Poll of the Day > Cool, an Adam Ruins Everything about guns

(+) Yeah! (+)

Now I can look like I'm educated

i really cant stand that guy
---

Yeah I don't know about that.
---

I love that show.
---

It a good show. I like it.

Also, @MICHALECOLE
---

I was gonna say something but I'm sure the nsa is already watching.
---

The one time I tried to watch that show I was able to verify the thing he was talking about was wrong, so now I don't trust any of the info on it.


---

Aw really? That sucks, now I won't be able to watch it anymore.
---

The only one I liked was about how fat wasn't truly bad for you (moderation of course) and it was sugar that was far more to blame for obeseitty. Though once again I feel sugar is just fine in moderation of course.
---

I do whole thirty every few months and you would be shocked what no sugar feels like.
It's kind of hard to explain, you think people who talk about no sugar are just bragging but you really do feel A LOT different.
---

StoneRevolver posted...

I do whole thirty every few months and you would be shocked what no sugar feels like.
It's kind of hard to explain, you think people who talk about no sugar are just bragging but you really do feel A LOT different.

I'm sure you do but I also smoke and drink I'm not exactly a model of health over here. As long as I can get around normally without getting all sweaty and huffy I'm fine.

I don't go as far as you buy I have drastically reduced my sugar intake a couple of years back. Almost ran into diabetes but was told a change in diet and I'd be fine wouldn't need meds. And honestly it wasn't what I ate I don't have a big sweet tooth other than what I drink. Both sodas and booze and I drink a lot of liquids.

I have one 12 pack of regular soda to every 2 of sugar free. On average sometimes I've gone longer without regular
---

I don't really have a choice lol. In my line of work I'm a hypocrite if I don't take care of myself.
---

StoneRevolver posted...

Aw really? That sucks, now I won't be able to watch it anymore.

I'm able to verify that PO has said things in the past that aren't true.
So now you can't trust anything he's said here.

LinkPizza posted...

It a good show. I like it.

Also, @MICHALECOLE

Just finished it. So good! Wish I could watch the other episodes I havent seen (most of the ones not on Netflix)

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The one time I tried to watch that show I was able to verify the thing he was talking about was wrong, so now I don't trust any of the info on it.

What was that?

knivesX2004 posted...

StoneRevolver posted...

Aw really? That sucks, now I won't be able to watch it anymore.

I'm able to verify that PO has said things in the past that aren't true.

This is 112% lies and slander.

Though immaterial regardless because I've never claimed to be an "educational" source that claims to provide factual information that debunks existing misconceptions and "common sense" knowledge. I've pretty much always just represented myself as just another asshole on the Internet.

You'll have to forgive me if I hold people with research teams and writers and who attempt to prove points via cited studies and statistics to a much higher standard for veracity than a self-professed nerd and geek who's read way too much and is opinionated as fuck.


---

StoneRevolver posted...

I don't really have a choice lol. In my line of work I'm a hypocrite if I don't take care of myself.

That's good hypocrisy is usually bad. Me I'm of the mindset you have one life enjoy it while it lasts. But on the other hand I'm not trying to die before I'm 60. So I try to find the middle ground have my fun but also stretch my life out long enough I have more time to enjoy.

IDK what I did wrong but that run in with diabetes was horrible. I must have went on a sugar binge cause my sugar level was through the roof. I could barely walk and I honestly wanted to die.

Getting older sucks you can't get away with all you could when you where young. I used to drink 12 pack of soda a day and eat however the hell I wanted and was still only 160-170 lbs. That's life though
---

MICHALECOLE posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The one time I tried to watch that show I was able to verify the thing he was talking about was wrong, so now I don't trust any of the info on it.

What was that?

I actually don't remember the exact issue (and I was waiting for someone to bring it up and poo-poo me on it). Mainly because after I stopped caring about the show, I stopped thinking about it, so I've since forgotten whatever the discrepancy was (sue me, I'm old).

I'm pretty sure it was an episode about living in the city versus living in the suburbs, though. Something pinged off my previous knowledge, which in turn made me wary of everything else he was citing. Mainly because I'm already biased against modern "documentary" projects that blatantly come across more as manipulative opinion pieces than they do unbiased summing up of actual facts.


---

It does seem to have a certain...agenda. Though sometimes it's more obvious than others.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

MICHALECOLE posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The one time I tried to watch that show I was able to verify the thing he was talking about was wrong, so now I don't trust any of the info on it.

What was that?

I actually don't remember the exact issue (and I was waiting for someone to bring it up and poo-poo me on it). Mainly because after I stopped caring about the show, I stopped thinking about it, so I've since forgotten whatever the discrepancy was (sue me, I'm old).

