Good afternoon and welcome back to the touch line on Y-25 for Max Oluwaseke is my name, it's the fan favorite segment, the fan zone. Remember later on we discussing matters how sports can inspire economy, there is an indication that sport place is back, I don't know how to raise that and of course matters to do with finance and football, there was a summit that took place sponsored by Safari, com mobile service provider that will be forming the base of our discussion. Of course a lot of talking points with regards to that sector but right now is matters football international headlines and we saw Spain thrashing jam and six nil quite an upset Fredopenda is a man who's missed in action I don't know where he's been Fred, how have you been man? I've been good, ups and downs I was a little bit sick so that's why I've not been around for and you see nowadays when you say you are sick you have to be specific what you're suffering from of course of course not covid but of course even if it's covid we're not stigmatizing covid is there and of course we public about it most of us have suffered from it maybe without even knowing and we got well so there's no stigmatization about it but glad you say Fandweb yeah that's that's the good thing uh borau why borau hi yes you know Morgan is also coming on the show for the first time looks like she's a man united fan very proud donning the jazzy how are you wow good to be here thank you for having me nice to see you are a proud united fan but do I say it's evident oh it's evident yes are you getting between this afternoon by West Bromwich Albion says who no today actually it's quite unfortunate I have to support my team yes last time I was supporting Everton so today I have to support Manchester United and I'm very confident we are going to in this match so everyone out there Manchester United kichwa so you are support for united is flip flopping anyway bread yes we saw what happened in international football uf and nations league a lot of people are complaining about this tournament and why uf came up with this but maybe it's because of revenue so uf and nations league Spain six german nil okay what happened is this anytime jerky block and I can see it's it was no I I don't think so this is just a setback if it happens in football yeah it happens in football and as I wanted to say this COVID-19 19 thing has really affected football look look at even the top leagues setbacks here and there you know the small teams look at the trash the trashing of Liverpool by Aston Villa so I think it's a setback and it sends jerky blowback to the drawing board right now most of the teams are trying to bring up the young guys into the senior senior teams look at England if you look at the team which played the last game before we were resuming the league was a very young team so I think coaches are trying to bring up the young lads and this sometimes brings a setback so let him go back to the drawing board and I think hopefully he'll get back to the right track when we return for the next leg of international games you see when he's speaking about matters international football and we're speaking about managers in charge of various teams jerky blow's name has to feature prominently because he's been there one world cup with Germany in 2014 he's bagged a lot of accolades he's been a mainstream with the German national team I don't know do we continue giving him time because you know dynamics of football keep changing and even we saw the air of the likes of Saalex, Fagasonas and Venka, Jose Mourinho's tactics are being referred to us outdated old fashioned and the new and fresh blood is coming up is it high time mze can be put to rest so that we have a new man at the helm no the diamond shaft I think Maxwell you are you are quick to judge because given his age I believe with age comes with thumb so I'm looking back at what he has achieved well as you've mentioned look at 2014 world cup look at FIFA confederation in Russia 2017 and then look at his code he he has these young players there is kimich there is nabili there is sane so I only believe that he needs to work on his tactics and find a way where all these prayers can partner together and judging by what Germany has done before me I believe Joachim Rowe is the is the best man to take them to the next level and then we cannot just overrule his achievements over one loss look at Manchester Juzy to match up for so I I still support him he's putting Manchester United and Germany in one sentence disrespecting the German national team no we have achieved and world giant we have achieved so many things in the previous history of football so I believe we if Manchester United were to sit on the same table with Germany prayers but Joachim Rowe should stay because I don't think there's any other man that is good for that job so I support him he supports him from that we saw up in France again in Sweden Olivier Girou man he's scoring many ones for the national team but when it comes to matters club commitments Frank Lampard has been putting him on the sidelines and he has a lot of records for the national team he scored a brace against Sweden and remember he was a regular starter during 2018 world cup in Russia with France and Iwana World Cup title with them is the second highest gold scorer beside area only in France for bowling scoring history and see I think in the most recent years is the overall top score for the national team yeah you know I think he's he's been the most underrated player for France if I can say so because look at what Olivier Girou at club level when he was playing for Arsenal you know he was a regular starter scoring goals he won our colleagues with Arsenal going to going to Chelsea I think Lampard is trying to transform that team to a young side look at his strikers he has Abram he brought he brought the legs of Wana into the team so these are but it is a player who was brought in with a lot of money for Chelsea so this is why sometimes Frankie is he has no choice but to play him but still he should give Olivier Giroud at club level chances we have a lot of competitions we have the FA Cup that resumes in January we have at least he can get a few minutes in the he gets at least a very very few minutes for the in the epl but he should get more because he's proven at at a national level that he can score being only seven goals shy of theory is not a joke and you know international games are not as many as league games there are few but he has scored I think a goal a goal after every two matches for the for the national team so I think Frankie should be able to at least try to reintegrate him back into the team so that he can help Chelsea because right now Abram is misfiring yes he's not scoring goals uh team Wana doing well so I think he should at least now give him a chance behind team Wana to at least get some few minutes in the epl so that he can help the young lads that Lampard is trying to mentor Olivier Giroud played at the big stage when it comes to Matas Club football he's played for both Arsenal and Chelsea one over a few players who've defied that you know it's rare to get someone playing for both except for the likes of Ashley Cole Nicholas and Elka William Gullas but you have William now William oh you have William right now as we speak but you know at Arsenal even Arsenal club supporters used to say that you know uh Olivier Giroud was sort of amzigo to the club until when he moved to Chelsea and started scoring goals and crucial goals when it matters most he comes in for the club right now is not getting playing time at the Stamford Bridge because of you know the newly acquisitions you know the likes of team of Anna and now Abraham time is also there so a lot of competition as far as the attacking department is concerned how well can Frank Lampard fit in Olivier Giroud so that he also plays and gets playing time you know one one one thing Maxwell one I support France and I'm a fan of Giroud but when he used to pray for Seno Kiddogo that one was a conflict of interest I think he's uh he's not celebrated enough he's underutilized and uh well some people are arguing maybe it's because of his age he's he's old and uh Frank is trying to work around young players but I believe he has what we call talent and uh he can perform and he can deliver so uh when we see what he's doing at at France playing for the national team and him scoring a this should be a wake up call I think it's about time Frank Lampard found a way where he can utilize him because Chelsea are not way better to say that right now we need to let go of Giroud like we are at that point where now we are trying to contend us I think they have a very long way to go so uh Frank Lampard is is trying to to behave in a manner like uh Giroud ah you've overstayed your welcome and looking at his former predecessor Antonio Conte he held Giroud in very high regards he would you trace him once in a while and you would see Giroud would come in as a super sub and he used to score yes so uh I think it's about time eh he should not Frank Lampard should not be too quick to let Giroud go they might regret it in in future and then I think uh the system front is using right now uh trying to get the balls in uh from the midfield you know uh I think Giroud has been one of the I think he's a striker who is uh more of a team player than uh than just scoring yeah that's why yeah he's he also has leadership skills yeah that's why you look at uh the the world cup that they won Giroud never scored a single goal yeah but played all the games it is true yeah so that that's team play I think can really help the young guys uh Frank is trying to gel so I think once he comes back I think he should at least throw some minutes to him at least to prove what he's doing at the national level and he's also uh I first to reckon with there in the dressing room as well he can mentor these young kids yeah he's the most experienced that yeah he can influence some few positive decisions anyway away from that we saw Pep Guardola Manchester City tradition extending his contract but by two years at the age had contrary to expectations most people had thought that probably Pep was on his way out of the city but now extending his stay I think uh I also didn't I also didn't expect him to sign a new contract because now there's there's been this issue of the champions league and uh it has really been quite elusive yeah yeah so I remember Paul Scalls was it Paul Scalls uh uh saying that you know Pep Guardola doesn't always stay around for long but now he has divided those odds signing a new to your contract with the club so I think what he's trying to do right now uh is to at least say you know I'm one of the best coaches around let him give another go at the champions league so that he can see whether he can come on top of these big teams in Europe so I think for him it's a challenge and a welcome challenge for England because what he has been able to learn from him so I think he can bring a lot into the Englishium and try to mentor some of the young coaches around so for him to stay is that I think a very big welcome for English football every man's dream especially for football manager is to win the elite european club title that's champions league that is something Pep did with Barcelona after