Hey guys, here's a quick experiment please oblige me a bit;

I'm quite interested about how two different people can observe the same thing and yet come to two different conclusions on the same thing

Please watch the video below and tell us your thoughts. Which parts of it feel most compelling to you and why?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc


Knowing me, you'll probably have rightly guessed what I think of it however I'll share my views later after a few people would have shared theirs. The reason is so that we can focus more on the video itself than on responding to comments.

I stopped watching at 2:25, i couldnt help but notice that even Richard Dawkins is NOT sure that God does not exist. Why is he uncomfortable just stating that God doesnt exist and moving on? I think this strikes at the heart of why atheists "violently" push their ideas at all costs. Deep down, there is that gnawing nervousness... that just maybe....

davidylan: I stopped watching at 2:25, i couldnt help but notice that even Richard Dawkins is NOT sure that God does not exist. Why is he uncomfortable just stating that God doesnt exist and moving on? I think this strikes at the heart of why atheists "violently" push their ideas at all costs. Deep down, there is that gnawing nervousness... that just maybe....

Please Davidlyan finish the video. I believe you'll find it VERY interesting especially since his expertise is in your field.

This man is closer to accepting God than people think.

It is very likely that he knows that God exists but won't publicly accept due to pride.

He must be wondering: "How would the headlines go?"

People like this deceive the less clever ones into rejecting God, then end up turning to God on their death beds.

...There have been many like that.

davidylan: I stopped watching at 2:25, i couldnt help but notice that even Richard Dawkins is NOT sure that God does not exist. Why is he uncomfortable just stating that God doesnt exist and moving on? I think this strikes at the heart of why atheists "violently" push their ideas at all costs. Deep down, there is that gnawing nervousness... that just maybe....

He said he is 99% sure god doesn't exist. . .How then can you say he is not sure god does not exist. . .IMO he was very honest in the interview, he cleary stated he did not know when asked about things he did not know and gave room for other possibilities. . .If the tables were turned and Ben Stein was being asked the questions, he will start telling you that a god exist because some primitive men that lived thousands of years ago who thought that all humans descended from one man and one woman said so in their very tribal and mythical stories. . .Ask them for evidence for such god and they begin to start crying and singing. . .

@ OP

I think Dawkins was quite honest in the interview, gave his opinions and was honest to admit he didn't know instead of stating obvious lies, mythology and fiction as facts the way the religionist will do. . .Ask Ben Stein the same questions and all you will get will be "I know god exist because some unknown people said so in a book". . . . bla bla bla. . .

italo: This man is closer to accepting God than people think.

It is very likely that he knows that God exists but won't publicly accept due to pride.

He must be wondering: "How would the headlines go?"

People like this deceive the less clever ones into rejecting God, then end up turning to God on their death beds.

...There have been many like that.

Which god is he closer to accepting? Allah, Brhama, Shivah, Panku, Yahweh? Which god exactly?. . .

So i decided to watch the entire video as Anony suggested and i will start with these general observations...

1. If this man is the reason most atheists consider themselves full of logic and reason... then really i just have to shake my head in pity.
2. Even Ben Stein noted the BLEEDING OBVIOUS - Richard Dawkins AGREES that some form of intelligent design was REQUIRED to create the type of complexity that we see in nature today (watch from 4:00)... his only problem really isnt about intelligent design JUST CERTAIN TYPES OF DESIGNERS SUCH AS GOD!

The problem with Richard Dawkins is quite obvious, he hates God QED. Every other argument is an excuse to wipe God out of the equation. It is amazing that someone who mocks christians for placing blind faith in myths is fumbling in the dark with ridiculous myths such as "some super race somewhere that evolved in another planet by some darwinian mechanism and then seeded our planet with life...". Incredible! For someone who insists on science, logic and reason... the above explanation for life (that he honestly admits he cannot prove even though he keeps bleating at christians to prove God exists) is an exercise in eye-popping demagoguery.

Note how very little confidence he himself has in the idea that somehow life is merely a product of some self-replicating DNA... I suppose as a scientist himself, he understands how unserious that notion is. We fumble around with RNA molecules all day in the lab, no serious scientist worth his salt believes we can create life our of primordial soup.

mazaje:

He said he is 99% sure god doesn't exist. . .How then can you say he is not sure god does not exist. . .IMO he was very honest in the interview, he cleary stated he did not know when asked about things he did not know and gave room for other possibilities. . .If the tables were turned and Sam Stein was being asked the questions, he will start telling you that a god exist because some primitive men that lived thousands of years ago who thought that all humans descended from one man and one woman said so in their very tribal and mythical stories. . .Ask them for evidence for such god and they begin to start crying and singing. . .

