Podcasts about repugnant

Angel Studios https://Angel.com/ToddJoin the Angel Guild today and stream Testament, a powerful new series featuring the retelling of the book of Acts. Alan's Soaps https://www.AlansArtisanSoaps.comUse coupon code TODD to save an additional 10% off the bundle price.Bioptimizers https://Bioptimizers.com/toddEnter promo code TODD to get 10% off your order of Berberine Breakthrough today.Bizable https://GoBizable.comUntie your business exposure from your personal exposure with BiZABLE.  Schedule your FREE consultation at GoBizAble.com today.  Bonefrog https://BonefrogCoffee.com/toddThe new GOLDEN AGE is here!  Use code TODD at checkout to receive 10% off your first purchase and 15% on subscriptions.Bulwark Capital https://KnowYourRiskPodcast.comHear directly from Zach Abraham as he shares insights in this FREE “Halftime” Webinar, THURSDAY, July 24th at 3:30 Pacific.  Register now at Know Your Risk Podcast dot com. Renue Healthcare https://Renue.Healthcare/ToddYour journey to a better life starts at Renue Healthcare. Visit https://Renue.Healthcare/ToddLISTEN and SUBSCRIBE at:The Todd Herman Show - Podcast - Apple PodcastsThe Todd Herman Show | Podcast on SpotifyWATCH and SUBSCRIBE at: Todd Herman - The Todd Herman Show - YouTubeMSNBC: What If Trump Seems so Popular Because You Seem so Repugnant? //  The IRS Says Pastors Can Endorse Candidates from the Pulpit … So, Should They? //  When Church Spectacle Crosses THE Line. Episode Links:MSNBC's Eugene Daniels On '24 Election: Maybe We Underestimated Trump's Popularity!FBI opens 'grand conspiracy' probe on weaponization, opening door to special prosecutor What did they know and when did they know it? Two secret documents regarding DOJ and FBI's Clinton-era antics could be key if Trump declassifies them.Here's a video of MN State Senator and Minneapolis mayoral candidate Omar Fateh, claiming that the real threat to our country is White peopleCNN's Dana Bash Tries to Press Tom Homan on Alligator Alcatraz, Gets COOKEDPBS Chief Paula Kerger: “I can't make any sense of an argument that we are somehow biased in any way." "People often struggle to come up with examples of what really they're talking about." On a gaslighting scale of 1-10, this is a solid 11.Megachurch puts on super elaborate 'Jurassic Park' themed church service, with realistic dinosaurs, detailed sets, and creative props.  Oh, and at the end they lower a cow into the raptor pit, just like the movies. 

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen in to the Daily Compliance News. All from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider four stories from the business world: compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, and general interest, all of which are relevant to the compliance professional. Top stories include: Families of Boeing victims call NPA repugnant. (BBC) The EU wants to impose additional sanctions on Russia. (FT) Dams holding back corruption in the US are breaking. (NYT) The Trump Administration is attempting to weaken Russian sanctions. (WSJ) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Professor Kimberly D. Krawiec from the University of Virginia School of Law explores "repugnant transactions and taboo trades" — markets that are morally contested and sometimes even prohibited, such as sex work, commercial surrogacy, and the sale of organs, eggs, and sperm. She asks how we, as a society, decide what is up for sale and what is off-limits. The controversies here are not about the dangers of markets themselves, but rather the dangers of buying/selling certain goods or services. Advocates of market restrictions seek to define the ethical boundaries of the marketplace – to identify the specific goods and services that are inappropriate for market trading, and to explain why these restrictions should exist even for apparently willing buyers and sellers.Although all cultures have deemed some transactions too sacred for the marketplace, the targets of these restrictions have varied widely, even within a given time period. For example, prostitution is currently legal in much of the world but illegal in most of the United States. Meanwhile, commercial surrogacy and paid egg donation are legal in much of the United States but illegal in many other parts of the world.This talk delves into these and other restricted trades. It identifies how they are regulated by legal regimes as well as social norms, evaluates the consequences of different approaches, and explores potential paths forward.About the Speaker: Professor Kimberly D. Krawiec holds the Charles O. Gregory Professorship of Law at the University of Virginia. Her current research analyses “taboo trades” — exchanges that are contested by society and, in some cases, forbidden altogether. She has written on commercial surrogacy, egg and sperm markets, and sex work. At the moment, much of her work is on incentives for organ donation. Another area of her research centres on the regulation of financial markets and business organizations. Prof. Krawiec has extensively examined the administrative process surrounding the Volcker Rule, a complex and highly contested provision of the Dodd-Frank Act. She has also researched corporate boards of directors. Through an ethnographic method, this work analyses directors' views on the workings of the corporate boardroom and board relations with management, with a special emphasis on directors' views on race and gender diversity in the boardroom.With a wealth of experience in commodity and derivatives law, she has also been a commentator for the Central European and Eurasian Law Initiative (CEELI) of the American Bar Association and has taught at top institutions including Duke, North Carolina, Harvard, and Northwestern, where she won the Robert Childres Award for Teaching Excellence.The lecture begins at 03:44Baron Cornelius Ver Heyden de Lancey (1889-1984) was a wealthy and public-spirited Dutchman who at different times in his life was a dentist, doctor, surgeon, barrister and art historian. In 1970 he created the De Lancey and De La Hanty Foundation, to promote studies in medico-legal topics. The Foundation generously gave Cambridge the Ver Heyden de Lancey Fund, which since 1996 has funded occasional public lectures on medico-legal issues of current interest.For more information about the Baron Ver Heyden de Lancey Lecture series, please see http://www.lml.law.cam.ac.uk/events/vhdl-events

