Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "PragerU" channel.

  1. John Waters says: "It's just a straw man - a completely analogy if you wish." Did you mean "completely an analogy" or " a complete analogy" "a specific type of consciousness" I never said that. Dawkins tries to explain consciousness as an epiphenomenon of material processes. Set aside proving it for the moment, to even make an epiphenomenal claim plausible you must give a hint as to how the epiphenomenon reduces to the presumed substrate, or at a minimum, how they might both reduce to the same category. Without such, the claim is meaningless, and does not rise to the level of error. Before you call this a revised argument it is the same argument. My original argument. If this is not clear I can amplify it. (Thoughts)..." have not always existed (since not even I have always existed) therefore they must have causes (that must actually be external), which makes your claim completely false. " I should have said "There is no a priori reason to attribute their cause to a specific something else". In other words your attribution of a thoughts cause to itself, or to another thought, is not the only alternative to attributing them to material causes. Many world views other than materialism have an internally consistent attributions for these causes. The one you attacked is held by no one. I can tell you what I, for example, believe about the matter if you like. But one does not need a specific example to know that the alternative you proposed is not the only alternative. That is obvious. "The reason why we accept "reasoned thought and reject caused thought". is that it is consistent to some degree. A working calculator is consistent, therefore it is trusted. One that has shows incorrect results half the time is not." Indeed the distinction may well be inductive, that is, we may have arrived at it by experience. That does not invalidate the distinction. Occam's razor is "Entities are not to be multiplied needlessly. The simplest explanation is probably the best one." Google is our friend. "My actions are weighted according to what is beneficial and to the understanding that other people are not so different from me or from each other. "? Your are staking a claim to act on good morals, not stating a basis for morality. In order to reason to moral conclusions, you must start with moral premises. Logically, there is no way to reason from premises in the indicative mood to conclusions in the imperative mood. There is no way to get from an "is" to an "ought". "'the notions you use as assumptions to disprove free will.' Those assumptions have been the ones assumed in the video (because that was what I was commenting about and disproving)." The video did not assume the truth of naturalism. The point of my last paragraph was that your invocation of "burden of proof" was an unfortunate one because the position you are arguing against is the common sense or default one, despite a great deal of propaganda and cultural conditioning to the contrary. About "baseless". Logic demands premises to reach conclusions. Premises are baseless. One can nevertheless use logic to reject premises, or combinations of premises, or invalid deductions, which are inconsistent, for example: You say "you cannot show how free will fits into materialism, therefore free will does not exist." Then you say "I cannot show how consciousness fits into materialism, but it fits anyway."
    1
  2. replying to +John Waters: Invoking "burden of proof" in an academic discussion or debate, where there are no immediate consequences of the outcome independent of that outcome, is to simply beg to be allowed to assume that which should be proven. "The house wins all ties," but who died and made you the house? You can, and probably will, continue to insist that I shoulder the "burden of proof", but unless you give me a logical reason why I should spot you ties, I will continue to ignore it. You said "Internally consistent, as the assertion that "I can fly, therefore I can fly" is internally consistent yet completely unsubstantiated..." As? What is the similarity? I was not claiming that internal consistency proves a notion, I was noting that there were alternatives to your straw man carefully chosen for inconsistency, namely thoughts causing themselves. "You can either claim that occam's razor only applies to explanations, and therefore my principle is not occam's razor OR you can say that the principle I used is not occam's razor." 2 posts prior you said: "I need only to accept the most likely explanation based on the facts and the implications of those facts." YOU stated your principle as applying to explanations. I said, "In order to reason to moral conclusions, you must start with moral premises." You said, "Not really." Yes, really. That premises in the indicative mood do not lead to conclusions in the imperative mood is a principle of formal logic "Logic is our friend." "I just need a mutually shared goal with other people in a community." Self interest, even enlightened self interest, is not morality. Morality begins where self interest ends. Morality is sacrificing your interest for the good of another who objectively (on moral premises) has a better claim. "Your claim simply demonstrates that your morals are baseless." My claim is that morality requires a base. Your assumptions lead to the conclusion that ALL MORALS are baseless. If what I call my moral notions are simply the manipulation of "selfish genes", then they can no more logically command my loyalty than any other genetic trait, like the color of my eyes. " ' "I cannot show how consciousness fits into materialism, but it fits anyway." ' On a side note: it does not fit at all." "Side note"? Good grief! If you mean that consciousness does not fit into materialism, you are CONCEDING THE MAIN POINT OF MY MAIN ARGUMENT! If you stipulate that consciousness does not fit into materialism, do you hold that consciousness does not exist, or concede that materialism is false?