Your post is an exercise in unserious mental gymnastics. Dawkins introduces that 1% seed of doubt that he is not fully sure that God does not exist... so how exactly can you say he is sure of what he is saying? The dictionary definition of the word "sure" states - Confident in what one thinks or knows; having no doubt that one is right:. Unless statistics has lost its meaning... a 99% confidence interval means there is a 1% chance that our observed value is NOT the true value. So to say that he is "sure" that God does not exist makes a mockery of logic.

The rest of your post was irrelevant to the issue. Ben Stein isnt the one on the spot here.

Dawkins was asked for evidence of his ideas of how life began on earth... well his answers were no better than what one would expect from a 5-yr old. You can call that crying or singing too.

mazaje:
@ OP

I think Dawkins was quite honest in the interview, gave his opinions and was honest to admit he didn't know instead of stating obvious lies, mythology and fiction as facts the way the religionist will do. . .Ask Sam Stein the same questions and all you will get will be "I know god exist because some unknown people said so in a book". . . . bla bla bla. . .

This is a joke. Please watch from 4:0 and watch Dawkins waffling about speculative "myths".

davidylan: So i decided to watch the entire video as Anony suggested and i will start with these general observations...

1. If this man is the reason most atheists consider themselves full of logic and reason... then really i just have to shake my head in pity.
2. Even Ben Stein noted the BLEEDING OBVIOUS - Richard Dawkins AGREES that some form of intelligent design was REQUIRED to create the type of complexity that we see in nature today (watch from 4:00)... his only problem really isnt about intelligent design JUST CERTAIN TYPES OF DESIGNERS SUCH AS GOD!

It is the logic that you espouse that is actually PITIFUL in real life. . .One minute you claim with ALL certainty that your god exist and can either do this or that or actually does this or that but when asked for SPECIFIC evidence for the god you shout and claim exist, you begin to cry and say that others can NOT prove their own assertions. . .Who then is fooling who, you who go around claiming what you know has no evidence for even though you claim evidence for it exist or he who gives room for all kinds of natural possibilities because the supernatural has never been shown to exist any where. . .

The problem with Richard Dawkins is quite obvious, he hates God QED. Every other argument is an excuse to wipe God out of the equation. It is amazing that someone who mocks christians for placing blind faith in myths is fumbling in the dark with ridiculous myths such as "some super race somewhere that evolved in another planet by some darwinian mechanism and then seeded our planet with life...". Incredible! For someone who insists on science, logic and reason... the above explanation for life (that he honestly admits he cannot prove even though he keeps bleating at christians to prove God exists) is an exercise in eye-popping demagoguery.

He hates god?. . .Here you are talking about a specific god which is the god of the bible as if it exist with evidence to back it up. . .Now your bible god as been reduced to intelligent design and what we see around instead of the self evident god that talks to people and makes himself known to their through interacting with them. . .The bible does NOT talk about god in a subtle manner, it talks about god as a person that can be interacted with, spoken to, a dominant force that walks all over the earth, that speaks, talks, acts and is self evident not the subtle god is intelligent desig you guys are now portraying. . .

Note how very little confidence he himself has in the idea that somehow life is merely a product of some self-replicating DNA... I suppose as a scientist himself, he understands how unserious that notion is. We fumble around with RNA molecules all day in the lab, no serious scientist worth his salt believes we can create life our of primordial soup.

Ok, even if we are to assume that life was created. . .Did any god tell you he created life alone?. . .How can we know that your own version of god created life and not some other version of god. It is OK to speculate and AGREE that you are speculating. . .But when you claim to KNOW for sure then be prepared to give evidence for your assertions. . .

davidylan:

Your post is an exercise in unserious mental gymnastics. Dawkins introduces that 1% seed of doubt that he is not fully sure that God does not exist... so how exactly can you say he is sure of what he is saying? The dictionary definition of the word "sure" states - Confident in what one thinks or knows; having no doubt that one is right:. Unless statistics has lost its meaning... a 99% confidence interval means there is a 1% chance that our observed value is NOT the true value. So to say that he is "sure" that God does not exist makes a mockery of logic.

