'Tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video.'

Christ was the God of the Old Testament who condescended to become mortal. So no, He was God before and after His mortal ministry.

@@OntheOtherHandVideos What about God the Father? Was He once a mortal human like as Joseph Smith said, “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!” And what about the belief that humans can become gods in the next life?

@@jessicaniss1338 Great questions! I feel like this first part goes back to the question of: 'What is unchangeable doctrine, and what is the opinions of a given mortal prophet? How do you tell the difference?' To quote Brigham Young: "In trying all matters of doctrine, to make a decision valid, it is necessary to obtain a unanimous voice, faith, and decision. In the capacity of a Quorum, the three First Presidents must be one in their voice-the Twelve Apostles must be unanimous in their voice, to obtain a righteous decision upon any matter that may come before them, as you may read in the Doctrine and Covenants. The Seventies may decide upon the same principle. Whenever you see these Quorums unanimous in their declaration, you may set it down as true. Let the Elders get together, being faithful and true; and when they agree upon any point, you may know that it is true. " To quote Elder Anderson: "There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find." So back to the question at hand, I would put that quote firmly in the not necessarily doctrinal stance. Many within the Church feel like 'the infinite regression of Gods' makes sense to them, some feel more like the 'Eternal Monarch' idea fits better. But both are speculation because God hasn't revealed details on the subject. As for us becoming like God, yes! I would say that is pretty plainly taught in several places, and is justifiable given logic, the Bible, modern revelation, etc. As Romans 8:16-17 says: 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. And as John 10:31-38 says: 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 1 John 3:1-3 says: 1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. Basically, God has said we are His children. Kittens grow up to be cats like their parents, lambs grow up to be sheep like their parents, and children of God grow up to be like their Parents. And God has called us gods - Christ Himself affirms this to defend Himself against claims of blasphemy. And we are told that we are "joint-heirs with Christ". And heir is "A person who succeeds or is in line to succeed to a hereditary rank, title, or office." - and we are apparently joint-heirs with Christ. Christ is like His Father, Christ has been/will be given 'all the Father has', and Christ is rightfully given the title of "God". And we are told that we can be as pure as God is pure, that 'we shall be like Him'. So yes, we believe that we can be like our Heavenly Father - because through Christ and His Apostles, God has promised us as much. Does that make sense?

@@OntheOtherHandVideos Two things: First of all, where did this idea of 'the infinite regression of Gods' and the 'Eternal Monarch' come from because that's certainly not in the Bible (the one and only Word of God). Also, your interpretation of John 10 is incorrect and does nothing to prove that man can attain godhood. Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6 to defend his claim to be the Son of God on biblical and semantic grounds. Psalm 82:6 is about the idea that influential men and spiritual beings can be referred to as gods, therefore, the Messiah can rightly apply the term to Himself. That passage in no way indicates that human beings are or can become gods - we cannot. There is only one God - Father, Spirit, Son, three persons in one.

