Your video, The Philosophy of Archer – Wisecrack Edition, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

*philosophy

Adding video to channels (Philosophy) - requested by Zawash.

I recently re-read this as well as Robinson Crusoe. I find both to be very interesting in that you get an understanding of dominant philosophies of the time, the traditions of life, language and more subtly writing; how all of those developed together and reflected upon each other.

But they are also both incredibly dull. I sort of wish I could read it as someone from that era read it, because I imagine it might be a little like seeing a film with revolutionary use of new film tech like sound or colour for the first time. It might be another old western, but it's engaging with parts of your brain you're not used to using in that particular medium. Whereas we're used to advanced and refined versions of the same thing, because it influenced so many.

"I referred to the modern nazi who supports them"

Fair enough.

"It's not just a belief, it's a desire to exterminate, alienate and persecute an ethnic group. "
Agreed. That desire should not be considered an acceptable point of view. But there's a big gap between saying expressing a desire and carrying out an action.

"This implies that you think being 'nicer to Hitler' (i.e. not solved it with violence) would have gotten rid of them yet you contradict this later on."
No, I don't believe that. Hitler was in power, he had an army and he was already committing genocide. At that point, violence is your only recourse to stop the atrocities.

But yes, ultimately, if someone had been able to take Hitler aside BEFORE all the horrors of WW2 and been able to convince him to lay off the genocide, wouldn't that have been a better solution?

There are absolutely times when violence is the best course of action, but it ALWAYS represents a failure to resolve differences.

"I'm just saying if a nazi happens to get punched, on balance, it's probably ok."

I'm certainly not going to shed any tears over it and being completely honest, part of me relishes it. But intellectually, I know it's a) not a sustainable solution and b) it's a juvenile response.

"It's a bit like trying to 'defeat' religion. If you stamped out any sign of all religions in the world, all the imagery and documents and let's say memories too. Before long, religions would form because the human brain is drawn to those ideologies"

Completely agree. Put enough humans together and they form tribes and ascribe bad things to "the others". What saves us is the ability to learn from past mistakes as a civilisation, and even then we're REALLY slow learners.

But we have made progress.
Going from right to left, I would bet that even most Nazis think women should be able to vote; the vast majority of conservatives view racism as abhorrent (at least, consciously) and "Middle America" has mostly come around to gay rights.

"Defeated" might be the wrong word here. I want Nazism to become as laughable a philosophy as flat earthers. Espousing it should be met with the same response as someone who claims thunder is the gods playing football.

" TL;DR sorry for the wall of text, ignore me"

Don't apologise... it's an interesting discussion.

I 100% agree, but at some point it moves from acceptable to immoral, and that point varies. That's why I gave examples that I think many/most people would not consider rape (pretending you're rich), and what I suspect is its counterpart (pretending you're their partner).

Note that I'm not arguing whether or not this was rape, I'm just making the point that there's a valid argument to be made. I know that's cravenly copping out, but I'm not confident enough to make either case 100%.

I'm a follower of the George Carlin philosophy that says you can only take offense, you can't give it. i.e. offence is in the eye of the beholder, and so any judgement needs to take into account things like intention, and should err on the side of free speech. Any psychological attack - from being cut off when driving to being told you have cancer - will damage you only to the level that you let it (which is largely out of your own control), but that doesn't stop the source of the attack from being in the wrong.

This is why I looked at this case in cost-benefit terms. We can't know for sure how this affected those involved, but it's reasonable to suspect that the woman was psychologically scarred through little or no fault of her own, and sexual violation is one of the most cruel and personal. This is amplified by the public nature of it. Yes, maybe - hopefully - she chalked it down to a bad decision, but I think it would be completely understandable if she was significantly damaged by what was unarguably a malicious action against her (even if the malice wasn't directed towards her).

I try to not speak about things I don't know about.
I try to avoid "news" like this that's so clearly biased, on any 'side'. They tend to skew and ignore facts to make a political point. A good test is if they can't refrain from childlike name calling.