The rest of your post was irrelevant to the issue. Ben Stein isnt the one on the spot here.

Dawkins was asked for evidence of his ideas of how life began on earth... well his answers were no better than what one would expect from a 5-yr old. You can call that crying or singing too.



This is a joke. Please watch from 4:0 and watch Dawkins waffling about speculative "myths".

Not to defend Dawkins. . .I am not him so will allow him to speak for himself. . .For me I am 100% sure that all the gods of man made religions(Yahweh, Allah, Shiva, Anu, Akanamun etc) do NOT exist in reality because they are all man made and without men and what they chose to write or say about them they will not exist. . .They exist actually in the beliefs people hold about them and not in reality. . .The day men stop believing in them all of them will cease to exist, since they exist only in beliefs and imaginations. . .

mazaje:

It is the logic that you espouse that is actually PITIFUL in real life. . .One minute you claim with ALL certainty that your god exist and can either do this or that or actually does this or that but when asked for SPECIFIC evidence for the god you shout and claim exist, you begin to cry and say that others can NOT prove their own assertions. . .Who then is fooling who, you who go around claiming what you know has no evidence for even though you claim evidence for it exist or he who gives room for all kinds of natural possibilities because the supernatural has never been shown to exist any where. . .

I dont know that the above had anything to do with what i said or what was in the video.

mazaje:
He hates god?. . .Here you are talking about a specific god which is the god of the bible as if it exist with evidence to back it up. . .Now your bible god as been reduced to intelligent design and what we see around instead of the self evident god that talks to people and makes himself known to their through interacting with them. . .The bible does NOT talk about god in a subtle manner, it talks about god as a person that can be interacted with, spoken to, a dominant force that walks all over the earth, that speaks, talks, acts and is self evident not the subtle god is intelligent desig you guys are now portraying. . .

Again the issue wasnt about my opinion of God.

mazaje:
Ok, even if we are to assume that life was created. . .Did any god tell you he created life alone?. . .How can we know that your own version of god created life and not some other version of god. It is OK to speculate and AGREE that you are speculating. . .But when you claim to KNOW for sure then be prepared to give evidence for your assertions. . .

It seems to me that all you are interested in is hacking back to the same tired escapist noise-making. Again the issue is the video not about my proof or lack of proof of God.

mazaje:

Not to defend Dawkins. . .I am not him so will allow him to speak for himself. . .For me I am 100% sure that all the gods of man made religions(Yahweh, Allah, Shiva, Anu, Akanamun etc) do NOT exist in reality because they are all man made and without men and what they chose to write or say about them they will not exist. . .They exist actually in the beliefs people hold about them and not in reality. . .The day men stop believing in them all of them will cease to exist, since they exist only in beliefs and imaginations. . .

again the point of the thread is Richard Dawkins video. Feel free to create another thread to wax lyrical about your dislike for God.

davidylan:

I dont know that the above had anything to do with what i said or what was in the video.



Again the issue wasnt about my opinion of God.



It seems to me that all you are interested in is hacking back to the same tired escapist noise-making. Again the issue is the video not about my proof or lack of proof of God.

Let me not derail this thread. . .It is about Dawkins and his opinions. . .

Here is my own final input. . .Dawkins is deluded. . . I am disappointed in him after watching this interview. I am not his fan any way. With the vigour and passion with which he supports evolution as a "fact" one will think he will be able to answer simple questions and offer a better explanation than he did. . .Instead he was unable to answer simple questions and was rattled by the very simple questions he was asked. . .He was sincere by stating he did not know when he didn't but over all I think he is deluded and gave a very poor interview. . .

davidylan: So i decided to watch the entire video as Anony suggested and i will start with these general observations...

1. If this man is the reason most atheists consider themselves full of logic and reason... then really i just have to shake my head in pity.
2. Even Ben Stein noted the BLEEDING OBVIOUS - Richard Dawkins AGREES that some form of intelligent design was REQUIRED to create the type of complexity that we see in nature today (watch from 4:00)... his only problem really isnt about intelligent design JUST CERTAIN TYPES OF DESIGNERS SUCH AS GOD!

