So you waste your energy and anger on what others do or do not do that is against what you believe hoping to get validation from others for this judgement.

Can you provide these people with family planning education? Birth control? Are these areas where men feel superior to women and take sex whether a woman gives consent or not?

Be a help not a complainer, eh?

Not true. Atheists have less children. Also good for this society to help the planet last longer

I love it when youtube is passed off as some kind of reliable source of factual information... it gives me a good chuckle.

on this we agree, although there are the needle in a haystack videos which give accurate accounts of what someone has done or said on camera

it is so simple to edit and post just about any nonsense on youtube,,I know several teens who post there ,,,lol

Are you implying that Youtube itself is responsible for its content? If so, you have no idea what youtube is about.

You need to use right discrimination towards every individual who uses youtube to dispense information.

Youtube is for all kinds of sources and you cannot judge the messenger as non-reliable or reliable.

You look at the information and the poster, and use your own judgment.

See the above.

The medium is not the author.
Youtube is not responsible for what people choose to distribute.

All information must be judged individually.

You could say the same thing about television, or the entire Internet.

I think I stated there are some videos which can accurately portray what someone else has said or done,, although many are edited to appear as something they arent,,,,


because of the nature of youtube posts to have no type of controls, editing, legal culpability of its accurateness. I dont generally consider it as viable a source as a NETWORK source with real legal culpability and real money to lose,,,,


so yeah, if something is on youtube by someone who can be identified who has some past of credibility,, thats great

but RANDOM YOUTUBE posts by anonymous folks or folks with no known history of actual CREDIBLE reporting,,,,not so much a source I take with more than a grain of salt,,,,

One should never believe something solely because of the "source" or "medium" anyway.

But to imply or laugh at youtube as being an "unreliable source" is silly since anyone can post there and some are credible and some are not, and some are simply opinions pieces.

It is all INFORMATION to be analyzed. You should never pass judgement on the medium of the message. That is as silly as discounting a message because it is written on a brown paper bag rather than a nice stationary.

Its just silly.

agreed

but it helps to site a youtube source with some identity and credibility and REFERENCES instead of some random video/message,,,,,by some random person,,,,

Of course it is, but that was not the point.

The original statement I had issue with was this one from willowdraga

"I love it when youtube is passed off as some kind of reliable source of factual information... it gives me a good chuckle."

And then you agreed with that... but added that some youtube videos do have useful information.

The truth is, you can't site YOUTUBE as a "source" at all.

IT IS NOT A SOURCE IT IS A MEDIUM.

all the more reason to not try to pass it off as a 'source' of factual information,,,lol

its a medium for whatever information random folks want to post,, factual or not,,,

No one is trying to pass Youtube off as a source of information. They are linking to a video.... AND the person who put the video there is the source.

Youtube is not the source. It is the medium.



Now you get it. Youtube is a medium. IT IS NOT A SOURCE.

Therefore to judge youtube as a reliable or unreliable 'source' is illogical and silly.

To state that it is not a good source for information not accurate.

To state that it is a reliable and truthful source is not accurate.

Because it is a medium, not a source.

The consequences of having children when they have no job, is validation.

You don't need to validate wisdom, it is justified by her children.

Children born into poverty are less likely to succeed, and are greatly disadvantaged, whereas children born in a rich family have every advantage.

There is no need for education when an application is needed to have children.

If there are certain lawful requirments to having children, like a steady job, then someone wanting a child will have to get a steady job first.

It's logical.

I do not have to validate my religious views, the crime, diseases and aimless persiuts that are the results of secularism, is validation enough for me.

I think the population problem is in God's hands.

It is not up to humans to forbid procreation. You would be talking about a brutal dictatorship that tried something like that.

If you want to solve the poverty problem find out what the FED did with the 9 trillion dollars that went missing.



Help them find that and demand they distribute it to the poor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5zy7YkuMJ8

Its as if you are under the delusion that Christians don't get diseases, or commit crimes...

Your claim that crime and disease is the result of secularism is absurd and unsupported.

Homicide convictions upheld for Wisconsin parents who treated dying daughter with prayer

A deeply religious Wisconsin couple who prayed over their dying daughter rather than seek medical help were properly convicted of homicide, the state Supreme Court decided Wednesday.

Kara Neumann, 11, of Weston, Wis., died March 23, 2008 — Easter Sunday — of complications of untreated juvenile onset diabetes.

According to the case records, Kara had been showing symptoms of exhaustion and dehydration for more than a week, but her parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, refused to take her to a pediatrician, and decided to respond to her illness with prayer, not medicine.

A pediatrician testified that Kara's disease was highly treatable and that her chances of survival were high until "well into the day of her death."


The Neumanns don't belong to any particular church, but they identify as Pentecostals, according to factual findings in the court record, none of which the Neumanns disputed. Some Pentecostals — but by no means all — believe that prayer and strong religious belief can cure all illnesses, a tradition that helped give rise to famous "faith healers" like Oral Roberts and Benny Hinn.


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/03/19275007-homicide-convictions-upheld-for-wisconsin-parents-who-treated-dying-daughter-with-prayer?lite

that's scary , that parents can be doubly suffered because their child dies of illness,,,

More unsupported Malarkey!
One look at the dark Ages would show you different!

it would be nice if there was more enforcement for parents to take care of their children

regardless of their relation to each other,,,,

if they committed to each other, there could always be one working a few jobs if necessary knowing the children were in good hands with the other (And not paying an arm and a leg for caretakers instead)