Professor Kimberly D. Krawiec from the University of Virginia School of Law explores "repugnant transactions and taboo trades" — markets that are morally contested and sometimes even prohibited, such as sex work, commercial surrogacy, and the sale of organs, eggs, and sperm. She asks how we, as a society, decide what is up for sale and what is off-limits. The controversies here are not about the dangers of markets themselves, but rather the dangers of buying/selling certain goods or services. Advocates of market restrictions seek to define the ethical boundaries of the marketplace – to identify the specific goods and services that are inappropriate for market trading, and to explain why these restrictions should exist even for apparently willing buyers and sellers.Although all cultures have deemed some transactions too sacred for the marketplace, the targets of these restrictions have varied widely, even within a given time period. For example, prostitution is currently legal in much of the world but illegal in most of the United States. Meanwhile, commercial surrogacy and paid egg donation are legal in much of the United States but illegal in many other parts of the world.This talk delves into these and other restricted trades. It identifies how they are regulated by legal regimes as well as social norms, evaluates the consequences of different approaches, and explores potential paths forward.About the Speaker: Professor Kimberly D. Krawiec holds the Charles O. Gregory Professorship of Law at the University of Virginia. Her current research analyses “taboo trades” — exchanges that are contested by society and, in some cases, forbidden altogether. She has written on commercial surrogacy, egg and sperm markets, and sex work. At the moment, much of her work is on incentives for organ donation. Another area of her research centres on the regulation of financial markets and business organizations. Prof. Krawiec has extensively examined the administrative process surrounding the Volcker Rule, a complex and highly contested provision of the Dodd-Frank Act. She has also researched corporate boards of directors. Through an ethnographic method, this work analyses directors' views on the workings of the corporate boardroom and board relations with management, with a special emphasis on directors' views on race and gender diversity in the boardroom.With a wealth of experience in commodity and derivatives law, she has also been a commentator for the Central European and Eurasian Law Initiative (CEELI) of the American Bar Association and has taught at top institutions including Duke, North Carolina, Harvard, and Northwestern, where she won the Robert Childres Award for Teaching Excellence.The lecture begins at 03:44Baron Cornelius Ver Heyden de Lancey (1889-1984) was a wealthy and public-spirited Dutchman who at different times in his life was a dentist, doctor, surgeon, barrister and art historian. In 1970 he created the De Lancey and De La Hanty Foundation, to promote studies in medico-legal topics. The Foundation generously gave Cambridge the Ver Heyden de Lancey Fund, which since 1996 has funded occasional public lectures on medico-legal issues of current interest.For more information about the Baron Ver Heyden de Lancey Lecture series, please see http://www.lml.law.cam.ac.uk/events/vhdl-events

UFC Head Dana White GOES NUCLEAR on Bryce Mitchell after REPUGNANT Adolf Hitler Comments in Rant!

Today, we offer the full case against anchor-baby jurisprudence. I'm joined by Amy Swearer, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, who has written scholarly papers showing conclusively that the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment was not adopting unqualified birthright citizenship for foreigners and most certainly not for illegal aliens and temporary visitors. The entire philosophy of citizenship, both pre- and post-adoption of the 14th Amendment, was built upon consent and allegiance. Amy explains why Wong Kim Ark expresses a false view of history but at the same time is clear that birthright citizenship cannot apply to those here against the national consent.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Don't be fooled by what the pundits tell us about why Donald Trump won and Kamala Harris lost. While their analyses have some merit, they skirt the two issues that the results themselves prove were the real reasons Harris lost: she was a she, not a he, and she didn't have the "right" color skin. Judaism rejects both factors--and it does so starting "in the beginning," Chapters 1 and 2 of the Book of Genesis, Sefer B'reishit, where woman, NOT man, is the first human created as we understand what humans look like.Support the show

