pachiderm

I was with him until his use of Judith Jarvis Thomson's thought experiment to justify stating that the personhood of a fetus is irrelevant in the abortion debate. That thought experiment is only useful in justifying abortion in specific circumstances, such as cases of rape or some other situation where the woman is somehow impregnated without her knowledge or consent. It completely removes the woman's agency from the moral calculus and assumes all women who become pregnant somehow play no active role in the reproductive processes that result in pregnancy, and therefore aren't at least partially responsible for the fetus being in the position of needing to use the woman's body to survive. In order for this thought experiment to justify abortions in all cases you would have to believe consent to sex is not tacit consent to the potential ramifications of sex, which would seem to be a very naive view to have considering how well known, and frequently occurring, the potential ramifications are. This kind of logic could potentially allow you to selectively consent to only the good outcomes of potentially risky behavior, and none of the bad outcomes. For example, you could say that you consent to speeding on the road, but only if it gets you where you want to go faster and not if it gets you a ticket, and definitely not if you accidentally kill someone while speeding. Most people will not find that form of selective consent a compelling argument when it comes to determining whether or not you were at fault. Now don't get me wrong Ben Shapiro's an idiot, and there are good justifications for abortion, but not ones in which the personhood of a fetus isn't a factor. The debate is definitely about when human life begins, but there's not a definitive answer for that and there likely never will be. The good news is that the people saying that life begins at conception have a really bad argument. If a zygote is a person then a grain of sand is a beach. The problem is determining where between zygote and birth personhood begins. This is where having good arguments and being able to compromise is helpful. Personally, I think the point of higher brain birth (22-24 weeks) is a reasonable point to identify as the likely beginning of personhood, but I've heard all kinds of things argued competently. Regardless, this philosophy tube video makes a bad argument. Having listened to more of it while typing this he has subsequently made the argument that even responsibility for the position the violinist is in should have no bearing on whether or not it is morally permissible to disconnect him from the host and allow him to die. Philosophy tube has now pivoted from arguing that personhood is not a factor, to arguing that even if it were it wouldn't trump the host/woman's right to bodily autonomy. That's an argument, but not one that the aforementioned thought experiment supports.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201709

This all reeks of conspiracy theory and pseudoscience. I am neither a climatologist nor a nuclear physicist but I can think of some serious problems with detonating enough nuclear weapons to create another ice age. I would assume it is possible to do, but I cannot even conceive of what the other consequences might be if we actually did it. I recommend reading The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell and taking some environmental science courses to better understand the impacts that even small changes can have on the earth and its ecosystems.

So I'd prefer it if my first post weren't some form of criticism, but there's like 400+ comments on youtube and I doubt my paragraph is going to get seen so i'm posting it here. To preface this I want to say you should do what you want with your videos and my intention is not to tell you how to run your channel or what format is best for you. I have no idea how much work goes into your videos and all I can really draw on for my criticism is my experience as a viewer, who is entirely uninvolved in the creative process of making them. But I figured I'd give you my opinion on the format. I think it's hard to make these shorter without losing out on quality. These things are really all about attention to detail and full reviews of the games you cover. I understand this type of game review doesn't have a whole lot of broad appeal, but if I'm honest neither does this. This is the same style of review only shorter. If you want to shorten the reviews your style needs to be much more streamlined. You need to go on fewer tangents, explore fewer game quirks and flaws and leave out more superfluous details. At that point you could just make the video 5-10 minutes long and my desire to watch them would drop significantly. The reason why I watch this is because I feel like it's a kind of stream of consciousness game review to an excess. I mean this video is the same thing it just feels like it got cut off at 16 minutes. Like I was watching a full game dungeon review and stopped at 16 minutes to do something else. At this point I have no idea if I want to play this game, whether you like or dislike it or even whether or not this game is any different from a million other classic adventure games. I'll still watch these when you put them out, but this seems like a step in the wrong direction.