@@jessicaniss1338 Well 'the infinite regression of Gods' is a logical extension of the idea that if children of God indeed can become like their Parents and "join them in the family business", then it is reasonable to ask if our Heavenly Parents themselves have Heavenly Parents. It's an intriguing line of thought. Honestly the 'Eternal Monarch' is far more in line with how most Christians would think of God, so I'm glad you believe that a theological idea you don't know anything about apparently doesn't appear in the Bible. XD You are correct, John 10 and by extension Psalm 82 doesn't inherently prove the doctrine of divine potential. However, according to your own admission, Psalm 82 says that some men can be accurately called 'gods'. Christ takes this one step further and says that God called those "unto whom the word of God came" 'gods'. So according to your own words and the words of Christ, at least certain men are already 'gods'. So yes, that single scripture doesn't 'prove' anything (I noticed you didn't address the other two scriptures), but all together these are 3 'witnesses' that at least allow for the possibility that we are literally Spirit Children of God, with the capability to become like Him. So, if I may, could you apply the same standards to your own theological statements? Would you mind providing a scriptural source that says more definitively than what I showed that says "we cannot" become like God? I mean, that 1 John scripture does literally say "we shall be like him", but I'm all ears for a clear cut contradictory scripture. Similarly, would you mind providing a scripture that states that the "Father, Spirit, Son" are "three persons in one"? At least, I'm assuming you are saying "one" as in the Trinitarian sense of "one being". There are many scriptures that say They are One, but what does that mean? One person, one being, one in purpose, or something else entirely? When God said that husband and wife should be "one flesh", He didn't literally mean they become the same person/being - but it does seem to have similar vibes to 'one in purpose'. Similarly, when Christ talking about His Apostles said, "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us" (John 17), that seems to directly state that the Apostles can 'be one' with both the Father and the Son in the same way that They are "One". So to be 'one God' in this sense would be to be one in purpose - to be of one heart and one mind. Hence there can be 3 Members of the Godhead, and they can "be one God" just as a husband and wife can be two distinct individuals yet still be "one flesh", and 12 Apostles can 'be one' with each other and Christ and the Father. And none of this points toward the Trinity - in fact it all points directly away from that idea. And if you can't find the Trinity of "one being" clearly in the Bible, it would seem you are relying on the words of men, not the word of God. And that you don't hold a consistent standard for how to establish truth. I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

I agree, in how he is presented he turns mustache twirling evil really quick - personally I find the pre-mustache twirling antagonist to be interesting, while the post-mustache twirling villain is a lot more flat. But that's just me.

"Gaston however, was in the wrong because if he was good he would have let belle go and just be happy that she was happy." I disagree - there was a beast in a castle who had magic and was locking people up - I think it is reasonable to say that Gaston was acting as the town leader and trying to keep everyone safe, including Belle, from a literal magic wielding monster. "Why would she want you when she could have me?!" Again, this would be a reasonable mindset if one concluded that Belle was under a spell - which is a very common and natural conclusion given the time/setting of the story. "Just look at the way he smiles evilly" Ya, that goes into my thoughts that they had to sprinkle some things in to make Gaston objectively evil - as if you alter like 3 sentences or situations in the movie, it turns out Gaston is the rightful hero and the Beast is as dangerous as the villagers think he is. But reasonable minds can differ. Thanks for the insightful comment!

I'm here - a relative made the animations for fun, and I appreciate and liked it, so I have used the various variations she has made.

Three questions. 1) What is so 'out of control' 2) I'm assuming you are referring to events not covered in this video and 3) was that a call for violence?

Let me quote from "Revelations in Context", specifically "The Contributions of Martin Harris" "Martin asked Joseph to “enquire of the Lord through the Urim and Thummin” if he might “carry the writings home and exibit them”9 to his wife and others. Joseph wanted to please Martin because he had shown him friendship “when there seemed to be no earthly friend to succor or to sympathize.” Joseph did inquire for his friend. “The answer,” Joseph said, “was that he must not. [Martin] was not satisfied with this answer and desired that I would enquire again. I did so, and the answer was as before. Still he could not be contented and insisted that I should enquire once more. After much solicitation I again enquired of the Lord and permission was granted on certain conditions.” Martin was to show the translated pages only to his wife, parents, brother, and sister-in-law. Elated, Martin Harris returned home with the manuscript pages and showed them to his wife. He did not, however, handle the precious manuscript with the prescribed care, and it was soon lost." To address your 1) - Joseph Smith asked twice, was told no both times, and asked again - first, that would be contrary to what he had been told by God. Second, God put stipulations on being given permission, and those stipulations weren't followed. Thus if the pages were lost, that would mean that Joseph had ignored the first two answers the Lord gave, and allowed them out of his possession and protection under certain circumstances. Thus by them being lost, that means Joseph realizes that he should have indeed listened the first time. Or the second. And that means that he was the epitome of pride and was in danger of 'being cut off' (see below) To address your 2) - in Joseph Smith History 1:59, it says this when Joseph Smith was given the plates by an angel: "the same heavenly messenger delivered them up to me with this charge: **that I should be responsible for them; that if I should let them go carelessly, or through any neglect of mine, I should be cut off**; but that if I would use all my endeavors to preserve them, until he, the messenger, should call for them, they should be protected." The purpose of the plates was to bring forth the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith had spent about 2 months already to get said 116 pages. Would these words not ring through Joseph ears upon learning that the translation of the plates had been lost? Put a simpler way, if a kid is failing a class and they are to bring home their report card to their parents - that report card has no intrinsic value or effect on their grade, but it is seen as the physical manifestation of their failure and shame - thus they will hide or discard or lie about it's whereabouts, even though said actions won't effect if their parents find out about said failing grade. Does that make sense?