replacing Frank Raikand a few years ago but in Munich it failed to happen and at City it's not bearing fruit is he on course for champions league title in the next few two years he's extended his contract yes it's it's practically possible because looking back at what City has achieved in the previous years when Pep has been coaching them I think uh them winning the Premier League that was uh that was guaranteed and uh within three years he has enough time now to build a team that can can go out there and deliver because uh looking at the players we have the rights of this you we have a guero starring the brain so uh these are these are football materials that you sure of they can deliver they are going to win matches so I think he is made the right call and there are rumors that Messi is going to sign at Man City so that again is something to look forward to and if Messi were to come to Man City then uh with sorry with uh with Guardiola you sure now this is a champions league matilo this is a team that is going to win so we we are going to keep our eyes open let's see what happens in the next two years in the last two years when City one English Premier League title before Liverpool uh reclaimed it from them City had you know a lot of world class players quality on the bench and it was you know very dangerous playing against City and like it is today I don't know what might have happened between the two years live alone just parting ways with a few players and who left to Bayern and who else I think most of their players are still there intact and except for David Silva who left for you know Spanish club football what might have transpired I think uh you know champions league is all uh another uh another league whereby you need to have that experience uh in order to win it uh if you look at City they have been able right now uh those two years when Guardiola arrived they did not have that experience playing in the in the in that top league but right now uh if and if you look at the the the results of these uh this season's uh I mean last season's champions league they have been able to improve and that's why we're seeing now once he has signed these two years he has now that time at least maybe in the first year to at least uh reach maybe the semifinals or all the finals of the champions league that experience has been able to be to be brought to be instilled in these players and right now the way they are playing as a team as a unit uh they have not been able to bring in a lot of players they've just brought in one or two uh this uh the last transfer window so I think that team has been able to gain that experience in order to uh challenge in the champions league so let's give him another one here and see whether they can be able to transform that experience into uh results that are needed in the champions league this season alone and then cause for uh challenge for Premier League title there's a possibility but then again looking at uh the the nature of the dressing room that they have a couple of setbacks you you find that uh most players are either it's not COVID-19 they are out on injury but I believe city city has the resources so maybe during the the generation style they can make a few changes maybe make some new sayings and then uh who knows they might deliver but I believe uh Guardiola rushed into selling sunny he was he was resourceifu at Man City and I I'm sure no player yet has filled in his shoes so that again is still a challenge but uh well who knows Man City uh well it's Manchester of course so I believe they are going for so the other being of Manchester City I think has been you know they are defensive laps a lot of injuries uh Lapote good injured and Nathaniel Ake alongside who else this player who got signed from Benfica a defender their partnership has not been doing very well and you know Nathaniel also getting old 34 right now as we speak so his defensive midfielding prowess drastically dwindling I think uh there's there has been an undoing for Manchester City in signing their defenders look at uh the departments in which uh they have signed the most expensive players actually the defense look at starting the likes of stones the likes of Mangala they have signed a lot of defenders expensive defenders I think the the the acquisitions have not been able to live to the expectations that they were needed so I think right now Man City if you look from the midfield going forward the winds the center forwards look at Aguero he's been able to make his name he's come back into the team but due to the injury that he had he has not been able to click the way we used to know Aguero actually is him and Suarez uh were the two of the most complete strikers all rounder strikers uh that we we had at the time but right now Aguero because of the injury he's not been able to click so I think uh that defense of the department has been uh a failing but the other departments have been there doing actually they have been the ones which uh have helped the the team to lift the EPL titles so for for the defensive department they have had a lot of failings and I think if they are not going to work on that they'll just continue signing those the defenders expensive defenders and they will not be able to to perform well but the other departments as we are saying they are as that uh the experience they have had then I think going forward actually even the results that they have had uh this uh season's champions look the way they have started has been a good sign for them they are scoring goals left right and center so for the defense department I think they need to work on it on the players they have and those that they are going to uh acquire maybe in the general transfer window if need be so uh there is where they should be able English Premier League football a lot of fixtures lined up this particular afternoon Newcastle will be playing host to Chelsea in an early kickoff coming your way at 3 30 PM East African time Aston Villa uh will be continue will be hoping to continue with their high flying form when they host Brighton Tournam Hotspur's up against Manchester City and that looks like a pulsating clash of the weekend of course coming your way at 8 30 PM then united in a late kickoff time against the newly promoted Westbom which I'll be so City again is Tote you were just talking about Pep Jose Mourinho up against Pep Guardiola both managers of pedigree world class and both clubs having a huge ambitions of Premier League title and even qualification to champions league football you know I'm not a big fan of Mourinho but going by what he has been saying all around the media houses he's bragging and when it breaks my heart because I see him taking advantage of his predecessor because looking at what I'm right now yes they sit second position in the Premier League table and they have been unbitten in the last seven matches but uh Pochettino built this team you see so I I don't see why he should brag well he has done a lot of overhaul in the old team but he has no right to brag it's too early you see so I think he needs time to to keep working on the team but he has delivered judging by the outcome of Pochettino's last matches before he was sucked but going with what Guardiola is doing at Man City it will be a hard fixture but I believe in Manchester so I'm a I'm going with a Man City win this game will be won in which department let's say because the front line for city looks shake is Ajah Guero I don't know whether you will be making a comeback into the team but of course Ari Ken is fit to start tonight for Spaz is there anyway the attacking department how sharp I think I mean the outcome I think this is a game which will be very speedy when you look at the kind of players that both sides have if Aguero is gonna make a comeback then and he will be he will be the one who will decide this future either him or Ari Ken because for Ari Ken he's been scoring this season so I think it will be a tough one Morino being a tactician that we know he is and the players bail is back the players that he's been able to acquire I think it's gonna it's gonna be a tough one for me the midfield the supply from the wings every department has to be at least sharp in order to baby niki nago although I see a lot of goals in this fixture so as we wind up of course time not on our side brand command looks like he's harassing me that we take a commercial break but I would just wish that we submit our final thoughts on what is expected yourself are united die had what are you looking for to you predicted a win for man united yeah I I hope today we we pray with more speed are more more tenacity I hope that we attack more because that is what we we've been lacking in the past few days but given by what we our performance has been in in our home cloud this is on a I still believe we have what it takes so majesta 3 west brown zero how about yourself ask me tomorrow you support us you understand so of course of course I think this this season has started us to be the most unique season we've seen during the recent footballing seasons because of this coronavirus pandemic no funds in the and this shows that you know when we said that you know the funds are the 12th player in the pitch that you should be able to look at man united they have not won I think they have won maybe one or two matches at home they have lost a lot of them and many of the teams have lost matches that we did not expect them to lose because we don't have the funds in the stadium so right now is just for the coaches to just do their best that is it otherwise because of the funds because of the funds that's why that's why we've been united at old trafford for the first time in the premier league since 2006 I wish you scored on open play because it's no problem it's a win of course touchline continues until three o'clock this has been the funds on you now mogan coming in for the first time and fedo penned of course he's been missing in action feeling and well but glad that he's still alive and kicking and back on the show and of course it's been a pleasure having you gentleman and some good and interesting lady thank you and patriotic united fund i've never seen a united fund is very passionate like she is and very proud to donor jz public limelight considering their disastrous performance anyway we take a short break will be back shortly don't go away it continues until three o'clock


Unfortunately, human nature, if you take away the option or the right to do that, then they'll find it another way. And it will be unsafe. But the problem is there is no safe abortions. There is always a victim, the child. Not to mention the traumatic effects it has on the mother. But if it's not legal, women will have to get back alley abortions. You really want them to get hurt, don't you? No, not at all. But if it is a child in the womb, we would be insane to try to make the criminal act safer for the perpetrator. Should we be concerned for the safety of the home invader? He might step on broken glass or get hurt wandering in the dark. We shouldn't make it easier for people to unalive their babies, but rather call people to repentance and continue to provide care and support amidst a challenging situation. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and the needy.


