thanks for this great video

great videos -- please keep them coming

there is no benefit to contemporary vaccines. a great example of this is opv. opv actually causes polio. bought to you by the same people that funded this fellow. people are not “afraid” of vaccines. they do not want shoddily made medical products injected into them that have extremely long term side effects that people like this and pharmaceutical industry apologists refuse to recognize or address. more to the point, anytime you question them thy tell you “mis, dis, or mal information”. not interested. no more mandatory or compulsory vaccines.

Take the mask off please

'No brainer'

Why waste your precious time and accute ethical minds on this? When you could be focusing on what actually matters and what really makes a significant difference?

Is Rebecca Roache simply trolling at this point.

Promo`SM

This guys is a moron. One of those "cow farts increase global warming" idiots.

Yes, it's okay to eat meat. It's not okay to kill disabled babies. This man's ethics are rotten.

Doctors have to be very careful when bringing the patient as a source of pathology into any illness. I worked as a health insurance agent and almost 100% patients indicate that they have a condition and the doctors and treatment should take care of it. I had to be thoughtful in suggesting that their lifestyle and actions contributed or even responsible for their health problems. Few people I know want to be accountable and responsible in their lives. I can’t imagine being a doctor and have to bite my tongue knowing that the patient’s actions or lack thereof are the main reason for the patient’s suffering. We live in a modern era where instant gratifications and resolutions are a push button and payment away. Psychosomatic illnesses are definitely actualized by and individuals thoughts that affect neurotransmitters release/uptake and other chemical interactions in the body, often exacerbated by agitated mental states that flood the body with adrenaline that cause changes in cardiovascular response. Sayin that it’s just all in your head requires further explanation because most people know about less than 1% of what goes on in their head. Education is key and trying to convince an adult to learn about their own body can be impossible.

Amazing lecture, is ther any new books or other sources you recommend that talks about these themes in length?

There is something called the food chain. We all rely on eating meat in order to survive. If dogs don’t eat meat, they won’t get the vitamins and minerals essential for them to survive, similarly if we fed a lion a vegan diet it would die. Why should we deprive our dogs of a balanced diet all because someone thinks that it’s wrong? At the end of the day that’s life, all animals will die eventually, and eating meat provides dogs with protein (important for growth and development), iron, zinc, vitamin B12 and other nutrients our body needs that we can’t necessarily get from eating other things such as vegetables- whilst vegetables do contain some of those they don’t contain everything so it’s important to have a variety. And at the end of the day it’s not up to you to decide what your pet does and doesn’t eat because that’s animal cruelty.

Wha? This is Natos war on Russia. NATO is responsible for every death and atrocity.

Yes. This must be the stupidest question in the history of the internet.

Oh girl you have no clue. Please dont get involved in a conflict you have no knowledge of.

And Ukraine isn’t committing war crimes? 🫵🤡

Yes absolutely, thats why is was so disgraceful when trump pardoned the soldier who beat a civilian(I don't remember if he killed them, but it was all on video). What people need to realize is disregarding standards(international law) will create an eye for an eye situation and it will come back on innocent people.

Ok but not blame ukraine for the abuse of russians in ukraine

You're so cool Jeff

Terrible recording quality mixed with a thick accent is not very enjoyable- really need to up your game guys!

Should [a person] refuse to listen and empathize and accept, with loving forgiveness, the "truth" of another person, the rejection creates an emotional "magnetic rejection" energy which joins and reinforces other residues of rejection energy force within the consciousness electromagnetic fields of your entire system. "Rejection magnetism" depletes the "bonding magnetism" between cells and ill health sets in. This fact of existence is the ground of all psychosomatic medicine. People who constantly blame and judge others and keep a wholly closed mind in regard to their own part in conflict, eventually experience some kind of radical breakdown in their physical or emotional make-up. ​ If they can monitor and work on this tendency to exercise control, judge others and exonerate themselves from blame, and can eventually give UNCONDITIONAL LOVE full mastery in their personality, the breakdown of whatever kind it is, will ultimately disappear completely.

So interesting! thinking how as a designer for behaviors and spaces I can contribute to this.

I definitely believe this is a real psychological phenomenon which overlaps with conspiracy theories, but I'm not sure if the overlap is particularly large. I think there are false conspiracy theories that people genuinely believe, and there are plausible ones that people genuinely believe too. Meanwhile any other false statement unrelated to conspiracy seems susceptible to this too. Even if someone denies that corruption exists, or denies that any conspiracies are happening (same thing), there is a very good chance that they don't actually believe this.

Excellent, thanks

Excellent, so little views 😢

All illnesses were psychosomatic ten thousand years ago when no one had a microscope or knew what the cause of illness was. Psychosomatic is what doctors say when they don't know what the cause of an illness is. That does not mean that there is a perfectly good cause. Cause just like 10000 years ago, there were perfectly good causes for all kinds of illnesses. But no one could figure it out. So just because they can't figure out what's causing an illness does not make it psychosomatic, i'm sorry. It's an excuse. Psychosomatic illness is an excuse for those who cannot figure out what is causing the owners. It's a blame the victim mentality. Because you can't figure out what's wrong with a person call it psychosematic & claim there is no cause. Had everyone done this 10000 years ago. We would have never found out what causes disease. Ever. At all

Peter looks like he's hungry

This is easy. The grounding data needs to owned by the medical practitioner though and any false presented data should be the doctors risk. This is quite trivial to ensure but there is a ton of compliance involved. Who would pay for a service like this and how much?

Onestamente non capisco tutta questa gente votata al mortifero. Sempre a discutere di aborto ed eutanasia però quando riguarda gli altri. In effetti la signora in questione non è stata abortita visto che pontifica su KZbin e se penso a Pannella e Bonino non mi sembra abbiano scelto di rinunciare a un pezzo della loro vita anticipando volontariamente il trapasso. Anzi alla vita ci sono attaccati con le unghie e i denti. Forse perché sanno che di là li attenderà la giusta retribuzione che Dio darà loro. Adesso arriviamo anche all'aborto post nascita. Non basta togliere la vita ad un bambino o bambina (visto che siamo in tema di femminicidi) nel grembo della madre ma addirittura dopo la nascita. Signore Gesù Cristo torna presto e fai giustizia. Amen.

Abortion is killing. I'm going threw up listening you

You guys are good

Why don’t I see Shelly anymore on KZbin? All his stuff is years old. Like darn

I don't understand prof. Goff's argument against the evolutionary objection. Natural selection doesn't assume anything. On one hand you have a physical stimulus - something harmful. On the other hand, you have a behavioral response - avoidance or non-avoidance. What happens in between - whether you're feeling pain, pleasure or the smell of strawberries - doesn't matter to natural selection. What matters is the effect your behavioral response has on your chances of survival. In this way, evolution results in something similar to analytic functionalism. If the behavior results in avoiding harm, it will be selected for - if it doesn't, it will be weeded out by natural selection. Evolutionary theory would predict that we would see behavioral responses that enhance our chances of survival and that's exactly what we see. The particulars of specific neurons firing and what qualia are associated with them could probably have been different, what matters is that a harmful stimulus results in avoidance. I really don't see any mystery here. It's like marveling at the unlikelihood of winning the lottery. Someone will always win - and there will always be a relationship between stimulus and sensation that enhances survival. What exactly that relationship is doesn't matter, only the outcome. The idea that these psychophysical laws have some kind of innate rationality that is independent of the evolutionary process doesn't make any sense to me. If we're not using survival as the measure of rationality, how do we determine whether a response to a stimulus is rational or not? It might also be worth pointing out that the way philosophers discussing psychophysical harmony use the term psychophysical laws is very different from the way it's used by researchers within the field of psychophysics. Psychophysics is basically about studying the quantitative relationship between stimulus and sensation, i.e. it's not about which stimulus corresponds to which experience but rather what intensity of stimulus is needed to produce the sensation. The psychophysical laws (called the Weber-Fechner laws) are hypotheses about the relationship between the actual and perceived change of a stimulus.

