Rating Your Philosophical HOT TAKES

[@CosmicSkeptic]

Go to ground.news/AlexOC to see through media bias. Subscribe through my link for 30% off unlimited access

[@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet]

Thank you for changing the color of your shirt for the ad, making it easily skippable. Many youtubers forget even this common courtesy. You're a true English gentleman.

[@random6033]

With ground news you can see through media bias by using a different biased source pretending to be unbiased.

[@valmid5069]

Yo Alex; I was wondering if you could do analysis on having similar views that you have to Fydor Dostoevsky, Franz Kafka, G.K Chesterton, Max Stirner, George Orwell, and Ayn Rand Also further explaining how religious figures like William Wilberforce, Fredrick Douglass, Dr King, and Cesar Chavez greatly shows that Atheism still need to work on their original values of morality Can’t wait for more!

[@georgekingsley6432]

That transition was really smooth

[@Leszek.Rzepecki]

@@valmid5069 Ethics and morality are instincts, derived from evolution. And speaking as an old ex-Catholic, over half a century free from that church, there are few Christian churches less moral than that one, some Protestant fundamentalists aside. If we really want to know where our morality comes from, we need only look at our fellow ape species.

[@Blate1]

The most insane take in this video BY FAR is that minty is the opposite of spicy.

[@krembryle]

like...it isn't that wrong? one is cold one is hot

[@necromancer6405]

@@krembryle Fire if it burns long enough makes you cold, cold if left long enough burns.

[@anticorncob6]

So what's the opposite of spicy? I feel like it has to be something that has the potential to be extreme in its own direction; milky or creamy wouldn't do that, but minty would.

[@LeanAndMean44]

No that take from you is definitely spicy.

[@seionne85]

Yeah I've always thought of sweet as the opposite of spicy *shrug*

[@alexwilks88]

"Suffering from a poverty of imagination" is going straight onto my gentle insults list

[@Minisynapse]

Passive-aggression is a sign of maturity

[@LscottGD]

​@@Minisynapsepersonally I wouldn't make an absolute judgement when it comes to being passive agressive, it is better sometimes and worse other times.

[@jonathanrao6498]

It’s funny because it seems to me like a very obvious thing to say whenever you’re discussing perspectives, so it’s almost as if you’re not only admitting that you love that expression but how well it would apply to yourself. Whether this is the case or not (I clearly know nothing about you, you were probably just appreciating the way it was worded) I believe the best insults are those that point out on others the filth we see in ourselves. So if that logic is true, I must be doing that quite frequently (yes it happens but I’m quite ashamed of that, if I end up acting as if I’m any better, which also happens). I will milk that argument even more, and say that this is precisely what Alex is doing here as well. I mean he knows very well that many people who hold the position he is criticizing are just as capable as he is to imagine that kind of suffering. Some don’t even need that kind of abstraction exercise because they have gone, or are going through incommensurable pain. What he is really saying is that he lacks the imagination to understand how people could experience bliss and find meaning even among the toughest and most excruciating (o wait does that word perhaps refer to a cross?😂) circumstances and therefore he does not stand with the idea that life is always worth to be liven.

[@daanstrik4293]

@@MinisynapseI would already be in a coffin if this were true

[@vclapem9140]

@@Minisynapsepassive aggression is a sign of lack of ability to confront issues, a sign of immaturity

[@diegog1853]

Using suicide as a segue to the sponsor was definetely indian spicy

[@johnrogstad1278]

Oof. "Segway" is a brand. "Segue" is the general term for rhetorical transition.

[@TheOrthodoxAquinas]

Let’s segue into an argument on why you should stfu. Just kidding (kinda)

[@want-diversecontent3887]

​@@johnrogstad1278Not in 20 years

[@alephnull4044]

Yeah that was pretty messed up ngl

[@diegog1853]

@@johnrogstad1278 you are right lol sorry. Not my first language. I corrected it.

[@jadekemp591]

I think people that are against euthanasia dont understand that there are cases where it is indicated. I am willing to share my experience to give a better understanding why someone might want to end their life on their own terms. I grew up in a household of neglect and abuse and spent most of my teens living out of black bags without a stable home. I found a reason to live and have dedicated my life to helping reduce the suffering of others. I worked through my trauma and put myself through school and became a registered veterinary nurse. I have specialised and work in a small animal intensive care unit. I have held many animals during their last breaths and many when they are left are not peaceful. Euthanasia means good death and in a lot of cases where treatment and recovery is futile, it is a final act of compassion and kindness. It is the cessation of suffering. I am now 30 years old and also have been diagnosed with Huntingtons disease. Its an incurable, neurodegerative disease with no cure and no treatments. I have started to exhibit the first signs of the disease this year. Left on its own, it takes 10-15 years before I'll be completely bed ridden in a vegetative state. I'm not afraid to die but I am petrified of slowly rotting. Losing my faculties. Someone who had to be so independent would have to depend on others to perform basic human functions. I dont want that. After all that I have been through, and will continue to go through, do I not also deserve to go quietly, and with dignity on my own terms when the time is right? I do not want to kill myself, I simply want to pass away whilst I am still myself. Do I not deserve that kindness?

[@LifeStrike2030]

Thank you for this. I hope you find peace and have your own choice.

[@adriani9432]

100% agree. People who are against all euthanasia are monsters whose only justification is their religious beliefs.

[@turbovirgin_]

Here's the way I see it. Two hundred years ago, a doctor visits a family on the plains. Their uncle is bedridden with a horrible illness. The doctor determines that there's nothing he can do for him. He's a goner. What does the doctor tell the family? Does he say he'll leave the uncle to a slow and agonizing death? No. He pulls out his six-shooter and says "I can at least make sure he doesn't suffer". He goes back in the room, and the uncle has already taken his own life. A note rests in his hand: "I'm sorry". How do you think the family reacts? Do they see him as brave? Dignified? Are they supportive of his decision? I don't like the idea of dying with dignity on your own terms. Something about choosing to walk away from life while you're still comfortable seems inhuman to me. But ending someone's life to prevent a future of unbearable suffering is a monumental act of kindness. It's one we've been doing for thousands of years. In short, I don't think the choice to die should be yours to make. I think it should be made by the people around you, as an act of kindness from people who don't want to see you suffer.

[@jadekemp591]

@@turbovirgin_ Everyone has a right to an opinion but when it encroaches on the rights and welfare of others it becomes dangerous. Unless you have been given the diagnosis you do not have the qualification or experience to comment on whether someone should have the right to end their life. I'd argue that allowing the disease to progress where I have no comprehension of what is happening to me is leaving me in a state less than human. I've walked away from a long term partner and I've decided not to have children as it'd be unethical. We are born, and then we die and that is it. There is no good, no wicked, no big plan, its just life. Things happen everyday. We add value and determine if something is right or wrong or good or bad. There is no intrinsic truth. Assisted dying is currently illegal in the UK so I cannot rely on others to end my suffering. If I have the ability to be a DNR then I should have the right to be euthanised. If you had understanding of how assisted dying laws work in the world, you would have known that you must gain informed consent when you are of corpus mentis. This means I need to make decisions whilst I'm still of sound mind. This is the reality of living with a terminal diagnosis. I would also implore you to think about what quality of life means to you and how you would feel if you weren't able to do the things you love anymore. I've cried at how beautiful the sun setting is, how the feeling of ocean air feels on my face. I understand the beauty of the world but I won't even be able to comprehend that. Imagine you not being able to walk without falling, not being able to put food in your mouth, button your own clothes, even cleaning yourself up after you've gone to the toilet. Imagine not being able to read, or talk or even being able to understand what is being said to you. Would you want this for yourself? Because that is what you are suggesting I live with.

[@LifeStrike2030]

@@turbovirgin_ so in short, you don’t think our lives belong to us, you think we are slaves to those around us.

[@mstly4lg]

"Minty" being the opposite of "spicy" needs it's own philosophical discussion.

[@CrystalLily1302]

No IIRC the kind of spicy being referred to here activates the thermal nerves that detect heat in the tongue while mint activates the thermal nerves that detect cold so they are in a very real way opposites.

[@kakahass8845]

@@CrystalLily1302"Spicy" can also be described as just "An unpleasant feeling created from non-harmful compounds activating nerves that signal danger/pain" in which case minty is spicy.

[@bunsenn5064]

@@kakahass8845If that were the case, then pain itself would be spicy. That’s a flawed definition.

[@kakahass8845]

@@bunsenn5064You could say that for basically every type of pain though.

[@AYVYN]

@@CrystalLily1302 I believe heat here refers to innovation; like the discovery of fire. So a cold take would be the loss of progress.

[@queendaisy4528]

Here’s my hot take: someone who is medically psychopathic and thus feels no empathy towards other humans but chooses to behave ethically towards them anyway is more morally praiseworthy than someone who does good because it appeases their conscience.

[@1awlfc1]

The obvious question from that is what motivates the psychopath? It’s clearly not altruism as he is incapable of empathy, but it also isn’t self interest because if it was it can’t be ‘more’ morally praiseworthy than if a non-psychopath acted the same way

[@1awlfc1]

@legittaco5899 But I think motivation remains the issue. Using reason to persuade the psychopath who is incapable of empathy will inevitably conclude that morally right behaviour either helps others (therefore empathy) or himself (self-Interest, therefore no more morally praiseworthy than a non-psychopath). Unless there would be a way to persuade the psychopath with reason that didn’t ultimately boil down to empathy or self interest.

[@yasyasmarangoz3577]

​@1awlfc1 Why cannot all internet discussions be like that? Good points you two.

[@LeanAndMean44]

That’s not a hot take.

[@yasyasmarangoz3577]

@@LeanAndMean44 Read the thread ^^

[@daminox]

Rating the guy who complained you didnt clearly define "hot take" was hilarious lol

[@johnnypopstar]

His "letter to the editor" will be in amongst these comments no doubt. Look for one several paragraphs long.

[@nathanmiller9918]

Alex respects his viewers enough to assume they'll Google s they don't comprehend. He respected this person too much, one could say.