The Cavalcade of America, sponsored by Dupont, presents the Sydney Howard dramatic masterpiece, Yellowjack. More significant than ever this year, when the gallant saga of the American Fighting Man is being written every hour from Bataan in Australia, from Pearl Harbor in Salon. So it is especially fitting for us to recall on this day, that the heroism of our time is the legacy of yesterday, as well as the guarantee of tomorrow. It is a proud company, the company of America's Fighting Suns, and there are none with more right to march in it than the soldiers stationed in Cuba in 1900, who offered their lives not in war, but in peace. Our play tonight is about the army heroes who defeated a mortal but mysterious enemy, freed the western world of the plague of Yellowjack, and made possible our inter-ocean lifeline, the Panama Canal. Tonight, with Tyrone Power as Major Walter Reed of the U.S. Army Medical Corps, the Cavalcade of America does homage to the heroic army men of 42 years ago, spiritual forefathers of the heroes of today. How do they keep on singing in the middle of this choir? Maybe they don't realize. They mustn't know how bad the Yellowjack is. They know. They know. They've seen their comrades dying. It's still very hard to sing. War was over, and the Columbia Barracks at Comedo near Havana, Cuba, shimmered in the poo-perfect heat of a broiling tropical sun. It was the summer of 1900, but still the soldiers of the U.S. Army stayed on at their posts. There was little for them to do, except think of home, and sing, and talk of home. Is Cuba sure the wrong place to spend the summer? War is over. What have they sent us home? Drill and tote stretches. Swab out the ambulance. Swab out everything. I don't like that smell of carbollet. All the time, waiting for our turn to go out. Feet first. There's still Yellowjack, such afflictions or questions of fate. Who's us to be philosophers? Were fates concerned? Which the Irish are, so long as their fate remains agreeable?  These docks think we enlisted and came down here so they can cut us up and squint at our insides. Now, now, I've been thinking a major read in these men of science. Now, they expose themselves to the perils of this, worrying after the unknown truth like a bevy of bulldogs. I say it's a... Watch it. His major read. I heard you. 10th chump. All right, man. That is. What's your name? Clinton. Warranty, sir. Private Transportation Unit. And you? Bush, Levi-Pheaser. Private quarter vested apartment. Or Harrod, John J. Sir. You charge the operating room, sir? You, I know, Mr. Brickerhoff. Yes, sir. Mr. O'Hara, you'll do well to be less eloquent about doctors. You'll all do well to talk less about this epidemic. Epidemics are best not talked about. There's retreat. You'd better be off. Yes, sir. Dr. Reed. Will you come into the laboratory, please? Dr. Callaghan, yes, come back. Carol. Carol. Marie. What's news from the camp at Pinar? There's no doubt about your diagnosis, chief. The missus malaria, my eye. It's the yellowjack. Going great guns, too. Dropping like flies. At least that all you have to tell us? Do you expect anything? After two months of this and how many autopsies? Made a record for thoroughness at any rate. I can't stand much more of this. I look out there to see and watch our transport steaming home and I dare not think what they may be carrying. Now we've taken Cuba on. Taking it on with this awful thing is smoldering in it. Waiting its chance to jump over home to us. To Philadelphia and New Orleans. And to know that we've had it under our microscopes a thousand times and never seen it. General Woods lost a third of his staff in the past month. He knows it was yellowjack, not rough riders that licked the Spaniards here. And it'll lick us. If we don't lick it first. And our commission.  Or isolate a microbe and find a cure. And we failed. Failed completely. It isn't easy to admit that. We'll try every angle, Chief. Give it up. It's no use. I'm calling the commission tonight to disband it. It won't be a long session and then we'll go home. Well, the most we could do would be to keep on working. We have at least discredited everyone else. You know, I ran into one puzzler out there, Pinard. Oh, I've heard enough puzzlers I can't solve. This is a funny one. In the case of a soldier, 6 July 12 died on the 18th. But he hadn't been near the disease for over a month before he was took sick. What was that? They had him locked up in the guardhouse. There, he lay in that guardhouse for three days after with eight other prisoners. And they didn't catch it. Not even the one who slept in his blankets after he died. How about contaminated food or water? The whole outfit ate and drank the same. A man may have been extra susceptible, maybe. If we could explain why we don't catch it. What did you say? Nothing. I'll see you tonight.  At 8.30, gentlemen. All right. Good night. What was it that crawled or jumped or flew through that guardhouse window, bit that one prisoner, and went back where it came from? What was it? What was it? Reed, you really have reached the end of your tether. My advice to you and the members of your commission is call it a day. Go home.  The Marine Hospital Corps, with which I have the honor to be connected. Excuse me, Colonel Tory. I called the commission to disband it tonight. Three hours ago, I was certain we should disband. Even now, I... I hesitate to suggest that we go on. The only course which remains open to us leads us so far afield, seems so... beset with danger that I stand appalled before it. Don't be mysterious. What is the course? Beset our microscopes aside... and concentrate on new methods of investigation. How? By turning our minds to how yellow fever spreads Agra Monte, from man to man and village to village and even across the sea. How about that, Gorgas? I should like to know something about that. I've come to suspect a middleman here. An infection carrier. In all likelihood, an insect. Probably a mosquito. Did you say mosquito, Reed? No, can't be serious, Reed. These fads are the curse of modern medicine. Is medical science going insect-mad? Where have you been, Tory? You never hear of Smith's Texas fever tick? How about Bruce and the African sea-sea fly? And malaria's just been nailed to a mosquito.  Mosquitos are meat and drink to me. Enough of theories. We must draw the line against this somewhere. Major Gorgas, I should like to hear what you have to say. Well, why the mosquito, Reed? Why not the flea, the louse, or the homely bedbugs? Because yellowjack's not confined to the louse and bedbug belt. The cleanest parts of town may be the deadliest. And it's at its worst in summer, the mosquito season. Reed, let me speak. Speak on, Lisea. We're not going home. We're not going to quit because we haven't got the guts to exceed instructions. Read right about this, and I'll go it alone if I have to. Only I won't have to. As a crazy old troglodyte here in this town, an old Scotsman with spectacles and side whiskers, thinly his name is... You don't propose going to... Why not? He's been working in this angle for years. He's got his particular guilty mosquito all picked out. He's a crank. No more, a harmless crank. He may be, Colonel. He may be completely mad. If he is, though, he has a brave kind of madness. The jumping forward kind that's always too risky for the completely sane. You have your convictions. I have only my curiosity. What do you others think? Carol. This isn't my line, but go ahead. Well, I can't think of nothing better to suggest. Finley's got to be tried. There's no doubt of it. There is a very grave doubt, Doctor. The scheme isn't possible. Why not? Aren't you forgetting that yellow fevers, unlike other diseases, you don't give it to guinea pigs or monkeys or mice. You can't give it to any animal except man. I'd forgotten that. Well, think it of now. How can you test Doctor Finley's mosquitoes by an inconceivable experiment? By experimenting on men. You've got to read. You don't propose to use human guinea pigs. Do you realize this is human vivisection?  All right, all right. If we fail a few harmless mosquito bites, if we succeed, we shall have risked a few dozen lives to save countless thousands. No, no, you've got to be stopped. You're not independent of Washington, American public opinion, the press and the pulpit. You know how they stand on animal vivisection. You're ready, Major Gorgas. I'll bid these gentlemen good evening. Good evening, Colonel. Good evening. Good night, Gorgas. Good night, Gorgas. Good night. Well, Azir, Carol, Agromonte? Well, if you only told us, Reed, we could have backed you up. You know what Colonel Tory can do to you, Chief. Yes, there's no doubt of what Colonel Tory can do. I see no reason, though, why he or anyone should know what we're up to from now on. Uh-huh. But, Doctor, would it be possible to experiment on men in secret? It's got to be. Rightly. Men, though. That's got to be true. I'm afraid so. I'm afraid so. I have the honor to present my colleague, Dr. Finlay, for these many years, a distinguished leader of our profession here in Havana. How do you do, Doctor? Dr. Finlay. This is Dr. Azir and Dr. Carol. How do you do? We shall sit here in the patio, if you don't mind, gentlemen. My office is dark. I see your face is more clearly here in the sun. Dr. Finlay, shall we omit the preliminaries? I suspect you can guess what our errand is. My fellow scientists do not come often here, Major. We come to join you, Doctor. In the war you have waged many years alone. Anything we can do, we'll do, if you will help us. We need your knowledge. We want what you have learned about your mosquito. The eggs will do. For 19 years, science has laughed at me, Major, at the crack of Finlay and his mosquitoes and nowhere more cruel than through American army doctors. Now you come running to me to save your faces. Will you be surprised if I have no impulse to share my secret? We shall be deeply disappointed, Dr. Finlay. And we shall hope to persuade you. We're likely to prove your case for you, Doctor. Prove my case? You mean you doubt my discovery? I doubt everything. Well, I'm sure. I have cherished my great discovery for 19 years. Do you expect me to give it up to you to make use of it and get glory from it? Glory is the idea, Doctor. I'm no stranger to waiting, Dr. Finlay. All my life long, my prayer has been that I might in some way alleviate human suffering. I think this may be my chance as well as yours. The proof you demand lies beyond any man's power. We don't feel that. You cannot test my mosquito without risking life. There's an army of occupation outside this town with nothing to do. I'll let the soldiers wait, Lazier. They'll keep. They'll be there any time we need them. We'll start this off with ourselves. You, gentlemen? Yes. But only three. Hagrimati's had yellow fever. Yes. You after me, Carol. You have five kids. I have only one. But hold you in reserve. Why didn't we think of this before? But the risk, gentlemen, you must put this mad idea out of your mind. And you said we would need to be ruthless, Finlay.  I think you ought better let him have the eggs. Very well.  I do it gladly. You are listening to Tyrone Power in Sidney Howard's Yellow Jack, sponsored by Dupont, maker of better things for better living through chemistry. As our play continues, Dr. Hagrimati and a nurse are entering a ward where the men most gravely ill of Yellow Jack are confined. How many more mosquitoes to infect this time, Dr. Hagrimati? I have three here. I would like them to bite you. I know. Sickest men we have. Yes. Over here, please. Yes. I want some water. I'll swim the river. I'll dive. Delirious. Fever. Ruthless, Finlay.  I think you ought better let him have the eggs. Very well.  I do it gladly. You are listening to Tyrone Power in Sidney Howard's Yellow Jack, sponsored by Dupont, maker of better things for better living through chemistry. As our play continues, Dr. Hagrimati and a nurse are entering a ward where the men most gravely ill of Yellow Jack are confined. How many more mosquitoes to infect this time, Dr. Hagrimati? I have three here. I would like them to bite you. I know. Sickest men we have. Yes. Over here, please. Yes. I want some water. I'll swim the river. I'll dive. Delirious. Fever. Ruthless, Finlay.  I think you ought better let him have the eggs. Very well.  I do it gladly. You are listening to Tyrone Power in Sidney Howard's Yellow Jack, sponsored by Dupont, maker of better things for better living through chemistry. As our play continues, Dr. Hagrimati and a nurse are entering a ward where the men most gravely ill of Yellow Jack are confined. How many more mosquitoes to infect this time, Dr. Hagrimati? I have three here. I would like them to bite you. I know. Sickest men we have. Yes. Over here, please. Yes. I want some water. I'll swim the river. I'll dive. Delirious. Fever. Ruthless, Finlay.  I think you ought better let him have the eggs. Very well.  I do it gladly. You are listening to Tyrone Power in Sidney Howard's Yellow Jack, sponsored by Dupont, maker of better things for better living through chemistry. As our play continues, Dr. Hagrimati and a nurse are entering a ward where the men most gravely ill of Yellow Jack are confined. How many more mosquitoes to infect this time, Dr. Hagrimati? I have three here. I would like them to bite you. I know. Sickest men we have. Yes. Over here, please. Yes. I want some water. I'll swim the river. I'll dive. Delirious. Fever. Ruthless, Finlay.  I think you ought better let him have the eggs. Very well.  I do it gladly. You are listening to Tyrone Power in Sidney Howard's Yellow Jack, sponsored by Dupont, maker of better things for better living through chemistry. As our play continues, Dr. Hagrimati and a nurse are entering a ward where the men most gravely ill of Yellow Jack are confined. How many more mosquitoes to infect this time, Dr. Hagrimati? I have three here. I would like them to bite you. I know. Sickest men we have. Yes. Over here, please. Yes. I want some water. I'll swim the river. I'll dive. Delirious. Fever. Ruthless, Finlay.  I think you ought better let him have the eggs. Very well.  I do it gladly. You are listening to Tyrone Power in Sidney Howard's Yellow Jack, sponsored by Dupont, maker of better things for better living through chemistry. As our play continues, Dr. Hagrimati and a nurse are entering a ward where the men most gravely ill of Yellow Jack are confined. How many more mosquitoes to infect this time, Dr. Hagrimati? I have three here. I would like them to bite you. I know. Sickest men we have. Yes. Over here, please. Yes. I want some water. I'll swim the river. I'll dive. Delirious. Fever. Ruthless, Finlay.  I think you ought better let him have the eggs. Very well.  I know you. No, you don't. I bet that the best I know. Sickest men we have. Cheers. Over here, please. Cheers. Pat me with some water and swim the river. I'll dive in. Delirious. Savor. Ruthless, Finley.  I think you had better let him have the eggs. Very well.  I do it gladly. You are listening to Tyrone Power in Sidney Howard's Yellowjack, sponsored by DuPont. Maker of better things for better living through chemistry. As our play continues, Dr. Agramante and a nurse are entering a ward where the men most gravely ill of Yellowjack are confined. How many more mosquitoes to infect this time, Dr. Agramante? I have three here. I would like them to bite you. I know. Sickest men we have. Cheers. Over here, please. More some water and swim the river. I'll dive in. Delirious. Savor. Ruthless, Finley.  I think you had better let him have the eggs. Very well.  I do it gladly. You are listening to Tyrone Power in Sidney Howard's Yellowjack, sponsored by DuPont. Maker of better things for better living through chemistry. As our play continues, Dr. Agramante and a nurse are entering a ward where the men most gravely ill of Yellowjack are confined. How many more mosquitoes to infect this time, Dr. Agramante? I have three here. I would like them to bite you. I know. Sickest men we have. Cheers. Over here, please. Cheers. More some water and swim the river. I'll dive in. Delirious. Ruthless, Finley.  I think you had better let him have the eggs. Very well.  I do it gladly. You are listening to Tyrone Power in Sidney Howard's Yellowjack, sponsored by DuPont. Maker of better things for better living through chemistry. As our play continues, Dr. Agramante and a nurse are entering a ward where the men most gravely ill of Yellowjack are confined. How many more mosquitoes to infect this time, Dr. Agramante? I have three here. I would like them to bite you. I know. Sickest men we have. Cheers. Over here, please. Cheers. More some water and swim the river. I'll dive in. Delirious. Severe. Ruthless, Finley.  I think you had better let him have the eggs. Very well.  I do it gladly. You are listening to Tyrone Power in Sidney Howard's Yellowjack, sponsored by DuPont. Maker of better things for better living through chemistry. As our play continues, Dr. Agramante and a nurse are entering a ward where the men most gravely ill of Yellowjack are confined. How many more mosquitoes to infect this time, Dr. Agramante? I have three here. I would like them to bite you. I know. Sickest men we have. Cheers. Over here, please. Cheers. More some water and swim the river. I'll dive in. Delirious. Severe. Ruthless, Finley.  I think you had better let him have the eggs. Very well.  I do it gladly.


T. F. N. N. Headline News Update. Welcome folks. We have the radio industry trading up to 10 Nasdaq as up 108, 102 rather SNPs are up 32 gold contract down $12 and 70 cents trade in 1794. We have Silver off 7 cents, $23.81 an ounce light sweet crew. What a bid here. Up to 21, 72, 66, 75 bucks coming at us folks. Wilson bonds a 10 year down 7 ticks trade in 133.12, the 30 year off half a point at 163.27 in Kingdoll. Kingdoll is down 72 ticks trade in 925.53, Euro 118, Yen 109.41, the British pound at 138 to 1 US dollar. We get open, we take a look at the spy we have out here folks is that you have the spy gets down or price point of 4.43, rejects lower price. That being said, you're still going to have volume here. We got 52 millions thus far, we did 78 million on the way down. We'll see what this comes out with. But you're going into 89 million and the X100 is the same setup. What's going to be interesting about the NDX is this. We came down to where its strength was and you're going to have lighter volume. That well, it's going to be close on lighter volume. We're at 26 million right now, 34 million is what you're going into. I suspect we're actually going to do more than 34 million. If that's what we do, that's saying you're going to be right back downtown inside the queues. Gold contract with the gold contracts has done is this, the gold contract, one top side yesterday with 198,000 contracts, you're backing down with 132, that's saying it still wants higher price. As do notes and bonds. You take a look at this note and bond market, what you're going to see inside the note and bond market is that you have a sideways move. We had strength yesterday, the 10 year right now is down 7 ticks. You've got 1.2 million contracts that are traded. Yesterday, you go top side in a big way with 1.56 million contracts. So higher prices are going to continue inside the note and bond market. Higher price, lower yield. And a good old King Dolly, you get a sideways move happening. King Dolly was building cars here. We'll see which way this baby wants to go. My take is that we're building cars for lower price. That was after we failed on price in volume, August 20th, took almost five months to get up to the March high, the March 31st high, gave it up, went south. Stay right there folks, come right back. The reality is that navigating financial markets can be risky.


