Video

1. dont undermind God 2. dont disrespect God 3. dont take Gods name out of context 4. dont underestimate God 5. treat the land well and itll treat you well 6. dont step outside your boundary 7. dont compromise what doesnt need to be changed 8. dont go against the current 9. no pranks 10. no surprises 11. ettiquette 12. dont do anything unnecessary within your abillities 13. crucial___ dont DISRUPT anything at all, you know you shouldnt, or God will kick you out!!!!!!. i had a papal sanctioned signed by god.claim theocracy immunity. its no longer stars and stripes, its rainbow.

Honestly your channel's presentation delivery needs help.

Doubting is thinking. Therefore you thought. THEREFORE YOU ARE. YOU ALONE ARE.

So the second definition of morality, that isnt how i understand morality. Your internal sense of right and wrong is your conscience. Morality is a transcendent thing that applies to everyone all the time. To explain the difference, look at a defense lawyer defending a murderer who he knows is guilty. Morally and by his own conscience, he thinks it is wrong to aid and abet this murder by helping the guy escape justice, but ethically, he must defend him and try to get him off. Morally it's wrong to steal, as well as ethically if the person you are stealing from didnt do anything wrong, but by your own conscience you may find it right because it prevents starvation. And ethically among thieves, if you swiped something that isn't missed and which the person you stole from won't suffer a great deal in the absence of, it was ok. Theft is actually a good example. Thieves have morals and ethics and a conscience. Stealing is wrong, and they usually think stealing is wrong. Look at a documentary on italian pickpockets if you don't believe me. But the ethics of it, the code of conduct, is that if you do it without hurting anyone physically, you're ok.

Is there any case in the world that truly has a two-party system? I know some countries, such as the US, have effectively a two party system due to the use of pluraliry/FPTP system being insanely prone to the spoiler effect, but it's not truly, more parties are allowed and they do exist, most people just vote strategically to not waste their vote. In order to truly have a two-party system, you need to artificially restrict range, because it's highly unrealistic that there will only be 2 options if more are allowed. So when you argue for a two party system, either you're arguing to have a multi-party system with plurality/FPTP (an absolutely terrible system), or you're arguing to resteict range. Now what's better ultimately depends on what you're choosing, but for an election of a president or other single role intended to represent a large amount of people, it is best to choose someone who is considered more acceptable than each other candidate, i.e. a condorcet winner; or in case none exists, then at least someone from the set that all consider more acceptable than those outside the set, i.e. someone from the Smith set. Determining a condorcet winner, ir the Smith set, should thus be a priority. If we found our Condorcet winner, great, we're done. If we found a Smith set larger than 1 (which I think is quite rare in realistic elections) then we need a way to pick someone from that set. Since we all desire to limit tactical voting and interference from the spoiler effect, and knowing that full IIA is impossible, it seems sensible to go for the option that satisfies all three of the weaker forms of IIA: LIIA, Smith-IIA, and Indepence of Clones, which all make strategic voting and spoiler effect more difficult and less likely. Thus, we should opt for the Ranked Pairs Condorcet method. If we want a legislature or something that represents the diversity of opinions that exist in society, then we shouldn't be looking at these methods at all, we should be looking at various methods of proportional representation; local representatives on a national/federal level is an absolutely ridiculous system and also assumes that voter preferences are large based on locality whilst completely ignoring other demographics: why local representatives rather than representatives based on demographics such as age, race, gender, sexuality, religion? For mamy people those are as important as, if not more portant than, theie locality for their voter preferences; local representatives is just a form of identity politics, favoured mostly by the people who whine the most about identity politics. Perhaps in the olden days it made sense because you only really had any connection to your local community with little to no clue to what was going on outside of it; but nowadays with the inteeconnectivity we have, it just doesn't seem that sensible anymore. Now if you just want to pick a movie to watch with your friends, you can go for something simple as approval voting; it's quick, easy, and as long as the stakes are low and no real reason to try to vote tactically, it'll be fine, and you can pick the option that most of you are okay with. Need to judge a bunch of performances in a music contest? Some score voting is probably thw right pick for that, as long as those voting don't have a stake in the results and thus no reason to tactically inflate/deflate their scores, that's a pretty good system to get a final ranking of the candidates. Want the middleground/compromise/moderate option out of the picture and its fence-sitting centrist supporters picking a side? Then the centre-squeezing Instant Runoff Vote (a.k.a. Alternative Vote) is the right choice for you