@@OntheOtherHandVideos In your reply to the first point, you seem to agree with me: Joseph didn't "ignore revelation". He didn't even disobey. At most, Martin Harris could be seen as being disobedient. To the second point, I'm very confused at what your point is: how would the loss of the 116 pages in any way threaten the Golden Plates themselves? I don't see the logical connection there. Those pages, according to Joseph's version of the story, could be straightforwardly reproduced. If I lost a copy of the Book of Mormon today, would this be seen as a dramatic threat to the Golden Plates now? Of course not: because it's easy enough to reproduce those exact words again. However, if there *was* no original (or other copies) to reproduce, then losing that sole copy would be a disaster. Similarly, Joseph's horror at losing the pages makes perfect sense if there was no original.

@@inotterwords6115 If my kid asks me a question, and I tell them no, and then they come back and ask the same question - I feel like it is the definition of "To refuse to pay attention to; disregard" (aka ignoring). If you disagree, I guess you just have a different definition of what it means "to ignore" then the dictionary does. My second point is that the Lord called Joseph Smith to protect the plates and to translate them to English - the plates were a means to an end. If Joseph Smith ignored the Lord and thereby lost a portion of the manuscript through carelessness, that would be a condemnation on his part. "it's easy enough to reproduce those exact words again" - and how did Joseph claim to reproduce them? "Through the gift and power of God" - thus if Joseph did wrong by God, he wouldn't be able to reproduce them. If the report card analogy doesn't work for you, imagine your boss gives you the assignment to build a shed, and gives you the lumber (aka the plates) and lends you the power tools (aka the ability to make it). Then if point blank ask your boss if you could leave the job site unlocked for a night, and he says no twice, but then finally he says sure, so long as there's a security camera up and working. Then you proceed to leave the site unlocked and don't get the camera set up in time, and somebody comes and makes off with the lumber and most of the shed. You (the employee) should feel bad about your conduct - and while yes you could remake what was stolen and your boss would be rightly disappointed and lose confidence in you, re-building would be out of your control, as the boss came and took back the power tools while he mulled over what happened. And the boss might just decide that you aren't a good enough employee to keep working for him. I mean, if you want to assume that 'Joseph made it all up', then of course you wouldn't think that he was sad for any other reason - but that is arguing from a conclusion, not to a conclusion. If one has already decided, then they are just looking for rationalizations to support their pre-determined view, rather than looking at all the evidence and deciding what seems to be the case.

@@OntheOtherHandVideos On point one, in my mind, I would say that my child "ignored my answer" if they simply disobeyed and didn't ask for my permission again.. if they keep coming back to ask, then they clearly aren't ignoring anything. In my upbringing, I very often asked Heavenly Father for the same things, and I don't think I was ever told that this was "ignoring his revelation". On the second point, your shed analogy doesn't make any sense to me, because in that example the stolen supplies represent a direct cost to the employer. But when your 'employer' is God Almighty (as in the 116 pages example), then it's not a cost at all. Those stolen materials could be instantly replaced, or easily returned, without the least inconvenience to the employer. Nor could their being stolen reprersent any possible threat, or even delay to the translation process (since God could easily remove them from the evil-doers hands, or return them to Joseph Smith). Exactly as ThereminTrees said, at worst it only represented two months of lost work. But if there was no original source to translate from, then the loss of the pages really would represent a total disaster (because Joseph Smith would be unable to accurately reproduce them).

