RUclips channel closed down for violating their copyright. Uh ... SONY OWNS freakin Disney! So SONY managed to SHUT THEMSELVES DOWN on RUclips! Way to go SONY! Protect yourselves right into oblivion!
If she doesn't want her signature to be on gay marriage licenses, she might want to get a job that doesn't involve signing gay marriage licenses. A muslim who doesn't want to sell alcohol probably shouldn't get a job at a liquor store. If she goes by god's authority, she doesn't get to have government authority. It's pretty simple, really.
+GeneticJulia Too much common sense in one comment! That sort of logic could blow that Kim Davis' mind. I have to say, common sense is one of the most important types of critical thinking lacking in today's society. It drives me nuts! BTW, brilliant comment, wish there were more people like you out there.
It's ok for her to not have her signature on marriage licences. If she was absent for whatever reason, then the county executive judge can issue them and they will carry a generic country clerk stamp. She asked for her signature to be removed in the court room and the judge did so. She or her lawyers realized that the martyrdom journey had come to an end so they had to move the goalposts and she freaked out at the solution she requested being granted. She said that generic stamp referred to her so it was actually not a solution. Eventually the legislature came back into session and made some changes for her but by that time her freak out had stopped and she said it wasn't necessary. But please, someone primary her in 2018 or run against her or her son. It's a pretty high paying job.
Man, so good to see a video from you. You're one of the people among TJ that helped me convert out of religion, always love your content and how you can voice stuff so flawlessly
+Livenderrr He wasn't defending violent behavior from minority groups he just said there are factors to why anyone would act violent also TJ lost some weight.
***** Again how is he a SJW when not only he makes fun of them but actually use factors when people show statistics. It seems like SJW is the ASJW word for racist.
+Livenderrr ah, spotted the AIU fanboy. Riddle me this, because TJ asked it before and no one had a good come back: When faced with the fact that the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men, how would you react if someone said: "Men being treated unfairly by the law? Oh, cry me a river, men just need to stop committing crimes."
nRXpAa8E6UML "You absolutely cannot treat someone who belongs to a certain group differently, just because that group of people statistically commits more crimes." No one has ever fucking said this. The regressive narrative is "don't call out black people for their insanely high level of violent crime rates because some cops are racist and the system treats them unfairly" which boils down to "we should all treat black people differently because black people are treated differently."
Go check out Jaclyn Glenns video on this..... she had 3 time the veiws but stole your exact argument, in some places, word for word......thought you should know.
+Theoretical Bullshit I wouldn't want to cause a problem, but I just found it odd that your arguments appeared in her video 3 days after yours was posted. more so than anything, I think you should take a look at her video and see what you think about it and proceed from there....I love her and her videos, but it seemed very odd and unfair if there truly was foul play here.
+Samantha Wood There are only so many things to say about this topic and any reasonable and logical person will come to these same ideas. I was more or less on the same page as Jacklyn and TB on this whole situation before watching their videos. Human are pattern-seeking animals so it only makes sense why you would see a connection.
+Theoretical Bullshit It's ABSOLUTE plagiarism. It's not the first time she has done this either. She even copied your "living under a rock" thing at the beginning. She used all of your hypothetical examples. Sometimes WORD FOR WORD. She cited the EXACT SAME MSNBC interview. She basically saw your vid and just copied it. I unsubbed and unfollowed her. She's a thief.
+Kristaps Vaivars No, BULLSHIT. She blatantly just copied him. She made ONLY the arguments he provides here using WORD FOR WORD his examples. She doesn't expand or elaborate on any of his ideas and she only uses his ideas, at times just lifting from his script. Don't give me this crap about 'only so many things can be said'--these two videos are practically identical. She's a thief.
If the Law says 'thou shalt' thou hast no reason to disagree. If one is employed by the government that made a Law one is duty bound to uphold and obey that Law. There are no excuses.
You're a bad-ass. The best atheist youtuber there is. In fact, I believe your arguments against religion are the strongest and most respectful I've seen in the atheist community.
I can't imagine what it would be like for a gay man working her job if he did the same thing to her: "Oh i'm sorry, I don't issue marriage licenses to a straight christian, it goes against my beliefs that men are sexy and women are icky." If that were to happen, this wouldn't have become anything really.
Oh yeah definitely. Then there would've been Christians saying things like "Gays can't give out marriage licenses because-" blah blah nonsense and bible whatever.
+Tina Kills i'm confused...so you're a Christian who thinks gay marriage is ok? Or you're a Christian who thinks gay marriage is wrong but you recognize the separation of church and state? Or are you a Christian by name but you don't really believe in a lot of the things from the bible?
Scott, Scott, Scott... When people like Huckabee say that they want religious freedom, they mean that they want _Christians_ to be able to freely do whatever they want. And by Christians they mean themselves and whomever incidentally agrees with them on something.
+Andrey Larionov (ShooterAndy) Well no....he wants *certain* Christians to be able to freely do whatever they want. He's against those dang liberal Christians forcing their beliefs on True Christians (TM).
+Andrey Larionov (ShooterAndy) But never those _other_ christians, who aren't true scotsmen for _reasons_. And then they passive-aggressively wonder out loud why we need a secular state. Its your your own goddamn protection, you fucking morons! Argh! It's so different christians who think you're hellbound don't get to tell YOU what to do either, you damn morons! I dunno about you but it gets rather tiring trying to defend the rights of people obsessed with their own destruction. At some point, if someone wants to commit suicide hard enough, there's no longer any point in stopping them. But their suicide will be ours, so we have to keep at it. Fucking argh.
At least she's not ruling your entire country and was prosecuted... Here in Iraq, those types of people are all around me and they rule the country. Be thankful guys for living in a secular world in which you can easily identify yourself as whatever you want! I'm an Atheist and it's really awful that I can't publicly identify myself as one.
I watched the interview with Mike Huckabee. I will never understand how anyone would not see how evasive he is being in regard to that question. You put it so clearly and with such undeniable logic I would be hard pressed to find even one of my stupider friends not able to see he's playing stupid so he doesn't have to answer the question. In my mind, he's being willfully deceptive because he knows he can't answer that question without putting his position in jeopardy. Would you please run for office wherever you live? It doesn't matter what you get elected to, we just need to balance out the BS a little. ;)
I feel I should post something relating to the content of your video, as opposed to my reaction of your reappearance. This is why I subscribed to this channel! You encapsulate everything that is swirling around in my head in such a coherent, streamlined way. Welcome back. Please don't take another 5 years.