Whilst pure Condorcet passes it, any of the variants that does somehow pick a winner if there's no condorcet winner no longer passes it (but does beat the always a winner criterion in that case). Considering that no non-dictatorial ranked system that always produces a winner is able to satisfy this criterion, I think it's sensible to look at weaker forms of the criterion to still get something out of it if we want a ranked system. The local Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives is one such weaker form that still isn't satisfied by many. It is only concerned with the last place dropping out not changing the winner, and the 1st place dropping out always causing the rumner up to win. IIA is for a large part related to the spoiler effect, where passing it would mean resistance to the spoiler effect. Whilst condorxet methods aren't perfectlt resistent to the spoiler effect, they do have more resistance than most methods; if there is a condorcet winner, they there is no way that another candidate dropping out would change that winner, and a new candidate joining could only chamge the winner by either becoming the winner themselves, or by becoming part of the Smith set (which the previous winner would also still be part of). A criterion that is then particularly useful if we also care about the condorcet criterion, is the Smith-IIA, which states that no candidate outside of the Smith set should affect the winner. This also pairs nicely with the Smith criterion, a generalization of the Condorcet criterion, which states that the winner should always be from the Smith set (if a condorcet winner exists, then the condorcet winner is the only candidate in the Smith set and thus a method that satisfies the Smith criterion must necessarily also satisfy the Condorcet criterion). There's also independence of clones*, which means that if a clone* candidate is added or removed, it should not affect the chances if winning/losinf for any candidates outside that set of clones*. The Ranked Pairs Condorcet method satisfies all of these weaker forms of the IIA (as well as satisfying all other criteria, except the pure IIA, discussed in this mini-series). And seeing as no ranked voting method is able to satify pure IIA, I'd argue that ranked pairs condorcet is the best ranked choice system out there. To make things even better, it's relatively simple to understand how a winner is chosen, and easy to verify, which can be considered valuable properties of a voting system in practice to have. *A clone in this context is a candidate who is ranked by all voters directly above or below the candidate they're a clone off, without any other candidates between (both are considered clones). Potentially a set of multiple candidates could all be considered clones if they are always ranked together without any others ever ranked between them. The main point is that voters see them as close enough that they always move as a group within the rankings, and are never split up, even if they're not exactly equal.

Evil is the destruction of something of value ( unique, preciious, and what encourages the flourishing of other valuable things and beings) Natural evil is when blind forces without volition cause the destruction. Personal evil is destruction for the pleasure of the destroyer (M. SCcott Peck MD, paraphrased)

I think doing a thorough analytic investigation of the aphorism is fine… but it misses half the picture. Nature is more than just syllogisms.

1:14 is there any evidence that there often is no Condorcet winner? Is this based on analysis of hypotheticals, or of real life scenarios? Considering that in most elections candidates can generally be (roughly) ranked on an axis voters on the extremes will tend to choose their own extreme, then the centre, then the other extreme, and the centre will split some leaning one way and some another but centre first, which in practice often means that the centre/median (within the ideological space) tends to be the condorcet winner. Only if the centre might be ruling long enough whilst being dissatisfying to voters, might people start to prefer anything non-establishment over the established centre, and thus choose extreme1>extreme2>centre, and then only if enough people have a preference like that, but also still enough stick with traditional preferences, would there reasonably arise a smith set rather than a single Condorcet winner. Intuitively, I'd therefore expect that in real life election scenarios, having no condorcet winner is quite unlikely.

This is a major flaw in approval methods. Approval: Even if everyone prefers A over B, but due to to lack of ranking needs to categorise them as either approved or not approved, and everyone either approves of both or disapproves of both (i.e. nobody approves one one but not the other) then the system is unable to determine this preference despite its existence, and will tie the twoz thus causing B to be a winner as well (and in most systems thisbprafticallybwould mean flipping a coin which could end up choosing B instead of A, even if everyone prefers B). It could also be an issue in cardinal voting methods if the scoring options are limited in such a way that voters are forced to rank some options that are close the same, even if they do have a preference between them (e.g. you can only use integers from 0-10 even though there are 12+ candidates, then you are forced to give the same score to multiple candidates), in that case, despite the unanumous preferences that exist, if they are close enough that all voters give both the same score (different voters can give different scores, as long as on each individual's ballot they receove the same score, e.g. A and B receive a 10 on X's ballot, they both receive a 6 on Y's ballot, and they both receive a 0 on Z's ballot). Arguably, it could even happen if there are enough score options to give everyone a different score, but all voters just feel that the difference between the two is larger than the difference between two score options. The only way to 100% prevent this in cardinal voting is for the scoring to allow as much precision as people desire (e.g. being able to rank one candidate a 7 and another a 7.00000000001 and it actually being possible to make a difference)

I don't think this is too much of an issue, there are various condorcet methods that pick someone from the Smith set as a winner if no winner is found, either directly or by applying a secondary method. That way you'll always pick a condorcet winner if there is one, or pick someone from the smith set if there is no Condorcet winner.

efil!

Sir, I thought you have already made a video about that. 🤔

Can you start with the Peano Axioms and derive Set Theory? We can make sets of natural numbers

Even the satanic temple has a fair bit of nazi influence at its top. An alternative left wing version is the global order.

are a jew?

Great summary.

Let me try to offer a constructive comment. Yes, a difficult topic demands a long form. You cannot provide both the context, data, and analysis of something as complex as genocide any other way. And I would very much enjoy more of that type. However given the complexity, even a long form video does not always give you enough time. To that end I find the short videos which give background necessary to build up toward the long form and you did a great job providing citations back to prior vids. Yet these seems to be a missing middle. The complexities of international law alone would have been a good topic for a mid-sized video. And the parts of this video could have been broken into three videos rather than all run together. Same amount of work on you but more easily digested for the less committed viewer. The break between vids offers time for reflection and time to go back to cited vids. Still, on the whole obviously great work on an incredibly difficult topic. Thank you.

Dark souls 2

Intellectual parlor game that the author stacks the deck for his own self-serving purpose. At 13:00 he describes Jews migrating to Israel from the Middle East and Eastern Europe 'decreasing diversity'? These Jews were fleeing massive intolerance, persecution and violence directed at them! By the author's 'creative logic' Jews should have remained in Eastern Europe and Arab countries, accepted violence and discrimination, to fulfill his lofty objective of diversity? What a bunch of crap. He talks about historical anti-semitism in a fleeting manner as if it's like having a minor headache. When in fact it lnvolvec decades and centuries of discrimination, persecution and violence. To talk about anti-semitism in this way and make NO MENTION of the Holocaust or the expulsion of the Jews from the Arab countries after 1948 shows his self serving intellectual agenda of deligitimizing Zionism.by hiding behind this weaved together intellectual construct. He dies use history to make broad generalizations about the history of Zionism accusing it carte Blanche of always engaging in ethnic cleansing and being against diversity. Meanwhile, Druze, Bedouin and Christian Arabs serve in the Israeli military. There are Arab professors at Israeli colleges. Arab doctors and nurses in Israeli Israeli hospitals. Israel has made countless peace offers to the Palestinians. All turned down. But pull out the blame the current Israeli government for all of the Middle East's problems. The author has shown his true colors by downplaying the suffering of Jews in the USSR, Eastern Europe and the Arab countries before and after World War II. Jews were massacred in Poland in 1946 after the Holocaust. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielce_pogrom The author clearly has zero sympathy for the tragic history of the Jews. No mention of the Holocaust. The stock and trade of intellectuals clearly biased against Jewa. Instead he deliberatley stacks the deck to create this sterile, one sided critique. The author makes broad generalizations about the history of Israel when it supports any perceived criticism. But then fleetingly references abd downplays historic anti-semitism. This is pathetically one sided, simplistic and biased.

Do you think words like these have lost any real definition or meaning because over usage by perpetually offended keyboard warriors?

At 57:20, your conclusion of "yes" is not supported by your reasoning. Firstly, it seems like you're conflating "Israel" with "jews". Hamas has stated, in line with your reasoning of what is okay to oppose, that they oppose the "zionist entity", not the state of Israel no matter its form. Secondly, putting aside questions about how many civilians Israel killed with its response, it seems fairly clear that the purpose of the attack was to take hostages for exchange and to destroy Israeli military assets.

I'm really disappointed that this series has not been completed. I was particularly interested in hearing what you thought Quine would have to say. Please finish. This is valuable.

it is not possible as a human to live without beliefs completely. at the very least we must have the belief that our actions are efficacious to achieving the ends we desire. even my dog believes thus.

i Think it's ridiculous to call what the Israeli's are doing a genocide if 20% how Israëls population are arabs (who for the most part call themselves palestinians too). They are simply doing everything in their power to win this was because they simply cannot afford to lose. You might Think jews are inherently bad like some ideologies believe and therefore say the Israelis are using unnecessary tactics to "punish" the palestinians but i Think that they're trying to secure their state even if it means taking drastic measures. (+the food shortage in Gaza is a complete myth) Don't Forget that if hamas Wins in the long run that would mean the end of Israel the jews inside it, and probably even the arab Israelis (who hamas would consider as collaboraters with the jews just for having citizenship). War is sad and painfull and more Palestinians are dying that Israelis but that's definitly not a genocide.

_Time traveler kicks rock_ *Alvin Turing* 💀

What on earth is this argument ☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️I can imagine the boogie man is real that doesn’t mean he is 😭 or big foot

You may want to review your own video on the Bottleneck Fallacy. 😂

I dont watch enough but i have been subbed and with bell on fir years and years and years. Some days i get the feeling and just binge your stuff. This is a tip i guess. I was just at work its slow and was thinking how progressivism ala Teddy Roosevelt kinda associated with GOP but how and when it became more left or was it always that way 🤔 i sound like a fool trying to be succinct i was just curious dag nammit Happy 4th if American i cant remember i thought you were living in Africa if memory serves

You can't change the past. There have been many injusticies in the past, but it is impossible to compensate historical inequalities today. We need to live from today and ahead. Trying to repair old injusticies is pointledd, it will never work. The risk is that would create newwer injusticies.

Most people who think themselves reasonable are actually just following the consensus because they don't have all the necessary information to actually use reason. This often leads to very bad outcomes.

Cheer~~willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own--- openness to new ideas.😊

Great

Sneaky sneaky.

Since my wife died I have come to see the happy smug atheists as kind of pathetic. I am an atheist and have been for about 45 years. It is a rock solid conviction, but it is perhaps the hardest truth to hold onto when you lose loved ones. Faith is a cowardly cheat that diminishes the humanity of those who hold it, they fail to accept the real 'meaning' to a life with a definite end and no Father God. But few people can hold on to the courage of Atheism's truth when things go bad. Most humans are too cowardly to accept the truth and if Faith was wiped out it would result in grief causing mental collapse and suicide in the majority of people. It would drive most people insane. It is a necessary evil and drug of the world. Atheism is a total personal acceptance of your reality as a human being. It is lonely and terrifying and much, much more than just a lack of belief in a God, it is a deeply moral determination to hold on to your reality no matter what. It requires deep courage at hard times.

With all due respect I have to call you on the Gaza war. Firstly there is no indication that a culture is being targeted. It is a fact that Israel have provided warnings about where strikes would happen, have allowed people to move to humanitarian areas and have facilitated the movement of food which even the UN had to admit prevented a famine in the region. There is no indication that the IDF is killed Gazans just because they are Gazans as a regular policy nor is there, unlike the people holding the hostages, any effort to change their religion. As for the numbers you quote, I don't know how old this video is but the UN has said that child death number is half of what you showed. Also these numbers, presented only by Hamas, are not broken down by how they were killed. Hamas and Islamic Jihad fire rockets with a significant failure dropping randomly on Gazans. I have seen this happening on videos live from Al Jazeera. The recent drop in deaths reported could very well be due mostly to the lost of rockets. As for school and hospitals, sadly under international law these become valid targets if use by the enemy. The IDF has been fired at from hospitals, there a tunnels and bunker under these hospitals, and perhaps worse a Israel woman was murdered in a hospital. I really respect you work but I wish you had taken more time to talk to somebody else about this, Israelis have addressed these claims and you seem to just take Hamas's numbers as truth

You can either have group equality or individual equality. You cannot have both. Group equality would involve measuring outcomes at group level setting targets or quotas for outcomes. Individual equality involves having a single set of rules that apply to all; and not judging people based on petty trivialities such as eye skin or hair colour. Group equality people are racist - it is not an opinion- it is the meaning of the word. CRT is racist and people promoting it should be fined, jailed or do community service.

In Former Mandate of Palestine there are 7 million Arabic Speaking Muslims and 7 million Hebrew Speaking Jews. As I write even the UN has recognised that Israel is not blocking food, that there is not a famine, and the number of children dead you present is 200%, without identification of how old children were or how they died. Given the population of 2.2 million Gazans how can it be argued that their culture is endangered?

DISCLAIMER: I only watched the last 10 minutes Seems to make little sense that Hamas attacks could constitute a "counter genocide". Surely the power imbalance creates an asymmetry in how the definition is applied? Also not sure how fair calling Al Aqsa flood an attack on civilians is. Firstly the argument could be made that settlers aren't civilians. But even assuming that they are its become pretty clear now that it was a military expedition that went haywire with many random people joining in on the violence. Also, the allegations of sexual violence haven't been substantiated even a bit. You should have mentioned this. Overall this just seems like a forced both sides bad take that no one would ever believe regarding South Africa now. That one side is backed by the strongest global empire and the other is literally occupied by them, the idea that this opressed side could commit a genocide on their opressors is just silly. If going from no rights to rights means making Israel unlivable then how can this be considered genocidal? The more i think the more this makes no sense. And if our theory of genocide doesnt account for this power imbalance then its useless.

I really like the longer styles of videos. I stopped watching videos on this channel a while ago because I was frustrated by how a short they were, but I really enjoyed this one and I’d watch more of them. Doesn’t bother me at all if they are infrequent.

Fact check: The first genocide you said israel has made, the nakbah, began when Arab nations like Syria, Iraq Jorden, Egypt, including the Palestinians, rejected the UN 2 states' proposal and declared a war, from all sides, on israel. Indeed israel has occupied land, but this is not genocide. For the claim that israel is doing genocide in the current war with hamas, I will ask this: israel has 20% Arabs citizens which more then 90% of them define them selves as Palestinians also for all the plastianias in the west bank israel is doing nothing of thrthings you mentioned that israel is doing in this the current war which considers as acts of genocide. so is israel doing a genocide on Palestinians? Indeed there is a terrible war in Gaza, also innocent people are dieing . but if you accept the idea that a group of people can defend them selves and fight against other group, which addressing most of there resources to eliminate the first group, then ask your self how can it be done in the Gaza war if hamas use civil facilities as military bases, because they are civil facilities. please chek the bases that were located in under hospitals, schools and un facilities. one last thing: israel has never ever targeted workers of humanitarian organizations. but Indeed 2 things has happened, the first I's that the Idf has mistakenly killed people from humanitarian organizations in 2 tragic accidents during the war. the second, which acciur many times, israel has tagelty killed terrorist which also worked in Un organization like unra. there are many videos of unra workers which fought with hamas, and as hamas fighters in October 7th. you can check everything I noted here.

This perfectly make sense at beginning. However when we apply it on negation. OB(p) > ~OB(~p) makes sense, if something is obliagatory, then it's negation can't be obliagtory. However when we apply it on ~OB(p): ~OB(p) > ~~OB(~p) = OB(~p) which meansif something is not obligatory (optional or impermissible) then it's neagation is obligatory. This is true if p was impermissible, but not if p is optional. How is that possible? Did I miss something?

I agree yet CRT’s goal of equity expansion is often clouded by way too many words. We need to be more concise.

Im a God loathing Dystheist and proud of it.

I believe philosophy is a great major & very interesting. The challenge for some people could be what career path to choose if a person does not want to pursue graduate school

Best to refer to individuals as they wish to be named, or don't speak to them. If your name is Bob, why call you Alice without permission? Free speech comes with a caveat: beware of the buyer; they may wish you to take it back and demand a refund! You don't have to talk to the police! It's best not to! You don't have to defend yourself in a court of law, best you do - despite being advised against it: why; if someone learned and wise is willing to defend you, there might be legitimate support for your actions.