prageru.com
Posted by ZenRoy 5 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
This came up on another thread, however I thought it worth a call out in its own.
If you have not seen this site and watched some of the 5 minutes videos they are making I really recommended it.
There are a few that argue for the exist of god, which many here will not like. I personally like those as well.
Otherwise they have very good capitalist, economic and political arguments that are presented extremely well most of the time in 5 minute segments.
I find the philosophy of the company and its videos to be largely in line with my own.
If you have not seen this site and watched some of the 5 minutes videos they are making I really recommended it.
There are a few that argue for the exist of god, which many here will not like. I personally like those as well.
Otherwise they have very good capitalist, economic and political arguments that are presented extremely well most of the time in 5 minute segments.
I find the philosophy of the company and its videos to be largely in line with my own.
SOURCE URL: https://www.prageru.com/
The truly sad thing is about 10% of their videos are blocked by you tube, so if you want to see them all go to the site, not youTube.
I think the way a single human should act when alone with nature is just rooted in the desire to survive.
Once there are more people, they have to look at the nature of people and come up with what I would call "natural" laws. AR did that and came up with a pretty workable philosophy that doesnt require believing in some mythical "god" you cant see, hear, or no anything about except from a "book" written thousands of years ago by random people.
I have read what he/she/it has presumably done and I will judge those actions!
==========
My Talk to Me page:
You are my constituency. Send me your viewpoints and suggestions.
I will be happy to consider your well-reasoned arguments or suggestions, even if they are contrary to my currently expressed positions. I am always learning, and a subtle point might have eluded me.
Click the [link no longer active] link to send me any of:
• Your opinions.
• Ideas based on civil principles.
• Points of law.
• Arguments based on logic.
• Proofs in the form of scientific data or peer-reviewed theory.
• Your wild “What if?” ideas.
Courts don’t accept hearsay as evidence of anything, and neither do I.
I will disregard all arguments based only on a religious doctrine or religious tradition. Do not claim that you are speaking for a deity, even for your favorite deity or a very popular deity, because I won’t believe your second-hand interpretation of your deity’s/deities’ will.
If you have Religious Proof to convince me, click the link.
==========
My Religious Proof page:
Religious Proof?
I am open-minded and receptive to firsthand discussions and experiences. If you are one who says, “I have a close personal relationship with God,” share that personal relationship.
Please have your deity contact me directly, and I will be profoundly delighted to hear from Him/Her/It/HimHer/HerHim/Them.
He/She/It/HeShe/SheHe/They may contact me by any of the following, according to His/Her/Its/HisHer/HerHis/Their preference:
• Click the [link no longer active] link to e-mail me. [Do not click the link if unable to transcend deific verisimilitude.]
• Call me at [phone number redacted].
• Mail me via the U.S. Postal Service.
• Send me material through a delivery service (FedEx/UPS/DHL/&c.) or a private courier.
• FAX me at my daytime work location. (Omniscience is required to divine the number.)
• Send money to my PayPal account.
• Appear in a miraculous manifestation.
Thou must present thyself through one of the above, because:
“Invisible gods are non-existent gods in disguise.” [Steve Wells — 2007 August 6]
I would ask that any deity contacting me include as much of the following information as possible:
• Any preferred name and the best spelling in American English.
• Thy preferred second and third person [deity] pronouns.
• If Thou art afflicted with multiple personality disorder (as the most popular American deity/deities may appear to be) Thy preferred personality [or divine manifestation.]
• Thy return e-mail address.
• Any divine website, static IP address, or heavenly postal or delivery address.
• A phone number for calling back and the best time to call.
• Any suggestions, ideas, solutions, or commands.
Please note that I do not discriminate against any deity because of:
• Status as compared to other deities.
• Gender, or lack of same.
• The intentioned or misguided words and actions of would-be followers.
• Association with non-Americans or extra-terrestrial beings.
• Variform nomenclature across cultures; for example, being known in ancient Egypt as the sun god, Ra, but to the Aztecs as the lord of the dawn, Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli.
• Anthropomorphic form, animalism, or nebulous manifestation.
• Exterior color.
• Physical proportions.
But unlike people with physical or mental disabilities, deities with such impairments should stay out of earthly affairs.
This is largely a consequence of their religiosity which prevents one from being able to approach things rationally.
Like most conservative groups, prageru is a religious, collectivist and all round, politically illiterate, left wing group.
Another thing, the last phrase implies that ALL conservatives are religious, collectivists and politcally illiterate, and left wing. I disagree with several of the implications. However, my disagreement with this phrase goes deeper. Hanging tags on people is not the kind of logic that I expect here.
Peter, I believe that PragerU is fighting the same battle that you are.... i don't know what videos you've watched, but I have the opposite impression.
It's sad how many conservatives don't understand the concept.
Prager's lawsuit was a blatant assault on property right.
And as for the specific case, I went to read the terms of service and I found the last clause:
14.6 The Terms, and your relationship with YouTube under the Terms, shall be governed by English law. You and YouTube agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England to resolve any legal matter arising from the Terms.
We'll see what English law says about the right of YT to ban a video arbitrarily.
You made me think of the obligations that emerge to any provider of a public service: cinema, restaurant, website to publish content, etc. Maybe it is not as simple as "I do whatever it pleases me with the service or the people who come to my fiefdom"... I'm thinking.
Government is force. It's supposed to be used to protect rights, but confused leftists like Prager are trying to use it to violate.
No one has any obligation as per your description and the idea of a "public service" is pure leftism.
Many of my favorite firearms channels (mostly reviews of specific firearms and ammunition) are facing the same hidden censorship. Again, I don't have a problem if your policy openly states "no videos about firearms or using firearms", but their terms are cached in vague generalities such that they can make an offender of anyone they choose with little or no substantiation of their position or recourse for the applicant.
Prager has demonstrated he is anti-individual rights, with his farcical lawsuit.
Platforms like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook claim to be a neutral platform that is not responsible for the content on their site. They have received protection from law suites based on content because of this.
If this were truly the case YouTube would not prohibit anything from there site. The supreme court has defined free speech to end where speech starts to incites violence and YouTube or any person could bring a law suit against the contents author for inciting violence with speech. YouTube would have no part in censoring what others say as it would be the open platform they claim it to be.
Since they do act more as a editor or publisher and they do censor what is on there site. All legal protections as a platform should be gone. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot be protected and be about free speech and also sensor what is said. No entity should be able to do both. They are direct contradictions and a business or person can be an open platform or a publisher, but not both. Publishers have the right to edit/ban... whatever they want from being published on their (newspaper/TV channel...) publication form. Open platforms must be just what it says, OPEN.
Edited because my first draft read very badly.