This video actively mocks the sponsor by putting it in this theme of video. You should just know better

LULW

Great picks! And kudos for diving into those difficuly texts

Nah, man you are a legend, that amount of hard text would take me a year to get through, man did it in a month, especially continental and existential....

Investing and gambling are completely different

i'm sure the 3 highs are followed by 3 lows. when are you gonna step off the roller coaster buddy?

It's a nice balance. I don't get the lows because my highs aren't really that high. I know I won't win (other than small amounts now and then), but I can really afford to waste 5$ weekly to cover all my "gambling needs"

Invest that money instead and you could retire $36000 richer.

@@kmann100500 Thanks for advice, I've been investing most of my earnings for 10 years now. My 5$ weekly, is literally my gambling budget at the cost of a coffee or two.

@jesus walks It's solid advice, I already have invested the majority of my earnings over the last decade like I told the other guy here. In both individual stocks, index funds, property market and crypto. 100% of your budget can't go to practical use. You also need some fun in life. Besides, I can actually win something. Unlike if I bought a 5$ beer.

But I find it hard to believe that in a world that at least seems to be physical, that there should be such things as objective moral truths. Would you agree?

@@Opposite271 I can’t. For if I would agree, I would have to perform an action that has no physical manifestation. Which is agreement. Also in a purely physical universe there isn’t any ruling out of the option for intelligent beings to just not encounter this or that entity despite experiencing their effects, such as the plant that grows from light originating in a different spot in space time. Existential comics has a funny one about mathematical platonists encountering the idea of the number 5 in a forest and messing up taking its picture like it was Bigfoot.if we take the joke seriously we could say the platonic forms are located in unobserved locations. If we do not we can laugh about mental concepts taking physical space. Either option enables the existence of mental phenomena such as morality existing outside of our cognition

@@benzur3503 Couldn’t it be that what we call „agreement“ is just an oversimplification of something physical? A mereological Nihilist would for example argue that cats don’t exist and instead there are just simples arranged cat-wise. In other words the concept of „cats“ are just an oversimplification of what is in reality just simples arranged a certain way. Would you agree that every assumption is a possible source of error and that therefore a moral theory with fewer assumptions has a higher probability of being true? Would you then agree that there are moral theories that are more likely to be true then moral realism because moral realism contains the additional assumption that the world has objective moral features?

@@Opposite271 if you consider it a simplification of something else, I’ll be interested to hear what simple parts could consist of “agreement”. I could answer the same to the meteological nihilist- it lacks an explanation of why such an arrangement is considered to be catlike- or why minds consider some things as arrangements of a certain types and others as not. If we simply chart out basic particles into forms for our own conception, there should be a reason we can’t simply inscribe a certain form out of air via focusing only on the catlike arrangement inside the mesh of oxygen particles surrounding us for example. The mereological nihilist owes me an explanation of why I am not entirely surrounded by cats. I don’t agree that more assumptions=less true, and I don’t consider likelihood as a measure of truth. Only as a measure of assumption regarding incomplete knowledge. The simplest explanation for any phenomena is “god willed it, and anything that god wills necessarily occurs.” The simplicity of this explanation does not make it any less or more true. It’s just easier to comprehend. I’m regarding arguments about existence as such, not about existence as perceptible and comprehensible to the human mind.

@@benzur3503 It could be argued that „God willed it“ is not the only simplest explanation and we could also just say „the simples did it through interaction“. Of curse this would bring the question of how exactly the simples did it. But „God willed it“ would also bring the question of why he willed it. A mereological Nihilist would probably answer that it has an evolutionary advantage to categorize our environment in a certain way. If we categorize the air around us as „predator“ then we would constantly running away. So do you believe it is impossible to know anything outside our perception? Why do fewer assumptions not mean that it is more probable true?

Yes there is no objective morality, however, in order to have significant and useful moral discourse you have to accept some axioms as true. People are justified in saying things are 'bad' and 'evil' in a social context, because despite there being no objective moral facts -- in a community or society there are moral axioms that are implied to be objectively true (even if they aren't in reality).

@@LAN2D „In a community or Society there are moral axioms that are implied to be objectively true“ Do most societies not have subgroups with different moral axioms? So would you agree that the closest thing you can get to a set of axioms are the laws of the society? So doesn’t that mean that morality equals legality?

I think it gets murky because these streamers have cultivated a following before the gambling sponsors, a following that they know consists largely of impressionable teens and young adults, by making content targeted to that demographic, on a platform targeted towards that demographic. In this context, the idea that the live stream is for 18+ is technically correct, but not correct in spirit. And then moral questions continue their relevance to the conversation

No it's not the role of the parent. It's the role of the website and streamer to ensure they are providing a service that isn't actively harmful to their userbase. It is the website's job to regulate the streamers' behaviour, and if they can't/won't do that, then it's the government's job to regulate the website. Putting the responsibility on the individual is a recipe for disaster.

@@LAN2D Let's give the power to decide what our children can or cannot see to the government, what can go wrong?

@@wilianwwr that's already what happens lmao they're just terrible at enforcing anything

@@wilianwwr Do you understand that in a capitalist system companies are actively encouraged to *exploit* their userbase for profit? You saw in the video that we are literally programmed by our psychology to succumb to gambling temptation, meaning that the individual is already useless at preventing this exploitation to themselves. Who else can force companies to act ethically other than the government? I'm not saying it will happen, because the government is a slave to capitalism too, but that's what *should* happen.