[@MexicanNerd10]

My controversial philosophical take: Suffering is not inherently unjust or immoral. Feel free to respond!

[@alex2005z]

​@@MexicanNerd10is that even controversial?

[@willemmmmm]

That guy amused me. I think it's more respectful of viewers' intelligence to not explicitly define the widely understood and self-explanatory term 'hot take' than it is to spell it out.

[@chrisdaley2852]

My hot take is that people often don't properly consider themselves in relation to the philosophical questions they ask. It causes them to anguish over things they don't need to. A classic example would be "what's the meaning of life?" I think it's much more important, from a personal wellbeing standpoint, to consider "why do I want to know what the meaning of life is?" "how would I change if I knew the meaning of life?" etc. When you ask these questions it seems more apparent to me that the original question is malformed and doesn't really need an answer. There are a few different questions with this problem; "what's the true nature of reality?", "do we have free will?", "do we have a soul?", "what is morally correct?" etc. They all have implicit assumptions and motives that originate from our human experiences and it appears more beneficial to me to understand those assumptions and motives and why I have them than the answers to those questions.

[@jaideepshekhar4621]

Interesting.

[@GLUBSCHI]

I think i already do this because i've never really wondered if there was some intrinsic "meaning of life" and yet it seems for some people it's all they can think about

[@Jonathan-A.C.]

Apt

[@greanbeen2816]

“What is the meaning of life” for me always distills into the equally difficult question of “what do I want”

[@chickenmission9156]

Whilst I agree with your take for a question as subjective as "what is the meaning of life", I think the other examples you give are different kinds of questions. Questions such as "do we have free will" are attempting to understand how the universe operates, motivated by the same sentiments as scientists which isn't true for "what is the meaning of life".

[@ICircuit64]

My mintiest take is that Alex should make more videos like this. The debates are brilliant, but i like his solo videos the most where he is just talking about stuff.

[@MalachiFrazee222]

Agreed. I wanted to leave this comment.

[@aodhfyn2429]

Hear, hear!

[@BrianWoodruff-Jr]

This is a good comment, err, Yay comment!

[@BoinkChess-wj2ym]

Yes

[@durarara911]

Totally agree

[@progresspiper]

A horse walks into a bar. The barman says "Hey, you've been in here a lot lately. Do you think you have a drinking problem?" The horse responds "I don't think so". And with that, the horse immediately disappears into thin air. That was the joke. It's a play on René Descartes's "I think therefore I am". I couldn't tell you the last bit before the joke as I didn't want to put Descartes before the horse.

[@LeanAndMean44]

Fun joke but why is it a horse?

[@johnchesterfield9726]

@@LeanAndMean44Cause why not

[@DarthVaderfr]

​@@LeanAndMean44it's BoJack horseman

[@SquishypuffDave]

​@@LeanAndMean44Because horses are traditionally what you put before Descartes.

[@misterdoctor9693]

That was a roller coaster of a joke. Props.

[@oli073]

Mate I can't get over the fact that I started following you only when you were 16...and you have now grown into such a well balanced thinker.

[@oosmanbeekawoo]

Hehe.. I remember his physics videos xD

[@kellydalstok8900]

Where has the psychedelic chest of drawers gone?

[@DiahRhiaJones]

He quit veganism (which isn't actually possible) and whined about easily fixable shit because of all the solutions he has access to that almost no one else has because of his extreme privilege and you call him a "well balanced thinker." I think you're "an unthinking clown."

[@MrManatee101]

So balanced thinkers imply that suicide prevention is immoral? He said it’s not that controversial at all to say that the right to kill oneself is a fundamental human right… so talking someone out of killing themselves or hospitalizing them for such would be a violation of their right to life and death. How the hell is this balanced thinking? How many thousands of needless suicides would plague the world if we encouraged it like this? Balanced thinking!! You better find a better role model “mate”.

[@santagonewrong]

So, as someone who has attempted suicide before, I wanted to comment on the suicidality one. I think it's very easy for people who haven't had a lot of contact with suicide to go straight to "you should have a right to choose to die, so we shouldn't interfere with suicide attempts". I think the thing that's missing in that analysis is the "of sound mind" aspect of decision-making. I do realize this may vary from person to person, but for many people (myself included), active suicidality comes during moments of crisis. The period of time during which you are in an emotional state where you would actually make an attempt (as opposed to just thinking about it) are generally fairly short and very acute. In other words, you are in a heavily altered state of consciousness. And as with signing legal contracts when heavily drunk, we generally accept that certain things you might in theory have the right to do can be abridged when in a heavily altered state. So, while legal punishment for suicide or suicide attempts like you discussed is pretty abhorrent in my mind, I think it's reasonable to do everything in your power to prevent someone from successfully carrying out an attempt. I am very grateful that the people around me did that for me, and I hope that if I ever get there again, they would do so in the future. (Hopefully I won't but if I do.)

[@DjDolHaus86]

Like all other major decisions in life it should come with the "being of sound mind and body" disclaimer where you have either signed a legally recognisable document ahead of time saying (eg.) "If I ever become mentally/physically disabled beyond an agreed point of satisfaction then I wish to forfeit my life." or you are in a position where you are provided adequate, free counselling to attempt to turn things around before making the final decision.

[@teemumiettinen7250]

So how does this apply to people who are not emotionally suicidal? Like you look at things objectively and you come to the logical outcome that its just not worth living anymore? Because this is how I view my life, when its not objectively worth living I will end it, which will probably be soon.

[@mannomann70]

⁠@@teemumiettinen7250what if you are wrong? See 10:57

[@proudtobeme1ashkente]

Then that's what it is. We allow people to make wrong choices constantly, why not in this case? No one can say it's a wrong choice, though because no one can see into the future. We can see the past, though. If someone has lived 51% of their expected lifetime then they have enough proof from the past to make this decision.

[@mannomann70]

Well by that logic you don‘t have to read a book after reading 51% of it because you already know what is written in the second half And yes you can do whatever you want but I think there is difference between making bad financial choices for example and ending your life In one instance there is chance to recover the other is final One might think that live cannot get better and be a 100 percent certain about it but as you said noone can see into the future. So there is a chance that things will get better. In my personal opinion that is enough to keep going even of there seems to be no evidence for a better life in the future I cant prove it but ive heard that most people are glad to survive a suicide attempt like the original commentor. Take it as you want Ive lost a friend to suicide a few years ago and i didn‘t even know that he was struggling. He seemed to have eveything. A caring Family, many friends, a loving girlfriend and a good Job with a promising future. I dont know what was going on inside his head, he didnt tell anyone. I guess he thought that he has to deal with it on his own. And he did. but i wish he wouldnt and instead talked about it. Even if it was with me who wasnt too close of a friend. Instead he left behind a lot of shattered hearts and people wondering how they might have contributed to and whether they could have deterred him from his decision He was a really good guy and over two years later i still miss him dearly

[@Bro3Santi]

Being in an extreme Christian fundamentalist household, your videos create a really safe space where I can think about philosophy and religion in a much less narrow view. I just wanted to thank you for that, I love your stuff.

[@QuestionsIAskMyself]

youre so real for this

[@theunclejezusshow8260]

I can relate with that. I WAS an 8th day Independent Fundamental Baptist. I was about as fun as a Prickly Cactus

[@delikatessbruhe9843]

You might want to try genetically modified skeptic as well if you haven't already. He's really big on giving a community to those who don't feel like they belong to their religious environment irl.

[@theunclejezusshow8260]

@delikatessbruhe9843 Thanks, Enjoy the Show cuzinz ✋️

[@john.premose]

I guess. But he's way too shallow for me, for someone who self proclaims as a philosopher. Ok, what he's saying would be interesting in the 16th century, possibly some of the 17th, but in a 21st century context he talks at a child's level.

[@cosmicprison9819]

The darkest stories humanity has come up with do not end with “everybody dies”; they end with the characters being condemned to eternal conscious suffering. From the Greek punishments of Sisyphus, Tantalus, Prometheus etc. to the biblical concept of hell to modern stories like “I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream” to Grimdark concepts such as the sarcophagus / helbrute in Warhammer 40k, or the ending of the video game “Scorn”.

[@zahubshahid7944]

I have no mouth is one of the scariest stories I've read.

[@anomitas]

Fire punch

[@danialweeaboo3706]

@@anomitaspainful ending

[@nemofeducis]

@@anomitas urgh i'd need bleach of extreme fine quality to clean that thing of my memory. Ig fujimoto does not "suffer from a poverty of imagination"

[@TGT30]

IDK, eternal nothing is pretty bad.

[@seionne85]

My hot philosophical take is that Alex's facial hair leads to his opinions carrying more weight

[@bronsonvann2662]

Don’t forget about the British accent

[@jadongrifhorst6221]

@@bronsonvann2662 both of these are relatively mild takes (unless you mean his opinions actually mean more in reality because of these things and not just that people weigh it more because the latter is totally true)

[@duncanbrown4184]

Never trust a person with a beard. If he's hiding his chin, what else is he hiding? Everyone knows the chin is the window to the soul. 😅

[@stevem7945]

@@duncanbrown4184 anything could be lurking in the cleft in Alex's hairy chin.

[@michaelregis1015]

​@@duncanbrown4184🤣🤣🤣

[@danielwolfe1587]

3:40 voluntary euthanasia should absolutely be legal , however, it should be illegal for a doctor to suggest that as a course of action without prompting by a patient

[@eidecsuh9965]

but what if the patient doesn’t know it’s an option? i think the doctor should be able to inform the patient but do it in a completely neutral way, to not make the patient consider doing it if they do not completely want to

[@Stadsjaap]

In practice it's a slippery slope. Like, if I leave my web browser open on the homepage of the Pegasos Clinic when I know my brother is suicidal, am I liable? In court you'd have to prove intent, which is difficult - even if there was intent. 😮

[@jimmygravitt1048]

After watching my Nana suffer for several years, in pain and confusion and terror, while my aunt spent most her time caring for my Nana, causing so much suffering, assisted suicide should absolutely be allowed. I am convinced that my Nana would have filled out a living will while cognizant that allowed for assisted suicide given the physical and mental state she was in.

