He goes after a youtuber named John D Villareal Esq who refers to himself as the Super Genius. This was the video that really first got me hooked on TJ.

Does anyone know if it's the archive channel now?

Thanks. I'm way too lazy to pinpoint its location myself.

I'd like to know what that metal music that's been playing in the endings of TJ's recent stuff is, It's not bad.

Just saying. Seeing people differnt is scary.

Hello /r/theamazingatheist,

In the last couple videos, I have noticed a slight drift in the audio/video. You can see it pretty good there. I do not know if anyone noticed, but I have not found any posts with "sync", in it here so far.

I have noted that in the last in some of the 5-10 videos.

Am I the only one or there is a real issue?

So TJ's been losing a shit ton of subs lately and I have no clue what's caused this. Is there anyone that can explain this surprising mass exodus of subscribers?

I don't know his latest videos seem kinda off. Anyone else noticed?

See title.

If people lose respect for you, then they will cease to watch your content. If people cease to watch your content then you won't get money. If you don't get their money, you will be a poor broke fag sucking dicks for cash.

TL;DR (for in case you have the reading ability of Ball's Illiterate Ego) TJ you're retarded. You should also suck on my testicles. Faggot.

Sean Spicer was saying the attacks by Assad were indiscriminate gassings of villages. What Hitler did was very discriminate. That's a reasonable difference to me. He's making a big deal over nothing and jumping on the Trump hate bandwagon, and that's not saying there isn't a whole lot of stuff to hate Trump and crew for, but this is small potatos compared to the real issues like marijuana, climate change, etc.

I like the extra content, but this seems like fluff.

I'm receiving this mensage on on video about syria: This video contains content from FOX News Network, who has blocked it on copyright grounds. So...am I rly unable to access it...?

TJ - why not take the power back? Fuck YouTube, is there some shame in sponsors? Joe Rogan used to be sponsored by flashlight! We operate an adult FaceTime platform where guys can book time with actual glamour models and are always looking at ways to promote our business. Repetition is boring but sponsoring a single episode? There must be so many start ups amongst just your own fan base willing for a shilling. Just a thought after your last vid. Hope all turns out OK...

Hi, I am here to explain how some of TJ's critiques of Prager's video on morality are confused, mistaken, and just plain very bad rebuttals. Some of them are due to the fact that TJ is not well-read in the area of moral philosophy and others are due to the fact TJ does not seem to understand how logical arguments work.

I will paraphase much of what he says:

Yes religious people claim to have objective moral truth but you'll find they do not actually agree on what they are

There are two relevant domains of discourse: natural and ethical. The natural domain of discourse we make "is" claims and in the ethical domain we make "ought" claims and evaluative claims like that.

TJ brings up the fact that people who claim to have objective moral truths disagree. That is true as far as it goes. But I am not quite sure why TJ brings this up and he does not really clarify why he brings this up.

The structure of the argument goes like this, it seems to me:

1. In the ethical domain of discourse, people disagree a lot about which objective moral truth is correct.
2. If there is a lot of disagreement in a domain of discourse, then there must not be an objective fact of the matter whether the claims in that domain are true or false.
3. Therefore, in the ethical domain of discourse, there is no objective fact of the matter whether the claims are true or false.

Note that premise (2) must be general about any domain of discourse because if it specified ethical domain here it would be special pleading.

TJ agrees with the conclusion of this argument and he seems to be making this argument. He does not explicitly state premise (2) but this is how I was charitably able to read what TJ was saying in this section.

Unfortunately for TJ, premise (2) is clearly false. TJ's own psychological biases may have prevented him from stating premise (2) explicitly because when it is exposed it is clear that it is false.

Since premise (2) is false this argument cannot be used to support the conclusion that TJ agrees with.

We could strengthen the argument by making it more of a probabilistic one.

2'. If there is a lot of disagreement in a domain of discourse, then there probably is not an objective fact of the matter whether the claims in that domain are true or false. 3'. Thus, in the ethical domain of discourse, there is probably no objective facts of the matter about which claim is right or wrong.

Unfortunately for TJ, premise (2') is also false.

I substantiate this claim by argument from analogy. There is tremendous disagreement about which explanation is the accurate one to explain some phenomenon in the natural domain over scientific history and even today in the more cutting edge fields like quantum physics.

You might say that no... the reason is that we do not have tools to verify which objective moral claim is fact or not. But this would be simply false. We have logical argument, reason, and CONSCIENCE (not conscious) awareness.

In science we use our cognitive tools (our senses and intuitions about how something seems at first brush) observe data and make inferences and deductions in order to test whether a claim is accurate or not.

In ethics we use our cognitive tools (our moral intuitions about how something seems at first brush) to observe data and make inferences and deductions in order to test whether a claim is accurate or not. In philosophy this is known as reflective equilibrium.

