Computing Forever takes on the EU(starting with Richard Dawkins)2/2

2:50 “It is not difficult to do some basic research[]”(Computing Forever)
Sometimes it works to look at the sources someone uses for his arguments.

These are Computing Forever’s named sources.
1 The sun.
2 An article by a pro-Brexit writer, written for a news website called Heat Street, a libertarian source. The article is otherwise unsupported.
look up : Lukas Mikelionis to get to know the writer.
3 Above article(point 2) is in itself is based on a article by a former UKIP politician writing for the daily mail who cites no sources and is otherwise unsupported.
4 Infowars, a website run Alex Jones, a man who is a libertarian and a  conspiracy theorist.

None of his named sources are supported by credible sources like:
I don’t mean that they do not support him. I mean even if they support his claims he doesn’t mention them.
Above link is just an example. Go look for yourself.Check this man’s sources and claims.

Note that Computing Forever hardly uses any credible source even if these supports his claims.
He uses the Guardian once, only to cite a biased interview of a former Greek finance minister who can hardly be viewed as being objective.

Here is a detailed breakdown:

CF opens  with an article on Theresa May and Scotland that comes from the sun.
The sun is a tabloid paper with a pro-Brexit stance.
It is also not considered a reliable source.
No other sources support this article.

She wants to slowly forget about it.”
An unsubstantiated statement by CF.

The Eu “[] is an anti-democratic superstate.
Anti-democratic:Unsupported claim.
Superstate: Unsupported claim.
It is not a state:

So many scientists seem to be against leaving out of self-interest.
Unsupported claim.

Note:there are however sources that support this claim, but CF does not use them. He simply fails to back up his claims even if he can.!/file/Brexit%20survey_full%20results.pdf

Now I am not saying that is the reason Dawkins is against Brexit, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it was.

It can be easily found that he is. Did Computing Forever even look?

The #Brexit vote makes me seriously doubt the existence of any sort of human evolution

Basic research how the EU operates

a) First mentioned article: 6 Time EU bosses who sneered at the electorate.
This is written by Heat Street, a libertarian news agency by a pro-Brexit writer. He ends the article with: “Vote Leave to wipe the smirk off their faces”

Point by point:

1) Euro parliament president: Referendums for “mentally weak”, “like Nazis”

The underlying source is an article by Janet Atkinson in the daily mail. She mentions no sources and no other sources support what she says. She was a UKIP politician and therefore can be assumed to be a Brexit supporter. More about her here:
As it comes to nazis it was Schulz who was being accused of being one.
See the incident with Godfrey Bloom.

2)“Decisions taken by the most democratic institutions in the world are very often wrong.
Jose Manuel Barroso 2010
This is an often quoted statement and seems valid enough. Context hard to establish.

3) Rompuy: “But we do it anyway.”
Not accessible, so hard to establish context or validity. I am Dutch so I can read the Standard. Can’t access the page without becomming a member.

4) “Britain belongs to us.”
Quoted out of context if you look at it as Schulz says the UK belongs to the EU(not us) as it is part of it.
But the writer conveniently overlooks Schulz saying that Britain is free to suggest changes as any other member state can at 1:10 into the interview.

5)Juncker: “PM’s listen to voters too much.”
“Elected leaders are making life “difficult” because they spend too much time thinking about what they can get out of EU and kowtowing to public opinion, rather than working on “historic” projects such as the Euro, he said.

6)Trade Commissioner: “I don’t take my mandate from the European People.”
This is quoted by John Hillary in his article. He is an opponent of TTIP for which the Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström is responsible. She has denied saying this.  See controversy:

b)”Greece Is A Scapegoat For The Disintegration Of The EU”
Based on an interview with the Former Greek minister of Finance.

c)Hate speech code.
Unsourced, so here are the sources Computing Forever fails to mention. Read for yourself.

This is an article in infowars.
It is run by Alex Jones.
He is a conspiracy theorist.  
I can confidently say he is a crackpot. The aritcle is written by Kurt Nimmo, but based on what Alex Jones thinks(see associated movie on website).

“(sarcastic) We should just listen to our politicians? They can never be corrupted, biased or plain wrong on any issue?
What he seems to claim is that he doesn’t trust in the democratic process with which the country is organized.

I can’t believe that I bought two of his books.”(about Dawkins)
Apparently, books get only credible when the writer agrees with you in everything even if the books discuss unrelated subjects.

5:25: “Where have I heard this before?“(on a second referendum)
From Nigel Farage.

6:15 : False dichotomy: it is referenda or dictatorship and nothing in between.
Yet, he refuses to vote a second time in the Irish 2009 one.

