How to deal with youtubes "skeptic" community (veganism)?

[EquALLity]

I do also think it is unfair to attack their fanbases as well, calling them "idiot 12 year olds" seems untactful and shows more of a biased hatred towards them on your part. To be honest, their fanbases might actually be older, but we don't know because older people are less likely to be loud and obnoxious on the internet than younger people.

I agree, it's very unfair to bring anyone's age into it...

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

I do also think it is unfair to attack their fanbases as well, calling them "idiot 12 year olds" seems untactful and shows more of a biased hatred towards them on your part. To be honest, their fanbases might actually be older, but we don't know because older people are less likely to be loud and obnoxious on the internet than younger people.

I agree, it's very unfair to bring anyone's age into it...

It's more unfair to use "idiot 12 year olds" as a blanket justification for why you dislike a person based solely on the unfounded and unevidence-based age-range of their subscribers. However, people who are younger are more often than not ignorant on the topics they write about and don't fully grasp or comprehend the subject of which they are writing, and mainly just parroting what they have heard from other, not reliable, sources. They are very young, and therefore have little actual experience in what they are claiming to know about, and cannot legally engage in many actions such as smoking, drinking, or consent, because their brains have not yet developed to the point of understanding the long-term implications of their actions.

So I have no issue with Ageism in that respect. But simply attacking someone because their fanbase might be young? That is just stupid.

[Red]

I do also think it is unfair to attack their fanbases as well, calling them "idiot 12 year olds" seems untactful and shows more of a biased hatred towards them on your part. To be honest, their fanbases might actually be older, but we don't know because older people are less likely to be loud and obnoxious on the internet than younger people.

Come on, have you seen the comments these people leave on videos? Sure, you're right that they may not be 12, but these people tend to be the most obnoxious, and confrontational people on the internet, so don't blame me when I go say that most of their fanbase is composed of people under the age of 14. Most of these people are part of the new atheist community on the internet, one of the worst communities I've ever seen. A lot of these people kinda just hear what the guy says and just nod. I'm not saying that all of these people are like this, but a good estimation can be about 40-50%. I would try to debate them, but they seem to stubborn to do so. It's a safe bet that some are rational, mature people, but that's a small minority from what I've seen.

And I do remember you were the one who said that you wouldn't listen to Richard Dawkins
And even if I do berate their fanbases, what's the big deal?

It's more unfair to use "idiot 12 year olds" as a blanket justification for why you dislike a person based solely on the unfounded and unevidence-based age-range of their subscribers. However, people who are younger are more often than not ignorant on the topics they write about and don't fully grasp or comprehend the subject of which they are writing, and mainly just parroting what they have heard from other, not reliable, sources. They are very young, and therefore have little actual experience in what they are claiming to know about, and cannot legally engage in many actions such as smoking, drinking, or consent, because their brains have not yet developed to the point of understanding the long-term implications of their actions.

So I have no issue with Ageism in that respect. But simply attacking someone because their fanbase might be young? That is just stupid.

Are you talking to me?

[EquALLity]

However, people who are younger are more often than not ignorant on the topics they write about

Most people in general are ignorant on the topics they write about. That has nothing to do with how you should treat arguments individually.

don't fully grasp or comprehend the subject of which they are writing,

Again, neither do people in general.

and mainly just parroting what they have heard from other, not reliable, sources.

You doing that as a teenager doesn't reflect on all of us.

They are very young, and therefore have little actual experience in what they are claiming to know about, and cannot legally engage in many actions such as smoking, drinking, or consent, because their brains have not yet developed to the point of understanding the long-term implications of their actions.

Teenagers aren't infants. Our brains haven't fully developed... And? Neither has your's- your brain doesn't fully develop until twenty-five, and might even keep developing until the late thirties.

I guess you should never have sex/do drugs/do anything at all really either, because obviously if your brain hasn't COMPLETELY developed, you have no critical thinking skills and are basically a five-year-old. Got it.

*I'm not saying teenagers should necessarily do those things, because drugs can have especially harmful effects on teenagers in particular. But the reason why most teenagers should avoid drugs is because of that, not because they can't think rationally.

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

I do also think it is unfair to attack their fanbases as well, calling them "idiot 12 year olds" seems untactful and shows more of a biased hatred towards them on your part. To be honest, their fanbases might actually be older, but we don't know because older people are less likely to be loud and obnoxious on the internet than younger people.

Come on, have you seen the comments these people leave on videos? Sure, you're right that they may not be 12, but these people tend to be the most obnoxious, and confrontational people on the internet, so don't blame me when I go say that most of their fanbase is composed of people under the age of 14. Most of these people are part of the new atheist community on the internet, one of the worst communities I've ever seen. A lot of these people kinda just hear what the guy says and just nod. I'm not saying that all of these people are like this, but a good estimation can be about 40-50%. I would try to debate them, but they seem to stubborn to do so. It's a safe bet that some are rational, mature people, but that's a small minority from what I've seen.

And I do remember you were the one who said that you wouldn't listen to Richard Dawkins
And even if I do berate their fanbases, what's the big deal?

I agree, many of the fans are extremely confrontational and obnoxious, but like veganism, that might just be a vocal minority.

It's more unfair to use "idiot 12 year olds" as a blanket justification for why you dislike a person based solely on the unfounded and unevidence-based age-range of their subscribers. However, people who are younger are more often than not ignorant on the topics they write about and don't fully grasp or comprehend the subject of which they are writing, and mainly just parroting what they have heard from other, not reliable, sources. They are very young, and therefore have little actual experience in what they are claiming to know about, and cannot legally engage in many actions such as smoking, drinking, or consent, because their brains have not yet developed to the point of understanding the long-term implications of their actions.

So I have no issue with Ageism in that respect. But simply attacking someone because their fanbase might be young? That is just stupid.

Are you talking to me?

No

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

However, people who are younger are more often than not ignorant on the topics they write about

Most people in general are ignorant on the topics they write about. That has nothing to do with how you should treat arguments individually.

don't fully grasp or comprehend the subject of which they are writing,

Again, neither do people in general.

and mainly just parroting what they have heard from other, not reliable, sources.

You doing that as a teenager doesn't reflect on all of us.

They are very young, and therefore have little actual experience in what they are claiming to know about, and cannot legally engage in many actions such as smoking, drinking, or consent, because their brains have not yet developed to the point of understanding the long-term implications of their actions.

Teenagers aren't infants. Our brains haven't fully developed... And? Neither has your's- your brain doesn't fully develop until twenty-five, and might even keep developing until the late thirties.

I guess you should never have sex/do drugs/do anything at all really either, because obviously if your brain hasn't COMPLETELY developed, you have no critical thinking skills and are basically a five-year-old. Got it.

*I'm not saying teenagers should necessarily do those things, because drugs can have especially harmful effects on teenagers in particular. But the reason why most teenagers should avoid drugs is because of that, not because they can't think rationally.

I don't see an actual argument here. I just see "Yeah, the science agrees with you, and!? Not ALL teenagers!" it's very emotionally driven. Which is another trait in young people, they tend to be more hormonally emotionally driven, and don't rely that much of logic, scientifically speaking.

[EquALLity]

However, people who are younger are more often than not ignorant on the topics they write about

Most people in general are ignorant on the topics they write about. That has nothing to do with how you should treat arguments individually.

don't fully grasp or comprehend the subject of which they are writing,

Again, neither do people in general.

and mainly just parroting what they have heard from other, not reliable, sources.

You doing that as a teenager doesn't reflect on all of us.

They are very young, and therefore have little actual experience in what they are claiming to know about, and cannot legally engage in many actions such as smoking, drinking, or consent, because their brains have not yet developed to the point of understanding the long-term implications of their actions.

Teenagers aren't infants. Our brains haven't fully developed... And? Neither has your's- your brain doesn't fully develop until twenty-five, and might even keep developing until the late thirties.

I guess you should never have sex/do drugs/do anything at all really either, because obviously if your brain hasn't COMPLETELY developed, you have no critical thinking skills and are basically a five-year-old. Got it.

*I'm not saying teenagers should necessarily do those things, because drugs can have especially harmful effects on teenagers in particular. But the reason why most teenagers should avoid drugs is because of that, not because they can't think rationally.

I don't see an actual argument here. I just see "Yeah, the science agrees with you, and!? Not ALL teenagers!" it's very emotionally driven.

*facepalm*

Um, no, the science doesn't agree with you.

The science is that teen brains aren't fully developed; not that we have no critical thinking skills.
By your logic of lack of complete brain development meaning teenagers have no critical thinking skills, you don't have critical thinking skills, because a 24-year-old brain isn't fully developed.

(I guess you didn't catch that because of your undeveloped brain.)

[EquALLity]

Which is another trait in young people, they tend to be more hormonally emotionally driven, and don't rely that much of logic, scientifically speaking.

"Young people". You're twenty-four; you're barely older than a teenager yourself.

Just adding 'scientifically speaking' doesn't make that response any less full of shit. You know, technically speaking, or whatever.

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't see an actual argument here. I just see "Yeah, the science agrees with you, and!? Not ALL teenagers!" it's very emotionally driven. Which is another trait in young people, they tend to be more hormonally emotionally driven, and don't rely that much of logic, scientifically speaking.

I think the question is: "where do you draw the line?"

I don't consider most 20, 30, 50, 80 year-olds to be rational and informed enough to make their own decisions. But I've known teenagers more rational and informed than people in their 80s.

If we draw a line, shouldn't it be based on knowledge and rationality, and shouldn't it be consistent no matter the age?

The trouble I see is that due to the Dunning Kruger effect, a person can not really estimate his or her own rationality or knowledge reliably (dumb people think they're smart).
Age at least increases the probability of being rational enough to make these decisions. For the majority of people, their increases in rationality and knowledge will spike then kind of plateau in their late twenties and early thirties, so if they're ever going to be capable of making decisions, that's the best bet.

25-30 seems to be the typical age of reaching maximal maturity, so 27 is probably the age I'd trust most people to be the most competent they will be to make decisions about their lives

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

I don't see an actual argument here. I just see "Yeah, the science agrees with you, and!? Not ALL teenagers!" it's very emotionally driven. Which is another trait in young people, they tend to be more hormonally emotionally driven, and don't rely that much of logic, scientifically speaking.

I think the question is: "where do you draw the line?"

I don't consider most 20, 30, 50, 80 year-olds to be rational and informed enough to make their own decisions. But I've known teenagers more rational and informed than people in their 80s.

If we draw a line, shouldn't it be based on knowledge and rationality, and shouldn't it be consistent no matter the age?

The trouble I see is that due to the Dunning Kruger effect, a person can not really estimate his or her own rationality or knowledge reliably (dumb people think they're smart).
Age at least increases the probability of being rational enough to make these decisions. For the majority of people, their increases in rationality and knowledge will spike then kind of plateau in their late twenties and early thirties, so if they're ever going to be capable of making decisions, that's the best bet.

25-30 seems to be the typical age of reaching maximal maturity, so 27 is probably the age I'd trust most people to be the most competent they will be to make decisions about their lives

I agree, I know many smart rational teenagers, and many dumb 60 year olds. Age is not a full factor in terms of intelligence. But I have noticed many teenagers act as if they are highly rational people when in reality they are not. They believe themselves to be highly rational, even when they are arguing from an area of emotion. Older people do this too. But it is more likely for teenagers to do dumb reckless things, especially in 2016 America, because that's what teenagers tend to like doing.

But in terms of high amounts of rationality in teens, we have to focus on whether or not they are truly rational, and not just rational when it comes to a topic we agree with. As being correct doesn't automatically equate to rationality. It does seem a lot like the dunning kruger effect.