[@kiara4345]

Same situation here. It was heartbreaking to watch my grannie, an active and beautiful person, completely paralysed, not even able to speak and unwilling to try when she knew it was pointless. And all the suffering was just awful.

[@littlebitofhope1489]

That is fine if you have family. But those without family will be thrown out as soon as they are the least bit of a burden. They did it to disabled people during the pandemic. There are dangers that no one thinks about.

[@LeanAndMean44]

@@littlebitofhope1489who is they and how do you know? What do you mean by thrown out?

[@GameTimeWhy]

​@@littlebitofhope1489what is happening to disabled people during the pandemic?

[@jackwaycombe]

​​@GameTimeWhy As disabled and near 80 - I can tell you what. Shrugs and excuses, that's what.

[@maxwellmulford5898]

Alex suddenly changed shirts in the middle of saying something, and then I quickly realized, “oh, he found the perfect segway for the ad read later on and couldn’t be bothered to wear the same shirt.” Respect.

[@johnnypopstar]

I think it was done internationally.

[@LeanAndMean44]

@@rambunctiousvegetableautocorrect

[@coweatsman]

The libertarian had no choice but to write that he had "free will".

[@petervancaeseele9832]

Brutal Hitchslap

[@chimpinaneckbrace]

He did it because he wanted to because he had to.

[@philosphorus]

We are condemned to be free - Jean Paul Sartre

[@soffybear]

Whats the hatred toward libertarianism? Seems interesting and somewhat reasonable

[@coweatsman]

@@soffybearI would not call it hatred so much as a misunderstanding of human behaviour. A false belief in our autonomy and our rationality. In truth human behaviour is very determined and very irrational. Group affiliation, our love of others and self destructive behaviour is deep brain biology of areas of the brain we inherited from prehuman ancestors. We are mostly unconscious. Our deep brain impulses are fed to the cerebral cortex which then comes up with a story as to why X would be a "noble" or "honourable" thing to do. We are only informed of our true motivation on a need to know basis by the "deep state" of the mind, like the deep state of a nation. Take the Iraq war. America did not want to see itself as greedy, avaricious and grasping so the story of WMDs in Iraq made the war "noble". Our minds operate in the same way, protecting us from knowledge of who we reaaly are. This is where libertarianism completely break down. Its model of human motivations are all wrong and ill informed.

[@Leo-rp1cw]

Incest is included in one of my special interests so I've thought a lot about this. It's a very common form of abuse, but when you see something like siblings who don't find out they're related until after they start dating there's not that same power imbalance concern. You might say that they still shouldn't have children because of the risk of problems, but that implies we should forbid anyone with hereditary conditions to not have kids, especially with each other, which is... not great.

[@Corzappy]

Yeah if incest is not inherently and objectively bad then inbreeding is no worse than anybody else with hereditary genetic issues having children. Kind of fucking wild even saying that because it sounds like they shouldn’t equate but they technically do.

[@Leo-rp1cw]

@@Corzappy yeah, it's so weird to think abt because I'm absolutely disgusted by incest but I can't come up with any reason to back it up that doesn't have some really ableist implications

[@SpektralJo]

I think it is important to distinguish between sexual abuse between family members (where the abuse part is the actual problem) and consetual incest, which is what we are talking about

[@RayanShaikh-bf1gp]

If you had a relationship with someone while knowingly being siblings than there is something wrong with you due to going against the pre programmed disgust of being in a relationship with a family member. Even if both parties are consenting and of age, don’t plan on having kids or are of the same gender it’s still wrong because of the previous reason.

[@MrCmon113]

What's "not great" about not reproducing when you have severe genetic defects? That only makes sense if those defects are balanced out by even greater genetic assests.

[@drinks_menu]

I think this should be anonymous to get real shit out of people

[@ihatespam2]

No one cares, unless your hot take is evil

[@La0bouchere]

This is why no one said "Incest is fine"

[@echiko4932]

​​@@La0boucherethat would be one of my takes. I value consent probably to a degree more than the average person, so commonly disgusting and immoral things are fine to me as long as its consensual, extending to the consent of the dead (contracts n stuff). The only hard part to avoid is instances of grooming and coercion, but that's hardly unique to incest or other "icky" things. Children are of course excluded from this responsibility to consent to certain things since their brains are soup. But it's also hard to draw the line between coerced and consenting, seeing as scams and threats and lapses in judgement are a thing.

[@theflyingdutchguy9870]

​​@@echiko4932i think one problem is that they should not be allowed to have children. as that both endangers the child and the population. so they would both have to lose the ability to bare children

[@grimnir2922]

​@theflyingdutchguy9870 But then you would have to enforce that, and of course if you're advocating for incest, those who participate are going to want complete rights as couples. You can either enforce eugenics or you criminalize incest to avoid the discussion altogether. For every reason "someone shouldn't have kids," we get them anyway. You can't tell a group of people "we're going to give you SOME leniency" without expecting them to protest in response for further action.

[@josephbelisle5792]

I have always believed that I had a right to die when I wanted to. I still do. Even when I was a Christian. It is an inner belief. Of course I've always felt compassion and empathy for anyone who committed suicide.

[@adriani9432]

My hot take is that suicide, in most cases is not the best decision one should make. Because when someone commits suicide, they will leave behind people who love them, and because if the problem(s) driving someone to suicide is/are removed, the person will likely not have any desire to commit suicide. However, I believe commiting suicide to hasten death in cases of incurable/unbearable illness or in anticipation of them is justified.

[@adriani9432]

My hot take is that while we have a right to suicide, it is not an ideal route to take. Because when someone commits suicide, they leave behind people who love them, and when their problems are adressed most people stop being suicidal. The exception to this is in cases of terminal illness to hasten death.

[@sharkybrickfilms99120]

If you are religious tho, you don’t own your body so you don’t have the right to die. God owns your body so if there is something He forbids you shouldn’t do it

[@philcollinslover56705]

@@adriani9432yea but its also not good to live for someone elses happiness

[@adriani9432]

@@m780dff Freak accidents are accidents, not like suicide where there is a concious choice to take one's own life. What I was trying to say is that seeking professional help should be prioritized over ending your own life. Terminal ilnesses are a different story, because you are destined to die a slow miserable death anyway with or without professional help, so why not get it overwith. My moral stance on suicide, is that it is orders of magnitude more moral than murder, and that suicide should not be punished.

[@IcePhoenixMusician]

My hot take is individualism can only meaningfully exist within a group. Absent of a group to differentiate oneself from, individualism is meaningless. Like Sydrome from the incredibles said analogously “… And when everyone's super... no one will be.”

[@thealphasam7350]

I would argue that existence outside of a group is inherently the most pure form of individualism ever possible

[@jeffmunkynutz1568]

I would argue you two need a hobby 😃

[@thealphasam7350]

@@jeffmunkynutz1568 sucks it happens to be philosophy :D

[@GameTimeWhy]

​@@thealphasam7350i think it probably falls into some sort of specific definition of philosophical vs reality kind of discussion

[@johnchesterfield9726]

⁠@@jeffmunkynutz1568Philosophy is an excellent and mind stimulating hobby that can help you think more clearly and improve yourself. I think this is a hobby that beats many other hobbies, why would you argue they need another one? Let use our minds- the most powerful organ- to explore the world, damn it!

[@derpauleglot9772]

"Suicide's a crime. The legal term is irreparable damage to company property. What Eugene did to himself was vandalism." - the Outer Worlds

[@AYVYN]

Haha. Glad I saw something clever today

[@tamatebako_yt]

That's what I was thinking! Clearly suicide was deemed a criminal act because it violated someone's property as in the relation between an absolute monarch and his subjects.

[@MexicanNerd10]

My controversial philosophical take: Suffering is not inherently unjust or immoral. Feel free to respond!

[@bar8aliths_fan]

this is so dystopian

[@V01DIORE]

⁠​⁠​⁠@@MexicanNerd10Kinda mild moral subjectivity no? We only come to the conclusion through relative ethics, if a majority of people were masochistic rather than merely a sort of Stockholm syndrome with life suffering would be lesser to them. Not that it isn’t already lesser anyway, imposing people itself causes inevitable harm yet people do it. Driving cars, using electronics or any kind of power appliance usually inadvertently causes pollution which causes harm yet people still do it. People eat more sentient creatures or overeat or throw away causing the waste of resource which indirectly causes harm yet people still do it. I think there’s too many of those to consider in order to live life as you’d constantly be on a paranoid type rope trying to be utmost efficient in order to avoid causing harm, I just think the source of all affliction should be solved instead rather than worrying about how you live.

[@Hailfire08]

Wrt Galileo's dialogues, he also named the pro-tradition character Simplicio. If you start your dialogue by introducing one character as Mr Stupid, it's a pretty safe bet which side you support and which you don't.

[@LeanAndMean44]

Mr Stupid 😂

[@lavatrex]

i’m gonna be honest, these types of videos combined with the comment section are amazing and enlightening, i really enjoy this stuff for some reason

[@jameslafleur8140]

my hot take is that no religion should be able to leave permanent markings on a child's body, because a child cannot decide upon their own religion which in turn, removes both their right to autonomy and their right to religious freedom. An example of this is genital modifications on infants or toddlers in some religions.

[@Aubrey2004-j4k]

True

[@cool_monke8355]

Not a hot take. Completely rational point

[@ShiraReadWriteThink]

Of course

[@FirstnameLastname-bn4gv]

@@xuniepyro7399 It’s a completely hot take in America, where the majority of boys are subjected to non-medical circumcision and nobody bats an eye.

[@great-wyrmII]

At this point, i just don't think religion should exist.

[@kimehragovindasamy9897]

I THOROUGHLY enjoyed this. It was brief, light, humorous and still pretty stimulating. It was nice to see this opinion/ video-essay style of content being uploaded again.

[@johnnypopstar]

> brief, light, humorous and still pretty stimulating. Title of your sex tape!

[@quantum_beeb]

I bet the sponsor loved the Segway in the suicide question😂

[@jakeaurod]

Segue, "Segway" the proper name for a type of motorized conveyance.

[@MatthewFearnley]

As someone who’s not watched the video yet, I’m looking forward to seeing how Segways tie into this question.

[@egilsandnes9637]

@@MatthewFearnley Now, admitting to reading the comment section _before_ you watch the video, that's at least a bit spicy. But, maybe I'm wrong. I've surprizingly often seen people complaining in the comment section that people drop spoilers. I kid you not. I don't understand how these peoples brains work.

[@harrytowers1076]

@@egilsandnes9637ehh, I sometimes scroll through the comments during the first half of a video if I’m not particularly gripped by the content (I think that’s the goldfish attention span zoomer brain in me) Didn’t do it with this one as most of Alex’s content is interesting enough I don’t need comments to hold my attention but some videos are dull asl

[@baconshreds1772]

My hot take: no matter what you do in life, hell is a far too harsh punishment. You could blow up the earth right now, and an eternity of suffering is too harsh. I cant stress enough how much "anything and everything" isn't enough to warrant Hell.

[@hypergon-5627]

Hell is temporary After the punishment you will be sent to heaven

[@shrekkek9396]

​@@hypergon-5627how gave the God the authority to punsh me?

[@hypergon-5627]

@@shrekkek9396 He doesn't need one

[@anticorncob6]

This is one of few opinions I hold that I am 100% certain I will never change my mind on.

[@great-wyrmII]

​@@hypergon-5627well, it doesn't matter since it's all made up anyway.

[@theflyingdutchguy9870]

i also have to agree with the one saying you ahould be able to take your own life because you didnt choose to be born. assisted suicide is legal here in the netherlands. my mom's best friends husband did this. my mom's friend happened to be visiting us. wich she did every vew month. at least once a year. when she suddenly got a call. that call was either the husband or the hospital (i dont remember exactly) the call was that he was done with it. and chose to have his life ended by assisted suicide. this was a very sad day, but i am glad its a thing. people should have the choice to have a peaceful end. my grandmother for example did not get that. she died in a hospital gasping for air trying to yell out that she had to throw up. she died in front of my mother.

[@SineEyed]

So your mom's friend knew nothing of his plans to end his life? If that's true (in this or in any other similar case), I think it's not only an unethical move on his part, but I would question the legality of it--even where assisted suicide is legal. The reason being, marriage is a legal contract between each individual, and between the two of them as one and the state. Under that contract, each person legally obligated to put the best interests of their partner on the same level as their own. Sneaking away to die without telling your partner seems cruel and unfair, as they will be unprepared for the emotional aspect as well as the financial aspect as well..

[@CodyCLI]

@@SineEyed Stupidest take. Victim blaming.

[@CodyCLI]

@@SineEyed You win stupid bastard of the day, good job.

[@YourAverageYoutubeCommentor]

what a coward he was. hope he is somewhere peaceful (hell)

[@aymanachkaj3333]

Sir, yes sir.​@@YourAverageKZbinCommentor

[@Autonomous_Don]

Alex has had the best atheistic-agnostic commentary of every atheist/agnostic ever. The most intellectually honest ever

[@sebastianbravo5928]

Yay Alex! Boo the rest!

[@jyjjy7]

I think he focuses FAR too much on comparing and contrasting atheism/agnosticism vs Christianity, as if Christianity is the default religious view. This is somewhat understandable as Christianity undeniably was the default religious framework in which these subjects were examined in most Western philosophy. That said in an age when you aren't going to be stoned to death for not doing so there's no rational reason to confine yourself philosophically to atheism vs Christianity. This is important because Christianity, or any specific religion, is almost impossible to rationally defend over other religions as they are all fantastical in ways that are plainly arbitrary/tied to a specific time/place/culture. Atheism vs Christianity isn't a philosophically relevant question at this point. It's atheism vs ???, because religion can be anything you decide it is (or more likely what you were told it is as a child). Christianity vs any other religion is intractable rationally and atheism vs believing whatever you want is true isn't even a debate.

[@johnnypopstar]

@@jyjjy7 > It's atheism vs ??? You might struggle to make cogent arguments against something that hasn't been defined yet. And, just to head off one potential response (Or, an attempt to make an argument against something that doesn't yet exist! Will you allow me to succeed? It's quite the spicy paradox!), in this context "pro-atheism" arguments are not necessarily quite the same thing as "anti-???" arguments.

[@jyjjy7]

@@johnnypopstar I used ??? in reference to the problem with faith I pointed out and labelled intractable. Faith based beliefs are necessarily arbitrary and personal and objectively almost uniformly artifacts of upbringing, ethnicity and the local culture of the time. You can argue for any of The Holy Trinity, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Ra, Quetzalcoatl, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the invisible purple unicorn, over the others but those arguments are necessarily ultimately faith based, often explicitly and proudly so. It is the same reason Pascal's wager doesn't work; which religion's eternal infinite reward is one supposed hedge towards if one accepts the premise? Most religious doctrines are mutual exclusive requiring worship of this deity or that pantheon over another, often with divine retribution for choosing wrong, but there's no objective or rational standard by which to choose, though most believers will be able to cite things the consider sufficient evidence for their specific faith it is only actually so from a perspective informed by the insular confirmation bias nurtured by most religions. What I'm saying is that even among the religious one person's religion is objectively mythology to those of a different time and place, and often even many others of the same time and place. From any meaningful anthropological perspective religion is a social construct, one whose specific structure, ideology and goals serve social functions, ones orthogonal at best to any serious rational inquiry into the nature of objective reality. Ignoring all this to meet Christians halfway and handle them with kid gloves by taking the specifics of their mythology and its long standing philosophically history of tortured apologetics seriously is what this channel is about really. It colors to the point of distortion how he presents much of the conflict between faith based ideologies and rationality, both directly and in discussions with others.

[@paolumouse]

It's because he's way more philosophical so he covers a wide variety of topics that are still in a similar ballpark. For most atheist creators, atheism content is all they do, which is totally fine, it's a different field. But I think going deep into philosophy provides more context.

[@Rayowag]

The right to die thing is something I've extensively thought about without having any suic*dality present. I actually have an issue with people saying a hastening of death is okay with terminal or unbearable illnesses, while excluding that treatment-resistant mental illnesses are a thing that exists that could also be labeled unbearable. I don't have a treatment resistant mental illness myself, I believe most self-inflicted deaths are very preventable with a way better mental health system and a more aware society, but I refuse to believe ending ones own life is immoral or whatever other negative thing people label it. It's neutral, the living left behind ascribe things to it. 90% of things society says to suicidal people is from a place of shame or guilttripping (including the argument of selfishness). Society needs to stop thinking that others need to stay alive so they themselves don't have to experience suffering. A lot of the aversion around the topic of self-inflicted death is still filtered through society being influenced by religions telling them it's not okay. Sorry, but if I had a friend that's 60 and they had treatment-resistant depression all their life I'm the last one to judge them for wanting to end it. My potential grief would not be a reason to guilttrip them into staying in an existence that pains them 24/7. I'd even say people shouldn't be allowed in that discussion unless they gather extensive knowledge about types of therapy, coping with suic*dality and ways to make help more accessible to people (surprise, that accessibility doesn't exist under capitalism). As long as the system is rigged against the mentally and chronically ill and society at large turns a blind eye preventable deaths will happen and we won't be developing an awareness for which people have a lower level of preventability of their death and instead make it less traumatic for them and their loved ones. Let people decide what quality of life is. If that quality cannot be regained, let them decide. Nobody needs to help them in a direct sense either imho, just make it less traumatic for everyone involved!? Sidenote: I'd also say that a right to live and therefore a right to die entails the right to not be forcefully hospitalized since that feels infringing on both if there was no previous indicator given that hospitalization is wanted in case of crisis (mainly speaking about people for whom it isn't the first crisis of this kind)

[@Ghost-qk1kt]

Sigh. I attempted suicide three times during my depression years. Tried half a dozen anti depressants before I found one that worked. Sorry to break it to you, but suicide is - in fact - selfish. It is a decision based on no logic whatsoever that undefinably and irrefutably, whether you like it or not, passes your pain on to someone else. I can also tell you that every individual I’ve spoken out of suicide in times where they cursed me out and told me I was infringing on their rights or whatever, extensively thanks me when they’re in a better place. Curing depression is about working at it. There is not one person on this planet who doesn’t have problems, and we have a moral responsibility to work on ourselves so as to reduce the suffering. If that fact displeases you or anyone, that is fine, but it doesn’t change its validity. Suicide is immoral, end of story.

[@wxbrainiac]

@Ghost-qk1kt i think saying that suicide is never "based on logic" is just blatantly wrong and it also doesnt always pass the suffering on to others, im sure there are plenty of people in this world who literally have no one that cares about them, logically if these people decided that they were too far gone financially or physically then logically they should be allowed to do whatever they want with their lives and no one can call it selfish as we werent there for them when they were alive.

[@alansmithee419]

I think, assuming it is to be illegal, the only sentence for attempted suicide should be compulsory *free* therapy sessions. Perhaps loosely enforced by the therapist literally showing up at your house so that you can't just 'forget' to go. Of course this has safety concerns that would have to be worked out, but it was just the first thing that came to mind. I'm sure there's some way of doing this properly.

[@jimijenkins2548]

We do have court ordered therapy as part of plea deals, for example. I'm sure a similar system can apply to suicide attempts.

[@commanderyeti3646]

Then people will take suicide to get free therapy

[@personofthepeople561]

this already exists in the form of mental hospitals, but they're not free and often people leave worse off than before bc of how much debt they're in. in the us i should clarify

[@Volkbrecht]

In my country (Germany) suicide isn't illegal. However, if you fail at it and are found in a state where you need help, courts of law take away your autonomy and get you hospitalized until you are seen as not in danger of harming yourself. "Hospitalized" meaning locked away in a mental hospital, together with a bunch of other folk who are a regarded a danger to themselves OR OTHERS (!). At the same time, medical assistance in suicide is still not fully legalized here. Basically what you suggest, but having seen such a ward from the inside (thankfully only as a visitor) I'd say they are a really good place to start wanting to kill yourself...

