now thats what i call a good video

you should check out Treason on Steam, a spiced up TTT formula

Fordnigh

yes they are, especially when playing whatever moat clone had this map. Spectrify as it was called at the time?

This is great thank you

Man forgets he's innocent for 30 min straight

I remember playing on this map back when I was 14, damn that was 10 years ago now

out of context gmod will never not be funny

Bot specialist here, That's just a cheater. 99.9% of bots go for the game's objective and won't deviate from their programming

"Woo.." then banished to the shadow realm

Crazy

LOL

Bagginses

theres a police car like that in gta online now. I'm trying to grind for it bc it's another really expensive one :3

shotgun

how you know there's no botnets up?

i saw that femboy bot a few mins ago

Man, these cheaters/bot hosters try anything bro

I think that’s a cheater but honestly not sure if it is a cheater or a bot and also merry Christmas

They really are spineless.

How do you determine which definitions are objektiv?

I was gonna leave a comment trying to look into where Lucid was coming from more, but then *he* called *you* a nihilist and I stopped caring. It must be so easy to say stuff like that when you fundamentally believe that definitions can be whatever they want, and that disagreeing on definitions means no one can be proven wrong.

Intresting

3:46 , the definition lucid provides of Standards is just metrics 5:42 , I don't think Lucid doesn't believe in natural laws as you claim, rather he just did a massive linguistic mistake of saying understandable = accurate we have metrics and standards because that's how we understand and perceive things and we have linguistics and categories to get those metrics across to other people, language is not objective and can be changed (unlike your last video) because language is a human social construct we used to explain things we've just perceived, they change because our perceptions change and we have greater use in repurposing words (such as the split between gender and sex, creating a distinction between biological gender(sex) and societal expectations(gender) thought they were used interchangeably, the current attitudes of society has agreed this is a useful change. At the end of the day, until we meet god, the arbiter of truth, we will never reach philosophical truth because there layers of nuance that will always be hidden until further deep dive. so the only thing we can declare as an actual fact is scientific phenomenon that can be replicated. Even with history things can always tinted and changed as time passes on. remember I am not claiming that searching for truth is a waste of time, but it is wrong to claim that you (or anyone) already have philosophical truths that are past all forms of nuance that may disprove it or may point towards another direction. 8:04 don't insult lucid's audience, not only are they showing pushback but also it is bad faith, it's about lucid, keep it about lucid. 13:36 yes the Euthyphro is right that piety is from the attribute of the deeds itself but it doesn't achieve anything different from those who says the attributes of pious deeds are derives from god's love because it doesn't solve the larger dillemma Which religion/philosophy of what god loves/ is pious actually aligns with god's love? 18:00 I'd argue Lucid is right on this because it is the most humbling of ideas, at the end of the day since finding absolute truth to everything that is past all nuance will only be found out once we are all dead and the arbiter of truth provides us that truth (that being god) lucid is right that he is not god so he keeps his idea truth to a very valid one "This is what I think is truth, we'll have to see down the line if it actually is" the issue with lucid's whole point is that he horribly gets it across or he doesn't realize is that his explanation and coping in many cases just goes against the subconscious idea which actually has merit to keep to your argument of marrying an 8 year old, this is fact that we got from empirical and scientific studies that said "if you decided to marry an 8 year old, it would turn out horrible" but now I propose a different argument. The reason the age of consent all over the world is 18 is because it is based on puberty but countries like the one I live in, it is 21 because that's when physical development tends to end, should I now start claiming the rest of the world is wrong on this because we take two different metrics to define it? Though lucid is taking his opinion on truth in an intellectually dishonest method, the general idea actually promotes it. 19:51 you're reffering to intellectual integrity, NOT intellectual honesty, intellectual honesty is when you realize someone understands someone else's rationale is better so instead of blindly sticking to your beliefs or "truths" as lucid says it, you jump ship because your realize yours is a sinking one 20:47 saying that lucid doesn't believe is forcing your perceptions of philosophical truth means he doesn't believe in any???? Lucid is virtually saying "I may think that having a fulfilling family is what will provide me a satisfying life but that doesn't mean I think it's right to tell someone who thinks that making the most money or power to push to societal changes that will help my nation or people is somehow wrong" this is obviously based on how you've described his ideas so far because I am banned from the Lon'quador server. also to end this regarding enforcing your perceptions of truth (even if it is). Romans 14:1-5: “As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats; for God has welcomed him. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” this would also apply your take that protestants don't believe in their religion hard enough in the last video. TLdr; learn from Lucid's rights and avoid from his wrongs tldr; towards my whole point, personal views are the only things we have from our race in discovering in terms of philosophy because actual philosophical truth is between a humanly impossible levels of nuance so science is what we have so far, make the best use of it. Lucid may be wrong but your ideas are not really perfect either.

Okay, hear me out.... There are two great books I think everyone should read, those being "How to win Friends and Influence" which teaches skills in social interactions and "How not to be a d*ck" which does the same thing but funnier and with pictures. It seems that Lucid was never trying to be objective in defining objectivity, rather he has been defining objectivity with the perspective of someone who wants to be agreeable and persuasive. Being absolutely objective wins you no friends, but if you argue in the opposition's terms, then they will be likely to be more generous in hearing you out. I think that's why lucid defines objectivity like he does even if unintentionally. That's why I think there's so much focus on consensus when it comes to their definition of objectivity.

15:50 I think this part is commonly known as the "appeal to authority" fallacy. "If you don't believe me.....THEN GOD DOESN'T EXIST OKAY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!" 19:45 Hyperbole is called for, but that requires humor and this video is thoroughly humorless. You could have just said something to the effect: "I agree no one should be like this LOSER and HATER, coping and seething in the dischord after a terrible stream because he can't defend his lame arguments. He doesn't want to impress his ideas on others, then he should take his own example and cease speaking. Clearly, he's desperate for attention and friends." Instead you pontificate as if you were this beacon of truth.

Regarding your section on good vs bad writing, aren't the theories of good writing derived from our knowledge of human psychology, like how the theories of humor such as the incongruity theory (how we find confusion when the punchline doesn't match the expectation we did have is funny)?

41:32, isn't the definition of metal you've provided found is other genres that are not metal such as a lot of alternative rock genres like math rock and shoegaze?

36:19 Objective refers to the "Thing in itself" it is also called the neumenon, See E. Kant. The subjective refers to the phenomenon which is the thing for the being experiencing it. This is why the paradigm is Objective/Subjective and why it is very limited. You and the GF have already pointed out that things constantly change, thus the black and white reality of this empirical juvenile system should be tossed out. The objective/subjective paradigm is specifically an enlightenment concept and presupposes the faith of Lutheranism or Anglicanism, (and nobody ever points this out because it's only implied) to round it out. Also, yelling at your GF isn't content.

35:20 Kant, Locke and Hume were 200+ years ago. Again, you're out of your element here. You're literally making things up.

The idea that Europeans thought the earth was flat was invented by Washington Irving in the 19th century to besmirch Catholicism. You've repeated this now several times.

33:25 The planet being flat or circular is not "truth" but "fact" Because you cannot distinguish between these, shows, again, that you're out of your element. Truth is this A + B = C. It is universal and apriori. The conversation of "apriori" is very lacking here. This is bad. The planet is round is this: There is a real material thing called a planet which has the property of round. It is a "state of affairs" and not a "truth", because it is self-referencing. Whereas A+B=C is abstract and is applied to things other than itself. The planet is not an "ideal" being and cannot be abstract, hence it is not capable of being "truth" but only "fact." At this point, maybe you should go to college. 😁

You and me both don't have a voice for this type of work. Also, you really don't have a good grasp of the topic. Btw, the objective/subjective paradigm, I consider advanced undergraduate philosophy. Don't beat yourself up over it, but you're tripping over yourself. For example, at 16:06-16:21 minute mark, you miss use the terms. Again, this is normal for amateurs, as the paradigm is difficult. All experience is subjective by a strict necessity within the context of the paradigm. So when you say, "you subjectively experience," you are actually saying "you experienced your experience" which is redundant. The "thing-in-itself" or the "objective thing" is not objectively bad to experience, because there is a division between the thing being experienced (the object) and the person experiencing (subjective) and the AFFECT one has to the other. This is why the concept of the "Third Term" is present in Platonic philosophy. Person > Object > Essence/enlightenment > Experience. The objective/subjective paradigm is notably weak metaphysical paradigm.

You low key cooking

The math comparison by lucid also disproves everything said before. The concept of zero didn't exist for a long time before the foundations of modern mathematics because for many cultures it was not necessary. Did "zero" not exist? Roman Numerals are objectively bad for use in complex mathematics like long division thus many theorems were practically impossible to discover. Did calculus not exist? And finally, there are methods in mathematics to find objective answers, and they're called proofs, but funnily enough there is no proof for 1=1 because it's a definition, yet we accept to be irrefutably true because of *waves arms in the air* everything. If it wasn't, then everything would not be.

another reason why lucid's flat earth analogy fell flat is because (and i learned this months ago, so i won't have it 100% accurate) an example of how to actually prove your point in an objective way is by doing an objectivity test, this brings me to the time that some flat earther vs round earther had an argument over what the earth actually is shaped like, they both said "if this structures' (i forgot the name of it but it's like a pillar) shadow touches this part, the earth is round, if it goes straight, (i also forgot this bit partially) the earth is flat" so they decided to go to that part and lord and behold, the shadow touched it, thus proving to the flat earther the earth is round, using a factual method to prove it, mass opinion nor people don't decide what is objective, things demonstrating something objective does

bro is right ngl

25:45 eureka!

I don't disagree. That is my comment.

Reminder, don’t forget to do videos of playing my suggested need for speed game for the very first time, which is Need For Speed Underground! :D

Stay glued to the steam charts: If the Player-Base randomly spikes, those are mostly bots. If the Player Base randomly gets cut in half, you got a few weeks before they come back.

edit out your burps that's nasty

i'd make the argument anyone who's played a valve game, been called a slur in chat, and liked it is a gamer

Lol pwned

Highly recommend the 2nd Little Nightmares, imo it’s tons better than the 1st definitely worth the experience! Bramble the Mountain King is another more obscure yet very story driven platformer(rather dark though with a contrast of beautiful scenery)