26:25 "sometimes this game doesn't make it easy" was the passphrase to activate the sleeper agent's training. It looked like your preemptive strike on Red was going to ruin you when you were already in a war with Green. But Green taking the "free cap" obviously was a trigger to make Red hate him more.
Gotta say Pete, been improving massively from learning from your videos, I can consistently take top 2 on Risk Meta Settings - advanced Europe being my favorite. Keep up the good work, and I'll keep learning from you like a sponge!
@@TheKillPeteStrategy I thought you may have changed something after my previous comment but I guess not. Keep uploading that file because I love the content!
I played against the blue player recently and I'm fairly certain they did the exact same thing with their capital where they tried to greed Russia early and left their cap tremendously undefended.
I don’t know enough about the SABER system to know if it has a fix for this, but I’m also petty enough this morning to call Red getting lower than green because they needed to die in order to not give green first (regardless of either players skill during the rest of the game) another failure of SMG
My gripe with objective morality is that it's just a misdirect. There is nothing that is simply "objective" in the sense that it's purely and naturally true. In our formalism of logic, there are axioms and corollaries. We assume the axioms to be true, and the corollaries must be true if the axioms are true. But there's nothing grounding those axioms! In math, the axioms are always really lame and so apparantly agreeable and reasonable that they seem true. Like, once you've defined a set, the Axiom of Extensionality is just entirely reasonable: "two sets are equal if they contain the same elements." But even though that feels natural, it is arbitrary; the corollaries from Zermelo-Fraenkel (axiom set containing that one), while they may seem to be naturally true, "objective" so to say, they are entirely dependent on the axioms. Every system of logic has axioms, or nothing could be considered true. Every system of math has axioms, or nothing could be considered true. Every system of morality has axioms, or nothing could be considered moral. But math works just as well, even if it's not objective. All that's important is that we agree on the axioms (which, I concede, might be very difficult on the topic of morality). The trouble, though, is that we don't even use morality like an academic tool. We could quabble about moral axioms all day, but when have you applied discrete math to morality? Morality is a gut response. The word "immoral" is loose, prescriptive, and defensive. No one *really* wants an objective morality, and even if there were one, it wouldn't always be used. The most useful system of morality is simply one that is agreed upon and adhered to, not an "objective" one.
Really interesting convo about morality. I totally agree with you, I don't think that there is objective morality and that it can only be subjective in nature as we all are the sum of our actions and reactions in regards to our environments. As a side note though, if there was objective morality, then it would (and should) be tied to God(s) or something of the sort that is omnicient and omnipotent and thus capable of immediate "punishment" for breaking said morality. One of the issues with this though is that it could be claimed to still be subjective morality forced upon everyone else by a being capable instant action of breaking said "objective" morality. As an example, imagine it's a game and the developer inputs a code that says "if you break the rules, you will instantly and suddenly combust". It's objective because it is applied to everything without warning or judgment, but it's subjective because someone "willed" it to be this way.
You think green was cheating? Bro seemed to just like never run out of troops when they shouldve bern lower on them. It was very odd considering they only had one bonus the whole game.
I think it would help if you define what you mean by morality, disagreements on basic assumptions like these form the basis of many misunderstandings. To me, the issue lies in that we as humans have an innate need to live not purely for our own gain to be at peace with ourselves. I suggest that there is an objective "morality" that is the action that allows us to create the most desirable result for all sentience that we can within our capacity. However, practically that is nonsense due to perceptual subjectivity. So subjective morality is what we are really dealing with.
The objective morality question was a good one. Coming from a Muslim, we believe that objective morality is true and lies in God's holy books: Psalm, Torah, Bible and Qur'an.
Am I taking crazy pills are does purple having nothing on his cap 9:08 Hate to see streamers miss opportunities. I'm always like, come on, please see what I see
Objective morality can be found within a clean conscience. Its only uncommon because so many people murder theirs to get rid of the constant reminder of ones uncleanness.
@TheKillPeteStrategy hence the uncommon element lol but that's the common thread, insomuch as a conscience is alive it represents our sense of morality, I think.
What is True and right, without a common moral law becomes subjective. As we can't always know men's heart (as in it is corruptable), would it be dangerous to have men be the lawmaker?
@Richard-xu7kz in that case, there should be a righteous mediator between men's hearts and the law. But like you said, man's laws are corruptible due to his heart being untrustworthy and ultimate good is too high of a bar because what is the just punishment for violating the ultimate good? Who's the judge? Who has the right to condemn? That's where Christianity stands head and shoulders above the rest of religions. There is a righteous law giver, judge, mediator, punishment, forgiveness, grace, propitiation, and atonement all wrapped up in a neat little bundle for all who believe. We have all broken the law of ultimate good so we need someone to pay the ultimate price for us, spotlight Jesus Christ.
