People who think violence is never justified should talk to a holocaust survivor or anyone who took part in WW2 to defeat the evil German and Japanese regimes. Violence is a last resort but in some cases it is the only option.
@@Steven-ze2zk No that isn't true. Self Defense is still considered a form of violence. Definition of violence: "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."
Someone comes up to me randomly and starts assaulting me with a blunt object and trying to mug me... "I cannot find ways to justify violence, I always try to find another way an alternative to violence" What a joke.
@@tom7471 Love your use of big complex words and sentence structure! You definitely made me change my mind to think you're right. Even when getting violently assaulted, there most definitely is still no justification for violence! Man what the hell was I thinking...
@@scottbiggs8894 , every definition of violence used in a literal sense REQUIRES physical force to be used against others. This is simply the equivocation fallacy and I refuse to take such flawed logic serious.
I'm a high school drop out... read 1 philosophy book and learned VERY QUICKLY that yes, you can indeed justify violence. Violence occurs naturally. You only need to observe animals in nature to see that violence is not only justified BUT NECESSARY. Every force in the universe has an opposing force.
My main argument with your premise is that animals are fighting for survival in that they must defend territory to ensure they have resources for survival and they do not have the possibility of reasoning with their fellow animals, especially prey with predators. Humans, on the other hand, do have the ability to communicate and, hopefully, reason with their competitors and come up with solutions to work together to provide for all. The fact that we have not been able to accomplish this to date is a testement to the need for further human evolution, especially psychologically. Many (I would say most) human beings feel that we are the top species on planet Earth and that we "own" the place. It is a shame that we don't feel the stewardship and responsibility that comes along with that position. In my view, violence is only necessary when faced with an opponent whose only method of survival is through violence. I will point out an apparent quote attributed to Sun Tzu (a great warrior of some kind); he said, "If you are forced to fight, you have already lost." One must know one's opponent as well as one can and then seek a strategy to avoid conflict which squanders resources unnecessarily. Have a nice day and don't fight so much. :-) By the way, there is nothing wrong with being a high school dropout. There is much to be done in society outside of education. I am glad that you are interested in philosophy (I'm sure among other things); however, I hope that you will expand your library to other forms of thought. Pacifists have as much to say as those that glorify "might is right." You may find your beliefs changing as you go. That was certainly my experience and is to be expected when one is introduced to other's thoughts. Good luck in your scholarly travels.
@@viewfromthehighchair9391 Thank you for your impartial response. I tend to be adversarial and it sets off a lot of people but it's just the way I learn sometimes. I don't agree with the idea of eliminating violence. But I do think that we can change the form that violence takes. I read Robert Greene's book "The 33 Strategies of War" and I noticed that all those principles, tactics, and strategies derived from the warring nations are still being applied today. The difference is that the environment has shifted from the battlefield to the business & digital world.
@@Mufffinz I'm hoping you mean that there will always be conflict. I'm not sure you would want to live in a society where you encounter violence everyday or every week. Violence diminishes us greatly and I believe it is worth exploring a peaceful way of life despite the fact that is will likely be in vain for the most part. I can do without violence of any kind if I had the chance.
@@viewfromthehighchair9391 I agree, at a certain level of vibrations (level of thought) there is conflict. This is largely because those caught in that thought (the conditioned state of all mankind) do not see the continuation (yin and yang, mountain and valley, fire and ice...) but react long before necessary (or act at all when it never was 'necessary' to act). Then the repetitious chaos ensues. It is a form of immaturity of spirit. Out of chaos, though, there can be order, order in one's mind, if the shock is great to the system of conditioning. Violence would subside if humans lived having some trust in the universe (not the man made gods). Knowing that good and bad are conceptual and results of low level thought and always a forced outcome would be a great start. Living without resistance to the great 'what is' (not what 'should be') lacks violence and has its own higher vibration (beyond self absorbed thought patterns). There is peace there that can not be disturbed by all of the human insanity. If only humans knew...
@@asadfami7623 says the person that assumes they know a person on the Internet because they saw a reply. Your an idiot because you "know" things about people based upon your bias.
7:48 I've been through phases and through stages and answer was always 'no'. 10:24 I wouldn't say atheists have problem with faith. With god(s) for sure but not with faith.