@@inotterwords6115 "if they keep coming back to ask, then they clearly aren't ignoring anything" Except they are literally *disregarding* the answer you already gave (ignore - "to disregard") "I very often asked Heavenly Father for the same things, and I don't think I was ever told that this was "ignoring his revelation"." Did you get a direct answer and kept asking? Because that would be *disregarding* the answer (ignore - "to disregard"). If you got an answer and didn't act on it, that would also be disregarding said answer. But if you keep asking and don't get an answer, that isn't disregarding or ignoring the Lord - because He has yet to speak on the matter. You say losing 116 pages would not be a "delay to the translation process", and yet you acknowledge that it was "two months of lost work" - again, two months of lost work is the definition of a *delay*. Smh "God could easily remove them from the evil-doers hands, or return them to Joseph Smith" *sigh* God is not a gum-ball machine - if He was after just having things magically appear, why go through a translation process at all? Why not come down and give Joseph Smith the bound book in English and say 'here it is, go get copies made' - or why not just have an entire warehouse of book materialize out of thin air? No copying or reprinting needed? If you don't know why God wouldn't "remove them from the evil-doers hands", you haven't given much thought or spent much time to understand the nature of God as described by Christianity.

I like this

It's very possible to look at it this way

Given the choice between making new original movies with new or up and coming names in the industry, Disney has been making 'live action adaptations' that almost across the board are worse than the originals - they detract more then they add to the story and characters, and in this specific case they pick Emma Watson to be Belle - just to have the big name, not because she is a terribly good singer or good fit for the part.

@@OntheOtherHandVideos No they picked her because she is a good actress. They have made live action adaptations because that's what people want to see.

@@lifeisactuallyveryboring.7771 She is was an obvious pick for the type casting of 'smart girl who isn't appreciated', as that was what her role in Harry Potter turned out to be. Do you think she was/is a genuinely good singer? And also, in your opinion were people really clambering for another live action adaptation, especially of Beauty and the Beast?

And also, attacked the Beast in his vulnerable moment yet begged for mercy when the Beast fought back. A coward that died the way he deserved. While Belle and Adam got their happy ending ❤️

Lol, 'tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video.'

Good news, we also believe that Jesus "is the only way to heaven, and that if you know Jesus you know God"! And I'd be curious what your thoughts are on the Abrahamic Covenant and the Children of Israel, as both Abraham and Israel were also polygamists and foundational to the Old and New Testaments.

@@OntheOtherHandVideos what you want to argue about is irrelevant to the Gospel. We know the Old and New Testament to be true. We know there was no great apostacy and that the true message of the bible was never lost.(Joseph made that up so people would follow him) We know that Christ's work was completed on the cross (not in the garden of getsemane). We know God is Jesus is the Holy Spirit and that Jesus is not the devils brother and that man can not become God. These beliefs are what make Mormonism false.

@@christabewley Haha, I wasn't about to argue anything - I was curious about your thoughts that seemed to support a contradictory justification for scorning another faith. But that point is apparently "irrelevant to the Gospel" (which makes me wonder why you brought it up in the first place XD )