The time has finally come for the Only Anime Podcast to pass judgment on the Summer 2024 Anime Season, may their wrathful gaze not fall upon ye, but first it behooves the Only Ones to talk about their most recent seafloor trawls.My Life Was an Otome Game? Is What I Thought But It Is Actually A Life Risking Death GameMononokeThe Traveling Gyaru

Normalizing The Repugnant | Can't Miss Moments https://www.audacy.com/989word The Charlie James Show Listen on Spotify : https://spoti.fi/3MXOvGP Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-charlie-james-show-podcast/id1547262821 Follow us on Social Media Join our Live Stream Weekdays - 3pm to 7pm Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/989word Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-2031096 X: https://twitter.com/989word Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/989word/ "Red Meat, Greenville." 09/20/24

“WWIII over the Weekend and Repugnant Migrants in Springfield” “Walz Gaff of the Week” “Putin says, ‘This Means War'”

The gang from Episode 10 is back, with yet another Consistently Candid x Pigeon Hour crossoverAs Sarah from Consistently Candid describes:In this episode, Aaron Bergman and Max Alexander are back to battle it out for the philosophy crown, while I (attempt to) moderate. They discuss the Very Repugnant Conclusion, which, in the words of Claude, "posits that a world with a vast population living lives barely worth living could be considered ethically inferior to a world with an even larger population, where most people have extremely high quality lives, but a significant minority endure extreme suffering." Listen to the end to hear my uninformed opinion on who's right.- Listen to Consistently Candid on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or via RSS- My blog post on suffering-focused utilitarianism- Follow Max on Twitter and check out his blog- Follow Sarah on Twitter Get full access to Aaron's Blog at www.aaronbergman.net/subscribe

As you prepare to close out the Summer of 2024 this Labor Day weekend, there is no better way to do so than to pop in the earbuds and judge the ever-loving-hell out of some obnoxious parents, people putting plants and fairy lights in their fridge, and mothers depriving their daughters of awesome designer handbags out of pure spite. Follow the podcast on Insta: @shttheydonttellyou Follow Nikki on Insta: @NikkiLimo Follow Steve on Insta: @SteveGreeneComedy To visit our Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/stikki To watch the podcast on YouTube: http://bit.ly/STDTYPodYouTube Don't forget to subscribe to the podcast for free wherever you're listening, or by using this link: http://bit.ly/ShtTheyDontTellYou If you want to support the show, and get all our episodes ad-free go to: https://stdty.supercast.tech/ If you like the show, telling a friend about it would be amazing! You can text, email, Tweet, or send this link to a friend: http://bit.ly/ShtTheyDontTellYou To submit your questions/feedback, email us at: podcast@nikki.limo To call in with questions/feedback, leave us a voicemail at: (765) 734-0840 To watch more Nikki & Steve on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/nikkilimo To watch more of Nikki talking about Poker: https://www.twitch.tv/trickniks To check out Nikki's Jewelry Line: https://kittensandcoffee.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is a catch-up version of James O'Brien's live, daily show on LBC Radio. To join the conversation call: 0345 60 60 973

Repugnant, And Completely Unacceptable https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/campus-protests-gaza #peoplearerevolting twitter.com/peoplerevolting Peoplearerevolting.com movingtrainradio.com

TRIGGER AND CONTENT WARNING FOR THIS EPISODE: We delve into some of the controversial topics surrounding black and death metal, such as C*nibalism, N*crophelia, N*zism, blood and other nasty stuff. Feel free to skip if you are affected by these topics and keep yourself safe

MAGA Republicans have forfeited all rights to be covered in the media as a legitimate political party.  www.charlesbursell.com

Nehemiah 2:10 & 19 Thanks to everyone who supports TMBH at patreon.com/thetmbhpodcast You're the reason we can all do this together! Discuss the episode here Music by Jeff Foote

A Middle English bird cries out for mercy, while we suck down the WORST potpourri vanilla chemical peach asscrap

Steve Gruber discusses news and headlines

It's Repugnant's 18th birthday and all she wants is to go see the lights but she receives so much more when she discovers who she really is—the long lost princess, Rapunzel. Rapunzel is reunited with her father, the king, and learns that she has been given responsibilities and privileges as a princess. (originally aired 3/16/20) #kids, #christiankids, #storiesforchristiankids, #podcastforchristiankids, #familybibletime, #familydevotions, #godspromiseofprotection, #swordofthespirit, #whoweareinchrist, #iamachildofgod, #protection, #safety, #fishbytesforkids, #fishbitesforkids, #ronandcarriewebb, #roncarriewebb