    1
  3. Oscar Hade He did not say anything racial, because American is not a race it is an idea. Freedom=Limited Government.
    1
  4. +thatMimosaGrove You should have cleaned it before you posted, now I have to clean my screen, too.
    1
  5. Joel1704 AH none of this amounts to corruption. Corruption means a conflict of interest undermining the legitimate authority.
    1
  6. The only sound humanitarian concern is not income equality percentage as such, but the absolute living standard of the poor. By that standard US poor are better off than the poor of most other countries.
    1
  7.  @myusernameissoobnoxiouslyl1466  It is the other way around. Public transit is subsidized by revenues from vehicle use tax, fees and other public revenue extracted from auto users.
    1
  8.  @myusernameissoobnoxiouslyl1466  Yes, highways are also funded by the same source, primarily. So?
    1
  9.  @myusernameissoobnoxiouslyl1466  I don't know what "They should be a luxury" means. If you mean common folks should not be allowed to have them, you are an authoritarian elitist.
    1
  10.  @myusernameissoobnoxiouslyl1466  I see I slightly misunderstood your point, 3 posts up, I thought you were talking about cars, not highways.  "Yes commonfolk can have highways" How gracious of you, master! "but they oughta pay a toll to enter" We have already established that road and vehicle taxes are funding the whole shebang, if the "alternatives" were better, they would be profitable, and not need subsidy. Be careful that you don't kill the source of revenue for your pet projects. Unless your motive is not to provide revenue, but to punish behavior of which you disapprove, in which case you are, again, an authoritarian elitist.
    1
  11. +Justin Doyal says: "If you have a nation of stupid and selfish ppl then that's all there's going to be anywhere" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index rank in survey poll; Country 2013 2014 2015 2016 =================================================== Myanmar 2 1 1 1 US 1 1 2 2 NZ 2 5 3 4 Canada 2 3 4 6 Australia 7 6 5 3 UK 6 7 6 8 Netherlands 8 12 7 13 Ireland 5 4 9 9 Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/america-new-zealand-and-canada-top-list-of-world-s-most-generous-nations-a6849221.html "Charitable giving by individuals as a percentage of GDP in America was recorded at 1.44%, in New Zealand at 0.79%, in Canada at .77% and in the UK – which came fourth globally – at 0.54%" In the US what demographic groups give the most? According to "Who Really Cares?" a demographic study by Arthur C. Brooks these are the demographic groups in the US which give most as a percentage of income and volunteer most: red staters conservatives (liberals earn slightly more as a group but give less) religious people If you have more selfish people, you are going to have more socialism, so Mr. Doyal, you were just guessing, of course, but you guessed right!
    1
  12.  @willhiggins9563  No, by showing by every available metric and statistic that it never happened.
    1
  13.  @MillzTheAthlete  So, just because a Republican said something happened, it must have happened? Even after it has been proven objectively that it didn't? A man can "confess" to his own sin. He can't "confess" somebody else's. That's an "accusation", in this case, a false one.
