Fightingatheist, I'm so dissapointed in you...

[Lord T Hawkeye]

My guess is we probably have religion to thank for it on some level.  As Penn said: None of us would be here if it wasn't for sex.  WE NEED TO GET THAT INTO OUR HEADS!!

Oh yes, this Vogner fellow, does he have one single post where he doesn't spew curses like an angry chimpanzee?

[MrBogosity]

I think just the ones where he's preening to the praise of his flock.

[Virgil0211]

Wasn't nuclearnight, but a similar YouTuber jedimasterbooboo said that studies prove men who watch porn have less empathy than those who don't. My, my, MY, where to begin? I mean really, how do you "test" for empathy? Take 1,000 men who watch porn, 1,000 men who don't, and then see which group hands out less Valentine's cards? Also like has been said above, this doesn't even account for homosexual porn, or amateurs who do it all voluntarily for free and who trade their escapades with others. I subscribed to a good number of these channels because I like having a varied amount of opinions to learn from, but this anti-pornography shtick always leads to the idea of making men feel guilty for having a boner, and it has nothing to offer.

There's another possible reason that 'study' was probably bunk.

[Gumba Masta]

I think just the ones where he's preening to the praise of his flock.

Oh you're so right Father Killian.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

I think just the ones where he's preening to the praise of his flock.

You should see his responses to his critics.  He actually responded to me saying "Whatever mr strawman builder"

This is a grown man using 4th grade elementary school ground level arguments.  It would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic...

[Gumba Masta]

Yes, surely you never used that kind of response ever when a logicaly founded argument would've done it.

[Virgil0211]

Yes, surely you never used that kind of response ever when a logically founded argument would've done it.

Only when I've already made said logically founded argument and the recipient has ignored it in favor of repeating himself.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

I'll throw jabs in here and there but never will I use them as a substitute for evidence.

[Travis Retriever]

[yt]Za7OVjrxfV0[/yt]

MasterGhostKnight is at it again.

[Virgil0211]

[yt]Za7OVjrxfV0[/yt]

MasterGhostKnight is at it again.

Ho, boy. And the worst thing? I can't even comment on the damn thing. I think the sumbitch blocked me.

[Travis Retriever]

Ho, boy. And the worst thing? I can't even comment on the damn thing. I think the sumbitch blocked me.

Why am I not surprised?

[Virgil0211]

Why am I not surprised?

Ah, well. I guess it's for the best. Arguing with these idiots was starting to affect my health, anyway.

Here's the relevant section on Ad Hominems from the wiki page for anybody he hasn't blocked. Posted for ease of use.

Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem or a logical fallacy.[4][5][6][7][8]  The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed instead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker, not personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument or insults that stand alone.

I also love how he stated that ShaneDK was dismissing the argument based on its label, when all he was saying was that you shouldn't try changing the label. It is what it is.

I bet you I could p3wn this bastard simply by copying/pasting from wikipedia and the dictionary.

[Travis Retriever]

Ah, well. I guess it's for the best. Arguing with these idiots was starting to affect my health, anyway.

Here's the relevant section on Ad Hominems from the wiki page for anybody he hasn't blocked. Posted for ease of use.

Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem or a logical fallacy.[4][5][6][7][8]  The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed instead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker, not personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument or insults that stand alone.

I also love how he stated that ShaneDK was dismissing the argument based on its label, when all he was saying was that you shouldn't try changing the label. It is what it is.

I bet you I could p3wn this bastard simply by copying/pasting from wikipedia and the dictionary.

You can still rate his video though if you haven't already.
*hint hint*

[valvatica]

MasterGhostKnight made a complete fool of himself the first time around with his "how to pwn a political crackpot" videos. I know what it's like to have the urge to just bitch at your opponents, but if you've got nothing, it's better not to waste your time. Vogter steps into an arena he has no skill in, and then does the theme park equivalent of complaining of chest pains and demanding to get off the ride. There are signs posted for a reason while you're in line for the roller coaster.

I saw this kind of desperation a lot around April of last year when TAA and Thunderf00t were making HTWW known. He annoyed many, even me, but most of the critiques of his videos were laughable. TerraRising made a pathetic response labeled "How Lee Doren really works" which basically was a complaint that HTWW makes videos too fast. It was just sad. LadyAttis responded to TerraRising about this and pointed out what a lame accusation this was.

Everything said, the recent critiques of Shane's videos are really, really reaching. If you can't make an argument, better not to play passive-aggressive and complain when things don't go your way.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Gotta love these people.  Going on and on about how Shane spat on their holy grail when really all he did was point out that it's made of fool's gold.