Andrew Wilson gets DESTROYED by 20 yr old Objectivist Philosopher @ProphetDivinityy

normative claim. Can you agree with me that it's a stance dependent claim? Rights are just stance dependent.

>> I certainly agree they're stance dependent. Yeah.

>> Yeah. So, you just believe in them >> because you you just think they're good, right?

>> What? That doesn't follow.

>> Yes. Yes, it does follow because he said he said that uh he believes that there is good and that rights correspond with what that good is. So, it does follow.

That that doesn't explain how it follows. Like if he says that the if he says that rights are stand >> because he's basing rights on the good.

>> That's how it follows.

>> That doesn't follow either because even if he says the good >> Okay. I don't want to press you on the inference that makes it. But when you say it, it's based on the good. Like his conception of the good is not like arbitrary whim. So it's not as if it's just like made up.

>> It it by his own admission it's arbitrary. What's the he didn't say that. What's what's the system for what the good is?

>> It's based on the facts of human nature and the requirement to flourish >> that and is that something that you is stance dependent?

>> No.

>> Okay. How would you objectively how would you demonstrate this with something which is stance independent?

>> Yeah. The same way we demonstrate the principles proper to the life of a flower by scientifically investigating the nature of flowers and what their what their processes that sustain their life are. But using science is again the reason for using it is stance dependent.

>> The reason for using it is stance dependent.

>> Yes.

>> Does that change the fact that the subject matter is in fact stance independent?

>> It's not independent. It requires minds to interpret. A stance is built via the subject. You are science requires a mind.

>> Science. Does science even exist without mind?

>> Yeah. But do you understand how what you just said is profoundly unimportant given that it's non-unique to every single discipline you could study?

>> Well, wait a second. Um, you saying that that what you say is meaningless uh has no meaning for an anti-realist.

>> I didn't say that doesn't follow either. What? It's not as if anti-realist or anti-meaning.

>> What's the meaning? I just told you I I just told you that the moral facts the moral facts that are taken up in this worldview are the facts about the requirements to flourish as a human being. But the reason the view is stands dependent is in fact because as an agent right you are the thing that's being studied and in fact the motivation to adopt a given view turns on you and the fact that you stand in relation to the facts as a human being.

>> So >> I see. So then so then it is the case that anything that we would be arguing about is going to be dependent upon our stance >> in the sense that the propositions are made true by your stance.

>> Well that any normative claim that we make are going to require our stance.

>> It's going to it's going to relate back to your nature. But that's not as if it's like an arbitrary thing like you >> well that's on that's onlogical. You can't how how would it relate back to our nature?

>> Because what do you mean?

>> Yeah. Exactly. Because if you're making a moral judgment about something being good or bad on Eduardo's view as an anti-realist, it's about, you know, good and bad are relationships that things have to you and your life and the requirements to live. So like, of course, it references back to you.

>> So it's it's it's dependent upon his stance >> and his nature, which is not up to his stance. It's conditional.

>> Can you demonstrate Eduardo's nature?

>> Yeah. Yeah, he's a human being.

>> What is his nature?

>> He's a human being.

>> Oh, okay. He's that that doesn't tell me anything. I'm a human being as well.

>> Yeah, exactly. You have this Yeah, you have a similarity of the moral requirements to live your life.

>> You you have that's the part you haven't demonstrated. What's the similarity of this how? Hang on. Hang on. How is this a requirement?

>> How is it a requirement? Wait, how is what a requirement?

>> How is it a requirement that uh we need normative claims to live our life at all? Because living all what it consists of being a human being like in the method in which human beings survive is by adopting systems of ideas and then them into their action. That's how human beings survive and the ideas that you implement are in fact those normative beliefs. That is why morality you're granting yourself an awful you're granting yourself an awful lot here. First you need to demonstrate that we need we need any of these systems to survive. Go ahead.

>> Yeah. So I mean you that's pretty obviously inductive because if you take all of human history as the data sample and then you say how is it that human beings were able to survive each and every single time they did something that sustained their life they applied their mind to reality utilizing a system of ideas.

>> Wait hang on I just want to make sure I got this right. So you're you're now making a claim that because humans do do that they should do that.

>> I'm not simply saying that. You asked me what's the argument that the method of human asking you right now, are you saying that because you want to move do that? Are you saying humans tangential? Are you saying humans should do that?

>> I I could say that. That's not a claim I just made. I do think that, but I'm asking you I'm asking. Do you know I'm asking you a question?

>> This is a new point. Yeah, this is a new point. I do think it is the case. Yeah, I do think it is the case that I'm asking you.

>> Don't ask me a question before you answer my question.

>> It's just tangential. I I do think it is the case that human beings and AO thinks this too that human beings should live in a productive rational manner. We do. We both think that. Yes.

>> No. No. Well, okay. So, so they ought do that.

>> Mhm.

>> Is that a moral fact?

>> Yeah, it is a moral fact, but it's not a stance independent moral fact.

>> Well, how would it not be a stance dependent moral fact?

>> It is a stance dependent moral fact. It stands >> Then how? So, so what makes it So, then it's not a fact at all.

>> What are you talking about?

>> No, >> it's just a stance. For example, for example, is it a fact that you like is it a fact that you're married to your wife?

>> Um, well, it's a fact from from our the stances of our society that >> it's no, but it's a fact. Well, I don't know if you're married to your wife or not, but the fact is like if you if the fact the subject matter of the proposition is a relationship you have to something, the fact is both stance dependent and is a fact.

>> Well, this makes no sense. Could you if if you if it was your stance that you were married to my wife and not me, right? Would that also be a fact?

>> No, because the relevant stance isn't present there.

>> What would make So what's I'm sorry. The relevant what isn't present.

>> The relevant stance isn't present. Like you have the relevant stance.

>> If it was the case that you thought you were married to my wife, that is the relevant stance. It's yours.

>> My the stance of my belief of the matter is not the relevant stance. That would make the proposition I am married to your wife true. The relevant stance that would make that true is the position of me being married to your wife.

>> What would make that true though other than it was your stance it was true?

>> The the fact of the matter would make it true. What do you mean?

>> There's no Well, the fact of the matter is just your stance that it's a fact.

>> The stances are Yeah. Relationships exist in the world. That's why they can make propositions true and it's why they're facts.

>> Yeah. Because but it's all based on your stances.

>> Oh yeah. For example, I'm taller than you. That's a relationship I have to you. So it's in fact a stance dependent proposition. It depends relative, right?

>> But that doesn't make it less of a fact. That doesn't make it less of a fact because you say >> you say you're taller than me. What is tall?

>> It's a comparison in terms of extension.

>> Yeah. Is there an exact inch ratio for what makes a person tall or short?

>> No, it's ordinal.

>> So and so it's based on stance.

>> It tallness is a comparison based on size. It's an ordinal measurement. You're asking what's the particular quantification? Yeah. But if you say a person over there is tall, you're not making a comparison necessarily.

>> You you in fact are comparing them to the average person. Yeah, that's probably what you're doing.

>> Maybe, but maybe not.

>> That's okay. That that is in fact what the meaning of the term tall is. It's a comparison.

>> Could be, but maybe not.

>> What? Can you give me a use of the term tall? That's not a comparison.

>> Yeah. You're you're saying that you think I I think that uh that this is tall. That's it. that what do you you don't necessitate when you say it does not necessitate it does not necessitate comparison >> what would you be expressing if you said it was tall if it wasn't a comparison >> whatever it is that your stance is trying to express >> what okay I think you've successfully derailed the conversation and you saying that you think that sometimes people use the term tall in a non-comparative way but like with respect to the point about ethics and stance dependence and stance independence Eduardo's point is that there are facts of the matter about your life and the requirements to live as a human being that >> what makes something a fact.

>> What what makes something a fact?

>> Mhm.

>> Facts. Facts aren't made facts. They just are facts.

>> Well, that doesn't answer the question. The question presupposes are because they are as a they are cuz they are as a tautology. Can you tell me what makes a fact?

