Watch Studio C Mondays at 10pm ET/8pm MT on BYUtv. Watch full episodes of Studio C online here: byutv.org/studioc Like Studio C on Facebook: / studioctv
It was simple you just take the type of shoes multiply it by how old it is check the color of the hair divide it by the number of protons in a wonton then subtract by the number of neutrons in a notebook. And boom the name in mandarin.
@@preasidium13 Out of curiosity, you mean Immanuel Kant right? I'm not familiar with any modern german philosophers with the name Kant other than Immanuel himself. I've never heard him Arvid Rovall Kant either.
@@No-vu7pc Bank Owners are people who are greedy- That money is definitely insured and honestly, this is probably the best outcome for both parties (thieves and bank)
And yet Jason was the best of the three. So open to criticism and changing his position based on new information. Though, also somewhat gullible it must be said.
@@Spirantizer unironically, there are a lot of transferable skills from philosophy to other disciplines. It gives a good foundation for thinking and reasoning that are useful elsewhere, such as science and law.
@@outlawjoe5447 for sure we assign different morality codes for different groups and that keeps specific groups trusting each other, but the fact that there are different codes for different people shows the break down in society on a larger level, so Matt’s rebuttal to Jeremy wasn’t entirely wrong, even if there are certain codes we live by to specific groups. Thoughts?
@@mikegillettify morality is nothing that is permanently, morality changes with time. this day some may find it acceptable to kill humans for some reasons, others not. maybe some time every human will never accept that killing humans is right, therefore morality changed. i would even argue that since globalisation and the process of speaking with nearly everyone one the planet, brought morality concepts closer. i would even argue that by 200 years, give or take, the morality on this planet would be nearly unified.
"I thought there'd be a security system" "I AM the security system!" "Not yet." ... "You're forgetting about the moral theory of-"-taser-"-UNLIMITED POWER!!!"
"Jason if you are still confused at this point you are your own enemy and there is nothing of worth in your cognition." That's seems meme worthy, maybe just shorten it to "if you are still confused at this point then you are your own enemy and there is nothing of worth in your cognition," that'd actually be good for a calculus teach to put on there wall, to get the students in the mood of calculus. Food for thought.
"But you are forgetting about the moral theory of umm." *zaps her with stun gun* "eh two out of three's not bad." This is wonderful somebody give these people... something, I don't have any cookies so they should just take laughs, or something that I can give.
I've got a friend at church who is a Philosophy professor but was a police officer for 30 years before getting his PhD. I would totally watch a show centered around a police officer using this sort of technique on his daily beat :D you guys definitely need to do more skits with this character. He could disrupt a drug deal, stop a purse-snatcher, or neutralize a hit man ^__^
Joseph Haroldsen There's a show on PBS called Father Brown featuring a sleuthing priest who rather than uses deduction to solve mysteries uses history, philosophy and psychology. He's not a cop but close enough. 😂
" But what if it's Grandma's gold" " We just found out that we can't trust each other because we're theives and that our pinkies don't mean anything anymore Jeremy" " Oooohhhhh my cognition guys!" I love these! :)
I think the only thing that could have made this video better would have been if Matt never stood up from his chair. Then he would single-handedly stopped the bank robbery, all while comfortably sitting in his chair, reading his book. Getting up and walking around forces him to do more physical acting, which isn't really necessary. The dialogue alone is strong enough to make it great even if he never moves. Just my thoughts, you probably disagree, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I hope they make more of the practical philosopher, he's one of my favorites of their characters.
I feel the same. If he would have never gotten up, it would have demonstrated just how much power he held over the situation - commanding three armed robbers from the comfort of a chair without even looking at them.
+Calubur (With a K) Actually the Doctor uses principles of different areas, he did in fact use a philosophical argument in his speech against war in "The Zygon Inversion" from what I understand about that episode. A philosophical solution of cooperation stemming from the fact you don't know what side you're on has been expressed in "The Day of The Doctor".
@@ABlindSniper115 I'm not sure why, but I feel like learning about multiple philosophies and how they clash would over complicate my thought process. Perhaps I'm not smart enough to handle it? Haha
Do you agree with the line of reasoning wherin Matt takes Jeremy's point to the extreme? They obviously aren't choosing the allies at random; the allies are chosen based on common goals. I feel as if the argument is missing something. Am I worng?
I have used this on a group who was bullying me before and they turned on each other so fast. This tactic works great on people who don't have direct explanations for what they do.
Linnaeus Kuderewko Let's see it was 3rd grade and I was being picked on by 3 5th graders who thought they were cool. One day I had enough of their harassment during recess, and I basically tricked them into finding out that they were only doing this to me because they had nothing better to do. They stopped picking on me after that. As for the exact conversation it happened 10 years ago. Of course the conversation was no where near a scholarly sounding as this, but I still used the main topics of misdirection to stop them. Thanks for your interest you two :D
+Monica Mail find the difference there are 2 lollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
+Oryxiann Indeed, you are incorrect. Joyce was evidently referring to the l's following the "lol" because there are two uniform differences and one that is completely different and far more obvious. You might say, "Oh, but the o _is_ different" Of course, following that logic, you could say that there are greatly many differences counting each unique letter in her comment. Your fatal flaw is that you assumed Joyce was lying, but rather you and Thomas both misinterpreted Joyce's intention and thus are incorrect. The proper answer is that the two differences are the capital i's, emboldened here: "lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll *I* llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll *I* lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll" You can twist a person's words to fit your needs, but the only meaningful and truthful information comes from the intention behind their words.