The problem with Richard Dawkins is quite obvious, he hates God QED. Every other argument is an excuse to wipe God out of the equation. It is amazing that someone who mocks christians for placing blind faith in myths is fumbling in the dark with ridiculous myths such as "some super race somewhere that evolved in another planet by some darwinian mechanism and then seeded our planet with life...". Incredible! For someone who insists on science, logic and reason... the above explanation for life (that he honestly admits he cannot prove even though he keeps bleating at christians to prove God exists) is an exercise in eye-popping demagoguery.

Note how very little confidence he himself has in the idea that somehow life is merely a product of some self-replicating DNA... I suppose as a scientist himself, he understands how unserious that notion is. We fumble around with RNA molecules all day in the lab, no serious scientist worth his salt believes we can create life our of primordial soup.

Good! The bold is exactly what I was hoping you would notice.

mazaje:

Let me not derail this thread. . .It is about Dawkins and his opinions. . .

Here is my own final input. . .Dawkins is deluded. . . I am disappointed in him after watching this interview. I am not his fan any way. With the vigour and passion with which he supports evolution as a "fact" one will think he will be able to answer simple questions and offer a better explanation that he did. . .Instead he was unable to answer simple questions and was rattled by the very simple questions he was asked. . .He was sincere by stating he did not know when he didn't but over all I think he is deluded and gave a very poor interview. . .

Hmmmmm.

Ah, we had a little fun with this video in the past --- Olaadegbu will remember.

Indeed talking about evangelical atheists' Daddy G.O. Dawkins' acceptance of a possible designer/creator for the earth he went even so far as to insinuate the possibility of "directed panspermia" --- though later, perhaps because of deserved ridicule, he made another video to say he wasn't per se supporting "directed panspermia".

Enigma: Ah, we had a little fun with this video in the past --- Olaadegbu will remember.

Indeed talking about evangelical atheists' Daddy G.O. Dawkins' acceptance of a possible designer/creator for the earth he went even so far as to insinuate the possibility of "directed panspermia" --- though later, perhaps because of deserved ridicule, he made another video to say he wasn't per se supporting "directed panspermia".

I think Mazaje got it right when he concluded that Dawkins sounded unsure of himself and deluded in that video. Obviously here is a man who does not even believe his own theories. To think he is the grand patron of the atheists here.

Enigma: Ah, we had a little fun with this video in the past --- Olaadegbu will remember.

Indeed talking about evangelical atheists' Daddy G.O. Dawkins' acceptance of a possible designer/creator for the earth he went even so far as to insinuate the possibility of "directed panspermia" --- though later, perhaps because of deserved ridicule, he made another video to say he wasn't per se supporting "directed panspermia".

"directed panspermia". Wow, I keep learning from you every time. Thanks for widening my knowledge.

^^ Oga Anony, me too I learn from posts by you and Ihedinobi (even as infrequently as he makes them) and quite a number of others here. Na so life be.

davidylan: I think Mazaje got it right when he concluded that Dawkins sounded unsure of himself and deluded in that video. Obviously here is a man who does not even believe his own theories. To think he is the grand patron of the atheists here.

Compare with something I said on another thread quite recently.

From https://www.nairaland.com/1162960/irrationality-atheism#13845944

Enigma: ^^^ Most things about evangelical atheism are senseless. Even fundamentally, atheism let alone evangelical atheism is illogical and irrational. All the books that their bishops and evangelists are writing - when examined intellectually, logically and philosophically - simply amount to building castles in the air. As a professor in one of the great universities said: you can pass our exams by writing bulls.hit ----- as long as you write the bulls.hit well.

Look even their pope and Dady G.O. (aka Richard Dawkins) knows it; even his statement and actions betray his knowledge/awareness (deep down) of the illogicality and nonsense of his position.

Take for example his papal declaration or fatwa that his followers should mock and ridicule people of faith ---- is that rational discourse by the standard of any intellectually or logically sound person?

"Mock them, ridicule them --- in public" he declared.

Christians now clutching at 1% uncertainty from an atheist. Who should be questioning their faith here?

advocate666: Christians now clutching at 1% uncertainty from an atheist. Who should be questioning their faith here?

You missed the point. It isnt so much the percentage of uncertainty in question... as much as the fact that Dawkins himself has no confidence in the myths he feeds you.

advocate666: Christians now clutching at 1% uncertainty from an atheist. Who should be questioning their faith here?

Have you watched the video?