I can't speak for down under, here, we see "both" sides (and I still strongly deny that the antifa people are really on the left, because fascism is not a politically left philosophy, and they are fascists) acting outrageously.

EDIT:That said, only one group has actually killed so far, and only one group has fired guns into crowds of women and children so far, and that side stands firmly with the right, and the right has so far stood with them, calling them peaceful protesters that only defended themselves from antifa. I have yet to hear of a single democratic representative say antifa are good people, or peaceful protesters, the right however has made that a mantra about the alt right, Nazis and KKK.

Hmmmm...I had to look up Sargon....you've got to be kidding...he's slightly LEFT OF CENTER?!? You are absolutely bat shit nuts. He's clearly, firmly far right. It didn't take me 5 minutes to be sure.
HAHAHA!!!! You start by giving me credit for watching it, then berate me for not watching it. I gave it a total fair hearing, and it took no time at all for it to show it's colors as totally hyper biased far right Nazi apologist bullshit.

Again, only the right wing media is claiming that main stream media is hiding antifa criminality. It's clearly being shown here, and they are called out for the violent idiots they are constantly, but if the right acknowledged that, they might have to deal with the Nazis and KKK and alt right on their 'side' (and sadly, they can't denounce them as easily since they clearly courted them in the election, unlike the left and antifa)
I have absolutely zero need to watch such tripe to be informed. Here, coverage isn't one sided, no matter what Bob and Hannity tell you.

I have no doubt that my arguments fall on deaf ears with Bob, but I can give other readers another rational point of view, denounce debunked fabrications, point out information that's intentionally omitted, and point them towards verifiable sources rather than opinion pieces masquerading as news. They are the minds I hope to reach, Bob's is closed, as, I'm starting to think, is yours.

@newtboy

i think what bcglorf is suggesting,and correct me if i am wrong bc,is that the ideological intolerance that is permeating the far left,and creeping into the current media narrative...is turning people away from the left and driving them further right.

that how the ultra-left deals with criticism by labeling ALL criticism as an attack,and not a functioning dynamic of dialogue,is counter-productive and again..drives people further right.

so what is a moderate to do?

on the alt-right they have a choice of a grotesque and vulgar racist political philosophy akin to the "aryan supremacy" of the 30's dressed up as nationalism and patriotism.

and on the alt-left they have an equally grotesque group who subvert freedoms and liberties all in the name of "equality" and "tolerance".while single-handedly being the most intolerant of them all.

fascists to the left of me..
fascists to the right..
and here i am..
stuck in the middle...

It is a permanent transformation; people are frightened by this because they just don't have a clue (of how awesome it is)- and neither did you before you experienced what that meant lol

Terence Mckenna (rip) is still the best psilocybin/DMT/philosophy/pharmacology guru/poet/lecturer in my opinion.

Your video, The Philosophy of Christopher Nolan, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

What do real scientists say?
...the one's he worked with all said Lindzen is totally wrong, and his views are not held by the vast, VAST majority of other scientists that actually work in climatology. He's a political shill now, working for 'conservative think tanks' to deny climate change.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

Note, his graph at the beginning that appears to show no significant rise because as usual they start in late 97-98, a super hot El Nino year (the hottest on record) typically used as a starting point to pretend that temperatures aren't rising as fast as they are. Start at any other time to see how different the results are. This graph contains the hottest 15 years in recorded history over a period of the last 19 years. That's pretty telling by itself.

1)the climate is always changing-but according to natural cycles, we should be in a cooling period, not a warming period.
2)so at least in his mind, everyone agrees CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming...that's better than most deniers.
3)"little ice age"-During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period between 1460 and 1550 (it was not caused by low CO2 levels), and CO2 is produced more in warmer temperatures than cold, so starting shortly after then you can claim the CO2 levels have been rising since well before the industrial revolution...which cherry picked like that may be technically true but is again misleading by starting at an unusually low level following a low level solar period, but the level of that rise has consistently risen since the industrial revolution, and is incredibly higher than any natural mass releases besides rare massive super volcano eruptions that caused mass extinction events.
4) just plain not true, and not agreed on by scientists.
5)What they actually said-
Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system�s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.