"Racism **is** <a collection of (racist) policies that lead to (racial) inequity that are substantiated by (racist) ideas>" Racism **is** <a collection of <a collection of <> policies that lead to <> inequity that are substantiated by <> ideas> policies that lead to <a collection of <> policies that lead to <> inequity that are substantiated by <> ideas> inequity that are substantiated by <a collection of <> policies that lead to <> inequity that are substantiated by <> ideas> ideas> Welcome to a recursive definition, where one uses a word to define itself, and thus the word has no meaning! And if you want to ignore that fact and take out the circular definition aspect, "Racism **is** a collection of policies that lead to inequity that are substantiated by ideas" So literally any policy that has "unequitable" outcomes is racist, as well as any idea that leads to said policy or outcomes. And you know what leads to "unequitable" outcomes? Literally everything that is not controlled very strictly from the top down. So the only way to avoid "racism" is to throw out all history books (as they teach "racist" ideas that lead to "inequity"), and scrap all current laws and policies including the US constitution and Bill of Rights (as being "equal" under the law is a "racist" policy that leads to "inequity"). Only then, after all the books are burned and all the laws trodden under foot can one truly be a successful "anti-racist". To quote good old Karl, "Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew." But altered only slightly becomes a 1:1 for Kendi's thoughts: "Both for the production on a mass scale of this [race] consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the [racists] cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the [anti-racists] overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew." Welcome to the new age of Communism/Marxism my friend (which is just the old version with a thin coat of paint on it)

Out of curiosity, did you watch the video or are just reacting to the title?

@@OntheOtherHandVideos both

I could see that, but what else do you do with the guy?

I've never struggled with clinical depression - I've had depressed times, but never on that level. I'm sorry There are many things worthwhile that keep me going in my rough times - my faith in God, the responsibilities to my spouse and kids, and the other relationships I enjoy. It's not always easy, but there are many little moments that make it all worth it despite the small scale of a smile or a laugh. I wish you luck in trying to navigate that for yourself.

Well good news, I value my honesty! I'm now curious, what specific thing have I done that is "dishonest" or that you would consider "propaganda"?

@@OntheOtherHandVideos Great to hear! I will respond with the assumption of honesty to your statement. Firstly, please be aware that my inclusion of the word "Propaganda" in this case was used exclusively synonymous with the phrase: "Political content intended to persuade." This is to clarify that I didn't intend negative critique by that term alone. Only with the inclusion of "dishonest" into the term did I intend negative critique. It's quite natural human behaviour to disqualify the opinions of those who are shown to be fools. It's helpful in some ways: If someone doesn't know 1+1=2, we can probably safely disregard their self-proclaimed "groundbreaking" discoveries in the field of physics. However, this feature of human behaviour can sometimes be used against us, as an easy way for someone to manipulate us to prematurely disqualify the findings of others. Everybody can and most likely will look like a fool at some point in their lives. The complexities of this are further compounded when you incorporate the differing perspectives we humans use to define who is a fool. If someone disagrees with someone's expressed political opinions, they may consider them a fool. Following this, they may unjustly disregard most other opinions that person has on that basis. The comparison of an expert in a field compared to someone uneducated on the topic can be used to dismiss the ideas that the uneducated person holds on entirely separate topics. The defining of someone being a fool can be as shallow as seeing someone fall over awkwardly once. Funnily enough, this played a huge part in Britain in 2015, where the then-leader of a political party, Ed Miliband, pretty much lost an election partly due to an awkward photo of him eating a bacon sandwich. This whole thing causes a lot of needless fights in politics… Anyway, I digress, back to how this all relates to you. As I said, this feature of human behaviour can be used to manipulate us, and this is what I believe you are doing in this video. Purposely representing this person as a fool in order to have your audience prematurely and uncritically dismiss their arguments. --------- Without the context I provided in my first comment (which renders this an unsound argument), this is the rough premises, conclusion, and overall argument most people will take away from this video: "This person holds a circular definition." "He also has opinions on racism." These are the premises likely to be brought in externally by a viewer: "Someone who holds a circular definition ought to be considered a fool." "The opinions of fools are invalid and unsound." Therefore, completing the argument and reaching this conclusion: "All his opinions on racism are invalid and unsound." ----- you can even see examples of this working from the other comment on this video below mine, "I’ve found that when something seems to make no sense at all there is a very good chance that it makes no sense at all." implying that because they can't understand what he's saying that must mean his argument is completely invalid and unsound. This is why I consider it to be dishonest. Now, you may wonder why I attribute purpose and intent to you. As I said, I've looked at your videos, and the extent to which I saw examples of this and things alike within your work seems to be beyond coincidence. An example: If you crash your car into a brick wall once, fine, no problem, it happens to anybody. If you crash into that same wall twice, kinda weird, but weird things happen. Okay, this is now the 8th time you've crashed into the same wall, and I can't help but think it's intentional. Your work seems plagued with strawman's and very indirect ad hominems like this one. I'd be surprised if you didn't understand the definition of racism this guy was attempting to explain before you uploaded it.