+Overonator That's because to RUclips's content id system, the little guy is considered to be in the wrong by default. TYT is no longer the little guy.
+AntiCitizenX I know but RUclips errors on the side of the flawed logic of guilty until proven innocent in cases similar to these. Prove me wrong. I love to be proven wrong. It means that I learn.
+Ryan Swanson " Prove me wrong. I love to be proven wrong. It means that I learn." I am so going to steal that line and use it relentlessly against people who refuse to engage.
Ryan Swanson They will try to block your clip at first, but if you appeal on the grounds of fair use, then my understanding is that the burden of proof shifts back to the original copyright owner. I've had to deal with this exact sort of thing before, and I was allowed to upload shortly after.
Scott, you did great with this one. I'm so proud of you, both for your successful acting career and for your RUclips activist-vids. You're doing splendidly. At 57, I'm old enough to be your dad, and I surely would be proud to have you as a son. Keep up the good work. You're a pistol (and a hoot)! Big Texas-size ((HUG)) from Fort Worth... ;-)
An absolutely logical and cogent argument worthy of presentation before the Supreme Court. I have read through the original court decision, and even the precedent decisions leading up to it. I've also read the available documentation in the contempt decision (and remain bewildered as to why there haven't been sixty-plus similar cases and decisions); but, acknowledging one person can't catch everything and I undoubtedly have missed several, thus is an argument I have not seen and is an exemplary basis for a closing argument and summation, and a shame that numerous peoples have not been beaten around the head and shoulders with it as punishment for their arrogant hypocrisy! An extremely good job, one to be proud of, and I'm sorry I just barely became aware of it! It is one I'm going to salt away to be brought back out for appropriate use
I love your concatenation of circumstances which would put her in Limbo ( which, apparently doesn't exist anymore). By the way, did you notice that someone has snuck in and pinched all of your pictures from the frames? Nice to see you back and I hope to see more of your logic at work.
I love how this thing has completely blown up in the US. When we (the Netherlands) legalized same sex marriage back in 2001, we had a large amount of clerks refusing to issue marriage licenses based on religious principles. We simply created a temporary measure where these people were allowed to keep their jobs for up to two years (while finding a new job in the government), in return for appointing a sort of backup who would handle the same sex marriages. Problem solved. (Yes I realize that this position is an elected position in the US, which would prevent such a measure).
I was just today thinking of leaving a post to one of your videos saying that I would join your Patreon if you were to make one, if it would encourage you to make videos more often.
Welcome back! Now do we have to keep creating time-sensitive religiously-themed controversy to get you to do videos? Because we will, if that's what it takes.
I'm at 4:24 and wanted to point out that she did essentially answer that question. She claims that part of her reason for denying licenses is so gay people will see the error of their ways, and turn to God. She says she wishes people had done something similar for her when she was committing adultery. She of course ignores the fact that she is still committing adultery in the eyes of God because her first marriage is still valid biblically.
It absolutely amazes me the almost '1984' double-speak that Christians - especially American Christians do all the time. They do it when using faith as the reason people believe in evolution, they do it when they accuse science of being a religion, and now with persecution. This points to the worst thing about religion (in my opinion) and something that isn't talked about enough. Religion trains people to think badly and wishful thinking becomes equated with logic, feelings are equated with rational thought, and finding evidence to support pre-concieved notions and ignoring inconvenient facts, is a viable intellectual methodology. Christians, and religious people in general, are finally being called on the nonsense they've been laying down for centuries. I'm a 56 year old gay man that still suffers from the pariah status I had in high school where just being seen to know me was enough to bring a world of hate and humiliation down on yourself. I still have self worth issues and intimacy problems all because to know me was tantamount to social suicide in high school. While things are so much better now my partner died about a year and a half ago and after having been the primary, only non-professional, care giver the family felt that including me in the funeral would be an embarrassment. Sorry Christians but you have lousy hateful pointlessly cruel moral code that requires a scrub through logic and humanist ethics. God is no longer a good excuse to do or say anything and the bible is a joke.
Came here at Jaclyn Glenn's suggestion and glad that I did: you summed that up beautifully. Got yourself a subscriber (get the impression you're not going to flooding my inbox, right? ;-0 )
+Harold Weaver Smith That's cool bro. Did Jaclyn Glenn happen to also mention she plagiarized his video thus had to take her original video down after getting caught red handed?
Great to see you back. Hope this isn't an isolated event, your well articulated ideas are very much worth sharing. And of course, you're spot on about this whole Kim Davis debacle. MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski could have, once Huckster began to trot out that it's different with straight vs gay couples, switched the example to something else, perhaps a Muslim refusing to give a woman a driver's license. It felt like they were given free reign but only to a certain extent. Do the producers worry that if they're too hard on their guests, the guest won't return? Wouldn't Huckabee need them as much - if not a tad more - as they need him? Are there not enough wild-brained politicians they can call in his stead? His options for national camera face time is much smaller than theirs is to nutty politicians. Anyway, please don't stay away so long. We need all the well-spoken sane people we can get.
+Shangori I can't tell if that was sarcasm. In the off chance that it wasn't I have to point out that PewDiePie makes about $7 million a year just posting youtube videos.
Joshua Dunbar That's misinformation. He has sponsors and deals which make him much more money than his actual videos. RUclipsrs typically don't make much and only a few lucky sellouts get to strike deals.
+westwood500 _"...a few lucky sellouts..."_ So, some You Tubers managed to find a way to make a living doing what they want to do (entertain others on You Tube) and that makes them sellouts? I want to be a sellout. I want sponsors and to make deals to support me as I make comments on You Tube videos in my spare time.
Another finely worded gem from TB. The topic of freedom (and rights) is surprisingly controversial. In some discussions I've had with religious conservatives and/or libertarians, I've found that they often view "freedom" as synonymous with _personal_ freedom rather than _societal_. From that perspective, the highest degree of freedom seems to be whatever freedom appears naturally, without constraints or tinkering. While referring to democracy through expressions like "the tyranny of the majority" and talking about the principle of taxation as "theft", the proponents of this view have often praised the law of the jungle as the purest form of freedom (though not always in so many words). From that standpoint, any and all regulations imposed on you will unequivocally reduce your personal freedom. However, in my opinion, those are the conditions we - as a human society - have evolved away from by applying laws and regulations for _everyone to abide by on equal terms_. Thereby, everyones personal freedom is actually increased, by compromizing and reducing freedoms that are antisocial or destructive. Freedom is not something that appears naturally; at least not in a collective or societal sense. It must be carefully constructed, constantly tweaked and updated, unless we wish to revert to conditions best described as _survival of the fittest_.