>> You're presupposing that it's an explainable phenomena. Like the fact that facts are facts is not in fact.

>> Then why are you telling me? So you're what you're telling me right now is that there are facts, but you can't tell me what they are or what they what they >> I just told you what the facts are.

>> No, no, your question was specifically as a fact.

>> What is a fact?

>> Oh, no, that's not what you asked. A fact is an aspect of reality.

>> Okay. And what makes that a fact?

>> What makes aspects of reality aspects of reality?

>> No. What makes you A fact requires an interpreter, right?

>> No. Why would that be required?

>> Okay. Well, then what makes it a fact? What makes aspects of reality aspects of reality?

>> Well, wait a second. Are you saying that all facts are aspects of reality?

>> Chairs. Chairs. Andrew,

>> hang on. I just want to make sure I got this right.

>> Uh, rights are a fact of reality then.

>> Rights are facts. Yep.

>> Okay. Can you show me how they're factual?

>> Yeah, rights are factual because they identify the conditions required to live as a human being in a societal context. the identify aspects of reality >> and and what would make that a fact?

>> What would make the fact a fact >> meeting? What would make that a fact? What would make that a fact? Not >> what would what would make what would make what would make what I just said a fact?

>> Yeah. No. What would make a right a fact?

>> So what would make the fact identified a fact?

>> Mhm. Yeah. What would make it a fact?

>> This presupposes that facts are made facts.

>> So they just exist.

>> Yeah. Facts just are facts. Facts are a brute, right? Facts are facts. Hold on one second, Andrew. Facts are ground zero, right? Like facts do not have to be made facts.

>> I see. So if it's the case that facts don't need to be made facts, then these are things which exist absent any minds to interpret them. Is that right?

>> Yeah. Facts are the way they are independent of you grasping that they're facts. Y >> I see. So then if I had a right to a slave, what would make that not factual?

>> Well, if you assumed it was the case that you had a right to a slave, then you know, it would have always been the case. But we can debate whether or not the proposition is true. Be it whether it corresponds to the facts because the assertion that you have a right to a slave, the debate is over whether or not you are identifying a fact or you're not. Like that's what the conversation's over. So just the assertion that you have a right to own a slave does not make it a fact.

>> So then asserting that you have a right to healthcare, housing, and food does not make that a fact either.

>> Yeah, I agree. We're not liberals.

>> Great. So then can you tell me real quick where this right comes from for housing and food?

>> We don't believe in a right for housing and food.

>> Okay. That's what the entirety of the conversation was.

>> No, I've clarified that for you.

>> Rights.

>> Yeah. The idea was about rights themselves.

>> Yeah. Rights themselves are social or sorry their moral principles which sanction and define your freedom of action in a social context.

>> That's what I have. So then tell me something. Why don't uh we collectively have a right to take [ __ ] from other people that >> because it violates the requirements of living your life in a society with other people.

>> Oh no, no, no. We as a society have decided to take [ __ ] from another >> society deciding something doesn't change the fact that it's incompatible with the requirements of a flourishing society of cooperation.

>> How would it be? How were Vikings not a flourishing society?

>> Because they paged and disrespected the rights of individuals. that that didn't seem to stop their society from flourishing.

>> No, they in fact limited themselves as flourishing because they could have expanded their society and been more productive and achieved more things.

>> They did expand their society. They expanded their society into other continents.

>> No, no, but they could have expanded the lab the people in their society, the amount of producers in their society, the amount of people that are cooperating. It's the same reason why increasing the supply of the supply of people.

>> They did that through slavery.

>> Yeah. But in fact, slaves are more productive when they're able to think and apply their ideas in the same way Vikings are, which is why they were allowed to do that in Viking society.

>> Which is why exactly if Vikings were slaves, they would not have been as good as they were. They they were in fact only as successful as they were in so far as they were free, which is the same which is the exact same reason why societies are better when people are free because slavery limits the potential of individuals which limits >> but they were free to go raid other societies.

>> Right. But that you said that still has the same problem I just identified.

>> No, it doesn't. They seem like they're flourishing. does have. It seems to you that if you enslave somebody, they're just as productive and just as capable of promoting the society they're a part of.

>> Well, it's the case that if you enslave somebody, they're going to be more capable. Hang on. It's the case that if you enslave somebody, isn't it the case that they're going to be more productive towards whatever your aim is than if they're not going to work for your society and not be a slave for your society?

>> It's the case that the best possible scenario.

>> I'm asking I'm asking, I asked you a question.

>> I want to make sure that you steal man what I just said. I want you to make sure that you still my question that I asked you.

>> Hang on.

>> Well, me first. I just asked.

>> I actually asked you a question first, Andrew.

>> What was the question?

>> Okay. My question was, do you understand that people are their most productive and most valuable when they are free to use their mind?

>> No.

>> You don't think that? Okay, cool. I mean, I don't know.

>> That would have to be it would have to be demonstrated to me that that's the case. it. Okay. So, every every single country and every single individual the degree of their success is attributable to the fact that they utilize their mind came up with an idea and solved a problem by applying their mind to the problem they were trying to solve.

>> It doesn't necess necessitate freedom though.

>> It does. Matter of fact, if you were not able to utilize your mind and then apply it to the world, if you were physically restricted, if you were under the ownership of people and they arbitrarily dictated what you could and could not use your mind and apply to, right? All those different things that in fact undercuts the conditions required for you to be the most productive you can be. So then kids shouldn't have parents guide their mind.

>> No, that doesn't work either because children in fact don't have the mature developmental faculty we're talking about. And to the degree that children develop their autonom autonomy and thought is to the degree that they develop their autonomy and rights which is exactly why the rights that are afforded to children is respect is proportionate to the gradual development and maturation of their rational faculty.

>> Should we restrain any thoughts >> with the for the use of force?

>> Yeah. The the only thing that should be restrained utilizing the use of force is the initiation of physical force.

>> So you should only use force to stop force.

>> Yeah.

>> Why shouldn't we we use force for other things as a deterrent?

>> Because it violates it like tax violations.

>> Sure. Yeah. Because it violates the preconditions of a compatible society where everybody cooperates and flourishes. That's why >> how I mean every single society creates these restraints specifically. The most flourish the most flourishing ones seem to have the most amount of these restraints. In fact, >> okay, but that doesn't contradict what I just said. They're limiting themselves.

>> Well, you would have to make a demonstration then.

>> Yeah, of course. Yeah. To the Yeah. If you want more nuanced conversation analysis of the successful countries, the countries that are ultra successful, in fact, in highly key important ways despite the fact they have kind of contradictory elements in their system have this kind of freedom, this intellectual and economic freedom awarded to um the people and producers in their society. In fact, they're just as productive as they are because the producers have the freedom to be productive. Like all of the wealth acquisition >> Well, wait a second. I'm I'm I'm super confused here. You just got done telling me that force should be used to stop force.

>> Uhhuh.

>> Right.

>> Mhm.

>> That is the case.

>> Yeah. In other ways.

>> Yeah. What if a person's ideas though are that you should use force to collectively take things from other people who cannot defend themselves.

>> If a person makes manifest their ideas into actions, i.e. if they are to initiate force on other people, then of course the principle would sanction using force against them.

>> Okay. So but this principle is grounded in what?

>> Grounded in the requirements of human nature and the requirements of an individual to live in society.

>> There doesn't seem to be any such requirement in the use of collective force uh on environment or on people groups in order to take what you want.

>> Yeah, of course there is because of course there is because if me of course there what do you mean? Of course if I decide right now right that me and everybody else in the Tik Tok panel are going to go and plunder and pillager your house you in fact no longer can live a moral successful productive life. Yeah, but why should you care about that?

>> Why should I care about your ability to live a moral productive life?

>> Yeah, >> because me and you have a mutual harmony of interest and we can achieve more together than we could apart.

>> Can you do that if you have massive ideological gaps?

>> The ideological gaps are things that you can evaluate and change. So, I mean, >> can we change them with force?