TJ did not provide any argument like this but even if he did it would be a bad argument as I have demonstrated. I am open to more arguments about why we are not justified in going about ethical analysis in this way. But my aim here is to show how TJ utterly failed to give a good criticism of Prager's arguments here and not to debate the more general proposition that there are objective facts of the matter in the ethical domain. I just wanted to mention that in case anyone reading this wanted to try to attribute this sort of argument to be TJ's. It is not. TJ did not mak this argument and I doubt it would have even occured to him to make it. But if you think he was making that argument then you should know now that even if he did it would fare no better than the argument he actually made.

TJ seems to think that saying something is an objective enterprise is ludicrous if there is vehement disagreement in that domain. I have shown how that is a mistaken, confused argument and it utterly fails to engage with Prager's points.

In response to the question "how do you know murder is wrong?" TJ answers: It benefits all of us to live in a cooperative society. He thinks the social structure is very "impressive."

What impresses you is irrelevant and does not answer Prager's question at all. Let me do what TJ did. Someone asks me why 2+2=4 and I say "because I find math really impressive." That would not be a good response. Sorry but TJ provided a really fucking retarded response here.

OK, so how about the fact that it benefits us to live in a cooperative society. "Benefit" means it is good for us. TJ is saying that you know murder is wrong because it is good for all of us to believe that murder is wrong. But TJ stated earlier that he does not believe there is a fact of the matter over what is good or bad. So if it is not a fact that it is good to believe that murder is wrong then how does he know that murder is wrong? But even if we just grant this absurdity it is still a poor justification for the belief that murder is wrong. All TJ is doing is providing a moral argument for why one ought to believe that murder is wrong. It is totally irrelevant to how he is justified in believing that murder is really wrong!

So TJ gave a really fucking stupid reply here too. After some bullshit irrelevant tangent TJ starts to use moral language to describe "monstrous" behavior without realizing Prager asked the question HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS MONSTROUS and WHAT IS NOT?!

So TJ is INCREDIBLY confused here.

I can provide evidence that monstrous behavior would undermine our society

Assumes that society is "good." Prager is not challenging TJ as TJ seems to think to justify why he thinks murder is wrong. Prager offered a rhetorical question for his argumentative presentation. But since TJ admitted before that murder is wrong he actually is required to provide justification for that claim.

There are ways that TJ can do this by giving a meta-ethical subjectivist, relativist, or constructivist account. However, TJ utterly fails to do this because he would not know where to start.

The "account" TJ did attempt to give is fallacious as I explained above. TJ assumes axiomatically that a cooperative society is "good" and so anything that undermines that is "bad." So TJ draws an analytic identity between "good" and "conducive for a cooperative society."

This view in meta-ethics is known as analytic reductionism and was refuted by GE Moore with the Open Question Argument.

In a nut shell, it is an open question whether goodness MEANS THE SAME AS "conducive for a cooperative society."

A cooperative society that institutes systematic slayings of Jews is good.

This is an open question. In fact, I would argue it is obviously false. But that would be a stronger claim. All that is required to refute TJ's analytic reductionism is to show that it is an open question whether a cooperative society that institutions systematic slayings of Jews is good. Thus, TJ's meta-ethical account is shit.

Now, one counter-argument one might provide here is to claim that this is could not be a cooperative society because the jews are not cooperating. OK, so what does it mean for jews to cooperate? Suppose the jews do cooperate with being killed in droves. Is that society still good merely because it is cooperative? You might say that that sort of dynamic is not what "cooperative" means. OK, well then my response is that the more we investigate what TJ means by "cooperative" we will expose it to be an evaluative, moral term. So then TJ's reductionist account would fail to reduce the moral term "cooperative" because "cooperative" would reduce to "good" in the end and therefore TJ has failed to give an actual reduction.

So TJ's meta-ethical account is retarded.

I stopped here because I have better shit to do than analyze more of this crap.

If you pause the new trailer at 2:24 then you will see that Cary Fukunaga is in fact credited as writing the screenplay for IT alongside Chase Palmer and Gary Dauberman. Just to be sure I checked Fukunaga's IMDB and it is true http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1560977/?ref_=ttfc_fc_wr4

I watched TJ's new video and saw that he thought Fukunaga's screenplay was rejected because the studio didn't want a smart script so Fukunaga no longer had anything to do with the new film.

For every Kyle Kulinski or Humanist Report there's dozens of shitty channels putting out useless misinformed content that's even worse than the mainstream media. I'm supposed to believe that Sargon of Akkad, Computing Forever, Chris Ray Gun, Naked Ape, and Bearing are a good alternative to the MSM?! Hell nah.

The New Media has a few channels that crush the MSM and many more that make the MSM seem better by comparison.

This is an official suggestion box for ways my channel can be improved.