Vegan Sophist UTTERLY CRUSHED!

it was fucking okay so this is gonna be

a one on is gonna be one on one

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

am 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

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 fucking debated never

been defeated once

okay um yeah

and what there's oh obvious here too

i told him that we might have someone

driving by is that mj

i don't know hogan like ran away from

has which is really funny so

there's that one logan dead

hogan yeah 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 is obvious here

too i guess um which is good um what so

what you wanted to talk about something

you want to debate something

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 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 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

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

okay 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'm 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 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

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 uh

let's call it um

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 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's 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 or anything 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

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 understand 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 super

set 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 it

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 uh 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

quality

qualitatively different claim you go

from saying something that relies upon

a good faith implicit understanding

to some kind of um system of airtight

kind of uh

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

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

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

99 of people don't care about philosophy

and never will

the way they convey that is by a means

why you gotta hate on philosophy

i mean 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 i'm just fucking around

i'm just fucking around sorry continue

sure yeah yeah um so

um in that sense there is no way to get

rid of the element

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 uh 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

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

shit 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

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 to

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 for i was uh 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 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 uh 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 fucking 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 uh 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 too

let me not use the word concept then i

can i can realize it has some kind of

meaning to you that's all i'm saying

yeah

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 was 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

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 uh 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

for bad 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 thought the

reason i paused was because i was muted

and i accidentally clicked a youtube

video no i don't see a problem

whatsoever

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

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

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 think you do

i think you do um

i think i think if 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 um 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

you know moral statements are like

truth app let's walk it back

you're in a room i feel like wait wait a

second wait a second no sorry just

please i need to 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 maybe 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 this 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

fucking 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 fucking 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 gonna 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

something 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 is 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 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

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 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 bad 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 you 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 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 isn't this isn't this how

we started out this entire fucking

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 whatever but like

i just gotta 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 no

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 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

prescriptively conveyed 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 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'm 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

uh 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

cash is 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

okay oh my god i don't 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

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

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

uh 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 shit 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 um about

because you don't want to 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 this 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

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

necessity 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

[Music]

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

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 no it is fucking not okay

you can talk about that in a sec the

other

is necessary for the reality we're in to

be

the reality 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

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 fucking that

why the fuck 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

fucking 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 now

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 fucking

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

fucking lie um i was assuming logical

necessity

responding by asking you to spell out

the contradiction

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 fucking ridiculous this

is this is how all of this started

will you ask 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 writ 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 you fucked us 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

fucking 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

right this

what i just described this tree

necessarily follows

and it necessarily follows 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 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

wrong

but who's going to decide represented

too huh the neutral court is going to

describe you the fuck up dude

let me continue too much you have 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 fucking 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 fucking 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 fucking

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 fucking 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 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 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 it 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 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 gonna 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 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 fucking right dude

you're just wasting time i know i'm

fucking 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 fucked now and you can't say

that anymore

yeah under my prior interpretation of

which was fucking wrong

and unwarranted and you can't justify

that interpretation

because you made too many fucking clan

you you fucking assumed

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 to justify 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 okay 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 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 already did

let's just make sure that the 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 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

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 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

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 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 shit about

analytic philosophy

in the fucking 20th century please shove

your truth tables up your fucking 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

um 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 fucking 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 fucking

goal post you want me to give you a true

table i gave you a fucking 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

this year

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 to

it's it's the 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

fucking 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 fucking 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 fucking

dedicated my time to explain to you

my argument about why second 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 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 clear you're trying to confuse

everyone so let me clarify it to my

audience too

no so 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 fucking

question you literally are wasting my

time and i'm here to actually get us

back to the fucking

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

fucking said

so what you're just gonna keep talking i

can't respond you fucking pussy

so why don't you fucking debate me why

don't you fucking debate me

you just want to go off on a tangent

about why you're

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 fucking 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

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 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 that 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 follow

it 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 fucking

interrupt you because you're wasting my

fucking 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

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 you 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 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 fucked 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 fucking 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 and 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's 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 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 you're 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 you're not doing

philosophy you're doing a computer nerd

shit

which is not philosophy by the way i

reject that analytic philosophy is

philosophy it's not philosophy it's a

fucking technical paradigm

that happened in the 20th century it has

nothing to do with actual philosophy and

it's

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 fucking

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 fucking

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 humps 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 fucking bad

people you've you've lost touch with

humanity so

much that you can't even fucking argue

about anything without

breaking down everything in this fucking

cold

mathematical kind of way it's completely

fucking

ridiculous yeah i just i don't know if i

want to be like

i i almost want to say like preached at

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

your scream

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 true 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

shit right

um okay so yeah

when i 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 we're 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 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 going to go for

like a proper superset of that right

we're just going to add

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

uh whether it contains a contradiction

your propositions and uh you're not

making noise

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 just going to be a problem

it's a vacuum the vacuum will be

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 rational necessity to

reach you cut me off when i was just

trying to lay out some fucking

terminology

yeah because you want to say alpha's

reality and beta is the hypothetical

stop wasting our fucking 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 uh 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 it's what i'm

asking that wait you didn't you just

said a random thing which is that it's

an 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

fucking like

just five dollars calm down 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 that's what i'm gonna say

though that's why guess what i'm gonna

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 referred to

the prior

logical uh process okay that's fine

that's referred 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 the nature of reality

yeah the nature of the the nature of the

realities

the nature of their 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

i'm 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 fuck that was you

fucking

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 fucking rambling at them

like can i just

okay but you're accusing what i'm saying

is rambling

well how about 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 fucking 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 data 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 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 bullshit

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-interrupt so who judges that

oh my god dude just shut the fuck 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 bullshit 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 internet 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

fucking weak are you gonna let me speak

or not dude

low energy

okay i'm gonna try getting low

testosterone from no meat diet

i'm gonna 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

it 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 is that yeah well you can put an

ultimatum to leave the boxing ring but

you can see it you forfeit is that

which is 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 he 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 fucking struggle

to you okay now i think that there's

kind of two polls okay there's people

who are going to say

you should never interrupt and there's

people who are going to be like you and

interrupt way the fuck too much

okay and both are cancerous right never

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

fucking 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 fucking 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

longer can actually mean many things in

philosophy

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

fucking annoying though too

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

deal with people like you it's like you

kind of tread the line between like

running arguments and trolling right

yeah i 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 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 shit and there are

multiple examples of this throughout

this entire conversation

where you went on tangents 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 when you've

i 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'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 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 fucking 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 fuckhead

i'm here to conquer you and your server

okay well look not to be a dick but

you're getting fucking wrecked you

couldn't even handle the discussion and

you're trying to run from 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 fuck about that

stupid shit you just said

my argument audience overwhelmingly

agrees i wrecked you

overwhelming 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 mine 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 fucking 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 going to 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 poning 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

rockster is pretty good um yeah i'd

recommend rockster

shams okay shout out zurka with the host

bobby ken brad 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

fucking say a word while i'm trying to

get my closing statement you will be

muted okay i want to get my fucking

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

um i would say a few things

so the original claim was that uh

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 i want to know what way is

that necessary

and we know has things 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 um 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

this discussion about logical necessity

now for the first

uh argument i said that

i am not uh 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 the third thing about that is

that i actually rejected

the way in which you attempted to

isolate

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 is 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

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