​@@djtust7739 First, I would like to note that this is a video in the "I think I'm funny" category of my channel - clearly marked with yellow in the thumbnail, and pointed out in the description. If you didn't find the joke funny, that's fine, but this isn't a Master's thesis - it was a funny shower thought I put together in about 20 minutes. Second, Michael Move knows his stuff - he has a great channel and is very knowledgeable on a variety of subjects if you are so interested - mostly economics. But I know he understands this topic thoroughly, he just disagrees with Kendi's ideas and ideology. You seem to be projecting ignorance onto someone who merely disagrees with you. Maybe it would be better to ask someone what they understand on a subject before assuming their knowledge and positions on said subject? Third - you say that from this video, "most people will take away from this video: . . . "All his opinions on racism are invalid and unsound."" That is a whole lot of projection, with a ton of assumptions and unexamined premises. It was made as a joke to note a ridiculous definition, and as far as I can tell that is what it accomplished. Finally, you again say that "Your work seems plagued with strawman's and very indirect ad hominems like this one.", which was hopefully a response to my question of "what specific thing have I done that is "dishonest"." Again, I would ask what **specifically** you take issue with. What strawmans have I made? Are they also in the clearly labeled joke videos? Which topics do I present straw mans? What tactics did I use and how could I have done it better? For example, if you want more flushed out thoughts on this topic I would point you towards the video I did entitled "Is Anti-Racism Actually Racist?". In that video, I try to engage with the most honest example I could find, linking to every source I cite in either camp to literally avoid strawmanning the topic. Did I do it perfectly? Probably not. But the only way for me to improve is for us to have a specific example to discuss, with a clearly defined objection and hopefully a clearly defined way that it could have been done better.

See, your response in and of itself is just another example of you using the most unfavorable interpretations of what people say. Also, please forgive me for not knowing the universal sign for humor that every human recognizes: Yellow-marked thumbnails! As if it makes a difference to anything I've said. This being funny or not funny has no impact on its political content? A joke can have political connotations. I shouldn't need to explain that to you. I've never heard of Kendi or anything he represents before randomly running into this video. Maybe I'll look into this Michael Moore guy some other time, but this conversation isn't even about racism. Why do you assume I disagree with you on the topic of racism? I haven't even expressed any of my personal beliefs on racism, nor have I critiqued your personal beliefs about racism. I don't know them to even critique them. Given this, I also have no idea how I'm supposedly "projecting ignorance." I literally just explained specifically what I take issue with. Did you even read what I wrote? I explained in VERY fine detail a human behavior that you are (seemingly subconsciously, according to your response) utilizing in a dishonest way. "Third - you say that from this video, 'most people will take away from this video: . . . 'All his opinions on racism are invalid and unsound.'" That is a whole lot of projection, with a ton of assumptions and unexamined premises." The phrase "most people will take away from this video" wasn't even part of the premises. You're retroactively trying to include it to decrease the soundness of the argument. Even if a minority of people take that away from this video, my argument is still sound. You haven't actually been able to critique my premises beyond going, "That is a whole lot of projection, with a ton of assumptions and unexamined premises." Are you even trying? You just essentially said, "You're wrong" without a single explanation. I actually do have half a mind to go through your videos and list a bunch more examples of the kind of stuff I'm speaking about. It would take a TON of time and research, and I doubt you'd even sincerely engage with my findings. You never know, though; it could be fun! Maybe I'll get back to you at some point on that. Also, lastly, because I'm really curious, do you still not accept his definition as non-circular even after the context I provided in my first comment?@@OntheOtherHandVideos