>> No, of course not. That's why the CRA >> I mean, we definitely you definitely can. You can eliminate an ideology with force. Right.

>> Right. And that's why when we made racism illegal in 1963, it became illegal. Like >> so you removed an ideology, you >> Yeah. Like when we made racism ideologies with force >> because look, if I point a gun to your head right now and I say you must believe that 2 plus 2 equals 5, right? No matter how much willing you're going to do it does not change the fact that your belief is still ultimately up to you and your decisions. And you can only believe things with with respect to the evidence. Right? If you force somebody to do something, you're just causing them to stop thinking. You're not causing them to change your mind. I'm I'm again I'm confused here. Um because you seem to think that you should use force in order to stop force.

>> Yeah, but not to change I don't care about changing the mind of a criminal. That's not why you should use >> what makes them a what what makes them a criminal other than you just declare them.

>> They're violating the moral law of the individual rights.

>> That moral law is an ungrounded principle that you >> You said it was ungrounded. I told you the grounding.

>> What was the grounding again? human nature and the requirements of society.

>> There's no requirement in any society that they don't use collective force to take [ __ ] >> There's actually more to demonstrate. You'd have to demonstrate that.

>> I I already gave you an example of how the usage of force is on principle anti-s survival.

>> It's not anti-survival.

>> Of course it is. If I go right now and I utilize force against you, you in fact your survival has been hindered.

>> So the Native Americans when uh Europeans colonized this area and essentially took them all out. How is that contrary to European survival? Again, >> the Europeans in fact could have lived more productive lives if they had utilized the cooperation of the natives.

>> Prove it.

>> I just told you the economic principle of the increase of labor, increase their productivity is one such example.

>> These culture. So you think that Native Americans were just going to like put on trousers and start I didn't say that. I didn't say that either. Well, what what was the why why would there be any requirement from such a civilization which was so much of a lesser civilization? Uh why would there be any necess if we could just take the resources instead and not deal with the people on top of the resources? Why wouldn't we just do that? Why would we need the people there?

>> Yeah. So, this is a point about pragmatism. We're like, well, if I can get this outcome, but I don't really have to follow these life promoting principles. Why should I follow the principles? And the fact is that if you operate in this kind of semi the thing is you need principles. Oh, it's not. It is. No, that's not the case. No, it's not. The is that you said it's always a universal grounded truth >> that to that if you utilize force for your benefit, that's always wrong because some [ __ ] labor principle. But I just pointed out and demonstrated to you that we don't need a labor principle with a primitive people to just take their [ __ ] >> I just told you it's counteract.

>> They just take their [ __ ] >> Do you think that Do you think Native Americans? Hang >> on. Do you think Do you think Native Americans are super upset?

>> I just asked you a question. Can Can you answer?

>> What was the question?

>> My question was, "Do you think >> You didn't answer mine. You didn't answer mine."

>> I actually asked you a question first. So, I did answer your question the previous one. You >> didn't answer it. You didn't. Yes, I did. You didn't answer it. What you just said makes no sense.

>> What did I not answer? What?

>> Yeah. I'm going to I'm going to tell you again how you need to demonstrate to me how it would be that uh when colonials took over what is now the United States that uh somehow getting cooperation from people who did not want to cooperate with them who were who perpetually were at war with them uh how that would have made things better than their elimination for resources.

>> Okay. Yeah. First thing is that the thing that I claimed was that on principle the utilization of force is anti-human survival. In the particular case of British people going and colonizing in fact counterfactually it would have been better right if you evaluate all of the all of the parties in the situation and things that they could have done. The best case scenario for everybody there would have been if they all cooperated kumbaya and worked together. But in fact >> that's what I want demonstrated. That's what I'm asking for the demonstration of >> the Oh yeah. Okay. So, then the argument now is the claim that if there were everyone cooperated, it would be better for everybody. Well, I already gave the inductive support for that. I already I already gave the inductive support for that one. The fact that the increase of labor, increase the productivity is one such example. And then at like a basic common sense level, right? If you have more people working towards the same common goal, you in fact can be more organized, more sophisticated, more specialized and therefore be more productive. It's the same argument. It's the same, you know, philosophical basis for the economic principle that the increase of labor increases the increase of uh productivity. It's the same thing.

>> But the same reason why here's what I guess I guess here's what I'm still confused about with this position.

>> Huh.

>> When you're talking when you make the reference towards human nature and you're saying that you're utilizing this principle yourself from a source of pragmatism, correct?

>> I'm utilizing the principle. I'm not using the term pragmatism, but it is if if you mean that pragmatic >> like it it benefits my life in the real world. Yeah, that's right.

>> I see. So, if this is the case, right, and we're appealing to human nature, do you agree with me that you can have two different categories of people where some are so technologically not advanced versus people who are technologically advanced that their labor actually is counterproductive whereas taking their resources would not from this from the viewpoint of the more advanced civilization.

>> Yeah. No, I don't agree with that because there's no such thing as technological nature, right? There's tech, there's behaviors and there's knowledge, right? But the nature of the people >> I didn't say technological nature.

>> Okay. You said what if there are people of lesser natures where one's more technological. That's what you said.

>> No, not nature. where it's the case that you have one civilization which is so far down the technological advancement stage that to integrate them into the form of technologies which you have would actually take more resources than just the elimination of those people.

>> It's just a no it's just it's just a growing pain. That's all it is. It's like the same reason why when you have >> but that's what you're not demonstrating.

>> It's the same reason why like children are like really incompetent when you have them and like you wait a little bit and they like know what they're doing after you teach them and stuff.

>> Yeah. Because those well those people are socially integrated though >> children are not in born socially integrated they become socially integrated.

>> No but their parents are socially integrated >> right and the people who would teach >> and so you can make assumptions based on that like Native Americans were not socially integrated >> but children the whole point I'm comparing Native Americans to children in the relevant sense that you can socially integrate them when they're previously not socially integrated. But if all civilizations aren't going to get along ideologically, how does this principle actually unfold when it's the case that they're not going to cooperate? Why you should just take their [ __ ] >> Yeah, but that presupposes the immutability of the fact that their ideologies are separate. Like that's not a fact.

>> Well, this isn't a presupposition. If it's if it's a fact, right?

>> It's not a fact. In fact, it is not true.

>> It's not a fact.

>> It's not a fact that ideologies are immutable. It is a fact that there are differing ideologies. It's not a fact that the ideology >> I didn't say immutable, right? Why did you make that? Wait, why did you insert the word immutable? I said, is it in fact the case that you can have ideologies which are so distinct with different distinct technology levels?

>> It's actually more pragmatic to eliminate that people group.

>> Yeah. I'm telling you why. Because whenever you make a moral evaluation or you make an evaluation at all, you have to evaluate all of the things that are up to choice, which includes the ideologies of groups, right? You do not take for granted in your analysis some of the facts being evaluatable and some of them not being evaluatable because you should evaluate all the things which are up to.

>> That's just gibberish. that >> what about that was unclear for you >> because you're not actually uh contending with what I'm asking.

>> I did I did actually contend with what you said. You just took for granted >> the the princip the principle itself you're making a truth claim and the truth claim is that >> uh this principle should always be adhered to because it's going to somehow increase productivity. But I'm giving you a distinct advant a distinct situation historically where it is the case that productivity actually likely increased for a people group by eliminating another people.

>> Yeah. But that presuppose but look I've already told you that whenever you make evaluations the principle is an evaluation of what human society should look like. And when you make an evaluation of what human society should look like you evaluate all of the different >> alternatives. Wait, no, you didn't say that the principle itself is only an adherence that you're striving towards. You're saying it's a universal truth >> that everybody should strive to Yes. It's a truth about what people should strive towards. Yes.

>> So that's not so it's something you should work towards. Just that everybody cooperates together.

>> That is something that you should principle.

>> That is what you should that's the whole principle. That is a that is a motivation.