00:00:00 - 00:20:00 Peter Singer addresses objections to vegetarianism that suggest individual food choices have no impact on the supply chain. He argues that, collectively, a reduction in meat demand can have an effect, even if an individual's choice alone may not. Singer also disputes the ethical argument for consuming grass-fed meat, noting the environmental impact and suffering involved. He advocates for lab-grown meat and insects as alternatives and emphasizes the importance of impartiality in making ethical decisions. Ultimately, Singer suggests that avoiding factory-farmed animal products can greatly reduce animal suffering and contribute to a more ethical world. 00:00:00 In this section, Peter Singer tackles objections that suggest it is pointless for individuals to be vegetarians since meat production is not sensitive to demand. Singer argues that an individual must act on the expected value of their decision to go vegetarian, using probabilities as their guide for life. Therefore, even though a single person's avoidance of chicken may not significantly affect the supply chain, it is expected that collectively, a reduction in meat demand can have an effect. Singer acknowledges that animals with a happy life are better to eat than those who were made to suffer, but it is still necessary to consider broader factors, such as transport and climate change impact. Finally, Singer addresses the economic argument around the price of meat and explains that a critical mass of people avoiding meat may enable the growth of a market for plant-based alternatives. 00:05:00 In this section, Peter Singer addresses the argument that it is more ethical to consume grass-fed meat than to be a vegetarian because fewer small animals are killed in grain production. He explains that this argument only applies to completely grass-fed meat which is not the majority of Australian beef. Additionally, animal agriculture contributes to greenhouse gases, and there is still suffering involved in the production of grass-fed meat due to the conditions in which animals are rounded up and transported before slaughter. Singer suggests that gene-editing to eliminate the animals' ability to feel pain would be a preferable situation to the current one, but there are still environmental reasons to eliminate the meat industry. Moreover, he argues that reforms in animal welfare have not resulted in increased meat consumption in the past. 00:10:00 In this section, Singer discusses the impact of meat consumption and the possible increase in acceptance of vegetarian and vegan foods following the reforms to EU meat regulations in 2010. He suggests that schools should serve vegetarian or vegan food when possible, although governments may be hesitant to get ahead of where the population is in terms of their readiness for this shift in diet. He disputes concerns about the health of children following a vegetarian or vegan diet, stating that they can be nourished perfectly well on such diets with enough care taken to meet their nutritional needs. Singer also argues for the protection of all animals that can suffer, with focus on the closest relatives of humans, great apes, receiving legal rights. 00:15:00 In this section, philosopher Peter Singer discusses the possibility of consuming lab-grown meat and insects, and how much we know about their possible consciousness. Singer argues that lab-grown meat could be a good alternative since there would be no suffering involved, it would be environmentally cleaner, and it could reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, he notes that when it comes to eating insects, we still don't know enough about their consciousness, and he hopes that we will learn more about the possibility of them being conscious. Additionally, Singer agrees in principle about preventing the pain and suffering of wild animals and making fish smarter through gene editing, but he notes that it depends on the context and whether it would have other bad consequences. Lastly, Singer discusses the importance of impartiality, arguing that it's okay to be partial when it comes to making decisions between things that are of equal value, such as choosing to give a painkiller to your child instead of a chimpanzee. 00:20:00 In this section, Peter Singer gives practical advice to those concerned about animal suffering and how they can make a difference with their food choices. While avoiding certain products like palm oil and choosing whether to buy organic or not may be separate concerns, Singer considers the biggest single thing someone can do is to avoid factory-farmed animal products such as chicken, pork, eggs, and beef. Doing so can greatly reduce animal suffering and contribute to a more ethical world.

darn rabbit, goat, possum, and a myriad of 4-legged pests in a certain country

Thanks for the video presentation.

These discussions are pointless. You can eat what you want. I will eat what I want. That's the end of the discussion.

As is written in SAW 3D verse 1 Chapter 13, if you don't defeat your opponent, then you lose the girl. Make them fight, sir.

How do you know that Ukraine wasn't a threat to Russia? What makes you so sure?

More applicable now than ever

The greatest impact of eating vegetarian or vegan is spiritual (not religious) and personal. Effecting the industry, personal health and not contributing to suffering are merely bonuses.

I strongly believe doctors. Use this verdict as a crutch if they don't want to dig in. To diagnose.

Being a vegetarian has to be based on personal choice and values (leave morality out). Certainly, science has I believe proven that the meat industry particularly cow emits (euphemism) methane which is very harmful to the environment. I and perhaps other environmentally conscious folks could base the decision on that factor alone which will eventually lead to price reductions and less cows being farmed I suppose. But, I personally know that while I will and have reduced consumption of meat in general and red meat particularly but that is based entirely on health preferences. I also know I will like not to give up meat altogether also for heath reasons primarily protein intake.

Handout and Reading List: drive.google.com/file/d/15lX--y-Zj_wku5H9-s6i3a5FMrDUcox5/view?usp=sharing

What marks him out as truly sui generis from other academics is his practical and also transdisciplinary approach in his relentless mission to reduce suffering, and he therefore daringly asks to face questions which are in the domain of economics, law, nutrition, animal welfare, animal husbandry, agriculture, finance, accountancy, environmental sciences, behavioural economics etc., etc....in addition to his own home area namely philosophy. He therefore exemplifies 'consilience' : a favourite concept of the Darwin of this century and father of Biodiversity E.O.Wilson.

Promo sm

Nothing he said made any sense at all.

Such perfect explanation, really worth to check!

How are we going on the pluralist ignorance with this bloke? Here he is talking about eating meat when his nasty form of utilitarianism would have the disabled world eliminated. A future fascist regime will gleefully use this creep's work to do their thing eliminating "useless eaters". But in the mean time let's all listen to him talk about chooks and happy cows.