The RUNDOWN S3 E204: Federal Judge Strikes Down CA's New 'Gun Free Zone' Law, Calling it "Repugnant" Please Support Our Sponsors:HITMAN INDUSTRIES - Visit them at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.hitmanindustries.net/⁠⁠⁠⁠THE CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN ASSEMBLY - Visit them at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://cragop.org/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠USCOMBATGEAR.COM⁠⁠⁠ - Visit them at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.uscombatgear.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠HAWG HOLSTERS - Visit them at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.hawgholsters.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/2anewsrundown/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/2anewsrundown/support

Donald Trump was stealing words from Mein Kampf and quoting Vladimir Putin in a weekend speech. And his supporters love it.

On today's episode, David and Sarah break down the most interesting Supreme Court argument of this term and what it means for the future of double jeopardy law. But first, they have to shout out the dating site that is the AO comment section. Also on the docket: -Mistrials vs. double jeopardy -Federal rights and state interpretations -The coolest word you've never used -David calls for thoughtful comments -How to lose with valor at SCOTUS -Fifth circuit on the brain -A second bite of the Rahimi apple -Revealing AO's next long-awaited guest Show notes: -SNL: Weights and Measures with Nate Bargatze -McElrath v. Georgia -Blockburger v. United States -Fifth Circuit and Rahimi Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We can ruin easily ruin our prayers, say the Sages. How, why, and how to avoid this problem addressed in brief in the Parsha Pick-Me-Up.

In this episode, the Gwartney Team discusses Derek Parfit's Mere Addition Paradox relating happiness and population. Parfit's "Repugnant Conclusion" is that a huge population living a life of little happiness, is preferable to a small, but universally happy population. Join us as we break down this paradox from a faith perspective. Philosophical ideas of a beneficial society / 3.00 Should society push for population growth? / 10.15 Arguments against the Mere Addition Paradox / 15.00 Is Z better than A? / 24.45 The Drake Equation for General Welfare / 30.30 Reasons and Persons-Derek Parfit The Trolley Problem, What Would Jesus Do? | #84

Naomi Karavani, RM Brown, and Branko Marcetic join Ben Burgis to say goodbye to Tucker Carlson's show on Fox. You can read Ben's article "Tucker Carlson Is a Repugnant, Pseudo-Populist Fraud" here:https://jacobin.com/2023/04/tucker-carlson-populism-ruling-class-minimum-wage-medicare-for-all-war/...and Branko's article "Tucker Carlson Isn't an Anti-Imperialist — He's a Rabid China Hawk" here:https://jacobin.com/2023/04/tucker-carlson-imperialist-china-hawkBefore that, Ben and the GTAA crew talk a bit about May Day and the (ongoing) struggle for a shorter workweek, play a clip of Kyle Kulinski talking about Ben's article on that, and promote the class on Proudhon's "Philosophy of Poverty" and Marx's "Philosophy of Poverty" starting on the GTAA Patreon in May. In the postgame for patrons, Producer Jordan joins us to talk about Slavoj Žižek's mutlipolarity article in Compact.Follow Naomi on Twitter: @naomikaravaniFollow Branko on Twitter: @BMarchetichFollow RM on Twitter:  @xrmbrownx2Follow Producer Jordan on Twitter: @jayohardeeayenFollow Ben on Twitter: @BenBurgisFollow GTAA on Twitter: @Gtaa_ShowBecome a GTAA Patron and receive numerous benefits ranging from patron-exclusive postgames every Monday night to our undying love and gratitude for helping us keep this thing going:patreon.com/benburgisRead the weekly philosophy Substack:benburgis.substack.comVisit benburgis.com

