prageru.com

Posted by ZenRoy 1 month, 2 weeks ago to Philosophy
26 comments | Share | Flag

This came up on another thread, however I thought it worth a call out in its own.
If you have not seen this site and watched some of the 5 minutes videos they are making I really recommended it.

There are a few that argue for the exist of god, which many here will not like. I personally like those as well.

Otherwise they have very good capitalist, economic and political arguments that are presented extremely well most of the time in 5 minute segments.

I find the philosophy of the company and its videos to be largely in line with my own.
SOURCE URL: https://www.prageru.com/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by term2 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    The whole concept of a god really makes no sense at all. There are so many "gods" postulated by humans- will the "true" god please identify .

    I think the way a single human should act when alone with nature is just rooted in the desire to survive.

    Once there are more people, they have to look at the nature of people and come up with what I would call "natural" laws. AR did that and came up with a pretty workable philosophy that doesnt require believing in some mythical "god" you cant see, hear, or no anything about except from a "book" written thousands of years ago by random people.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Solver 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      I have a problem with the God is God or God is perfect, so who are we mere mortals to judge him aspect.

      I have read what he/she/it has presumably done and I will judge those actions!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        The whole god thing is very confusing and inconsistent. I can see why some people like the concept, as in a way it means they dont have to think and accept reality.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Steven-Wells 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        Your multi-pronoun usage goads me into presenting the following (admittedly very long) material from my campaign website when I ran for Congress in 2008.

        ==========
        My Talk to Me page:

        You are my constituency. Send me your viewpoints and suggestions.

        I will be happy to consider your well-reasoned arguments or suggestions, even if they are contrary to my currently expressed positions. I am always learning, and a subtle point might have eluded me.
        Click the [link no longer active] link to send me any of:
        • Your opinions.
        • Ideas based on civil principles.
        • Points of law.
        • Arguments based on logic.
        • Proofs in the form of scientific data or peer-reviewed theory.
        • Your wild “What if?” ideas.

        Courts don’t accept hearsay as evidence of anything, and neither do I.
        I will disregard all arguments based only on a religious doctrine or religious tradition. Do not claim that you are speaking for a deity, even for your favorite deity or a very popular deity, because I won’t believe your second-hand interpretation of your deity’s/deities’ will.
        If you have Religious Proof to convince me, click the link.
        ==========
        My Religious Proof page:

        Religious Proof?

        I am open-minded and receptive to firsthand discussions and experiences. If you are one who says, “I have a close personal relationship with God,” share that personal relationship.
        Please have your deity contact me directly, and I will be profoundly delighted to hear from Him/Her/It/HimHer/HerHim/Them.

        He/She/It/HeShe/SheHe/They may contact me by any of the following, according to His/Her/Its/HisHer/HerHis/Their preference:
        • Click the [link no longer active] link to e-mail me. [Do not click the link if unable to transcend deific verisimilitude.]
        • Call me at [phone number redacted].
        • Mail me via the U.S. Postal Service.
        • Send me material through a delivery service (FedEx/UPS/DHL/&c.) or a private courier.
        • FAX me at my daytime work location. (Omniscience is required to divine the number.)
        • Send money to my PayPal account.
        • Appear in a miraculous manifestation.

        Thou must present thyself through one of the above, because:
        “Invisible gods are non-existent gods in disguise.” [Steve Wells — 2007 August 6]

        I would ask that any deity contacting me include as much of the following information as possible:
        • Any preferred name and the best spelling in American English.
        • Thy preferred second and third person [deity] pronouns.
        • If Thou art afflicted with multiple personality disorder (as the most popular American deity/deities may appear to be) Thy preferred personality [or divine manifestation.]
        • Thy return e-mail address.
        • Any divine website, static IP address, or heavenly postal or delivery address.
        • A phone number for calling back and the best time to call.
        • Any suggestions, ideas, solutions, or commands.

