Gad Saad

And why am I saying all this?

Because I can't comment as to whether he's been lying all the times when he said there's two more years left or one more year or six more months.

But surely we can grant the American government enough leeway to presume that if they thought that at this point it's the right time and it is now intolerable for them to go another day with the current reality, that they probably had some intelligence that suggests that they are close.

So I can't comment whether Netanyahu was pulling our eyes.

But surely it can't be that the Israelis are so manipulative in their puppeteering that they've pulled the wool over the American eyes.

And really there's no danger that the Iranians were posing and we've convinced the Americans to go to war.

Do you think that it is that?

: Can I?

Trevor Burrus, Jr.

So I think I've mentioned on the show before this distinction between deontological ethics, absolute statements, it is never okay to lie, versus consequentialist ethics.

It's okay to lie if it is meant to spare someone's hurt feelings, right?

So if your wife says, do I look fat in those jeans?

you put on your consequentialist hat and you say, you've never looked more beautiful because maybe she's put on a bit of weight, but you don't want to hurt her feelings, so you lie.

And for most of us, we go through life, in most instances, putting on a consequentialist hat, okay?

And I'm going to link it now to our discussion.

To have, for example, a deontological principle that says that I am always an isolationist.

Do you understand what I mean by here, deontological?

Meaning that it doesn't matter what the environment is out there.

I, as America, will never interfere in wars over there.

That can't be an optimal strategy, right?