[@AverageAlien]

Imagine believing in such a thing as therapy. Weak simple minds.

[@MindShift-Brandon]

I simply loved this!

[@thecoolaxolotlnova8523]

8:50 I would say true forgiveness is more contingent on the actions of the person, not just the words. You can feel bad and be sorry without changing.

[@pandoratheclay]

“So, you’ve changed? Prove it.”

[@sleepyweazel99]

Are we not gonna talk about the spiciness of that ground news read and its literally perfect timing and placement? Well done, sir. Well done.

[@lexlumi]

The anti suicide takes are crazy cause "in short, I don't think the choice to die should be yours to make" is the wildest take.

[@jasonulriksen8897]

Or the selfish ones. Like why are you trying to force a dude to live wanting to die, just so his friends and family aren’t hurt

[@si-jd9oq]

@@jasonulriksen8897 What about regret? The man who survived jumping off the golden gate bridge regretted his decision as he was falling. My guess is that at least 1/3 of people who commit suicide regret it whilst in the act.

[@kirbirbstomp]

@@si-jd9oqregardless of regret, it’s still their choice. we can’t read someone’s mind, so to deny them of bodily autonomy because they might regret it is still wrong. i’m absolutely for suicide prevention, i just take issue with denying one the option at all times and framing it like it’s not their choice to make

[@TheWorstestPro]

​@@si-jd9oq You might regret purchasing a sandwich at a store. Would you like it if the store owner refused to sell anybody sandwiches because they might regret buying them?

[@si-jd9oq]

@@TheWorstestPro You can't use that as comparison. I now learnt something off of that, I don't like that sandwich, there's no drastic consequence. You never will be able to learn that you didn't actually want to commit suicide.

[@thetannernation]

3:02 bro changed his shirt instantaneously 😭😂

[@MessianicJewJitsu]

16:00 would have liked to hear more on him being unsettled and his personal beliefs that leave him "unsettled"

[@Ravongesreal]

My first hot take is: sex isn't sinful, it's natural, and the concept of monogamy doesn't make sense as humans clearly fall in love multiple times, and thus must be meant to find multiple partners. My second is: if wisdom is to admit you know nothing, then stupidity is to assume you know anything.

[@shrekiscool4743]

First one would be mild-spicy, I certainly agree but it goes against a lot of particularly religious views. Second would probably be minty, I think that once you really think about it, yeah we can't really be sure of anything edit: typo

[@DjDolHaus86]

Calling suicide selfish is the height of irony

[@chelli6555]

I would like to underline and highlight this comment.

[@luke1835]

I always see it as projection

[@davidantunes9900]

How so?

[@nanowasabi4421]

I mean, you’re doing something that you think will be to your benefit despite the harm you know it will cause to others. I’m of the belief that selfishness isn’t always wrong, even as a Christian. It’s selfish to save your own life at the cost of someone else’s discomfort, but it can still be the moral choice as long as you’re not violating their autonomy. Your needs are just as important, morally speaking, as anyone else’s.

[@YourAverageYoutubeCommentor]

​@@nanowasabi4421 selfish people are better than selfless people.

[@GospodinStanoje]

I'd love to see a thorough video about "ethical emotivism". Thank you for your work.

[@Raidon484]

"Life is always worth living" Me: "Have you read "I have no mouth and I must scream"?"

[@chimpinaneckbrace]

I watched a video the other day about the concentration camp victims who were forced to move and cremate the bodies killed in the gas chamber. All day long they’d have to lie to the other prisoners: “It’s ok, it’s just a shower” just to keep them from panicking. One of them had to do this for a family member. I’d like to see the person who claims “life is ALWAYS worth living” do that for a day and still make that claim.

[@Jonathan-A.C.]

Although this is an extreme example, one could imagine reasoning as to why someone in said scenario would wish to live. Probably the most likely scenario, being able to see or possibly even affect being freed from said internment. If you have belief in that happening, I can see a reason or plenty of reasons based off of that for why you would keep living. Perhaps out of sheer spite, even

[@turbovirgin_]

Well, what's the alternative? Personally, I'd like to think that even after years of dehumanization, mental torture, and starvation, I would still find enough strength and outrage within me to tell those CC guards to burn in hell.

[@chimpinaneckbrace]

@@turbovirgin_ It’s easy to be a hero and a tough guy in the safety and comfort of your home when the horror is hypothetical or happening to someone else.

[@adolfhipsteryolocaust3443]

Can people please stop using fiction to make arguments?

[@turbovirgin_]

@@chimpinaneckbrace Yeah, and it takes incredible strength to look the brutality of the SS in the face and say "What you're doing is pure evil, and I will not be an accomplice to your atrocities." I don't think that would make me a hero. I would just be doing what any human being should do. What would you prefer I do instead? Give in to the violence and do what the guards say? Take my own life? Not be in a concentration camp in the first place?

[@RGC_animation]

"Ah yes, lock up all of those pesky people who are so lost in life they are attempting to end their own lives, that'll teach them to not want to die!"

[@manwhoismissingtwotoenails4811]

Fr like i get hospitalization but legit criminal charges of suicide is just flabbergasting

[@CuriosityGuy]

I can imagine a lot of moral scenarios that are icky and one would rationally conclude that it isn't wrong. I am highly skeptical of moral emotivism being true

[@Narko_Marko]

Its there because it helped us survive. People who liked incest got damaged babies and those babies couldnt reproduce thus their bloodline ends and we are left with people who dont like incest.

[@tagliatelle]

​@@Narko_Marko having a reason for existing doesn't make it true

[@a.i.l1074]

Agree. Some people find homosexual sex disgusting, most people find old people having sex disgusting. These are icky in the same way and sometimes to the same extent as the ickyness of incest. I think they're different

[@a.i.l1074]

​@@Narko_Markowhat about homosexual incest?

[@Narko_Marko]

@@tagliatelle i mean, if it exists, it exists thus making it true, i just tried to explain why i think it exists.

[@Venaloid]

8:16 - Wow, Justin Brierley really has an adolescent mindset in this conversation. He thinks free will is a spicy position? That's entry level conversation.

[@LeanAndMean44]

8:17

[@LeanAndMean44]

He couldn’t have done otherwise than writing and thinking that or could he?

[@Venaloid]

​@@LeanAndMean44- I'm not saying he could have done otherwise, I'm just saying he doesn't know things and it's clearly not worth our time to consider what he has to say until he grows up.

[@SafeHavenML]

I've never heard of emotional emotivism before, but as soon as I heard the explanation, it's something I've unknowingly agreed with. I do suspect there's a lot of cases where people form their moral values based around how it makes them feel, and I feel is especially prevalent in the sexual sense, whether it be for homosexuality or fetishes. It's nice to find out there's actually a philosophical argument for this.

[@LeanAndMean44]

Of course morality is based on feelings and emotions. What else do humans have?

[@ACFL69]

@@LeanAndMean44sky daddy rules

[@that_viewerguy]

@@ACFL69 lol

[@rasmusn.e.m1064]

​@@LeanAndMean44 Exactly. At first glance, this position seems to me a bit like kicking the can down the road because it stops at emotions. Emotions are also a reaction, and I believe it is pretty commonly understood that emotions and rationality don't exclude each other. The anger at perceived unfairness, for instance, might be biologically dependent, but that doesn't stop it from being a rational position independently of that. This is just my hot take upon hearing it for the first time, though. I'll have to read into it more. Not every day I get introduced to a new ethical position.

[@LeanAndMean44]

@@ACFL69still Emotion.

[@pixboi]

Beauty is simultaneously a thing that cannot be explained, yet requires no explanation.

[@jaideepshekhar4621]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Simple.

[@IKuzmos]

Damn I wanted to comment this, guess I'm unoriginal now​@@jaideepshekhar4621

[@troys7954]

I was today years old when I decided that if Alex ever writes a book, I’m gonna buy it

[@LeanAndMean44]

Today years old is a good age.

[@Wizard_Pepsi]

I say do what ever you wish to, so long as your actions don't cause needless suffering. (whether small, medium, or large scale)

[@Wizard_Pepsi]

To reply to Sir Ena's deleted comment, I believe that if you and/or your partner have genetic traits that would be harmful to your potential offspring, just adopt a child instead and wear protection if you still wanna boink each other.

[@Andres.Duran.J]

Society wouldn't advance if everyone did what they wanted

[@Wizard_Pepsi]

@@Andres.Duran.J You'd be surprised how much has been invented as a direct result of desire

[@Andres.Duran.J]

@@Wizard_Pepsi desire and everyone doing whatever they wanted is different

[@MrCmon113]

How exactly can I do what I don't wish to?

[@YOOTOOBjase]

I recall there is an effect where, when raised with another human from a very young age, humans develop an instinctive barrier to being attracted to that other human

[@echiko4932]

The childhood friend never wins.

[@jaideepshekhar4621]

Ig they simply stop instinctively reacting to the other sex because they have been normalised to them.

[@melonenkopf2790]

15:03 Mild take: The fact that you can exchange the words „homosexual sex“ with „incest“ and you basically end up with the same argument is a pretty good indicator for the fact that you should rethink your argument.

[@markusmazura7213]

True.

[@bluemagic6832]

Yeah I was dissapointed in Alex here. There are reasons why we feel certain way about some things so his statement still doesnt make any sense. He just dodged a question here. Feeling disquist is diffrent from having a opinion that something is good or bad

[@deadbrain3994]

Completely agree.

[@wxbrainiac]

i dont agree with you on this, gay sex and incest are both ok according to this argument but that doesnt mean that the argument is bad, because you know maybe there is some truth to incest not being bad which is crazy to say but when i try to come up with a logical reason other than "they might make babies" which is easily refuted by homosexual incest and other medical practices which would then make it completely ok i come up with nothing, i struggle to find anything wrong if neither party is suffering and they arent adding to any suffering therefore the argument the original person made makes complete sense. The only reason most of us are against incest in any capacity between any family of any sex is because we find it icky.