If you haven't, please do and share your thoughts.

davidylan:

You missed the point. It isnt so much the percentage of uncertainty in question... as much as the fact that Dawkins himself has no confidence in the myths he feeds you.

Unlike the brainwashed sheeple that call themselves godly or theists, atheists are free thinkers, don't have a leader, can say whatever they want, even have the right to doubt themselves, or even worship Satan!

You don't get it. It is a mockery of your so called omnipresent, omnipotent god that humans have to debate his existence for him to exist. The day you stop believeing 100% in him, he stops existing. Very onmipotent intelligent designer. Don't make me laugh.

Mr_Anony: Hey guys, here's a quick experiment please oblige me a bit;

I'm quite interested about how two different people can observe the same thing and yet come to two different conclusions on the same thing

Please watch the video below and tell us your thoughts. Which parts of it feel most compelling to you and why?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc


Knowing me, you'll probably have rightly guessed what I think of it however I'll share my views later after a few people would have shared theirs. The reason is so that we can focus more on the video itself than on responding to comments.

Actually, that video was dishonestly edited. I'm sure we know that with proper editing, anyone can be made to say anything at all so on the whole, I didn't find it compelling.

davidylan: I stopped watching at 2:25, i couldnt help but notice that even Richard Dawkins is NOT sure that God does not exist. Why is he uncomfortable just stating that God doesnt exist and moving on? I think this strikes at the heart of why atheists "violently" push their ideas at all costs. Deep down, there is that gnawing nervousness... that just maybe....

Dawkins is saying that he isn't absolutely certain that God doesn't exist because the sort of evidence we have simply suggests that he doesn't. I'm sure you know that scientific theories don't work with absolute certainty. So, the nervousness you think you're seeing isn't actually there. I guess it is a good sign that you put "violently" in quotes because you know the different sort of violence the religious are capable of.

advocate666:

Unlike the brainwashed sheeple that call themselves godly or theists, atheists are free thinkers, don't have a leader, can say whatever they want, even have the right to doubt themselves, or even worship Satan!

You don't get it. It is a mockery of your so called omnipresent, omnipotent god that humans have to debate his existence for him to exist. The day you stop believeing 100% in him, he stops existing. Very onmipotent intelligent designer. Don't make me laugh.

Rubbish! "Freethinkers" my leg! That is why atheists' thinking is shaped by prats like Harris, loonies like Barker (appropriate name) and dunces like Dawkins.

Look, evangelical atheists now clearly have doctrines and an evangelical atheist who departs from the line is warned to beware of 'heresy'. I don't even need to go outside Nairaland for an example. Just one example follows where a normally brash evangelical atheist quickly fell in line when warned by another evangelical atheist that what he said is not "the default atheist position" i.e. what he said is heterodoxical or heretical. See here https://www.nairaland.com/999529/paul-kokoski-new-atheism-enigmas/2#11578089

In fact it is so bad for the evangelical atheist religionists that when someone renounces atheism they brand him an apostate guilty of apostasy ----- just as with other religions. A clear example is what happened to them when Antony Flew renounced atheism. For most of the 20th century Flew was the atheist's chief and foremost apostle --- even senior to the mumu Dawkins. When Flew renounced atheism and turned to Deism/Theism, some of the evangelical atheists went into apoplexy. Dawkins accused Flew of "Apostasy" but disguised it in a big word -- 'tergiversation'. Look in the dictionary and see that the word is just a fancy or pompous way of saying ------ apostasy.

Evangelical atheists are the dumbest sheeple there is ---- blind being led by the blind. Mumu followers of fools calling themselves "freethinkers". Yeah right.

Mr_Anony:
Have you watched the video?

If you haven't, please do and share your thoughts.

I watched the video. Dawkins position was that he doesn't know. Ben Stein was clutching at intelligent design straw and asking useless questions that you theists love so much. The last word of Dawkins summarised it all: why does your god take all the pain to hide itself?

If god does actually exist, it resembles nothing to anything any of the world religion has shown us so far. If by god you mean the thing that causes things to be the way they are, then you have made a poor job of defining it. All we atheists are saying is, your definition sucks. There might be another definition that is not yet discovered. We continue asking questions through science and discovering new things everyday while you stubbornly cling to that of which there is no proof whatsover and are just trying to adapt science to your beliefs.

davidylan: So i decided to watch the entire video as Anony suggested and i will start with these general observations...

1. If this man is the reason most atheists consider themselves full of logic and reason... then really i just have to shake my head in pity.

Well, he isn't since as I'm sure you know, atheists don't go around deifying people. Most prefer to think for themselves.

davidylan:
2. Even Ben Stein noted the BLEEDING OBVIOUS - Richard Dawkins AGREES that some form of intelligent design was REQUIRED to create the type of complexity that we see in nature today (watch from 4:00)... his only problem really isnt about intelligent design JUST CERTAIN TYPES OF DESIGNERS SUCH AS GOD!

And what you saw there was an effect of dishonestly editing the film. Dawkins' opinion on the entire incident can be seen here.

davidylan:
The problem with Richard Dawkins is quite obvious, he hates God QED. Every other argument is an excuse to wipe God out of the equation. It is amazing that someone who mocks christians for placing blind faith in myths is fumbling in the dark with ridiculous myths such as "some super race somewhere that evolved in another planet by some darwinian mechanism and then seeded our planet with life...". Incredible! For someone who insists on science, logic and reason... the above explanation for life (that he honestly admits he cannot prove even though he keeps bleating at christians to prove God exists) is an exercise in eye-popping demagoguery.

How can someone hate what they don't think exists? That is just absurd. Think about it. Do you hate Woden? Actually, panspermia makes more sense for an origin of life on this planet than the Christian God does.

davidylan:
Note how very little confidence he himself has in the idea that somehow life is merely a product of some self-replicating DNA... I suppose as a scientist himself, he understands how unserious that notion is. We fumble around with RNA molecules all day in the lab, no serious scientist worth his salt believes we can create life our of primordial soup.

How can you note that from this video? Yet life on earth had to come about somehow from non-living materials especially when you know that at some point in time, there was no life in the universe.

Enigma:

Rubbish! "Freethinkers" my leg! That is why atheists' thinking is shaped by prats like Harris, loonies like Barker (appropriate name) and dunces like Dawkins.

Look, evangelical atheists now clearly have doctrines and an evangelical atheist who departs from the line is warned to beware of 'heresy'. I don't even need to go outside Nairaland for an example. Just one example follows where a normally brash evangelical atheist quickly fell in line when warned by another evangelical atheist that what he said is not "the default atheist position" i.e. what he said is heterodoxical or heretical. See here https://www.nairaland.com/999529/paul-kokoski-new-atheism-enigmas/2#11578089

In fact it is so bad for the evangelical atheist religionists that when someone renounces atheism they brand him an apostate guilty of apostasy ----- just as with other religions. A clear example is what happened to them when Antony Flew renounced atheism. For most of the 20th century Flew was the atheist's chief and foremost apostle --- even senior to the mumu Dawkins. When Flew renounced atheism and turned to Deism/Theism, some of the evangelical atheists went into apoplexy. Dawkins accused Flew of "Apostasy" but disguised it in a big word -- 'tergiversation'. Look in the dictionary and see that the word is just a fancy or pompous way of saying ------ apostasy.

Evangelical atheists are the dumbest sheeple there is ---- blind being led by the blind. Mumu followers of fools calling themselves "freethinkers". Yeah right.

Did you find all these in your bible?

Jokes apart, as you love dictionary, go and look up the meaning of atheist and come and explain to us how abstinence is a sexxual position or how not playing football makes me a sports person or how not selling stuff makes me a trader.

We have all sorts of atheists, including the so called evangelical atheists. That is the freedom of atheism. We disbelieve and that disbelief liberates us and allow us to do what we want with it. If I go to church tommorrow and start praying and singing and doing all your rituals, I will still be an atheist. A christian atheist. I still wont believe in a god.

If you didn't get it let me spell it out to you again: atheists are free to do whatever they like.

.

@thehomer: in one of your post, you stated that the film was edited to give an assumed meaning. Was hopeful of seeing an unedited version of the youtube anony gave, alas i was disappointed by the link

And what you saw there was an effect of dishonestly editing the film. Dawkins'opinion on the entire incident can be seen here .

yes its darwins opinion on that link, i would have loved to see the "unbiased", "unedited" full clip, which wasnt there. So i may assume that would be the full clip, unedited video which MrAnony had posted?Abi

Sheeple mentality is so ingrained in y'all you expect it to be the default. Same with sky daddy. Meh