    1
  14.  @willhiggins9563  The southerners who GREW UP after the REPUBLICANS passed the civil rights act (look at the roll call vote), didn't grow up racist. Strom Turmond changed parties, the other 200 dixiecrat politicians didn't (and kept being elected as Democrats and their districts stayed Democrat, and they were replaced in their districts after retirement with other Democrats until the '90s when the racists were dying off). If the southern shift to Republican was a result of (non-existent) Republican support for racism, how did we get the young southerners instead of the old (racist) ones? Yes, like that metric.
    1
  15. Theoretically, they're being watched by observers from the other party.
    1
  16. Add the single parent upbringing and the failure to launch and you have it about right, the average domestic terrorist is a young Democrat.
    1
  17. We are oppressed by powerful elites.
    1
  18. Thanks, is there a way to filter the site to show JUST the banned videos? (I'm hard core.)
    1
  19.  @user-pm2eu7rq4i  "first of illegals cannot vote " In states without voter ID anyone can vote, and you can't tell the difference. This loophole has existed for long enough now that someone is taking advantage of it. If you don't know that you don't know human nature.
    1
  20. +dylan mazzilli "Would you really be mentally at ease knowing you murdered someone? Yes, they attacked you, but do you then have the moral strength to convince yourself ending that person's life was the right thing to do?" In order to resolve that question, the woman must first survive. "Ps. So next time I look at a pretty girls breasts or ass on the street she could possibly pull a gun on me xD?" If she does she is probably a mugger and ignores gun control laws.
    1
  21. +dylan mazzilli Thank you for your reasonable tone. "unreported mental illness" We can't afford to legislate to the exceptions and treat the whole population as though they were incompetents or children who can't be trusted with sharp objects. This is the sort of thing than changes the implicit relationship between government and the people they are supposed to SERVE for the worse. Before anyone attributes my attitude to a lack of thoughtfulness or empathy, you should perhaps know that my father was a deputy sheriff killed by a lunatic with a handgun. This did not change my attitude toward this PRINCIPLE, nor that of my brothers or sisters, nor any member of my family. I am confident that if my father could speak, it would not have changed his. Freedom is worth dying for, and the moment we forget this is the moment we cease to be free.
    1
  22. Well then, at minimum, we need a BETTER Supreme Court.
    1
  23. +The_Blazer "Gun laws do not impact criminals directly but that isn't the same as not impacting them at all. Every "illegal" gun started out as a legal gun built in a factory somewhere that eventually went lost or stolen somewhere, if you make it harder for the losing/stealing part to happen you reduce the supply of illegal guns" Not every illegal gun was originally manufactured for legitimate CIVILIAN use. In the US, most gun murders are "drive by" shootings where the instrument is a "machine pistol", a semi-concealable fully automatic weapon firing pistol caliber ammo. NONE of these were lost or stolen from a legitimate civilian private owner or dealer catering to same. The driver of violent crime is the ratio of risk between the good guys and the bad guys. In the UK, the most common form of theft from private homes is a small team of men breaking in to a home WHEN THEY KNOW THE OWNERS ARE HOME and awake and stealing their stuff and personal effects, getting the haul of a burglar and a mugger at the same time and not having to stay up late or fumble around in the dark. As the UK tallies crime, this does not count as a "violent crime", unless someone actually gets physically injured, even though the threat of force is central to the modus operandi. This does not happen in the US, for good and sufficient reason. Disarming all citizens in hopes of reducing the armament of criminals isn't just oppressive, it is bad policy with respect to every practical consideration. What you HOPE TO gain is not worth what you WILL lose. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin And in the end will loose both. - Digital Nomad
    1
  24. +Marisol Sanches " Bill O'Reilly." Ok, you shoot your predators and we'll shoot ours and we'll see who wins the next election. (Other than in Cook County, Illinois where the dead can vote)
    1
  25. +TheMawsJawz TM "Die a martyr than live a slave of man Jesus Christ it hurts" Jesus Christ - "Tell me about it."
    1
  26. Or the victims been gunfull. <--THAT might be achievable through social action. Preventing criminals from getting guns is no more practical than keeping them from getting drugs. Most murders in the US are committed by gangsters with machine pistols procured on the black market.
