This is so cringey

if I recommended a book to you. Would you review it.

watching this for my AP lang

This is Koontz's best book.

😂❤

Beautifully spoken, Sir!

You said Trump acted reprehensible after the election, at the same time reading about the election being stolen.

Do the Moth-Joke! 🙂

🤣 the older I get the more correct and prophetic I find Mckenna

I think the reason why many Russians admire Stalin is because they only see the good side of him (i.e., fighting against Hitler) and ignore the bad side of him. I don't see it as that much different from British people admiring Winston Churchill.

No line wasted with norm, even when it sounded like he was meandering. The absolute GOAT

We read this book in second grade and its still one of my favorite books almost 30 years later

Kanye will forever hate this. I will forever find this🔥🔥🔥🔥

God, I wish there was more of this😅

This is a poor observation. How many actual Slave Owners were there, versus the fact that they literally raised an army of a majority of people who didn't own slaves. In the same way, you don't require everyone to be a White Supremacist for a majority of people to default fall in line with an ideology; all they have to do is nothing to oppose it, they may privately disagree, but if they don't act nobody will know or care. Numerical Minority Rule operates on low level conformity due to self preservation, not agreement necessarily, or even comprehensive understanding of a thing in itself; people support things they cannot explain or justify all the time because they may live in a cultural area that has such low level agreement built in that they never have had to actually think about it, it just goes without saying.

🫶🫶🫶

Thanks for answering my questions man! Glad you like the username.

I made my seat reservations online using German DD app or Austrian OBB app or other national rail services like Eurostar , SNCF connect , also Eurail website with no any problems. Also did you have a problem to enter to the railway station using your QR code ticket? Do you think it’s not going to work? Thanks!

1. How far have you gotten into the Quran, and what do you think of it so far? 2. How different is reading it than reading the Bible was? 3. What translation did you choose and why? P.S. I'm curious because I've never read the Quran before, only the Bible.

SEND ME YOUR QUESTIONS!

Congratulations to you. here are the following questions. 1) Have you ever thought about reviewing films again. 2) If Wrestlemania ever came to Oklahoma would you ever attend. 3) Do you ever get recognized outside of youtube. 4) Would you ever consider doing stand up. 5) Will you please run for president because we need you to unite the country.

Congratulations man!!!

read this one as my 8th McCarthy book. I loved it, probably my 3rd favorite after blood meridian and the crossing. good job.

I really liked this book. I think the invisible man is a mirror of the 'evil' in every human. Invisibility is so marvelous due to the fact that it allows you to commit anything without having a presence or a face that others can criticize or point fingers at. SPOILER -kinda- The end is kind of "a monster being destroyed by the monstrosity of others". I fell short when it comes to explain all the social commentary the author makes -maybe related to the fact that he lived world war I and II, and probably was a bit disappointed in the human race-.

Additional Thoughts and Notes: 1. I recognize that there is another way of looking at the name Planned Parenthood. Many would say that women should be allowed to plan when they want to be a parent and that this is what Planned Parenthood allows women to do. Still though the irony remains. Pregnant women who enter Planned Parenthood are parents: their live offspring resides in their womb. When they leave Planned Parenthood however, they are no longer parents anymore. That this phenomenon is what Planned Parenthood has become famous for is as ironic as the Ministry of Love. 2. Some Planned Parenthood defenders will argue that abortion only makes up 3% of what the organization does. This statistic is misleading when you look at how Planned Parenthood counts its services. When you take a look at the revenue the organization brings in on a yearly basis, it’s clear why abortion and Planned Parenthood are seen to be as close as a mother and daughter. Here are two articles that go into further detail on this issue. www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/12/for-planned-parenthood-abortion-stats-3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/ 3. For a far more fleshed out look at both sides of the abortion issue, please check out my Abortion Unpacked playlist here kzfaq.info/sun/PLYqlSf0hJfBO3ybXYl_1z32KG4MLE37G6

Ok so I am late to this..I just finished the audio book of this yesterday. Sighs. Such a disappointment I really enjoyed Gone Girl but this will probably be the last book I ever read from her. And by sheer luck the movie came on HBO so I went ahead and watched it it's even worse. I did feel sympathy for the mom character she was just doing her best. What I did not like was how she practically tells you at the start who the killer is and during the reveal? 🙄🙄🙄🙄 It was a no shit sherlock moment. I like your channel❤

Crucially, though, you are missing an important part of argumentation, the framework and embedding in a larger construct. While it is true that there is no general cut off for when we should consider an embryo or fetus or anything, really, "viable", that is not specific to this question. Viability is inextricably linked to a larger set of constructs. You are pretending that, no matter what, a fertilized ovum that has implanted in the proper place to ensure a particular chance at development towards a fully grown fetus, is viable and that this viability is what should speak against termination. This means that there are cases in which you might be condemning the mother to be forcibly impregnated. This means there are cases where you are forcibly causing parents pain if it turns out that the fetus does not have a chance at survival. More importantly, there is a far, far larger set of frames you are ignoring: Even if you say you do not care about the personhood of the mother, or the potential pain of parents, by saying "every fertilized egg that grows to birthable size and survives birth has to be carried to term and birthed" you are disregarding the fact that there is not a valid system in place to ensure that this "viable fetus" will have a good life. There is no system to prevent malnutrition, mistreatment, abandonment, and a host of other issues. How absolutely inadequate is a philosophy that tries to argue for the viability of any stage of embryo or fetus but does not take into account what this means for the life of the child once born, or the parents once born? So first off, you did not make an actual philosophical or cognitive argument for why we should consider human life (or alien life) unique. You deflected by including aliens, while neglecting to argue for why human life should be treated as special. But even if this is true (and I get that it is), that is only true if and only if we embed human existence in human societal structures. It should also not be true that every time an egg and sperm come together to form a new potential human entity, this should supplant the unique entity's rights that has to carry the new entity to term. You made an argument pretending that human life is self-evidently unique and thus worth protecting and ignored casually that his means that you are disregarding another life. (and that you are disregarding potential issues of the new unique entity once it's born if they are not fortunate enough to be born into the right set of circumstances)

tbh I always thought that I would prefer to be aborted than to be born an unwanted kid

I feel like the way a fetus not value their future and the way a suicidal person not value their future is different but not sure how to explain that.

Additional Thoughts and Notes: 1. Special thanks to Johan Glidden for critiquing this video before its release. 2. My reference to the Golden Globes was not actually meant to be an attack on Michelle Williams. Her speech a few years ago was twisted and makes me feel queasy, but I actually wrote that bit about preferring a Golden Globe over a child before I saw her acceptance clip. It also must be said that her words are vague. They lead me to believe that she might’ve chosen abortion as a result of being raped. My own views on the rape issue are articulated in “Is Abortion Immoral?” I don’t know the reality behind Williams’s theatrics, but I do not want my comical depiction of an actress-murderer to be leveled at her based on that one speech she gave. Perhaps my words apply to her, but since there is so much I don’t know about her, I’m unwilling to make that judgment as of now.

I really hate when pro-abortion people say "i would have been fine with being aborted" and if I am to take this at face value and completely true to the that persons feelings. I then ask, are you sucidal? If not, why would you be fine with never existing due to the purposeful choice of your mother. Knowing you have your existence, to be fine with never having had what you hold now, including your very own loved ones means you value yourself and your friends and your family and the whole situation around you so little, it may as well have never happened. If you dont like your life why aren't you suicidal? If everything youve done on this Earth has had so little meaning to you maybe you shouldn't exist, maybe you dont deserve the life youve been given if you cant be grateful of the effort others put into you, for you to not do anything that would warrant your own desire to live. Simply living because you dont want to die, not because you want to live. It is disgrace to be fine with your life never having occured, for there are people who are actually struggling, who actually crave death because they are mentally sick, becuase they need help, yet you'd degenerate your psychi to even partially mimic that mindset as a perfectly healthy person, just to make a offhand argument for killing the future generations in the womb because its convenient at the time. Get a grip, you breath the same air as all of us, and yet so many more who are so much more deserving stop breathing every second, yet you would be fine if you never existed. Make yourself deserving, not in my eyes but your own. If youre still fine with being aborted you have failed yourself.

25:49 And to your final “question for the audience”: Yes, the arguments you cite in this video bolster the anti-abortion position. But as I said in another comment, they do _not_ address the pro-choice position, let alone weaken it (in a philosophical sense). The pro-choice and anti-abortion stances are in conflict, not diametrically opposed. So philosophical arguments that support one do not necessarily refute the other. And IME, the focus of anti-abortion philosophers (and activists who want to persuade) is primarily on shoring up their anti-abortion stance (to varying degrees of success) and not on understanding _why_ people are pro-choice or on addressing those reasons. Pro-choice philosophers (and activists who want to persuade), IME, _are_ aware of the anti-abortion arguments, and spend a lot of energy attempting to refute them. But it’s not because those arguments undermine their pro-choice ideology; it’s because they _have_ to refute those arguments, lest they become law.

25:23 he might be right about a hypothetical “pro-abortionist”. But that’s an easy strawman because such people basically don’t exist. What _do_ exist are lots of _pro-choice_ people (roughly 2/3 to 85% of the adult US population, depending on some definitions): people who are not, in fact, in favor of abortion, but also believe that they can’t tell other people what is right (morally or practically) on this matter. - - - - I frequently find that anti-abortion activists (and the quoted paper comes across as written by one, particularly that conclusion) fundamentally misunderstand _why_ people are pro-choice, and therefore spend a great deal of effort making arguments that, even if they are irrefutably persuasive to pro-choice people, will have zero impact on their pro-choice position. Because the argument being made isn’t attacking any of the reasons the person is pro-choice. This is one of those arguments. It is completely caught up in the misconception that people are pro-choice because they think that an abortion is no big deal ethically, or is an inherent moral good, or because they are absolutely certain that a fetus isn’t a person, or because they wish to be strictly morally consistent across all situations. None* of the arguments cited in this video address the _real_ reason most people are pro-choice: because they believe that pregnant people should still have bodily autonomy even though they’re pregnant; and/or because they believe that an abortion is an extremely complex moral situation ,with no clear right answer that applies to all or even most situations, and which therefore can’t be legislated beyond basic medical requirements. People mostly aren’t pro-choice because they’re certain that a fetus isn’t a person, so if you just persuade them that a fetus is, they’ll change their mind. People mostly aren’t pro-choice because they have carefully analyzed all of their moral stances to assure consistency according to a textbook philosophy. People mostly don’t _care_ if their ethical stances are consistent-faced with an inconsistency they are far more likely to come up with an explanation (or rationalization) than to change their views. These are all arguments based on the assumption that someone is pro-choice because they are ignorant in some way, and they assume that it is a lazy or unconsidered opinion. They seem to come from people who are anti-abortion and are certain that whatever persuaded them to be anti-abortion is universally persuasive (sometimes because they see it as Divine Truth), and so the only way someone could be _not_ anti-abortion is if they have never heard, or have heard but misunderstood, these arguments. They apparently can’t conceive of the possibility that someone could fully grasp these arguments _and reject them._ That the pro-choice person could be just as well-informed and come to a different moral position on this topic. Or, more broadly, that there can be situations where reasonable, reasoning, moral people could be equally and fully aware of a situation and come to conflicting conclusions. That there could be more than one right answer without anyone having to operate in bad faith, be ignorant, or be evil. * Not quite “none”: The argument about the respect we give to human corpses actually _does_ address a pro-choice argument. But it supports it.

24:44 overgeneralization is making Ginsler’s argument sloppy. He claims that there is _no_ meaningful difference depending on the act or when it is performed. With the blindness, a self-aware person would have to live with that blindness and its consequences. With the killing of a person after birth, a distinct, self-aware person would have ceased to be. It is unclear whether a fetus, let alone an embryo, has self-awareness as a distinct being. It’s pretty clear medically that a zygote or blastocyst does not. So the end result is _not_ the same. Killing the person after birth has the end result of that person now being dead _and of a living person with independent agency having ceased to be._ From the perspective of the pro-choice person, aborting them as a fetus still ends up with them currently not alive, but they will’ve never been a person with independent agency, so they will not have lost that. It’s _not_ an identical outcome.

There was a movie made of the same name called "Intensity" one the best tv series of all time. The movie "High Tension" rips this book and the movie off. Dean Koontz is always popping out great books. Check out "The Bad Place" "Innocence" and Life Expectancy".

14:31 Ginsler’s Kantian argument relies on similarity and generalizability. It brings to mind an interview with a priest (pastor? I forget the denomination) I heard a few years ago. He was talking about how and why he had reevaluated his anti-abortion stance and now considered himself pro-choice. And what he said was (paraphrasing from memory) “I came to see that every situation was different. Every pregnancy, every mother, every child, every circumstance. Maybe they were all made of the same components, but to craft a law that could account for all the possible combinations and permutations would be impossible, and there might be so many _meaningful_ variables that if such a law _could_ be crafted, there would _never_ be two people in the same situation. At which point any such law or moral rule would degenerate to meaninglessness, because no generalization could be made. And if we can’t look at Person X to determine what’s right for Person Y, how can someone who isn’t Person Y tell them what the right thing to do is?” He was making the core pro-choice argument: that only the people involved in the situation-chiefly the pregnant person and a doctor with relevant medical expertise, but also anyone else they _wanted_ to involve, such as family or religious counselors-are in a position to decide what is the right thing to do. But in the process he was implicitly critiquing his previous Kantian position by arguing that his ideological belief that this was a situation with meaningful generalities was naively unrealistic. Or, as I would put it: a Kantian argument about abortion is at best in “spherical cows in a vacuum” territory: it’s a clear argument precisely because it’s not useful in the real world.

11:24 If the threshold and attendant moral obligation is due to intelligence, where’s the line? We don’t need to invoke hypothetical extraterrestrials to test that argument - why is it ok to kill parrots, crows, octopuses, pigs, cats, dogs, apes, dolphins, orcas, or whales (to name some of the most-intelligent species, each of which probably overlaps the range of human intelligence)?

8:30 Please point at the person(s) making a serious argument that (1) we have moral obligations to human corpses that are akin to those we have towards living people (2) _because_ they are the corpses of formerly living people (and not, say, because of a societal desire to make the hiding of murders more difficult), and also (3) arguing that we have _no_ moral obligations to fetuses. I’ve certainly never encountered such a person. I’ve encountered people arguing that we’re overly sentimental about corpses , or arguing that we shouldn’t need any permission to harvest organs from a deceased body because they’re not a person anymore. And I’ve encountered people arguing that _despite_ any moral obligations we have to a fetus, we _also_ have moral obligations to the pregnant person, and if there is a conflict between those two, the person who is definitively an independent being with agency and free will ought to carry more moral weight than the being without clear agency and with unclear status on multiple axes (psychological, developmental, intellectual, moral, and legal). What you just described sounds like a strawman I’ve encountered a couple anti-abortion activists claiming that pro-choice folks believe, but not something I’ve ever heard pro-choice folks espouse.

Are you someone who is capable of becoming pregnant? Do we really need some random dude that will never have to directly face this issue himself to share his opinion? We already have plenty of that. It's called the US government. I don't want to act like you don't have every right to have an opinion and share it. You're a free human. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with sharing your opinion. But in a big picture sense, is sharing your opinion actually helping fetus bearing humans stay safe and in possession of rights to their own body? Let's give the fetus bearing humans the mic on this one. We have enough old white men trying to make us believe that we as women are nothing but baby factories put on this earth for their pleasure and service.

I like the argument from a position of uncertainty. That we ourselves do not know the nature of humanity, how we can exist, and be conscious, and be a person is simply a mystery, and it is just so wrong to tamper with human life on the very edges of human understanding. One thing is certain, by having an abortion, you are directly killing a future person.

I wish the conversation began at conception, but the left make dumb equivocies like if abortion is murder jerking off is genocide. This is a stupid and unphilosophical suggestion because a sperm cell is a sex cell, it has 23 chromosomes, and by itself can never grow into a fully developed baby, and is not a baby, because it is merely half of a blueprint, half of a genetic code. When sperm and egg merge they (usually) hold 46 chromosomes, and can now generate into a baby, and may already be a baby if brought to the simplest definition of a baby (that i can think of). A developing/growing human that is less than 1 or 3 years old (I'd still consider toddlers babies). Lemme know if you want my argument for abortion being wrong I dont feel like typing it right now.

6:04 hold up: if you’re going to raise the question of whether a child is a person, and should be given full moral weight and recognized as having independent agency, you should probably talk about _who_ is making that argument. The only folks I’ve ever encountered arguing that children don’t have full moral weight as independent beings are religious conservatives arguing that parents should have [near-]absolute authority over their children. IOW, the same philosophical group (though not necessarily the same exact individuals) arguing for the personhood of zygotes/embryos/fetuses. To the degree those two positions are held by the same people (and IME, it’s like 90%), such folks are arguing that a zygote/embryo/fetus is person enough to be protected from a parent having an abortion, but not so much of a person that they can assert interests contrary to their parents’ wishes once they’re born (and therefore able to assert interests at all). If they’re not just contradicting themselves, they’re either asserting a weird squishy moral position in the middle where abortion is definitely an immoral killing, murder is usually immoral (except when it’s justified), but _allowing_ a child to die can sometimes be justified and pretty much any form of abuse short of death is a parent’s prerogative. They usually don’t consider what they are condoning to _be_ abuse, but we’ve got pretty solid measures to show they’re wrong, and sometimes they acknowledge it is abuse and _still_ say that parents have that right.

I don't have a womb. Nor do you (I assume) so maybe we should just let the people with wombs handle this one. My two cents.

Your short section about the bodily autonomy argument is a misunderstanding of the point. People are aware that some will argue that the fetus bodily autonomy counts, too. The argument (at least for me) is that it is immoral to force someone to use their bodily resources for someone else. Otherwise I could be forced to give blood and an kidney, which sounds like an dystopian nightmare. At least thats the short version.

For me there are two weaknesses in this line of reasoning. 1. Does it really make sense that the rights of a fetus should take precedence over the right the mother has over her own body? Pregnancy and birth are both dangerous, or can be depending on the situation. If there were incubation pods that the fetuses could be moved to as an alternative to abortion, I would argue that deciding to abort a seemingly healthy fetus would be immoral. When the baby is born, they can be adopted if the parents cannot or will not take care of it, that is currently not an option until that point. 2. I can imagine situations where I would consent to myself being aborted and avoided great suffering as a child. If my parents had aborted their first child and tried again 5-10 years later when they were financially capable, my oldest sibling would not have had to spend years living in spaces unfit for humans. Do I love them as they are, yes. Would I have done anything to prevent the suffering they went through, of course.

I have 2 main problems with the "Golden Rule", firstly on the assumption we wouldn't want to be aborted... have you met a mil/z? That's like our go to thing. Secondly: the difference I see is what you're taking. If you kill me, an adult, you're taking away all the good things in my life and things I could do. As a fetus though; you're preventing all the bad things from happening. And at this point in my life, I'm honestly not sure which side I'd land on.

The pro choice argument is not and has never been that viability is the line because that's when the fetus becomes a person. It's about whether or not a woman should be forced to sustain another life against her will and at the sacrifice of her own health. In the Brave New World example abortion would be immoral because we could just sustain the fetus in a test tube and give the baby to an infertile couple. Forced birth is immoral for the same reason you can opt out of being an organ donnor; the state can't force you to sacrifice your body to maintain another life. (This is also why I'm against the draft.)

Something to consider: Conception is not where uniqueness begins. Due to the process of crossing over during meiosis, each individual egg and sperm cell is also a new and unique combination of genetic material. If the justification for granting personhood to a zygote is it's genetic uniqueness, that justification also extends to unfertilized eggs and individual spermatozoa, and drawing a line between gametes and zygote based on the uniqueness of the genetic material is still an arbitrary distinction. edit with additional thoughts: The golden rule argument i think cuts both ways a little if the pregnant woman is included in the consideration. I am thankful to have not been aborted by a loving mother who consented to be pregnant with me. I do not think it is a given that i would be thankful had i been born to a mother who was forced against her will to carry me or who i injured with my gestation. I view this moral question in the same way as this scenario: I would be extremely thankful to have someone willingly donate a liver lobe or kidney to me, but I would not find it morally acceptable to take it against their will even to preserve my own life. Gensler's kantian argument only really works in a philosophical vacuum where pregnancy occurs on its own, or if you consider the pregnant woman to be a non-person except from moral consideration.

Agreed. “Viability” is the absolute worst metric… except all the others, so far.

You do make a good point about treating others the way you would want to be treated, however I do think that you missed the point of the abortion debate entirely. (I have not watched your other two videos, so I can only speak for this one.) The abortion debate was never about the personhood of the child. It is about whether or not it is morally acceptable to put a birthing/pregnant person through pregnancy or not. Is it acceptable to let them stay pregnant if said pregnancy is going to cause them physical harm (often to the point of death), mental harm (i.e. post partum depression, having been raped and now having to deal with the unwanted pregnancy, etc), financial harm (can't afford child care, food, housing, etc), and so on. It is not acceptable to take a person's organs after their death if they did not consent to it. Again, the golden rule. But apparently you would have wanted your mother to have suffered and potentially died just because you are now glad to be alive? That's putting two lifes on a scale and deciding that yours is worth more than hers. It does not matter if a fetus is a person or not. You cannot ask a fetus if they consent to an abortion. You can also not ask deceased person if they agree to their will being violated. However a dead person has lived a life and decided what is to be done with their possessions. A fetus has not lived. It cannot think, cannot survive without the woumb or sufficient technology, it can logically not consent to anything. I read the comment by the woman pregnant with twins, and even she said she does not think of her babies as persons, because they are not yet born. Of course you can have your opinion, and i can have mine. But like i said, I think you missed the point. This is about bodily autonomy, not personhood. Whether or not anyone thinks a fetus is a person or not is utterly irrelevant, because it is the decicion of the pregnant person whether or not to continue the pregnancy or not.