Видео

It's definitely a thought-provoking topic! Plato had some interesting ideas about meaning and virtue, but it's always good to question and explore different perspectives.

​@@SerenityofReason- I'm going to respectfully disagree.

That would definitely be a unique look! Vision has a style all his own.

Thank you so much for your kind words! It means a lot to know that the explanation resonated with you!

no you, we don't participate in glo ba lists plans

Ah, the classic "glo ba lists plans" dilemma! Sounds like something straight out of a sci-fi movie, right? 😂

@@SerenityofReason- yes, keep believing that it's just a theory

Thank you for your feedback, Morgan! l'll make sure to tighten up the editing for a smoother listening experience. Appreciate you catching that!

🤓 hahaha, maybe that could have been the best

I like how reolute you are with your stands. Interested. Thank do much for sharing your thoughts.

The CEO's statement seems to align more with the concept of a "false dilemma" or "appeal to force" rather than a traditional logical fallacy like "appeal to authority." The CEO is presenting the situation as if there are only two options: comply or face termination, which oversimplifies the range of potential responses or negotiations. It might also involve a power dynamic where the CEO leverages their authority to enforce compliance, which could be seen as coercive. How do you think employees should navigate such power imbalances while maintaining professional integrity?

@@SerenityofReason- The CEO lies above any of his employees arguing over his policies in the hierarchy of authority and enFORCEment . Of course he also lies below the authority and force of his customers, his investors, and that of the law, and of the regulators. The real issue of argumentation by appeal to authority is that all such authority is self-claimed. CEOs, law, and the like have authority conferred on them through legal means. This has nothing to do with logic and not all logical fallacies are contained in itemized lists; these are merely primers. Samual Clemens has been credited with the statement "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics" which is a concept that belongs somewhere in the constellation of fallacious argumentation.

@@SerenityofReason- So when the IRS says pay up or else, you should say "you are engaging in the logical fallacy of argumentum ad Baculum:" and tell them you don't respond to their fallacious threats.

@@SerenityofReason- *Re: “It might also involve a power dynamic where the CEO leverages their authority to enforce compliance, which could be seen as coercive.”* There is a real world out there beyond the imagination of cloistered academicians. Hierarchies of authority exist; chaos ensues when they are absent (student riots, looting, arson. etc). Your citation of “CEO” in discussion of logic fallacy is as strange as it is amusing. I cannot think of a more benign example of authority than that between an employer and employee. The employee is the individual who “grants” his/her employer limited authority over their work behavior as a condition of an implied or expressed contractual agreement for the purpose of mutual benefit (do my work for your pay). Under most such employment contracts, the words “I quit” is sufficient to terminate it (Don’t try this as a member of the US armed forces). Since you chose to depart the world of logic and reason in service of some unstated agenda, I might point out the real dangers of abuse of authority. In March of this year an armed BATF squad broke into the home of Bryan Malinowski, the then Executive Manager of the entire Bill and Hillary Clinton Regional Airport in Little Rock. In the dark of night they broke down the locked door of his suburban home and entered. As they roused him from slumber, he told his wife to hide in the dark house and then grabbed his gun to fire a warning shot at the feet of these unidentified intruders to his home. His warning shot was answered with a hail of automatic weapon fire piercing his body and terminating the life of the BATF target, Bryan Malinowski. No law has been found that Bryan ever violated. *_"How do you think _**_-employees-_**_ Bryan Malinowski should navigate such power imbalances while maintaining his professional integrity?”_* Get real, we’re not talking climate nonsense here either. That’s an entirely different kettle of logical nonsense to flush down the toilet of legitimate scientific inquiry. All who enter this political agenda need to leave all pretense at logic behind. The entire house of cards called "the climate crisis" is a menagerie of fallacies heaped upon one another.

It's important to recognize that scientific consensus is based on the best available evidence at a given time, and it evolves as new data emerges. The geocentric model is a good example of how scientific understanding can change dramatically with new discoveries. However, modern scientific consensus is built on rigorous testing, peer review, and reproducibility, which helps to ensure that our current models are more robust. What do you think are the key factors that differentiate past scientific beliefs from today's consensus?

@@SerenityofReason- *RE: "It's important to recognize that scientific consensus is based on the best available evidence at a given time"* This is called _'argumentum ad populum'_ a dangerous logical fallacy that resulted in the death of some six million Jews. The scientific consensus of the most highly educated nation to have ever existed held that they were all "subhuman." RE: *However, modern scientific consensus is built on rigorous testing, peer review, and reproducibility [sic], which helps to ensure that our current models are more robust.* How many logical fallacies are contained in this absurd conclusion? _Argumentum ad ignorantiam_ "argument to ignorance" in Latin, is a fallacy in informal logic that occurs when someone claims something is true or false based on the fact that it hasn't been proven otherwise. It's also known as an appeal to ignorance or negative proof fallacy. The _credentials fallacy_ is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone dismisses an argument by stating that whoever made it doesn’t have proper credentials, so their argument must be wrong or unimportant. "Modern" science becomes old fashioned and disreputable faster than fashion change and consensus has virtually nothing to do with the ethos of science and is particularly dangerous when it is a politically funded "consensus." see: _'Argumentum ad Baculum'_ (or show me a crisis I can exploit to gain more power or lose your grant) Models are not science. their only possible effectiveness is in illustrating one's ignorance. In climate science they are all increasing in divergence. Not only this, there is no standard of reality with which to judge them as they pertain to either the past or future climates since all current "global" climate conditions are similarly modeled, not actually measured. Further, both 'climate' and 'weather' are generalizations having no scientific metric whatsoever with which to measure any presumed change. The "climate" of Southern Florida is still 'subtropical" exactly the same as it was some 500 years ago when Ponce de Leon first set foot there. Ergo it has not 'changed' at all from then to the present day. Your avoidance of examples of illegitimate use of government force other than the Nazis (they were bad of course.) Their brand of socialism was as obnoxious as all the others but in terms of pure human misery they were pikers compared with Soviet Socialists and those of the PRC. Why pick on CEOs whose authority is legally limited and contained by free labor, capital, and consumer markets? Your bias in this regard suggests to me that your own paycheck is not entirely driven by free markets, can you relieve us of this suspicion? Any coercion involved n the sources of your own livelihood?

Had loved to learn more

@@SerenityofReason- The IRS is a logical fallacy?

Why did you say so?

@@SerenityofReason- the integration of an electrical circuit and a biological electrical circuit is not as simple as adding a few rods, neuralink said that the product works by having electrical rods sent to the brain, but that is it, that is not how it works, there are many issues they need to solve, like: 1) the neurons electrical conduction works based on multiple channels and ions for conduction like Ca, Cl, K and Na, the conduction happens within the neuron itself, meaning that if you want a real continuation of the system, inserting a rod only is not enough, as the 2 systems are not complimentary due to different mechanisms of action 2) the brain is really complex and electrifying it alone or electrifying a specific region isn't enough to have the signals interpreted, there isn't big a single study that explains how these electrical impulses are encoded into information 3) how is the device going to understand the "person's thoughts" only by reading the electrical activity? This is not possible within the context of modern medicine 4) they have not answered any of the previous question that I have posed and they will not either, wet simply don't have that kind of understanding of the brain to be manipulating it this way I hope what I said was clear 😄

They have their first human implant complete and it works.

Lol prolly not gonna happen 😂

It has already been shown to work. The technology is in its infancy… It’s gonna be AWESOME!!!!

Thank you your feedback help us improve

Thanks for sharing this content! I noticed the jump at 0:55 too-could be a quick edit or cut. Either way, the information is still valuable. Looking forward to more from you!

Drunk driving laws are therefore based on an "ad Baculum" logical fallacy? The title of this piece should be _"A little learning is a dangerous thing,"_ and yes voting fools into positions of authority does indeed produce bad things, like San Francisco for instance

We had loved to learn more

Please let us know your point

That is a point. Can you elaborate?

@@SerenityofReason- i’ve recently lost faith in free well .I no longer believe this to be true anymore. I’ve become suspicious of my own desires. In my own thinking. I no longer wish to have addictions. I Hate the situation that I am under the control of something else. Whether it be a substance or my own nervous system. I just want to reduce my own suffering.

Hello

@@SerenityofReason- if you don't mind telling me did you got this video edited from a Fiverr seller ?

@@SerenityofReason- actually I am also a freelance content creator with a great experience in RUclips automation and I can provide you much better and high quality videos at a very low price

​@@SerenityofReason- I can create much better and higher quality videos for you at a low price

Please you can contact us on serenityofreason@gmail.com

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, @mikeg2482. You raise an interesting point about Ayn Rand's philosophy. It’s true that Rand’s work can be interpreted in various ways, and her views on self-interest, pleasure, and morality are particularly nuanced. Rand indeed emphasized rational self-interest and the pursuit of happiness. She wrote in "The Virtue of Selfishness" that the achievement of one’s happiness is man’s highest moral purpose, suggesting that pleasure is a natural aspect of life. In "Atlas Shrugged," she stated that the purpose of morality is to enjoy yourself and live, which can be seen as advocating for the pursuit of pleasure within a rational framework. Moreover, Rand believed that true desires and impulses align with rational values. For instance, in "The Fountainhead," Howard Roark’s actions are driven by his rational desires and impulses to create and innovate, reflecting Rand’s view that rational desires should shape one’s life. These examples illustrate that Rand’s philosophy integrates the pursuit of pleasure and rational self-interest, suggesting that these elements are not separate from values and principles but are intertwined. Please let me know what you think about this. It is a very openminded discussion and we learn everyday. Thank you for the wonderful contribution

@@SerenityofReason- Hello SerenityofReason. You are misrepresenting important aspects of Rand's statements and her context. You sound as if you want people to think that Rand created a flexible unclear framework that is open for others to re-interpret and edit ... which is incompatible with what she repeatedly said. This seems as though you want to intentionally confuse people about Rand. For example, you say that Rand's work can be interpreted in different ways and her views of morality are nuanced. This seems as though you want to intentionally confuse people about Rand. For example, you speak as if Ayn Rand thought that pleasure, happiness, and joy are the same exact thing. You fail to include important aspects of Rand's context about each, and her key judgments regarding the pursuit of each. This seems as though you want to intentionally confuse people about Rand. It seems like someone else is telling you what to write, and it seems like you both do not understand what Rand said nor what she meant.

Thank you! I'm glad you found the commentary on Stoicism beautiful. It's such a powerful philosophy to explore!