Confident prediction of future weather is not possible, weather predictions are based on statistical probabilities too. Because they aren't perfect doesn't mean they're wrong, useless, or should be ignored until they're 100% right every time. More funding for more study will improve the predictions consistently, but we are intentionally defunding them instead.

Religion channel? As in the religion of climate change denial? That's not what that channel is.
Philosophy channel? What?
Learn channel, only if the viewer looks into his BS elsewhere to learn the truth.
Lies, yep...controversy, yep....politics, yep....conspiracy,OK. His ilk are steeped in those, but you left out money, the driving force for all the deniers controversial, political lies and crazy conspiracy theories. ;-)

But.. it didn't help? It did help? This video was confusing as hell.

The roll-on seemed to help her but that sounded like the equivalent of a menthol rub.

The charlotte's web tincture looked like it helped, but it has 0.03% THC. She smoked the flowers which only helped with headaches/migraines, but that has a higher concentration of THC wouldn't it? The entire video makes it seem like "hey great this is what we need" but at the end she sneaks in that "this is not the solution" and follows it up with a bright happy smile. Cmon now.

So, regarding your reply:

Sorry, but STOP. People die because of this stupid fucking philosophy. People also make millions off desperate folks like this lady in the video because of that mindset. 120$ for a bottle of sugary mint chocolate chip flavored water and 0.03% THC? Isn't that just diluted to no effectiveness like homeopathic tinctures? We can't use the homeopathic approach for medicine where, "oh if it doesn't work and there are no side effects than all is fine."

No, it is dangerous to think that way because many people focus ONLY on non-medical treatments. They either continue suffering or die like my dad.

The content of the video wasn't bad, but the tagline / title they chose gives a very faulty perception, I think.

I guess "how accurately can the skill of players on a team relative to players on competing teams predict their aggregate regular season success in various sports" doesn't roll off the tongue quite so easily.

I love hockey largely because a great team can be good at everything OR specialize in being offensively skilled / big and mean / fast and opportunistic / defensive system minded / whatever. Take a team loaded with extremely skilled superstars and put them up against a team of low-skill bruisers that play tough but legal and work well as a unit, and the pure skill team can easily lose. Makes for fascinating interplay between philosophies / rosters / coaching schemes.

Your video, The Story of Western Philosophy, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

i really do not understand you bob.
i get that you are republican,and lean towards the philosophy of the tea party.

i have absolutely no issue with that,but didn't you admonish my post which was promoting the "justice democrats" as not being a grass roots anti-corporate establishment democrats,but rather a tool for outlets like the young turks? whose FIRST order to address.the FIRST thing they are going after is:money in politics.which is exactly what kyle is talking about.

kyle is also talking about giving the boot to not only all the corporate donors,but the very politicians that have LOST,consistently,because they are more interested in dialing for donors than doing their job.pelosi did not retain her position due to her political acumen and ability to pass progressive legislature,but because that woman is a money funding machine.

kyle even mentions the justice democrats!!!!
as a viable option to combat the corruption in the democratic party due to the corrosive influence of corporate money in politics.

you literally just posted a video by secular talk,which is a founding member of justice democrats!

so which one is it bob?

do you respect and admire a small group of democrats who are part of independent media and are creating a group to combat the corporate,establishment democrats? a group who is already
growing in size,and have already got some politicians on the ballot?

or are you sticking to your position you took on my justice democrat video,which was dismissive and critical?

please help me understand bob,because as of right now you are playing two positions that are philosophically inconsistent.

*promote bob's support of the democrats new caucus "the justice democrats",which i am fairy sure is the seventh sign of the apocalypse.