        Please note that I do not discriminate against any deity because of:
        • Status as compared to other deities.
        • Gender, or lack of same.
        • The intentioned or misguided words and actions of would-be followers.
        • Association with non-Americans or extra-terrestrial beings.
        • Variform nomenclature across cultures; for example, being known in ancient Egypt as the sun god, Ra, but to the Aztecs as the lord of the dawn, Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli.
        • Anthropomorphic form, animalism, or nebulous manifestation.
        • Exterior color.
        • Physical proportions.

        But unlike people with physical or mental disabilities, deities with such impairments should stay out of earthly affairs.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    It's a good site, ZenRoy. A number of these videos have been posted in the Gulch before. (You can search on keyword prageru to see the topics posted, but that won't show you the additional links posted as comments;^) Thanks for reminding us of it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      On of my favorites thus far is "The Black Card" which is done by a black woman about the victim status and the damage it does to use it.

      The truly sad thing is about 10% of their videos are blocked by you tube, so if you want to see them all go to the site, not youTube.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    I've watched PragerU videos for years. They used to have a method that kept track of the one's you've seen and tested on. Since they took that away there is no way to keep track anymore. Since I've seen so many, and have no idea which ones, I hardly watch anymore. In any case, most are exceptionally well done, no hype, just historical and factual. I recommend sending links to children and grandchildren.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by PeterSmith 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    I know this will probably be unpopular but prageru is NOT capitalist as can be seen with their leftist lawsuit against YouTube.
    This is largely a consequence of their religiosity which prevents one from being able to approach things rationally.
    Like most conservative groups, prageru is a religious, collectivist and all round, politically illiterate, left wing group.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Wow. I don't know what you've been watching of theirs, but I couldn't take a more opposite viewpoint. Yes, Prager is religious and doesn't shy away from religious questions in his videos, but he's also invited people who share very different values to comment, including Ben Shapiro (Jew), Dave Rubin (the Rubin Report - leftist gay), and many others. If there are specific things in the videos you disagree with, feel free to post them here for discussion, but I haven't come across a single one (of the dozens I've watched) which adheres to the mantra you assign them. The fact that many of his video's have been banned by YouTube only bolsters my opinion of him as being a free thinker we should support.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by lrshultis 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        There is a difference between being a free thinker and a free speaker. One is a free speaker with the protected free speech liberty against the government. One is free to speak anywhere but does not have liberty to do so in private situations where the owner does not want it. One may be ejected for unwanted speech in a private situation. You tube is a non government business and can do whatever it wants with content on its site whether it is against government or not. It is up to the user whether he wants to use it with their rules or not.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 2 weeks ago
          While I agree that YouTube is a private business, the reasons for their demonitization and outright blocking of many of Prager's videos stems from intolerance and bigotry - not from legitimate content gripes. And it is this intolerance (which flies in the face of their advertised purpose and use) which is so intolerable. If they openly admitted their bias, it would be one thing. They don't, however, and instead attempt to hide behind "editorial privilege" which is nothing more than open censorship.