Scott, so glad you have made a recent video. I know so many people have missed you. I really admire your work, and your contributions to making this a better world. I know its not easy. I have watched many of your videos, and your treatise on morality is my favorite. Your insights are inspiring, and having not seen new videos from you in some time, this was a wonderfully delightful surprise! Please keep up the good work! There will always be detractors, but we know truth and common sense prevails in time. I was so happy to log in to You Tube and see you there! Best wishes.
I miss the good old days when you posted fairly regularly... but I suppose some of us have a life and career to uphold. I'm glad to see you on the rare occasion when you show up back here.
Kim Davis's claim of religious persecution is entirely disingenuous. It's not about her religious freedom, but rather her desire to obstruct others' civil rights, and to show her contempt for homosexuals.
I have nothing against swearing, but I thank you for not swearing, because I can post this on my facebook and don't have to worry about swearing diverting the intention of the video.
glukolover My thoughts are that progressive liberals argue in one big echo chamber and rarely come up with original arguments. However, what Jaclyn did was blatant theft. She took his words, put them into her mouth and spit them back out into the camera for her sheepish RUclips audience of halfwits to eat up. What she did is completely disgraceful and she should be shamed out of existence in terms of having a RUclips career.
The Moral Crusader Did we even watch the same video? Besides rewording it, the arguments are still exactly the same as TYT. Funny that you bring up echo chambers, when the arguments are against a woman (Kim Davis) and her ilk who are the living embodiment of an echo chamber. (I am sensing projection here) There is nothing wrong with using the same argument when it's the correct one to use. You use the right tool for the job. Kim Davis is a vile piece of shit, I don't care who the messenger is.
glukolover **"Funny that you bring up echo chambers, when the arguments are against a woman (Kim Davis) and her ilk who are the living embodiment of an echo chamber."** There's a difference. There's a religious doctrine binding the religious right together and they pride themselves on having a binding ideology. Progressives pride themselves on being "independent thinkers" and being different from the right when in all reality, they're exactly the same in that aspect. That's what makes them hypocrites. Also, you guys are willing to call out Kim Davis as a "vile piece of shit" when the law suits you. But i didn't hear a PEEP from you liberals about the "rule of law" when Kate Steinly got murdered by an illegal because of San Francisco's "sanctuary city" policy that violated federal law. In fact, most of you defended San Francisco.
The Moral Crusader A: I didn't do anything, I'm not even particularly aware of the Kate Steinly story. Chances are it's apples and oranges, but I would need to know the details first. Which get's to my 2nd point. B: Being an "independent thinker" doesn't mean you can't think the same thing, come to the same conclusions on an issue as other people. I mean that's just plain fucking ludicrous. So every progressive must have totally alien ideas on any give issue. Is that really what your saying? Because no progressive would take that position, because it's fucking insane. (Also I'm using what I understand to be the American meaning of Progressive, despite it having a lot of baggage because the political landscape in the US is volatile clusterfuck) Being a independent thinker just means coming to your own conclusions, even if said conclusion ends up being a consensus. It's not what you think, it's how you think.
Whenever I see a news story about Kim Davis on Facebook, I'll post a question in the comments, asking Davis's supporters what other laws, court orders and/or job duties they think that elected officials (or anyone else) should be able to ignore, based their purported "deeply held religious belief". Never once have I received an answer to that question, unsurprisingly.
I had to dislike this video for false information, Muslim women can drive as they do in most Muslim countries,(turkey, Indonesia, Morocco) they don't in Saudi Arabia but that country doesn't represent the entire Muslim community, I'm really dissapointed in you, i taught you were smarter than this
+james fen Nothing about this video presented false information. It's a hypothetical about how people freely choose to interpret their own religion. Nothing in the Bible explicitly defines marriage as "one man, one woman," just as nothing in the Qu'ran or Hadith explicitly prohibits women from driving (obviously). Yet that doesn't stop Kim Davis, or the Muslim man in the hypothetical, from interpreting their religion thusly. Most American Christians disagree with Kim Davis, just as most American Muslims would disagree with the man in the hypothetical. That's exactly why the analogy works. If I had said "Most Muslims think women shouldn't drive," or, "Women are prohibited from driving according to Islamic scripture," *that* would have been false information.
+Theoretical Bullshit OK that makes sense, I made a mistake which is the last thing i would ever want to do, I can appreciate how frustrating this whole situation has been for you, I take my comment back
Huckabee was brilliant at playing dumb. He completely understood the nature of the question: Can another clerk refuse her a marriage license based on his/her religious beliefs pertaining to marriage? Astounding.
Brilliant assessment once again. I only wish the journalist had told Mike Hukabee that ""He had no business running for president for not knowing that Article 3 of the constitution gives the supreme court the authority to rule on marriage""
As a believer of God myself, I couldn't agree with you more. We as believers, have the freedom to believe what we want to believe, but it's not our right to impose our beliefs on those who don't believe what we believe. Today's christian community is trying to re-define religious freedom. Religious freedom means: the freedom to believe whatever religion you believe in. They are trying to add on to this definition by making it to where "if two men get married after knowing I don't approve of it, they are attacking my freedom of religion". Yet the Christian community are using their right to believe to deny the legal rights of someone else. They think they have this power. And when they get in trouble for denying someone their legal right, then they ultimately scream "my religious freedom is under attack!" It's these kind of people that "represent Christianity" that are why I no longer call myself a christian. Thank you for giving us your well-informed, education view on this subject!
You hit the nail on the head. Thank you for your clear and logical analysis of this situation and of so called "Christian persecution" in general. Discrimination is not a right, and forcing your religion on others is not "religious freedom".
The reality is NO ONE has a constitutional "right" to marriage. In fact, the constitution says nothing about the federal government having any say on marriage whether it's gay or straight. A case can be made for states being able to hand out marriage licenses but personally we can leave it up to private institutions to define marriage and hold ceremonies.
Wow, you're back! Glad to see you made another video! I usually don't keep a sub with inactive channels but your videos on Craig and the Kalam were just so fucking amazing I'd keep you on the shelf for decades just incase you throw out more gems like that. Amazing video, as usual, please keep them coming!
The freedom of conscience argument should conclude with her stepping down from her position as a government official, NOT with the government having to make exceptions for her religious beliefs. If she can`t in good conscience fulfill the requirements of her job, then well, no one is forcing her to keep that job
I think that that reporter understood perfectly well that her question wasn't being answered but Huckabee clearly wasn't even trying to hide that he wasn't interested in answering it. I'm not sure what you'd want her to do. Her counterexample works perfectly well but if Huckabee is going to be dishonest I don't think there is much she can do to make him a more honest person.
I totally admire the clarity of your thinking and the logical way you unfold your argument. I couldn't agree more with your point about privilege. A very enjoyable video with well reasoned message. Thank you
If Kim Davis worked for the government department that gave out hunting and fishing license, and someone wanted a license to catch SHELLFISH, would she sign off on THAT certificate?? Eating shellfish, according to the Bible, is a sin, too...
Hey! My favourite RUclipsr is back :) As usual quite brilliant and posted on Facebook since I don't think many Brits get or even care that much about this issue (they should). My one and only issue with your argument is that of rights; I no longer believe in "rights" per se because so many people, like Kim Davis (in the UK we have our own special brands of people who do much the same and not necessarily about religion), use them to promote their warped agendas but instead in "responsibilities". By that I mean that I believe it is my responsibility to give others, for example, the freedom of speech and it is that that effectively "generates" the right we all believe we have; in other words that right does not or cannot exist unless others "allow" us to exercise it. Sorry, but I'm nowhere near as eloquent as you :) Anyway welcome back :)
Just like a notary public. They are just affirming the signatures are of the actual parties.. They have no concern of the content of the papers they notarized.
The Clerk should be expected to hold up the laws as they were when they got elected. If the law has been changed to something that goes against their strongly held beliefs then they have every right not to be forced do something that to them will violate their beliefs.
Thanks for coming back, TB, even if it is only to clarify this extremely important issue. You are so well spoken, insightful and have a wonderful ability to cut through all the bullshit to get to the heart of the matter.
*_"what's being denied, is privilege"_*
there it is, in a nutshell.
+gothatfunk There were a couple of great nutshells in the final 90 seconds or so.
+NonStampCollector aw...I miss our RUclips community you guys...
+gothatfunk Word salad. Thank you for being brief
+gothatfunk Well, in a world of "rights", adults are allowed to believe certain things, while there is no psychologically adjusting being done.
I'm a Muslim, therefore I won't issue a business license to restaurants and grocery stores if they plan to sell pork products.
I'm a Mormon, therefore I won't issue a liquor or tobacco license to bars or gas stations because those products are against my faith
I'm a Hindu, therefore I won't issue a gun license or allow a military recruitment station to be set up because my religion is largely founded upon pacifism.
I'm Amish. I won't allow your building permit because you plan to put plumbing and electricity in your house.
I wonder if Mike Huckabee would stand up just as hard, tall, and proud for those positions.
+RyanReacts Newfrickinshow Of course he wouldn't. There's not as much money in them.
+RyanReacts Newfrickinshow Right? I'm a Nihilist, therefore I won't employ any religious people to do any job that can or may issue anything to anyone. Welcome to the unemployment line, where my nihilist brethren will promptly tell you to piss off because they won't be issuing you assistance.
And this doesn't even exclude the fact that religious views can be easily exploitive; a person can make up a religion to pursue an agenda if we lived in this kind of society.
bizzee1 so any Abrahamic faith lol
+RyanReacts Newfrickinshow Sounds metal as fuck, so that's alright :)
HE LIVES
Let us rejoice!
+King Crocoduck Risen from the dead?
+aido92 like jesus, yes.
+sina chiniforoush Jesus isn't real
+Suspiria10 He's not the Messiah! He's a very naughty boy!
Great points, eloquently stated. I hope this isn't the last we see from you for too long.
Atheists rule out a creator... But yet they put unproven eternal vacuums and multiverses in its place! Hilarious! Atheists believe in magic, without the magician!!
4 years later....
@@5tonyvvvv I realize your comment is over 2 years old, but still... what in the hell are you talking about???
@@fairwarning007 They're saying that atheists believe in things we can't understand just like theists do. I don't think they know that no one actually claims that infinite space and multiverse theory are fact.
Basically "Takes one to know one"
NonStamCollector What stopped you creating content? You were among six or so people who played significant roles in my deconversion.
You have a right to practice your religion, but you have no right to practice it on me.
Attaching news clips to your video is not a violation of copyright. News shops do it all the time under fair use. However, it's a violation of "RUclips law". In "RUclips law" you get burned for any attachment that their crawlers detect *could* be a violation.
+thought2007 Totally agree! RUclips Content ID sucks for the video producer and is slanted to prevent THEM (RUclips) from getting sued - at the cost of the producer. Fair Use? Ha ha ha ha ha! they never heard of it!
What is ironic is how UNEVENLY the "RUclips law" is applied! (In a way, this is a good thing or RUclips would be a wasteland of "kitten in a cup" videos - the only thing that they'd ever allow) Content ID is such a BAD system, There are SO many videos that violate the "RUclips law" and get away with it, while others get creamed within 30 seconds of a video posting.
Example of how bad this gets, SONY got a DISNEY RUclips channel closed down for violating their copyright. Uh ... SONY OWNS freakin Disney!
So SONY managed to SHUT THEMSELVES DOWN on RUclips! Way to go SONY! Protect yourselves right into oblivion!
If she doesn't want her signature to be on gay marriage licenses, she might want to get a job that doesn't involve signing gay marriage licenses. A muslim who doesn't want to sell alcohol probably shouldn't get a job at a liquor store. If she goes by god's authority, she doesn't get to have government authority. It's pretty simple, really.
She needs to get a job at Chick-fil-A
+Suspiria10, or at Hobby Lobby.
+Turandot29 I agree or Westboro Baptist church
+GeneticJulia
Too much common sense in one comment! That sort of logic could blow that Kim Davis' mind. I have to say, common sense is one of the most important types of critical thinking lacking in today's society. It drives me nuts!
BTW, brilliant comment, wish there were more people like you out there.
It's ok for her to not have her signature on marriage licences. If she was absent for whatever reason, then the county executive judge can issue them and they will carry a generic country clerk stamp. She asked for her signature to be removed in the court room and the judge did so. She or her lawyers realized that the martyrdom journey had come to an end so they had to move the goalposts and she freaked out at the solution she requested being granted. She said that generic stamp referred to her so it was actually not a solution.
Eventually the legislature came back into session and made some changes for her but by that time her freak out had stopped and she said it wasn't necessary.
But please, someone primary her in 2018 or run against her or her son. It's a pretty high paying job.
Man, so good to see a video from you. You're one of the people among TJ that helped me convert out of religion, always love your content and how you can voice stuff so flawlessly
+Livenderrr He wasn't defending violent behavior from minority groups he just said there are factors to why anyone would act violent also TJ lost some weight.
***** Again how is he a SJW when not only he makes fun of them but actually use factors when people show statistics. It seems like SJW is the ASJW word for racist.
+Livenderrr ah, spotted the AIU fanboy. Riddle me this, because TJ asked it before and no one had a good come back:
When faced with the fact that the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men, how would you react if someone said: "Men being treated unfairly by the law? Oh, cry me a river, men just need to stop committing crimes."
***** Also the war on drugs help
nRXpAa8E6UML "You absolutely cannot treat someone who belongs to a certain group differently, just because that group of people statistically commits more crimes."
No one has ever fucking said this. The regressive narrative is "don't call out black people for their insanely high level of violent crime rates because some cops are racist and the system treats them unfairly" which boils down to "we should all treat black people differently because black people are treated differently."
You're back! Every time I see you on my mother's TV I remember how much I miss your material.
+EdwardHowton He's on TV?
Fluffy Ribbit Yeah! The Bold and the Beautiful.
+Fluffy Ribbit Only on his mother's TV.
Yes. Scott Clifton is an actor.
"Mother's TV"
Kim Davis eats crayons.
The brown ones.
+Peach That's only because she claims to having stopped sniffing model glue after she got saved.
And something else
+Peach & just WUT does YOUR DIET Consist of????
+Suspiria10 ... And *too* much of something else.
Go check out Jaclyn Glenns video on this..... she had 3 time the veiws but stole your exact argument, in some places, word for word......thought you should know.
+Samantha Wood Are you saying it's a coincidence, or that you suspect her of plagiarism?
+Theoretical Bullshit I wouldn't want to cause a problem, but I just found it odd that your arguments appeared in her video 3 days after yours was posted. more so than anything, I think you should take a look at her video and see what you think about it and proceed from there....I love her and her videos, but it seemed very odd and unfair if there truly was foul play here.
+Samantha Wood There are only so many things to say about this topic and any reasonable and logical person will come to these same ideas. I was more or less on the same page as Jacklyn and TB on this whole situation before watching their videos. Human are pattern-seeking animals so it only makes sense why you would see a connection.
+Theoretical Bullshit It's ABSOLUTE plagiarism. It's not the first time she has done this either. She even copied your "living under a rock" thing at the beginning. She used all of your hypothetical examples. Sometimes WORD FOR WORD. She cited the EXACT SAME MSNBC interview. She basically saw your vid and just copied it. I unsubbed and unfollowed her. She's a thief.
+Kristaps Vaivars No, BULLSHIT. She blatantly just copied him. She made ONLY the arguments he provides here using WORD FOR WORD his examples. She doesn't expand or elaborate on any of his ideas and she only uses his ideas, at times just lifting from his script. Don't give me this crap about 'only so many things can be said'--these two videos are practically identical. She's a thief.
If the Law says 'thou shalt' thou hast no reason to disagree. If one is employed by the government that made a Law one is duty bound to uphold and obey that Law. There are no excuses.
Are you going to make videos more often?
+SuperDuper probably not :'(
+SuperDuper He makes tons of videos, don't you watch soap operas?
+SippinonMickeys true
This is what brings you back? There were so many! Still, welcome back, see you in a year? Lol
You're a bad-ass. The best atheist youtuber there is. In fact, I believe your arguments against religion are the strongest and most respectful I've seen in the atheist community.
I can't imagine what it would be like for a gay man working her job if he did the same thing to her:
"Oh i'm sorry, I don't issue marriage licenses to a straight christian, it goes against my beliefs that men are sexy and women are icky."
If that were to happen, this wouldn't have become anything really.
I have a feeling Kim Davis would've somehow managed to make a big deal about that. But, it would've been nice to see that actually happen.
Scynthia - The Violinist I mean that as in, the gay man would have immediately been fired instantly no doubt about it.
Oh yeah definitely. Then there would've been Christians saying things like "Gays can't give out marriage licenses because-" blah blah nonsense and bible whatever.
Scynthia - The Violinist Completely agreed. Christians always find some way to make themselves look the victim.
MetaLink Yep, that's the unfortunate reality we live in my friend.
"Thank God for Christian persecution." Can't wait for that to be used entirely out of context.
i'm so glad you posted again! i'm a Christian but i agree 100%. i hope you can find the time to upload more. the internet needs you.
+Tina Kills i'm confused...so you're a Christian who thinks gay marriage is ok? Or you're a Christian who thinks gay marriage is wrong but you recognize the separation of church and state? Or are you a Christian by name but you don't really believe in a lot of the things from the bible?
"Did you watch Scott Clifton's thing on Kim Davis"
"No"
"You should watch it, it's good"
"Just gimme the Clift notes....eh..eh..."
+Houston Davis Points.
Theoretical Bullshit It was all my wife, she loves puns lol
Scott, Scott, Scott... When people like Huckabee say that they want religious freedom, they mean that they want _Christians_ to be able to freely do whatever they want. And by Christians they mean themselves and whomever incidentally agrees with them on something.
+Andrey Larionov (ShooterAndy)
Well no....he wants *certain* Christians to be able to freely do whatever they want. He's against those dang liberal Christians forcing their beliefs on True Christians (TM).
+Andrey Larionov (ShooterAndy) But never those _other_ christians, who aren't true scotsmen for _reasons_.
And then they passive-aggressively wonder out loud why we need a secular state. Its your your own goddamn protection, you fucking morons! Argh! It's so different christians who think you're hellbound don't get to tell YOU what to do either, you damn morons!
I dunno about you but it gets rather tiring trying to defend the rights of people obsessed with their own destruction. At some point, if someone wants to commit suicide hard enough, there's no longer any point in stopping them. But their suicide will be ours, so we have to keep at it. Fucking argh.
*****
That's what I said, yeah. Only I clarified that True Christians are those who agree with the person describing who True Christians are to you.
In short, it's a cherry picking fallacy.
At least she's not ruling your entire country and was prosecuted... Here in Iraq, those types of people are all around me and they rule the country. Be thankful guys for living in a secular world in which you can easily identify yourself as whatever you want! I'm an Atheist and it's really awful that I can't publicly identify myself as one.
Well… I believe marriage is none of the business of the government in the first place.
YOUR ALIVE!!! Please don't ever leave again, I might not be able to handle it again.
+Slizzard73 Did you see the video?
Spot on. Kim's position doesn't pass the reciprocation test. It's a presumption of privilege.
I watched the interview with Mike Huckabee. I will never understand how anyone would not see how evasive he is being in regard to that question. You put it so clearly and with such undeniable logic I would be hard pressed to find even one of my stupider friends not able to see he's playing stupid so he doesn't have to answer the question. In my mind, he's being willfully deceptive because he knows he can't answer that question without putting his position in jeopardy.
Would you please run for office wherever you live? It doesn't matter what you get elected to, we just need to balance out the BS a little. ;)
How have I never seen or heard of this smart, insanely beautiful man up until now? *SUBSCRIBES*
I feel I should post something relating to the content of your video, as opposed to my reaction of your reappearance. This is why I subscribed to this channel! You encapsulate everything that is swirling around in my head in such a coherent, streamlined way. Welcome back. Please don't take another 5 years.
I missed you so much
I came back to this after years, and it still thrills me. Thanks
About your video being blocked. I see TYT Network and otherz take clips from that Morning Joe episode and their videos are not being blocked.
+Overonator That's because to RUclips's content id system, the little guy is considered to be in the wrong by default. TYT is no longer the little guy.
+Overonator
You can always just appeal the block.
+AntiCitizenX I know but RUclips errors on the side of the flawed logic of guilty until proven innocent in cases similar to these. Prove me wrong. I love to be proven wrong. It means that I learn.
+Ryan Swanson
" Prove me wrong. I love to be proven wrong. It means that I learn."
I am so going to steal that line and use it relentlessly against people who refuse to engage.
Ryan Swanson
They will try to block your clip at first, but if you appeal on the grounds of fair use, then my understanding is that the burden of proof shifts back to the original copyright owner. I've had to deal with this exact sort of thing before, and I was allowed to upload shortly after.
Scott, you did great with this one. I'm so proud of you, both for your successful acting career and for your RUclips activist-vids. You're doing splendidly. At 57, I'm old enough to be your dad, and I surely would be proud to have you as a son. Keep up the good work. You're a pistol (and a hoot)! Big Texas-size ((HUG)) from Fort Worth... ;-)
An absolutely logical and cogent argument worthy of presentation before the Supreme Court.
I have read through the original court decision, and even the precedent decisions leading up to it. I've also read the available documentation in the contempt decision (and remain bewildered as to why there haven't been sixty-plus similar cases and decisions); but, acknowledging one person can't catch everything and I undoubtedly have missed several, thus is an argument I have not seen and is an exemplary basis for a closing argument and summation, and a shame that numerous peoples have not been beaten around the head and shoulders with it as punishment for their arrogant hypocrisy!
An extremely good job, one to be proud of, and I'm sorry I just barely became aware of it! It is one I'm going to salt away to be brought back out for appropriate use
My parents were one of the first interracial couples to get married in Massachusetts so I totes get it.
I love your concatenation of circumstances which would put her in Limbo ( which, apparently doesn't exist anymore). By the way, did you notice that someone has snuck in and pinched all of your pictures from the frames? Nice to see you back and I hope to see more of your logic at work.
Made my day.
I love how this thing has completely blown up in the US. When we (the Netherlands) legalized same sex marriage back in 2001, we had a large amount of clerks refusing to issue marriage licenses based on religious principles. We simply created a temporary measure where these people were allowed to keep their jobs for up to two years (while finding a new job in the government), in return for appointing a sort of backup who would handle the same sex marriages. Problem solved. (Yes I realize that this position is an elected position in the US, which would prevent such a measure).
Who else came here from Jaclyn glenn?
@8:55 Awesome beginning for a joke: "Kim Davis goes to the DMV..."
A DUCK! IT'S A DUCK!
She's annoying she should have quietly quit....she just wants attention
I was just today thinking of leaving a post to one of your videos saying that I would join your Patreon if you were to make one, if it would encourage you to make videos more often.
FINALLY YOU POST ❤️
Welcome back! Now do we have to keep creating time-sensitive religiously-themed controversy to get you to do videos?
Because we will, if that's what it takes.
I'm at 4:24 and wanted to point out that she did essentially answer that question. She claims that part of her reason for denying licenses is so gay people will see the error of their ways, and turn to God. She says she wishes people had done something similar for her when she was committing adultery. She of course ignores the fact that she is still committing adultery in the eyes of God because her first marriage is still valid biblically.
It absolutely amazes me the almost '1984' double-speak that Christians - especially American Christians do all the time. They do it when using faith as the reason people believe in evolution, they do it when they accuse science of being a religion, and now with persecution.
This points to the worst thing about religion (in my opinion) and something that isn't talked about enough. Religion trains people to think badly and wishful thinking becomes equated with logic, feelings are equated with rational thought, and finding evidence to support pre-concieved notions and ignoring inconvenient facts, is a viable intellectual methodology.
Christians, and religious people in general, are finally being called on the nonsense they've been laying down for centuries. I'm a 56 year old gay man that still suffers from the pariah status I had in high school where just being seen to know me was enough to bring a world of hate and humiliation down on yourself. I still have self worth issues and intimacy problems all because to know me was tantamount to social suicide in high school.
While things are so much better now my partner died about a year and a half ago and after having been the primary, only non-professional, care giver the family felt that including me in the funeral would be an embarrassment. Sorry Christians but you have lousy hateful pointlessly cruel moral code that requires a scrub through logic and humanist ethics. God is no longer a good excuse to do or say anything and the bible is a joke.
Thumbing up before watching...
+AakeTraak Thumbing up my own comment
Came here at Jaclyn Glenn's suggestion and glad that I did: you summed that up beautifully. Got yourself a subscriber (get the impression you're not going to flooding my inbox, right? ;-0 )
+Harold Weaver Smith That's cool bro. Did Jaclyn Glenn happen to also mention she plagiarized his video thus had to take her original video down after getting caught red handed?
Great to see you back. Hope this isn't an isolated event, your well articulated ideas are very much worth sharing.
And of course, you're spot on about this whole Kim Davis debacle. MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski could have, once Huckster began to trot out that it's different with straight vs gay couples, switched the example to something else, perhaps a Muslim refusing to give a woman a driver's license. It felt like they were given free reign but only to a certain extent. Do the producers worry that if they're too hard on their guests, the guest won't return?
Wouldn't Huckabee need them as much - if not a tad more - as they need him? Are there not enough wild-brained politicians they can call in his stead? His options for national camera face time is much smaller than theirs is to nutty politicians.
Anyway, please don't stay away so long. We need all the well-spoken sane people we can get.
WHAT YEAR IS THIS?
I've had to start watching that soap opera you're in to make up for the fact that you basically left RUclips. WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?
Being a star probably takes up a lot of time. I cant blame him. its not like posting youtube videos pays the bills in any stable way
+Shangori I can't tell if that was sarcasm. In the off chance that it wasn't I have to point out that PewDiePie makes about $7 million a year just posting youtube videos.
Joshua Dunbar
So, ONE person earning a shitload means everyone should be able to? The guy works his ass off
Joshua Dunbar That's misinformation. He has sponsors and deals which make him much more money than his actual videos. RUclipsrs typically don't make much and only a few lucky sellouts get to strike deals.
+westwood500 _"...a few lucky sellouts..."_
So, some You Tubers managed to find a way to make a living doing what they want to do (entertain others on You Tube) and that makes them sellouts?
I want to be a sellout. I want sponsors and to make deals to support me as I make comments on You Tube videos in my spare time.
Another finely worded gem from TB.
The topic of freedom (and rights) is surprisingly controversial. In some discussions I've had with religious conservatives and/or libertarians, I've found that they often view "freedom" as synonymous with _personal_ freedom rather than _societal_. From that perspective, the highest degree of freedom seems to be whatever freedom appears naturally, without constraints or tinkering. While referring to democracy through expressions like "the tyranny of the majority" and talking about the principle of taxation as "theft", the proponents of this view have often praised the law of the jungle as the purest form of freedom (though not always in so many words). From that standpoint, any and all regulations imposed on you will unequivocally reduce your personal freedom.
However, in my opinion, those are the conditions we - as a human society - have evolved away from by applying laws and regulations for _everyone to abide by on equal terms_. Thereby, everyones personal freedom is actually increased, by compromizing and reducing freedoms that are antisocial or destructive.
Freedom is not something that appears naturally; at least not in a collective or societal sense. It must be carefully constructed, constantly tweaked and updated, unless we wish to revert to conditions best described as _survival of the fittest_.
i see your vampirism is still keeping you forever young
This is why I stay subscribed despite the long absence. Brilliant insight that is elegantly stated.
omg you're back!!
Scott, so glad you have made a recent video. I know so many people have missed you. I really admire your work, and your contributions to making this a better world. I know its not easy. I have watched many of your videos, and your treatise on morality is my favorite. Your insights are inspiring, and having not seen new videos from you in some time, this was a wonderfully delightful surprise! Please keep up the good work! There will always be detractors, but we know truth and common sense prevails in time. I was so happy to log in to You Tube and see you there! Best wishes.
I miss the good old days when you posted fairly regularly... but I suppose some of us have a life and career to uphold. I'm glad to see you on the rare occasion when you show up back here.
You're alive!
Kim Davis's claim of religious persecution is entirely disingenuous. It's not about her religious freedom, but rather her desire to obstruct others' civil rights, and to show her contempt for homosexuals.
THANK YOU! I will watch a weeks worth of your soap opera now. I've saying and thinking very similar since this whole mess began!
Holy shit.
I have nothing against swearing, but I thank you for not swearing, because I can post this on my facebook and don't have to worry about swearing diverting the intention of the video.
~ Calm & Easy ~ Thank You
What do you think about Jaclyn Glenn blatantly copying your video?
+The Moral Crusader What do you think of TB here copying the same arguments as TYT?
(who did so days previously)
glukolover My thoughts are that progressive liberals argue in one big echo chamber and rarely come up with original arguments. However, what Jaclyn did was blatant theft. She took his words, put them into her mouth and spit them back out into the camera for her sheepish RUclips audience of halfwits to eat up. What she did is completely disgraceful and she should be shamed out of existence in terms of having a RUclips career.
The Moral Crusader Did we even watch the same video? Besides rewording it, the arguments are still exactly the same as TYT.
Funny that you bring up echo chambers, when the arguments are against a woman (Kim Davis) and her ilk who are the living embodiment of an echo chamber.
(I am sensing projection here)
There is nothing wrong with using the same argument when it's the correct one to use.
You use the right tool for the job.
Kim Davis is a vile piece of shit, I don't care who the messenger is.
glukolover **"Funny that you bring up echo chambers, when the arguments are against a woman (Kim Davis) and her ilk who are the living embodiment of an echo chamber."**
There's a difference. There's a religious doctrine binding the religious right together and they pride themselves on having a binding ideology. Progressives pride themselves on being "independent thinkers" and being different from the right when in all reality, they're exactly the same in that aspect. That's what makes them hypocrites.
Also, you guys are willing to call out Kim Davis as a "vile piece of shit" when the law suits you. But i didn't hear a PEEP from you liberals about the "rule of law" when Kate Steinly got murdered by an illegal because of San Francisco's "sanctuary city" policy that violated federal law. In fact, most of you defended San Francisco.
The Moral Crusader A: I didn't do anything, I'm not even particularly aware of the Kate Steinly story. Chances are it's apples and oranges, but I would need to know the details first.
Which get's to my 2nd point.
B: Being an "independent thinker" doesn't mean you can't think the same thing, come to the same conclusions on an issue as other people.
I mean that's just plain fucking ludicrous.
So every progressive must have totally alien ideas on any give issue.
Is that really what your saying? Because no progressive would take that position, because it's fucking insane.
(Also I'm using what I understand to be the American meaning of Progressive, despite it having a lot of baggage because the political landscape in the US is volatile clusterfuck)
Being a independent thinker just means coming to your own conclusions, even if said conclusion ends up being a consensus.
It's not what you think, it's how you think.
Looks like Christmas arrived early this year
Whenever I see a news story about Kim Davis on Facebook, I'll post a question in the comments, asking Davis's supporters what other laws, court orders and/or job duties they think that elected officials (or anyone else) should be able to ignore, based their purported "deeply held religious belief". Never once have I received an answer to that question, unsurprisingly.