Hey everyone, welcome back to Nintendo Prime. So what you're seeing right now and for the totality of this video is going to be Switch OLED comparison with Splatoon 2 to the original version 2 Nintendo Switch. Not the 2017 one but the one that came out basically around the same time as the Switch Lite. So you are going to see this comparison for the rest of this video. I really hope that you sit back and enjoy. I'm not going to be talking that much. I will remind you though that we do have a giveaway going on right now. Tomorrow is technically the last day to enter. We are giving away a Switch OLED. All you have to do to enter is literally be subscribed to the channel and then we have a live stream going on tomorrow night that you're going to want to attend. Otherwise enjoy this nice Switch OLED comparison with the original Switch of Splatoon 2. Reminder that tomorrow we have our ultimate comparison video coming. We're also going to have a separate video doing internet speed test connections, battery test, a whole bunch of stuff coming your way. Accessories as well at some point next week we'll have an accessory review. Bunch of stuff coming. We have a whole bunch of OLED content planned for you guys including this won't be the only game by the way. We're doing Splatoon 2 right now comparison. We'll be having other game comparisons as well heading up to launch. Thank you guys and enjoy the video. What do you have to do right?


Hello viewers, today we are going to talk about, in the second section of the topic ethics, we are going to talk about Metaethical Theories. If you take a look at the slide, it questions, well in Metaethical Theories, the first issue that we would be tackling is Ethical Relativism. Is there anything wrong at all, now that is the fundamental question. Now, if you would recollect that, when we talk about Ethical Metaethics, we have talked about there being three gradations in Ethics. The first one being the deepest and the most foundational question tackled by Metaethics. The second tackled by Normative Ethics or Moral Theories. And the third one is Applied Ethics, where Moral Theories meet real problems out there. Now, Metaethics is the most foundational or deepest questions of Moral Philosophy. Any subject, any issue or any topic, when it has meta-prefixed, it becomes a second order study, a study about the study itself. When if you take a look at the slide, whenever this word meta is put in, meta means second order or studying from a distance. So, that way, when we talk about Meta-Physics, it is a study about Physics, whereas Physics would be about the roughly physical bodies and measurable entities, Meta-Physics would be about studying the various methodologies of studying Physics. Now, coming back to Meta-Ethics. So, Meta-Ethics is actually taking a second person or a second order view, a distant view on the discipline of Ethics, that before we start theorizing on Ethics, what are the most foundational questions? Can we theorize on Ethics? Now, if you look at the first question that we talk about, which is Ethical Relativism. Is anything wrong at all? Right? So, there is a question that I think many of you must have faced earlier, that well let me put forth a view, that well what do we mean, when we say is anything wrong at all. Now, many of us have perhaps thought that well, suppose I need to know what is the color of this board, I would I would ask, I would think it is green, I would ask a few others, that what do you think is the color of the board green, color of the board, some of them may say green, may be all of them would say green, may be somebody would say it is some other color, how would we verify, we would verify them well by a scientific instrument that would measure the frequency and wavelength of the light waves bouncing back from this board and that would be an undeniable proof that well the board is of so and so color. Now, what does this question signify or what is this example signify, the example signify is that well, there can be an objective answer to the question, what is the color of this board, but in the same string do we wonder, can there be an objective answer to what is the right thing to do, that there is something called right and wrong. Now, say a most of us would feel perhaps or would opine that unprovoked violence is wrong, now let us compare it with the same board example. Now, in the board if we say well two types of proposition we take, board is green, unprovoked violence is wrong or bad, now let us say these are two kinds of propositions that we have taken right, well the board is green and unprovoked violence is better wrong, we saw in this example well first is ask others right, here also we can have the same classification we ask others whether this holds or not, maybe most of us would agree that well unprovoked violence is bad or wrong or evil and just as most of us would agree that well the color of the board is green. If there is a difference of opinion, if the answer to this is yes all agree then it is over, but if it is no then what, now in the same stream that when we ask others and if it is yes all agree then we have a consensus and agreement by the number of questioners. Again of course, there is a little disclaimer there that maybe even if all of them agree that could be different, well in either case even if all agree or if there is a disagreement the next question that is coming up is are we once we want to verify this, how do we verify this, well for this question we verify it by a instrument, what does the instrument do, it measures the world out there, now what about this question, now coming back now spinning this story around the question that we ask that well if unprovoked violence is wrong how do we know, well we ask others and others agree or disagree, but we now need a extrinsic external verification and where where do we get this, is that a fact of the world can we look out into the world to find what there is that there is something wrong with unprovoked violence, many of us would think well there is nothing out there in the world there is no instrument that can tell us that well there is something wrong with unprovoked violence and therefore maybe this cannot be verified. So, can we then the question comes that if this be the reasoning then the ultimate question that comes is there anything wrong at all, this comes out to be the fundamental question that we are going to tackle now in this session, because this is a metaethical question when it asks that is there anything wrong at all, now coming back to the presentation, now when we ask the question that is anything wrong at all we are asking a second order question, now what is metaethics, well it involves a lot of question marks and a lot of thinking, because it goes into the foundations of the moral theorizing or ethical theorizing, now can moral claims be true or false, what is the source or justification of moral claims, if we find the justification of moral claims what is the source, how do you justify moral claims. Does moral philosophy rest on a mistake, interestingly a very seminal paper in ethics was also written by the same name that does moral philosophy rest on a mistake, that is are there reasons to progress with moral philosophy, how is our social psychological build determining our ethical world view, well now if you do a lot of thinking that where what is the foundation of the ethical quest or ethical theorizing, now can moral claims be true or false, these are the questions that are raised by metaethics, if the dreams are true or false what how do we justify the claims, is there any justification for progressing with moral philosophy, well how is our social psychological build determining our ethical world view, that is is it that how the way we are brought up, the way we have the experiences that we are exposed to determine our ethical world view, so these are the questions that metaethics tackles, well the first question we talk about that well is the ethical relativism, now there is a this is a foundational metaethical question that we face before philosophizing on morality, now pay attention this is the claim of ethical relativism, the claim of ethical relativism may be put forth as that there are various moral systems or frames of references, frames of reference and that there can be no hierarchy made between the various frames of reference, that there can be no trans-perspectival ethical system, every ethical system develops in its own environment and is applicable to its own environment only. Now, let us look at this question that we are tackling that well, like many of us would perhaps think that well it is a common term today to say that well I am non-judgmental, that I do not make any judgments, that ethical relativism is being non-judgmental, that is a crucial term that we might need to be aware of, that what do I say when I say, what do I mean when I say that I am non-judgmental as an ethicist or in my ethical perspective. Now, when I say perhaps when somebody says that he or she is non-judgmental, what she or he probably and more accurately means is that that person does not see that one person can judge the moral claims of another person, that means my moral claims are my moral claims and your moral claims are your moral claims and there is no way I can judge yours or you can judge mine, because we belong to different domains. It is the same, it is a powerful argument which relativists in various domain give, relativists in general and ethical relativists in particular. Well, the phrase like you cannot compare Apple with oranges, because they are simply two different kinds of fruits. To compare any two claims or entities there has to be a common factor, you cannot compare the relativist claim as well, you cannot compare an apple with an orange, because they are different fruits. But, well you can compare an apple with an orange, if you are exploring from the dimension of sweetness, you are exploring from the dimension of weight, you are exploring from the dimension of aesthetic appeal. That could of course be a little questionable initially, but we leave that question now for it is out of the view of our enquiry in this course. But, if apples and oranges can be compared with respect to their sweetness, can moral claims be compared? Now, the ethical relativist says that well there are various moral frames of reference. And there is no way we can compare one frame of reference with the other. Now, that would mean that well, if I have arrived at a moral frame of reference from whatever be the causes, be it my socialization, my religion, my culture, A and somebody else has come up with another moral frame of reference, B the two cannot judge upon each other, each is right from his own perspective. Now, such a claim seems very plural, very fashionable, very tolerant, very acceptable, very polished, very sophisticated, very open and very cosmopolitan. But, let us explore this claim to find out that well, if this is really the case. So, let us clearly look at the slide now that what exactly is the claim. Now, as philosophers we would like to first define what is the problem. So, what we need to remember is this crucial way that there are various moral systems or frames of reference and that there can be no hierarchy made between the various frames of reference. Now, notice what this is not denying. Now, it is saying that well, if I say that there are no moral values, am I an ethical relativist? No, what am I? I am actually a moral or ethical nihilist. Now, what the ethical relativist? We will refer to it shortly as in abbreviation as E R, what the ethical relativists claim is that there are right, there is right and wrong and these right and wrong are not, depend on their frames of references and there can be no trans-perspective ethical system for the same. Well, let us look at a presentation to know the detail. As we find mentioned on the slide that there can be no trans-perspective ethical system. Now, every ethical system develops in its own environment and is applicable to its own environment only. Now, let us look at this on a new slide and what is the difference, because our understanding of ethical relativism is very essential to proceed further. Now, first what can be, what various positions can be? First that there are no moral or ethical values at all. Now, this could be that well, they are figments of imagination or they are creation of convenience. Now, in either case, if they are figments of imagination and we downright hold that there are no moral or ethical values that ethical or moral values are meaningless. Then, we are an ethical nihilist or moral nihilist that is denying the very existence of morality. Whereas, these two domains are claiming that moral values are fictitious, but meaningful fictitious. We could see that there are certain strains of ethical theories such as emotivists, which subscribe to this kind of a theory. But, if one claims that ethical values are meaningless, then we are strictly an ethical nihilist. Now, if second I hold that there are ethical values and or but they originate and depend only on their frames of reference. Then, I am an ethical relativist that the ethical relativist is claiming that there are ethical values, but the ethical values are relative to the frames of reference in which they have originated. There is nothing absolute about them. Now, if there is nothing absolute, what it means that well, every ethical value is from its perspective, from a perspective no trans-perspectival value. Now, if this is the claim that there are no trans-perspectival values, then well, we are strictly an ethical relativist. Now, we need to be clear or why we are focusing on this fact is that well, our understanding of ethical relativism needs to be very sharp, distinguished from various other strains possible. Now, the ethical relativist agrees that there are moral values, only says that these values come from a frame of reference and there is no way of comparing moral values from different frames of reference. Now, if this be the case, what is the situation? Now, let us first look at evaluate oneself, whether you belong to the first category or the second category or none. Please take a look at the slide. Now, the first category would claim that there are no moral values, that everything is subject to permission, then you are an ethical nihilist. The second is an ethical relativist which says that well, you believe in ethical values, but these values depend on their frames of reference. The third can be an absolute frame of reference. The third can be termed as moral or ethical absolutism, that there is a trans-perspectival value or values. Now, if you go on to the next slide to see that, what is the appeal of ethical relativism? For many of us who would find ourselves belonging to well, that yes, there are moral values, but it depends on frames of reference. Well, let us assume that get into the psyche of these non-judgmental perspective or that once ethical theories cannot be judged from another perspective. Well, it is common fact that we have heard. If you look at the slide, the appeal of ethical relativism is that to each his own, it is common to come across the view that each one of us has a right to his or her own ethical point of view and that others ought not to interfere. Now, does this strike to you as liberal? It seems that ethical relativism gives space to the view point of the other. It is non-absolutistic and therefore, non-autocratic. It seems to it seems only to advocate moral pluralism and a tolerance for the view of other. It is also associated with intellectual humility or fallibility. Now, let us take a look that what is the appeal of ethical relativism? Now, the ethical relativist is of the opinion that there are various frames of reference in terms of moral claim and that one frame of reference cannot be compared to the other frame of reference. They are different. Now, this non-judgmental claim that we cannot judge others has an appeal of its own and let us try to analyze what is the appeal of such a non-judgmental position or the position of an ethical relativist. First, its claim is it gives space to the view point of the other. Now, we see that well, giving the other space because as long as we hold an absolute judgment, we find it imposing on all others.  So, it is non-absolutistic and therefore, non-autocratic. It is not absolutistic because it does not commit to any absolute claims which are bounding, which are binding on the other. Nothing is binding on the other. Now, it seems to advocate moral pluralism and a tolerance for the view of the other. Now, if nothing is binding on the other, can we infer from this that nothing can be binding on the other. Now, this is a crucial jump which perhaps nothing is binding to nothing can be binding. This is perhaps the crucial jump that the ethical relativist takes. Well, if nothing is binding on the other, is it also the position that nothing can be binding on the other. Think over this distinction and we will talk about it in the coming slides. Now, our claim is that well, is the appeal of ethical relativism misplaced. Tolerance is a virtue. Let us explore. What exactly do we mean by tolerance? When x or any person tolerates y, a claim or an act, let y stand for a claim or an act. So, when x tolerates y, isn't x already making a judgment upon y. Only x is merely refraining from expressing or enacting it. A trans-perspective frame of reference is the goal of an ethical engagement. This is crucial. Is the universal declaration of human rights an example of such a trans-perspective claim? This is a question that is raised for you to think over. Now, tolerance is a virtue. It has intellectual humility or it has a level of tolerance associated with. Well, whether various arguments the ethical relativists give, that first to start with that well, that there are different cultures and different moral practices. So, wherever cultures differ, moral practices differ and therefore, we find that well, ethical relativism is a well founded claim that there can be no final morality. Now, let us look at this way. When cultures interact, when culture A and culture B interact, how do they arrive at a consensus? There are very crucial questions that we would face over here as well. If let us take again an example, let us have culture A and culture B. Let us see, let us have them interact. Like most of us are now have been exposed to cosmopolitan or a culture separate from what we have been raised with. Now, there are moral practices which differ a lot. So, let us say now the ethical relativists, the non-judgmental relativists claims that well, somebody who comes from culture A, somebody who comes from culture B have different moral values. Now, if these two moral values are different, we find that when they interact, what are the moral values that they would imbibe? Now, look at it this way. Now, if A and B are interacting, let us imagine A as an individual and an interesting and a very relatable choice is say, A as an individual gets married to B as an individual. They get married. Now, A and B have different, have been raised in different cultures. They decide to get married and now, they are married and they live together. Now, there is a limit to the plurality they can observe. Suppose, every cultural value that they have, they will somehow have to find a middle way or a final moral value. Say, if one believes in aggressively believes in not wasting food and the other believes that well, food has to be offered to plants and animals. So, she puts in cooked food on outside, which to the other individual is a waste of food. Now, this is strictly an example where two practices are clashing and there can be only one resolution, because we share one final space. So, here how do we arrive at a conclusion, at a final practice? Now, this is a dilemma that the ethical relativist faces that well, we are very happy that A and B are married, but after that, what is the final moral values or cultural values that will come along? So, now, there is a little bit of spelling mistake here. Now, when A and B are married, the final moral values, where does that come from? A and B have to interact, negotiate. There can be trans-perspective values according to absolutist, where both have to evaluate their values and bring forth a final moral value. Now, let us again take a look at this. What are differences in values? Because, ethical relativism is founded on the first observations that we have, that well, there are various cultures and therefore, various ethical values. Now, what exactly is a value? Clarity in these concepts is necessary to progress further. Now, if somebody believes, let me give an example that well, why do we hold an inference examination or a test for recruitment or for admission into a coveted college or course? We hold a test, because it gives us a hierarchy of capable students and the top lot for which the college or the course has vacancy are invited to join. Now, we find this fair, fairness as a value, examination process as a practice. Now, this practice has its core value as fairness or justice that well, depending on the performance of the entrance examination procedure, you would be invited for an interview. Fair enough. Now, let us look at it this way. Let us go flashback 1000 years back into India's past. Now, there again, now there was this Gurukul system in which admission was open only to the Brahmins. Now, if that cost based admission, does it seem to be fair? It is again, that is an entrance, that is an examination procedure, that is a practice, does it seem to be fair? Now, these are two different practices, both targeting fairness. Today, we find it unfair, but let us try to reason how perhaps people then reasoned. Let us say that the people assumed or believed unquestioningly that there was, there were lives and afterlives and birth and death and beyond that, there were lives. So, what and where and how you are born depends on the accumulate of your karmic desert that you have accumulated over the past life. So, if you are born into a clan or a caste that is entitled to education, that is not an accident, but because it is your desert from your past lives. Now, look at the fairness brigade. Now, we find this practice unfair today, because we believe that birth is a matter of accident. But if we believe that birth is a result of your cumulative achievements of your past lives, then this procedure, this custom of entrance via clan or caste again becomes fair. So, notice that there is a practice, but the core of which is a value. Let us even think of simpler examples. In the Oriental tradition, one would bow down to one's elders to express respect. In Occidental traditions, one would shake hands to greet even an elder. Now, these are two different practices. Both of them may appear contradictory at the superficial level, but within them, they embody the same value. So, practices or the paraphernalia around values or values are embodied in cultural practices. So, to read separation or difference in practices is not to infer immediately that there is a difference in values. So, let us note down this crucial point, that difference in practices is not necessarily difference in values. Now, this is a crucial claim that we need to comprehend. That well, very often the ethical relativists makes this mistake of finding difference in practices as difference in cultural values. Say, in one culture, it is considered that premarital sex is considered immoral. In another culture, premarital sex is considered moral. It is still a matter of practices, because for one, the act of copulation embodies a commitment and in another culture, perhaps it does not embody a commitment. So, as long both the cultures respect commitment and breaking commitment or following one's commitment or following the commitment made is a core value. Now, in one culture, the act of copulation is an act of commitment and therefore, it should not be made before. It should not be done in that culture, because it is violation of the commitment. In fact, it is prior to the making of a commitment. So, violation of a commitment is a core value, but how it is expressed? Now, for somebody say something like politeness, like etiquettes, when I say good morning or a good evening to you, do I really mean that I am wishing you well for the morning or the evening? Now, this in some culture is or in most of the cultures that we are used to today is fine etiquettes, but if analyzed or looked at from a culture which holds truth as a final value is well and is denial of the connect between a claim and its intention. Now, let us simplify this. So, differences in practices is not necessarily difference in values. So, practices embody core of the core of practices are values or practices embody values. Values are the crux of practices. Differences in practices does not mean differences in does not necessarily mean difference in values. So, now, when we talked about this couple who got married, now they may have difference in cultural practices, but they may that necessarily does not mean that they have difference in values. Now, after having said all this we can still hold that there can be a difference in moral or core values also that do all of us find justice as desirable? How we interpret or analyze justice? There may be variance. Do all of us find fairness as better than unfairness? Whatever are definition of fairness be? Do all of us find making and sticking to commitment better than making and breaking commitments? Now, these are fundamental values. Now, if there is a difference in these values what does it signify? Very often now if you look at the slide when I say that well the ethical relativist is a tolerant person. Now, what are we meaning when says that the ethical relativist is tolerant? Because when the ethical relativist is actually tolerating, so this credit that the ethical relativist is given that well the ethical relativist is tolerant is actually not justified, because even the act of tolerance implies that a judgment is already being made and only that the judgment is not expressed or enacted. So, the ethical relativist where crucially disagrees with the absolutist is that a trans-perspectival frame of reference is the goal of an ethical engagement. Now, the ethical relativist believes that this trans-perspectival enterprise is not possible and this is where the ethical relativist differs from the ethical absolutist. Now, let us take an example is the universal declaration of human rights an example of such trans-perspectival claim. Now, we will talk about the universal declaration of human rights that well how does it stand for a trans-perspectival claim, because well when the United Nations declared the universal declaration of human rights, it expects it to be binding on all people at all times across all countries and civilizations. Now, this is a blatantly anti-relativist claim that well there are certain practices or certain rules or certain laws or articles as the UDHR mentions which are applicable all through the country and civilization. So, there are core values which are embodied in these articles that are fundamental and non-negotiable across cultures.  A non-judgmental relativist has to cannot judge. Now, imagine yourself when you say that you are when an agent says that he or he is tolerant of the other well sure he is not actually an ethical relativist or he is making a judgment only not expressing it.  Now, you would as an ethical relativist be indifferent to it, that how does it that it is his life, it is his culture and for him if it is right I cannot judge it. If you feel that what that person is doing is wrong and yet not express it you could be said to be tolerant, that well you disagree with what he is doing, but you disagree with what that person is doing, but you reserve your judgment or your expression of your judgment to that individual. If you are an absolutist you would actually go and ask him that to stop doing that or that well he is doing the right thing and let him continue doing that. The very fact that one can sit on the judgment seat on the other or one does judge the other or one can judge the other indicates that ethical relativism may not be as appealing as it sounds initially right, that well for an imagine an ethical relativist going through life well any value acts taking place around the ethical relativist cannot react to such an act because his metaethical claim is that well there is nothing that we there is there is no judgment to be taken on another moral frame of reference. So, tolerance is not as much as an indicator of ethical relativism as perhaps it is made out to be. Now, we will go ahead to see the universal declaration of human rights. Let us take a look at these rights and find out trans-perspective claim.


Hello everyone, I'm Pei Han. I'm going to talk about two-round secure multi-party computation, minimizing public key operations. It is joined to work with Sandram Garg and Akshay Shuinimasa. The first question you want to ask, what did you achieve in this work? And this is exactly what we did. Next, I'm going to explain each of these terms in more detail. What is secure multi-party computation? What does two-round mean? What is public key operations? And why do we want to minimize it? So let's get started. Secure multi-party computation, NPC. Once again, it is a protocol among multiple parties. Every party has a private input, and they want to jointly compute some function f on their private inputs. So they can run such an NPC protocol. At the end of the protocol, everyone learns the output. The security guarantee is, again, the output y is the only thing that they can learn from this computation. Even if up to m minus 1 parties are corrupted and colluding, they cannot learn anything more about this party's input to x3. So this is the definition of NPC. What does two-round mean? Well, it means the NPC protocol has two rounds. Here is what a two-round NPC protocol looks like. We assume there is a broadcast channel, and the protocol has two rounds. In the first round, every party broadcasts one message to all the other parties, which depends on their private input. End of the first round. In the second round, every party broadcasts another message to all the other parties, which depends on their private input and the first-round messages that they have received. End of the second round, and then everyone can figure out the output. Now you may be asking, why do we care about round complexity? Why is it important to minimize the number of rounds? Why do we consider two rounds? Consider a protocol, let's say, between two parties. And if the round complexity is too high, then probably most of the work has to be done just in the communication, especially if these two parties are the me and my mom who sits in China, which means the network latency between us becomes a few hundred milliseconds. So maybe most of the work of this protocol has to be spent on the network latency. So it's usually very important in NPC to minimize the round complexity. Why don't we consider the minimum number of rounds, which is one round, or because it's impossible to compute certain functions in one round in NPC. So two rounds is the minimum number of rounds that we can hope for. Can we do two round NPC then? Let's briefly look at the literature. Back in the 80s, Goldberg, Mikhaili, and Weiderson gave a NPC protocol that can compute any function. And the round complexity is the depth of the circuit that computes this function. So the number of rounds grows with the depth of the circuit. And later, Biber, Mikhaili, and Rogeway gave a constant round NPC protocol, which is independent of the depth of the circuit. OK, great. And then in terms of two round NPC, now we know constructions from various assumptions, especially the recent work by Ben Hamoda and Lin and Gaogen Shui-Nivasa, which constructs two round NPC from this primitive called two round oblivious transfer. Since we also know two round NPC implies two round OT, so now they imply each other. So this is also kind of the minimal assumption that we can hope for. OK, now we can construct two round NPC from the minimal assumption. What's next? Can we implement? Well, you can, but it's just too slow. One of the reasons is that there are too many public key operations. Why is that a bad thing? Because public key operations are very slow. To give you a better sense how slow it is, compared to symmetric key operations like AES, it can be done like hundreds of millions of operations per second. But in contrast, public key operations or asymmetric key operations can only be done tens of thousands per second. This number may vary for different implementations or different machines. But this is just to give you a high level idea why public key operations are very slow. OK, so it's very important to minimize public key operations. And here comes our main result. We constructed two round NPC from two round OT, which is a minimal assumption. And the state of the art uses this many OT's, which is essentially this many public key operations. And we improve it to this many OT's and essentially this many public key operations, plus polynomial number of symmetric key operations. Where n is the number of parties, lambda is the security parameter, and c is the size of the circuit, namely the number of gates in the circuit. So before, the number of public key operations is a polynomial in the number of parties, security parameter, and size of the circuit. Now we improve it to be independent of the size of the circuit that computes the function. The rest of the result is the same as before, semi-honest two round NPC from two round semi-honest OT, and malicious NPC from two round malicious OT in the CRS model. OK, so this is our main result. Next question, how did we achieve it? If you think about it, now we have two round NPC which uses this many OT's. How can we reduce the number of OT's or the number of public key operations? A natural idea is to use OT extension. What is OT extension? It is intended to do the same number of OT's, but with much fewer public key operations. This seems to be exactly what we want. Can we just combine these two primitives to minimize the public key operations NPC? The first question you need to ask is that since we still want a two round protocol, is there a two round OT extension? The answer is yes, B-verse OT extension is two rounds. This seems even more perfect. Can we just combine two round NPC with two round OT extension to minimize the public key operations NPC? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Trivially combining these two primitives doesn't work. Why? At a very, very high level, the reason is the following. You look at this puzzle, this two round NPC, and we want to minimize the public key operations, and there is a missing piece here. And you feel like two round OT extension is exactly the missing piece. Can we just plug it in? But if you look at two round OT extension, it actually looks like this, so it doesn't match. And in more detail, if you look at two round NPC, it needs to do this many number of OT's, and there are two special properties that they need from the underlying OT's. I will talk about this in a minute, but let's look at two round OT extension. It can do the same number of OT's, that's no problem, but it doesn't satisfy these special properties, so there is a mismatch between these two primitives. How can we solve it? Again, at a very, very high level, here is what we are going to do. We're going to somehow modify the puzzle here and also the small piece here so that they can match. In more detail, we're going to weaken the special properties, and also we're going to look deeper into the two round NPC and two round OT extension, somehow modify them so that first, the weakened properties are sufficient for the two round NPC, and second, two round OT extension also satisfies these weakened properties. In the rest of the talk, I will tell you what are these special properties, why they're needed for NPC, and why they're not satisfied in two round OT extension and how we're going to solve it. Here's a technical overview for the rest of the talk. First, I will need to define two building blocks. One is called Yao Scarborough Circuit. The other is two round Oblivious Transfer. This is the only place that we need to use public key operations. And next, I will tell you what are the special properties that are needed for the existing two round NPC and why they are needed. And also, I will tell you how two round OT extension works and why it doesn't satisfy the special properties, why there is a mismatch. And finally, I will briefly tell you how we solve the problem. Okay, let's get started. The first building block, Yao Scarborough Circuit, at a very high level, it takes the arbitrary Boolean circuit and gobble it into a gobbled circuit. Take the arbitrary input to the circuit and gobble it into a gobbled input. And then you can evaluate the gobbled circuit and figure out the output. Security guarantees that the only thing that you can learn from this evaluation is the output. Nothing more, nothing about the circuit, nothing about input. Only thing that you can learn is the output. This is Yao Scarborough Circuit. The second primitive that we will need is Oblivious Transfer. It is a special NPC protocol between two parties. We call them sender and receiver. The input from the sender is a pair of messages M0 and M1 and the input from the receiver is a single bit B. At the end of the protocol, the receiver gets one of the two messages depending on his choice bit. So if B is zero, he gets M0. If B is one, he gets M1. Security guarantees very simple, B is hidden to the sender and the other message is hidden to the receiver. Two round OT is a special OT protocol that only has two rounds. In the first round, the receiver somehow encrypts his bit B sends to the sender and keeps some randomness as security information. In the second round, the sender somehow encrypts our two messages and sends to the receiver. And then the receiver can use the security information to recover M sub B. Security guarantees the same as before, B is hidden to the sender, the other message is hidden to the receiver. Okay, now we have the two building blocks. We can look into two round NPC. How does it work? What are the special properties? Why they are needed? At a very, very high level, the two round NPC works as follows. Between every pair of parties, they need to run K number of oblivious transfer in parallel where K is a polynomial in the security parameter and size of the circuit. And each of these oblivious transfer is a two round OT. So the two parties were run K number of two round OT in parallel. And here are the two special properties that they need from the underlying OT. The first property is that these decryption secrets are known by the receiver before the first, before the second round. And this is naturally satisfied in this case because all these secrets are generated by the receiver in the first round. So they're known before the second round. Okay, this is satisfied. The second property is that these decryption secrets are independent to each other. What does that mean? It means that if you want to decrypt the first message, you only need the first secret. If you want to decrypt the last message, you only need the last secret. They're all independent. Revealing one secret doesn't affect any other OTs. And this is also naturally satisfied in this case because all the OTs are in parallel and independent. So decryption are also independent. But now you might be asking, why do we need these two primitives? They're trivially satisfied. They are actually very important for the two round MPC to work. Let's take a closer look at the two round MPC. What are the messages? In the first round, every party prepares a bunch of OT1 messages and broadcasts. In the second round, every party prepares a bunch of GABO circuits along with OT2 messages and broadcasts. That's it. One crucial point here is that the decryption secrets are somehow hard-coded inside the GABO circuits. And that's why we need the first property. Because the decryption secrets are hard-coded inside the GABO circuits, they have to be known by the receiver before the second round because they are used in generating the second round messages. Another crucial point here is that after the second round, the parties will try to evaluate these GABO circuits. And in the evaluation, these decryption secrets are output by different GABO circuits in different places depending on the actual computation. So that's why we need the second property. Revealing one secret shouldn't affect the security of any other OTs. The decryption secrets have to be independent to each other. Okay, so now we have seen the two special properties and why they are needed for NPC. Now let's look at two round OT extension. OT extension at a viral high level, the idea is the following. The two parties, instead of doing K-oblivious transfer, they just do lambda of them. And in addition, the two parties will run polynomial number of symmetric key operations, which we don't care. So this way you can minimize the public key operations to just lambda. And two round OT extension in particular works as follows. It has two rounds. In the first round, the receiver generates a new set of choice bits, lambda of them, somehow encrypts it, sends to the sender and keeps some secret information. In the second round, the sender somehow encrypts all her messages and sends to the receiver. And then the receiver can use the secret information to recover all the messages. Now let's see if the two round OT extension satisfies the two special properties. The first property, the decryption secrets are known by the receiver before the second round. This is satisfied because all these secrets are generated by the receiver in the first round. So they're known before the second round. This is good. However, the second property isn't satisfied. Namely, the decryption secrets are not independent anymore. If you want to decrypt any of these messages, you need to actually review the entire secret here. And why is that? Let's take a closer look at the protocol. So in the first round, the receiver randomly generates a new set of choice bits, lambda of them, and create lambda OT one messages for these new choice bits and sends to the sender and keeps some secret information. It computes something else, also sends to the sender. In the second round, the message sent from the sender consists of a big garbo circuit along with a bunch of OT two messages, which are corresponding to these OT one messages. And now the receiver can use the secret information to decrypt these OT two messages. And the output is actually the garbled input. So you can evaluate the garbled circuit and get the output, which is exactly what he wants. What is inside this garbled circuit? This is a functionality of this garbled circuit, but you don't have to look very closely into it. One thing you should notice is that this circuit takes as input a string of all the new choice bits. And inside the functionality, it computes a pseudo random generator. On this S, which means if you want to compute any of these messages, you have to take the Intel S and first to compute a PRG, which means if you want to do it, if you want to decrypt any of these OT messages, you have to actually reveal the Intel secret and recover all the garbled inputs. And that's the reason why the second property isn't satisfied. The decryption secrets are not independent at all. Okay, so now we have seen why there is a mismatch between two-round MPC and two-round OT extension. In the last few minutes, I will briefly tell you how we can solve it. Let's go back to the two-round OT extension. It doesn't satisfy the second property. The first thing that we are going to do is to somehow modify the two-round OT extension such that the second property will be satisfied. And here is the idea. The sender will in addition generate a new set of messages. We call them masks. And the two parties will round the two-round OT extension on these masks. And in addition, the sender will send her original messages XOR with these masks. Now the receiver can use these masks to unmask the corresponding message. So these masks are kind of a one-time pass. But the benefit of this is that now you can view these masks as decryption secrets. And now they're independent. If you want to recover any of these messages, you only need to review the corresponding mask. They're independent. However, the first property isn't satisfied anymore because now these are the decryption secrets and they're only known by the receiver after the second round. Remember we need this property because in the two-round NPC protocol, the decryption secrets are hard-coded inside the Garbo circuit. And we're going to solve this problem by somehow weakening this property. And the idea is to remove this restriction. So here is idea. Now the decryption secrets become these masks. And instead of hard-coding these masks inside the Garbo circuit, we will have another Garbo circuit that computes these masks and somehow feed into these Garbo circuits. So we will weaken the special properties to be, the decryption secrets can be somehow computed and fed into the Garbo circuits. This is very vague. But after weakening the special properties, we can further modify the two-round NPC and two-round OT extension so that everything matches. I won't have time to talk about that, but let me summarize. So this is what we achieved to run the NPC protocol from the minimal assumption to run OT and using, we improve the number of public key operations to be independent of the size of the circuit. And when we try to combine two-round NPC with two-round OT extension, they don't match. So we somehow change the special properties that are needed for NPC and modify these two primitives so that everything can match. So that's all for semi-honest setting. For malicious setting, there are more challenges and we developed new tools to solve them. A little bit on the future work. Essential question we wanna ask is how to make it more practical? Like for example, now the construction is making non-blackbox use of the underlying crypto operations. Can we make it blackbox? Unfortunately, it is impossible if you want to keep it in two rounds and you will hear it why in tomorrow morning, second talk. So can we weaken it a little bit to have blackbox but three rounds, maybe combining with the three-round blackbox OT extension. And further, if we want to make it more practical, what are the concrete optimizations that we can do? With that, I will conclude my talk. Thank you.