@@djtust7739 "Also, please forgive me for not knowing the universal sign for humor that every human recognizes: Yellow-marked thumbnails! As if it makes a difference to anything I've said." Haha, between being a shortform video, featuring Homestar Runner, and the description and the pinned comment literally reading, "I think I’m funny", one can only sign-post something so much. Sorry, when you said you had looked around the channel, I assumed you had done that, which would also point you toward the color coding sign posting of "I think I’m funny". You know, watching a video or two that was also short-form from the channel to compare - those comparable videos on this channel are exclusively done with the same color thumbnail, the same pinned comments and description of "I think I’m funny", and the same humorous intent. Or when you said you looked around the channel I assumed you had alternatively watched a longer video which is presented in a serious fashion and has a substantially different run-time. Then my description of thumbnail colors would continue to inform you the different 'genres' or 'types' of videos, so you didn't misunderstand the intent going into any of my other videos. "this conversation isn't even about racism." The title of the video is "Anti Racism’s Circular Definition" - the subject is Ibram X. Kendi, the man who literally wrote the book on 'Anti-racism' and popularized the phrase, being asked to define racism. And your first comment literally starts as follows: "To help anybody who's confused, I'll attempt to explain: His ideas on **racism** . . ." "You haven't actually been able to critique my premises" You have accused this channel of being "plagued with strawman's and very indirect ad hominems", and also that I'm "subconsciously" "dishonest". These have been the premises I've been attempting to discuss, and I've done so by asking for specific examples to substantiate these claims. Unless I have missed something, you have yet to cite any specific example outside this video (and we've already addressed our apparent disagreement on this video), so you have just made seemingly empty or uninformed accusations. And yes, this definition was literally circular. If you want to assume he meant something different than what he said, I find that an interesting position to take considering you supposedly don't know who the guy is, what he stands for, and what he has said on the subject. But even if you were to assume your projection is accurate, that still does not change what he said, which was circular - using a word to define itself.

I mean, if you go along with the mustache twirling Gaston as presented in the original story, sure Gaston wasn't a great guy. But I'd dare say they wrote Gaston far more clever than that, but they had to tone it down and add a dash of 'this guy is just a straight up pig' in order for people not to like him. They seemed to have an interesting character concept, then just shoved him into a role in order to make the story happen. Which is fine, it's just not really consistent imo. And despite that, he's still probably the best character this movie has - the most dynamic and interesting. But reasonable minds can differ.

Ya, but in this re-write mostly I wanted the poetic finish of LaFou ending up with what Gaston always dreamed of - a full version could definitely delve more into LaFou, but for my limited talent in writing, this was the best I had. XD

@@OntheOtherHandVideos Well, it certainly is beautiful.

I'm always happy to answer questions where I can. What specific topic did you have questions on?

@@OntheOtherHandVideos what the Chutch of Jesus Christ is.

@@GermanVolk14 It's a Church that claims to be Christ's Restored Church on the earth today. It's kinda in the name. :D

Thanks, glad you liked it!

Thanks! It took several drafts to get the tone right - I didn't want to be mean or condescending, I wanted it to be a fair but clear critique.

I believe I said it was "one of the first movies given a live action adaptation" - and #4 counts as one of the first in my book, especially after the list has continued to get longer. But reasonable minds can differ.

@@OntheOtherHandVideos ok

Agreed - non-trinitarian beliefs are quite different from not being a Christian - but I think since Protestants don't have as distinct of sects and as rigid a theological structure, they are essentially just trying to say 'you are different' when they play the 'you aren't a Christian' card.

2023

Well I'm glad you have found this interesting! If there's any specific questions you might have, I'd be happy to talk.

I agree! And I can understand the hesitation to not even want to get close to that line of unnecessary censorship - but when there's good cause to have them removed, and as far as I understand all these books are still in the public libraries - ya, I think the 'book banning' rhetoric is being used far out of proportion.

I'm glad! That is the very reason I decide to put this together, was so I could do the same to those I know.