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Repugnant levels of violins, published by Solenoid Entity on April 12, 2023 on LessWrong. This is a rambling post about the repugnant conclusion, mass-manufacturing, metis and woo, and the fragility of expert discernment — through the lens of my experiences playing, repairing, and selling violins. (And eating discount sushi.) Epistemic status: Discussing utilitarianism-related issues that I'm poorly educated on. (Through the lens of violins, on which I fare much better.) Come for the interesting violin stuff, (don't stay for the philosophy unless you want to watch me repeatedly hitting myself on the head.) If you work in a violin shop, answering the question "how much should I spend on a violin for my child" is hard to do without revealing that you're a huge nerd. Playing violin is great. It's the most important instrument. Teaching it is a challenge. How do you help someone progress from playing like 'oh no' girl to, like, 'wow, she's only three?!' to a really, really good college graduate to being literally Jascha Heifetz? And more fundamentally: what makes Jascha Heifetz sound so damn good, and how did he get there? I think if you zoom out far enough, there are three interlinked factors at play in a violinist's ✨ sound ✨: What does their technical ability facilitate them doing, restrict them from doing, and what does it lead them towards doing? This comprises all of their movement-based competencies, the 'muscle-memory' they develop, the actual physical mechanics of how, through decades of intensive practice, their body has perfectly exapted the violin as the physical part of their aural proprioception. What are the bounds of their audiation? This is their musical creativity and imagination, the sound they hear in their head when they imagine playing. It's the mental and emotional component of their aural proprioception. Even though classical violinists are playing music written by someone else, there's creativity and emotion in their interpretation. Compare this, this, this, this, and this. Just like developing your own writing style, some of this you get from listening to other violinists play. Some of it you generate yourself through your own practice. Do they have a good instrument? Some violins sound better than others. The best violins in the world are prized (partly) for their unique, beautiful voices. Violins are usually made of wood (normally spruce and maple), and even now are almost all handmade to some extent (with more and more machine assistance for mass-produced ones). Very small differences between instruments make a big difference in sound quality. The craft of making really great violins is shrouded in centuries of metis and woo. There'll be a whole post on this, at some point, but suffice it to say that the people who make amazing violins, today, don't even themselves know precisely how they do it, and they contradict each other and themselves constantly. They sure do make them, though. Just take my word for it that a good violin matters, a lot. The above implies six one-way interactions between the factors. For this post, I just want you to take my word on three of them (keeping in mind they're part of this ever-pushing-pulling triangle): Having a good violin helps you to develop your audiation. Having a bad violin makes it hard to develop good technique. (And the obvious) Better violins just produce better sound for any given input. A good player can make a bad violin sound good, up to a point. At a certain point, a good player needs a good violin in order to improve their technique and audiation. Like how your skill as a race-car driver is sorta independent of the car you drive, BUT at a certain point you're going to need a Formula-1 car to compete at the top level, AND you won't even develop the skillset to drive a car like that if you've ne...

Chip Scoggins joins to chat about the Luis Arraez trade, NFL playoff games and much more before Chad speaks on a few topics including Jason Whitlock's disgusting use of the R word in a tweet.

Meta is in the process of deciding if President Trump should be allowed on Facebook and Instagram. This is a major and polarizing decision. Lance provides his opinion in this monologue.

Marjorie Taylor Greene is at it again, showing us what kind of person she really is while speaking about January 6th recently. Plus, an incoming State Representative in Minnesota make a startling comparison between slavery and vaccine mandates.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Minimalist extended very repugnant conclusions are the least repugnant, published by Teo Ajantaival on October 24, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. This is part four of a series on minimalist axiologies (i.e. axiologies that essentially say “the less this, the better”). Every part of this series builds on the previous parts, but can also be read independently. Summary Population axiology matters greatly for our priorities. Recently, it has been claimed that all plausible axiological views imply certain “very repugnant conclusions” (defined below). In this response, I argue that minimalist views avoid these “very repugnant conclusions”, and that they face less repugnant conclusions than do contrasting offsetting views. 1. Are repugnant implications inevitable? In population axiology, certain offsetting views, according to which independent bads can be offset by a sufficient amount of independent goods, face the Very Repugnant Conclusion (VRC): A population of arbitrarily many lives with arbitrarily high welfare is worse than a population of arbitrarily many arbitrarily negative lives plus sufficiently many ε-lives that each have an arbitrarily small quantity of positive welfare (Figure 1). Offsetting views also allow the ε-lives in the VRC to be rollercoaster lives that all contain unbearable suffering (purportedly counterbalanced by a sufficient amount of bliss). In particular, symmetric classical utilitarianism implies interchangeability between a non-suffering ε-life and the rollercoaster life illustrated in Figure 2 (provided that the “overall welfare” of the rollercoaster life equals ε). Additionally, one may replace each non-suffering ε-life in the original VRC with an intrapersonal VRC life (Figure 3). Recently, Budolfson and Spears (2018) have argued that all plausible views in population ethics imply similarly repugnant conclusions, namely that they imply either the VRC or a closely analogous Extended VRC (XVRC), which I illustrate shortly at the beginning of Section 2. The purpose of this essay is to argue that this claim does not apply to minimalist views. In a nutshell: minimalist views avoid the VRC, can avoid repugnant XVRCs, and, at any rate, face XVRCs that are less repugnant than are the comparable conclusions faced by offsetting views. Three claims Budolfson and Spears (2018, pp. 31–32) make the following three claims: Claim 1: No leading welfarist axiology can avoid the VRC. Claim 2: No other welfarist axiology in the literature can avoid the XVRC. Claim 3: The XVRC is just as repugnant as the VRC. The authors conclude that: Repugnant implications are an inevitable feature of any plausible axiology. If repugnance cannot be avoided, then it should not be. We believe this should be among the guiding insights for the next generation of work in value theory. Claim 1 does not apply to minimalist axiologies The scope of Claim 1 (“No leading welfarist axiology can avoid the VRC”) is limited to ‘leading' welfarist axiologies, that is to views that, according to the authors, are commonly-held in the axiological literature (p. 8). These do not cover minimalist axiologies, although axiologies that are essentially minimalist have been defended, for instance, by Schopenhauer (1818/1819, 1851), Wolf (1996, 1997, 2004), Fehige (1998), Breyer (2015), and Knutsson (2021b, “axiological claim”). To the extent that the VRC seems repugnant, it is worth noting that all minimalist axiologies do avoid the VRC, and can do so neatly without relying on arbitrary or ad hoc assumptions. Claim 2 requires that we extend the XVRC Claim 2 (“No other welfarist axiology in the literature can avoid the XVRC”) is not straightforward to evaluate, because the original XVRC, as the authors define it, applies strictly only to views that make the assumption of independently aggregable ...