I'm pretty sure it was an episode about living in the city versus living in the suburbs, though. Something pinged off my previous knowledge, which in turn made me wary of everything else he was citing. Mainly because I'm already biased against modern "documentary" projects that blatantly come across more as manipulative opinion pieces than they do unbiased summing up of actual facts.

Oh so a show that provides sources you found something not real

But you cant remember what it was

Oh okay youre right this show is bogus and Im poopooing

Its annoying because this show obviously has an agenda. Mostly in its jokes more than anything, but the jokes are based on its arguments that they clearly show their sources on.

There is an episode where he says all sources can be wrong, Im sure we have been wrong before and now somebody claims they have been wrong, and its a genuinely reputable source who seems to know everything, but when asked about it he says idk I cant remember

If you dont like the show because you think adam is annoying, thats fine. He is annoying. Or if you dont like it because it cant decide what it wants to argue, thats fine, because sometimes it cant make up its mind what its trying to say. But it clearly does its best to factually take both sides of the argument.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

You'll have to forgive me if I hold people with research teams and writers and who attempt to prove points via cited studies and statistics to a much higher standard for veracity than a self-professed nerd and geek who's read way too much and is opinionated as fuck.

I was more making fun of the part where you said there was inaccurate information in one of Adam's videos and then he decided the entire series was fake news.

knivesX2004 posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

You'll have to forgive me if I hold people with research teams and writers and who attempt to prove points via cited studies and statistics to a much higher standard for veracity than a self-professed nerd and geek who's read way too much and is opinionated as fuck.

I was more making fun of the part where you said there was inaccurate information in one of Adam's videos and then he decided the entire series was fake news.

Question. Has anyone called him out and proven him wrong? If so has he admitted he was wrong? That was one thing I appreciated about myth Busters. Once they claimed it was impossible for a man to catch an arrow with his bare hands and a dude contacted them and said I can do it. They brought him on the show he proved them wrong and they apologized to their viewers and said even they make mistakes.
---

PO is watching every episode right now desperately right now to find something not true

mooreandrew58 posted...

The only one I liked was about how fat wasn't truly bad for you (moderation of course) and it was sugar that was far more to blame for obeseitty. Though once again I feel sugar is just fine in moderation of course.

The thing is, it's not even a matter of moderation, rather appropriate usage.

Sugar is high priority energy great for raising energy levels when they're low, however if you consume it when there is no need, you risk the body misusing it and it causes the most harm in that circumstance.

There are times when high sugar is appropriate and there are times when none is appropriate, but you need to be able to judge when those times are to alleviate risk.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

knivesX2004 posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

You'll have to forgive me if I hold people with research teams and writers and who attempt to prove points via cited studies and statistics to a much higher standard for veracity than a self-professed nerd and geek who's read way too much and is opinionated as fuck.

I was more making fun of the part where you said there was inaccurate information in one of Adam's videos and then he decided the entire series was fake news.

Question. Has anyone called him out and proven him wrong? If so has he admitted he was wrong? That was one thing I appreciated about myth Busters. Once they claimed it was impossible for a man to catch an arrow with his bare hands and a dude contacted them and said I can do it. They brought him on the show he proved them wrong and they apologized to their viewers and said even they make mistakes.

Steven Crowder did on building the wall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_VDQVs7OE8" data-time="
---

knivesX2004 posted...

I was more making fun of the part where you said there was inaccurate information in one of Adam's videos and then he decided the entire series was fake news.

There's a vast difference between saying you don't trust the veracity of a source and explicitly stating that literally everything on the show is fake, but hey, you do you.



MICHALECOLE posted...

PO is watching every episode right now desperately right now to find something not true

You certainly seem dramatically over-invested in this. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings with my criticism of your boyfriend's show.


---

Im very disappointed in your response. Its very unlike you.

MICHALECOLE posted...

Im poopooing

Tell us more.
---

Bugmeat posted...

MICHALECOLE posted...

Im poopooing

Tell us more.

@ParanoidObsessive posted...

The one time I tried to watch that show I was able to verify the thing he was talking about was wrong, so now I don't trust any of the info on it.

I've heard you argue that global warming is a non-problem because plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, so now I don't trust any info from you.
---

Seriously guys I'm not like even that smart and I totally can see how much smarter than the show I am.
---

ARE is a pretty bad show. I remember one episode in which he talked about Alpha males and I felt things were suspicious but then, when he reached his D&D example, I knew he was either just making shit up, had no clue what he was talking about, was mis-representing, or some combination of the three.

It feels like the show is being made by that smug liberal asshole we all know. You know the kid. The kid who will insist that their vegan diet is just as good for you as meat, that everything is a conspiracy run by corporations, and everything else and, for 'proof' cites their professor or some shady news source with a blatant political bias. We all know the one. ARE is that kid if he learned to dress nicely and comb and got his own web series.
---

StoneRevolver posted...