Atheist here and I have a HUGE problem with faith... in fact it is at the heart of everything. Faith is a strong belief without supporting evidence and often in spite of existing evidence. I do NOT accept this as a virtue, quite the opposite. This is not the same as having to take your chances in a relationship like the example she gave, meaning she is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.
@@naejimba ''fallacy of equivocation'' Where does she use 'faith' ambiguously? ''Atheist here and I have a HUGE problem with faith'' Clash of certainties? ''in fact it is at the heart of everything'' Scapegoating much?
@@furtdrven2512 , "Where does she use 'faith' ambiguously?" There are several definitions for the word "faith." One refers to a strong belief in something supernatural, while another refers to having trust or confidence in someone. Her example was conflating a belief in a god to having to trust another person to enter into a romantic relationship. Those are two VERY different things. "Clash of certainties?" That is precisely my problem with religious faith; it is being certain about something you have no evidence of or even in spite of existing evidence to the contrary. I don't think that is a virtue since for one person it might result in doing good while another can use it to justify atrocity. "Scapegoating much?" I'm not scapegoating anything. I'm allowed to have my own opinion, and yes, the concept of faith is at the heart of the problems I have with religion. Your original post said Atheists don't have a problem with faith, so I thought, wait a moment, I actually am an Atheist myself and that is the main problem I have with religion. You don't get to define my own position or that would be a straw man fallacy. I would be interested to know if you also are an Atheist, as that would change the context of your words.
@@naejimba ''There are several definitions for the word "faith."'' Sure. But she is consistently using one of them. So, no 'fallacy of equivocation' here. ''That is precisely my problem with religious faith'' That you are certain even more than 'they' are? ''the concept of faith is at the heart of the problems I have with religion. '' Oh, I see. You said 'at the heart of everything' first. So I thought you meant ... you know, everything. ''You don't get to define my own position...'' Fair point. I wish I said 'often' or 'usually' or something. But I didn't. My bad. I was thinking like 'my faith, my problem'. And I really don't understand how can it be otherwise. But it obviously can. I just don't understand it.
@@furtdrven2512 , "Sure. But she is consistently using one of them. So, no 'fallacy of equivocation' here." No, she used an example of having to trust someone when entering in a relationship, moving to a new country, and reading a novel. That does not meet the definition of a strong belief in the supernatural, and since she attempted to conflate two very different definitions is the fallacy of equivocation. "That you are certain even more than 'they' are?" That is a strawman fallacy and not my position. I simply lack justification for belief in the supernatural.
I’ve coded 3 times and the longest I was under (“dead”) was just short of 7 minutes. There was nothing. The only difference I’ve seen in myself and others who’ve experienced this is you come back a lot more empathetic. There’s a great interview with Antonio Banderas talking about his experience and how he views life now. Aside from that you can end up with ptsd (as I have). Hearing a flatline or paddles charging freaks me out now. Must be a subconscious thing. Anyway, thought I’d share. Have a great day everyone!
FREEDOM.....I like this one. Remember that for you to enjoy the freedoms that exist...someone had to give a ALL they had for them. It seams to be a vicious circle of rights/freedoms taken and then regained.
Talk about dodging the question! She was asked, "Is violence ever justified?" And she basically said that violence can be subtle (which is obvious and inarguable). So disappointing--to the point of this video being blatant click-bait.
NOW borders...hmm, what do I think of this...Easy, borders keep us secure. Sometimes we think of borders as huge barriers around our countries, and that feels like we are excluding and denying... but lets start with smaller borders that are more easier to understand and then expand. First we have a border called a bedroom, where we sleep(we shut the door sometimes to keep out pets or other residents for privacy), then a border which is our house,( we feel safe and secure there, can't let just anyone in and is usually locked at night)...ect. Luckily poets and dreamers aren't a part of decision making, or we would all be in trouble.
You have a formed insecurity that precludes you from being opened up. It has nothing to do with someone taking your house --oh, but they might. But the fear of that is what makes humans afraid of living life.
Violence as a concept is very masculine in every way, but it's not exclusively masculine. Women have the capacity to be violent, while men have violence built in as a means of survival and reproduction. Violence expresses itself in two wildly different ways between the sexes.