>> But your whole but your whole idea is that it should be worked towards only because it increases labor. you a literal a literal example where it wouldn't increase labor.

>> Matter of fact, this is the point when you when I say >> universally, right, for all human beings, if we all adhere to this principle, that is in fact the ideal scenario for each and every single one of us selfishly and as a collective group and then you give me an example of people who are working against the benefit of the principle where in fact they because of the same evaluation for you should in fact buy into the idea of individual rights and cooperation. Right? They're operating against that. Of course, you're not going to get the ideal result because they're not following the principle that they should be following.

>> Can I actually principle?

>> 15 seconds here real quick. I I just wanted to say something super fast. So, Andrew, I'm actually an Orthodox Christian, so I don't have any reason to be like siding with these guys on this overall debate, but I've been listening through the whole thing and I think this particular line of argumentation is not super good cuz you are just wrong on this specific thing. It is the case that we were less productive and it was less economically efficient to do this. And I mean this goes all the way back to Adam Smith which >> which what thing what thing?

>> Um so this would be there's lots of different principles you could look to here but something >> what thing specifically am I hang on when you said it is the case that just economically this wasn't good. What thing are you referencing?

>> Uh like uh uh wiping out natives which by the way of course the Europeans were not super people who fall out. That was >> that's what I'm waiting for is a demonstration.

>> Um so this would be something called the law of continuous dealings and uh basically the idea is raiding people is much less efficient for you or beneficial for you in the long term versus trading with them. So there's lots of old studies on this too. The raider trade studies. There's some on the Aadians. There's some on um uh activities post civil war out in the west. And repeatedly you find that when people were trading with the natives, they were much wealthier versus when they raided them. And the times when they raided them when there's a standing army socializ >> uh I mean if you Yeah, I could grab one real quick. Uh it'll take me a couple seconds though.

>> Yeah, grab them.

>> All right, cool. And then I would like to note I would like to note how it would be the case >> that if if you now have the global hegeimon of the world >> which was based around literal conquest um how you could say that if well we just let natives keep their land and trade with them that would have been better for our people group. Can you explain that? Well, most of what they did was consensual to the local peoples and most of what they did was very beneficial to the local peoples because >> except for things that weren't.

>> They were come on we we took over the entire land mass.

>> The British Empire was super uh good for the people they colonized.

>> I'm actually surprised you're taking like this leftist anti-white stance.

>> Yeah. Like col colonial anti-white >> like this idea that evil British were going around conquering everybody. Like that's just this is just nonsense. anti-European slander.

>> You're not contending. I don't care about your emotional state of what you think the argument is. I want you to contend with what the argument is. How could it possibly be bad? How could it possibly be bad >> for us, for the United States, that we conquered and destroyed civilizations which were cutting out people's hearts on top of temples? No, I'm not making colon. Hang on, hang on, hang on. And then colonized the entirety of the land and became a hegeimon. How would trading with those civilizations have been more of a net benefit to those societies?

>> No, see the claim that uh these are two different claims, right? There were certain societies that were very violent justifiably so we did conquer them. I'm going against the claim that we conquered like everybody and it was a general principle.

>> That's not what you said. Don't [ __ ] me. You said we would have been better off trading. You said we would have been better off trading with the Native Americans rather than conquering them, taking specifically about what you guys were just discussing. But Liam and the objectivist guys that you're debating, they've already held the stance that you can initiate force against someone who's >> irrelevant what stance they're holding. I'm talking to you now about yours. Your stance was specific that we >> I'm an orthodox Christian, so yes, I believe.

>> That's nice. But you would you said we would have been better off trading. We're talking about pragmatism now. You're orthod you being an orthodox Christian has nothing to do with the view that you're arguing which is a pragmatic view from the from the form of pragmatism. How is it possible that we as a global hegeimon are now worse off because we eliminated 99% of the native population? how >> well we didn't that's not true but um the the claim is not that we shouldn't raid people who are already raiding us right the claim is that we should trade people who are willing to trade with us right does that make more sense because it it seems like you might be misinterpreting my position >> this is no you said that what I said was factually not true that trading with Native Americans would have been more beneficial than the conquest of their land >> there are obvious presuppositions here right you have to say if you're going to trade with them it has to be people who are actually willing to trade in the first place. If there are people that are going to scout all of us, certainly about this. Can you show me where I'm back?

>> Yes, you are. You're making this claim that we're just going around. And again, it's a very anti-European, anti-white claim that we're just going around conquering everybody, destroying you. You claim we killed 99% of the Indians. That's not true. That's something leftists say. Most of them died of disease. It wasn't even true.

>> Most of them most of them died from disease. But I'm doing a critique right now on the pragmatism portion here against this principle. Your idea when you came in to play Captain Sabaho was that I was factually incorrect that conquest of the lands of the uh which which is now the United States somehow was it would have been more beneficial to not have had conquest in these lands. That is what I want demonstrated as it's now the global hegeimon of the world. What do you mean? That violates his principle.

>> No, it doesn't. And we can get back to this. My point is that cooperation and the removal of the initiation of physical force promotes human life. And in fact, if you reference societies and groups of people who because of their primitive ideas, right, are not cooperative, are violent. Those people and the fact that their violence is destructive towards human life and flourishing is evidence and expected by my principle. That's not a counter example >> to the degree. thought that your principle was just that it would increase labor if we had traded with them.

>> Okay. The labor economic point was a was a defense an inductive defense of the fact that more people cooperating is more productive and the fact >> and it's not a universal truth right >> it is a universal truth because matter of fact when I told you hold on hold on >> so just to make sure the the chill I'm still I just want to make sure I got this right I don't want to steal >> I'm I'm going to clarify something I know I'll let you after I say something is cool it's cool bro it's chill look I'm not going to just relax okay >> the inductive support that I gave for the principal right I gave you one inductive support which was the the economic good. Okay. But the principle is that to the degree that we cooperate or move forces to the degree that human beings can flourish and if you have a violent group of people who are unwilling to cooperate and that has negative effects on human life and for everyone as a whole that is in fact expected by my principle. So when you say oh but this group like this group was violent and the fact that we treated them with violence like you know that's counterexam that was you know better for us. If we're responding with to violence with violence that is in fact sanctioned by the principal and the fact that the violence that they initiated on us was negative towards us is expected by my principal. That's not evidence against what I've said.

>> I see. So I just want to make sure I got this right. Would you agree with or do you are because it sounds like this view requires ownership of some kind.

>> This view would commit yourself to a form of ownership in context. Yeah.

>> Yeah. Okay. So what when you say ownership, what does that mean? Ownership is the justified usage to exclude the use of a good.

>> It's what?

>> It's the justification to exclude the usage of a material good.

>> Can you explain what that means?

>> Yeah. So, for example, >> really, really small words.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Let's say I own a um let's say I own a pencil and you're like, "Yo, can I please get this pencil? I really need to write down what you're saying so I can track the conversation." And then I'm like, "Well, I own this pencil, so I actually get to choose how to use the pencil or how not. It makes you own the the >> Okay. Well, now I just want you were unclear about what ownership is. Now you want to know why you you're to own something.

>> Yeah. I'm still unclear about what it is cuz you already assume that there's ownership.

>> You asked me what it is and I explained the ownership is the fact that I'm >> that's what's in question. If if you say >> what >> if you say you know what it is example and say ownership is I own this pencil. That doesn't tell me what ownership.

>> No. I I explained to you through example that the ownership of the pencil. I defined it to you. It is the justified usage to exclude a good a material good right and the what that means is it means that if I own something if it is the case that I own something then it is the case that I am justified in controlling how that item is used who I give it to what it's used for all these other things now if you want to ask me why it ownership why yeah ask why I own something >> wait are you asking what makes it ownership or why do I have ownership >> yeah what makes it what makes it ownership what makes it that that you own a thing when you say I own a thing what does that mean so I talk You know what ownership is now? You know the justification for ownership, right? Because you know now >> it's the same it's the same question. I'm just trying to figure out what ownership here is.

>> Ownership is the justification to exclude the usage of a scarce good. I just told you that what why I'm justifying what Okay. Well, what justifies that?

>> Okay. The reason I'm justified in controlling the usage of goods fundamentally originates from the idea that it is a requirement of human survival that I keep the things that I produce when I apply my mind to nature. as a fundamental idea. If I go and I make a tool or I give food or I do all these things, if I am not entitled to the things that I go out in nature and produce, I in fact die. My my actions, they are ineffectious. They're inert. They don't they don't actually promote my life. So, the requirements of human survival demand that I keep the things that I go in reality and produce when I apply my mind to the problems of my survival. Now after I own something there's more sophisticated expressions of this basic principle or I can trade with people and you know we can we can have labor we can create money to like you know make it more efficient there all these sophisticated ideas but the fundamental basis is that the requirement of human life is that I apply my mind to reality and then I use the rewards that of my labor to then sustain my life and it's the basic reason why you're justified in controlling the usage of things that you go out in nature and make >> because it's required for your existence.

>> Yes. Because it's required by the nature of human survival. Then would you say then that children own things?

>> Children can own things if they go out and make them 100%.

>> I mean isn't it isn't it the case factually that till a child reaches their majority the parents actually own everything.

>> That doesn't mean that children can't own something like it is but it's not a it doesn't seem like that's a requirement then for their life that they own anything.

>> Well all the principles about the requirements of human survival are speaking from the perspective of a mature adult. That's why like whenever you create >> Well, well,

Hang on, hang on. Why?

>> Because children develop.

>> First of all, what's a mature? What's a mature adult?

>> I'll explain to you. A mature adult is a fully developed human being.

>> What does that mean?

>> What is a fully developed human being?

>> Yeah. When, when you become fully developed?

>> Okay. A fully developed human being is a human being that sustains its life utilizing their reason. It's a human being that sustains themselves through their own effort, that goes out and achieves their goals.

>> Why is that, why is that a requirement to be fully developed? Why couldn't you not own anything and still have a wonderful life?

>> What are you going to possible? What are you, what are you going to eat? Where are you going to live? How are you going to, somebody else feeds you?

>> How are you going? Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. If somebody else feeds you and takes care of you and does everything for you, why do you need to own anything?

>> Don't drop the context. How exactly is the case that there are things that can feed you and things that clothe you and things that protect you?

>> Due to force.

>> The force of what? It's not like force made the clothes. Force didn't make the house. Force didn't make the food.

>> It, well, it can. No. No. And matter of fact, what happened is people went out and achieved.

>> You can use force to create labor. Yes.

>> Okay. Look. Look. If you don't go out in reality and you apply your mind to the problems of your survival, guess what? There's going to be no food. There's going to be no houses. There's going to be no pencils. There's going to be no podcast equipment. Like, people have to go out and make stuff.

>> But that's not the claim. The claim was that it's necessary for human survival that you be able to own things.

>> Human beings by their very nature have to sustain themselves by production. And in fact, they don't have to actually own anything though.

>> They do. Yes.

>> No. Well, that's a question. You just got. Hang on. I just gave you an example of human beings who don't need to own anything.

>> That's not a. Can still have great lives. You're talking about they in fact do still need to own things. Even if it's in the temporary. No, they don't in fact need to own things that you haven't demonstrated yet.

>> That I have demonstrated that even if it's in the temporary moment of something as simple as sustaining food. Even if it's in the temporary mode of something as having, you know.

>> What? Well, hang on. That's not. That's not ownership. Somebody feeds you.

>> If, if the food's in my hand, it's going into my mouth. You just like snatch it out of my hand.

>> If you kid. I could take. I could take your food away from you if you're a kid.

>> Look, Andrew, if there were no foods that children were allowed to take and put into their mouth without, you know, you know, whatever, then they in fact would die.

>> If children did not have the exclusion.

>> That doesn't mean that they own the food though.

>> Really? Are they justified? What makes them own the? So is it just possession is ownership? No, it's not possessions ownership. I'm telling you here's the principle and I think I think there's differences in the context. My my point is generally like seeing the speaking from the.

>> Generally. Now I thought so. So it's just generally true but not not always true.

>> That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying no, I'm not saying it's aristic. It's a principle difference. Okay. I'm saying from the perspective of mankind, mankind, human beings as a as a kind of creature.

>> Their life is sustained through the use of reason and it requires that they are entitled to the things that they produce. You haven't demonstrated this requirement that you have to own.

>> Because matter of fact, every single thing. No, it is.

>> You've only demonstrated that some people would have to own things.

>> No, hold on. I'm speaking from the perspective of the kind, Andrew. Do you know the distinction between the kind and the group?

>> Well, what's the distinction? Human beings. Are are human beings here? The kind?

>> You know the distinction between saying mankind and everybody in the world?

>> Okay. So, when you say mankind, who are we referencing then?

>> Mankind refers to the species as such. All of them.

>> All, all human beings past, present, and future.

>> Gotcha. And so then group means.

>> Group is the particular occurring human beings on the planet.

>> So only some groups of people need to own things then?

>> That's that's not. Did you hear what I just said? The principle is of the kind, not of the group.

>> So then if all of mankind needs to have the requirement of being able to own things.

>> As a kind, it is required. Thank you for the G.

>> Yeah. Okay. As a kind, it is required.

>> Which is why every single value that sustains human life is produced. And if it was the case that they were not entitled to. Calm down, calm down, dude. Calm down. You're screaming at me, telling me to calm down, right?

>> Dude? You're freaking out. Just a little mine. I'm sure.

>> I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this. Screaming at me, telling me to calm down. So relax.

>> Because you just keep, you just keep over talking. You're lashing out. I'm trying to figure out. I'm just trying to figure out the position.

>> Okay, sure. Go for it. So, so the idea here is that all of mankind needs to be able to own things or no.

>> Mankind as such needs to be entitled to their labor in order to live their life.

>> Yep.

>> Okay. Except in cases where they don't.

>> No, that's not what I'm saying. That's not the clause. That's not the qualification.

>> So, mankind. Understand mankind refers to it refers to each individual human being as a creature. Okay.

>> Mhm.

>> Is a requirement of each human being if they are to survive because of their nature that they go and they they produce things and they use those things that they produce in a way that is conducive towards their life.

>> Now we can get more sophisticated.

>> What are babies producing?

>> Babies are underdeveloped human beings. So all the principles true of the kind are things that they hold.

>> Hold on. I'm I'm explaining this to you just before you jump.

>> All the principles that are true of the kind manifest themselves and become more present as babies transition from being babies to fully grown human beings. Which is why when we say human beings should do this and human beings should die and human beings are like this, those principles and those explanations only start making sense when babies become more humanlike. They become mature human beings.

>> So you would say like, like 12 or 13 year olds would not fit into this fully developed human beings. Due to the proportion that they're develop.

>> Well, they're not. They're not mature human beings, but to the degree that they have the distinctly human method of survival, which is the use of their reason and the need to produce all these things. And yeah, the principles proportionally manifest themselves in the requirements and what benefits them.

>> So then if it was the case that these people were taken care of for their entire life, why would there be a need for the principle?

>> But the context of taking care of human beings that there are values that sustain their lives and that the values that sustain their life when you account for the whole context are things which are achieved that promote life because there are people that go out and produce things and upon producing them that they're entitled to the good and then after being owning after being entitled back to some people then go. Not all of them. The point is that if you have people who live in a parasitic way, that does not undercut the principle that values as such are produced. That values are.

>> It does under. Well, the whole, the whole principle seems like it's undercut immediately because you're just associating that only some people in these groups need to actually have this principle applied and everybody can still.

>> Principle is true of human nature. It's not not a disruption of particular groups.

>> It's well, I mean, it it is in fact not. It's not true of babies. It's not not true of people who are not proportionally true. It's proportionally true of.

>> How's it proportionally true to a baby? What does that mean?

>> I'm telling you, it's because the principle is from the perspective of the kind and the fact that they're undermatured implies that they have not fully realized the extent of their nature.

>> So to the extent.

>> So then it doesn't need to apply to them.

>> To the extent that they are developed is to the extent it applies.

>> Which is why? That doesn't mean anything. It's the same reason why children. Is it a fraction of the principle applies then?

>> It means the principle.

>> % of the principle applies. 15%. How much of the principle applies? What is unclear about that to you?

>> How much of the principle applies to me?

>> Are you looking for a number?

>> I'm just looking for any consistency. It's bizarre to me.

>> I said it's proportional to their faculties and their.

>> Yeah, but that doesn't mean anything. That's nice. Oh, okay. It's not proportional. What is the proportion?

>> Let me give you an. Let me give you an example so that you can induce.

>> I don't need an example. I need. I need an explanation.

>> You said you were genuinely clueless as to what it means. So, I'm going to explain to you what it means through an example because that seems like the best way you would get it. Okay. So for example, grandma has lost the use of her rational faculty because she has dementia. Give it a couple years, you know, some people we know will be there. And given that they have lost the use of their mind.

>> Given that they have lost the use of their mind, they can no longer think for themselves. They can't produce for themselves. They become incompetent.

>> Now the nature of human survival, right? What human survival looks like when human beings survive is they go out and they produce things using their mind. Grandma has now lost a degree of her ability to survive. She has lost the the effectivity of her mind and her ability to produce [ __ ]. And so proportionately, grandma has lost a degree of freedom in society. She's now entrusted by people in the nursing homes, right? They dress her, they feed her, all these other things.

>> So how does this principle apply to grandma then?

>> Okay. Well, grandma is still an individual who can think, right? She can still do things.

>> Well, not really. She has dementia. She forgets what she thought.

>> That doesn't mean that she can't think, though, right? She, she's worse at thinking, right, than me or you or some, you know.

>> Or she could be so bad that she doesn't even remember what happened five minutes ago.

>> And if, if grand, if grandma is, you know, if she is completely just, I mean, she has no consciousness at all, right? She's, I mean, if she's brain dead, then yeah, grandma's dead, right? She has no rights.

>> No, she's not brain dead. She just doesn't seem like she needs this principle applied. It seems like other groups of people would need it.

>> What do you mean? Like she still needs to, in order to surv, in order for grandma to confront the problem of her survival, she needs to go out and produce [ __ ]. The fact that people help her with her problem.

>> What does she need to produce?

>> What does grandma need to produce in order to live?

>> Yeah.

>> Food, water.

>> She has. If she. So grandma has Alzheimer's. She's in a nursing home. She can't. She has a goldfish memory. What the [ __ ] is grandma producing?

>> I'm explaining what she's. I'm telling you right now.

>> Is she? Is it? Is she like, is she producing waste producing?

>> The fact, the fact that people help you with your needs that you're responsible for does not invalidate the fact that you need them and in fact you are responsible for achieving your needs. Yeah, you need them. They need. So they would need the PR, but grandma wouldn't need the principle.

>> Grandma, in fact, the principle is a description of the requirements of her survival. The principle is a truth about.

>> That's not a requirement of her survival. The opposite.

>> Yeah, she, she in fact does need these things produced. Yes, she does. Yes.

>> Okay. She needs them produced, but she herself is not producing [ __ ]. So the how did. So you're just saying some groups need this principle. That's it.

>> I'll explain it to you this way. Okay. Maybe maybe this will help. Okay.

>> You can explain it however you want, but that's what it's going to reduce to.

>> No, it's not going to reduce to that cuz look, the you're a big, you're a big. Look, you're a big, you're a big individual responsibility. Hopefully, you're a big like, you know, self-made, you know, you should make your life, you're responsible for your life, no one's going to do it for you kind of thing, right? Now, you as an individual.

>> So what?

>> I'm explaining to you.

>> What does that have to do with? So if you listen for like 3 seconds, you learn what the what the four is for. Okay? Given that you are the person who lives your life, you are the person who has the needs, you are the person who is responsible for realizing them. Okay? It is a need of grandma, of children, of you, of me, of [ __ ] Radcap, below me, of everybody that we realize the requirements of ourselves. We need to produce, right? We need these these things that we have produced to then be used by us. We need to use them in a way that's advantageous to our interest. And now I can either be better at that or worse at that depending on the the my nature depending on my development or depending on whether I've, you know, decayed. Whatever the point is that as a human being your survival has.

>> This is just pure sophistry. What office do you not?

>> Well, because because again, you keep on moving back to this idea that this is un of universal necessity for people and then we continuously point to people where it's completely unnecessary necessary to other people around them who aren't them.

>> What are you talking about? Grandma is still responsible for her needs.

>> How can grandma be responsible for her needs when grandma doesn't have a [ __ ] mind?

>> Human being anymore? How would she be responsible for her needs? Grandma's not responsible for her needs. Think.

>> Grandma. Grandma's not responsible for her needs.

>> Wouldn't there be some kind of duty there to take care of?

>> Oh, so now you're realizing that to the degree that grandma is maturely human is to the degree that she has the principle that apply.

>> There's no principle there applied to her.

>> There's no principle to the degree in which.

>> Grandma doesn't need the freedom.

>> To the degree in which the principle applies to grandma is the degree in which the principle applies. It doesn't mean anything.

>> Yeah, it does. Look, Andrew.

>> It's just meaningless nonsense.

>> Well, what's the portion? 4%? 3% of the principle.

>> It's cool. I can explain.

>> How much? How much of the percentage of the principle applies to grandma? Here.

>> Let me ask you a question. If I go up and I, you know, try to beat on grandma, do you think that's going to disrupt her ability to survive?

>> Yeah.

>> Right. So she still needs the freedom from physical force.

>> She doesn't. But she doesn't need to go out and produce [ __ ]. Right?

>> Wait, wait a second. I'm I'm confused here. So grandma needs other people to be able to protect grandma.

>> She needs the condition. Look, I'm telling you she needs a condition.

>> So grandma can't protect herself, right?

>> How the condition is sustained is a separate question. I'm saying she has this condition.

>> Okay, hang on. I'm just. I just want to make sure I got this right.

>> Grandma in this scenario can't protect herself.

>> Yeah, she's incompetent. She's senile.

>> So who's protecting grandma?

>> Hold on. We we could talk about who enforces the principle, but what we're recognizing here is the principle that human beings.

>> I just need to hear other people are enforce are are protecting grandma, not grandma, right?

>> Yeah, there is. There is an objective need for government. I agree with you. Okay. I'm not.

>> I'm not asking about that. I'm just asking if other people are protecting grandma.

>> Yeah, the government protects your grandma. Yes, the government protects grandma.

>> Okay, got it. So then it sounds like the government needs to have this, but not grandma.

>> The government in act operates according to the principle I'm trying to identify, which is that individual.

>> But that doesn't mean the individual needs to. That's my.

>> In fact, no, it's a need. It is a need of grandma, right? Here, here's what you got to understand. Just let me get through my soliloquy and then you can, you know, deconstruct and clip. Look, here's the point. Grandma, because she is a human being, has certain requirements. One of her requirements when she is in society is that people do not go be on her and [ __ ] steal her and [ __ ] snack her, snack her weave, all these things, right? Grandma's life is in fact harmed and worsened and made impossible if people do these to varying degrees, right? So it's a need of grandma that she's free from physical force. Now, it's actually also a need of you and me that we are not [ __ ] with. People don't [ __ ] steal our [ __ ]. They don't rob us. They don't like [ __ ] brutalize us in a [ __ ] you know, in an alleyway. All these other things. These are all requirements of us. We We cannot live as human beings if we are having force applied to us in an initiatory way. Therefore, we all have a need for somebody to enforce and remove physical force from all of us.

>> That's. We can't live as human beings by violating those principles against other human beings. You're being immoral. Can't we?

>> Yeah. You haven't. That's the part. What do you mean? How you haven't demonstrated that's immoral?