If there is an objective reality, and morality exists, wouldn't there also have to be an objective morality? To deny this seems to me contradictory. Even if we don't have "access" to objective reality (I'm assuming you're referring to something akin to Kant's noumenal world), our subjective reality (the world of phenomena) supervenes on objective reality. That is, a relation exists such that some difference in the noumenal world is necessary for there to be a difference in the phenomenal world. So if we can know some things to be true a priori and combine that with empirical knowledge, then we can use induction and abduction to, at the very least, approximate truth. To deny this would be to say that there is no relation between our experience of the world and the objective world, which would be incoherent. If morality is objective, then we cannot know it empirically (via measurements and the scientific method); it has to be intuited. If some intuitions are better than others, then we can conclude that some moral intuitions approximate truth (objective morality) better than others. At this point, we cross into theological territory, though, as the only way to explain differences in the quality of people's intuitions would be with a concept such as grace.
![Chino Pacas - Modo Capone (with Drake & Fuerza Regida) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zjv8TQ0gBkg/mqdefault.jpg)
26:25 "sometimes this game doesn't make it easy" was the passphrase to activate the sleeper agent's training. It looked like your preemptive strike on Red was going to ruin you when you were already in a war with Green. But Green taking the "free cap" obviously was a trigger to make Red hate him more.
Haha! Activate smackarino
"Red blows his load on Green, Green sets and kills him"...
I lol'd so hard at this!
even on my birthday I am here to block the spoils
Happy birthday!
Congrats!
Happy birthday
Merry Christmas my man 🎉
It is your birthday.
Wow the growth has been crazy, stumbled across your videos a couple years ago when there were virtually no big risk channels, keep up the good work
We've been working hard over here in the risk community
Great performances and persistent consistency work wonders together. 👍👍
my guess is red was pissed at green for being a passive opportunist and taking his cap and not helping so he sued out into him
I like that
If we started calling it Capital Advanced-Progressive Europe, then we could call it a CAPE Game.
Gotta say Pete, been improving massively from learning from your videos, I can consistently take top 2 on Risk Meta Settings - advanced Europe being my favorite. Keep up the good work, and I'll keep learning from you like a sponge!
Good work!
some interesting glitches at 27:46
I noticed this was uploaded with 1080p Premium instead of 1080p60. Much appreciated! ❤
I always upload the same file.
@@TheKillPeteStrategy I thought you may have changed something after my previous comment but I guess not. Keep uploading that file because I love the content!
I cant stop laughing this game with your commentary while playing it is absolute gold
cheers man!
I played against the blue player recently and I'm fairly certain they did the exact same thing with their capital where they tried to greed Russia early and left their cap tremendously undefended.
Nice to hear them learning from their mistakes 🤣
i fucking love pete's laugh lmao
Thanks man!
Pink was a terror in this game. Coming out of the center sandwiched between two folds!
Oh yes!
All time Pete laugh 12:04
I don’t know enough about the SABER system to know if it has a fix for this, but I’m also petty enough this morning to call Red getting lower than green because they needed to die in order to not give green first (regardless of either players skill during the rest of the game) another failure of SMG
A systemic fix would be to only reward wins
What a fantastic game !❤️❤️❤️❤️ I love this map and I love it to see how the Peteman rules the map. 😂😂😂❤
My gripe with objective morality is that it's just a misdirect. There is nothing that is simply "objective" in the sense that it's purely and naturally true. In our formalism of logic, there are axioms and corollaries. We assume the axioms to be true, and the corollaries must be true if the axioms are true. But there's nothing grounding those axioms!
In math, the axioms are always really lame and so apparantly agreeable and reasonable that they seem true. Like, once you've defined a set, the Axiom of Extensionality is just entirely reasonable: "two sets are equal if they contain the same elements." But even though that feels natural, it is arbitrary; the corollaries from Zermelo-Fraenkel (axiom set containing that one), while they may seem to be naturally true, "objective" so to say, they are entirely dependent on the axioms.
Every system of logic has axioms, or nothing could be considered true. Every system of math has axioms, or nothing could be considered true. Every system of morality has axioms, or nothing could be considered moral. But math works just as well, even if it's not objective. All that's important is that we agree on the axioms (which, I concede, might be very difficult on the topic of morality).
The trouble, though, is that we don't even use morality like an academic tool. We could quabble about moral axioms all day, but when have you applied discrete math to morality? Morality is a gut response. The word "immoral" is loose, prescriptive, and defensive. No one *really* wants an objective morality, and even if there were one, it wouldn't always be used.