Clashing Certainties was an awesome phrase!!! All I hear that was said is that there are now many of us with asshole opinions. Even with our God given rights (whatever that means), must we include our opinions? We all have opinions and an asshole. Use them both wisely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People hating on her responses. These are big questions and often its okay to say I don't know. She seems to exude a very neutral energy that shies away from firm resolutions and statements. She grew up in an environment were one thin is set and stone and challenging that was taboo. She found solace in writing were anything can be possible and nothing firmly certain. There is a type of freedom sure to such lose thinking, but there is also a danger. Not standing for something runs the risk of falling for anything. Anyhow, she speaks gracefully, albeit mystic. Sometimes that's needed to approach the problems of life from a wholistic perspective. Grace to all reading. *flies away*
violence, by definition, is not subtle. All these other "violence" that you speak of may be classified as cruel or negative thoughts and or speech. therefore not violent. People have the right to say anything negative to you or me...it can hurt our feelings. Even though I would not like to be mocked or ridiculed, I will stand up for the rights of the person doing it. Remember, nobody cares for your feelings and the world owes you nothing. keep in mind that YOUR utopia is not universally shared...and YES the world is an awesome place🙂
I am sorry, but violence can be very subtle. A look, a word, athought, all can be violent at their core. She is right. Violence starts in the mind, before the bullet is launched.
Very much enjoying this interview but I've paused it at 10.45 because I want to say I've never known of a fellow atheist wanting to get rid of faith. That's a very odd thing to suggest. As an atheist I simply don't believe a thinking 'thing' appeared from nothing and created a universe from nothing. That's it, that's all. I enjoy watching people gaining comfort from the sky wizard in their head, happiness is happiness and I very much support that. Selfishness however is a different conversation. Anyway back to the interview...
Well, I am agnostic and I would love all religions to disappear. Do you see how much pain and suffering they have caused throughout history? They are one of the most negative outcomes of the tribal cave people, once they started 'organizing'. Nothing could be better to me than to see the power religions hold over their subjects to end. It is extremely evil stuff. Only things worse, maybe, are nationalism and racism. Combine the three and the earth is actually quite doomed.
Verbal violence? What an idiotic term. If you cuss someone, you're not even touching them, it's just words at the end of the day. You're not getting physically battered in any way.
"Verbal violence" isn't a thing... violence is defined as: "Behavior or treatment in which physical force is exerted for the purpose of causing damage or injury." It REQUIRES physical force that causes physical damage. This is simply the equivocation fallacy. As for "justifying violence" this one is easy: self defense is justified as we have a right to life. Without the right to life, none of our other rights matter... you can't exercise them when you are dead. Borders aren't about "us vs. them" without them our economies would collapse... this is not rocket science lady. It is terrible to think of "freedom" in such terms as you do. When you take a critical look at all of these ideas of "intersectionality" with almost infinite combinations what you are left with is this fact: the end result is the INDIVIDUAL. Looking at people simply through the lens of categories you can break people down into ALWAYS results in injustice. Name a SINGLE example from history to the contrary. The only way to preserve our liberties is to focus on individual liberties. There will always be some exception to the rule, no matter how many categories and sub categories you try to place people into. "Feminism" is NOT inclusive... it ONLY deals with issues effecting women and ignoring everyone else. Look at how feminists attacked men's rights advocates and got their meetings shut down by pulling fire alarms and the movement died. Tell me with a straight face that they care about EVERYONE.... I'll wait. What you should strive for is to be an EGALITARIAN, where you treat everyone the same and value everyone... not only a single demographic. Again, this is not rocket science and reality disagrees with your odd and easily disproven opinion. If you want to "open up conversations" with different demographics you have to first consider them. Feminism has shown the opposite and we have ample evidence. So "life" can be defined by "love?" What kind of hippy dippy nonsense is that? What "love" is there with a parasitic organism; what "love" exists between a virus and its host; what "love" exists between predator and prey? This is simply the anthropomorphic fallacy and it is laughable that such ideas are taken serious. Oh, and then you go on to claim it can be "inclusive." Do you expect a wolf to be "inclusive" of its meal? The fact is, it either kills and ingests another living being or it DIES. Again, this is not rocket science Einstein! Reality disagrees with your opinion. You say the point of life is to "learn from others." A virus as an example is incapable of learning ANYTHING... it does not possess the capability. Again, this is simply the anthropomorphic fallacy, and I can't take such nonsensical gobbledygook serious. You use imprecise language and expect us to accept it as something profound. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see right through this. I can't believe I wasted 14 minutes of my life on someone who has nothing of worth to say.