>> You're making all. All you've done is say it's that's immoral because I think it's immoral. That's it.

>> In fact, I've explained to it that what? Hang on. Hang on. What makes that actually immoral?

>> It violates the requirements of human survival in the social context.

>> It doesn't though.

>> We just explained how it does. We just explained that needs it. You need it. I need it.

>> The thing is is like, let's just, you know what? I'll even grant it for the sake of argument. So what?

>> So what about what?

>> So what if let's just say that uh one collective group of human beings wants to violate this principle because they don't give a [ __ ]. What objectively what would actually make that immoral other than.

>> What makes it immoral?

>> Yeah. What makes it moral?

>> So what were you granting? I don't understand. What did you just grant?

>> I'm just granting. I'm just granting the position that is it only that you have this position.

>> You grant that it's immoral. Then ask me what makes it immoral, bro. What?

>> Yeah. I'm granting if the. Is it the case that are grant just your stance that it's immoral.

>> What are you granting?

>> I'm asking you a question. Is.

>> But you said you granted. What did you grant? Did you grant that it was immoral?

>> Yeah. I'm just granting from your worldview it is.

>> Okay. So granting it's immoral. What was the question then?

>> From your worldview.

>> Okay. Assuming it's immoral. What was the question about it?

>> What? Yeah. So we're we're granting your worldview, right?

>> Okay. Moral. My my follow-up question is, is that just dependent on your stance?

>> It's not just dependent on my stance.

>> What else is it dependent on?

>> The facts of human nature.

>> And are those? Do those require stance as well?

>> Facts. No, the the facts of human nature are not an attitude or stance. I have.

>> So what what makes them factual?

>> What makes the facts facts?

>> I think we went through that. Facts don't have to be made facts, Andrew. We already talked about this.

>> Well, I mean, that's that's tautology. That's not telling.

>> It's not a tautology. You're committing a category error. And then when I explain something, you're saying a fact is a fact. If you say a fact is a fact, that's tautology.

>> Facts are facts, Andrew. That's right. We already went down this dialogue tree.

>> I feel like aspects of reality.

>> That's a. But that is a tautology, right? Facts are facts.

>> Wait, by tautology, do you mean it's it is the thing that it is?

>> Can you answer my question? Is it a tautology to say?

>> That's a clarifying question. Is that what you mean?

>> Do you mean a fact?

>> I'm asking. Well, wait. But how how is it a clarification?

>> I cuz I'm asking what you mean by tautology. That's why it's a clarification.

>> Do you want a definition of a tautology?

>> I'm just clarifying by.

>> I can pull one up. I'm just trying to.

>> I'll pull up what tautology means.

>> By tautology, did you just mean the fact is a fact?

>> I didn't say tautology. I said ta.

>> I mean, you don't want to critique me about stuttering, bro. I mean, did you hear what you said?

>> The saying the saying when you criticize me for stuttering.

>> I mean, I'll I'll criticize your stutters. It'll be really embarrassing for you because you've stumbled over yourself the whole time. But I'm not going to do that cuz you know I'm a little more I have a little more decorum than you. It's cool.

>> So just you look up what.

>> Anyway, the saying that the same same thing twice in different words.

>> I mean, you just stuttered again when you tried to criticize me. So you you got to pick your route. Do you want to talk about substance or do you want to talk about who stutters more? Cuz I promise you it's not going to look at.

>> I don't even know what you're talking about. Can you tell me what a tautology is?

>> I grant that you don't know what I'm talking about. What is a tautology? It's a statement. It's a statement which just asserts.

>> It's like a. Okay. It's just something that is sometimes they say it's accurately true. Sometimes they say it's trivially true. A fact is saying a fact is a fact. A tautology.

>> If by tautology you just mean saying this thing is what it is. Yeah, that is a tautology.

>> Okay. So it's tautological.

>> Yeah. Fact.

>> So it's not offering me any clarification on what one actually is.

>> I told you what a fact is an aspect of reality.

>> And is that stance dependent or not?

>> Is an aspect of reality. Fact. Stance dependent depends on the aspect of reality. Like the the aspect of reality.

>> This aspect. The aspect of reality that is a fact.

>> Some some aspects of reality are stance independent, some aren't.

>> Which ones aren't?

>> The ones that are dependent on stances. Boy, what's wrong with you? Like what do you not get about this, man?

>> I'm I'm asking.

>> What do you think? What do you think? So when you say look, look, take a step back.

>> When we say stance independent, what do you think we're attributing the stance dependence to?

>> We're attributing it to a fact. The fact is stance.

>> Well, usually usually we're actually attributing it to a mind, right?

>> No, you're attributing it. Oh my god. The stance dependence relationship is what the fact has, right? Its relationship to a mind. So, for example, when you say.

>> I just said that. I just said it's it's really just pointing to.

>> You really did not just say that. Okay. I'm just telling you right now.

>> I really did just say that.

>> No, you didn't.

>> You can clip it. You can clip it out there. It's totally correct. What I just said is totally correct. There's no loud gas. I'm not gaslighting you, dude. Let's make sure we're both on the tracking train together. I just want to clarify. We agree that stance independent facts are in fact facts.

>> No.

>> Okay. What are they?

>> I don't know. I'm.

>> Not aspects of reality.

>> I'm asking you.

>> I already told you. But you're asking me whether.

>> Well, you're just saying you're just saying a fact is a fact. It's not clarifying to me at all.

>> What do you want to clarify what a fact is or why that's a fact?

>> Yeah. What makes something factual?

>> It being an aspect of reality.

>> Okay. And does that require an interpreter?

>> No.

>> Okay. Can you demonstrate how a facts of reality don't require interpreters?

>> What? You just asked me to demonstrate a negative, Andrew. What are you doing?

>> Well, you made a negative claim.

>> No, I. Are you serious?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. So, I said a fact of reality is just an aspect of reality. And then I said there are stance independent aspects of reality. Said, "Show how that doesn't demonstrate that doesn't need an interpreter."

>> Yeah. Well, you're saying it doesn't need an interpreter.

>> I'm saying I do not think it needs an interpreter. Yep.

>> So then that's then you made the claim it does not need an interpreter.

>> Andrew dial.

>> So then me saying it does not need an interpreter is a claim. Correct.

>> You saying that.

>> It, it is a claim. Yep.

>> Then I'm asking for the demonstration of the claim.

>> Okay. I just wanted to clarify real quick that the burden of proof principle is not to be equivocated with like who says what first in an argument. It's supposed to be equivocated with what is the onlogic positive asserted by a claim.

>> That's okay. Did you did you make a claim?

>> Yeah. When I say for example there are no invisible leprechauns in front of me, right? I don't have to get I don't have to demonstrate the non-existence of the leprechaun by appealing to non-existence. It doesn't make any sense, right? I'm asserting to you.

>> Right. Similarly.

>> Wait. Okay. Hang on. Hang on. You're you are saying that this principle does or does not exist as a universal.

>> What principle are you talking about?

>> The principle of whatever the [ __ ].

>> You talking about individual rights or what a fact is.

>> Well, in this case, a fact.

>> Okay. Well, that's not the principle. I'm saying facts exist and facts are what they are. That's true. And some facts are stance dependent and some aren't.

>> Yep.

>> Okay. So, when we're talking about stance independent facts, that's what I'm asking about.

>> Independent facts.

>> What is one? Yeah. What's a stance independent fact? A stance that's not composed of stances.

>> Can you give me an example?

>> Yeah. Human nature.

>> That's stance independent.

>> Yeah.

>> It doesn't require an interpreter.

>> No. Like human nature would be what it is whether or not you interpret it or not.

>> Okay.

>> Like for example, Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on real quick.

>> Cool.

>> Do Can we agree that you just made a claim?

>> Uh yeah, I just made a claim. Yep.

>> Can I ask you now to demonstrate that claim?

>> Yeah. Yeah. Proving the claim is different from the cla, you know, the claim expressing a fact. You're just asking me to demonstrate whether the claim expresses a fact, which is the point I've already made.