It does seem to have a certain...agenda. Though sometimes it's more obvious than others.

Facts have a liberal bias
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

knivesX2004 posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

You'll have to forgive me if I hold people with research teams and writers and who attempt to prove points via cited studies and statistics to a much higher standard for veracity than a self-professed nerd and geek who's read way too much and is opinionated as fuck.

I was more making fun of the part where you said there was inaccurate information in one of Adam's videos and then he decided the entire series was fake news.

Question. Has anyone called him out and proven him wrong? If so has he admitted he was wrong? That was one thing I appreciated about myth Busters. Once they claimed it was impossible for a man to catch an arrow with his bare hands and a dude contacted them and said I can do it. They brought him on the show he proved them wrong and they apologized to their viewers and said even they make mistakes.

It's a little different, but they did a correction episode to point out some of the facts that they got wrong.
---

StoneRevolver posted...

I do whole thirty every few months and you would be shocked what no sugar feels like.
It's kind of hard to explain, you think people who talk about no sugar are just bragging but you really do feel A LOT different.

I know how you feel,

when I was young I was at risk for diabetes so I had to go on a year and a half long no sugar diet. I lost soooo much weight it was unreal, and the whole time I wasn't working out or cutting down carbs, it was just sugar.
---

TES_Nut posted...

StoneRevolver posted...

It does seem to have a certain...agenda. Though sometimes it's more obvious than others.

Facts have a liberal bias

Wars solve disputes.
---

Impavid54 posted...

I wasn't working out or cutting down carbs, it was just sugar.

Sugar is a carb, ya dingus.
---

I can't find a free to watch clip of it so I don't know the exact wording of the claims, but his one about slot machines set off my bullshit alarm. I think he said something along the lines of slot machines are designed to make it look like you almost won, which isn't true. I mean yeah they can end up looking like you were close to winning something but they aren't allowed to just replace the "natural" outcome with something that looks more attractive.

Chewster posted...

I can't find a free to watch clip of it so I don't know the exact wording of the claims, but his one about slot machines set off my bullshit alarm. I think he said something along the lines of slot machines are designed to make it look like you almost won, which isn't true. I mean yeah they can end up looking like you were close to winning something but they aren't allowed to just replace the "natural" outcome with something that looks more attractive.

You said that last time

But they literally do that, and in the way you just said. Almost won and close to winning are the same thing

Well you wanted an example of where he was wrong, I don't know who remembers all my posts.

No, they don't do that. Again I don't know the exact wording but IIRC he made it sound like they "select" a good-looking non-winner, which isn't true

ParanoidObsessive posted...

There's a vast difference between saying you don't trust the veracity of a source and explicitly stating that literally everything on the show is fake, but hey, you do you.

I haven't even seen the show lol
I'm saying HE dismissed the entire show, not me.

Yellow posted...

I've heard you argue that global warming is a non-problem because plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, so now I don't trust any info from you.

I've literally never said that once, so now you're literally misrepresenting me in multiple ways.

Congrats, you've achieved 100% wrong. I'm sure your parents are quite proud of you.


---

Chewster posted...

Well you wanted an example of where he was wrong, I don't know who remembers all my posts.

No, they don't do that. Again I don't know the exact wording but IIRC he made it sound like they "select" a good-looking non-winner, which isn't true

Watching the episode now. He said that since the machines became computerized, they added more winning spots, and some are programmed to hit more than others. He said that the spots in between each winning item are programmed to hit more, so it looks like you were so close to winning but just missed. He also said that machines purposely show you a confusing number of ways to win (the winning lines that you get more and more of as you max bet) and they give you false wins where you win but dont even end up making back the amount you bet. (Bet a dollar, win forty cents. Happens all the time)

His source is Addiction by Design: Machine Gambling in Las Vegas by Natasha Dow Schll

Yeah, that sounds like bullshit to me. And the winning lines aren't "confusing" or "false wins" if you bother to actually pay attention to how the game works (not that anyone gambling in a casino actually does)

MICHALECOLE posted...

He said that since the machines became computerized, they added more winning spots, and some are programmed to hit more than others.

This is sort of true, but it sounds like it's backwards. It's the bad spots that are supposed to be programmed to appear more. They do this by having weights on the random number generator, so like the jackpot symbol might have a weight of one or two but the crappy ones in between have a much higher weight. It visually looks like the good symbols are frequent, but they're not.

Edit: Oh wait, I think this is what you meant by "the spots in between each winning item are programmed to hit more", but it's confusing. Depends on whether you're talking vertically or horizontally.