Econtalk Podcast Notes Key Takeaways Effective altruism involves billionaires creating various institutions to give away their money to charity in a manner they deem effectiveDue to the core of the movement being utilitarian, the effective altruism movement ends up having many repugnant and strange conclusions “Maximizing the most good for the most number of people” can lead to repugnant conclusions when applied at-scaleChanging the scale of these simple thought experiments adds complexities that completely change the calculus of the scenario Not only should you not have the birthday party for your son, but you're morally obligated to spend less time with your son so you can work more and send more money to help solve the malaria crisis in AfricaThe repugnant conclusion of never-ending well-being arbitrage: everyone ends up with a life that is just barely above the subsistence level Effective altruism wants to arbitrage all the extra happiness away and fairly distribute it amongst the global population Trading instances of good and evil is not fungible in the way that utilitarians want it to be The effective altruism movement is an attempt to formulate morality from the top-down, which is antithetical to how morals have emerged since the dawn of humanity Utilitarianism treats good and evil as big mounds of dirt of varying sizes; Theoretically following the logic of utility, if enough people stub their toe over time, its respective pile of dirt could become larger than the pain-caused-from-WW2 pile of dirt Economists often neglect qualitative components when forming policy and only account for the quantitative when making moral equivalencies, which results in bad policy Charity is good; there are aspects of the effective altruism movement that are good, but the mandate to maximize it at scale deserves to be questioned and investigatedRead the full notes @ podcastnotes.orgNeuroscientist Erik Hoel talks about why he is not an "effective altruist" with EconTalk host, Russ Roberts. Hoel argues that the utilitarianism that underlies effective altruism--a movement co-founded by Will MacAskill and Peter Singer--is a poison that inevitably leads to repugnant conclusions and thereby weakens the case for the strongest claims made by effective altruists.

Econtalk: Read the notes at at podcastnotes.org. Don't forget to subscribe for free to our newsletter, the top 10 ideas of the week, every Monday --------- Neuroscientist Erik Hoel talks about why he is not an "effective altruist" with EconTalk host, Russ Roberts. Hoel argues that the utilitarianism that underlies effective altruism--a movement co-founded by Will MacAskill and Peter Singer--is a poison that inevitably leads to repugnant conclusions and thereby weakens the case for the strongest claims made by effective altruists.

Econtalk Podcast Notes Key Takeaways Effective altruism involves billionaires creating various institutions to give away their money to charity in a manner they deem effectiveDue to the core of the movement being utilitarian, the effective altruism movement ends up having many repugnant and strange conclusions “Maximizing the most good for the most number of people” can lead to repugnant conclusions when applied at-scaleChanging the scale of these simple thought experiments adds complexities that completely change the calculus of the scenario Not only should you not have the birthday party for your son, but you're morally obligated to spend less time with your son so you can work more and send more money to help solve the malaria crisis in AfricaThe repugnant conclusion of never-ending well-being arbitrage: everyone ends up with a life that is just barely above the subsistence level Effective altruism wants to arbitrage all the extra happiness away and fairly distribute it amongst the global population Trading instances of good and evil is not fungible in the way that utilitarians want it to be The effective altruism movement is an attempt to formulate morality from the top-down, which is antithetical to how morals have emerged since the dawn of humanity Utilitarianism treats good and evil as big mounds of dirt of varying sizes; Theoretically following the logic of utility, if enough people stub their toe over time, its respective pile of dirt could become larger than the pain-caused-from-WW2 pile of dirt Economists often neglect qualitative components when forming policy and only account for the quantitative when making moral equivalencies, which results in bad policy Charity is good; there are aspects of the effective altruism movement that are good, but the mandate to maximize it at scale deserves to be questioned and investigatedRead the full notes @ podcastnotes.orgNeuroscientist Erik Hoel talks about why he is not an "effective altruist" with EconTalk host, Russ Roberts. Hoel argues that the utilitarianism that underlies effective altruism--a movement co-founded by Will MacAskill and Peter Singer--is a poison that inevitably leads to repugnant conclusions and thereby weakens the case for the strongest claims made by effective altruists.