    1
  27. "One of if not the most reviled country on the planet." First remotely accurate thing you have said. We are hated because of envy. Because our generosity shows you up. DP does not make mere assertions. He is making arguments and citing figures. You have not engaged his argument, you just want to kill him for proving his point.
    1
  28. "from any Brit's point of view" You should take a look at British views represented in these comment pages. "We have far superior brains when it comes to inventions" US grants about 30,000 patents a year, about half from foreign applicants https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm "Last year there were 5,037 patent applications to the EPO filed by British applicants, the highest number since 2011. However, the UK still lags behind many of its European neighbours when patent applications are counted per head of population." http://smallbusiness.co.uk/more-uk-companies-protecting-intellectual-property-year-on-year-2509711/ I don't attribute the difference to "American brains", but to a society more amenable to innovation, but then again, I'm not a racist. Yes, US education has declined since the 60s. The problem is public sector unions and the US federal Department of Education, 2 things which did not exist in the 60s. The solution is education vouchers, which conservatives support and leftists oppose (and eliminating public sector unions and the federal Department of Education). "The UK gives very generously too given the size of this island." Not bad. The UK gives .84% of it's gdp in private charitable giving, ranking seventh in the table coming in at just under half the US figure. Given the hundreds of countries counted, that is impressive. (Somehow, I doubt that you personally are among the generous.) US tops this figure at 1.85%, with Israel a close second at 1.35%. http://ccss.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/02/Comparative-data-Tables_2004_FORMATTED_2.2013.pdf Chart is on page 7. "America can afford to give generously being as you have looted Trillions from countries invaded for no reason whatsoever." I don't know where you're getting this notion. Make your slanders specific, so I can refute them. "The only thing that astonishes me is why the US has not been held accountable for war crimes? Then you have you're pathetic lust for guns. Mad world we live in, that is made all the madder by dumber Americans." [sic] If you are going to brag about your education and intelligence, you should avoid putting question marks at the end of sentences that aren't questions and abusing a contraction (FYI, that should be "your"). Now to the specifics. The US healthy enthusiasm for guns and gun ownership has served us well. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html While the US does rank somewhere in the 80s worldwide in per capita murders overall, which is high for a western country, the devil is in the details. Virtually all of these murders take place in certain Democrat dominated municipalities with strict gun control laws. Counties with the highest rate of gun ownership have the lowest crime rates. In the UK it is becoming more common for thieves to invade British homes when they know the occupants are home. Instead of sneaking around at night, or mugging people in the streets, they break in and get the combined haul of a burglary and a mugging in one job. Naturally, in a nation where gun ownership for self defense by private citizens is prohibited, they can count on 3 young strong men with clubs or knives being able to overpower whatever is waiting for them inside. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245417/Burglary-victims-attacked-home-30-minutes.html https://morethanjustsurviving.com/home-invasion-story/ https://pjmedia.com/blog/u-k-crime-statistics-hit-record-high/ https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131121221254AAanQAF This does not happen in the US for good and sufficient reason. In this area and most, we're doing it right and Europe is doing it wrong. We can, for instance, defend ourselves from Brits seeking to wrongfully hang us (original post).
    1
  29. source?
    1
  30. Orange County is not a small community. Residents of small communities are LESS likely to have their paperwork in order, not more. Eliminating any possibility of detecting a crime will invariably cause that crime to be committed if there is any advantage to be gained by anyone in committing it. Eliminating the paper trail for detecting fraud, then demanding that fraud be proven is fallacious. The protocol needs to be in place to PREVENT fraud, or fraud WILL OCCUR. Leaving something this important to an honor system leaves our democracy at the mercy of the dishonorable.
    1
  31. For a 5 minute video, "exhaustive" is not available for a subpoint, you strive for "representative".
    1
  32. How does owning a car force you to drive? I walk or ride a bike whenever I want. The only way it restricts your choice is if buying a car means you can't afford a bicycle, not true for most people.
    1
  33. No, an unskippable ad is irritating because you want to get to your selected content. This is content you selected and it is not keeping you from watching anything, and no downside to closing the video if you don't want it (unless you count the lost enlightenment as a downside).
    1
  34. OK, if you say so.
    1
  35. "We always arrive at the 'then who created God?' question in the end." Every world view arrives at a GROUND OF BEING in the end. God, as described by the Bible and theologins, is a logically consistent candidate for such a ground. Matter as investigated by science, is not. It is science that tells us the latter.
    1
  36.  @2l84me8  "No, there is no reason to assume a god exists, and there literally would be no time nor space to create said universe. Your answer does not make sense to an already nonsensical question." Time and space WERE CREATED, that's what PHYSICS tells us. The only question is by what or whom.
    1
  37.  @2l84me8  " Existence is necessarily temporal and dependent on both time and existence within space time." An interesting philosophical claim. Defend it.
    1
  38.  @2l84me8  "Morality is a mental tool we can use to come to a choice in a most practical way." Morality's claim to authority is linked to its claim to objectivity and transcendence. There is no place in materialism for transcendence, and under materialism there is no rational for morality's objectivity, so on that assumption moral notions have no authority. Moral notions on materialist grounds are either arbitrary social constructs, or arbitrary genetic accidents which can no more claim authority than other genetic accidents like the color of our eyes.
    1
  39. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245417/Burglary-victims-attacked-home-30-minutes.html https://www.lockrite.org/uk-burglary-statistics.php http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/robbers-yanked-jewellery-terrified-woman-13299334 http://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/masked-robbers-tarvin-jailed-armed-13383647 https://morethanjustsurviving.com/home-invasion-story/ https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/1209038/terrifying-ordeal-at-robroyston-home-as-three-armed-robbers-in-balaclavas-break-in-wielding-a-gun/ If you really wanted to know you could have googled "uk home robberies" rather than begging somebody to do your research for you. Of course, if you get your info from the BBC, you will not hear about this. It doesn't fit the political narrative of that organization.
    1
  40.  @ThaMassDebater  Envy is indeed the cheese on the trap, but neo-Marxists SET the trap.
    1
  41. Government intervention put the "great" in. Otherwise it would have just been another recession.
    1
  42. Governments don't pay anything. Taxpayers pay. The SS "fund" has always been an accounting gimmick. You weren't embezzled. You were swindled. This was ALWAYS the deal, the deal you supported when you supported the SS program. You didn't care, you didn't pay attention, we all pay the price. When anybody tried to rationalize and fix the program, like Bush after 2000 and other Republicans before him, the REFORMER was labeled a thief (by the thieves) and was not allowed to fix the problem. Years of bad choices and credulity by the voter have brought this to pass. And it is too late to "Make it didn't happen."
    1
  43. It seems to be a meeting of a committee, or a subcommittee. That is a smaller room, not a legislative assembly room.
    1
  44. Household income 30 percentile is 32K, not every individual income is a household income.
    1
  45.  @fatneckbeard3415  Point out your anti-semitism. What are you going to do about that?
    1
  46.  Buttercup  And ignore the blood entailed in it's destruction?
    1
  47.  @UnseenThreat07  Zionism is emphatically NOT the mainstream narrative. When is the last time you saw a movie or heard a mainstream news story that portrayed Israel in a positive light? You claim to see fern seed and you can't see a florescent orange elephant at ten paces in broad daylight.
    1
  48.  @forthdimension686  You seem to be trying to imply that it is false. How or where?
    1
  49. What do you think is funding the free programming? Free media alone didn't make this mess and free media alone won't fix it.
    1
  50. PragerU does not have the ability to delete comments on YouTube. If YouTube deleted your comments, it was because you were embarrassing leftism.
    1