[@oggolbat7932]

No utilitarian can argue against incest, zoophilia, necrophilia and the likes

[@emmafountain2059]

Hot take. Ethical emotivism fundamentally fails as an ethical framework because it doesn’t allow for discourse surrounding moral beliefs. It provides a model for understanding moral statements but unlike a framework like utilitarianism it provides no way to have discussions about those moral statements. If I think incest is icky and you think incest is not icky it provides no way to break apart those moral beliefs and discuss the axiomatic principles those moral statements are built on. All it tells us is that I go boo to incest and you go yeah to incest. Its as useful as a model of the planets as big balls of rock. Sure it may be useful at defining the thing, but it doesn’t tell us about interactions like gravity or provide an understanding of how objects in space behave it doesn’t provide a deeper understanding of the thing we’re trying to understand.

[@Minisynapse]

My hot take: Most people have little clue what they are actually saying or sometimes what they even mean, and this is largely because of our twisted relation to language (which we are mostly unaware of and unanalytic about, leading to sheepish adherence the linguistic structures and the ways in which they guide our thinking for better and for worse)

[@turolretar]

eh

[@pythondrink]

You're on to something. I actually agree with you.

[@Minisynapse]

I could prove this but it takes time and real interactions between humans to show. Arguments between people are the most fruitful sources. Most people can go about their lives with no issues with this because language is meant to be useful (pragmatic), not a direct(!) reflection of reality. When we get to religion, philosophy and science, that's when things start to break down because we're trying to pinpoint reality with words. And people are super confident in the meaning of words/definitional accuracy, 99% of people don't even stop to think what the difference of denotation and connotation are, not to mention what it really means to denote anything with words or symbols @@pythondrink (notice how my use of "99%" was rhetorical, not literal...the amount of people who ever think about the difference between denotation and connotation might be way, way less....I'd include the first commenter into that group tbh but I could be wrong).

[@redblue5140]

I've noticed this my entire life. People don't seem to understand what their words mean and how to properly communicate what they are thinking.

[@MrCmon113]

On the topic of language: When someone writes half of their comment in parentheses, does that mean that part is less important?

[@Leo-zi1uf]

Hot take/ critique: If incest is wrong because it‘s icky, according to your world view homophobia wasn‘t wrong, when homosexuality was generally seen as disgusting and wrong.(I am neither a homophobe nor am I interested in an incestious relationship, btw)

[@jaideepshekhar4621]

Pretty obvious.

[@ComicRaptor8850]

Also saying “boo murder” or “go kindness” isn’t really any more meaningful than cheering for a sports team

[@mayor_theo]

I actually thought about this and you are right. If we go from the premise that love is love and homo is perfectly normal, then you shouldnt have any problem with incest. If the problem is the ofspring then those can just use protection and adopt. (I am both a phobe and non inchest fan just to be clear)

[@neXianXaviaX]

I love that you've given every argument an easy out because they're just emoting

[@tommy_svk]

I think the reason why most people find incest "icky" is simply that it's unusual. A lot of us have siblings, but a vast majority of us would never think of them as potential sexual partners. Just the idea of me potentially having sex with my sister makes me uncomfortable, simply because I'm not attracted to her and I could never imagine being attracted to her. However, that doesn't mean that someone else can't have such feeling for their sibling and I shouldn't project my own feelings about my siblings to other people and their sublings. Just because I feel this way about my sibling doesn't mean that everyone should feel the same about their siblings. Another thing is that many people miss the "consensual" part of consensual incest, when they see incest they immediately imagine a father raping his 10-year old daughter, which is definitely a problem. The only reason why I can think of incest as being wrong from a secular view is that it could lead to genetic defects in potential offspring, but even that isn't entirely certain based on some studies I've seen. The funny thing is though that if you look at commonly searched phrases on porn sites, incest is actually quite common, whether it's with step-sisters, sisters, step-moms or whatever. So for some reason people condemn it in public, but then secrectly fantasize about it in private xD

[@kevinnavarro402]

What’s your stance on the criminalization of consensual consanguinamory (which is the status quo in much of the world, including the United Kingdom and most of the United States)? You rightly pointed out doubt about the average layman’s interpretation of the severity of inbreeding, but even then, it would be eugenics to use risks of inbreeding as justification for the criminalization thereof, would it not? Of course, to see an example of someone unaffected by inbreeding (gone right), look no further than the widely admired Cleopatra.

[@tommy_svk]

@@kevinnavarro402 I don't know if I'd call it eugenics. To me, eugenics is more like forcing certain people TO breed, rather than forbidding them from it. If the risks of producing a child with birth defects is very high I would be against it, cause it just produces unnecessary suffering. But I'm not sure that the risk really is that high as is generally believed.

[@kevinnavarro402]

@@tommy_svk There’s a subtype of eugenics called negative eugenics, which in the twentieth century (when eugenics was more popular) had people involuntarily sterilized or worse. This even happened in places like the United States, not just Germany, although not on the same scale. I’ll grant that the motivations might not be exactly the same as those you’re considering, but it’s still about preventing undesirable traits by restricting freedoms, which indeed is the same thing as negative eugenics. The eugenicists of then also, in their own way, cared about preventing unnecessary suffering, even if it was just in the long-term, but that didn’t stop them from inflicting unnecessary suffering; it inflicts unnecessary suffering to deprive anyone of the basic dignity of reproductive liberty. In any case of extremely high risk (consanguineous or not), I can sympathize with making exceptions to reproductive liberty, but I would rather have alleviated through healthcare any suffering that comes rather than use suffering to prevent suffering. I think that’s the most pluralistic solution to different normative views on the matter; that way if a couple thinks it’s wrong to reproduce, they’re free not to; if a couple has a fetus with detected serious defects and they think it’s wrong to let such fetus live, they’re free to terminate. Imagine if a couple (unrelated or otherwise) were shocked to detect with genetic screening that their fetus would grow up with a deeply serious congenital defect, but it was their sincere belief that the right thing to do for their child was to choose life and tend to the child’s needs the best they could; imagine they were robbed of this choice by a government forcing an involuntary termination of pregnancy upon them. To me, it’s the same calculus. Of course, the risk with inbreeding isn’t generally as high as people would have you believe, but there’s a way around such cloudiness. With genetic counseling, today each couple could, before reproduction, have their specific risk measured and determined. That would be the most objective way of determining risk given the variability of risk both within consanguineous and non-consanguineous couples.

[@jaideepshekhar4621]

Agree. Also that people have a problem with power/trust/grooming/consent, not actual incest.

[@bongi6811]

I agree that there is no reason to consider consensual incest to be any different from any other form of consensual sex when it comes to it's morality. The part I'm unsure about is having children with siblings or other close relatives as there are significantly increased risks of genetic problems. The closest analogy I can think of is heavy drinking or smoking during pregnancy which is also known to be detrimental to the baby's health. In this case it is generally expected of the mother to sacrifice those liberties in the interest of her child's health, but not having children with a loved partner is a lot more of a sacrifice. I'm obviously against any form of eugenics, but even criminalizing reproduction with a few very close relatives is very different from forbidding some people to reproduce entirely and already included when outlawing incest completely.

[@A_Good_Boy.]

At 5:53 please 🥺 please someone tell me where can I for free read this text of Arthur Schopenhauer

[@CassowaryToenails]

Confirming that Project Gutenberg has it!

[@chanotcka]

This was great! Would also love to hear you dive more into emotivism.

[@eldstoper]

I didn't think any hot take can make me feel anything but this audacity "life is always worth living" hit the nerve. Not only does it sound privileged but also how dare you have a good life that makes you think so?

[@Fs3i]

The libertarian free will joke was 10/10, made me literally laugh out loud when I was riding my bike home from work

[@antoniusnies-komponistpian2172]

Lol I just realised it went over my head

[@mcchillinchills767]

~16:00 from a utilitarian viewpoint of minimizing suffering, incest is still wrong as any child born from it suffers severe health issues.

[@senap8616]

so, it'd be okay as long as both are infertile? it's an interesting question

[@mcchillinchills767]

@ it is quite an interesting question! i didn’t think about a scenario like that but great point!

[@fuzz_ball6301]

In this case it's two gay or lesbian twins🤷🏾

[@mayor_theo]

Not hot take: u cant say love is love then have this take. If the problem is the ofspring and not the interaction, then they can use protection and adopt if they really want a child

[@jakerz0]

Didn’t expect a battery of theological claims right off the bat… I don’t feel like they understood the assignment

[@anainesgonzalez8868]

Yeah! I was some how dissappointed

[@MrChristianDT]

Those people never do. They just write that stuff no matter where they end up online & get doubly annoying if they think the video content might somehow be ungodly, for whatever reason. A whole slew of such people seem to think philosophy that isn't grounded entirely in religion is just a trick to turn people against god, and is therefore the enemy.

[@afish4086]

My hottest philosophical take is that we do not exist as ourselves without our bodies. I believe so much of who we are is tied to the entirety of our bodies, peripheral nervous system, central nervous system, and muscle memory that, if you were to switch bodies with someone in a Freaky-Friday-esque scenario, you would cease to be yourself. There would be no way to transfer the entirety of yourself to another body - your skills, memories, and the experiences that shaped you are all so physiological that you CANNOT exist as yourself without at least most of your body intact (and whatever IS intact adjusts to the loss in ways that will fundamentally change you. Kind of like Camus idk). Even while alive, you can run into a loved one after years without interacting and feel like they are a stranger. If there is life after death, then death is potentially more violently transformative than the passage of time. We might become something so fundamentally, physiologically different from what we were in life that we would no longer be ourselves, but something new; perhaps something that we cannot conceive of while alive. So enjoy being a human being and having human experiences, for better or for worse. You might not get to do it again. Also, toes are arguably more sanitary to suck on than fingers, and I hate that. Signed, a medical professional.