          Many of my favorite firearms channels (mostly reviews of specific firearms and ammunition) are facing the same hidden censorship. Again, I don't have a problem if your policy openly states "no videos about firearms or using firearms", but their terms are cached in vague generalities such that they can make an offender of anyone they choose with little or no substantiation of their position or recourse for the applicant.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by TheRealBill 1 month, 1 week ago
            That sounds like my position: feel free to host or not whom ever you want, but be open and up front about it. When you advertise neutrality and are not that is fraud in my eyes. When you have terms of service you have a contract. If you break it you should be liable for the result.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by lrshultis 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            "Buyer beware" is all that should happen. Be an individual and make your choices to use or not to use any business. If You Tube wanted to have those videos, it would do so. Your wish to have certain videos against their business plans can only be achieved if it is in their interest. It appears not to be so. Do you want the government to step in with a law that they must accept the videos, etc. that you want? You could start your own business and post whatever you want as long as it does not violate certain limited laws against such as child porn and trafficking of humans by force. Just because you have favorites, does not mean you can have them free from others.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 2 weeks ago
              You are missing the point. I have already agreed with you that YouTube should have the right to do what it wants. But they should also make it very clear where their loyalties lie. caveat emptor only works when the seller is honest about their rules and intentions. That is where my problem lies with YouTube (and most of the lamestream media as well): they advertise themselves as open to everyone. It isn't until you run afoul of their hidden agenda (as PragerU has) that the problems actually surface. It's dishonest, and I do believe that dishonesty should be punishable by law.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Solver 1 month, 2 weeks ago
              As the polarization of America progresses and people take sides, the mobs, businesses and of course government, are becoming more politically influenced and active. Even these banks or credit card companies may decide to suddenly drop you or a business you use without any notice. Yaron Brook does not see a good outcome in all of this.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Fish 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      The lawsuit is trying to protect the freedom of speech. Do you think that that is a leftist flag? The leftist attitude was banning dozens of their videos for being politically incorrect, the opposite to freedom of speech.
      Another thing, the last phrase implies that ALL conservatives are religious, collectivists and politcally illiterate, and left wing. I disagree with several of the implications. However, my disagreement with this phrase goes deeper. Hanging tags on people is not the kind of logic that I expect here.
      Peter, I believe that PragerU is fighting the same battle that you are.... i don't know what videos you've watched, but I have the opposite impression.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -2
        Posted by PeterSmith 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        Tech company banning someone, for any reason, IS free speech.
        It's sad how many conservatives don't understand the concept.
        Prager's lawsuit was a blatant assault on property right.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Fish 1 month, 2 weeks ago
          I thought that assault on property right was to exert violence to use another's property. Do you consider a lawsuit a violent action? If PragerU had broke some code and had the banned videos on air against YouTube actions, that would have been assault.

          And as for the specific case, I went to read the terms of service and I found the last clause:
          14.6 The Terms, and your relationship with YouTube under the Terms, shall be governed by English law. You and YouTube agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England to resolve any legal matter arising from the Terms.
          We'll see what English law says about the right of YT to ban a video arbitrarily.

          You made me think of the obligations that emerge to any provider of a public service: cinema, restaurant, website to publish content, etc. Maybe it is not as simple as "I do whatever it pleases me with the service or the people who come to my fiefdom"... I'm thinking.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by PeterSmith 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            Lawsuit IS exerting violence.
            Government is force. It's supposed to be used to protect rights, but confused leftists like Prager are trying to use it to violate.
            No one has any obligation as per your description and the idea of a "public service" is pure leftism.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Fish 1 month, 2 weeks ago
              As I don't believe it is legitimate to initiate violence to get anything, and I also believe a lawsuit is a legitimate way to protect any right (you can win or lose, by the way), then I disagree with your first statement. Being this your basic premise, there is no point in discussing anything further. Anyway, you made me think, so thanks.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by NealS 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      I also disagree with your view. You need to see some of the videos that YouTube banned, there is no religious content. I see it that You Tube only banned those because they didn't want any "followers" to actually see them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by PeterSmith 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        It doesn't matter. YouTube has the right to do this. If you don't support this, then you're not on the side of free speech or individual rights in general.
        Prager has demonstrated he is anti-individual rights, with his farcical lawsuit.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Solver 1 month, 2 weeks ago
          I do not support what many of these media providers are doing, So, I can take individual action. I do not support government picking winners and losers. But, they are involved in this at many level in many convoluted ways. These upcoming law suits will discover some of the truth.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by NealS 1 month, 2 weeks ago
          I view YouTube as some kind of public utility, if those are the right words, similar to any other utility company. Them banning any video that fits within the criteria of the posted "rules" is nothing more than discrimination, or maybe reverse discrimination. I'm not a lawyer, and I could be wrong, but I also have the right to say so, as does Prager. It's like I don't like the color of your house therefore you get no electricity. Free speech perhaps needs some new definitions. Or, perhaps we need to invent some new words to describe all the variances and interpretations of it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo