Ian masterfully weaponizes formal ethical frameworks to dismantle a logically fragile argument, proving that rigorous philosophy remains the most effective antidote to dogmatic prejudice. This performance highlights how intellectual depth can turn a social debate into a comprehensive exercise in logical deconstruction.
Installieren Sie unsere Erweiterung an, um sofort in jedem Video zu suchen
Me and my pals humiliate a homophobe for the better part of 2 hoursIndiziert:
What an extravaganza!!!!!!! https://linktr.ee/allegedly.ian
She was um she was in a live with some dude I think named Divinity. He's also a larer cuz apparently he's >> Oh, true. Oh, true. He He literally argued for prochoice are larers for sure, >> bro. You can't >> He literally was arguing for prochoice.
>> You can't you can't do this. It can't be the case that you like name drop people and then every single one of them comes up one at a time and like beats the [ __ ] out of you. Like this just can't happen.
>> Yeah. How old are you?
>> I'm 19.
>> And do you think there's something wrong with being gay?
I do.
>> Okay. What do you think's wrong with being gay?
>> Yeah. If Ed hedenism is going to be wrong, then homosexuality will be wrong.
>> Wait, if what's going to be wrong?
>> Hedenism.
>> Okay. Why couldn't it fit under some sort of other ethical system?
>> Well, can you prove that?
>> Yeah. For example, like it would fit under like contianism. It would fit under virtue ethics. It would fit under con consequentialism.
In fact, like the majority of mainstream ethical systems, I mean, let's just take the contient example. Um, so Kant basically proposes that we can determine the rightness or the wrongness of an action by universalizing it and then determining whether or not there's a contradiction in you still being able to do the action, in you being able to achieve the goal of the action. I guess those are the two things, but you know, there's kind of you need to be able to achieve the goal. uh you need to be able to take the action and then the connection between the action and the goal need to remain. So let's say everybody was doing gay sex all the time constantly. Well, I mean you'd certainly be able to have gay sex. You'd certainly be able to um I don't know like get pleasure out of it. You'd be able to enjoy it. You'd be able to um I don't know make like a meaningful connection out of it.
>> Um and the gay sex would allow you to do that. So it passes the universalization criteria. So why would I think that hedonism is the only sort of system that would justify being gay?
>> You didn't prove anything. You just proved further a hedonistic system. You have to >> think you thinkism is hedonistic.
>> You're so confused.
>> It's like it's like an extraordinarily like unhedistic system.
>> Specifically, contian deontology refers to the rejection of consequentialism.
Deontology is literally just referred to or is literally just defined by people like Michael Huer as the rejection of consequentialism. Hedenism is a form of consequentialism.
Therefore, deontology is not going to fall under con or under hedonism.
>> Wait, can you can you expand on con whatever that was? Consequentialism.
>> Consequentialism. It's just going to be a moral system that argues that goodness or like the good making properties or the wrong making properties are going to be found in the consequences.
>> Well, I mean I'm not talking about the ethics of homosexuality. I'm more of talking about the ontology of it, what it actually is.
>> So he's judge based on that.
>> Those certainly are philosophy words, but yes, you are talking about the ethics of it.
>> I don't know if you're aware of this, but hedonism is an ethical system.
You're not talking about the ontology.
It's a philosophical idea of how we should run our routine.
>> Yes, that's correct.
>> What do you take?
>> But how we should run our routine? I don't know if you're aware of this, is ethics. Ethics is the study of practical reason. The things that we have reason to do with respect to our actions?
>> Wait, wait, wait. So you don't think routines can be amoral then?
>> Yeah, routines can be amoral.
>> So then how could that be ethical?
Because there is no right or wrong within.
>> It's a question of whether or not you're doing the things that you should do. You can still from the perspective of ethics evaluate something and deem it permissible.
So going back to contism breathing could be >> yeah breathing is permissible. In fact in most cases it's like obligatory >> depending on your system.
>> How so? How so?
>> Because a lot of moral systems would prescribe that you have a obligation to take good care of yourself and you know if you stop breathing that's going to be at odds with that.
>> But that's going to be of a subject though. I don't even know what that means. That's going to be of a subject.
Yeah, subjects. Whoa, that doesn't follow. Subjects have obligations towards themselves to take care of themselves.
>> Yeah, but that's not that's not the though. You can't get an a from an interpretation. That'd make it flawed.
>> I don't even know what it means to say you can't get an a from an interpretation. What are you talking about? So, so for example, right, if we're saying, "All right, Schmurder is wrong and I interpret Schmurder would be just unaliving somebody, obviously that interpretation would be wrong in that odd." So, it'd have to be objective on the basis of what Schmurder should be.
>> Wrong in like a conceptual sense or wrong in like an ethical sense?
>> It's just wrong.
>> Oh gosh, that really clarifies that.
>> Well, I mean, that was so informative.
Jeez, you know, I hadn't considered, you know, just the term that we're trying to disambiguate said one more time.
>> I mean, I mean, the word unal alive is conceptually amoral, but schmurder is an action. So, what do you mean concept? It is a thing.
>> I'm asking you whether or not you're saying like you're mistaken about the concept. Like when you say wrong, you could be wrong in the sense that you gave like the wrong answer on like a math quiz. I don't know if that's the sense of wrong that you're referring to that the person is like confused about what it means to murder or if you're saying like morally wrong. That's what we're trying to disambiguate.
>> So So you're asking about what?
>> Yeah. In the example that you just gave >> what I what I do.
>> This guy's like super not tracking. I didn't that's not what I'm asking.
>> I'm I'm asking you a question. You asked >> just in the context that you used it in earlier.
>> In that context. Yeah. I take wrong to be anything that would um that would be straying away from God's um will.
>> Okay. How do we know the will of God?
>> How do we know the will of God?
>> Yeah.
>> Through huristics obviously.
>> Which ones?
>> Um his energies.
>> Which ones?
>> Yeah. Like his grace, his mercy.
>> Okay.
>> Creation. Where can I find his grace and his mercy?
>> Yeah, within um religion.
>> Which one?
>> Okay, now we're doing a Socrates obiscation. That's nice. What's your like >> I'm just trying to get a bit of clarification on your position. You know, you keep on giving non-answers.
You know, if you keep on giving non-answers, then I'm just going to ask clarifying questions.
>> Well, I mean, you can use like your deductive reasoning. You don't need so many clarifications. This Socrates obviously.
>> Please help me. Like, how would I how would I deduce your religion? help you.
>> Yeah, I need your help in explaining how I'm supposed to use deductive reasoning in order to arrive at the conclusion of what religion you are.
>> What religion I am? It doesn't matter.
Just >> How would I deduce that? Can I get like the premise one and premise two?
>> The premise one and premise two, >> of course. Yeah. Premise one would be following a religion, right?
>> Mhm. would allow you to know and be relevated on these specific energies.
Premise two, if you are relevated on these specific energies, then you know God's will. Conclusion, following a religion reates revelates God's will.
>> Sure. So, just any religion.
>> I mean, we haven't we haven't got that.
We haven't got there yet. You have >> that's what I'm asking you about.
>> We have to first believe in God before we can go on a specific religion. But in order for you to appeal to your shitty god, in order to justify your shitty ethical system.
>> Oh, just calm down. There's no need to get upset, you would first need to establish the existence of your god.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, do you believe in god?
>> No, I don't.
>> So, it's going to be the argument that your god exists exist value. Will it be your truth value?
>> That's a category error.
>> How's that a category error? What? What do you >> Yeah, because propositions have truth values. I'm not a proposition. You have like a brain bleed or something.
>> I have a brain bleed. That's kind of a but >> just a little bit.
>> What do you take What do you take to be true is what I'm saying. What is the value that you take to be true?
>> Okay. That's not what people mean when they say truth value. When they say truth value, they're asking of a proposition. Is the proposition true or false? I'm a deflationist about truth. I take truth to be something like that which is the case.
>> Mhm. So what do you take?
>> Can you repeat back to me the answer that I just gave?
Yeah, you were explaining how people use truth values.
>> No, I was explaining to you my truth when I was saying I literally just answered the question to be true.
>> Oh no, this is going to look really bad in the recording when I answer the question and then you embarrassingly stay on this point.
>> It's going to look be bad.
>> It's all live streamed to YouTube. I answered the question like 15 seconds ago. I'll answer it a second time.
>> You didn't though.
>> Oh, I'll hit a proposition.
You said you look really bad in the >> Okay, wait. Let's Let's look at the replay then.
>> You said you want say truth value. They're asking >> of a proposition. Is the proposition true or false? I'm a deflationist about truth. I take truth to be something like that which is the case.
>> Yep. So I gave my definition. I'm a deflationist about truth. I take truth to be something like that which is the case.
>> But that doesn't explain anything.
>> Okay. So to be clear So to be clear, I did answer the question. O, that's that's rough, buddy.
>> How's that a >> what a what a gigab blender because you said that I didn't answer the question and you were posturing about how your replay is going to prove that I didn't answer the question and then I pull up my replay in real time and then I demonstrated that I actually did answer the question. Sorry, maybe the answer went over your head. Maybe you just didn't track it. If you want clarification, I'm happy to give you some >> an answer. Do you understand that one?
>> No.
>> Response not an answer. What What does that even mean? You're a defense. You take the >> that's like a pretty common view in theories of truth >> or do I study theories of truth?
>> Clearly not. I don't know why you're asking me for my theory of truth when you don't even read about this.
>> I asked you what you take truth to be.
>> Wait, sorry. You're engaging in argumentation. What's your theory of argumentation?
>> My theory of argumentation?
>> Yeah. Don't answer that. It's stupid.
>> What?
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, how about me on you? You're probably conditioned to give actual answers to what are obviously like nonsensical questions.
>> Listen, in layman's term, tell me what you take truth to be.
>> That which is the case.
>> That of which the case >> that which is the case.
>> So what I take from that is isness. So am I wrong for asserting that?
>> I don't think I would make that claim.
>> Seems to refer to something like being.
I mean obviously these things have being if if it's conceptual.
So what what are you even talking about?
>> Yeah. So the deflationary theory of truth kind of like the motivating intuition is this that when you affirm a proposition when you say snow is white that's identical to saying it is true that snow is white and vice versa. When I say it is true that snow is white, that's just the same thing as saying snow is white. You're just saying something is the case.
>> It's just a flawed system though. That's also subjective.
>> It's a flawed system. So what's the critique?
>> Yeah, the critique is that subjective.
>> And which part of the system is subjective?
>> Yeah. Your interpretation >> and what interpretation of it?
>> Yeah. For example, in your scenario of snow being white, what if I were to see snow being yellow? Would that mean snow is yellow?
Nope.
>> Why not?
>> It's a question of whether or not in reality it actually is that way.
>> But how do we I mean that that just goes back that's >> it's a question of >> that's circular. Hello.
>> Oh, sorry. How is that circular?
>> That's circle.
>> Are you saying it's an epistemic circle?
A semantic circle?
>> I'm saying Yeah. So So for example, I say >> he's like panicking, dude.
>> Wait, do you think that answers my question? What kind of circle is that?
>> What type of circle?
>> Yeah, there's like epistemic circles.
There are metaphysical circles, semantic circles. What kind of circle, >> brother? I'm just saying it's a circular fallacy.
>> Okay.
>> Why do I get why do I get >> What sort of circle am I positing here?
>> Yeah. Whether whether or not that system is true because in >> Holy [ __ ] dude. This is like really embarrassing. He's I think the worst part is is that he's trying to do like the K voice, too. like he's trying to mimic like Cojo's like voice and cadence and dispositions and it's just like really embarrassing because Cojo like reads way more than you do >> and I don't know it's just like really bad. It's kind >> of back to the thing. I'm not going to let you dodge the the exposing.
>> Yeah, of course. Right. So, so like you said, you said snow would not be yellow because we posit then it would be true that you're scared. You're panicking.
>> It's a question. Oh [ __ ] dude. He's like projecting >> in order to prove anything.
>> Oh gosh. He thinks like rhetorically beating on his chest and saying you're losing. You're losing. That's going to do something. Oh gosh. But it's just going to embarrass him further, >> right? So, so when we're talking about what's true, right, in reality, we have to use that deflationist theory so it all loops back in a circle.
>> Sorry, that's not circular. Where's the circle there?
>> Wait, wait. No, no, no, no. How are you going to answer?
>> Sorry. What's the circle there? What's the circle there? You said it's not and you're going to >> Oh [ __ ] He can't substantiate his point, dude.
>> Proof is on you.
>> Yeah. The reason why it's not circular is because all I'm saying that truth means is just that which is the case. It would be circular in the same way that it's circular to say, you know, a bachelor is an unmarried man and an unmarried man is a bachelor.
>> But I'm saying the interpretation itself is circular.
>> And by interpretation, you mean what?
What is the interpretation?
>> Can you steal, man? Can you steal, man?
No, you're gibberating. What do you mean by the interpretation?
>> Yeah. The interpretation as your subjective experience of the situation.
>> Okay. Sure. So, you're specifically saying that what's going to be true is going to come back to like the individual and what they think. Well, they can just be mistaken about it because something is going to be the case or not be the case.
>> So, you've now pivoted from the question of the theory of truth to an epistemic question of how we demonstrate that.
>> That's been my whole thing.
>> Pivoting away. I I totally grant that your whole thing has been pivoting away, which is why every single time you've pivoted away, I've made fun of you a little bit for it as I'm doing right now.
>> I got to love the title shot. But anyways, back to what we're trying to prove. My point was that how do we prove these things to be true? That would go back to your true >> variety of ways for a variety of claims.
Depends on the claim.
>> A variety of ways.
>> Yeah. You don't prove that 2 plus 2 is four in the same way that you prove that you have hands. Uh, and you don't prove that in the same way that you prove that you have like a Mustang in your garage.
>> Wait, wait. Are we true about that?
>> Yeah.
>> So, so like for example, if I were to say 1 plus 1 equals 3 of my interpretation using a deflationist theory.
>> Mhm.
>> And by one, what do you mean?
>> Yeah. Singular. A single.
>> Yeah, sure. And by three, what do you mean?
>> Yeah.
Singular.
>> Spawn killed, dude.
>> Holy [ __ ] Oh gosh. It was like the big stutter.
Like he had to stop and like think about it and he was like, "Fuck, how many is three, >> dude? Are you like >> Yeah, because under your own criteria that that wouldn't be three."
>> Oh my god, guys. He had to think about his question. It's like politicians don't even do that. Oh my god.
>> Sorry. Do you think between the two of us I'm the one that paused?
>> There was a huge pause on your end.
Maybe you're just buffering. You know, maybe you ripped your router out of the wall because of how bad this debate's going for you. You know, maybe your your Wi-Fi has gotten shot. Maybe God himself is willing that your Wi-Fi only uploads at like three frames per second.
>> Yo, chat, yes or no? Did he pause earlier trying to explain his fious theory in a layman's term? Cuz he can't.
>> I don't know why you would ask the chat.
>> No, I'm just saying cuz clearly >> they're just going to agree with me.
They're just going to say no.
>> Clearly.
>> Yeah. Look at that. [ __ ] brutal, >> bro. One person said no.
>> Humiliating.
>> Brutal.
>> Wait, so so >> literally look at it. That's like so many nos, dude. It's like floods of nose. Somebody said yes. There's another.
>> Do you see? Oh, yeah. One yes and a sea of nos.
>> Two yeses. I see three yeses.
>> I bet if we ask the person. I'm up to like 50 nos.
>> I four yeses.
>> Wait, how about we just do a poll?
>> Wait, >> let's get an objective.
>> You know, you you wanted to appeal to the chat.
>> Oh my god.
>> Yeah, he wants to appeal to the chat until you know.
>> No, cuz that that'd just be communal narcissism. That >> it's lit. You were literally appealing to the chat earlier.
>> I This is a critique of your own system.
There there's a lot of people saying yes. I'm just saying obviously this is your lie when the majority describing his theory of truth.
>> Guys, this guy's literally an appeal to authoritarianism at this point.
>> You literally brought it up, big dog, >> brother. It's your live. Obviously, you're going to have more.
>> Okay, sure. Then I don't even know.
Sure. Then that was stupid of you for you to bring this up, but you did bring it up. So, the poll is live now.
>> The people.
>> So, the question is, did I pause when I was giving my theory of truth? the people that are saying yes.
>> We'll see. We'll see.
>> So, right now it's uh bad and it's getting worse by the second.
>> We have four votes to what? 30 votes.
Four votes to 40 votes.
>> Wait, what?
>> You're losing by like a [ __ ] mile, my dude.
>> Is this on YouTube?
>> Yeah, it is. It's live streamed, >> brother. That's even worse.
>> It's even better.
>> I mean, I agree. It's It's worse for you, better for me. It's going to be even better when it gets uploaded in the future. You know, maybe laughing like the Joker will help you at a time like this.
>> Spit out more words that you don't know.
>> No, >> that's that's what this dude does whenever he gets cucked in the argument.
He spits out a word like egoism or, you know, theory of truth.
>> [ __ ] gibberish.
>> Yeah. Every time you get beat the [ __ ] down in the argument is the way that I'm using it. every time you lose the argument is the specific semantic reduction that I'm referring to.
>> I I'm still I'm still kind of confused why you're using a circle.
>> You should actually know what being cucked is like experientially. You know, in the same way that a person who's looking at the sky experientially will know that the sky is blue.
>> No, not not intrinsically. What if they're color blind?
>> It totally seems like you would know this in virtue of your ability to actually comprehend the qualitative experience unless you're I don't know a philosophical zombie. No, I'm just asking. What if they're color blind? How are they going to know the sky is blue?
>> Then they're not going to have that qualia.
>> I'm speaking of the people who have that qualia. Like obviously, >> you know, people having knowledge about depends what you mean by subjective. I don't think that there's a truth maker to quality.
>> Oh my god, I explained it so many times.
>> What's your definition?
>> Wait, so you don't even know my definition?
>> Yeah, go ahead and give your definition.
I thought you explained it multiple times.
>> Go back in the recording like you did.
>> Oh, sure. Yeah, let's go back in the recording. Let's see his definition of subjective >> strangling. How so?
>> Edenism. It didn't come up at all.
>> Speed it up. I say perspective.
>> You said it's coming up. Wait, I'm not asking you about perspective. I'm asking you about subjective.
>> I said subjective. Interpretation or perspective. You don't want to fail your systemal system that >> Wait, did you skip over it? I swear I >> I I critiqued I critique the Katanian view.
>> I'm I'm going to watch.
>> You can't even say the word. You can't even say the dude's name.
>> Anotheristic gesture.
>> Yeah. This entire debate, frankly, has been ableist. The way that you're clearly not mentally right and I'm still beating the [ __ ] out of you. And you know, what does that make me? you know, a little bit abbleist, but nevertheless, I'm not going to stop like absolutely steamrolling you in this debate.
>> A little bit racist, too.
>> I don't know about that one. I just >> see Conanian's view to be >> He literally can't even say the name Kant, dude. Holy [ __ ] >> Yeah, but I know it.
>> Kian. It doesn't matter how I pronounce it.
>> I mean, people are going to be confused as to what you're talking about.
>> You're inventing terms in real time. ADL would >> wait. I'm sorry. And to be clear, >> I'm not going to lie.
>> You didn't claim you didn't give any definition of subjective.
>> Oh, we'll watch it. I will watch it entirely from the beginning. Uh, so this is >> I I'm going to clip the part where I say perspective or >> No need. I'll I'll listen with my hands.
It's like I don't know. you do like the coward slide from >> because a lot of moral systems would prescribe that you have a obligation to take good care of yourself and you know if you stop breathing that's going to be with that >> but that's going to be of a subject though >> I don't even know what that means that's going to be subject that doesn't follow subjects have obligations towards themselves to take care of themselves >> yeah but that's not that's not the though you can't get a from wait >> oh this is going to be unfortunate for you really grasping at straws at this point >> I just I just want to see if I said it >> yeah a definition of subjective is the thing we're looking for.
Let's see it.
>> Go go go go back to when I said of the subject.
>> Going back to breathing breathing could be >> Yeah, breathing is permissible. In fact, in most cases, it's like obligatory.
>> How so? How so?
>> Because a lot of moral systems would prescribe that you have a obligation to take good care of yourself and you know if you stop breathing that's going to be at odds with that.
>> But that's going to be of a subject though.
>> I don't even know what that means.
That's going to be of a subjective subject. Whoa, that doesn't follow.
Subjects have obligations towards themselves to take care of themselves.
>> Yeah, but that's not that's not the though. You can't get an a from an interpretation. That'd make it flawed.
>> I don't even know what it means to say you can't get an a from an interpretation, >> you know. I think so. For example, are you are we done with the replay?
Have you Are you ready to see that you got completely [ __ ] boiled on it?
>> We're going to see We're going to see the snow part.
Are we You got completely [ __ ] boiled on it. So, it turns out you actually never def Whoa, calm down. Chill out.
Calm down. Take a deep breath. There's no need to get upset.
>> I'm going post it on my >> There's no need to get upset. Take a deep breath. Wait. So, you just want to go ahead and concede that actually you never gave a definition of subjective.
>> No. Cut to the snow part.
>> Cut to the snow part.
>> See how he's scared to the snow part is where you want to go. Sure. Let's watch the rest of the debate. When we see the snow part is wrong and I interpret would be just unaling somebody obviously wrong that objective on the basis of what I said it I said interpret >> that's >> I'm asking you for a definition of subjective you have a brain bleed still >> you've never clarified that that's your definition of it until right this second >> I did subjective >> wait sorry where do where do you make the claim that subjective is defined as your interpretation of it >> no I just used it >> yes Yeah, >> go back if you want. You can watch the whole thing. I just said it there.
That's a W concession right there.
That's all I needed.
>> Yeah, I agree. It is a W concession on your part >> is account of 29.
>> You conceding is like the smartest thing that you could do right now to be honest. Like you could at least scavenge together like a little bit of >> simple, right? If we're saying, "All right, Schmurder is wrong and I interpret schmurder would be just unaliving somebody obviously that interpretation would be wrong in that odd." Exactly. So it had to be objective interpretation or perspective objective.
>> Yeah. The complete absence of the word subjective there >> brother. There's an antonym of objective is implied that I was talking about subjective.
>> No it isn't >> because there are lots of things that aren't objective. For example interubjective is another one.
Transcendent is a third one. Brother, how did you say interubjective is the object the opposite of?
>> There isn't a straight negation to objective other than not objective.
There are a variety of things that fall into the category of not objective. Like for example, transcendent, you know, for example, interubjective.
>> I don't think that there is a straight antonym to objective.
>> Oh my god. So, so, so you don't you don't agree.
>> So, so, so, so you keep getting blown the [ __ ] out. Oh yeah. I mean, if if that's how you perceive it kind of my rhetorical dick in your mouth, by the way.
>> That's how you interpret it. Oh, I'm not I'm not gay, man. I'm sorry.
>> Are you sure?
>> I'm gay.
>> You could have confused me the way I've been blowing your back out this entire time.
>> Nah, bro. I'm good, dude.
>> Are you sure?
>> I mean, my girlfriend, >> it's a bit too late, right? Like, it's that's kind of awkward for for you to tell me that now.
>> When she comes out though, like if you want to be voyeristic about it, you know, be a little hedonistic about it.
>> I'm okay. You know, you're okay. You wanted me to You wanted me to get your engine started at 10.
>> I mean, you seem a little homoerotic. I mean, I thought you'd be into >> I often get that sort of feedback.
>> That That's That's like ew.
>> Okay.
>> You get that a lot.
>> Yeah.
>> I mean, I look I got I got the concession clip.
>> I got I got I got you got you got you got >> the entire time. You got [ __ ] >> It's like it's big. It's brutal. It was like a really rough one. And you know this is just what believing in God does to you. But do you want to do one final meme?
>> Oh bro, that's like a >> You want to do one final meme?
>> Ad homonym, dude.
>> Yeah, it is.
>> Wait, you you want one more meme?
>> Yeah, one last meme. Do you think the slavery in the Bible was morally perfect?
>> What's the name of your inference rule?
That's >> okay. Do you I didn't give an argument.
>> I did not.
>> What was the name of the inference rule though?
>> For which argument >> that you know what I'm talking about. I don't. Which argument do you want the inference rule for?
>> Blissfully blissfully ignorant. Oh my god.
>> He did. He's just learning now, dude.
Holy [ __ ] He didn't realize that you can only give inference rules after you give an argument. He He's literally just learning about this.
>> KB Crusaders like he's like gig confused.
>> What argument? I wasn't talking about argument.
>> We're referencing >> which argument are you referring to?
>> Yeah, we're talking about the the A to B possibly Could maybe be D. Whatever. or whatever you were watching.
>> Well, that's that's the exact point is that not all arguments are going to have inference rules. That's like obviously true.
>> My name syllogism was unound though.
>> Whoa. Sorry. It's unound.
>> You didn't even >> Which premise was false?
>> Brother, you never pulled it up.
>> I did. It was literally on the screen.
>> Oh, it wasn't.
>> Do you want to get eviscerated on this one, too?
>> Eviscerated?
>> It was literally on the screen of the live.
>> He literally said, "Pull back up the syllogism."
>> Yeah. Yeah, it was it was up in the first place and then he stopped engaging with it so I took it down.
>> Holy [ __ ] dude. He must have done such a bad job that now you need to come up here and like white knight for him.
Imagine doing so bad in a debate that you literally need like your followers to come up and like debate on behalf of your debate performance.
>> Wait, do you want to wait? Do you want to do you want to hear something really funny? How about I play a video of him uh straight conceding the debate? like he goes into a live subsequently and he admits to everybody that actually he learned that he was wrong about like the central disagreement. Wait wait wait check this out. Check this out.
>> All right.
>> And then the second one I wanted to point out is like you were saying that if something is something if something is epistemically possible that means it's logically >> Yeah. No. Yeah. No. I got I got you. I made a mistake there. I know.
>> The central disagreement and he's like [ __ ] dude I [ __ ] up. Oh no. You came in here glazing and then you find out that the thing that you're glazing is I don't know like a pile of garbage. You know, >> I didn't even watch the whole >> That's brutal. I I grant that you didn't watch the full clip. That's why you came in here and humiliated yourself. He's like scrambling away. I don't know why you would try to debate me on like past debate performances.
>> Like you're winning. Is this like a hope factor?
>> I'm not only winning, I'm like dominating. This is like a generational run right now. I mean, at this point, it feels like I'm going on my victory lap.
Frankly, >> you've lost on like every single place.
You lost on the gay debate, so you had to pivot the [ __ ] away from that. Name name. You keep getting [ __ ] You keep on short circuiting all over yourself.
>> God damn, dude.
>> Name one part that I failed at. Go ahead.
>> Yeah. One part that you failed on was to demonstrate that there's anything wrong about being gay.
>> Brother, we never we never concluded that.
>> Yeah. So what was the reason given for why it's wrong to be gay?
>> Things have to be concluded for it to be >> Why is it wrong to be gay then?
>> Brother, I already told you.
>> I thought it I thought it hadn't been concluded yet.
>> I I gave >> But now it has been concluded. It both has and hasn't been concluded. He's contradicting himself over the course of like 5 seconds.
>> What's the reason why it's wrong?
>> Asking for You're not asking for the >> the demonstrations of it. You're asking for the question. What? I'm not I don't know what the [ __ ] you think asking for the question is >> I'm asking you what's the reason why it's wrong to be gay?
>> Yeah. And I gave my response which was what?
>> You haven't concluded it yet.
>> But you can't steal man it. You can't steal man that. What was that?
>> That's like your four-felt steel man.
>> What was that? Go ahead.
>> No, I just want to see if you got it.
>> Holy [ __ ] dude.
>> Yo, you're >> nothing. He has genuinely zero.
>> Did I dominate you on that?
Ju just steel man it please. I'm waiting >> or or >> you need to give an argument for me to steal man it.
>> You you need me to repeat it for you.
Right.
>> So specifically the argument that you came in here with is that if hedonism is false then being gay is wrong. And then I demonstrated to you that actually uh the premise that if >> hedenism is false then being gay is wrong is like totally incorrect because there's lots of moral systems that would say it's totally fine to be gay. And your response to this was uh nothing.
Brother, you never even gave me a moral system.
>> Conte deontology was the moral system I gave you. Virtue ethics was the second one I gave you.
>> Yeah, but that's on ethics. We're talking about >> What's the difference between morals and ethics? Go ahead.
>> Ethics would be the principles. The morals would be of the wrong and right.
>> The principles of what? Ethics is the principles of what?
>> Of the installations of the wrong.
>> Of the installation.
>> It's the It's the in the house. No [ __ ] way, dude. It's the principles of the installations.
Holy. No shot, dude. I said principal shot.
>> It's the installation of the principles.
>> The installation. It's the principles of the installation of the principles.
>> It's the installation of the principles.
>> Inst. Yeah, it's the installation. It's the principles of the installations of the principles. You said it's the principles of the installations of the principles. Yeah. Wait, what's the difference between ethics and morals? Go ahead. Let's let's do try number two now that you humili hum humiliated yourself on try number one.
>> Installations of principles of the right and wrong.
>> By installations what do you mean right and wrongness >> installation would be the implied frameworks. The implied framework. So the moral systemology we're talking about the ontology.
>> So the moral system Oh sorry you're confused. That's meta ethics. The ontology of ethics is metaeththics.
>> No.
>> Duh. trivial.
>> We're not talking about ethics, though.
So, we're >> talking about the ontology of morals.
>> That would be the ontology of the frameworks.
>> Yeah, that's meta ethics.
>> What do you think the field of meta ethics covers?
>> You just got seated.
>> Oh [ __ ] Surely you don't think that this is the winning rhetorical play.
Surely you don't think that rhetorically beating on your chest and declaring victory is going to help you out at a time like this after a blunder as big as the principles of the installation of the principles.
>> I don't think I don't think there's anything I don't think a panel composed of like KB crusader and Islamic apex and I don't know like who else do you want to throw in there? I I don't think an entire like an elite strike force would be able to dig you out of such a dog [ __ ] blender.
Brother, >> certainly >> you literally failed. You have to shout a whole lot.
>> You conceded. Surely that's not going to do it.
>> You conceded. I said if it's show one thing that I conceded on.
>> Yeah. The definition of my subjective.
>> Nope. That didn't happen. You're like super delusional at this point. I've slammed you so hard that you have brain damage, which is why the different parts of your brain are like seeping into each other, which is why none of your thoughts are going to be able to be kept straight. They're just keeping on like merging and forming and polymorphing abilic racist like >> calm down there.
>> No need to get upset.
>> Calm down, dude. I don't really like oppressors, bro.
>> Oh, are you sure?
>> Cuz you you talk like a crybully.
You want to cry. You want to bully and then when you get bullied back, you want to cry.
>> You said what?
You want to bully and then when you get bullied back you want to cry.
>> Bully is called defense, brother.
>> Yeah.
>> All my people think bullying is defensive.
>> It's a defensive bully >> throughout history was defense.
>> Holy [ __ ] dude. Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> It's kind of like you're like well versed in history. Sure.
>> Yo, is this [ __ ] Hegel friend?
>> Yeah, it's Hegel friend.
>> This is like the biggest larer ever.
Hold on.
>> Is that true? Is that true? Yeah, that's very true.
>> What's one thing that you argument?
What's the argument for that? Yeah, he had one Tik Tok about him. Nobody knows this guy.
>> Oh, you think that makes him a largel?
>> I mean, like how many how many Tik Toks does um I don't know. Like Amy Thomasson have about her. I guess that means that she's laring.
>> I'm just saying Hegel is a low tier philosopher. Kikard is way better honestly.
>> Interesting.
>> What's one proposition you take Hegel to beard?
>> Kikard.
>> Yeah. What's one proposition you think Hegel is committed to that you think is false? Go ahead, >> brother. It's not It's not about his propositions. It's about what he thinks.
>> It's about his writings, brother.
>> Have you ever ever heard of harmonious reading, harmonious literature? You really answering question? I just I just clarified what I meant by him being low tier on based on his works.
>> Right. But we agree as long as we agree that you don't have sort of any substantive disagreement with anything Hegel said.
>> No, I just I just said it's based on his works. Also, you have your other larper friend fan in the chat. Kiz, I debated that guy, too. He couldn't even like >> straight answer. Let's be really nice to this guy because the chat is clearly >> No, no, I made Chem conceit to genocide being moral under his atheistic framework. That's what atheism does. But anyways, when we're talking about talking about works here, when we're talking about works here, I don't care what, you know, works he does. I'm talking about his harmonious literature >> cuz you could say someone like [ __ ] Shitler wrote a good book but I don't give a [ __ ] because >> you could say that would be wrong subjective to whoever's interpreting it >> or based on harmonious you mean by good book but >> yeah harmonious literature things that allow you to feel harmonious low cortisol you ever heard of that or is like low testosterone >> bro when I think of uh when I think of like the easy approachable philosophers to read I think of how how the [ __ ] did you pronounce his [ __ ] Kick regard. Was it something like that?
>> Kickard. Hello.
>> You did not. You like underpronounced.
It's literally going to be in the replay.
>> Kikard. I even said >> Well, right here in the replay, I'm going to edit in the sound of you saying his name uh wrongly.
>> Kikard is way better. Can you edit in president of 2044, too? Cuz I'm going to be president 2044.
>> Uh, I doubt that, but sure. Do you think um what do you think? What do you think Hegel fan is wrong about? Yeah, brother.
>> I never say he was wrong about anything.
I said he was a larer.
>> In what way do you think he's larer who's right about everything based?
True.
>> Yeah. He's probably part of like what is it? A knowledge gap. What is the KB the KP clan? Yeah. All of them. All of them play devil's advocate on every part. And it's kind of embarrassing.
>> It's a shame.
>> It's a shame of politics. It is a shame of politics, political frameworks, and social and moral ethics.
>> Yeah. Let this guy tell you about shame.
He knows quite a bit about shame.
Hedenism will be the death of all.
People are plaguing politics.
>> I don't think anybody here is uh is committed to hedenism.
>> Well, I mean, >> I certainly am taking pleasure out of beating the [ __ ] out of the sky, though.
>> I mean, I mean, I have an anti-henistic framework that exceeds asism. I don't even [ __ ] know. As cithetic.
>> Yeah. Aseticism.
>> Yeah. [ __ ] um the Buddha. Yeah. My my philosophical framework on that part.
Near perfectionism prevails in all aspects of life obviously.
>> I mean I'm just saying though like >> near perfectionism.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, you don't know how to spell near perfectionism.
>> No. No. No. Like do you want to elaborate on the view?
>> You want to elaborate on the view? You want to explain >> when I say spell that out? Like do you want to explain the view?
>> Yeah. I don't even know like this clang.
Yeah. The framework would be that becoming perfect rest on striving per striving for perfection >> where perfection is defined as what?
>> Yeah. Perfection.
>> Yeah. My view is basically you should do good stuff. You try to do good stuff.
>> That's like that's like an >> That's just like an emotive view. I don't >> you should do good stuff. Oh my [ __ ] god, dude.
>> But it's it's not all based on good.
It's good to be perfect and and in order to be perfect, you should try to be perfect. That's this is high level stuff.
>> Yeah. It's not it's not really like that. It's escaping entropy because we can't >> moral perfection is a perfection and you should just try to be morally perfect.
That's my >> say was a moral framework. I said is a philosophical framework because it's about routine contraosing it to things like hedenism >> which is about routine and about maximizing self-pleasure which are ethical system maximizing >> I don't know if you're aware of that these are ethical systems >> this guy knows not do you meditate like do you meditate at all >> clearly not >> yeah I just I haven't spent enough time by the river or under the tree you know I just haven't achieved >> like you should read you should read like meditations by No shot.
>> By Marcus Aurelius, dude. Maybe help you out.
>> No shot.
>> There's no shot that >> I'm going to be writing books in the future. Maybe you should read that.
>> Yeah, >> there's going to be the the case the the followup of like >> your perfectionism.
>> If you give a mouse a cookie, >> the case for reactionary conservatism. I mean, I'm just going to be like the best writer in the world.
>> Yeah.
>> Statues will be in my honor.
>> I believe that. I did.
>> Yeah. Can you imagine the Can you believe that this is like the state that young men are in right now? That this is like the sort of dreams that young men have.
>> I'm 25.
>> And what have you done for yourself?
>> I graduated from a really good college and now you know I have >> Wait, what degree? What degree?
>> Math and computer science. It was a double major.
>> So what did that apply to in your life is what I'm asking.
>> Software engineering job.
>> Computer scientist.
>> Yeah. This is just like >> like a like a really highpaying job as a software engineer.
>> Oh, that's brutal.
>> It is really brutal.
>> We all We all know about >> It's really brutal to have like a good high paying job as a software engineer.
>> It's wrong to contribute to the death of society and the exploitation of children.
>> What the [ __ ] are you talking about?
>> Yeah. Software engineering. Software means computer, right?
>> Software means computer, right, Ian?
>> Yeah. Software takes place within computers. Not quite. You're going to have to mine those parts, right? And those are usually children.
>> Of course. Of course. Yeah. You know, you bought you're currently speaking into a phone. Uh and you know, in order to get that phone, who who needed to mine the parts for the phone that you're speaking into? Children, you're a child abuser.
>> How do you know I'm on a phone? How do you know I'm on a phone?
>> Because you're going to be on some sort of mobile device. You You can't do this through PC.
>> How do you know?
>> Yeah. In so far as the technology doesn't exist. It has to be done uh via mobile.
>> You don't think I can code it?
>> Uh name uh name four programming languages.
>> Um Linux C.
>> That's not even a programming language.
>> Linux.
>> Oh [ __ ] dude. That's brutal.
>> Instant spawn kill. He took one step onto the the ice in front of him and immediately falls through.
>> First one. Yeah, I'm a I'm pretty proficient in coding in in Windows.
>> When did I say I was professional? I just said I >> said proficient. I was making fun of you because you said an operating system was a programming language.
>> After saying you coded a way to use Tic Tac live on your PC.
>> I'm just saying, man, it's just brutal.
Uh but as like for like the bonus I agree this was brutal but as like the bonus question can you name one single distribution of Linux >> distribution what do you mean by that >> okay we can move on to the next question >> the retailers >> no >> that's what was being asked >> we can move on to the next we don't we don't need to we >> saying why do you support the accelerationism of like the death of our society because I mean technology is ultimately a net negative >> don't I think billions must love >> Indeed Is this guy like a Soy jack now? Hello?
>> That's right.
>> I am.
>> Wait, wait. So, so you're actually on for >> Oh my god.
>> No.
>> But I mean, you know these terms though?
>> Yeah, everyone does. These are mainstream.
>> Do you think soy jack is like a like an elite secret? Like Yeah.
>> Crazy. I'm saying I'm saying that the the use of it the use of it that you displayed was >> pretty love is I think a pretty >> pretty popular >> well I mean I know the word chug is getting popular.
>> That's true.
>> Yeah. Wow. Another esoteric banger. You know, nobody knows what Chud means.
>> No, I'm not into sacred geometry. No, people don't know like who it's based off though. That's true. Wow. You know, let's uh if we if you I'll I'll refer you to my YouTube channel.
>> You know, we got >> Yo, that's >> this is this is going to be You're going to be one of these soon.
>> Yo.
>> Oh, yeah. Do you have Do you have WJack preferences? Do you want to be What do you think the base should be?
>> Yeah.
>> Maybe the um the African gigachad.
>> Uh I don't know if I'll do that, but I can certainly I can certainly work something out. He He won't show my melanin because then he'll be exposed for being racist. But you kind of look like that one dude from Phoenix and Furb. Low key.
>> Which one?
>> What? What is it? Um Dr. No, no, no. The the the generals. The general son.
>> I don't even know what you're talking about.
>> Yeah. I've never watched Phineas and Ferb. The one >> Perry. Oh, yeah. This is just a awful childhood.
>> No, it was a pretty good childhood.
>> Were you like beat or something? Is this happened like this?
>> No. Oh, I mean I mean you you you talked about beating earlier and like dominating. I was like it's kind of afraid.
>> Yeah. You know, despite the fact that I was never beaten, that doesn't stop me from beating the [ __ ] out of you on every single topic that we discuss.
>> Steel man six times. I mean, I got my notes here. Couldn't steal man six times. Couldn't reverse my definition of subjective.
>> Hallucinated giving a definition of subjective. Uh forced us to watch the entire replay to verify that in fact he didn't give a definition of subjective >> and then you went back.
>> Yeah. got blown out both rhetorically and substantively. Every single person in chat made fun of him, appealed to the chat. Then when a poll got made that actually pulled the chat to survey their opinion, had to say, "Whoa, whoa, whoa.
You're appealing to authority. Whoa, whoa, whoa."
>> Yo, 50 views on YouTube.
>> 50 views. A bit more than that.
>> How many?
>> I'm sitting at 66,000 subscribers.
>> I didn't ask for subscribers. I said views.
>> Yeah. for views. Do you wanted this video or do you wanted the videos?
Because I've already shown you them. Uh these get thousands of views.
>> Wait, wait. So, what what do you mean the poll is on YouTube?
>> It was also It was on Tik Tok and YouTube.
>> No, I It didn't pull up on Tik Tok. It would have pulled up for me.
>> Well, it was there.
>> My friend that's recording the clips for me.
>> It's going to be there and that's going to be really embarrassing if you're not streaming on YouTube. It's just going to be there in in the replay that your friend, you know, he has his mom in the comment section filming it and even his friend is like cringing at this point.
>> He asked if I He asked if he wanted to record if I wanted to record it.
>> Mhm. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, so if you're not live on YouTube, where's the poll?
>> It's on both Tik Tok and YouTube. We did one on Tik Tok and one on YouTube.
>> Where is what I'm asking. Where's >> on the standard place for Tik Tok, you know, it's the lefthand corner and then on YouTube it's just going to be in the YouTube chat. Yeah, but you're not streaming. It just it didn't >> I am streaming. You're stupid.
>> It didn't see the I didn't see the red circle on your >> I currently off Tik Tok I'm streaming to 950 people.
>> 950?
>> Yeah. You want to know like just the scale of the humiliation? Uh yeah, the the damage you're looking at is like 1.5k.
>> 1.5k.
>> Yeah. Plus, you know, of course, all the people who are going to see it in the future.
>> Obviously nagged. Obviously nagged.
He's He's getting a bit more quiet and submissive now.
>> I'm just bored. I'm bored.
>> Yeah. Oh, I was taken seriously, dude.
I'm just bored. I'm bored.
>> I don't even Basically, I don't even care. Basically, >> what is he even doing here? What? Why do you pull me?
>> Your boyfriend. You need You need your boyfriend to come.
>> I wish. Gosh, what a what a catch. Chari would be such a catch.
>> No, I I can't I can't be so lucky. I literally seen a clip of this guy debating the existence of God. Like he was for God.
>> That's right.
>> Yeah.
>> That he's agnostic.
>> And an atheist love.
>> He does a little bit of trolling.
>> Exactly. Lar. He's just laring. He's a contrarian.
>> Yeah.
>> Just love.
>> What What's one proposition that you think you could defend against Hegel fan?
>> One proposition?
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. reactionary conservatism is the best political ideology obviously but this is a political chat.
>> No talking about that. Yeah. What what makes you think that's true?
>> Yeah. Based on the current displays of what it um upholds. I think that looking back on history there are pre preferential times like a primitive and traditional sort of routine that is more beneficial for society and the individual as the whole. M >> the whole being everybody encapsulated into it >> from a notch.
>> When you say when you say that it's more beneficial, do you mean that it sort of maximally promotes well-being or something like that?
>> Um maximally um I think beneficial >> Mhm.
>> would be um in accordance of maximizing that but it's also in accordance with God's will but we can just go for maximizing.
>> Sure. Do you have do you have an account of wellbeing that you take >> well-being? Yeah.
I mean I mean what what what are you like confused on? What what's ambiguous?
>> Well, there's there's competing accounts of well-being in the literature. There's hedonist accounts, there's objective list accounts, there's preferential accounts, right? So, what it means to promote well-being differs on these different views. I'm I I like a sort of objective list theory. I think that best captures how most people seem to think about well-being. Um that's that's why I was asking that.
>> How do most people see it?
I think that most people h have something like an objective list theorist view.
>> I'm saying like you you said it's based on how most people see it. What do most people see? What's the preference here?
>> Well, it's not crucially it's not about preferences, right? It's about >> what >> it's about.
>> Is benefit not a preference?
>> Well, that's that's that's what's in contention, right? It's it's some people think that what it means to promote well-being is just that people have their preferences satisfied. And some people think that there's these sort of there's this objective list of things that contribute to someone's well-being.
And I think I think the latter account, which is why I was asking, so why why do you why do you think that uh well a do you are you comfortable talking about wellbeing in those terms? And b why think that historically reactionary conservative societies have promoted well-being in that way?
>> Well, yeah. I I think well-being would be like like I said earlier, anything harmonious that allows for like I don't know homeosta homeostasis in the brain psychologically. Yo, calm down. I know I stuttered. Holy, this guy's like so >> it's not even it was the words that you said that were so stupid.
>> Suppose there was like some person where they're they were able to achieve homeostasis in their brain but just like through pure agony, right? There's this homeostatic brain. Just a what?
>> Yeah, this is a hypothetical that shows that you're >> hypotheticals that aren't realistic to that.
>> But I I literally ate breakfast though.
What you don't understand is that I literally ate breakfast.
>> I I know you eat breakfast like low testoster.
>> No, I'm making fun of you because you're not able to reason hypothetically.
>> I'm just saying the the hypothetical has to adhere to realism. You understand that, right?
>> What do you mean the hypothetical has to adhere to? Do you mean that the hypothetical has to be actual?
It has to be displayable.
>> What do you mean by displayable?
>> Gagging like, "Holy shit."
>> Ian's laughing because you're saying silly [ __ ] >> He's gagging. He's like, "What the fuck?"
>> Let's just It'll be >> displayable. Something displayable. It doesn't have to be actual.
>> Yeah. What do you mean by displayable?
>> It doesn't need to be actual. It just needs to be actually displayable.
I I literally said it can't be it doesn't have to be actual. It has to be displayable. I didn't say actually displayable.
>> I mean by displayable I mean able to be perceived.
>> Do you think you can perceive things that aren't actual?
>> Fine. All >> it either needs to be actual or he needs to be able to hallucinate it. What's confusing?
>> All right. to perceive anything epistemically and logically sound. Is is that is that like your final word?
>> Why are you Why are you talking about soundness? What are you >> sound to to just be?
>> That's what it means to sound means to just be like this is just again Socrates.
>> Sound is to just be >> like boyfriend like boyfriend. Holy [ __ ] It's just Socrates obviously.
>> Wait, sorry. Is what you're saying?
>> Sound >> to be normatively be.
>> What? To be normatively be?
Yeah. Be E. You understand that? Be E.
>> Yep. To be normatively be.
>> Yeah. To be or not to be.
>> What? That's a separate sentence.
>> I'm just saying that that's generally maybe we can. So, generally what people mean in philosophy when they talk about soundness is that it is that you have an argument that's sound when the argument is valid and it has true premises.
>> Yeah.
>> Maybe maybe sound can't be Things can't be if they're unsound or not actual.
>> B would be the ontology of its existence. It can't be if it's not true.
That's like me saying a unicorn exists.
A unicorn. A unicorn can't be because it doesn't exist.
>> Right. Do you remember how we got here?
>> That's deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning. Low low IQ can't comprehend that.
>> Low IQ can't comprehend what exactly?
>> Yeah. Its ontology demonstrates this behind >> things that are unound or invalid, whatever synonyms you want to use.
>> Those are not synonyms.
>> They are not synonyms. This is the most level one blunder in the world. Oh my goodness.
>> Sound. You just said sound would be anything valid or true, right?
>> Nope. Nope.
>> That's not what I said.
>> No. Let's Let's listen up. Right. What I said is that soundness, an argument is sound when it's valid and it has all true premises.
>> That's just what I said. valid.
>> No.
And means. Do you know what the word and like when people use the word and?
>> It proposes a conjunction.
>> Conjunction.
>> A conjunction.
>> Conjunction. Junction.
>> That's right. That's >> conjunction. Conjunction. What's your function?
>> So, so, so when I say and there, what that means is that it's not just valid, it's also it's valid and has true premises, right? So, >> valid without true premises.
What? Yes.
>> Demonstrate that.
>> Okay. Here's a valid argument. If the moon is made of cheese, then George Washington was 8 feet tall. The moon is made of cheese. George Washington is 8 feet tall. That is a valid argument.
That takes the form if P then Q. P therefore Q.
>> Brother, it's not even sound.
>> Yeah, I agree. It's not sound, but it >> doesn't have ontology.
>> That's not what soundness is. Oh my god.
>> Like Jesus [ __ ] Christ.
>> Just stop using these. It's it's literally not idiosyncratic. That's just what the term means.
>> Most standard way of using the term.
>> What's your source? What's your source of the term? Go ahead.
>> Uh yeah, like Michael humor, knowledge, reality, and value. Literally like every logic textbook in existence. Like >> the mendles, the menson name five logic textbooks.
>> Uh yeah, introduction to non-classical logic by uh Graham Priest. Um what do we got? Like achieving mathematical maturity via discrete mathematics. Um those are those are my two. Bro, I don't have five.
>> Yo, wow. So, so so bullied me on demonstrating the the coding, but you can't even name five textbooks. You just say, "Oh, it's in all the textbook.
>> Name one textbook. Name one logic textbook."
>> Logic for philosophy. If I text logic, I can name a text logic introduction to >> an intro. The Van Bethlehem or Betham I think is the name on logic.
>> Buddy, did I tell you to speak? Why you >> I was naming five textbooks for you.
That's what you asked. No, I I asked Ian though because he asked me to name five um programming softwares or whatever, >> which by the way is like like super trivial if you actually program.
>> I never claimed I said what if >> like doesn't even program I bet Chari could probably name five.
>> I probably have not I have not opened anything related to programming in like eight years. I I think I could I would bet a lot of money that like most people could name at least like most people with basic familiarity with the the concept. But this is all this is all the version we agree of course that the way that I defined soundness was like the most standard way of defining the term in the world. Right.
>> I mean do you have a source normative?
>> What the [ __ ] >> I'm saying you said in the world that's a positive claim. I need your source for it.
>> What do you think normative means?
Mendlesson's introduction to mathematical >> would be the society. Hello.
>> Mendlesson's introduction to mathematical law.
>> Utilitarianism would be a normative framework. Hello.
>> Oh, that's not you're just you just two different senses of normative.
>> Utilitarian laws will be the collection of what's favorable to the society. Are you stupid?
>> That's not even true.
>> He's like he Okay, so in my in my mathematics degree, in my discrete math class specifically, there was like a problem set. There were there were like these knights and these naves and they would both make statements. The naves spoke in nothing but lies. So you could determine what's true by negating all of their claims. And then you know the knights would speak in nothing but truths. Um you know I think we've encountered the first ever real life nave. Nothing but falsehoods come out of his mouth.
>> What the [ __ ] Holy [ __ ] >> You pro you probably couldn't even debunk 1 plus 1 equals three. You probably even couldn't.
>> That's like trivial. It's false by definition.
>> Yeah. And so far as one is going to be defined as the unit and plus is going to be defined as like you know just incrementing adding on the unit and the unit for some number of units. Uh if you have 1 plus 1 it's going to be the unit and the unit. The unit and the unit is not the unit and the unit and the unit.
>> Yeah. So when we're talking about Yeah.
So >> 1 plus 1 is not three.
>> Demonstrate it. I I can demonstrate it.
>> I just demonstrated it.
>> No, I can demonstrate it. Okay. Can you demonstrate?
>> You'd have to refute it.
>> Yeah. Let's just say let's just say we have like a dad and a mom. They come together. They make a baby. That's three. Now what's the contention?
>> What >> you think that demonstrates?
>> Yeah, I think that demonstrates 1 plus 1 equaling three.
>> What the [ __ ] >> That's one and one coming together make a third. That's a separate unit.
>> That's fortunately not what the plus operator is. What? What's the plus operating?
>> Yeah, the plus operator just increments it. If you're if what you're doing is adding one, it just increments it.
>> The increment the increment is coming together. Yes.
>> Sure. So then you have you have that and then you >> put them together. So you're at two >> and then you you have a further increment it. So 1 + 1 + 1 gets you to three.
>> Because the baby is the product that equals.
>> It's the product, dude. No. Why is the baby not the product of those two increments coming together? Are you stupid?
>> High level stuff. High level stuff.
>> Bro, this dude's a philosophical juggernaut. He write He's going to write books. So, you know, >> when he's going to be the president.
>> Yeah. True.
>> Yeah. He's going to >> Yeah. Still couldn't refute it. He just >> He's gonna I I hear like the brain deadad demographic is really going to break for him.
>> Pop it off.
>> Yeah.
>> So So do you have like a reputation of that or like you're just going to lie?
>> I just gave you the reputation of it.
>> You didn't. You You want to see like the easiest reputation?
>> Oh.
>> Ah. How'd that get there?
>> That That's of the subject. That That That's of the subject of what you just demonstrated. I demonstrated something else.
>> What you just demonstrated?
>> Wait, wait, wait. So, go back. Go pull Put your fingers up.
>> Which Which one?
>> So, we have It starts out like this.
>> Yeah. Put them together. Now, have like a third coming through the middle.
Now you have I >> I think I'd get to >> Oh yeah, that's true.
>> Maybe. Maybe.
>> Put Put your nose through it. It's like big enough.
>> Do Actually, out of curiosity, yes, do a lot of your conversations devolve into someone having to explain to you, >> huh?
>> Do a lot of your conversations devolve into someone having to explain what oneplus 1 is to you? Does that happen to you?
>> I already know what oneplus 1 equaling.
I just proposed that thought experiment.
M >> a really compelling thought experiment.
>> Also, the quote that I gave earlier, hedenism will be the death of all. I created that in my exerpt, my journal.
>> In your exerb, your journal.
>> Oh, you want to hear the whole exerpt?
>> Excerpt.
>> Excerpt.
>> You mean do you mean excerpt?
>> Like dessert?
>> I mean, you knew what I was saying, right?
>> Barely.
>> Yeah. I'm saying that you don't know like you're just not familiar with how these terms are used.
>> It's called It's called >> Yeah. My brain processes faster than my mouth. So I >> That's cap.
>> Usually I usually say things wrong.
>> That's cap.
>> You usually say things wrong.
>> And also what what if English what if English wasn't my first language?
>> It clearly is which is the sad part.
>> I could have been born American but surrounded by people that were outsiders.
>> Outsiders. You could have. That's true.
You could have.
>> I mean again my brain my brain processes faster. I couldn't say >> like I think it's sort of it's sort of interesting that whenever someone tries to talk to you about philosophy it ends up devolving into this like well what if I was born around people who didn't speak English and you're just you're just not able to talk about philosophy at all.
>> Well say I mean y'all are so focused on the words that I'm saying instead of actually what I'm demonstrating.
>> Yeah. I typically do engage with the substance. You know I try to engage with like the words that the person is saying.
>> I'm trying to get >> it's called deductive reasoning. If you not, you have done exactly zero.
>> Context.
>> Hey, American defender, could you use your like high processing intellect to tell me uh like I don't know the name of two inference rules?
>> Two inference rules.
>> Yeah, >> I don't know. What about it?
>> What about one inference rule?
>> I don't know what about it.
>> One logical operator. Tell me the name of one logical operator. You know them.
>> I can give you like four laws of logic.
>> Oh yeah, go for it.
Um the law of excluded middle. Okay. The law of identity.
>> Okay. Mispronounced but okay.
>> Not the law of non-contradiction and the law of sufficient reasoning as to >> Oh Jesus Christ.
>> Why the [ __ ] would you even do that?
>> What's wrong with sufficient reason?
>> Yeah, that's a metaphysical principle, not a logical one.
>> Well, that's why I said four cuz the fourth would be hypothetical cuz some people are stupid.
>> Can Can you even name me three? keep saying things that don't at all respond to the things that the other person has said. So what Ian pointed out is that you said that you could give three or four laws of logic. You gave three what are considered logic and then you main ones but then there's >> and then you gave a metaphysical principle that is taken by nobody to be a law of it's taken to be a metaphysical principle. Nobody thinks that >> things would have to be if things are not reasonable they wouldn't be true, right? Oh, >> he doesn't even know what the PSR is.
>> That's great. That's that's good.
>> Holy [ __ ] It's about >> the PSR does not use reason in like an epistemic sense. It's reason in a metaphysical sense. It's saying that everything has like a sufficient explanation for it.
>> Oh gosh. Lar sahur >> explanation would be why it's true. Are you stupid?
>> Not in the epistmic sense. In the metaphysical sense >> and then one unit >> you were discussing like reasons to think that it's true. Those are epistemic reasons. Oh god. 5 philosophers.
>> Uh yeah, that's like super trivial. I'll actually name like philosophers until I get bored. Uh Aristotle, Plato, uh uh Socrates, let's go. Amy Thomasson, uh Grappy, Alexander Puce, Josh Rasmmanson.
Amy Thomasson does specifically metantology.
>> Non noncredible people.
>> Oh, [ __ ] dude. My bad. Noncredible people.
>> Oh, my fault. She has like a Ph.
>> Noncredible people like, you know, Amy Thomasson.
>> [ __ ] Well, I'm just saying like I I know great workers, you know, like somebody like um Voltater, somebody like Sunzu, somebody like Confucious. These people are credible. These people had impact on the world.
>> Yeah. What's one idea that Confucious created?
>> Um the golden rule.
>> You want to speak up?
>> The golden rule.
>> Oh god, I'm gonna like shoot you. You didn't create that.
>> It predates Confucious.
It predates Confucious.
>> Yeah. The earliest instance of the golden rule is in Egypt.
>> Voiced by who?
>> The eloquent peasant is my my memory.
>> The peasant. A peasant.
>> It appears in the the eloquent peasant.
It's a it's a like an ancient text.
>> You have you have like a >> Let me Okay, let me >> let me sit down at my laptop. Um, >> you got like an archaeologist to prove that with a translator to prove it. I mean, if this is ancient Egypt, it's going to be different with etmology. So, it's probably not the exact words.
>> Yeah. Wait, what language do you think Confucious spoke out of curiosity?
>> Obviously, Franc Mandarin.
>> So, so we agree it's also not the ancient the exact words in Confucious either, right? Oh, we can pinpoint that.
>> Just again, totally unresponsive.
Totally not responding to what has been said.
>> Yeah. I mean, you're just tonedeaf, dude. I'm sorry that like >> speaking of tonedeaf, let's talk about Mandarin.
Uh, you know, your standard is apparently like you need to like, I don't know, speak like ancient Egyptian.
Uh, do you want to take a stab at pronouncing like a single one of these characters from Confucious?
I also don't think he spoke >> I know nihel >> I thought it was >> good. Do you know what either of those words mean?
>> I I said something transing Mandarin.
>> Transing.
>> It was probably something it was probably a local dialect that he was using. I mean China was like broken up in so many places.
>> This is indeed uh this is indeed Mandarin.
Um although I imagine they probably would have used like >> like pretty ancient traditional characters.
>> Well I mean I mean I I I just think like I'm not really for the bilingual man. I tried learning Russian but >> I'd imagine you have that sort of that sort of experience of trying to >> I don't get like why are you using Wikipedia? We all know about >> because it's a good informative source.
But I mean, you know, it's exactly what Chararski was saying.
>> Well, I mean, I I I prefer hyperlinks though. Like >> you prefer hyperlinks.
>> That that Wikipedia that Wikipedia sourc is not really the text.
>> The text can be >> This guy's a real like primary source reader. You can tell.
>> Yeah, we all pass.
>> Why would you What do you think a hyperlink is? Why?
>> Talking about those little blue number boxes. You click on those. That is the >> Wikipedia. time what that what that is in Wikipedia is just linking to another Wikipedia article for example like I think the first one you see on the screen is just another Wikipedia article >> but yeah but we all know about the Wikipedia paradox none of them lead to the same source >> what >> they they lead further to the truth >> if I look up Wikipedia article or Wikipedia paradox >> not not Wikipedia I mean I don't I don't know the word for it it's just that all Wikipedia things lead to something else it doesn't lead in the circle Sure.
I mean, and ideally, that's what it would be. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, so you'd get closer and closer to what you're looking for, not just another article.
>> Yeah. Name a name two academic articles that you've read.
>> Like, does an academic journal count?
>> Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, hopefully they'd be articles in the journal.
>> Yeah. Just the journal.
>> Yeah.
>> I'll just by I'll >> I'm sitting down to read Nature today, >> right? Yeah, we're going through synies.
>> Like two two literature articles I wrote um as sources. One was about the things they carried >> and another one was about um Langston Hughes.
>> I don't know.
>> About literary analysis. A literary analysis within >> What do you think you were just asked to do?
>> Yeah. You said that you use like Wikipedia. Like one thing that you enjoy using Wikipedia for is to get sources.
>> That's great, bud.
What's the name of one article from Google Scholar? Just one.
>> Want me to go pull up like Word?
>> Just one that you've read. You've read so many. I'm sure you literary analysis in the things they carried. I don't really remember.
>> The name is literary analysis and the things they've carried.
>> What did you read that when you were like 16?
>> Oh, this was for an essay at my college. If they did a random inspection of your bookshelf, would a single book pass the spine check, >> dude. I can name like 10 books.
>> Impressive. I'm shaking.
>> [ __ ] juggernaut, dude. What a powerhouse.
>> I I read I read Hunger Artist by France CFKA recently.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm well verssed in literature, dude.
>> Yeah, sure. You read >> I also read American Psycho by Brett Een Ellis.
>> Wow. Whoa, this guy's a bit edgy.
>> Don't mess with us. Don't mess with this guy.
>> It's a satire psychological theory.
>> Wow. He read the analysis, too. Or maybe he just watched like a like a video essay.
>> No, not really.
>> I mean, you could tell it's psychological. It's endeving on his monologues. That's the main focus.
>> Ending. It's indebing on his monologues.
>> Yeah. The endeavor like like the past time that's used to spend writing.
>> You mean the past tense? No, the past time. What? What the time is used to pass for the book?
Like alone.
>> Do you mean endeavoring?
>> What are we even doing here, man?
>> [ __ ] Christ.
>> What we're doing is making fun of you, >> bro.
>> Making fun of me.
>> You're like, >> are are you laughing at me or are they laughing?
>> Everybody's laughing at you.
>> You or what? Are they laughing?
>> Everybody's like pretty embarrassed. I wouldn't even be surprised if at the end of this you ask your friend for the recording and he's like, "Yeah, I dipped after like 20 minutes."
>> No, probably not.
>> Nuh-uh. Actually, I don't think probably. Nuh-uh.
>> I mean, I have good friends. I don't know about you.
>> Yeah, I have great friends. You know, my friends >> You have a girlfriend?
>> My friends? I do have a girlfriend.
Yeah.
>> But it's like, you know, that's like surprising the way that I've been blowing your back out this entire time.
>> She likes Stacy. She lives here backstage.
>> Wait, sorry. Do you uh You're You got a bit farther away from your microphone.
You probably didn't notice that.
>> I'm I'm literally like right next to it.
I'm riding right now.
>> Okay. What's You asked if she's what?
Like low tier Stacy or a Becky?
>> No, I said low tier Becky or Stacy.
>> I bet she's accomplished more academically than you have by like an entire order of magnitude. I bet her I bet I bet the college that she went to is probably an entire order of magnitude, maybe even like two orders of magnitude better.
>> Mathematics mathematics major by the way speaking.
>> Yes, correct.
>> Well, is that supposed to do something like Yeah, math is a great degree.
>> Yeah. Yeah. You lost like four years of your life. What's your annual salary?
I'm waiting.
>> [ __ ] I'm like I'm like lowkey tempted to >> No. No. Not worth it.
Say it. Say it. SAY IT.
>> Even if they know you're brothered, they're going to stop donating.
>> No, I'm not going to do it. I won't do it. I won't do it.
>> Ah, see.
>> Not doing it.
>> It's like 52K. 52K.
>> Not doing I'm not falling for it.
>> Like the >> Yeah. Wait, but uh what what college did you go to?
>> It's a little too personal, bro.
>> Okay. Well, so uh my girl my girlfriend graduated.
>> It's the second best. It's the second best college in my state.
>> Oh, sure. So for The first one is an Ivy League.
>> Oh, yeah. Okay. So, then um I don't know what's uh >> Well, not it's not an Ivy League. I think I think it's prestige, though.
>> So, I'm I'm thinking uh I'm thinking like the best college is probably like Notre Dame and then this dude attends like [ __ ] like Indiana school for for like >> [ __ ] Disney thing. Hello.
>> I almost I almost [ __ ] seeped into it. Okay. I had to hold myself back.
Nordame. Like the hunchback of Notre Dame.
>> Oh my god. He's so stupid, dude. He's so dumb.
>> Yeah, because I know all the colleges names.
>> It's like a It's like a famous school.
It's like a huge school, >> dude. I can only name like the Berkeley.
I know Berkeley in California. I know Yale. Like I only know I >> It's just like a sort of >> playing a word association game with somebody who knows like eight words.
It's really cool. It's like like sometimes my little brothers will do this thing where they'll just like when they were really little they would just sort of do this kind of random word association.
It I I don't know how I don't know how you get to adulthood by doing that. But >> I mean I'm living man. I retired my parents. I'm happy.
>> She's a >> This guy has Look, this guy makes a lot of money. He just made 3.3K coins. Like >> that's right. That's right.
>> True.
>> Yeah. Banger. Yes, we're throw >> Nothing's wrong with that. We >> won't be 3 3,000 in going >> 3,000. That's nothing to laugh at, you know? It's a huge >> Oh, y'all were talking about the Tik Tok thing.
>> Yeah.
>> Oh, he's so nonchalant, too. Gosh, I wish I could be just like him one day.
>> Are you like, "Hello."
>> [ __ ] bro. I thought you were talking about the 3.3K that I made yesterday.
[ __ ] >> No, I thought you were talking about like actual toys. I haven't been paying attention to TikTok. Holy [ __ ] he just made another like 5,000 coins. You know, nobody tell Reflect King that Tik Tok automatically gives the host like a huge portion of it.
>> Wait, don't you get the majority of it?
>> Yeah, you do.
>> Thank you, Reflect King.
>> Yeah, let's get a big W for Reflect King. That's like >> I'm get an L for that guy.
>> That's like I don't know, maybe like $30 straight into my bank account.
>> Holy [ __ ] Is that court?
I glanced at Yo, as all the larers in here, I cooked court, too. I cooked court, too.
>> I would bet literally any amount of money. That's not true.
>> I literally page. It was about >> all that. You did not do that.
>> You got all the larers in here. Holy [ __ ] Like, this is beautiful. Is wildflower in here, too? Is like all all those, >> you know, this here. Are all the foes here?
>> Just take an L after L from >> Where's Where's Red B?
>> Where's Red B?
>> Who are these people, bro?
>> You mean comrade B?
>> I I don't know her name. I just >> Yeah. A a long chain of things that you don't know.
>> I I coo I cooked her and she had to bring up some dude and >> I bet I bet she beat the dog [ __ ] out of you.
>> She didn't even debate. She had to get her friends to do it.
>> I bet she brought her friends up to make fun of you.
>> Only question. Only question. Her only question was, "How old am I?" and asked what IQ stands for. That's it.
>> I wonder if you knew the answer.
>> Yeah, intelligence quotion.
>> Damn. Banger. Yeah, he looked it up afterwards, I'm sure.
>> I I I literally have a clip of me saying it live, brother.
>> Wow, that's it's compelling stuff.
>> Was there like a like a short period of time before you answered where you could hear furious typing?
>> I said it immediately after.
>> Cool.
>> Yeah, >> man. Who's Rancho, dude? Like, what is this? Just like a >> Dude, who is that guy?
>> Is this like a a podcast? It's another LAR low tier.
>> That's right.
>> Yeah.
>> What's his What's his framework?
>> You should you should debate him on like literally any topic. What's one proposition you think you could win against Rancho on?
>> I mean, y'all couldn't prove 1 plus 1 does equal three. So, let me hear his argument.
>> Yeah.
>> Wait, do you want the proof of that?
Isn't there like a 200page proof that uses set theory?
>> Just like doing that one.
>> I think so.
>> No, I I just >> I think they do that. Don't they do that in the Principia Mathematica? Or no, not Principia.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's That's the proof for it. But it's like >> It's a thought experiment.
>> I'm pretty sure that that's not what a thought experiment is. But >> it is a thought experiment. What are you talking about, >> bro? I know you having a thought is an experiment, but that's not what that is.
>> But banger, dude. Oh my god, bro.
>> But I'm pretty sure that proof of >> Do you have a reputation?
>> Do I have a reputation? Yeah, cuz right now without justification of like whatever source you brought up that's >> Wait, what do you take justification to be?
>> Well, that's just going to be a pivot.
We're still talking about do you accept your >> Wait, you invoked the term. You want to define the term that you invoke.
>> Do you accept the proposition? Yes. No, you're just pivoting. This is embarrassing. Oh, >> wait. You invoked a term that I'm unclear on and I asked you to define the term?
>> What term were you unclear on?
>> Justification.
>> That that was way before the proposition. So, can you Yes or no to you?
>> Prior Wait, wait. If it's prior to the proposition that I need to know in order, you know, to know the proposition because it's part of the argument that you're making.
>> What >> do you want to define the term yes or no?
>> This guy loves to hear the clearest sentence in the world and go what?
>> Right.
>> I'm just saying he he said justification was way after I said my proposition.
>> No, you just said it was before. Wait, that's a contradiction.
>> Yeah, before.
>> It can't be before and after.
>> Wow, man. Wait, did you did you forget?
>> Did you forget the meta points?
>> I I had a blunder, guys. I can see on that factor. So, yes or no? Do you accept the proposition?
>> What's the proposition?
>> Oh, so you don't even know it and I gave it to you.
>> No, I genuinely like I'm pretty sure I was just like tuning you out for the majority of it. Sorry. What was the proposition you want me to affirm?
>> So, you're being like admittedly disingenuous. That's like brutal.
>> Wait, I just I did not come up here to debate you, son. Well, well, I mean, >> I think the proposition, if I'm not mistaken, is like like 1 plus 1 is three. Is that the proposition?
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. I probably I probably negate that proposition. Yeah.
>> The proposition. How How are you going to negate it if you didn't even know what it was?
>> Wait, Ian just told me what the proposition was.
>> Can you steal mana real quick?
>> 1 plus 1 equals 3.
>> Yeah. So, go ahead, repeat it.
>> Do you want an argument against that?
>> Yeah. He said he said you'd crush me anything.
>> Yeah. Yeah. If if phenomenal conservatism is true, then seemings provide primacy justification.
Um, phenomenal conservatismation.
This is >> Wait, calm down, man. Calm down, man.
Wait, I'm giving the argument. Premise three is it seems to be the case that >> Wait, how could it be unound if you haven't heard all the premises?
>> Because truth would be of the subjective of my truth value.
>> Wait, wait. Do you think what do you think soundness is? Wait, wait, sorry.
What do you think sound?
>> We're not going down. No, we're not going down this route. Wait, so you invoked the term that you don't know the meaning of?
>> Wait, we we've already went down that route.
>> Wait, what's the Just tell me what the definition of soundness is.
>> Sound anything valid.
>> Oh god, >> bro. Wait. So So all valid arguments are sound. Is that what you're saying?
>> We literally gave him the definition like three times earlier because he was like, "Oh, by by sound you just mean valid. By valid, you just mean sound."
And we're like, "No, >> all valid arguments are sound. Yes or no?"
>> Yeah. You said valid and actual. I'm just saying valid cuz it's shortened.
Valid and actual if you want that.
>> Wait, that's >> cuz things would have to be valid to be actual.
>> Wait, I just asked you. Do you think that all valid arguments are sound? Yes or no?
>> What were you taking sound to be?
Because you might be using sound in a different way.
>> I I'm using standard semantics that are used in classical logic.
>> Yeah. What what's the what's the definition?
>> I'm Why would I have to give that to you? I just asked you a question.
>> Because you're you're leaving the word ambiguous cuz my under your semantic.
Look, you can just import your semantics.
>> Under your semantics, are validity and soundness equal?
>> Are validity and sound equal?
>> Yeah. Are they equivalent? That is to say that if an argument is valid, then it necessarily must be sound under your semantics.
>> I think they're like, what is it like coexistence?
>> Good stuff. Good stuff, man.
>> I don't know the exact word. They're like >> philosophical [ __ ] juggernaut over here, >> dude.
>> I'm like sick right now. All my energy has been spent. I'm sorry, >> bro. Someone get this guy a microphone.
>> I might have thought of virus or something. I don't know.
>> Gosh, we couldn't be so lucky.
>> Whoa. Just wishing death upon somebody.
That's crazy.
>> Wishing death and suffering that contradicts your Cantonian view or whatever.
>> Cantonian, dude. Holy [ __ ] >> dude. K speaks of this.
>> No, Niche spoke of that. That's the >> I bet I bet Kant would like violate the categorical imperative and like beat you to death.
>> Cat. No, man. Cat's a fraud, bro.
>> Bro, for real. For real.
>> I mean, he literally he literally tried to be a cynic without being a cynic. He didn't even leave his He didn't even leave his town. Dioynes Mogs, obviously.
>> Holy [ __ ] >> Well, I'm pretty sure that's actually true. Like, didn't Khan just like live his [ __ ] town in German.
>> No, that's that's true. Yeah, he only >> girlfriend did nothing like kind of like Ian.
>> Oh, but I do have a girlfriend. You're concussed. I told you this earlier.
>> But you have an inability to retain information.
>> You didn't want to expand on whether or not she was low to your Becky, so she probably a dude.
>> No, I bet my I bet my girlfriend moss the [ __ ] out of you academically. You know, my girlfriend went to Hopkins, and I bet that that school is like an order of magnitude better than whatever dog [ __ ] school you go to.
>> You want me to look it up?
>> Hopkins is like top tier medical school.
Hello. Yeah, it's literally a top 10 school.
>> Is she a nurse or a doctor?
>> No, she got a neuroscience degree. She's a neuroscience grad student now.
>> Wait, bro. What? Why are you laughing at that?
>> The [ __ ] That's like science.
>> It's like a That's like a really good resume, >> brother. It's just a cash cow. It's literally just cash cow and benefits on the exploitation of humans.
>> Oh my [ __ ] >> And animals and animals and animals.
>> That's true. That's true. Genius. I I do shame her all the time for working at the mouse torture factory.
>> Those developments rest on the prior suffering of people like the whole labbotomy and stuff. Those were sufferings that contributed to the development of neuroscience.
>> They didn't labize the right ones if you ask me.
>> Yeah. Evidently, that's why this guy's on.
>> I mean like I have high IQ. I was gifted status in in my class. I was top 5%. I mean, come on. Oh yeah, >> I was top 10 in my class too.
>> Would you want to do the >> specifically top four?
Number four.
>> I mean, what?
>> There's so much to unpack there. This guy is so funny.
>> I mean, I try I try to be satire and realistic to hear this guy again.
>> Yeah, let's go to this guy. this [ __ ] >> I I don't even I don't even like recognize him.
>> Wait, what's your uh Wait, American Defender, what's your what's your age range?
>> Salopsism, man. 18 to >> salopsism.
>> What is it? Like 18 to 24 for most >> Okay. Um, are you >> I'm a solopsis. You know, >> dude, how many how many standard deviations do you think this guy's IQ is from the >> Gutenberg? Oh my god, this is brutal.
Wait, this gu this dude doesn't even use OBS. What? What the [ __ ] is R >> Reream?
>> Oh my god.
>> Why would I take streaming advice from you?
>> Dude, I already took the Mensa test. I got uh I think it was like 134.
>> Okay, let's do it again.
>> But the other times I took multiple has been average 140.
>> Molly, I'm gonna throw I'm gonna throw another curveball at you. That make that makes me a genius, right?
>> We need the We need the log.
>> Okay. All right.
Begin.
>> Yeah. Bottom right.
>> Bottom right. F.
>> No. A >> A.
>> I'm talking about It's going to be in the bottom right.
>> This one.
>> Yeah.
>> Wait. Sorry. Let me um I'm I'm [ __ ] you over a bit. Let me uh >> diamond and box E.
>> Diamond and box E.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh blank triangle.
>> Blank triangle.
>> I can't see all the options. That's why I'm saying that.
>> Okay. Let me uh >> bottom bottom line. Bottom vertical line. F.
>> Uh F.
>> Yeah. Let's see.
Um D.
>> How long do you think before this guy realizes what he's done and has to give some excuse for what he has to do?
>> No, bro. I love IQ. I mean, they're testing memory.
>> It's a bit too easy.
>> Not really spatial reasoning, which would be the high IQ.
>> I do not think that IQ tests are tests of memory.
>> Yes, it is. If I take if I take the same me the same IQ test multiple times maybe >> that bro if I if I memorize all the answers >> it's about memory >> pattern recognition >> yeah that is the same thing as memory that's true >> um yeah famously >> see wait >> bro how the [ __ ] did you get that one >> yes see >> this guy works in [ __ ] mysterious ways is >> Yo, what the [ __ ] >> I don't [ __ ] know, bro. Some of these are like stupid.
>> Question eight and he's already dipping, bro.
>> Yeah, bro. I don't know, man. I kind of want to >> Oh, my girl.
>> This one's like [ __ ] easy, too.
>> Dude, I haven't even analyzed it. Oh, >> wait. This would be fun. I want to do one of these.
>> Let me breathe. [ __ ] >> This is the This is the Mensori one, isn't it? Or is this one?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> This would be >> Wait, how many questions is this? Oh, it's like >> it's like 30.
>> Yeah.
>> Oh, [ __ ] Okay, good.
>> It's okay. He's making great time.
>> That's right. That's right.
>> D.
>> What the [ __ ] >> Wrong.
>> Wait. I can't tell if I'm tweaking or he is.
>> No. No. No. Because it the answer was obviously C. It was like trivial.
>> Yeah. Yeah. They kept like flipping, right? Like >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly.
>> So, it's traversing.
That's going to be >> It's D. It's D. Dude, >> I told you this shit's easy, bro.
>> You know what? Credit to you. I do think you're the first person to taking an up on this offer. Ian's made it a few times when people are doing this sort of thing. Usually people >> What if Ian's live even about? Like I'll see like the background. It'll be like opposition only and then we're just taking IQ tests.
>> Oh, it's just um variables.
It's composite in I'm showing you inside my mind. It's composite in variables.
You see the oval square and it >> composite composite. It comes together. It's a >> it's a >> it's composite. It comes together.
>> You can't even say I'm wrong. It's composite variables.
>> He's he's out here like [ __ ] mapping the stars.
>> It's I have I have hyper infantasia. So >> hyperinfantasia.
>> Yeah. Like Nicolo Tesla. Nicholas.
>> Yo, this guy might be the ghost genuinely.
>> Oh [ __ ] >> Um, see >> see.
>> Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. No, no, no, no. Cuz it's only one gray. So, I be a >> A.
>> It's linear.
>> It's linear. Um, >> that's going to be black triangle B.
How many are there, dude? I'm bored. Uh, >> we're like halfway through.
>> [ __ ] hell. I'mma get like 120 something.
>> I I can see it.
>> Um, line through triangle. A >> uh line through That's a circle.
>> All right. That might >> All right. That's That's my fault. But it's a circle. A >> A. Sure.
>> Yo, >> this test is sort of biased against people who don't know what shapes are.
Yes.
>> Shut up. I >> I can't I can't focus if y'all are talking. It's supposed to say it it says in the instructions you got to be in a quiet room.
>> The instructions.
>> Yeah, there are instructions. Um there's going to be So, point up down up down F.
Um, so everyone's doing that.
F.
Y'all making good time.
It turns four times.
Boom.
I'm not in tune.
[ __ ] hell, man.
Hey, it might have been F. I don't know.
>> No, I think it's A cuz each one can only repeat once, right?
>> Well, I mean, it's a reflection on something else like No, >> it's like each one you combine all three have like all the different shapes together. That's what I thought it was.
Um, here I'll give you a bit of an assist.
>> I mean, it's reflecting on the the composite again. It's it's negative in composits. Yeah. What the [ __ ] is that?
Is that tofu? Yo, >> is that the the vegetables?
>> Soy vegetables played with glyphosate.
Um probably probably E got to be here or not. Okay.
>> Oh, these are composite variable.
B.
>> Oh, sure. Yeah.
>> Wait, how much time do I got? And how many? Oh, you got 18 minutes and you got like eight questions.
>> All right.
>> You've made fantastic time.
>> I know, man. I I rushed my work a lot growing up. That's how I got straight A's.
>> Famously, >> I I had a 98 average over the course of four years of high school. So, >> yeah.
>> 4.0 GPA, but whatever. Um, so minus the square minus. So it comes together.
So boom boom.
That's going to be it's transitioning.
Um square changes reflects. Square changes reflects changes reflect.
You can tell he's real thinking because he's muttering to himself the shapes on the screen.
>> Well, I mean, intelligence.
>> If I do it in my head, I I'll probably mess up.
>> No, I'm I'm I get it. I get it.
>> I'm kind of like introverted, so >> it works for me.
>> That's tough, >> man. I wish you were a bit more introverted. Shut the [ __ ] up. I'm I'm very I'm very extroverted, but I mean I was friends with everybody in high school and in college. So like >> dude, that's youth and maturity combined to be the same person.
>> Yo, this guy might be the goat.
>> That's like powerful.
>> That's consistency.
>> Yo, get this guy some podcast equipment, bro.
>> Genuinely, >> dude. I already got an account where I just speak like, bro, I got like five YouTubes.
Um, probably do >> probably do >> reflecting >> being put together.
Similar code. Similar counter.
[ __ ] E. I don't even know that one.
It's like the the like the paper you punch a hole. You got to like >> predict that's special reasoning.
Masculinity.
So, I was saying masculinity because that's what boys are better at than girls in like IQ tests with the whisk special.
>> Um, it's cut off. So, >> uh, do you I can move Where do you want me to move it?
>> No, no. I I was saying it's cut off like the the the triangles they they cut off and it placed a dot.
D.
Got to lock it in now.
Actually, go back. Go back.
Yes.
Um, a two more.
A. No. A. Okay.
Almost done. Two more.
[ __ ] B maybe.
>> Sure. Last one. You got this. How are you feeling? What What do you think your >> Yeah. What do you think your score range will be, >> bro? I think we're >> 110 110 to 120.
>> Okay.
>> No, we're definitely like three standard deviations away.
>> Yeah. I think I think >> go the distance.
>> You're soon going to be um you're soon going to be like the [ __ ] like the the one like Korean guy >> with the 267 IQ. Wait, sorry, which one?
guy believes in God. So like for >> No, that's an appeal to authority, man.
>> I'm locking in. I'm locking in.
>> Locking in B.
>> You got you one more com.
So, it's probably E.
>> Okay. Oh, wait. [ __ ] How many are there?
>> Wait. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I I didn't mean to. Uh, okay. Just >> How many are there?
>> I don't know. But keep on going. I'll look up. It's probably like 35.
>> All right. I guess.
>> No, you're right. I was wrong. It's 35.
>> Oh, okay. Okay.
>> No, but you got this. You got like 12 minutes.
>> Wait, he's been making pretty good time though.
>> Yeah, >> time is irrelevant. We're talking about >> I really don't want a bad score cuz I I like doing IQ tests.
>> That's what Einstein said. I think time is irrelevant.
>> Is that like the theory of relativity or whatever?
>> Yeah, like the the theory of irrelevance. Einstein's theory of irrelevance.
>> Um a >> a So the box deletes.
>> Yeah. here.
I got to remember it's not like all probably a going vertical.
B >> B.
>> Yeah, this is the last one, right?
>> I think this last one >> should be. Should be.
>> Yeah, it is.
>> Oh, I like this one. I always do the mailbox.
>> B >> the Gmail.
>> Yep.
>> All right. All right. You ready?
>> Email your score. Yeah. Oh, no. It shows you. It shows you.
>> Are you ready to finish?
>> Yeah.
>> Let's see it. O 105.
>> 105. King.
>> Well, no. That's that's above average.
>> No. This is like literally they they literally refuse to give scores below 100 on the internet test.
>> I saw somebody with like a 60. I saw somebody with a 69 or No, it was like 69 or something.
>> Nope. If you do, like for example, let me um you know, let's if I were to put >> Well, this just shows this just shows like this is like a longitudinal study.
Like I I got I did the same test one time. I got 112.
>> Gosh, that just shows it's a longitudinal study.
>> Well, I mean that that was that was before my concussion, though.
>> I play five sports. So, >> dude, if you get above 105, that's going to be so brutal.
>> Just random.
No, it's going to say like >> it's going to say can't can't like return it. See, >> uh it says your score is below 100.
>> Exactly.
>> Literally won't give you >> But it Yeah, like it literally won't give it to you. But you have to like you have to like seriously be trying to get I don't know.
>> I'm not stupid though. That that was the whole test. But >> I don't know, man. I'm probably >> You got You got a 105, dude.
>> All right. But all the other ones, 112, I got one 130 one time, 127. Like, it's not really a reflection of intelligence.
It's about adaptability.
>> Taking it this many times. How have you not memorized the question?
>> No. No, not Mena. I did different ones.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> Oh, no. I'm I'm probably going to go off and read, man. I'm kind of bored.
>> Yeah.
>> What are you reading currently?
>> Yeah, you you do that.
>> My reading I'm reading um Stephen Wolf.
>> Stephen Wolf.
>> I only opened up the first page. I I was gonna read it, but it's about like a guy that's like >> No, definitely will enjoy.
>> Okay, sure.
>> Yeah. You know, I'm I'm sure you you have like I'm sure you're going to be listening to like Boach in your chambers.
>> I I'm more of like a an emotive listener. I listen to music that reflects my emotion.
>> Yeah.
>> High level stuff.
>> I've been feeling a little more calling it lately. Hey, so I listen to some Mac Demarco.
>> I'm sorry, man. That's tough.
>> Yeah.
>> Listen, you know, >> we're we're here if you ever need to talk. You know, you're always welcome.
>> Rosa Rose, what's her name? Rosala.
Rosal.
>> Rosella.
>> Yeah, she's she's a LAR, too. But anyways.
>> Oh [ __ ] >> Did she uh did she beat the [ __ ] out of you as well?
>> No, I just think like she's just a foe, though.
>> Oh, >> she's like I think she's like pro-life and anti-vegan or something. I don't know. No, she's vegan.
>> Oh, I don't [ __ ] >> Do we need to get her up and then you you're gonna >> like embarrass yourself in front of like >> like a like a fourth person in a row? I thought you were going to go read.
>> First I thought first I thought it was you were going to go >> hang out with your girlfriend and then >> I I said no. I said earlier >> he's sort of eating in a metaphorical sense. He's >> neurot.
I can't read without eating. I can't read without eating. M I see. Wait, but but just like really quick, uh maybe like a fivem minute debate. Uh what's one topic that you think Rosella is wrong about?
>> You said she's vegan.
>> Mhm.
>> Yeah.
>> I disagree with veganism.
>> 1 minute 37 seconds later.
>> Hedonistic. See, I told you hedonism will be the death of all her brains gone.
>> Epicurus speaks of this.
>> I don't like the Epicurian paradox, dude. That shit's like false statement, by the way. It starts with a false statement, by the way. It starts with a false statement cuz evil doesn't have an ontology to exist.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah, I think what evil is.
>> I think uh I think Charski has some thoughts on that one.
>> Who's Chari?
>> That's me. That's me. Sorry. I've got to give me like 30 seconds. I'm eating a case.
>> Okay, that's okay. I'll get a debate done. I'll wait. I'll get a debate done.
Wait, wait. I I'll do the debate in like like 30 seconds. What trait is true of a cow that if true of a human would justify uh slitting their throats and selling them at Whole Foods?
>> Bro, Ian, can you spend like four more pounds?
>> That would prohibit. That would prohibit >> four more pounds, >> bro. You keep like how much stuff are you spinning, bro? Holy [ __ ] >> You You said anything that would be true of a cow that >> Yeah. What's true of a cow that if true of a human would justify slitting their throat and selling them at Whole Foods?
Um, nonhuman DNA.
>> Okay. Sure. So, for example, if I found you like, I don't know, a viltramite, you could we like eat the viltrammites?
>> Yes.
>> You have an argument. Why not? You have an >> What the [ __ ] >> What if we discovered Wait, if Superman came down from his like little planet, you would say that we can like, you know, unlive him and have him in a barbecue?
>> I don't I don't read all this fantasy stuff. I thought Superman was like part human, whatever. No, >> I mean I know he's like a Kryptonian or whatever. Look, I'm just saying Kim is what I favor.
>> If he wasn't, can we put him on a barbecue?
>> If you said who?
>> Yeah. Like if he wasn't, could we put him on a barbecue? If he wasn't human in any capacity?
>> I I I don't understand the Birmingham accent. Like, >> if he wasn't human in any way, could we kill him and put him on a barbecue?
>> Yeah, whatever. That's what you want.
>> You think that we can do that to dogs, by the way?
I mean, you can. I'm not.
>> Do you think it's ethically like do you think it's permissible? It's morally permissible.
>> Nasty. I I eat things that are like that would be reasonable to eat.
>> What's the What do you think the question I just asked is?
>> I think I think my my trait for what's good to eat would be anything that's maximizing nutrient density. That's why I eat >> new That's a new trait you've given.
>> That's why I eat nothing. That's why I eat nothing but lard and maximizing nutrient density.
>> I know you probably like drink Soylent.
That's like >> No, it's it's straight lard for me. I'm trying to get as many calories as I can in as small of a volume as I can.
>> RMI or whatever.
>> Sure. I mean, >> I I I think like if I had to take supplements to have a vegan diet, I'd much rather have like a grass-fed ribeye with some like >> What about kafir?
>> Uh American Defender. Could I uh do you know like Homo erectus? Like the thing that came right before Homo sapiion? Uh could I [ __ ] cook a homoctus on the barbecue?
>> You could eat the the hobbits, the Neanderthalss. I don't give a I don't care.
>> You You do think it would be ethical to [ __ ] >> average.
Holy [ __ ] [ __ ] dude.
>> A few minutes later.
>> Yeah, this God wouldn't exist in this hypothetical then. So that hypothetical doesn't exist. It does have an ontology.
>> He did eat breakfast, guys. We forgot.
>> Doesn't exist. It doesn't have an ontology.
>> I don't eat breakfast as well.
>> Truth nuke.
>> The hypotheticals that have to adhere to realism and hypotheticals that adhere to realism have God's existence positively.
>> Like realism simplictor, right?
>> That's because God is the reflection of truth. God is the reflection of logicology and all that.
>> Wait, wait, just just quick question.
What domain of realism are you talking about? Or is it just like realism simplicator?
>> I don't even know what that means.
>> Yeah. Wait, actually a good question.
Can you uh American Defender, can you name me two different domains of realism?
>> I can't.
>> I do different flavors.
>> You mean a domain like like a space in which things are true?
>> No, like two different philosophical types of realism.
>> What do you mean by realism? I just meant realism as in the actual >> to be clear, you can't you can't engage with hypotheticals that don't when you said it.
>> When I meant realism again, it's idiosyncratic. I was using realism as the real world idiosyncratic >> us right now.
>> Wait, wait, it's not idiosyncrat. It's idiosyncratic.
>> I see. I see. Sorry. Blunder on my >> I don't know. So, somebody said I was using my definitions idiosyncratically, so now I just use that word to explain everything.
>> It's so true.
>> Was Rosella oppressing him on veganism?
Yo, [ __ ] no. I'm not. I'm going. I'm going.
>> Holy Oh my god.
Avoid spike my cortisol.
>> I thought you beat me. Why are you leaving?
>> Because we You literally stuttered. I made you stutter. I made you stutter.
>> Oh yeah.
>> I literally made you stutter.
>> I made you stutter. I made you blunder.
Like holy.
>> Premise one. Uh, you stuttered.
>> Go feel sus.
>> Premise one, you stuttered. Premise two, if you >> I'm pretty sure she was, um, she was in a live with some dude I think named Divinity. He's also a larer because apparently he's pro >> Oh, true. Oh, true. He He literally argued for prochoice.
>> Are larers for sure, >> bro. You can't >> He literally was arguing for pro-choice.
>> You can't You can't do this. It can't be the case that you like name drop people and then every single one of them comes up one at a time and like beats the [ __ ] out of you. Like this just can't happen.
>> Debating for pro-choice, but then he had a life saying he's pro-life. Lar, >> do you do you have two different domains in philosophy that have realist positions?
>> My my domain is voids are not human.
>> Your domain is voids are not human.
>> Peace and love. Hedenism will be the death of all. Love you guys.
>> He thought he thinks he thought that was so hard. Also, holy or from court. He comes up. He comes up.
>> All I had to do is come up.
>> Yo, holy [ __ ] Wait, my favorite part was when he was like listing out his feats against court and his feats were like, "I made you stutter.
>> I just have a stutter. That's not my fault."
>> He did not induce the stutter chat.
>> I feel like sometimes like you'll some sometimes people will stutter just because the opponent says something that's so bafflingly stupid that it actually takes like a second to like readjust.
>> Yeah. You ever get stun locked by stupidity? That [ __ ] is That [ __ ] is hard.
>> Yeah.
You're goddamn right. I stuttered. You just said that you would eat a Neanderthal.
>> Oh, yeah. You just told me that you'd eat a severely disabled four-year-old.
Yep, you're right. I stutter.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I actually couldn't even >> I feel like you guys are forgetting. He He can't engage with hypotheticals that don't adhere to realism. And of course, realism is just the actual, right? So, >> I mean, it's kind of an idiosyncratic definition, though.
>> Right. Right. You can't really engage with hypotheticals that aren't actual.
So, >> yeah. Gosh, >> that's true. I forgot. Thanks, Hegelopan.
>> Welcome.
>> Yeah, >> what a powerful 105, dude. What a >> what a potent >> 105 is kind of high. I I assumed it would be lower.
>> No, I think Norway test is weighted pretty heavily. Like I I think I forget >> for pretty exactly how high, but >> Eric Eric was saying that the only time that they'll not let you see the score is if it's like three standard deviations below.
Wait, so it's just inflated by three standard deviations?
>> I think so.
>> Wait, that's insane. That would mean that his IQ is like 55, bro.
>> 15.
>> Goat.
>> It would mean that. You're You're correct.
>> Wait, it didn't show you his score.
>> Yeah, it showed us 105.
>> It showed us 105, but the the Benzori test is pretty is curved. I don't know if it's three standard. I mean, three is kind of crazy. Three would be pretty wild because it caps out at 145 which I feel like would be >> Wait, that is three. That is three, right?
>> Yeah. Yeah, but that would mean that um >> Yeah. Yeah, that would be it would be like that would be they put one of 100, right? Can't no way it caps out. No way it can't measure if you have an IQ above 100.
Uh, I wonder >> I I was I was surprised he kept going to see to see the end. That was >> Bro, if I had randomly guessed at like the last three questions in the IQ test, I think I just pull the rip cord. You know, worst case scenario, you just leave the live and it's like embarrassing, but it's like, >> you know,
Ähnliche Videos
The Realization That Made Shastri Mahadeo Say Islam Is It - Shastri Mahadeo
muslimi
1K views•2026-05-15
WHY THE CHURCH HAS PERPTUATED THE DOWNFALL OF BLACK AMERICA
SARASUTENSETI
220 views•2026-05-17
Threatening Revolution: Saving Nigerians From an Endangered Future
eobilo
458 views•2026-05-20
And it's Not Even About The Odyssey
mbochare
273 views•2026-05-18
Paul's Letters are More Important Than You Think - Here's What He Wrote First
throneandtestament
472 views•2026-05-16
How true is genetic determinism?
leboblack
113 views•2026-05-17
"Seneca Exposed Flattery As The Deadliest Trap Men Fall Into"
TheQuietStoicOfficial
1K views•2026-05-17
The 3 Real Reasons People Want a God
MindShift-Brandon
971 views•2026-05-21