Violence never necessary? Picture this, I' m walking down a sidewalk and while crossing an alley way I hear a scream. I look and see a woman being raped. Well I guess there's nothing I can do to help her because violence is never necessary, right, or needed. Even the cops can't help for r the same reason. Plus, I hope everyone can acknowledge that women are also violent.
If we believe violence is never justified, to which i agree, then we should have borders because violence is essentially the invasion of personal boundaries which are personal borders.
So you would just go ahead and let the Nazis of the 1930s and 1940s do as they pleased? Specifically, how would you mitigate or end that kind of threat or subjugation of others? Talking will sure as hell not do it. Ask Neville Chamberlain.
These "authors" are always so great at conveying absolutely nothing with a bunch of nonsensical word soups. The pompousness and belief she is above you exudes through the screen...
She talks about bringing men on board and yet talks about patriarchy and systemic discrimination. I don't think that she believes what she says. She talks about challenging each other and yet talks about the patriarchy. She talks about the greeks having six different words for love, who does she think wrote those words down and scribed them, men? She said something about patriarchy. I don't believe her. Thumbs down.
Dude, patriarchy is a problem, that is what she is saying. she'd love it if men saw how they behave and change that behavior to be more inclusive. Me thinks you are a bit insecure as a man.
patriarchy is a laughable term..........when you use terms such as this to blanket an entire group, you have already lost credibility. You have gone from a real person with thoughts TO merely entertainment...but that's OK, I enjoy both!
@@mikeforner7797 Completely agree! Anytime those buzz words appear I instantly start questioning what is being said and wonder if the speaker is just parroting them. Hence why I don't believe her.
I wonder how she'd be received if she wasn't beautiful. Its hard to listen to someone talk about hardships when she has clearly been exempt her entire life.
In Arabic language there is around 17 stages of love. ''Those who think religion is about “belief” don't understand religion, and don't understand belief.” - Nassim Nicholas Taleb
@@moonmanvic In university I learned there were 8 types of love: Philia - Affectionate Love. Philia is love without romantic attraction and occurs between friends or family members. ... Pragma - Enduring Love. ... Storge - Familiar Love. ... Eros - Romantic Love. ... Ludus - Playful Love. ... Mania - Obsessive Love. ... Philautia - Self Love. ... Agape - Selfless Love. Sure, I didn't get to try many of them (I received mostly Philia....and some Philauta. Dammit!!); however, that doesn't mean they're not there. LOL
People who think violence is never justified should talk to a holocaust survivor or anyone who took part in WW2 to defeat the evil German and Japanese regimes.
Violence is a last resort but in some cases it is the only option.
Her objection goes back to events that were the genesis of the holocaust. The words that started to subtly "other" a group of people.
There's a difference between self defense and violence though.
@@Steven-ze2zk No that isn't true. Self Defense is still considered a form of violence. Definition of violence: "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."
I hate to say this, but Holocaust Survivors did not defeat the Axis! Look up the word survive. Does not imply winning. Again sorry!
@@Steven-ze2zk are you American? you sound it
Someone comes up to me randomly and starts assaulting me with a blunt object and trying to mug me... "I cannot find ways to justify violence, I always try to find another way an alternative to violence" What a joke.
Always someone who has not a nuanced cell in their brain. You win that award!
@@tom7471 Love your use of big complex words and sentence structure! You definitely made me change my mind to think you're right. Even when getting violently assaulted, there most definitely is still no justification for violence! Man what the hell was I thinking...
@@tom7471 Great example of the violence in language that she was talking about.
i find my mind changing at every turn
@@scottbiggs8894 , every definition of violence used in a literal sense REQUIRES physical force to be used against others. This is simply the equivocation fallacy and I refuse to take such flawed logic serious.
"We are living in an age of clashing certainties . . . " Powerful
I'm a high school drop out... read 1 philosophy book and learned VERY QUICKLY that yes, you can indeed justify violence.
Violence occurs naturally. You only need to observe animals in nature to see that violence is not only justified BUT NECESSARY. Every force in the universe has an opposing force.
My main argument with your premise is that animals are fighting for survival in that they must defend territory to ensure they have resources for survival and they do not have the possibility of reasoning with their fellow animals, especially prey with predators. Humans, on the other hand, do have the ability to communicate and, hopefully, reason with their competitors and come up with solutions to work together to provide for all. The fact that we have not been able to accomplish this to date is a testement to the need for further human evolution, especially psychologically. Many (I would say most) human beings feel that we are the top species on planet Earth and that we "own" the place. It is a shame that we don't feel the stewardship and responsibility that comes along with that position.
In my view, violence is only necessary when faced with an opponent whose only method of survival is through violence. I will point out an apparent quote attributed to Sun Tzu (a great warrior of some kind); he said, "If you are forced to fight, you have already lost." One must know one's opponent as well as one can and then seek a strategy to avoid conflict which squanders resources unnecessarily. Have a nice day and don't fight so much. :-)
By the way, there is nothing wrong with being a high school dropout. There is much to be done in society outside of education. I am glad that you are interested in philosophy (I'm sure among other things); however, I hope that you will expand your library to other forms of thought. Pacifists have as much to say as those that glorify "might is right." You may find your beliefs changing as you go. That was certainly my experience and is to be expected when one is introduced to other's thoughts. Good luck in your scholarly travels.
@@viewfromthehighchair9391 Thank you for your impartial response. I tend to be adversarial and it sets off a lot of people but it's just the way I learn sometimes.
I don't agree with the idea of eliminating violence. But I do think that we can change the form that violence takes. I read Robert Greene's book "The 33 Strategies of War" and I noticed that all those principles, tactics, and strategies derived from the warring nations are still being applied today. The difference is that the environment has shifted from the battlefield to the business & digital world.
@@Mufffinz I'm hoping you mean that there will always be conflict. I'm not sure you would want to live in a society where you encounter violence everyday or every week. Violence diminishes us greatly and I believe it is worth exploring a peaceful way of life despite the fact that is will likely be in vain for the most part. I can do without violence of any kind if I had the chance.
@@viewfromthehighchair9391 I agree, at a certain level of vibrations (level of thought) there is conflict. This is largely because those caught in that thought (the conditioned state of all mankind) do not see the continuation (yin and yang, mountain and valley, fire and ice...) but react long before necessary (or act at all when it never was 'necessary' to act). Then the repetitious chaos ensues. It is a form of immaturity of spirit. Out of chaos, though, there can be order, order in one's mind, if the shock is great to the system of conditioning. Violence would subside if humans lived having some trust in the universe (not the man made gods). Knowing that good and bad are conceptual and results of low level thought and always a forced outcome would be a great start. Living without resistance to the great 'what is' (not what 'should be') lacks violence and has its own higher vibration (beyond self absorbed thought patterns). There is peace there that can not be disturbed by all of the human insanity. If only humans knew...
Love the bro-vibe I'm getting. Kudos on that. WE ARE ANIMALS!!! Humans are very rude.
Great sentences without answers.
Well stated
Said a Bigot without being a Racist.
@@asadfami7623 says the person that assumes they know a person on the Internet because they saw a reply. Your an idiot because you "know" things about people based upon your bias.
@@tburlingham Maybe every one of us is doing this lol
7:48 I've been through phases and through stages and answer was always 'no'.
10:24 I wouldn't say atheists have problem with faith. With god(s) for sure but not with faith.
Atheist here and I have a HUGE problem with faith... in fact it is at the heart of everything. Faith is a strong belief without supporting evidence and often in spite of existing evidence. I do NOT accept this as a virtue, quite the opposite. This is not the same as having to take your chances in a relationship like the example she gave, meaning she is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.
@@naejimba ''fallacy of equivocation''
Where does she use 'faith' ambiguously?
''Atheist here and I have a HUGE problem with faith''
Clash of certainties?
''in fact it is at the heart of everything''
Scapegoating much?
@@furtdrven2512 , "Where does she use 'faith' ambiguously?"
There are several definitions for the word "faith." One refers to a strong belief in something supernatural, while another refers to having trust or confidence in someone. Her example was conflating a belief in a god to having to trust another person to enter into a romantic relationship. Those are two VERY different things.
"Clash of certainties?"
That is precisely my problem with religious faith; it is being certain about something you have no evidence of or even in spite of existing evidence to the contrary. I don't think that is a virtue since for one person it might result in doing good while another can use it to justify atrocity.
"Scapegoating much?"
I'm not scapegoating anything. I'm allowed to have my own opinion, and yes, the concept of faith is at the heart of the problems I have with religion.
Your original post said Atheists don't have a problem with faith, so I thought, wait a moment, I actually am an Atheist myself and that is the main problem I have with religion. You don't get to define my own position or that would be a straw man fallacy. I would be interested to know if you also are an Atheist, as that would change the context of your words.
@@naejimba ''There are several definitions for the word "faith."''
Sure. But she is consistently using one of them. So, no 'fallacy of equivocation' here.
''That is precisely my problem with religious faith''
That you are certain even more than 'they' are?
''the concept of faith is at the heart of the problems I have with religion. ''
Oh, I see. You said 'at the heart of everything' first. So I thought you meant ... you know, everything.
''You don't get to define my own position...''
Fair point. I wish I said 'often' or 'usually' or something. But I didn't. My bad.
I was thinking like 'my faith, my problem'. And I really don't understand how can it be otherwise. But it obviously can. I just don't understand it.
@@furtdrven2512 , "Sure. But she is consistently using one of them. So, no 'fallacy of equivocation' here."
No, she used an example of having to trust someone when entering in a relationship, moving to a new country, and reading a novel. That does not meet the definition of a strong belief in the supernatural, and since she attempted to conflate two very different definitions is the fallacy of equivocation.
"That you are certain even more than 'they' are?"
That is a strawman fallacy and not my position. I simply lack justification for belief in the supernatural.
If you have trouble imagining violence ever being justified, I have trouble imagining you as someone who uses their brain very well.
I’ve coded 3 times and the longest I was under (“dead”) was just short of 7 minutes. There was nothing. The only difference I’ve seen in myself and others who’ve experienced this is you come back a lot more empathetic. There’s a great interview with Antonio Banderas talking about his experience and how he views life now. Aside from that you can end up with ptsd (as I have). Hearing a flatline or paddles charging freaks me out now. Must be a subconscious thing. Anyway, thought I’d share. Have a great day everyone!
FREEDOM.....I like this one. Remember that for you to enjoy the freedoms that exist...someone had to give a ALL they had for them. It seams to be a vicious circle of rights/freedoms taken and then regained.
She always looks on the verge of tears that is sincerity
Or an act of desperation.
Talk about dodging the question! She was asked, "Is violence ever justified?" And she basically said that violence can be subtle (which is obvious and inarguable). So disappointing--to the point of this video being blatant click-bait.
Violence is for free people. If you cannot use violence you are not free.
NOW borders...hmm, what do I think of this...Easy, borders keep us secure. Sometimes we think of borders as huge barriers around our countries, and that feels like we are excluding and denying... but lets start with smaller borders that are more easier to understand and then expand. First we have a border called a bedroom, where we sleep(we shut the door sometimes to keep out pets or other residents for privacy), then a border which is our house,( we feel safe and secure there, can't let just anyone in and is usually locked at night)...ect. Luckily poets and dreamers aren't a part of decision making, or we would all be in trouble.
You have a formed insecurity that precludes you from being opened up. It has nothing to do with someone taking your house --oh, but they might. But the fear of that is what makes humans afraid of living life.
@@tom7471 Hello can i take your address? i know for a fact you dont lock your doors at night, btw how nice is your tv?
F=ck off.
"Ancient Greeks were much wiser than us..." (Forgetting that they had slaves and women had no voice in their society.)
Societies that exclude girls and women from higher education should watch this video and humbly reconsider.
They're not societies. They're cults.
"In order to maintain a tolerant society, society must intolarate to intolerance"
Karl Popper
The dance of faith and doubt. 🙏❤️
Violence is often attributed (and often correctly) to men, but it's not a solely masculine attribute.
Violence as a concept is very masculine in every way, but it's not exclusively masculine. Women have the capacity to be violent, while men have violence built in as a means of survival and reproduction. Violence expresses itself in two wildly different ways between the sexes.
She's beautiful ✨🌹
Violence isn't the answer. Violence is the question. The answer is yes.
Clashing Certainties was an awesome phrase!!! All I hear that was said is that there are now many of us with asshole opinions. Even with our God given rights (whatever that means), must we include our opinions? We all have opinions and an asshole. Use them both wisely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1:30
Like to listen. Gave me some good thoughts and answers even if most of her mindset is similar to mine.
People hating on her responses. These are big questions and often its okay to say I don't know. She seems to exude a very neutral energy that shies away from firm resolutions and statements. She grew up in an environment were one thin is set and stone and challenging that was taboo. She found solace in writing were anything can be possible and nothing firmly certain. There is a type of freedom sure to such lose thinking, but there is also a danger. Not standing for something runs the risk of falling for anything.
Anyhow, she speaks gracefully, albeit mystic. Sometimes that's needed to approach the problems of life from a wholistic perspective.
Grace to all reading.
*flies away*
lost me at patriarchy lol
Same I scrolled down to see if this was a comment.
She didn't answer any of the questions 🤨 Well, the last one only. Her answer was "I don't know".
have you missed her point that she cannot answer, neither can any one of us?
She didn't quite answer any of the questions. Great opinions though
20 thousand views, 500 likes. Not very surprising.
She used the equivocation fallacy and the anthropomorphic fallacy and we're supposed to accept this as something profound?
There's no such thing as "verbal violence". The worst that can be called is a "threat" and there's a difference between the two.
I just don't know what she is talking about. That's my bad.
violence, by definition, is not subtle. All these other "violence" that you speak of may be classified as cruel or negative thoughts and or speech. therefore not violent. People have the right to say anything negative to you or me...it can hurt our feelings. Even though I would not like to be mocked or ridiculed, I will stand up for the rights of the person doing it. Remember, nobody cares for your feelings and the world owes you nothing. keep in mind that YOUR utopia is not universally shared...and YES the world is an awesome place🙂
I am sorry, but violence can be very subtle. A look, a word, athought, all can be violent at their core. She is right. Violence starts in the mind, before the bullet is launched.
Her speaking on religion, doubt, and faith is brilliant!
Very much enjoying this interview but I've paused it at 10.45 because I want to say I've never known of a fellow atheist wanting to get rid of faith. That's a very odd thing to suggest.
As an atheist I simply don't believe a thinking 'thing' appeared from nothing and created a universe from nothing. That's it, that's all. I enjoy watching people gaining comfort from the sky wizard in their head, happiness is happiness and I very much support that. Selfishness however is a different conversation. Anyway back to the interview...
Well, I am agnostic and I would love all religions to disappear. Do you see how much pain and suffering they have caused throughout history? They are one of the most negative outcomes of the tribal cave people, once they started 'organizing'. Nothing could be better to me than to see the power religions hold over their subjects to end. It is extremely evil stuff. Only things worse, maybe, are nationalism and racism. Combine the three and the earth is actually quite doomed.
shafak you say!? ay she looks beautiful.
Merhaba!
Verbal violence?
What an idiotic term. If you cuss someone, you're not even touching them, it's just words at the end of the day. You're not getting physically battered in any way.
"Verbal violence" isn't a thing... violence is defined as: "Behavior or treatment in which physical force is exerted for the purpose of causing damage or injury." It REQUIRES physical force that causes physical damage. This is simply the equivocation fallacy. As for "justifying violence" this one is easy: self defense is justified as we have a right to life. Without the right to life, none of our other rights matter... you can't exercise them when you are dead. Borders aren't about "us vs. them" without them our economies would collapse... this is not rocket science lady.
It is terrible to think of "freedom" in such terms as you do. When you take a critical look at all of these ideas of "intersectionality" with almost infinite combinations what you are left with is this fact: the end result is the INDIVIDUAL. Looking at people simply through the lens of categories you can break people down into ALWAYS results in injustice. Name a SINGLE example from history to the contrary. The only way to preserve our liberties is to focus on individual liberties. There will always be some exception to the rule, no matter how many categories and sub categories you try to place people into.
"Feminism" is NOT inclusive... it ONLY deals with issues effecting women and ignoring everyone else. Look at how feminists attacked men's rights advocates and got their meetings shut down by pulling fire alarms and the movement died. Tell me with a straight face that they care about EVERYONE.... I'll wait. What you should strive for is to be an EGALITARIAN, where you treat everyone the same and value everyone... not only a single demographic. Again, this is not rocket science and reality disagrees with your odd and easily disproven opinion. If you want to "open up conversations" with different demographics you have to first consider them. Feminism has shown the opposite and we have ample evidence.
So "life" can be defined by "love?" What kind of hippy dippy nonsense is that? What "love" is there with a parasitic organism; what "love" exists between a virus and its host; what "love" exists between predator and prey? This is simply the anthropomorphic fallacy and it is laughable that such ideas are taken serious. Oh, and then you go on to claim it can be "inclusive." Do you expect a wolf to be "inclusive" of its meal? The fact is, it either kills and ingests another living being or it DIES. Again, this is not rocket science Einstein! Reality disagrees with your opinion.
You say the point of life is to "learn from others." A virus as an example is incapable of learning ANYTHING... it does not possess the capability. Again, this is simply the anthropomorphic fallacy, and I can't take such nonsensical gobbledygook serious. You use imprecise language and expect us to accept it as something profound. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see right through this. I can't believe I wasted 14 minutes of my life on someone who has nothing of worth to say.
Violence never necessary? Picture this, I' m walking down a sidewalk and while crossing an alley way I hear a scream. I look and see a woman being raped. Well I guess there's nothing I can do to help her because violence is never necessary, right, or needed. Even the cops can't help for r the same reason. Plus, I hope everyone can acknowledge that women are also violent.
If we believe violence is never justified, to which i agree, then we should have borders because violence is essentially the invasion of personal boundaries which are personal borders.
So you would just go ahead and let the Nazis of the 1930s and 1940s do as they pleased? Specifically, how would you mitigate or end that kind of threat or subjugation of others? Talking will sure as hell not do it. Ask Neville Chamberlain.
Spoke very well...said very little.
She's what's wrong with society. I guess that statement to her is violence
Why!
@@wonderwoman5528 Because anything anyone says in disagreement is viewed as violence.
@@PrincernPrince just accept she has a different opinion to you
@@wonderwoman5528 Already have and mine is what I said. Nothing has changed.
@@PrincernPrince and her opinion is hers so just agree to disagree
These "authors" are always so great at conveying absolutely nothing with a bunch of nonsensical word soups. The pompousness and belief she is above you exudes through the screen...
She talks about bringing men on board and yet talks about patriarchy and systemic discrimination. I don't think that she believes what she says. She talks about challenging each other and yet talks about the patriarchy. She talks about the greeks having six different words for love, who does she think wrote those words down and scribed them, men? She said something about patriarchy. I don't believe her. Thumbs down.
Dude, patriarchy is a problem, that is what she is saying. she'd love it if men saw how they behave and change that behavior to be more inclusive. Me thinks you are a bit insecure as a man.
@@tom7471 Question are you saying that I'm a man, if so how do you know I'm a man? Or are making a statement as a man?
patriarchy is a laughable term..........when you use terms such as this to blanket an entire group, you have already lost credibility. You have gone from a real person with thoughts TO merely entertainment...but that's OK, I enjoy both!
@@mikeforner7797 Completely agree! Anytime those buzz words appear I instantly start questioning what is being said and wonder if the speaker is just parroting them. Hence why I don't believe her.
Question) “Violence, yay or nay?”
Her) “So the thing about the patriarchy…”
Me) skip
I wonder how she'd be received if she wasn't beautiful. Its hard to listen to someone talk about hardships when she has clearly been exempt her entire life.
In Arabic language there is around 17 stages of love.
''Those who think religion is about “belief” don't understand religion, and don't understand belief.” - Nassim Nicholas Taleb
17 stages 🤔
@@moonmanvic In university I learned there were 8 types of love:
Philia - Affectionate Love. Philia is love without romantic attraction and occurs between friends or family members. ...
Pragma - Enduring Love. ...
Storge - Familiar Love. ...
Eros - Romantic Love. ...
Ludus - Playful Love. ...
Mania - Obsessive Love. ...
Philautia - Self Love. ...
Agape - Selfless Love.
Sure, I didn't get to try many of them (I received mostly Philia....and some Philauta. Dammit!!); however, that doesn't mean they're not there. LOL
BOOOORING