6:20 “you are anti-democratic to the core.”(to Dawkins)
Dawkins is undemocratic because he says that the decision should have been left to an elected parliament and he proposes a second referendum.
Computing Forever doesn’t like this.

6:25 “Ireland and France were asked again for the Nice and Lisbon treaties because the EU doesn’t care for[].”

Referenda are not enforced from the EU. In fact the democratic elected parliaments and governments have to initiate and approve them.

I will always respect you.”(about Dawkins)
Look back at 4:44 where CF wonders why he bought two books from Dawkins.

And that is the end.

What it all boils down to is that you are watching a video that uses as sources articles from the sun, heat street and infowars, twitter and the like. And biased interviews.  The only credible source he mentions is the guardian. Otherwise his statements go unsourced or unexplained.

Computing Forever takes on the world 1/2(starting with Thunderf00t)

Computing Forever takes on people like  Richard Dawkins and Thunderf00t on his YouTube channel.

Oh… Who are these guys you might ask?

This is Richard Dawkins:

This is Thunderf00t:

I ran into Computing Forever when he called out Thunderf00t in his video.

What struck me was that he says this about Thunderf00t:

“These arguments he makes in the video come from a place[]of speculation, hearsay, emotion,[] none of the rational empiricism[]. It is just a series of cognitive biases throughout.”

So.. well. Maybe he is right. I thought.

And what do I discover?

That you can say about Computing Forever:

“These arguments he makes in the video come from a place[]of speculation, hearsay, emotion,[] none of the rational empiricism[]. It is just a series of cognitive biases throughout.”

You do not believe me?

Read on:

On the 15th of June Computing Forever publicized on the Undoomed channel his criticism of Thunderfoot’s stance and arguing against a Brexit.

The video started out with Computing Forever stating at 00:45 about Thunderf00t that

“These arguments he makes in the video come from a place[]of speculation, hearsay, emotion,[] none of the rational empiricism[]. It is just a series of cognitive biases throughout.”

Next Computing Forever goes into criticism on the arguing of Thunderf00t. And to a point his arguing can be taken as valid, even when you don’t agree.

But the Computing Forever uses this video to launch his own arguments for a Brexit and one would expect that after launching that hefty dose of criticism he would be sure to not make the same mistakes.

And does he not make the same mistake?

Let’s see him argue for the Brexit(which is more: why I am against the EU).
Starting 10:15. 

The UK will lose its own sovereignty.
Computing Forever does not elaborate how that would come about. He just makes it a matter of fact statement without backing it up with any source, link or proof. You either believe him or not.

So I did the work he forgot to do, and if you read the Wikipedia on sovereignty you will see that it can not be lost. It is either given away or taken by force:
If Computing Forever wanted to argue the UK would be suckered into losing its sovereignty, then he is free to do so. But he doesn’t. He just states it as a fact.But it isn’t a fact. It is speculation on his part.

10:17: The EU wants to have its own police force.
Another claim by Computing Forever that goes unsourced.
So again I looked it up.

There is no proof to be found on the internet. So if he has any proof it would be nice to be supplied with that proof, otherwise: it is hearsay.
There is Europol:
“The agency has no executive powers, and its officials are not entitled to conduct investigations in the member states or to arrest suspects. “
There is a European gendarmerie which is an intervention force operated by five nations and has nothing to do with the EU.
What sources I can find are like these:

10:18: Its own rule of law.
Computing Forever accuses the EU of trying to get its own rule of law.
Whatever does he mean?

Rule of law: “the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws.”
The EU already has a rule of law. Or does he mean he rather has no rule of law?
He might mean something but he does not tell.

An  own constitution.
It is true they tried to have a constitution and I think that someone argued that the legal arrangements already in place are a de facto constitution. However when it was attempted to have a constitution this was blocked by the French and Dutch.

We will see further into the movie how emotional he reacts when it comes to the Irish referendum.

Become the  United States of Europe.
No sources that such is occurring or planned.
So here are some sources:
So according to the polls held there are more people for than against it. If he wanted to support his case,he could have pointed to this poll. But he didn’t.

The EU is profoundly undemocratic.
It would be very nice if he somehow can explain why it is undemocratic. But he doesn’t.
What sources keep track of democracy are focused on countries.
Here are some sources that he might have given.

We can continue on to the slightly skewed representation of the Irish referendum where Computing Forever becomes pretty emotional.

To wit: he is exactly like he accuses Thunderf00t to be.

It doesn’t make him wrong, it is just that:

00:45 “These arguments he makes in the video come from a place[]of speculation, hearsay, emotion,[] none of the rational empiricism[]. It is just a series of cognitive biases throughout.”

To be continued….