[@dreamusmenus3759]

Here's an actual hot take, religious people in my view tend to be worse people than non-religious people as the logical jumps religion allows for lead many religious people to not be able to morally justify their worldview past "a 2000 year-old book said so". I also think this is why several elements of the modern fascist movements are heavily religious, because if you believe your own beliefs are from a supreme being and the consequence for not following his will is eternal hell than you will find it near impossible to ever challenge your own beliefs. I also believe these people are very susceptible to being told what to think from people with the right aesthetics.

[@dreamusmenus3759]

I could go into more detail but the length of this would be unusable in a video if I did that.

[@jaideepshekhar4621]

Obviously true. Paradoxically only controversial to religious people.

[@zachkent2575]

Your dumb ass really must've felt so cool and smart and unique pretending that this was a novel, hot take on an atheist's youtube channel

[@divinrth5187]

agree

[@marilynd2001]

My philosophical hot take is: “Forgiveness is not needed to move on from the past but acceptance is.” I say this because when I was in group therapy the constant notion of “forgiveness” kept coming up and that being the end goal to move on from trauma. For me and to this day I find this a silly concept. To me when you forgive someone it means “what you did wasn’t a big deal and it’s okay” and I believe their are certain actions that people can do that don’t warrant forgiveness. For me I feel like acceptance is better than forgiveness. I accept that this situation has happened and can move beyond it but your actions can’t be forgiven. And I feel like not forgiving someone doesn’t mean you can’t move on from the situation as I feel forgiveness really only makes the person who was wrong feel better. But when you accept a situation for what it is and what happened you can feel better because now you can work on moving beyond that situation and not have it limit you anymore.

[@XERX_740]

not a hot take

[@noreverie]

@pogd740 every take in the world doesnt have to be a universally innovative society impacting thought to be a hottake

[@strategicsage7694]

Interesting. I think this is kind of in 'definition of terms' territory. I definitely don't see forgiveness that way. I would say forgiveness is something that is most relevant when someone did something in fact is a big deal and not ok. If it wasn't a big deal, then it's almost - not quite, but almost - a case of why would the idea of forgiveness even come up, if it wasn't that serious? It's the very seriousness that makes it a matter that needs to be forgiven if the relationship is to be restored. I also am of the opinion that forgiving is at least as important for the person doing the forgiving as the person they are extending forgiveness to for whatever offense. Not to forgive is to retain bitterness, and add self-injury to the initial offense.

[@Volkbrecht]

The idea of forgiveness probably stems from a time where we still needed to get along with people no matter their level of previous wrongdoing. In our day and age, where we can cut people out from our lives with little consequence it has become a somewhat abstract concept that nobody needs to implement if they don't want to. We'd have to look back to the old times, the bad times, where you had to care personally for your aging parents, no matter how abusive they were during your childhood, when "until death do us part" was meant quite literally, when wars weren't fought against foes from an ocean or two away, but the dividing line ran straight through the country. In such situations, where you are still required to care, to coexist, to engage in civilised activity with one another, it was necessary to forgive, to actively suppress whatever negativity you might justifiably feel and treaet the other person with kindness. Only in such a context would we figure out our attitude towards forgiveness.

[@DecemberDaydreams]

@@Volkbrecht o.o

[@cursedcat6467]

Hear me out, god is a crab, god created us in his image and throughout evolutionary history, the crab has been proven the most superior final stage or evolution, all life forms converging to the crab, therefore our final form is the crab, and god set us up for this ultimate state of being, so therefore, crabzilla is real

[@Karolina-ei4yt]

11:01 I think they are trying to say that we can KNOW that something is a 100% true, but we can never actually prove if IT IS

[@darkcargo6065]

My hot take: modern political systems and laws are made in a way that pretend we aren't human

[@cerealkicker5329]

Because in their eyes we aren’t…

[@Orange_Swirl]

Minty.

[@MrCmon113]

That doesn't even mean anything.

[@diazkohen2149]

Some for Feudalism in the past, or absolute Monarchy. Commoners are just property of noble class

[@NeutralMjolkHotel]

Interesting. I actually do feel that “certainty” infers truth necessarily, but people are often mistaken in their certainty, mistaking it for conviction.

[@jackwaycombe]

The trouble is - when our certainty is wrong, in whose estimation is it wrong? Yours? Mine? Consensus? Religion? Politics? When it comes to a whole lot of important subjects, I accept only one opinion as relevant - and that's my own.

[@mikaeus468]

​​​@@jackwaycombe We would be wrong according to actual reality, not an estimation of it.

[@wxbrainiac]

im certain that im living and breathing right now but i dont think that means that im actually alive, i dont know anything is 100% true all i can do is trust that what i think im certain about is the truth.

[@tylerbakeman]

“Mint” being the opposite of “Spicy” is more accurate than you think. There was a guy who described how we can taste more than the 5 tastes (sweet, sour, bitter, salty, and umami), I think he listed over 50 different tastes, including spicy and minty being more-or-less opposites, as well as different types of spicy (ie peppers vs horseradish). These different tastes motivate some of the principles in theoretical mixology. In theory, we can craft a cocktail that contains pepper like jalapeño, and adding mint will probably not be very good… it may not “cancel” any of the sensations from spiciness or mintyness, but it may cancel the flavors to some degree (both jalapeño and mint have some other flavors, like bitterness, that will likely combine to yield a flavor that is less pleasant than before the attempt to cancel these flavors)… In some instances, “balancing” a cocktail is a technique that usually refers to things like “acid-balancing” where we add concentrates or simple ingredients to adjust the tastes of the mixture to something more specific. 2 Examples: 1) Good cocktails, can be fine tuned with small doses of balance changes, (adding a dash of bitters for vibrancy/ flavor) 2) To-be good cocktails, are more complicated… recipes themselves call for ingredients to make up a good cocktail (ie, lemonade has a recipe is technically a cocktail), so substituting a common ingredient for a rebalanced alternative is common practice (pineapple juice with added citric acid will become more sour, eventually as sour as lemon juice… replacing the lemon juice component of the recipe for lemonade, will theoretically give you a similar tasting cocktail, with the added flavor of pineapple) You might argue that 1 and 2 are the same, just in a different order. If there is temperature involved in the process or machinery, then they become more different. Cocktail balancing means we recognize which flavors are present, which are too strong/ too weak, and also taking into account harmonic flavors, as well as water/ soda water for flavor dilution (you can have something that tastes perfect, but it’s flavor is too concentrated “rich”, so it needs to be cut with something like water) 💧 Examples of IBA (international bartending association) recipes that are unbalanced (in my opinion): Piña colada: (it is often too fruity/ too rich), substituting coconut creams, removing excess pineapple, diluting with additional water/ white or gold rum (non-spiced and “no funk” rums), and using ingredients like (Malibu) Coconut Rum (which has a “saviorness” I don’t know what it comes from though) is a good practice. Some bartenders use complex rum varieties and saline in this Class of cocktail. Vesper: I think it needs less vermouth and the “dimensions” of the base spirits should depend on the pairing (some vodka gin pairs should focus on the gin- ie semi-botanical london dry pairs tend to be better in a 2:1 ratio; whereas, some pairs might benefit from more vodka). Cosmopolitan: it depends on the curacao; Cointreau is almost universally acceptable and can be more forgiving due to its natural astringency/ savory flavor in this mixture. Cointreau is sweeter than a bunch of curacao, meaning you have to be careful with the quantity usually (cosmos are precise and leave little room for change in the dimensions of spirits… usually… adding mandarin flavor seems to work okay- which might explain why Cointreau feels more flexible, but doesn’t explain why TripleSec or Marnier don’t work as well with this cocktail,,, for that, you would need to recognize some other qualities in the cocktail). Those 3 examples dive into different topics of balancing: 1) balancing with tastes 2) balancing with dilution 3) dimensions of cocktails 4) variability of ingredients (small changes in an ingredient might not be acceptable, small changes in the entire recipe might not be acceptable, because of how chaotic the recipes can be) Some recipes have the opposite issue: Margaritas you can 100% add all of the wrong ingredients, and it’ll still taste good. That’s why Margarita bars do so well. Some flavors have never worked well for me in cocktails, or have very very few recipes: - Apple Juice (fruit punch or dark rum) - Coke (sprite is used more for “lemonades”) - Vinegar (the dot line) - Cilantro Some flavors need to branch out more in my opinion: - Campari (is 95% MiTo variations) - OJ (shouldn’t mostly be tiki) - Pineapple (shouldn’t just be tiki) - Coffee (shouldn’t just be desert)

[@christopherclark508]

on the second one. The Catholic church may have said that heliocentrism was incorrect but they didn't say that as doctrine. So the church never taught that it was incorrect, the pope really just said that he thought it was incorrect and "absurd."

[@lillotusplays]

i actually didnt realize until now how often and how effective self-narrated dialogue is. I guess i've never used that method to make a point, but it is true that i have come across many texts and videos in which people use this form

[@ahmadjamalmughal47]

Probably one of my favorite alex videos in a while

[@RustyWalker]

Dan Mclellan's last video talked about an online lecture on the synthesis of the concept of hell. I don't recall who's presenting, but it's a "pay what you think" arrangement so anybody can listen to a scholar's explanation of how the modern concept of hell was invented.

[@guandisimo1096]

My minty take: there is no god but there is a higher being: a giant purple space squid named Alfred. He’s definitely evil and sounds like a Bond villain.

[@glenliesegang233]

Life on Earth, according to the facts and current scientific understanding, freed from ideologies like "ID" and "ID is ridiculous" forces every rational human being in the 21st century to conclude that some Superintelligence created life on Earth, twice, from highly complex molecules created by natural processes. Ridiculous! you say? Here are 3 facts which molecular biology and the mathematics of both agree with: The DNA of both branches of life are mostly unique, and contain coding and noncoding segments. The coding segments contain information as base 4 digital data which has no relationship to the function of its protein- it merely says what amino acid is linked to the next in one specific ordered direction until a "stop" is encountered. There is no reverse engineering from a naturally occurring"useful" protein produced by random amino acid linking into code which can specify the production of more of it. The quantity of the simplest proto-life in viruses is in the kilobyte range, and in the simplest possible gene edited life, the megabyte range. The non-coding segments, usually >80% of the organism's DNA, comprise a massively parallel operating system of proteins DNA, and RNA which serve as AND, OR, and NOR logic gates. No natural process produces information. None produce digital data. A kilobyte cannot occur naturally. Third, both code and nanomachines specified in the code, plus operating system, must be present simultaneously in the same lipid envelope as all the other (and none of the toxic) biomolecules. I am not claiming this is "God's doings." But something god-like in its power and intellect did, twice, with 100% certainty. No other explanation can explain this.