Worry less about your ritual עִנּוּיִים, and more about the actual daily עִנּוּיִים of the poor and the downtrodden

Neuroscientist Erik Hoel talks about why he is not an "effective altruist" with EconTalk host, Russ Roberts. Hoel argues that the utilitarianism that underlies effective altruism--a movement co-founded by Will MacAskill and Peter Singer--is a poison that inevitably leads to repugnant conclusions and thereby weakens the case for the strongest claims made by effective altruists.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-the-909 (Original post here) 1: Petey writes: When I think of happiness 0.01, I don't think of someone on the edge of suicide. I shudder at the thought of living the sorts of lives the vast majority of people have lived historically, yet almost all of them have wanted and tried to prolong their lives. Given how evolution shaped us, it makes sense that we are wired to care about our survival and hope for things to be better, even under great duress. So a suicidal person would have a happiness level well under 0, probably for an extended period of time. If you think of a person with 0.01 happiness as someone whose life is pretty decent by our standards, the repugnant conclusion doesn't seem so repugnant. If you take a page from the negative utilitarians' book (without subscribing fully to them), you can weight the negatives of pain higher than the positives of pleasure, and say that neutral needs many times more pleasure than pain because pain is more bad than pleasure is good. Another way to put it is that a life of 0.01 happiness is a life you must actually decide you'd want to live, in addition to your own life, if you had the choice to. If your intuition tells you that you wouldn't want to live it, then its value is not truly >0, and you must shift the scale. Then, once your intuition tells you that this is a life you'd marginally prefer to get to experience yourself, then the repugnant conclusion no longer seems repugnant. This is a good point, but two responses.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The Repugnant Conclusion Isn't, published by AppliedDivinityStudies on August 23, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. There is nothing bad in each of these lives; but there is little happiness, and little else that is good. The people in Z never suffer; but all they have is muzak and potatoes. - Derek Parfit, Overpopulation and the Quality of Life The image of World Z provokes an unsettling cognitive dissonance. It forces us to confront the possibility that any degree of happiness, no matter how magnificent, can be outweighed by arbitrarily small pleasures multiplied across a sufficiently large population. Imagining this kind of mediocrity, we can hardly endorse it over a small yet ecstatic utopia. And yet, I feel strongly that this perceived tension is due entirely to a failure of the imagination. When Parfit says “muzak and potatoes”, perhaps you conjure up the image of a medieval European peasant, covered in mud, living in squalor, only just barely getting by. But read again more carefully: “There is nothing bad in each of these lives”. Although it sounds mundane, I contend that this is nearly incomprehensible. Can you actually imagine what it would be like to never have anything bad happen to you? We don't describe such a as mediocre, we describe it as “charmed” or “overwhelmingly privileged”. After all, each of our lives are absolutely filled with bad things. Some of these are obvious (injury, illness, the loss of a loved one), but mostly they just exist as a kind of dull background pain we've grown to accept. The bad things are, as Simone Weil put it, the “countless horrors which lie beyond tears”. In stark contrast, consider Parfit's vision of World Z both seriously and literally. These are lives with no pain, no loneliness or depression, no loss or fear, no anxiety, no aging, no disease, nor decay. Not ever a single moment of sorrow. These are lives free entirely from every minor ache and cramp, from desire, from jealousy, from greed, and from every other sin that poisons the heart. Free from the million ills that plague and poke at ordinary people. It is thus less the world of peasants, and closer to that of subdued paradise. The closest analog we can imagine is perhaps a Buddhist sanctuary, each member so permanently, universally and profoundly enlightened that they no longer experience suffering of any kind. And that's not all! Parfit further tells us that their lives are net positive. And so in addition to never experiencing any unpleasantness of any degree, they also experience simple pleasures. A “little happiness”, small nearly to the point of nothingness, yet enough to tip the scales. Perhaps the warmth of basking under a beam of sun, the gentle nourishment of simple meals, or just the low-level background satisfaction of a slow Sunday morning. Properly construed, that is the world Parfit would have us imagine. Not a mediocre world of “muzak and potatoes”, but a kind of tranquil nirvana beyond pain. And that is a world I have no problem endorsing. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Every adjunct college professor dreams of having a full-time, tenure-track position. Cynthia Vacca Davis was offered a tenured position teaching English at a small Bible College, a job that offered a good salary with benefits. The problem was, Cynthia had just agreed to be a supporter of her friend Danny, who had just come out as an intersex male after living well into his adulthood as a female. The president of the Unnamed Bible College (UBS) pretty much lost his dull, tiny mind upon hearing about Cynthia's friend and her plan to write about Danny in her MFA program. So, Cynthia had to make a choice: sign the violently anti-LGBTQIA faith statement to get the job or forego the job in hopes of finding something else. Evangelical schools make every student, faculty, and staff member sign statements of faith that contain all manner of indefensible garbage, and many sign it in bad faith, choosing to ignore the statement and still be in good standing at the school. I have a whole book about doing this, myself. But Cynthia couldn't bring herself to attach her name to a school that expressed such overt hatred towards so many people in the world. She has a book, Intersexion, from Lake Drive Books about her and Danny's journeys that I hope you all will buy and read. I know I learned a lot about intersex people from it. Chapel Probation is part of the Dauntless Media Collective Music by Scott Okamoto and Hauskatt (Jen Lee) aka Jenyi. Join the Chapel Probation Patreon to support Scott and for bonus content. Join the Chapel Probation Facebook group to continue the conversations. Follow Scott on Instagram and Twitter rscottokamoto.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/scott-okamoto/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scott-okamoto/support