>> No, I'm not even doing that. I'm saying that what you just claimed here.

>> Demonstrate what claim?

>> Well, yeah, the claim the claim that you just made is that there are things which are stance independent.

>> Which are facts, right?

>> I'm asking for an example of one.

>> Oh, an example of a stance independent fact.

>> Mhm.

>> The amount of money in your bank account. That's it that stands independent.

>> Yeah. Whether I look at it or not, it doesn't have it's the same number.

>> Okay. So, if uh if collectively a bunch of people disagreed with that number.

>> Um.

>> Doesn't change how much money was in the bank account.

>> How would it not?

>> How is it?

>> Like if people perceived the $300 in your bank account.

>> Do you know something I don't, Andrew?

>> Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. If people perceived the $300 in your bank account as being $400 and treated it as such, how how would that be factual? Then.

>> Do you know something I don't? If people utilize the force collectively, does the money of my bank account increase or decrease? Like what are you talking about, Andrew? The perception of my money doesn't change its object permanence. Have you.

>> Actually, it does in that case with the value of money.

>> Talking about?

>> Yes, it does. The value of money is shifted by the amount of money.

>> Yes. The value of money is shifted by perception. Money in your bank account is not determined by what people think of it. It's the same amount.

>> Really? So what gives a dollar value, sir?

>> Its purchasing power changes, bro. The amount of dollars in your bank account is not.

>> You think that the amount of money is the same thing as the purchasing power of your.

>> If you have. Are you saying that subtle equivocation?

>> Are you saying that that.

>> Nobody noticed that equivocation?

>> Wait, I'm I'm super. Now I'm really confused.

>> You just made the distinction between purchasing power. $5.

>> Wait, so $5 if you have $5 in your account.

>> And uh suddenly suddenly the $5 bill was socially constructed as being worth $10.

>> Are you saying that you and this is digital by the way? Are you saying that you only still have $5?

>> You still have the same amount of money. It just has less purchasing power. What's wrong with what you get?

>> So you're just saying the object itself?

>> Yeah.

>> I'm talking about the money, Andrew. That's why I said the amount of dollars in your.

>> The object itself, not the value of the thing.

>> Yeah, I was talking about the object. Yep.

>> Okay. So, so money itself requires uh a mind and a stance that it.

>> Purchasing power stance.

>> There's even money, right?

>> The purchasing power.

>> So, you're just saying that objects, you're just saying that objects themselves are going to.

>> I gave you an object that stands independent. Yep. The amount of money in your bank account, right? I'm talking about the dollars. No, maybe.

>> Bank accounts don't even exist. Absent minds, right? Well, it's true the case that the existence of the banking account is explained by the creation of it by a human mind. But after its creation, like once it's been established as a fact, it in fact is a fact that's independent of your wills or whims or whatever.

>> Well, that's not. Well, the only thing you're saying makes that a fact is that people are [ __ ] collectively agreeing it is.

>> But there's a difference between the causal explanation behind the existence of a fact and the status of something as a fact. You understand the distinction?

>> What is the distinction?

>> The distinction is that the origin of something, right? So you know for example the earth the earth was not caused by like a conscious creator or anything like, you know, silly like that. The earth just began to exist because of a natural scientific process. Whereas like the amount of uh the podcast equipment that you utilize that was created by a human being. Now one is metaphysis in origin and that it's not conscious and one is man-made in origin that it required an act of production from a human mind. But nonetheless, both are facts and both are what they are independent of what we think once they exist. You you literally have all you've done is shift the goalposts as to what a fact is again.

>> You just got done saying to me that this is a fact that you have x amount of money in your bank account.

>> And the second we remove minds, that's no longer a fact. So that would still be stance dependent. So you just lied your ass off now.

>> Why did you try to pretend?

>> Just pure sophistry through and through.

>> Dude, not even you was convinced of that. I can even look. I'll give you the demonstration that was pure soft. The amount of money in my bank account that is a fact. You said.

>> And then you said you said that that's stance independent, which is what I asked you. And then when we got through it, we found out no, that's actually stance dependent and requires minds. And now you're shifting the goalposts as to what facts are again. Just.

>> What's a stance independent fact? What is it?

>> Okay. I don't know why you're freaking the [ __ ] out cuz I explained this to.

>> Nobody's freaking out, bro. Nobody's freaking out.

>> You actually are freaking the [ __ ] out. So, it's cool that I calm down. Just answer the question. How's calm down, bro? Chill. Chill.

>> How's that a stance? Independent.

>> Telling me to calm down like you're not screaming. Really?

>> How's that a stance? Grab a sip of water while I explain this to you. It's fine.

>> Dude. How is that? It's cool. Grab some water. Dude, just sit down. I'll explain.

>> Can you just answer the question?

>> I will. Fact.

>> Look, bro. You must explain to me. I'm listening, bro. You must. I'm explain. You must know something I don't because I explained to you there's two different senses of the term um stance independent. There's a sense in which we're talking about the origin and there's a sense in which we're talking about the status. When I was talking about the stance independent factness of the money in your bank account, I'm talking about its status as a fact. I'm not talking about its origin.

>> I explained that.

>> It status as a as its status as a fact is just a requirement of people agreeing it's a fact. Then.

>> Its status as a fact is not required by people agreeing it's a fact. That's right. But it sounds like in this case of the bank account it is based on.

>> No, the origin is determined by people deciding to do something. It's not the status of it as a fact is not determined by that.

>> Then what's determined by?

>> It's not. It's the fact that it's irreducible, Andrew. It's not something that's.

>> It seems like it's completely reducible to you just agree that it's true.

>> Facts are facts. Reduce that for me.

>> That's your claim.

>> No, no, no. You don't think facts are facts?

>> I I don't think in this case. Really know something. I don't think that would be facts. I don't understand how that would be stance and opinions.

>> No, look, don't don't equivocate. Let's let's just be honest here. Do you think facts are facts? Yes or no?

>> You mean is is are you just asking is a a.

>> You heard exactly what I asked.

>> Via via via the law of identity?

>> The law of identity. Facts are facts.

>> But I'm not sure what a fact here is.

>> An aspect of reality. I told you.

>> Yeah, but that doesn't again when I asked for something which was stance independent, you just gave me stance dependent stuff.

>> I told you this that. Okay, maybe I'll help you out. Um, the color of the sky.

>> Can I say something real quick?

>> Okay. Well, I got to and I'll just hang on. Hang on. I do. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. I do have to get rolling though. I do appreciate the conversation. It was fun.

>> And I do appreciate you guys having me up on the panel.

>> So, that was I appreciate it. I do. If I was if I was hot and sexy like my ex-girlfriend, bro, I would be on your podcast.

>> I I don't I don't have a podcast.

>> Yeah, me neither, bro. And I don't have an ex-girlfriend that's hot and sexy. Yeah. You do you think that I that the whatever podcast is mine?

>> Something like that, bro. Something like that.

>> Yeah, that's that's incorrect.

>> Is that stance independent though, bro?

>> No, it's a stance independent.

>> It to be your podcast.

>> No, no, but if we will if we if we all believe it, bro, it's going to become your podcast.

>> According to you.

>> Yeah. Well, that would be that that would all be stance dependent, right?

>> No. No.

>> That's the point where we're actually giving a counter example to your worldview.

>> Yeah. But the example that you give is always just stance dependent again and again.

>> Right? The the fact that the podcast isn't yours is stance dependent. Yeah.

>> It by your view it would be. Yes. Because every example you give is a stance dependent view. Yeah.

>> Not by my view. Not by my view.

>> No, bro. We've been through this, bro. We've been through the mud argument for that claim.

>> Hold on. No, we already been through the mud, bro. That's cool.

>> Well, anyway, uh I hope you have a wonderful day.

>> Likewise. All right, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, thank you so much for viewing. All proceeds will go to International Women's Day for my ex-girlfriend. Guys.