/lit/ - Literature

>>8419442
How am I asserting a negative when I say that the only people who's feedback matters are those interested in the manner of his video are patreons and people interested in paying for his services?
What proof do you have that people bitching in his videos are those types of people?

>it's common sense
Self evidence and stating something to be obvious is not evidence.
Common sense is not an argument nor proof. Do you have evidence that an anonymous person is a person interested in his services?

>>8419449
Except when she was the most critical of marxism and communism, while all her arguments are still valid today. Describing the truth and idealization perfection of capitalism does not make it unfavorable.

>>8419452
>he doesn't read Atlas Shrugged completely every week

>>8419458
Vote with your wallet and money.
Bitch at the heavens when something free isn't given to you isn't the answer unless you're a person without money, looking for a handout.

>>8396020
Why are you assuming that the murderer doesn't have the ability to kill the kid?
If news on the TV has shown the murderer's face as a person who's killed people before, on what grounds do you assume he does not have the ability to murder the kid?
Rationally, you would assume he has the potential to murderer the kid and will be able to do so. Simply because there is no confirmation that murderer will murder the kid with a 100% certainty does not mean the kid will not be in danger or that he likely will not die.

This is funny because you're essentially just giving Hume's empiricism as an excuse. You can't connect the cause and effect of the murderer going to kill the child with a 100% certainty without being psychic, so why even think?

Let's look at it one step at a time.

The murderer looks like the guy on TV that is wanted by the police on the count of murdering someone. Now obviously perhaps they just look alike, maybe the murderer has a twin brother who looks just like him!
And the murder says he will murder the kid. Why, that's just silly, what if he's just going to talk to the kid and play trains? What if 'murder the kid' is just code for 'playing with the kid'? You just can't know for sure!
But now what about the kid? How can we know for sure that he's still in the garden? He might have gone to the neighborhood alley or in some other home. Kant only knows where the kid was a few minutes ago, there's no guarantee that the kid is still in the yard.
And now we come to you. You ask how throughout all this, from the point of the murderer asking Kant where the kid is, to the point where he's about to murderer his kid, you question that it's possible that the murderer won't kill the kid because he doesn't have the ability. I mean, there's always the possibility of the kid running away or even overpowering the murder. The murderer might be entirely incompetent!

It's funny how Kant says he's solved Hume's problems yet when people defend Kant, they keep explaining that you can't know for sure anything, that you can predict cause and effect so you should stop thinking entirely.
It's only when Kant is exactly within the chain of cause and effect, when he points directly at his son that will cause his death, that is it's bad for Kant to tell a murderer what to do.

>>8396022
>it's not Kant's fault he let a murderer kill his son
>hey man, I didn't do anything wrong, I just told this murderer where to find my son when he told me he would kill him
>I'm free from any guilt that a murderer killed my son, my moral authority makes me blameless because of my duty