Please consider supporting my work-Patreon- https://www.patreon.com/nowayjose2020Only costs $2/month and will get you access to episodes earlier than the public and exclusive live streamsCheck out TopLobsta's kickass threads- toplobsta.comUse JOSE at checkout for 10% offGet No Way, Jose! merch- https://www.toplobsta.com/pages/no-way-jose#libertarian #josegalison #thelibertymovement #anarchy #anarchocapitalism #liberty #agorism #TLM #nowayjose #lgbtq #abortion #bigotry #HeidiBriones #libertarianpartyNo Way, Jose! Odysee Channel- https://odysee.com/@NoWayJose:7?r=JChxx9RMmW9PuL49z3PvTq4sxE2GjJrpNo Way, Jose! YouTube Channel- https://youtube.com/channel/UCzyrpy3eo37eiRTq0cXff0gMy Podcast Host- https://redcircle.com/shows/no-way-joseApple podcasts- https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/no-way-jose/id1546040443Spotify- https://open.spotify.com/show/0xUIH4pZ0tM1UxARxPe6ThStitcher- https://www.stitcher.com/show/no-way-jose-2Amazon Music- https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/41237e28-c365-491c-9a31-2c6ef874d89d/No-Way-JoseGoogle Podcasts- https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5yZWRjaXJjbGUuY29tL2ZkM2JkYTE3LTg2OTEtNDc5Ny05Mzc2LTc1M2ExZTE4NGQ5Yw%3D%3DRadioPublic- https://radiopublic.com/no-way-jose-6p1BAO Vurbl- https://vurbl.com/station/4qHi6pyWP9B/Feel free to contact me at thelibertymovementglobal@gmail.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Links from Today’s Show: James 5: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+5&version=MSG 1st Amendment: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ 2nd Amendment: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/ 5th Amendment: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment Food company’s in control : https://www.coreysdigs.com/global/new-controlled-food-system-is-now-in-place-and-they-will-stop-at-nothing-to-accelerate-their-control/ Legal Ivermectin: https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/new-hampshire-senate-committee-passes-no-prescription-ivermectin-bill_4434206.html “FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING”: https://declineandfall.blog/2021/07/20/does-fraud-vitiate-everything/ Marbury v. Madison: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/marbury-v-madison Websters- Infringe: https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/infringe Repugnant: https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/repugnant […]

Elif Batuman reads her story “The Repugnant Conclusion,” from the April 25 & May 2, 2022, issue of the magazine. Batuman is the author of “The Possessed: Adventures with Russian Books and the People Who Read Them” and the novel “The Idiot,” which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. “The Repugnant Conclusion” was adapted from her second novel, “Either/Or,” which will be published in May. 

The Cowboys chose the worst time to suffer an embarrassing loss. While the officiating was poor, the Cowboys gave themselves embarrassing results. Are the Cowboys worthy of winning a playoff game? Based on their performance against Arizona, ABSOLUTELY NOT. Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy