Haz Debates Vegans and Ask yourself

okay here i am what

what's popping

[Music]

been a sad underscore donated five

dollars

okay i'm here to debate ask yourself

yeah i'm here to debate ask yourself

okay

how are you doing where's he at that

time

uh i can dm him free if you'd like i

think someone

pinged him i'll just smart

there we go now now now ask yourself

knows

he's coming

yo what's up mary

wait who that is oh thank you hybrid

camel appreciate it

i was why is following i was

streaming with a thing that was debating

ask yourself

i've been following this thing since the

destiny part and that [ __ ] was [ __ ]

okay so this is gonna be a one on is

gonna be one on one

well i don't even know what it is that's

really going on i just heard that

um thank you i am atari i appreciate it

thank you i'm atari so basically i i

hold the position that

actually vegans are bad people

wait but sorry i'm confused so

you're who am i talking to who's has is

i'm an infrared

show on twitch has i got 2 000 viewers

right now i'm extremely famous

if you don't know about me now you're

gonna know about me very soon

one of the undef i'm an undefeated

debater never been [ __ ] debated never

been defeated once

okay um yeah

and what there's oh obvi's here too but

i told i

told him that we might have someone

driving by is that mj

i was gonna give you some insight i

don't know pogan like ran away from has

which is really funny so

there's that one logan dead

hogan yeah uh new americans left

you ever heard of new american left

maybe you haven't hit not familiar

no no of course i know pogan i just um

it doesn't sound like him to

like run away but i don't know pogan

that well so

yeah anyway um obvi's obvious here

too i guess um which is good um what so

what you wanted to talk about something

you want to debate something

like debate okay well

um and what do you want to debate vegans

are bad people

you hold the view that vegans are bad

people yes

and what does bad mean vegans are bad

people

because they think animals and humans on

the same level

um so i don't think that quite answered

the question so you gave

a reason why you think people are bad

yeah they're bad human beings they're

bad human beings we gotta take we gotta

take turns

so i heard you give a reason why vegans

are bad which

is that they um believe humans and

animals are equal

but setting aside whether that's true i

don't think that answers the original

question of what you actually

mean when you say bad like what's bad

mean

well i think as human beings

part of what it means to be good is

having a certain relationship to

humanity in general

to other human beings so if you're a bad

so if i'm saying they're bad it's

because

they have failed to demonstrate

that the manner by which they relate to

other human beings

satisfies the criterion of being a good

person

okay so bad means

that i'm gonna need to get my head

around what you just said it means that

what their interactions with other

humans don't live up to some kind of

standard

um i'm amazing i'm basically i'm i'm

basically right now relying on common

sense so

what are you actually asking me right

now are you asking me to define

give you some kind of ethical system do

you want me to give you some kind of

like

moral system or what are you asking me

well i guess like the reason i'm trying

to ask

well what what i'm asking you is just

what you mean by bad but it sounds like

you're you're trying to get at like

like you're you're asking like what is

the reason i'm asking you about that

right like that's what you want to

answer to

yeah like when someone says someone's a

good or bad person as

we tend to actually know what they mean

by that right

um wait sorry i feel like we're jumping

all over the place

you you had asked me a question a second

ago yeah and i was gonna try to you're

gonna have to forgive me i'm a little

bit high

at the moment but you asked me you asked

me a question a moment ago

um you asked what what why i'm asking

about badness

like that's that's the vibe i got from

the question it sounded like you wanted

to know why i'm asking you what bad

means i'm asking you if you're asking me

to propose

some kind of ethical or moral system

within which good and bad are going to

be defined in a

airtight kind of axiomatic way

when you say moral system do you mean

like a normative ethic like

deontology or like utilitarianism yeah

whatever you want

no no okay sorry so yeah there's some

confusion so no i'm not

you know like the three tiers um with

ethics right

i don't know what you're talking about

now um yeah so usually

like philosophy is it's like typically

like the divisions

yeah like yeah deontological utilitarian

and then what's the other one

virtue ethics but that's that's a

division of different kinds of normative

um ethics so like the the bigger picture

is like there's philosophy overall

and that has like four kind of main

areas there's metaphysics

epistemology logic and ethics and then

within ethics there are sort of three

areas

or like three tiers right so there's

meta ethics

normative ethics and applied ethics and

it sounded like what you just asked me

is if i'm asking you to

spell out what your normative ethic is

aka like is it like

deontology or utilitarianism or some

like fusion model or some other thing

and that that's not what i'm trying to

get at so that's not why i'm asking

uh what you mean by bad when i'm

what i'm asking is more of like a kind

of like meta ethical question like what

is badness itself because i guess this

is

i i'm not so i'm not particularly

comfortable with like these

completely strict divisions between the

spheres of philosophy because

when you ask me this question i also

think this can be a metaphysical

question what

is the good what is the bad can also be

a metaphysical question

yeah i don't think that anything that

i've said would suggest that there's not

like bleed over

between um yeah the different areas in

philosophy so i don't think we disagree

about that

but um you were wondering about what

kind of question my question was right

and my question wasn't like can you

spell out your normative ethic it was

more of like a meta ethical question

like what you're asking

what is bad yeah and the reason

i i think that you probably want to

understand the reason why i'm asking it

at least i maybe i i would want to

understand that so i'll kind of like

tell you like the reason

the reason that i'm asking is just like

there's different kind of meta-ethical

positions there's like realism about

morality or anti-realism about morality

there's a bunch of

different like questions obviously in

med ethics but like

you know i'm i'm not really like a

realist about morality so

like when i when i do moral talk i'm

usually just talking about my

preferences

um and if you are engaged in

a similar kind of moral talk or any some

kind of like anti-realist moral talk

you might be saying something that i

think is true when you say

um vegans are bad people

um because that might just amount to you

saying that you have like

you know a preference against people

being vegan or you or something like

that no it's it's not a matter of a

preference

um i think okay the view for example

that

but before you sorry just before you

clarify your view i just

you understand why i'm asking though

right because it's like if you mean this

kind of thing i actually agree with you

if you mean this other kind of thing i

don't so i'm just looking at like what

do you mean so i can tell if there's a

disagreement

well okay let me actually since uh we

went down this path

i think i have to actually clarify what

i originally

said in my intentions thereof and so on

so when i say

vegans are bad people right

yeah when i am making this statement to

you a person i don't know

obviously what i'm trying to say is that

from the perspective

of a reasonable

let's call it

moral agent or just in general a

reasonable

other human being other person there's

an intuitive sense

that you have an idea of what i'm saying

now

whether we can dissect that statement

from the perspective of absolute

certainty right

is a different question but when i say

actually vegans are bad people

what i'm trying to get at or what i'm

trying to um

the thought that i'm trying to convey

implicitly assumes for example that we

agree

that there is a widespread assumption on

part of vegans

that what they are doing means they are

good people they're better people

right am i wrong or you can

i'm not i'm not sure i'm following i'm

not trying to be a dick yeah yeah yeah

so for example if i were to say like for

example i'll give you this

if someone were to walk in

it's almost like i'm saying a

counter-intuitive

like are you clarifying what your

original claim meant when you said

vegans are bad people or am i like not

following at all what you're trying to

do right now

yeah contrary to what vegans claim they

are actually bad people

okay overall bad quality human beings

yeah so i know that that's like that's

the claim you made originally i mean i

guess you added a little bit there

because you said contrary to what they

claim so i guess that also

adds well i just i just assume that's

you know usually

there's unspoken understanding yeah i'm

just i'm just being precise that it

that's a slightly different claim so

it's like a a proper super set of the

i think but no no you're working from

the perspective of absolute certainty

that's how you're dissecting it

well sorry one sec we have to we have to

not um cut each other off like crazy

like i don't mind being interrupted but

just tr let's try to keep interruptions

to like if the other guy like

misrepresents us or like misses the

point or something

um because what i was saying was

the claim you just made um you said like

contrary to what vegans

say they're actually bad people that was

as far as understanding you're trying to

clear up your original claim and that

was basically just the original claim

it's like a kind of like a proper

superset of the original claim because

the original claim was just that

vegans are bad people so i guess the

news no no but i was giving you an

adequate level of context with which you

will be able to

determine what i actually do mean when i

say they're bad people

yeah well all i was saying is just that

that that kind of new version of the

claim it seems like it's the same claim

it just has this added

bit that vegans actually claim to be

good people but just i'll tell you what

i'm hung up on because

like i'm still hung up on sort of what

the claim means like whether the claim

is vegans are bad people

or the claim is contrary to what vegans

say they're bad people

i kind of just want to understand what

bad means to you

because if it means something that

cashes out

in you know like a kind of anti-realist

way like i might not disagree with the

claim because it might just come down to

you saying that you have like a

preference against what vegans

are no well i'll give you an example in

everyday

ordinary life just before your example

i'm happy to hear it but just so it's

clear what i'm hung up on

i need to understand what you're meaning

when you use

more i heard i heard i heard what you

said okay before i give you the

the philosophical perspective i possess

on the nature of morality

i think to clarify in ordinary language

when human beings communicate to one

another that this person's a good person

this person's a bad person

they actually aren't making any

philosophical claims

whatsoever they're relying upon an

unwritten

level of unconscious understanding if

you will

or unwritten on implicit understanding

that doesn't make any kind of

philosophical claims and this

kind of implicit understanding is the

beginning and

end of communication if you don't have

this

then you're not communicating to the

full extent

you're not exhausting the full breadth

of actual human communication now for

example

what most people call philosophy let's

say analytic philosophy or something

um if i communicate to you in like an

airtight

absolutely consistent way to verify my

positive claim the

vegans are bad and let me qualify what

bad means one

when i approach it in this kind of

mechanical way where i'm breaking down

everything and putting in

into an airtight box i am not actually

exhausting the full breadth of what

those words actually mean for example in

an um

ordinary context or an intuitive context

i'm isolating them and putting them into

a box

it's almost kind of like we're

programming a computer we're not

actually

so when i'm talking right i'm not here

to help you program a computer i'm here

to

well i mean i don't know maybe you are

not

able to understand this kind of um

implicit intuitive

um implicit understanding so when i say

this person's a good person this

person's a bad person

maybe you kind of just register this at

like a computer you just think like oh

what

is bad what is good you know what i mean

well

okay so i guess the question is do i

know what you mean i have

some idea i think what you mean i think

you're trying to say that there's an

ordinary language

understanding of moral terms and that

that's all you're using

and um when i'm asking you for

a more uh detailed concept

i'm kind of like missing the point

because yeah but when we transition

from the moral and ordinary use of

language at this level and arrive at

what you call a more detailed concept

there's a qualitative difference it's

not just that you're arriving at a more

detailed concept you're arriving at a

qualitatively different claim you go

from saying something that relies upon

a good faith implicit understanding

to some kind of system of airtight

kind of abstract certainty

i'm not i'm just not sure that i'm

getting what you're saying like

yeah i mean you could you could try to

convey it more i guess if you want to

it just it sounds like you think that

i'm uh asking too much of you when i ask

you like what you mean by bad like you

want to say you're just using a copy i

think i think you are

i think you are yeah yeah

um because this is kind of like what i

think

here i think that there's cases where we

have

some type of ordinary language word and

like for whatever reason that word

is of interest to philosophers and it's

often not totally clear

what the ordinary uh language

meaning is and then philosophers will do

kind of like

conceptual work to try to understand

what that is you have to understand

ask yourself you have to understand

something i yeah i

am not just a guy interested in

philosophy i am also interested in

psychoanalysis so obviously to me

concepts do not premise the ordinary use

of words

um when someone says good or bad in

ordinary context they're not actually

making

reference to the concept relevant to

philosophy

philosophy does something that

fundamentally betrays our ordinary

use of language i guess that all i would

say is

i'm not sure what the concept is

supposed to

be when you say bad if it doesn't cash

out in one of the kind of ways that i'm

talking because bad is not is not simply

a concept

it's more than what philosophers will

attempt to draw out of it

as a concept it's more than what

philosophers treat it

as a concept

okay well let's like forget about the

word concept maybe

like you agree that we have to have

some kind of significant overlap

in understanding of what terms mean in

order

sure sure sure but the human community

the way in which humans

communicate the meaning of words again

in the ordinary context because remember

ninety-nine percent of people don't care

about philosophy and never will

the way they convey that is by a means

oh you gotta hate on

i philosophy it's the truth uh yeah i i

mean i'm just i'm kind of human human

beings make

do with being able to convey um things

um yeah whatever you do i'm just [ __ ]

around i'm just [ __ ] around sorry

continue

sure yeah yeah um so

um in that sense there is no way to get

rid of the elements

of the unconscious the intuition what is

unwritten there's some kind of unwritten

almost non-negotiable level of mutual

understanding

when you remove this from the equation

all

meaningful communication breaks down

so what i would agree with

assuming this is what you're trying to

say um

is that we have to share a certain

amount of our

meaning like we have to agree about what

things mean

in order to like have a conversation

with each other and that meaning could

never

be reduced to um something fully

intelligible from a philosophical

conceptual uh or axiomatic whatever

perspective

well i don't when you say see that's a

lot of language

can't be reduced to something fully

i forget the adjective from an axiomatic

perspective like that's a lot of

[ __ ] right well what i'm okay let me

i'll try to shorten it

that meaning could never be reduced

to the form people attempt to ascribe to

it

are are you suggesting that like our

natural language communication

is rich in a way that's going to be hard

for philosophers to capture

not hard but impossible okay

so yeah you think that we're just going

to have a hard well not an impossible i

guess you think that it's impossible

yeah that's fine okay so you're saying

you think it's impossible to properly or

to completely

capture our natural language the breadth

of meaning

yeah and by capture them i i don't i

mean we could talk about what capturing

the means but

you know whatever okay so yeah i mean i

think that i could

for the sake of argument just grant

something like that like

because there there's a lot of

technicality about when when you talk

about when something is possible or not

like what modality are we talking about

like logical possibility physical

possibility is it

really logically impossible like maybe

not i don't know but like i could i

could just grant it like say that

we can't we can't do it we can't um we

can't like

perfectly capture whatever exactly that

means like

write down on paper the full extent of

you know our natural language

words well i i just think if we let me

finish my thought please before

before this so i could agree to

something like that

but it seems like my kind of problem

would still

stand which is like i have to have

enough an idea of what you're talking

about to like

actually like proceed in the

conversation right and if we can't get a

perfect idea like that's probably not

the end of the world i just need enough

to

like be able to have the conversation

um so sorry can you repeat that what did

you say

um quick version is i could just grant

that we can't like perfectly capture

our natural language meaning um if we

try to like write down exactly what a

word means but

i don't think that anything i've said

requires that we be able to do that i

just need to like share

enough of an understanding of what you

mean to be able to like no

um firstly it's not simply that it's

there's too much wealth to it to be able

it's too much

like it kind of makes it seem like uh

it's a matter of it's too

infinite to be finitely captured

it's not what i'm trying to say i'm

trying to say when you attempt

to formalize meaning you are going

outside of

outside of the bounds of what meaning

actually is

so it's almost kind of a more

ontological uh

argument like it's about what meaning is

it's not about

um the fact that the reason it's

impossible

for philosophers to reduce meaning to

the form

they ascribe to it is because upon doing

so

they are not actually arriving at what

meaning is

they're doing something else which takes

for granted

by the way uh an implicit

and non-negotiable

sense of meaning um

okay so i don't think that i don't think

that i gave any

like account of why it would be

impossible to capture okay

please let me you you can't you got to

let me yeah let me get my thoughts out

um so i don't think i gave any account

of like why it would be

impossible and i didn't even select a

modality

like when we talk about possibility or

impossibility it's like

usually like you do it within some

modality like logically possible

um it's like a logical modality or like

physically possible so i didn't even

select a modality let alone given

account of like

like you know why something is

impossible um i just said like

i can just grant for the sake of

argument like it's impossible with

respect to some modality

to um capture natural language meaning

entirely i just don't think that it

makes a difference because

what i said was i just need to share

enough of your meaning for

the conversation i'll give you an

example of why but

this is the core the core of the point

though is it doesn't we don't have to be

able to perfectly capture what we mean i

just need to understand clearly enough

that we're yeah i understand i

understand when you ask me a question of

what is bad to you um

you're asking me to convey my

perspective on what is bad correct

um on what is bat yeah i'm asking

i'm asking you to share with me

the meaning that the word bad has to you

sure

that's that's great if in order for me

to be able to convey to you the real

meaning

of that word i have to do a great deal

more than it is possible

than possible within a voice chat i have

to

write you a beautiful poem or some kind

of greek tragedy work of art or i have

to

um i have to i have to perform

something practically in real life

welcome to

do like matt please don't interrupt me

you you're really adamant about me not

interrupting you so don't interrupt me

i was trying to be funny yeah the whole

point here

is that we ask we derive our sense

of the meaning of words from things like

that

from um

things that cannot be pinned down to

what can be conveyed in a voice chat i

mean i can sing you a song and maybe

that'll make it click for you or

something

but what else could i do um

yeah so just i was i was just trying to

be funny

i don't mind for the record cutting in

it's just try to do it like within

reason or whatever so yeah don't feel

like you can't cut in

um yeah so if you want to say that like

moral terms they do have a meaning to

you but it's like

you know it's it's not the kind of

easily it's not like an easily

conveyable meaning like

you know like say i'm talking to like a

new english speaker and i say the word

chair and they don't know what i mean

and just pull out like merriam-webster

and go like you know oh it's like

four-legged object used for sitting and

they like get the idea or whatever

you want to say that moral language

terms like bad

are not you know they're not the kind of

words that you can just define

straightforwardly like that it would

take like you know there's

apparently it can't even be conveyed in

voice actually on your view or in a

voice chat

um no presumably presumably the fact

that the voice conversation is happening

in discord isn't

the problem it's like that voice isn't a

good enough medium to convey the

subtleties

but yeah i could i could search let me

okay is there a problem with what i said

so far can i just can i get the

the point across here like the i'll just

say the last little bit i guess like

it's that could be the case right maybe

you do have um

an understanding of what bad means

that's like rich

in such a way that you need to do like

some intense work to

convey it and all i would say to that is

like okay and like you're welcome to

and like whenever you do we can like

have conversations that involve that

word but until then we're kind of like

at a bit of a standstill okay i'll try

to simplify things to speed it along

okay okay my belief is that

we both whether you admit it or not

have an idea of what it means to be a

good person or a bad person

can i cut in no hold on not yet not yet

not yet

we may not agree upon that and we may

have differing philosophical

perspectives on the meaning of

uh bad and good and moral realism and

anti-realism

and that it's just reducible it doesn't

matter there is

some kind of good or bad and

its content right is what i'm here to

debate about

so i'm not there's no need to get into

this

there's no need to [ __ ] open this

semantic black hole if i say for example

vegans are bad people it would be more

reasonable for you to respond by saying

um no i disagree i think vegans are

actually good people

and then maybe we could begin from there

your conception of good in my conception

of good and bad

it has to be imperiled its actual

content

has to be imperiled in the debate we

don't actually begin

i don't believe you begin from a pre

defined

good or bad you imperil the content of

good

and bad by means of

its actual content so

that's what i'm trying to say like we

are never going to be able to capture

the wealth of intuitions and assumptions

and whatever

that go into good and bad but what we

can do is by means of a debate

actually see who can demonstrate which

position

is more correct

okay so the reason that i want to cut in

is i think that you might

have a misunderstanding um about my

position

uh are you under the impression that i

don't have a concept of badness

um infrared you're lit up but i'm not

hearing you

you might be having a glitch over there

can can other people in the chat like

type tell me if you can hear him or

something because i see him lighting up

but i don't hear him at all

okay i fixed it okay so

it's not about having a concept

whatsoever i think you have some

kind of notion whether i believe that

this notion is conceptual it doesn't

actually matter

you the words good and bad have some

kind of meaning to let me let me not use

the word concept then i can i can read

it it has some kind of meaning to you

that's all i'm saying okay okay i

thought you might have been trying to

say that

i don't the word doesn't have any

meaning to me so i'm like putting it on

you to define like to me

i know what i mean when i say bad when i

say bad i just mean something

that is against my preferences right but

it sounded like

you didn't um you didn't like that kind

of understanding of what the term

it's because it's it's not relevant

actually how how you interpret and

understand

the things that you find good and bad is

not relevant

sorry the question let's say that again

the question of what the way in which

you interpret the underlying reason as

to why you find things good or bad is

not actually relevant there's no reason

to bring it up

um i don't think i'm talking about the

reasons

that a given thing has the property of

badness i'm talking about

what the property of badness was i mean

assuming it's a property that's what i

said

the underlying reason about why you

[Music]

have the view of good and bad that you

do which you've given which is based on

your preferences

is not relevant

um the reason why

i have the view of good and bad that i

have is not relevant but i have the view

do you mean like yeah i mean when you

say that for example to me

anything is good is just what i prefer

is

it's it's going back to your preferences

i find things bad because they are bad

with regard to what i prefer

yeah so what's the thing that's

irrelevant um that is irrelevant

it's not relevant oh the so the reason

that i

so i think that it's relevant for this

reason so i just wanted to clear up that

to me the word does have a meaning i'm

not sitting here with like no meaning

attached to the sound bad right i just

want to clear that up that was the

relevance of it

uh okay that's fine but it's not

relevant

okay i i think that's relevant um maybe

the meaning

the meaning is functionally relevant but

that's

true meaning is never going to be

reducible to the

the meaning that you give form to

okay the relevance of me there's a

discontinuity between the functional

meaning

and let's say the prescriptive meaning

or the functional meaning and the

meaning you derive

by means of thought there's a difference

between those two

okay but wait wait a sec before we talk

about different

types of meaning okay so the reason that

i brought up what i mean by bad is just

to show that i have a concept

of bad like the word has meaning to me

so

that's relevant if your criticism is

taken to be something like

you don't have a concept of bad that's

not it was not my criticism at all

and that okay and that's fine now i

thought that you might have been trying

to say something kind of like that

um when it sounded like you're saying

there's this like ordinary language

understanding we all have if you don't

have that

like i don't know so if that's not what

you're saying that's fine but i do have

a concept of badness

um okay so let's try to go back to

the problem so the problem is that what

you want to discuss

is this proposition that contrary to

what vegans say

uh they're bad people but i don't

actually know

how to interpret that proposition

because i'm not sure what you mean when

you say bad

for some of you you might be thinking ah

no like you see the problem right it's

just this is always going to be a

standstill it doesn't matter what the

term is but

if ever you're like look here's this

proposition and then you use some term

the other the reason i

the reason i paused was because i was

muted and i accidentally clicked a

youtube video no i don't see a problem

whatsoever

um because again the content of bad

i don't need to tell you what i think is

bad

the content of good and bad should be

suspended in the

in the argument themselves and as a

matter of fact if good and bad

are not actively suspended in a

collective

and common discursive um sphere

uh then the meaning of these words

could not possibly have any function

real life

function they're like we could not

possibly ever use these words

without prefacing and clarifying like

without trying to premise their content

beforehand and that's obviously not how

we engage

in the use of language as human beings

i guess i just don't understand like

i i guess i don't understand what the

point is you're trying to make

like the point that you came in with

originally as far as i understand is

contrary to what vegans say they're bad

people originally it's just vegans are

bad people but whatever

um now i'm saying i don't understand

what you mean when you're saying that

because i don't know what you mean by

bad

and i don't think that's why i think

maybe you don't understand why i'm

saying that

um because you don't know why i'm

ascribing vegans with the quality of

badness

it's not that you don't know what i mean

by bad it's that

you probably just don't know why i'm

saying vegans are bad people

no i don't know what you mean when you

use the word bad no i

i think you do i think you do

um i think i think i think if you're in

front of a i think if you're engaging in

a conversation with someone

and they say hey that guy's a bad person

i think you know what they mean

well if it doesn't mean see i when i use

those words i take them to refer

to my preferences and there's different

theories about

what public language is like right and

like i don't know all the details here

but there's views like

you know like subjectivism where their

uh you know moral statements are like

truth app let's walk it back

wait a second wait a second no sorry

just please i need to

like get my thoughts across so i'm

trying to go to square one here

you want to say vegans despite what they

say are bad

i'm telling you that i can't evaluate

the claim because i don't know what you

mean

sure so just a question you're in a room

with someone

he points to a guy i say that guy's a a

bad person you don't know what he means

um i could venture a guess um

he might be expressing a preference uh

against

like no but you wouldn't be functionally

speaking you don't know what he means

you can't

engage with that whatsoever well yeah so

i'm basically agnostic about

um like public moral language

like i understand the different ways

that it might be cashed out

right like okay hold on

you could be agnostic about it but

functionally speaking

i can almost guarantee that you're going

to act in such a way

that you know what he's talking about i

think that's one of the big problems

here that this is hinging on

goes back to the the heidegger carnap

dispute right basically you're kind of

like

karnap you're mistaken truth with

certainty you may not be abs

you're saying you're agnostic because

obviously you can't be certain about the

meaning

but functionally speaking there is a

meaning

there is a functional meaning that

you do know knowledge and certainty are

not actually the same thing

um i don't think i've argued that i

don't think i've even invoked terms

like knowledge or certainty sure but but

but i asked you a simple question you're

in a room with a guy he said that guy's

a bad person you said

i'm agnostic about moral language but

functionally speaking you couldn't

possibly be an agnostic

and human beings couldn't possibly be

[ __ ] agnostic otherwise

they would not function as though they

were you know

believers they wouldn't function as like

you say you're agnostic but in practice

you wouldn't be a [ __ ] agnostic you

would actually

act and communicate with that person as

though you know what they were talking

about

and if you're incapable of that then you

must live in a computer and you live on

discord you don't actually live in the

real human world

sorry i'm just laughing a little at some

of the philosophy

people in text um yeah well

yeah so what's let me just remember what

we're talking about we're talking about

meaning bad oh yeah well

no i mean if i'm having like a

commonplace like mundane

sort of conversation with someone and

they say they think something's bad like

i'm probably going to interpret that

something like they have a preference

against it

right but you've kind of said you don't

mean something like that and i should i

should

add to just to be careful here like

i don't have a view about public moral

language so like

it could be that it's uh like

non-cognitive

it could be that it's like error

theoretic like people are when they make

moral statements they're referring to

like

you live in the computer please please

come on

um like an interruption is fine but it's

just it's not like

it's not even that wasn't even like come

on okay so

it could be error theoretic like maybe

they're referring to

you know like spooky kind of moral

properties and those properties actually

don't exist

it could be um yeah i don't know if i

said non-cognitivist like maybe they're

just kind of

you know expressing some non-cognitive

mental state when they

uh deliver moral propositions or maybe

it's actually a combination obviously

not of like incompatible views at the

same time but maybe some statements are

non-cognitive

some are like error theoretic so when it

comes to like a mundane conversation

it's like no i don't really if you

really ask me do i know what they're

saying it's like no i think there's

different

like people in philosophy like argue

about that and there's different ideas

about what might be going on there

but when you talk about like like

functionally you must have some kind of

video like you're saying like i still

manage to have those conversations and

you know if someone's like that's bad

what that guy's doing when he's kicking

a dog like i understand like

you know maybe i should go like stop him

from kicking the dog or something like i

can like

function in society with my

understanding whatever it is right

but yeah i mean that doesn't mean that i

have any

um so i guess this is what i want to say

it's kind of two-fold it's like first of

all that doesn't mean i actually have

like clarity i guess that's what i want

to say i don't have clarity about

what exactly that language means but

i kind of interpret it just like they're

expressing like a preference against

this thing because

you know like that interpretation seems

to like get the right results a lot of

the time even if maybe it turns out i'm

not understanding them it's like

you know if they say you know like this

food

is bad and i interpret it as they have a

preference against it i don't buy them

that food anymore make it anymore it's

like it's probably gonna have the right

kind of outcomes

um so no i don't have a view about

exactly what that language means

but i kind of interpret it in that way

and that seems like get me by

yeah so we could have actually if you

let if you would have let me uh

interrupt you we could have actually

you know made this a lot faster because

basically the distinction you're working

with here is that

you are not certain about what they mean

but you still have a functional meaning

what they're saying now you can say that

well ultimately the reason why i will

assent

to interacting like a normal human being

and act as though i know what he's

talking about is because secretly or not

secretly but

um in my head somewhere i have some kind

of idea that he means

preference well maybe

maybe that's true or maybe which is what

i believe

this is just what you tell yourself when

you when you um

look at the matter from an intellectual

perspective because

maybe it kind of poses some kind of um

inconsistency or contradiction to your

intellectual belief but

how you interact in society and the way

you interpret that intellectually are

two completely different things

um well i'm not sure how much of that

bears on like the core kind of point

like the point is just that

i'm not sure what you're saying i'm

saying in order to understand the

meaning of what someone says when they

say good or bad

you don't actually have to draw out

um a philosophical concept of good or

bad

i need to have enough clarity that i

know what they're

talking about though right and i offered

up

and what and and the qualifications for

clarity

it seems like uh you're saying the

qualifications for that clarity

is defining good or bad in some kind of

abstract way but in

practice functionally okay then what is

the qualifications for clarity go ahead

well wait just one second um when you

when you said that i require

a definition it's like definitions are

nice we use them for a reason they

quickly

convey things but if for some reason a

term is not

definable like maybe it's like maybe

it's like semantically primitive or

there's some other kind of problem that

makes definition like hard or whatever

like i'm open to having the meaning

conveyed in other ways

but it's just like at the end of the day

the meaning needs to get in my head for

me to evaluate a proposition containing

that word

so let me actually be clear about my

position just so we can speed this up

because i just want to speed this up

you're saying i wonder what has means

when he says bad does he just mean

something that he personally doesn't

prefer

well i'll tell you what has means has

means by good or bad he is

assuming that good or bad are

[Music]

words whose meaning is suspended at a

collective

and social and common discursive level

um and that he is referring to something

almost

uh he's referring to something external

just from

himself and his own preferences there is

good and there is that it's not

a matter of my personal preference it's

about

things out there

yes you're talking about some kind of

like realism about morality right

uh well

i mean uh to play this that double that

what a kind of uh transcendentalist view

of like

um morality is socially and historically

defined

or collectively defined is that

necessarily a form of moral

realism i don't know moral realism

sounds a little bit metaphysically

loaded to me you know

um okay well i'm not trying to

load anything um

i guess i'm not entirely sure then if if

you weren't talking about some kind of

moral realism i'm not entirely sure

um what you're getting at there when

you're sort of

spelling out what you mean when you use

moral language

uh i believe good and this is

look for me to say i believe good and

bad refer to something real

by real we could also be referring to

just some kind of common

social um

and collective whatever uh meaning

um refer

well it's weird to say it refers to a

meaning it's like the meaning refers to

well okay well whatever anyway like

when i i guess like can you maybe i

missed it but can you kind of like spell

out

what you mean when you use terms like

good or bad

yeah it seems like we're looping like

this is a kind of like dialogue tree and

we're just kind of looping

like yeah so is this isn't this how we

started out this entire [ __ ]

dialogue tree we started out by you

saying can you give me an idea of what

you mean by good or bad i

really already demonstrated to you why

that's a nonsensical question

so it's i try not to bite on things like

you know when people throw out like

stuff like a dialogue for whatever but

like

i just got to point out like i fully

reject the position that there's a

problem with dialogue trees i don't

actually happen to have a

pre-constructed dialogue tree on this

topic but

yeah i don't understand the distinction

between a dialogue tree and just like a

well thought out position and i think

people who

yeah i'll explain to you the problem

with one but wait a second wait no

that's going to cascade off i want to

deal with what you said so i just i'm

just pointing out i don't even accept

that dialog trees are bad thing and i

actually don't have one on this topic

but

yeah i think that we are still at the

first part of this conversation because

i've been hung up on the same thing from

the start and like i don't say this to

be rude but

you know it just seems like uh you don't

have an answer and that's fine but if at

any point you

you know get clarity on your moral

semantic and you want to like follow up

and continue the conversation

explain what you mean and then we can

evaluate that problem so you're trying

to run away now

no i'm happy to keep talking but can i

just complete my sentence

so i was just going to say yes i do

think we're looping

and the reason i was just speaking as if

the conversation was ending was because

i actually took it when you said that

you wanted to end the conversation i'm

happy to keep going no no

just let me just just just let me finish

so i agree that there's a loop

and the loop is because i don't

understand what you mean by bad and for

me that's going to be a hang up

so it's basically like if you can spell

out what you mean

we can keep going but if not it's going

to kind of keep being the same

like loop right right topic or something

here's the issue and i'm going to tell

you the issue with the loop in this

context the issue with the loop here

is that i have provided you with a new

argument which you haven't responded to

you've just returned to your original

question

without addressing the wealth of

argumentation i provided to you

about why your question cannot actually

be answered

okay so now just to be clear originally

i was just trying to understand what the

claim is to even understand

if we disagree about it and i was

seeking clarity on your like moral

semantics so that i could do that

but if you want to say like just forget

about that claim i just have some

argument i want to run

i didn't actually catch the argument i

might not have been listening at the

right time

yeah but if you have if you have an

argument that you want to deliver

yeah sure the argument is that the good

and bad

what good the content of good and bad

cannot be

uh prescriptively conveyed uh in terms

of

by kind of definitions or by some kind

of abstract

axiomatic system good and bad their

content is suspended

by their actual um the way in which

people actively relate to these words in

reality

which draws upon a host of intuitions

uh common unconscious uh and functional

practical

um uh

associations and so on and so on

okay i guess sorry if i'm a bit stuck i

might not be

keeping up here but so i understand

we're now dropping the claim about

um vegans are bad or despite

absolutely not vegans are terrible

people that's my position

no by dropping it i don't mean that

you're saying the claim

that you've changed your position on i

mean we're not that's not the subject of

conversation anymore that's what i mean

by dropping it you want to talk about a

different argument

right no my argument is that vegans are

bad people

okay and what do you mean when you say

bad

oh okay what i mean when i say bad

is that they're bad people

okay but defining bad in terms of itself

isn't going to provide clarity to

someone who doesn't know what the word

means

right if i say you know what if you

don't know what bad means

a head is a head it's like if someone

doesn't know if if you don't know what

bad means

i don't know how i can help you yeah so

i guess that

what i would say at that point is kind

of like what i was saying a minute ago

which is like

that's okay like it's a problem on i

really like it's kind of a problem on

your view if you're not able to

communicate no it's not

because can i just finish like if you

if you think that it's difficult you're

wasting time

okay well just let me say what i want to

say if you think that it's

difficult to communicate um what you

mean when you use moral language

like i can be really charitable and say

like yeah maybe like

you just have a view that's really

nuanced and it's it's actually like

legitimately a difficult task like

that's possible right

so that's fine if you want to say that

but what that

means is just that we're going to be at

a conversational impasse when you invoke

moral terminology and if you want to get

past that impasse you need to find some

way

i don't think you know what morality is

you can you need to find some way

whether it's providing a definition

whether it's doing an interpretive dance

i don't care but some way to get the

term into my head

or else yeah we're stuck well i don't

think you know what morality actually is

i think you have a really warped view of

morality as though

morality rests upon abstract action

that's more that's ethics morality is um

a category of aesthetics morality is not

something that can be

conveyed at the level of um

abstract definitions yeah so you're

right that

if so when you say i don't know what

morality is obviously you're talking

about

what you mean by morality and that's

right i yeah i don't know

like when people say this thing is good

or this thing is bad

it's because they're relying upon a

common intuitive

understanding that there is good and

there is bad it's content

being suspended in reality itself

yeah i think that people have a

commonplace notion but i think that the

commonplace notion

is ambiguous i think that philosophers

have different views about what's going

on there

philosophers do yes yeah is it

non-cognitive is it

error theoretic um you know is it

subjectivist how exactly are we using

that kind of moral language

um so yeah so

i guess we have yeah we have that

language and i'm not entirely

i'm not entirely sure how that language

cashes out i don't know well since since

you're incapable of debating there's a

guy named d

e who's just bragging about how stupid

he is so i'd love for him to get in

the vc and maybe he'll debate yeah i'm

happy to pass it to josh he's he's a

good debater he knows a lot of

philosophy but

you are

okay oh my god i don't even know what

what he's on about today

yeah so i'm i mean i've seen you've

conceded the debate so that's okay

um but we can go debate this game did

you say do you say i have or he has yes

no you have you have

um i don't think that i've changed my

view on any

well i've i've explained to you why when

you ask me the question

what is good or what is bad it's a

meaningless question it's not only a

question that can't be answered it's

actually a meaningless question

why can't it be well okay wait so

there's there's two problems there so

you're saying the question is

meaningless and you're saying it can't

be answered yeah let's

let's start with can't be answered well

i've already i've already explained to

you why it can't be answered because

good

and bad well just for clarity

the content of good and bad is not

actually

premised by abstract um axiomatic type

of thinking and the content of good and

bad is suspended in reality itself so

it's

when you ask me what that is it can't be

answered because in order for me to

properly convey to you the real

meaning of good or bad

i have to um introduce you to a world

right in some kind of way that it that

it

has to be outside of this vc i have to

like raise you as an infant and expose

you to society

and expose you to some kind of uh deeper

intuitive on

deeper intuitive unconscious uh learning

that cannot be

performed in a discord like effectively

what you're asking me is like um

it'd be like you're asking me to cure

you of a mental illness i can't do that

in a discord vc

how can i cure you of your mental

illness here okay

so i i mean i feel like we should

largely be able to agree here

like the reason that we can't discuss

the proposition

um despite what they say vegans are bad

people is because we don't share a

meaning

we don't share understanding of what the

term bad actually means

no i think we do and you're lying about

it

oh okay and like can you actually i mean

i

i guess no i think most people can see

you're just trying to avoid the debate

because you're scared to debate about it

you're just lying

that you're you're hiding behind like oh

what is your concept of

you you know what i mean when i say

they're bad people you mean i'm trying

to say they ain't [ __ ] they terrible

people they're bad people it's very

clear you know you're

really lying here and that's okay i'm

happy to move on to someone who will

actually debate me if you won't

yeah you shouldn't debate so i think

well

guys guys guys come on please stop i'm

happy to let him talk to josh after but

um what i don't want is a suggestion

that i'm not willing to debate right i'm

happy

no that's self-evident it's demons

you've already demonstrated you're not

willing to debate you've demonstrated

that to everyone i'm

i'm here right now right and you're here

but you're not debating you're just

running a loop because you don't

actually want to debate about anything

um well i don't think you know the

contents of my mind

but i think that's because well i think

we it's pretty clear to everyone

okay but in terms of whether you can

actually like

deal intellectually with the things i've

said can you

basically like can we agree on the

following first of all

we agree that um we can't

have the conversation

well no because we don't share an

understanding no we do share an

understanding

so okay so basically your position is

just that

you think that i'm lying

and um let's still wait here let's just

let's just for a second

set aside the question of whether i'm

lying because that's that's beside the

point right

say that there is some person who

doesn't know what you mean okay

and say that they gave the same kind of

criticism do you have a response to that

i would assume they are not they are not

raised in a human society and i can't

actually have any meaningful discussions

say that they are then they would

they would know what i mean i would

assume they're lying i would assume

they're lying then

okay do they is it necessary that they

be lying

yes okay and what's the contradiction if

they don't lie

contradiction with regard to what when

you say it's necessary i take that to

mean logically necessary as in

if it weren't the case there would be a

no it's not just logically necessary it

is

oh then i don't know what you mean it is

actually necessary it is actually

necessary

necessary for what for

reality to be consistent what what does

it mean to say

necessary wait for reality to be

consistent yeah right that's logical

necessity no

logic logical necessity is not the same

as a kind of metaphysical necessity it's

not the same thing

oh so you think it's metaphysically

necessary

that anyone who's raised in society um

will know what you mean when you utter

the word bad

right yeah yeah so are you saying that

you think that there's some metaphysical

law that's violated if the proposition

this person was raised in society and

doesn't know

what you mean by bad is true i didn't

forward any metaphysical laws

i don't know why you think metaphysics

is a series of laws

well when you say metaphysically

necessary i'm not sure

i could interpret it as meaning that if

wait do you know what metaphysics refers

to

just one you don't do you one sorry come

on

so when you say metaphysically necessary

i could take it that you mean

that if this thing were not true some

kind of metaphysical

law would be violated but if you don't

mean something like that i guess i'm not

if it were not true we would be living

in a different reality the reason i

mentioned metaphysics is because

it's not just inconsistent for the

abstract sphere

usually when in philosophy when they

refer to metaphysics they're referring

to something that is

some kind of attempt to describe reality

outside of the bounds of uh

concepts and outside of philosophy so

that's why i mentioned it's

metaphysically necessary

if if what you're saying was true we

would be living in a different

fundamentally different reality than the

one we live in now

i i think you might be confusing the

terms

necessary and actual right because when

you say

some something's necessary means if it

weren't the case we'd be in a different

reality

it just seems like you're saying no no

that's not true

if it was it no if it was it's necessity

does not strictly there can be necessity

for

our reality to be consistent for example

wait that's different sorry

one second there's two things you said

one of them is

necessary for our reality to be

consistent that's logical necessity the

other

no it is not it is [ __ ] not okay you

can talk about that in a sec the other

is necessary for the reality we're in to

be

the reality world right but that's what

i mean sorry

yeah but that's that's not really

talking about what's necessary that's

just talking about what's actual it's

like if this weren't the case we'd be

talking about a reality that's not

actual

right you're just saying it's the case

in reality if this thing weren't the

case we'd be in a different reality

all you're saying is the thing is actual

no i i don't i think the distinction is

arbitrary

second one second and that's that's the

okay yeah so that's that's the very

proposition that i'm not convinced of

right that this is the case in actual

reality so if by necessary you just end

up meaning actual you're just begging

the question by restating the very claim

i'm not convinced of so that'll that'll

be a bad line of reasoning

so i'm glad you finished your sentence

all you did was embarrass yourself and

waste my time by doing it

but here's the thing here's the thing if

if that's what's begging the question if

if my position is fundamentally that it

would be a different reality just for

the sake of speeding this even though

your distinction between actuality and

necessity is completely arbitrary and by

no means

philosophically uncontroversial even if

i were to grant you [ __ ] that

why the [ __ ] would you ask me well if

this the contrary to

were to be true what would be the

contradiction why would you ask me that

if i wasn't making pretense to uh

logical uh consistency but actual

reality itself

why would you even ask me that you just

[ __ ] made a clown of yourself dude

oh well obviously because i thought you

were talking about logical necessity

like why else would i ask you to show a

contradiction

like was that supposed to be some kind

of like what do you mean

you were you thought i was talking about

logical if you're if you're gotcha is to

say

look why would you ask me to show a

contradiction if i'm not even talking

about logical necessity it's like

obviously the answer is because i

thought why would you assume i'm talking

about logical necessity why would you

assume i was talking

what about what i said makes a

reasonable person assume i was talking

about logical necessity rather than

reality

now i'm not i'd have to backtrack in the

conversation to see if i actually

assumed logical necessity or if i

gave different options did you not just

admit you assumed logical necessity come

on

don't don't do that to me one second no

i'd need to i need to go back to see if

i assumed

logical necessity is what you meant or

if i gave a selection of different

modalities and then talked about what

how the how the claim would kind of like

act with respect to those different

modalities or what the burden would be

for you

but granted that i did assume it then

that's fine

i didn't mean to i'm happy to understand

necessity on your terms

so can someone give me a clip roll it

back about two minutes didn't you just

admit

that the reason why you said

um what would be the contradiction is

because you assumed i was talking about

logical necessity

didn't you just admit that you [ __ ]

did assume logical necessity so what are

you saying you don't know you'd have to

backtrack you know what you spent wait

wait wait one second one second you're

trying to trip me up but i can unwind

that whole thing

so i could say that

i it might be the case if we backtrack

in the conversation right so the claim

is i assumed what you meant is logical

necessity and you're trying to go oh you

said you assumed it and you said you

didn't assume it there's a contradiction

but

no i'm just talking in different senses

right like it could be

well i'm making the claim i was making

the assumption but it might be if you go

back earlier in the conversation

i actually laid out different modalities

and i was talking

about what would be true with respect to

each of those modalities

right so it might be that the assumption

actually comes after saying

well it's got to be one of these things

here's what's true if it's this one

right now i'm not sure i'm not sure if i

laid out the different modalities and

then went into each of them

or if i just assumed logical necessity

from a

[ __ ] lie um i was assuming logical

necessity

okay and now that now that that's

cleared up um okay so let's just try to

i don't remember where we left off

before all of that oh yeah right

necessity you want to say it's

necessarily the case

that if someone was raised in society

they would understand what you mean by

bad

but then we're trying to understand what

you mean by necessary so we know you

don't mean logically necessary

and the other sense that you gave was

that

if it weren't the case we'd be in a

different reality but that just means

actual

right so are you just saying actually so

do you want to now debate about the

distinction between actuality and

necessity and why the hard distinction

you're drawing is not

um philosophically uh uncontroversial

no i just want to know what you mean

when you say the word necessary so that

i can understand what i think of your

claim

that it's necessarily true that anyone

who's raised in society will understand

what you mean when you say bad

okay no no don't don't backpedal back to

the bad thing okay

when it comes to here's here guys just

to show you how [ __ ] ridiculous this

is this is how all of this started

you asked me the question if someone

such as yourself

asked me and was raised in our society

with all the you know raised in our

society basically a normal human being

asked me

what do i mean by bad

like not in terms of developing the

content of the actions like for example

if i say

that guy on the street is bad and like

oh what do you mean by what do you mean

it's not in the sense of like oh i will

describe to you the bad things they were

doing and now you'll understand it's bad

but actual like

what do you mean by the use of the word

bad i would assume

they are lying you responded by saying

so if the contrary were the case

what would be the contradiction

am i wrong um i didn't follow the whole

thing but i can just say

right at the outset i don't remember if

i launched into assuming it was logical

necessity or laying out the different

modalities and talking about what's true

on each

but regardless of which of those is true

i'm happy to understand what you mean by

the term

is what you mean just the same thing as

actual

if i am saying that our

use of the word good and bad is derived

for example from society being raised in

a society

just for the sake of shortening this

then necessarily someone who is raised

in a society

has a sense of what good and bad

are and if they were to be asking me

what is good or bad

they would be lying and if sorry if

someone were to be

telling me that they don't have any

meaning of good and bad they would be

lying

it is inev it is an inevitable

consequence of growing up in a society

that you will derive some kind of sense

of good

or bad it's as simple as that

okay so when you say just to be clear so

you're still

are you still making or have you moved

away from the claim that if someone's

raised in society they'll understand

what you mean when you say bad

i'm sticking to that

i think he [ __ ] his awake again i'm

sticking to that i'm sticking to that

oh i don't i don't actually know you

said you didn't have like your mic

wasn't activated at all there

i'm i'm sticking to what i originally

said i'm not

yeah originally yeah okay cool yeah um

right so then when you say it's

necessary

does that just mean actual or does it

mean something other than that

sorry repeat the question yeah so your

claim is that

it's like a necessary truth that if

someone is raised

in society they'll understand what you

mean when you say bad

so i'm asking when you say it's

necessary

you don't mean logical necessity and at

one point you said it just means that if

it weren't true we'd be in another

reality which

just means actually because i'm saying

something about reality

yeah so i'm asking if necessity just

means

actuality like are they just the same

thing when you use that word

you can look at it from two perspectives

if we want to be logically consistent

then you can on both we can do it dual

prongs right

so from the perspective of logical

consistency

if we just abstract the pure form of

logic

from the statement growing up in society

from growing up in society assuming we

accept this premise

you will derive

a sense of good and bad therefore

if someone were to claim that they have

no meaning of good and bad and that they

require me

to convey it to them while at the same

time having grown up in society

they would be lying so that is just

logically true

so now now in the second prong don't

[ __ ] interrupt me the second prong

right which is actually what we were

talking about

is that because as a result

of something i'm saying about reality

itself

[Music]

right

what i just described this tree

necessarily follows

and it necessarily follows uh not

strictly as a matter of logic but

because

of the nature of reality itself now you

claim

that i am being obfuscatory because i'm

not being clear about the distinction

between actuality and necessity but

actually

i didn't say that if you were to just if

you were to just

shut up shut up if you were if you were

if you just missed representation

i didn't i didn't say that yeah but

you're interrupting me you talk so much

and you want to interrupt me yeah and

you can interrupt me too if i

misrepresent you i did not say you're

going to

[Music]

too much gain when you yell

unfortunately i actually can't make out

what you're saying but i'm just

clarifying i didn't say you're

obfuscating

okay but you're trying to make it seem

like i'm not being clear about what i'm

saying when in fact

even from the perspective of both prongs

i just mentioned i am very [ __ ] clear

about what i mean

and and by the way just just this is

what the audience is

unfortunately experiencing if you just

were to [ __ ] talk like a human being

engaging in the ordinary use of language

it would be even more clear what i'm

saying

right but you have to you have to draw

in

and you have to draw out the fine

details of the distinction between

actuality and necessity and all of the

different modalities

and which is completely [ __ ]

pointless and unnecessary this is why

i'm accusing you of lying

you are trying to avoid actually

debating me about the meat and potatoes

content

of what is under dispute or what can

potentially be under dispute

you're a [ __ ] sophist

i i'd actually really like to get to

talking about the proposition

i just need to know what it means first

so when you do know what it means

but you do know what it means you're

just lying about you're not

you're just lying about it because

you refuse consciously refuse to accept

any communication that does not um

conform to the arbitrary parameters of

meaning you

invented not the parameters of meaning

that actually function in reality but

the ones

you pulled out of your ass and you

created from thin air

yeah so i guess that what i'm not gonna

do

is argue with you about whether i'm

lying or not

but posit a hypothetical agent who isn't

lying and ask how you'd respond

to them and if your responses say it's

impossible same thing

i would tell them the same thing i told

you well wait no but the thing you

should be telling me is that an agent

like that isn't possible because it's

necessarily the case that they would

know what they're talking

about oh no yeah if they you're saying

if the agent was

assuming the agent wasn't lying

obviously that's not

possible i don't know why you would even

bring that up

okay wait no to get to this right so

now when you say it's not possible or

when you say it's

necessary right those are claims that

you know can be cashed out in different

ways philosophers talk about modalities

right are we talking about

logical a logical modality a physical

modality

a metaphysical modality so i'm trying to

understand when you say

it's necessarily the case that if

someone's raised in society

they'll understand what you mean by bad

or the same claim

in a different way it's impossible for

them to be raised in society and not

know

what you mean by the word bad i'm just

trying to understand what modality

you're speaking within

right now i said you're not talking

about a logical why why wait why are you

why are you asking that

because i don't really understand what

the claim that it's necessary

means you don't understand what i mean

when i forward the claim whether you

accept or rejected

that a person raised in our society

will have a sense of what good and bad

is

you don't understand what i mean when i

say that well the exact claim

that i'm talking about was the claim

that it's necessarily the case that if

an agent is raised in society they'll

know what you mean by bad

i am saying they will have a sense of

what good and bad

refer to actually they they don't need

the clear the specific the specific

content of what i mean by

bad is something if it's derived

from society itself then we share

the source now my conscious

the content that i ascribe to good and i

ascribe to bad

may be different from that person but

that is only something that could be

developed by some kind of mutual

communication

and um interaction it's not

it you know the claim is very clear

some sense of good and bad inevitably

follows from being raised in a society

that's a very clear

claim there is no need to interrogate

the different modalities

of its necessity okay so just to be

clear the claim that i was

fixated on is the claim uh it's

necessarily the case

that if um a person is raised in society

they'll know what you mean by bad are is

that a claim that

you defend or no

repeat that what did you say yeah if

um if a person is raised in society

then they'll know it's sorry then it's a

necessary truth

that they'll know what you mean by

bad yeah okay

right and now i want to understand

what you mean by necessary right because

if you want so we both understand it's

not logically necessary

clearly but i don't understand how it's

i guess i don't know what modality it

would be

it's necessary in all modalities every

single one

that includes logical necessity which

you've said it isn't the case it's

logically because

because because because it's not it has

that's that's actually

your first contradiction in this

discussion that is you contradicting

yourself

no it's not actually because i already

told you that by

even if i were to entertain it from the

perspective of logical necessity which i

wasn't and that was my argument

i was not making claims about logical

necessity

i was talking about reality but from the

perspective of logical necessity i'm

also correct

so no there's no contradiction you

failed to demonstrate one

yeah so i can just spell out the

contradiction um

pretty straightforwardly so if we say

um for all x if x is a modality

then it's uh necessarily true

under that modality that phi where phi

is your claim

right then we say uh we say

logical necessity is a modality uh

under which it's not the case that uh

phi right that's just going to be a

contradiction

right you could like okay so roll it

back roll the clip back did i say that

what i

said was um not logically necessary is

that what i said

yes yeah you'd say no i did not i said i

wasn't

referring to logical necessity when i

originally made the argument

that's fair so it's it's possible that

actually what you said was just that you

weren't referring to logical

yes not wait please stop not that it's

actually

um uh not the case that it's logically

necessary so if

if in fact that's true then you're right

that there wouldn't be a contract i know

i'm [ __ ] right dude you're just

wasting time

i know i'm [ __ ] right now now take

the l

you just contradicted yourself uh what's

the contradiction you made a claim that

i was being

inconsistent and i was contradicting

myself and looks like you got [ __ ] now

and you can't say that anymore yeah

under my prior interpretation of which

was [ __ ] wrong and unwarranted

and you can't justify that

interpretation because you made too many

[ __ ] claims

you you [ __ ] let me let me respond

let me respond i don't think it's

unwarranted because it's a very subtle

distinction the distinction no it's not

because i never

said it's not logically necessary i

never said that

please it's a subtle distinction between

saying something

is i'm not referring to logical

necessity and something

isn't logically necessary you never you

never

there is no no content justified you

coming to the conclusion

sorry sorry that's subtle enough that i

don't think

it's fair of you to say you know any

anything along the lines of like oh it's

unwarranted or if you think it's like

bad faith or something it's just a

completely reasonable misinterpretation

it's not reasonable at all

you you overstepped you overstepped in

your interpretation

i never said it wasn't logically it's

not

logically necessary i never said that

that's

that's right okay well i actually i

don't know if it's right but it's very

possibly right

and if it is right that's perfectly fine

that's a subtle distinction the

distinction between

x isn't logically necessary and i'm not

referring to logical necessity when i

talk about x

but that's fine if you met the latter

and i accidentally interpreted you as

the former then i'm not going to say

it's a contradiction that's okay

but i will say that um if you're saying

it's logically necessary now

i am going to ask you what contradiction

is entailed by the proposition that you

know

sure yeah yeah i'll explain this inside

because i

let's just make sure that yeah i already

explained it but i can do it again since

you're an enterprise

let's just make sure it's clear okay

what am i

if we assume premise a before you spell

out the

i just wanted to be clear what i'm

asking for right like what i'm asking

for

is the contradiction that's entailed by

the proposition

that some person was raised in society

and doesn't know what you mean by bad

sure if we assume the present the

premise that a person raised in society

derives their sense of what good

and bad is will necessarily have

a sense of what good and bad is

and someone claims that they don't know

what i mean

when i say bad

the contradiction lies in the fact that

they actually have

a sense of what the use

of the word good and bad is

that's the contradiction they have a

sense of what the word means

and yet they claim they don't know what

i mean

when i say it okay so the contradiction

is that they have a set they know what

the word means and it's not the case

that they know what the word means

sure okay and

so the proposition that they uh

don't know what the word means that was

baked into the hypothetical right

because we said

you know picture an agent who doesn't

know what the word means but was raised

in society

but then the other half of the

contradiction which is that they do know

what it means where are you getting that

from

they were ra so your question is what

would be inconsistent about the fact

of them being raised in society

and yet not knowing what it means yeah

what you mean when you say that

the premise the logical inconsistency

lies in the fact

that despite being raised in society and

thus

deriving a sense of the meaning of good

and bad

they still don't know what it means wait

it is

so i understand that the contra you

think the contradiction

is that they know what the word means

and they don't know what the word means

right and i agree that i agree on half

of the contradiction right i agree

that they don't know what the word means

because that's baked into the

hypothetical

but then the other half that they know

what the word means i don't see where

you're getting that

um are you saying that it's just some

like

well yeah like how do you how do you get

you asked where the contradiction was i

gave you the contradiction

no i so i asked what the contradiction

was and you pointed out what the

contradiction was that's fine

although technically the way you said it

it wasn't actually a contradiction by

like this because for it to be a

contradiction it needs to be something

that

if you uh like put it into a formal

system like first order logic or

propositional

logic yeah like you want it to actually

for instance if it's in propositional

logic generate a truth table that's

false

under all interpretations of the

variables in the statement

so technically it's not true that's not

true that's a very narrow view of what

contradiction means that's a view that's

a dogma of analytic philosophy it's not

actually

that doesn't premise the use of the word

contradiction across the history of

humanity before people gave a [ __ ] about

analytic philosophy

in the [ __ ] 20th century please shove

your truth tables up your [ __ ] ass

yeah so if you mean something else by

contradiction i'm happy to hear what it

means but i take a contradiction to be

yeah because you're a computer yeah i

take contradiction to be

a statement that's going to either

directly you live in the computer

sorry i take contradiction to be a

statement that's going to either

directly be

or entail a statement of the form p and

not p

and that's a pretty yeah yeah and suck

might be you can get

okay well i mean that's just the

standard kind of way that you'd be you

know taught

yeah i don't know what the pp the pp who

the pp this is it relevant to the

conversation no it's [ __ ] not

yeah so the relevance was that i said

technically it's not a contradiction how

you presented it

and you asked why that's the case so i

was just explaining why that's the

relevance

um but yeah so i didn't i don't mind

though so i rephrased it just slightly

so it is a contradiction and you seem to

still sign off on it

so you're asking me you want a truth

table

that's your new that's your new [ __ ]

goal post you want me to give you a true

table i gave you a [ __ ] contradiction

and now you're saying you want a truth

table

no i didn't ask you for a truth table i

talked about what a contradiction

is uh with respect to truth tables um

so what do you want from me when you ask

me where's the contradiction

what would suffice to qualify as a

contradiction that i could give you

no i'm happy with what you gave right

you gave something okay so what's the

problem

can i please just get through some heads

here

yeah so um all right so

the contradiction right so i just point

out that like technically what you gave

wasn't a contradiction but it was

obvious what you're getting at right and

the thing you're getting at is a

contradiction um so if we take if we

take it that you mean something like

that they know what the word means and

they don't know what the word means

of course that's a contradiction um now

i'm no longer asking the same question

what is the contradiction because now i

know what the contradiction is

i'm saying okay the contradiction has

two parts p

then a conjunction and not p right so i

can agree that p

is true because it's part of the

hypothetical

right the hypothetical uh gives a case

where there is some agent who's raised

in society and doesn't know what a word

means

so we can get um just by simplification

by the rule of simplification on that

proposition

we can get the proposition that they

don't know what the word means but then

the other half of the contradiction the

not p

that they do know what the word means

i'm asking where that comes from so

we're one question further it's not what

is the contradiction it's

i agree about the first half now how do

you get the other half of the

contradiction

it's in the premise the premise is that

by being raised in a society

you have a sense of what good and bad

meaning

if you're raised in a society you have a

sense of what good and bad mean

um can the other if you're sorry if

you're raised in a society you have a

sense of what good and bad mean

that's the premise okay now say that i

challenge that premise

right so say that say that you're you

challenge that premise because it seems

like you're trying to directly

contradict the premise

wait wait just one second so let's just

follow the like

kind of sequence of like steps so the

first step is what's the contradiction

the contradiction is they know what the

word means or the word bad means and

they don't know what it means

okay how do you get that um they

know what it means and then you're going

to give some argument

that involves the proposition that if

it's the premise it's a dogmatic premise

in this context

oh okay so if i don't accept that you

don't have any like argument

my premise was that if you are raised in

a society

you it necessarily follows

that you have a sense of what good and

bad are

that was the premise of the entire

[ __ ] thing now

now just keep in mind we're talking

about understanding what you mean

by good and bad right okay but that was

the premise i forwarded

okay now when you say if someone's

raised in society

they know what you mean by good or bad

right

that's very close to forming a complete

circle because that's just the word

necessity away from being the original

proposition that they necessarily know

what you mean

right so we've gotten back to the

original proposition just without the

word necessary in it

so why would i accept right if you're

giving an argument for the second

component of that contradiction that

starts from a proposition that if

someone's raised in

society then they know what you mean by

bad

right obviously i'm just going to ask

why would i accept that premise

that's what you should have asked from

the very [ __ ] beginning instead of

wasting my time no it's not because what

you started with was a slightly

different

do you know how much how long i [ __ ]

dedicated my time to explain to you

my argument about why one second the

original claim had the word necessary in

it right

so i'm gonna have a slightly different

kind of thing to say when it has the

word necessary we've ended up at a

similar claim that doesn't contain that

word no no no no

no i am containing that word necessary

it necessarily follows the distinction

you draw between necessity in actuality

is arbitrary

okay right so then we've actually wait a

second if if

when i ask you what the contradiction

how you get that second half of the

contradiction that they

uh know what the

word means if you appeal to the

proposition that it's a necessary truth

that if they're raised in society they

know what it means

that is full circle that's circular

reasoning let me explain something to

you very clearly you're trying to

confuse everyone so let me clarify

it to my audience too no shut up shut up

shut up shut up

shut up shut up shut up and i want you

to respond to it yeah yeah

shut up shut up so the thing about the

different modalities

sorry sorry you have to actually deal

with what i said to you right do you

want sorry has just one second

do you understand that under those

conditions

that what do you understand that what i

just described is circular reasoning

i'm not going to respond to your [ __ ]

question you literally are wasting my

time

and i'm here to actually get us back to

the [ __ ] point

all right it's not certain it's not

circular reasoning no it's not

it's not okay so let me explain let me

no

i because you're misinterpreting what i

[ __ ] said

so what you're just going to keep

talking i can't respond you [ __ ]

[ __ ]

so why don't you [ __ ] debate me why

don't you [ __ ] debate me

you just want to go off on a tangent

about why you're right

wait a second it's not circular reason

and your [ __ ] question is

loaded it's a loaded question because

you're misinterpreting what i was saying

originally

what i was saying originally the reason

i was saying it was logically necessary

is because if we accept the premise it

is logically necessary

that's what i assumed you meant wait a

second

okay so i want to understand

if right i'm not saying this is what you

said i'm saying you understand

that if someone gave that reasoning

right the reasoning that i just

described

that would be circular reasoning right

the reason for the premise or the reason

why the premise

if we assume the premise than what i

stated logically follows you're talking

about two different [ __ ] things

no no no this this is what i'm talking

about and i want you to affirm that this

is circular reasoning whether this is

what you're doing is a separate question

okay

now if someone makes the claim that

um it's a necessary truth that if

someone's raised in society

they'll understand what i mean by bad

you ask what the contradiction is and

they say it's that they know uh what the

word means and they don't know what it

means

and you say oh okay so what's the

argument that

what a dumb ass uh know what the word

and then you say oh well bad argument

starts from the premise that it's a

necessary truth that if they're raised

in society they know what the word means

that's the conclusion at the very end of

all the argument

showing up in the premises that is just

what circular reasoning is it's

definitional

yeah well that's because you you

obfuscated what i actually was referring

to so there's two

like i said there's two different things

don't try to dodge whether that's what

you did is a separate question you

understand

what i just described if that's what you

did that's circular reasoning

right yeah but listen here's the thing

here's the thing

there's two different things you're

working with here okay let me explain

this to you very carefully and

cautiously for you

so your robotic self can comprehend what

i'm trying to say

okay there's different elements

to the arg to the so you have you begin

with the premise

if you are raised in a society it

follows you will have

a sense of what good and bad is

then it follows that

if someone tells me right that

they don't know what i mean

it is necessarily the case

that they are lying now in terms of that

being logically necessary i've

demonstrated why it's logically

necessary

what you're talking about is whether the

premise

uh by being raised in a society it

follows necessarily follows

that you will derive a sense of good and

bad

you're asking if that is true by

some kind of um that is true by some

kind of uh

deductive or logical necessity

those are two completely different

questions

they're not it's not the same question

you're asking those are two entirely

different questions

you see why i wanted to [ __ ]

interrupt you because you're wasting my

[ __ ] time i could have just told you

this

and would have saved ourselves this time

you are asking

two entirely different questions when

you ask that

now obviously yes biological necessity

someone would be uh

lying because they do have a sense of

what good and bad is

but if you're asking the question of why

would they necessarily have a sense of

good and bad

i don't think that is something that is

purely deduced

but from logicalness of course is that

i've elaborated the argument as to why

pretty thoroughly beforehand which is

the fact

that good and bad um

do not are not premised and do not

derive from absolute remember that

argument i gave you

so obviously i'm not saying i'm not the

reason i said

so then you said well

if it's necessarily true is that because

it's logically necessary or

necessary alone no because i'm making an

argument about

reality and then you said no if you're

making an argument about reality

then you're talking about actuality i

reject

the arbitrary distinction you're drawing

between necessity and actuality

what is actual is also necessary in my

view according to my philosophical

perspective

okay it sounds i'm not sure exactly how

we got back to actual versus necessary

but what i want to understand

is we agree that that kind of reasoning

would be circular now i just want to

make sure that's not the kind of

reasoning that you're giving

right so let's just kind of go through

the reasoning process and you you tell

me

when i get the the chain wrong okay

so the claim starts um so

the reasoning process starts with the

claim right we have

it's a necessary truth that if someone's

raised in society they know what you

mean by bad

um i ask um i ask you

uh you see and you clarify that you

think that's logically necessary i ask

you what contradiction

is entailed by it being the case that um

someone's raised in society and doesn't

know what you mean and you say the

contradiction i did not say

i'm stopping you now my mic was muted

you [ __ ] up when you said it is a

necessary truth

what i actually said is that if

someone is raised in a society they will

necessarily

derive a sense of good and bad that is

different from saying

that statement taken as a whole is a

necessary truth because if i say it's a

necessary truth to you

that implies that i'm premising the

necessity of accepting this truth on the

basis of some kind of logical

consistency or

some other kind of modality you were

talking about i wasn't

actually saying right or did i use the

word actually wrong i wasn't actually

saying

that you have to accept this

by some kind of logical necessity

that's not what i said i just forwarded

the argument

now whether you accept it or not i'm

willing to debate you about it

but i didn't say by virtue of some kind

of axiomatic

abstract or logical necessity you have

to accept the premise

it's as simple as that you put words in

my mouth

and you you took us down this path for

no [ __ ] reason all cause you're too

scared to debate me about anything with

real content in it

okay so now let me just remember what

the claim is okay so

it sounded there like you said that you

that you don't affirm this claim so i

just want to make

sure we're talking about the same claim

do you

defend the claim that it's necessarily

the case that if someone is raised

in society they'll know what you mean by

bad yes

okay and you mean logically necessary

right remember it's necessary under all

modalities

remember when you said that because i

didn't know which one you were referring

to

remember okay wait so do you not take

the view that this is logically

necessary

that what's logically necessary it is

not purely logically necessary no

but is it logically necessary of course

okay so it's logically necessary that if

someone is raised in society

they know what you mean by bad given the

reality yes

that it sounds like you're adding some

condition yes because i said it's not

purely logically necessary okay but i

just i want to know about just the claim

i'm giving if you agree with this or not

so if the claim is

just it's a necessary truth that if

someone is raised in reality they'll

know what you mean by bad

do you think that's true

yes okay and

necessity there that's logical necessity

right

it's not purely logically necessary of

course not

you're not going to arrive at that just

by some kind of logical process of

deduction or whatever it's

okay so right so you don't think so to

be clear

you don't think it's logically no i i do

but

so so you are assuming something that

has yet to be justified

which is that logical necessity

um is premised by the pure procedure and

form of logical necessity

well the hegelian view is different

according to the hegelian view

there is no contradiction from the

hegelian perspective for example

um the logical necessity about why

i don't know history unfolds in the way

it does

is actually suspended like there's an

actual logical necessity

in reality itself so this distinction

you're drawing between

uh logical uh sorry necessity and um

actuality is a completely unfounded

unjustified

you are trying to isolate pure logic

right

but to me there is no pure logic logic

rests upon a sense of reality

so no of course according to pure logic

no

um periologic pure logic uh

a pure logical deduction will not allow

us to arrive at any

claim about the substantive content of

reality

when we're doing pure logic is what it's

mathematics what else can we do with

math

okay so when you say that it's a

necessary truth

that if someone's raised in society they

know what you mean by bad

do you think that a contradiction is

entailed if

it's not if it's the case that they're

raised in society and don't know what

you mean by bad

if so you just affirmed something and

said the opposite and said

is that logically inconsistent is that

what you're saying

no i said i said do you think

that a contradiction is entailed by

someone

if i say someone exists uh someone

was uh raised in society and doesn't

know what you mean by that

do you think there's a contradiction

there

yeah it contradicts reality

um wait but is i'm asking you

if you see how i reject the way in which

you're trying to isolate logic pure

logic no no one second one one second i

wasn't i wasn't asking

does it contradict reality yeah which is

to

yeah sorry i i'm asking um

is the situation described contradictory

right the situation described isn't

reality but you don't

understand i'm a hegelian so for me you

cannot actually isolate the pure form of

logic

from its actual reality that's the issue

here

i don't know if i'm asking you to do

anything like that all i'm asking

is now if you said in a video game i say

yeah sure

i'm just asking do you think that it's

um

that the situation described is

contradictory

yes because it contradicts reality no

but i'm not asking i'm not asking does

it contradict reality i'm asking if the

situation described

right which is if the situation has no

reality how can i speak what do i know

you're what are you referring to

what situation are you referring to if

not a situation that has reality

yeah so i'm talking about all of the

propositions

that are true in reality all of the

problems trying to put something in a

vacuum that doesn't want to be in a

vacuum that's the issue

it seems like you're it's really hard to

like dude i understand cutting off but

like you're very nippy like you need to

just

wasting my time look if you think that

doing philosophy is wasting your time we

don't have to continue you're not doing

philosophy you're doing a computer nerd

[ __ ]

which is not philosophy by the way i

reject that analytic philosophy is

philosophy it's not philosophy it's a

[ __ ] technical paradigm

that happened in the 20th century it has

nothing to do with actual philosophy and

they're

rambling off though like look do you

want to continue talking and actually

hear what i have to say or do you want

to just cut me off every time i

try to get it i'm waiting for you to

actually grow the balls to [ __ ]

debate me about anything

well i'm trying to address what we're

talking about by the way is

is this the result of the vegan diet

this is how you think and argue

look if you're not gonna be at all

serious i'm gonna kind of like lose my

interest i am 100

serious i wonder if you just had some

chicken nuggets or you had a steak you'd

be able to [ __ ] argue like a man and

actually talk to me like a human being

i mean yeah like do you do you want to

actually keep going are you just kind of

going to add homs like you don't well

you don't want to keep

like trying to defend i have proved

i'm i'm able to keep going but it's very

clear

you're behaving in a preposterous way i

mean i feel like i already won this and

i think my chat agrees with me too

but i am actually curious if this is the

result of the vegan diet and it bolsters

my point that vegans are [ __ ] bad

people you've you've lost touch with

humanity so

much that you can't even [ __ ] argue

about anything without

breaking down everything in this [ __ ]

cold

mathematical kind of way it's completely

[ __ ]

ridiculous yeah i just i don't know if i

want to be like

i almost want to say like preached at

right like i don't i don't need to hear

your screen

you are a bad person

yeah it's i wait i'm not getting like is

this a kind of troll like is this guy

like no no no because if you're you are

genuinely a bad person

for lying about your actual position oh

okay well look do you want to actually

continue the conversation because i have

what do you want to continue continue it

go say it

yeah so i'm gonna have to just remember

my place

i get distracted really easily if you go

off like that i have 80d right so it's

like it's best to not

like careen off into like talking about

like vegans or your diets a whole other

[ __ ] right

um okay so yeah

when what i'm asking is do you think

that the situation described entails a

contradiction

and the situation described is just

going to be some big set of propositions

it's like the same propositions that are

true in reality

except we're going to change the

propositions we're going to add like

you know the proposition that there is

some agent are going to add that they're

raised in society and we're going to add

that they don't know what you mean by

bad

right same same proposition yeah i'm

going to argue that

i am going to argue that it is logically

contradictory because reality is a part

logic is a part of reality

and you can't divorce the two so that's

going to be my position i was very clear

about that

okay you can't you can't just create

your own reality and then ask if it's

logic

listen when you created your vacuum your

hypothetical world

when you created that right you did

something

that is outside of the bounds of actual

logic

so this is what it means to actually

debate a hegelian who knows

what they're talking about and not a

analytic philosophy

uh undergrad okay when you say is it

logically

unnecessary or whatever logically

contradictory

your vacuum is not justified as a proper

domain of logic

um there's some

you don't think that you can look at a

set of propositions and

tell me if it contains a contradiction

it depends on if are they mathematical

propositions or are they propositions

that

make claims about reality or a

hypothetical reality so to speak

um i guess first let's just start from

can sets of propositions be given

um what no propositions can clearly be

given yes they can

that wasn't the question the quest try

to slow down a bit

the question was can sets of

propositions be given which you can

look at and determine whether they're

consistent or not which is to say

whether they contain a contradiction or

not obviously yeah

okay now is there a reason that you

can't do that

with the set of propositions that is the

same as a set of propositions

that are true in reality except which is

a proper super set of things

yeah because you're being too greedy

about what you're trying to take from

reality and

and you're loading them into your

propositions so so

so for example for me right yeah so

don't even let me say my sentence man

like it's

it's very hard to oh say your sentence

go ahead

yeah um thank you so

yeah you have some set of propositions

and so it

starts with the set of propositions that

are true in reality

right and we're just gonna go for like a

proper superset of that right we're just

gonna add

the proposition that there's some agent

who's uh

born in society and that agent doesn't

know what you mean

by bad and you can add any any

propositions that are like analytically

tied to those or whatever but

um yeah the question is

do you think that it's impossible to

look at that set of propositions and

tell me

whether it contains a contradiction

your propositions and uh you're not

making noise just say no

your propositions are

greedy that's not an answer do you think

it's possible to look

at the set of propositions specified

which i'm just going to start referring

to these like the set of propositions in

reality

uh we're just going to call that alpha

and then beta is

i'm saying the vacuum would be logically

inconsistent even

if you're trying to set it up as a

vacuum because there is a deeper

logical way and rationality you cut me

off when i was just trying to lay out

some [ __ ] terminology

yeah because you want to say alpha's

reality and beta is the hypothetical

stop wasting our [ __ ] time dude

and and we want to be clear about the

distinction right so alpha

is just going to be the exact set of

propositions

uh that like it's going to be the set of

propositions

of the same truth value as in reality

right and

beta is going to be as proper superset

of alpha we're going to take the same

propositions but we're just also adding

in those ones about the agent yeah

who yeah and anything that's like animal

and also changing it's a new reality

that's beside the point no it's not

besides the point it's a new reality

it's a different reality

how could i how could i'm asking that

wait you didn't you just

said a random thing which is that it's

in alpha and alpha let's say

no no you just said a random thing which

that's a different reality then we're

about to go careening off on some

calm [ __ ] right so i'm not

questioning about whether it's the same

reality of course it's different if it's

a proper super set of the propositions

true in reality obviously it's a

different reality

the question is do you

think that for some reason it's not

possible to look at that set

of propositions to look at beta and tell

me whether beta contains a contradiction

no i think it is possible okay so

and you think beta does contain a

contradiction yes it does it's not

it okay it clearly does okay right so

now we're finally

back to where we were like almost 15

minutes ago where i'm trying to re re

go through this that's what i'm going to

say though that's why guess what i'm

going to say as to why

i don't know but i almost don't care

because it's like i'm just trying to

because it contradicts reality itself

okay so the contradiction isn't um that

the person

knows this proposition is true and

doesn't know that it's true

right the contradiction is something

else oh sorry no sorry i

misspoke knows what bad means and

doesn't know what uh sorry

i misspoke again knows what you mean by

bad and doesn't know what you mean by

that that referred to the prior

logical that's uh

to a different logical claim yep that's

that's completely fine okay so that's

not what the contradiction is

what do you think what propositions form

the contradiction

uh what do you mean

well like a proposition is gonna yeah

yeah reality it contradicts reality

itself

okay wait did you forget when i said

it's not pure logic

i asked you if you think did you forget

when i said from the perspective of

pure logic no did you forget that

it's not worth trying to like just steal

the line of questioning away from me i'm

trying to ask you something okay

now you said there's a contradiction

there i'm just asking what's the

contradiction in beta

the the contradiction

the logical contradiction is with regard

to reality itself

nature of reality yeah the nature of the

nature of the realities

the nature of their sorry sorry sorry

sorry sorry sorry

sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry

sorry sorry sorry malfunction sorry

sorry sorry

sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry

sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry cannot

compute sorry this is how you break the

robot guys

sorry now i i find it really

difficult when someone sorry sorry sorry

sorry sorry

look i mean do you do you want to have a

serious conversation or not

right i'm i've literally been trying and

you did what sorry

sorry why don't you let me finish what

i'm trying to say

well because before you started a

massive over talking

competition with me right there i had

something to say about what you said but

god knows what the [ __ ] that was no you

[ __ ]

didn't you didn't though because what

i'm

almost sorry it's almost like

conversation

is a little difficult when if the other

person tries to talk

you just start [ __ ] rambling at them

like can i just

okay you're accusing what i'm saying is

rambling

well how about it is the beginning of

you conceding

that you're not equipped to actually

engage with the content of what i'm

saying

how about you let me communicate okay

because you're wasting time that other

that doesn't need to be [ __ ] wasted

okay well if you don't like my

position's very transparent very clear

it's there's a lot of clarity to it it's

very simple

right when we're talking about alpha and

beta the prop the reason i'm going to

argue that beta is logically

inconsistent is because i'm arguing

logic is a part of reality itself now

from the perspective of

so-called pure logic i already made the

argument

no obviously from the perspective of

pure logic there's no contradiction

but i reject that pure logic is even

possible

okay in this regard it's now it's really

not helpful

i reject that you can divorce logic from

reality that's

that was my argument initially it's

really not helpful when i try to say

something and then you careen off for a

minute like okay

if i let you say what you're gonna say

and it's a bunch of stupid [ __ ]

again

what do i get send me 500 if what you're

about to say is a waste of time go ahead

say it say it say it

500 500 remember say it go ahead

okay so it's not helpful when you sit

there

you know first of all it's really hard

to stay on

like i told you i have 80d right it's

like it's hard to remember my train of

thought when you're just butting in like

that okay

i don't mind interruption within reason

like if i'm straw manning you

or you know vice versa it's fine cutting

in within reason is good i'm not some

like anti-interaction so who judges that

oh my god dude just shut the [ __ ] up

please who judges that

look if you're just gonna if you're

gonna come because you've interrupted me

a lot too by the way

i think that i have interrupted you a

few times i don't think it's

nearly to the degree that you've

interrupted me and i think my

interruptions are far

because i'm smarter than you and i can

cut through the [ __ ] that's why i

interrupt you

look it just seems like if i talk you're

just gonna start over talking me

so you know unless unless look i'm not

asking you to never interrupt but unless

you're willing

to like actually commit to letting me

speak a reasonable amount i'm probably

not going to continue can you do that or

not

so you're going to give up and concede

i'm not

conceding yes you are yes you are

well maybe by your like mind reading

logic where you also tell me i have

beliefs i don't have

right but as far as i can tell you know

being the one who's actually in here

like in my subjective experience you

know having it

uh no it's not well you live in the

computer you're in the computer not in

your subjective experience you're in the

computer

now what i'm saying is just that

i'm happy to continue a conversation

with you

okay but i need you to actually listen

when i'm speaking right i've been

listening you've just been repeating a

dialogue look

i don't you have no idea where i was

about to go with that sentence because

you cut me off halfway yes i did

this this is the thing that people just

like it's like people struggle with this

okay there's like two polls okay there's

the never interrupt poll

which is very stupid because it's like

you want to talk about the interrupt the

polls now

dude i'm i'm i can't deal with you

being this like because you're low

energy you're not a good debater people

told me you're a tough debater you're

[ __ ] weak are you gonna let me speak

or not dude

low energy

okay i'm gonna try getting low

testosterone from no meat diet

and try it five times but if i don't get

a clear answer within that i'm going to

disengage but keep in mind

a clear answer keeps me engaging i have

no desire to run at all i'm happy to

keep sounds like you want to run away

just like just like just like just like

the little furry animals run away from

hunters

you can't provide a clear answer you're

running away like a bunny run away from

a hunter you're running away like a

deer runs away from a hunter so run run

run

i'm a tiger right try number one okay

and once we hit five again if you want

to answer clearly happy to keep going if

you don't i'm just gonna take it as bad

faith and that'll be it for me but it's

you

ending the conversation no it's not you

are you're conceding to me

no i'm putting an ultimate item to you

which

that you either affirm right that you're

actually going to give me a reasonable

amount of time to speak

or that we stop talking okay now if you

can do the former i'm happy to continue

very obvious to everyone listening okay

so i don't think you're gonna have any

luck

saying oh you ran away right because i'm

right here happy to talk no you've been

running you want to run away that's okay

make whatever excuses you want

call it an ultimatum you're making

excuses stop

interrupting me now here's the ultimatum

okay and i'll explain just a bit of

perspective around it for a second if

i'm able to get you know a few sentences

out which seems like a [ __ ] struggle

to you okay now i think that there's

kind of two polls okay there's people

who are gonna say

you should never interrupt and there's

people who are gonna be like you and

interrupt way the [ __ ] too much

okay and both are cancerous right the

never propose

then okay that's one fail remember five

and we're just done okay

now the never interrupt side right i

don't like

i don't like that point of view because

i think that

a lot of the time interruption

facilitates the kind of goals that i

have in a conversation

oftentimes we want to get to the truth

for example and

it's faster to get to the truth if

someone is going off point and you see

where

if you can just cut them off right so of

course some interruption is going to be

merited merited i'm not going to

go all the way to the extreme and say

none right on the other hand

there's people like you who interrupt

[ __ ] constantly right to a point that

i feel like i can't even process my

thoughts because i get cut off

at the second i start getting like you

know a few seconds into articulating

them

right that's not helpful because it

prevents me from actually thinking

clearly and communicating my views okay

so can you actually commit

not to never interrupting you're welcome

to interrupt but to giving me enough

space to actually communicate

my ideas can you define the parameters

with which we will be able to judge

um doing that is there a neutral judge

who's going to decide that

i think that we know but i think

that we can give each other i think that

i think that even without a perfect

standard okay i think

i'm asking for a bit longer than you're

currently giving me

do you understand what a bit longer

means

i don't think please please define it i

don't understand the meaning please

define it

okay take it that you're trolling right

no i'm not trolling how can you say that

in a hypothetical world

where i was not trolling is that

logically consistent

uh look it's like i part of me wants to

respond point out why what the side

things please do it please do it

please stop okay pardon me wants to

respond point out why the side tangents

don't all make sense right because you

you actually i really have a problem

with the way that you debate right i

think that

i don't know if it's intentional but

it's like a deceptive kind of style of

debate okay you might you might not like

people who come in

heavy on the formal logic and who try to

be very systematic

okay but i have way more of a people a

problem with people who try to

light tons of little fires throw tons of

shade

and just really make it [ __ ]

difficult to get to the actual argument

okay and earlier i said i'm not

convinced you're obfuscating now i'm

leaning towards i think you are kind of

obscuring okay

so you can see

now just listen okay that's what it

sounds like to me you're conceding

well you might want to get your ears

checked then

it sounds like you're giving up

okay so let me just remember what i was

saying

because it's very hard to remember when

talking to someone like this

okay so yeah i asked if you can

commit to actually giving me enough room

to speak

right and you said oh where's the

objective judge of enough room to speak

okay and i said i don't think there is

one so

let me just ask for this can i get a

little more room

okay and i think i think we know what a

little more room is

right it's like i get to talk for longer

than the amount of time i'm currently

able to talk before you butt in

um well actually philosophers disagree

about the nature of time

um longer can actually mean many things

in philosophy

uh longer can for example mean something

at a scale of thousands of years and it

can also provide

provide your meaning and i'm probably

fine with it what do you typically mean

when you say longer

uh typically longer will refer to

a quantitatively greater sum of time

yeah i'm fine with that that's what i

mean okay i'll give you one second one

millisecond

okay you are kind of funny but you're

[ __ ] annoying though dudes

like i don't know i don't know how to

deal with you like you it's like you

kind of tread the line between like

running arguments and trolling

right yeah i can usually tell my

opponents conceded when they start

narrativizing the debate itself

oh yeah i'm only narrativizing till i

get a commitment to first of all yeah so

this is meta discussion i understand

that but we're only here until i get a

commitment that you'll actually

like listen when i talk and then we can

go back to substance

can you commit to the can you commit to

the understanding

that you talk too much and you say too

little for how much you talk

no so you don't think you you don't

think that sometimes i can perceive what

you're trying to say

and that you continuing to talk is just

wasting my time

that's not what i said but that's also

starting like a side topic

right i'm i'm not against the idea that

sometimes you know where someone's going

maybe you see why it's irrelevant or you

want to jump ahead and you want to butt

in

that's fine i'm telling you you're

butting in too much okay it's beyond

what's warranted by that kind of

reason okay you're gonna cry

um i don't think so okay so why do i

care

well i mean you only care about things i

cry about

i care about defeating you and

destroying you utterly i am going to

have victory over you that's what i care

about oh

well yeah i mean you can and try your

best i guess

do you want to like you know give me

enough space to speak if we go back to

the actual topic

you've been better about listening to me

talk about meta than listening to me

talk about the actual topic

you speak too much when i can already

see the point you're getting at

you don't need to speak more if i pers

listen if i perceive you have something

to

say that's going to like be my achilles

heel trust me i'm going to let you say

it

if i say if i think you're just going to

repeat a point

that i already know you're going to

repeat i'm going to

attempt to respond to it at haste but

you literally take

15 minutes to say [ __ ] and there are

multiple examples of this throughout

this entire conversation

where you went on tangents you've you've

you've

said the equivalent of what in the

written form

would be novels right of false

interpretations and false premises as to

what i have actually said like

for example we can name all do you want

to name all the examples of what you

want

what i want is just for you to be clear

okay

are you going to give me more time to

speak not a second

like legitimately give me some time to

speak i don't know what you mean

once and i wait hold on okay

now back to the debate back to the

debate why is it

why is it that you can ask me for more

time but i can tell you

not happening stop dodging so you

concede this point

please stop dodging man you you're no no

you

you're conceding this point what makes

what you're asking me

any different from what i told you about

good and bad

how do people like deal with this i

don't know how do they deal with it so

listen we're not going back to talking

about a good or bad or any but you're

asking me for when you ask me for more

time you're asking for the same thing

how do i know what you mean what do you

mean by that

until what do i mean you we already

clarified i'm using your concepts i'm

saying what

more time yeah i give you one more

millisecond than usual yeah

i'm asking that is a qualitatively

greater you know how long do you want

um well so that's the hard thing because

i don't think that you want to put like

i don't think it works like that where

it's like a flat time limit but i'd say

why not so you can't define it it's

meaningless then do

you accept do you affirm that it's

meaningless sorry do you affirm that you

have no meaning

you're it's impossible to talk to you

man i'm trying to get a [ __ ] sentence

across and all you're doing is

interrupting me

okay look do you want to have an actual

philosophical conversation or do you

just want to be a [ __ ]

i'm here to conquer you and your server

okay well look not to be a dick but

you're getting [ __ ] wrecked you

couldn't even handle the discussion and

you're trying enough

in the chat if i'm getting wrecked in

the chat if he's getting wrecked

why would i care about your chat right

now why would i care about you

i didn't ask you to right so why would

you say it as though i would i care

anyone cares what you have to say my

audience doesn't give a [ __ ] about that

stupid [ __ ] you just said

my argument audience overwhelmingly

agrees i wrecked you

overwhelming the uh the thousand over a

thousand people who are watching

this agree with me that i wrecked you

dating

my point of view okay dude you're

getting

wrecked according to who now look

look it just it seems like all you want

to do is troll dude

like if you want to have that's your

cope i've been very thorough about

actually committing to arguing but the

problem is that you waste time by saying

too little too long i think i think that

you're kind of in the middle

right where you kind of run arguments

but then you also troll

and you know i'm not going to

necessarily because you're a ridiculous

person

that's right you're a ridiculous

person that's why i told you i am trying

to get a sentence

across thank you okay now

it's a bit suspicious to me right

that when i talk to you right you you

make it

you make it such a [ __ ] challenge to

just get a few sentences across okay to

me

to me it's looking like you have a very

hard time

dealing with what i actually have to say

about the topic you don't think you can

win

so you're going for trolling okay that's

my guess

but if you want to have an actual

discussion i'm happy to

now i'm just gonna ask i'm just going to

ask this

one more time and if i hear anything

other than just a clear answer that will

be it for me okay

clear answer as in a yes or a no can you

give me a reasonable amount of time to

speak if we return to the subject

yes or no i'm true i'm making fun of you

because you're a ridiculous person okay

so that's going to be the end of my

discussion okay i accept your defeat i

accept your defeat

avi do you feel like i accept your

surrender

i accept your surrender wholeheartedly

uh sorry i was just asking avi do you

did you want to also

wreck the guy or nah either

i i have it recording if you want me to

capture you like owning him also

i love how you're coping that you poned

me no one else agrees with you your 12

friends agree with you

thousands of people agree with me that's

i think that that's probably

it then um if you want to talk to other

good debaters in here

ruckster's pretty good um yeah i'd

recommend rockster

chum's okay shout out zurka with the

hosts

you're literally looking at the victory

you're literally looking at the

victory i'll just make a closing

statement

so this is kind of where i'm going to

leave off

and uh i am just warning you if you

[ __ ] say a word while i'm trying to

get my closing statement you will be

muted okay i want to get my [ __ ]

closing statement across without being

talked over

okay so all i would say in closing here

is i actually am happy to continue this

discussion

i just want it to continue seriously and

i want it to continue where i actually

have a reasonable amount of time to

speak i'm sure anyone watching this back

who's a reasonable person will see that

i was getting interrupted to a degree

that just makes the conversation

difficult

i'm not completely against interruption

but there's a point where it's excessive

and that point was reached for me

with respect to the actual topic

i would say a few things so the original

claim

was that vegans are bad people or later

despite their you know protest to the

opposite vegans are bad people

so i'm not clear what the claim means i

want to understand

what has means when he says the word bad

um now i don't think he's really

been able to clarify that um and i think

that's kind of his burden if he wants to

make those kind of claims

and argue about them he can find a way

to communicate what he means by the

terms in his sentence

then with respect to this other claim

that we had our kind of second debate

about

um which is that it's a necessary truth

that um any agent raised in society

will know what he means by bad um

i question um

when i say i want to know what way is

that necessary

and we know has thinks uh you know among

other

modalities that it's logically necessary

okay we ask if it's logically necessary

it's not clear what exactly the

contradiction is and um i wasn't able to

really get clarity on that earlier we

got a contradiction on

i guess what was another topic possibly

but yeah i wasn't able to get clarity on

what he actually thinks the uh

contradiction is there and he seemed to

committed to trolling so that's kind of

like where i'd pick it up if he wants to

defend the same claim

uh you can have the last word i'm happy

to listen but like i'm not really

gonna respond sure it's interesting how

you um

yeah it's interesting how you try to

pack your debates into the closing

statement i have three prongs

to my closing statement the reason why i

was being so difficult with you

with regard to you asking for more time

is because i was trying to make a point

in demonstrating

that it is just as ridiculous for me

to ask you to define how much time you

need

as it is for you to ask me to define

the meaning of good and bad um that was

actually the reason for that that's why

you're such a ridiculous person that i

have to just make fun of you to make get

the point across

the second thing about you saying that i

am unable to clarify the meaning of what

good and bad

is that actually isn't true i was very

thorough

extremely thorough about the fact that

the meaning of good and bad are

suspended

the meaning of good and bad are

suspended in actual reality itself

and that it could not pass it is not

possible to convey that

without reference to the fundamental

intuitions

and unconscious associations that are

derived

from society nature or whatever else you

want to call it

that gives sense to the word good and

bad

the third prong of my closing statement

is that you actually played a trick when

it came to

um this discussion about logical

necessity now

for the first uh argument i

said that i am not

making a claim about logical necessity

but

reality then we continued it but what

actually happened was that

there was a confusion on your part about

what we were actually talking about when

it came to logical necessity

i argued that it actually was indeed

true that it is logically necessary

given the premise at hand the premise

being that if one

derives their sense of good and bad from

society

okay then the conclusion can follow

after given that premise

the conclusion that you draw is indeed

necessary from a logical perspective not

strictly logical but indeed necessary

from a logical perspective you confuse

that with the claim

that the premise itself is

logically true and moreover

uh logically true on account of uh

deducing it by some kind of pure

the pure form of the pure form of some

kind of logical

procedure um the third thing about that

is that i actually rejected

the way in which you attempted to

isolate

uh logical consistency from reality

itself i uh forwarded a hegelian

position

according to which logic is part of

reality reality in a sense

is imminently logical logic does not

simply belong to the domain of

abstract propositions and not simply

belong to the realm of basically

mathematics

now you actually made i i actually was

very clear about why

your hypothetical uh universe your

vacuum in which

the contrary was true would be logically

inconsistent because it would violate

the deeper logic underlying our very

reality the reality we have now i

rejected your hypothetical

and i claimed it would be logically

inconsistent

because of that that's not the same as

demonstrating

that it's uh logically impossible from

the perspective

of pure logic the whole point was that i

rejected this notion of pure

logic for me logic is necessarily

entwined

with reality there's no pure logic

whatsoever

that you can engage in and it's if you

do you're not actually engaging with the

full breadth

of what logic is um

this was clearly a decisive and tactical

victory for me and for meat eaters the

world

over uh guys this is an example of

a harrowing example of the consequences

of a vegan diet

on the human brain and on the capacity

to engage

in rational discussion if you want an

argument for why you shouldn't be a

vegan

you should watch this debate because

this is probably the best one

anyone could make um

eat meat and you will prevail

all right i guess the floors opened up

right

um yeah so what's up uh infrared

so it sounded like when you're having

this oh you want a debate too

yeah i just wanted to bring up yeah i

did you want you want to debate me

wednesday

on wednesday yeah i mean i guess we'd

have to find a topic but sure

i don't care just yeah come in my vc

wednesday we'll debate again we'll

continue it

okay i defeated your your your admin

your main guy your most powerful guy so

yeah i'm glad yeah i'm glad that you did

uh that was enjoyable and and thank you

for admitting it okay

bye-bye