The most useful system of morality is simply one that is agreed upon and adhered to, not an "objective" one.
Really interesting convo about morality. I totally agree with you, I don't think that there is objective morality and that it can only be subjective in nature as we all are the sum of our actions and reactions in regards to our environments.
As a side note though, if there was objective morality, then it would (and should) be tied to God(s) or something of the sort that is omnicient and omnipotent and thus capable of immediate "punishment" for breaking said morality. One of the issues with this though is that it could be claimed to still be subjective morality forced upon everyone else by a being capable instant action of breaking said "objective" morality. As an example, imagine it's a game and the developer inputs a code that says "if you break the rules, you will instantly and suddenly combust". It's objective because it is applied to everything without warning or judgment, but it's subjective because someone "willed" it to be this way.
Dude you are the worst self described philosopher ever. Great at risk! Keep it up 😂
🤣🤣🤣 what an asshole
@@TheKillPeteStrategy hope you have a great one!
@@johnnyceagles To you as well brother
Wow wow, the noobery in this one was high lol.
This means nothing to me eeeeeeee ohhhh Viennaaaaaah
You think green was cheating? Bro seemed to just like never run out of troops when they shouldve bern lower on them. It was very odd considering they only had one bonus the whole game.
I imagine they just had a big stack on Georgia that they fortified over. But who knows
I wasn’t aware of literal cheating existing in this game, what ability can they have?
thanks for so much entertaining vids.
What do you think about objective morality through religion?
I'm spiritual non religious so I don't ascribe to anyone else's system of belief and prefer to come up with my own.
Daily realese indeed 😊
I think it would help if you define what you mean by morality, disagreements on basic assumptions like these form the basis of many misunderstandings.
To me, the issue lies in that we as humans have an innate need to live not purely for our own gain to be at peace with ourselves. I suggest that there is an objective "morality" that is the action that allows us to create the most desirable result for all sentience that we can within our capacity. However, practically that is nonsense due to perceptual subjectivity. So subjective morality is what we are really dealing with.
The objective morality question was a good one. Coming from a Muslim, we believe that objective morality is true and lies in God's holy books: Psalm, Torah, Bible and Qur'an.
Wishing you a more loving peaceful and generous world brother
12:00 XD
Oh baby!
Great video
U are amazing player❤
Am I taking crazy pills are does purple having nothing on his cap 9:08 Hate to see streamers miss opportunities. I'm always like, come on, please see what I see
Possibly he got a crazy bad roll but also he might have split after the first attack and left some troops on cap
Objective morality can be found within a clean conscience. Its only uncommon because so many people murder theirs to get rid of the constant reminder of ones uncleanness.
Those who claim themselves to be pure are the ones I need to watch out for the most
@TheKillPeteStrategy hence the uncommon element lol but that's the common thread, insomuch as a conscience is alive it represents our sense of morality, I think.
What is True and right, without a common moral law becomes subjective. As we can't always know men's heart (as in it is corruptable), would it be dangerous to have men be the lawmaker?
@Richard-xu7kz in that case, there should be a righteous mediator between men's hearts and the law. But like you said, man's laws are corruptible due to his heart being untrustworthy and ultimate good is too high of a bar because what is the just punishment for violating the ultimate good? Who's the judge? Who has the right to condemn? That's where Christianity stands head and shoulders above the rest of religions. There is a righteous law giver, judge, mediator, punishment, forgiveness, grace, propitiation, and atonement all wrapped up in a neat little bundle for all who believe. We have all broken the law of ultimate good so we need someone to pay the ultimate price for us, spotlight Jesus Christ.
You, sir, are absolutely correct!
God wastes amazing dice on players like blue
🤣
Holy shit! 35 seconds ago??
cool
hi pete
Yo!
If there is an objective reality, and morality exists, wouldn't there also have to be an objective morality? To deny this seems to me contradictory. Even if we don't have "access" to objective reality (I'm assuming you're referring to something akin to Kant's noumenal world), our subjective reality (the world of phenomena) supervenes on objective reality. That is, a relation exists such that some difference in the noumenal world is necessary for there to be a difference in the phenomenal world. So if we can know some things to be true a priori and combine that with empirical knowledge, then we can use induction and abduction to, at the very least, approximate truth. To deny this would be to say that there is no relation between our experience of the world and the objective world, which would be incoherent. If morality is objective, then we cannot know it empirically (via measurements and the scientific method); it has to be intuited. If some intuitions are better than others, then we can conclude that some moral intuitions approximate truth (objective morality) better than others. At this point, we cross into theological territory, though, as the only way to explain differences in the quality of people's intuitions would be with a concept such as grace.
مدگل جندست
Spoiler blocker?