YOU HAVE RETURNED
Glad to see you back and Thank you for this great video! ^_^
Hope you don't disappear for too long again, because we miss you! hehe
Of course Kim Davis married 4 times, she did not want to make cousins jealous for choosing just one favorite to get married to. South!
Where did you go man. You're the best.
Probably a male model now....
Excellent video! Glad to see your and hear your thoughts after such a long absence.
Good to see you again.
So... see you in a year, give or take?
I am so happy to see you back, TBS - even if it is just for a short remark regarding current events.
You have not been forgotten, just missed.
Dude you totally ripped off Jaclyn Glenn's material.
I had to dislike this video for false information, Muslim women can drive as they do in most Muslim countries,(turkey, Indonesia, Morocco) they don't in Saudi Arabia but that country doesn't represent the entire Muslim community, I'm really dissapointed in you, i taught you were smarter than this
+james fen He watches fox news, what do you think
Nour Din
Sadly i have to agree, his videos are still good
+james fen Nothing about this video presented false information. It's a hypothetical about how people freely choose to interpret their own religion. Nothing in the Bible explicitly defines marriage as "one man, one woman," just as nothing in the Qu'ran or Hadith explicitly prohibits women from driving (obviously). Yet that doesn't stop Kim Davis, or the Muslim man in the hypothetical, from interpreting their religion thusly. Most American Christians disagree with Kim Davis, just as most American Muslims would disagree with the man in the hypothetical. That's exactly why the analogy works.
If I had said "Most Muslims think women shouldn't drive," or, "Women are prohibited from driving according to Islamic scripture," *that* would have been false information.
+Theoretical Bullshit OK that makes sense, I made a mistake which is the last thing i would ever want to do, I can appreciate how frustrating this whole situation has been for you, I take my comment back
Theoretical Bullshit
So do you watch fox news
Huckabee was brilliant at playing dumb. He completely understood the nature of the question: Can another clerk refuse her a marriage license based on his/her religious beliefs pertaining to marriage? Astounding.
Brilliant assessment once again.
I only wish the journalist had told Mike Hukabee that ""He had no business running for president for not knowing that Article 3 of the constitution gives the supreme court the authority to rule on marriage""
'Thank God for Christian persecution' is officially my new motto. 😇🙌🙏👍
+J. J. Abrahams
I'm loving the phrase - "Christian Sharia" as my thought meme.
Holy shit! You're alive?
As a believer of God myself, I couldn't agree with you more. We as believers, have the freedom to believe what we want to believe, but it's not our right to impose our beliefs on those who don't believe what we believe. Today's christian community is trying to re-define religious freedom. Religious freedom means: the freedom to believe whatever religion you believe in. They are trying to add on to this definition by making it to where "if two men get married after knowing I don't approve of it, they are attacking my freedom of religion". Yet the Christian community are using their right to believe to deny the legal rights of someone else. They think they have this power. And when they get in trouble for denying someone their legal right, then they ultimately scream "my religious freedom is under attack!" It's these kind of people that "represent Christianity" that are why I no longer call myself a christian. Thank you for giving us your well-informed, education view on this subject!
God DAMN! Someone call the police, because I just saw a ruggedly handsome dude slaughter Kim Davis and brutalize Mike Huckabee.
Holy shit you came back? What's up?
You hit the nail on the head. Thank you for your clear and logical analysis of this situation and of so called "Christian persecution" in general. Discrimination is not a right, and forcing your religion on others is not "religious freedom".
I'm scared that people like this still exists
I just enjoy looking at you.
The reality is NO ONE has a constitutional "right" to marriage. In fact, the constitution says nothing about the federal government having any say on marriage whether it's gay or straight. A case can be made for states being able to hand out marriage licenses but personally we can leave it up to private institutions to define marriage and hold ceremonies.
Holy shit -- long time no see!
Wow, you're back! Glad to see you made another video! I usually don't keep a sub with inactive channels but your videos on Craig and the Kalam were just so fucking amazing I'd keep you on the shelf for decades just incase you throw out more gems like that.
Amazing video, as usual, please keep them coming!
The freedom of conscience argument should conclude with her stepping down from her position as a government official, NOT with the government having to make exceptions for her religious beliefs.
If she can`t in good conscience fulfill the requirements of her job, then well, no one is forcing her to keep that job
Amazing. Well said. Thank you. 🤗
I think that that reporter understood perfectly well that her question wasn't being answered but Huckabee clearly wasn't even trying to hide that he wasn't interested in answering it. I'm not sure what you'd want her to do. Her counterexample works perfectly well but if Huckabee is going to be dishonest I don't think there is much she can do to make him a more honest person.
Haven't been on in forever is understating it! I'd forgotten you exist, man. Welcome back.
I totally admire the clarity of your thinking and the logical way you unfold your argument. I couldn't agree more with your point about privilege. A very enjoyable video with well reasoned message. Thank you
If Kim Davis worked for the government department that gave out hunting and fishing license, and someone wanted a license to catch SHELLFISH, would she sign off on THAT certificate??
Eating shellfish, according to the Bible, is a sin, too...
I'm paying attention, I swear. But the fact that this guy looks identical to Starlord makes me really happy.
Hey! My favourite RUclipsr is back :)
As usual quite brilliant and posted on Facebook since I don't think many Brits get or even care that much about this issue (they should). My one and only issue with your argument is that of rights; I no longer believe in "rights" per se because so many people, like Kim Davis (in the UK we have our own special brands of people who do much the same and not necessarily about religion), use them to promote their warped agendas but instead in "responsibilities". By that I mean that I believe it is my responsibility to give others, for example, the freedom of speech and it is that that effectively "generates" the right we all believe we have; in other words that right does not or cannot exist unless others "allow" us to exercise it. Sorry, but I'm nowhere near as eloquent as you :)
Anyway welcome back :)
Just like a notary public. They are just affirming the signatures are of the actual parties.. They have no concern of the content of the papers they notarized.
Dude! Missed you! Was super excited to this this in my sub box today! Don't wait SOOOO long to post again! We need your voice out there!
+presfunk2028 He is to busy with things like the bold and the beautiful.
+Nathan Wubs yes I know. I follow his career.
The Clerk should be expected to hold up the laws as they were when they got elected.
If the law has been changed to something that goes against their strongly held beliefs then they have every right not to be forced do something that to them will violate their beliefs.
Thanks for coming back, TB, even if it is only to clarify this extremely important issue. You are so well spoken, insightful and have a wonderful ability to cut through all the bullshit to get to the heart of the matter.
Thanks for coming back. Great video.