[@Windy-Pie_is_best_girl]

Mega hot take: Someone suffering from a severe mental health issue, under intense pressure or anything else that can heavily obscure reason or understanding can't consent to suicide, in a similar vein that a child or someone with dementia can't consent to a tattoo (except worse)

[@mayor_theo]

I dont think this is a hot take. I also think that most people that actually thought about suicide and took matter into persuing this, are in the situstion you're describing

[@nicholassherwood5825]

"Apparently you could've." Laughed for a good long while at that one, but I'm not sure I had any choice.

[@sebastianhollmann9611]

2:20 min: 🤣🤣🤣 "ritual cannibalism", great one

[@edumazieri]

well being certain that I* exist* cannot really be wrong - it's just that defining "I" and "exist" might get complicated

[@ManuelCampagna]

AlexOC, when I was in college, one of the philosophy teachers read alout to the class Descartes' reasoning, and it ended with "je doute, donc j'existe". A lot more believable than "je pense, donc je suis".

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Je fais quelque truc donc j'existe Ou Je sais que j'existe , je suis sûre que j'existe et j'ai raison Ou Bien-sûr j'existe , n'être pas stupide I'm just practicing my french and I think Descartes was right and I don't know why Alex seem to oppose him. Maybe Descartes should've formulated it better?

[@cachinnation448]

Meh with the French

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

@@cachinnation448 "Meh" , what does that mean?

[@Thatsnotmyhandle]

@@fukpoeslaw3613not very good

[@LarryThePhotoGuy]

@@fukpoeslaw3613 I think therefore I am. A. Implies that causality, as Descartes understood it, was really a thing. Ask a quantum physicist. B. The brain in a box idea that reality up to and including your existence could be created illusion. No there there. C. It implies that the true nature of reality is perceivable or understandable by looking in your head. Hm. Arguments about reality without actual observations to support premises are just that, arguments.

[@brandonfiennies1246]

I can't believe my comment was used as a set up for the advertisement 😭 2:56

[@_hurm_]

Lol congrats!!

[@brandonfiennies1246]

@@_hurm_ thanks

[@aidn12]

You were involved in the cleanest segue I’ve ever seen

[@NoName77794]

Your comment is dumb so it gave the opportunity for a sponsor involvment.

[@romanmaksimovich5050]

Am I the only person who thinks that incest is not intrinsically wrong? I am aware of the evolutionary motives to avoid it, but how does it matter today? If two siblings want to have consensual protected sex, there's really nothing that should be stopping them.

[@Charlotte.4C]

Their shared DNA makes them incompetent. We should always seek and give ethical qualified consent. Related DNA disqualified intimate relations. If we value ethics, they are deeply violated and all society will disqualifie and dissolve itself! It's right back to the jungle then 🐒

[@jaideepshekhar4621]

You're not alone.

[@u.s.navy_pete4111]

Requiring someone to behave socially without facing appropriate punishment if they don't is immoral.

[@AFlyingCoconut]

Life is always worth living? My father had a stroke so bad that, in order to survive, would be confined to a bed for 24 hours a day, unable to speak, breathe on his own, beat his own heart, a machine to feed him, another machine to remove his waste, completely trapped inside his own head, conscious, for the rest of his life The decision to support his wishes and take him off life support was both the hardest and simplest decision our family has made.

[@samuelcharles7642]

Sheesh, I’m definitely a fan of euthanasia

[@autumnpeck3628]

Kindness is selfish because of the positive feeling one gets when expressing kindness. Would people still be kind if such a feeling didn't exist? If not, are they in turn, just being kind to help themselves? Would just sympathy and empathy be enough to get humanity to act on kindness?

[@fahrenheit2101]

Well, you could go further and claim everything is "selfish" if you say you have no free will and every act you take is as a result of factors outside of your control that control your wants and thus who you are. I might be pushing it though

[@CamelliaFlingert]

@@fahrenheit2101 that is our reality (of course i have no rights to claim it, but it's seems the most logical and close to reality worldview), and i'm wishing it to be different and suffering from existential agony from realizing all of it

[@fahrenheit2101]

@@CamelliaFlingert huh i get existential agony for totally different reasons - mostly just thanks to death. Only way around them for me is distracting myself...

[@jaideepshekhar4621]

Interesting! Kindness could still be practiced due to many reasons, so creating a blackbox would be a nigh impossible challenge indeed.

[@haveyouheardtherumor]

my first thought was ‘this is stupid. i’m kind not because it feels good, but because it feels bad not to’ and then i realized. is that also inherently selfish? would anyone actually be kind if there was no negative feeling involved. anyways this stood out to me made me think

[@mellar5864]

Hot take: Living eternally in heaven would turn into hell sooner or later

[@SPDLand]

People indeed have no notion on what eternity actually means...

[@LeanAndMean44]

Yes. Watch „the Good Place“

[@mellar5864]

@@SPDLand not only eternity, also words like allmighty, allknowing. People often throw around those kind of words, but rarely can imagine the implications of their concepts.

[@SPDLand]

@@LeanAndMean44 Ok. It sounds creepy, like the Ministry of Love.

[@KangMinseok]

This assumes that the passage of time is felt when experiencing eternity, which is itself questionable.

[@michaelsmith3069]

“Life is always, ALWAYS, worth living” is one of those takes that shows just how little some people think past a question of, “what am I supposed to think?”

[@EreshKidu]

now I am confused about your moral worldview. In ethical emotivism you can say "incest is wrong" because basically you dont like it, fine but you still have a problem justifying why you dont like it or why others should not like it too. How is it a stronger position compared to secular/material ethics?

[@KangMinseok]

Right? It's just lazy, I mean, you are just introducing an additional step, people will still ask "but where does the emotion come from" and derive some kind of utilitarian origin grounded in human evolution.

[@dream1430]

There is no problem justifying the view because there simply isn’t a proposition to justify. It’s also the case that in other forms of secular ethics that the first proposition used to start their ethical reasoning is unjustified itself, so it isn’t as if it’s any stronger by virtue of claiming moral proposition have truth value

[@KangMinseok]

@@dream1430 sure, but we know that emotions originate from somewhere, so why would we just stop and not investigate further? It's not like our emotions are some kind of completely un-examineable like a god or something.

[@dream1430]

@@KangMinseok Further investigation into the origin of emotions still doesn’t close the is-ought gap, so I don’t see it’s relevance in moral discussions, unless you have a convincing argument for why? I’m all ears.

[@fixpontt]

_"why you dont like it or why others should not like it too"_ no, this is impossible, it just IS if you say the thing it is wrong because of X than you can ask _"what makes you think X is wrong"_ and this will lead to infinite regression, this is not lazyness or a plus step, this is the whole point, you just feel it wrong and you dont like it and that's it if you want to understand better there is a video on youtube "David Hume's Argument Against Moral Realism" it's a long video 23 minutes but it is easy to follow and help to understand this thing

[@polkjmsb]

Pretty sure the one about forgiveness is from the point of view of the forgiver. Forgiveness takes an emotional effort and it's not always earned. Pushing for people to forgive others can thus be toxic for the "victim"

[@jozefglemp8011]

I definitely enjoy this format, and I hope to see you more often interact with audience, because this is the only area that I think your public presence is insufficient.

[@jav4346]

Subjecting someone who doesn’t even want to be alive anymore to punishment for that by putting them in the depravity of a prison environment is evil beyond comprehension. Like that was gut wrenching to hear

[@diablominero]

Here's a take that might be spicy: ceteris paribus, it's better that a person who wants to stay alive be able to than that they die before they're ready. You'd think this would be minty, but everyone seems to want to make exceptions to it.

[@alansmithee419]

15:20 I struggle to come to a conclusion on this in short time. I think the crux of the question from a moral perspective lies in the childhood experiences of the siblings. If two people are raised in an environment where they act as siblings (whether biological or not) from a young age, does that lead to problematic possibilities in the origin of this sexual relationship when they are adults? Perhaps issues that are similar, though likely less heinous or intentional, to something like grooming. And, if such issues do exist, do they make *all* such acts problematic, or should each pair of siblings' case be considered individually? I suspect there is a universal issue somewhere in here, but I can't figure it out right now. It's certainly an interesting question, and my favourite of the takes presented in the video.

[@emanuel6233]

Life is not always worth living. I know of a guy who was dropped as a baby. Lost his hearing and vision so he had no way of communicating. Plus he was too young to understand the world around him and his mom just abandoned him. The fact that he was dropped caused a bunch of other defects in him. Yet the healthcare system in my country that abides by the doctor's oath to always help people continue living no matter the circulstances, he was over 90 years old when i heard about him. Dude wouldn't know when his caretakers entered his room until they touched him ance they did he would immedietly show fear and scream. His limbs had stopped growing and for some reason caused him immense pain whenever he'd move, judging by his screaming at least. He spent over 90 years in absolute isolation in his own head, not understanding the world around him or even percieving it in anything other than touch and smell. He would be fed liquid food through a pipe instead of actually eating. Something about the fact that they actually kept that guy alive is just disturbing to me. His life has to be one of the worst lives in all of history

[@MrCmon113]

If they had figured out a way to communicate, it would be different. At least they should administrator copious opiods.

[@great-wyrmII]

The people who kept him alive are evil.

[@SilverWolf340]

I don’t love the argument against incest being “it’s icky” since it can be so easily applied by so many to gay sex.

[@w0ody16]

This was a fun one, if love to see another 😊