1.) Slavery is wrong. 2.) The Christian worldview not only cannot establish why slavery is wrong, it establishes that slavery is RIGHT or at least NOT wrong. 3.)Therefore the Christian worldview cannot be true. Do I win anything? Seriously this "argument" is a great example of both fractal wrongness and not even wrong.
The Christian worldview can absolutely account for why slavery is wrong. After all, YHWH and Jesus explicitly said it's wrong and explicitly made it illegal... Oh wait.
1 is the premise, though if it is truly wrong is still a subjective interpretation. Some countries to this day have slaves but let's go by the common consensus as a reference and say most people think slavery is morally wrong. 2) according to Christianity (and it's father religion) slavery is acceptable and guidelines are given for it. It is directly mentioned in OT and NT as a given one must endure and never mentioned anything about it being immoral or something that should not be. It definitely doesn't go against it. It endorses and continues it based on the old testament. 3) non sequitur fallacy. Even if we take premise at 1 as absolute, and the information at 2 as evidence to establish 1, we don't get to the conclusion in 3. It would at best be Christianity is morally wrong when it comes to slavery.
The Christian worldview can account for why slavery is wrong, but that account is contradicted by the much more direct and explicit biblical account for slavery being not only right, but divinely mandated
For me, whenever someone throws out an insult, or mocks someone for their comment, that person has already lost the argument. Matt throws out insults in every video. And let's not forget the rage quit he did against Andrew Wilson.
@@gozz7733 Seeing how wilson conceded the debate before inmediatly chaging it to other topic no one (not even the moderators) had accepted to debate about. It is hard to see how that was a "quit" there. For me, whenever someone has to make believe about something that was literally captured on video, that person already lost the argument.
@@Julian0101 if anyone is in a debate, they present an argument to prove the other person wrong. Period. rage quitting is just that. Quitting. There is no reason to quit and walk out. I’ve been in countless debates in high school and college. I’m now on my 50’s. I’ve never rage quit a debate. And I’ve heard some crazy debates.
@@toofargonemcoc according to humanism which holds human well being as the ideal for morality. It is objectively immoral under humanism, to go through with slavery.
@@apersonontheinternet8354 thats the dumbest shit i read. theres no ultimate authority in humanism apart from the human, so if a human decides something bad is okay, theres no authority to stop it. humanism puts humans above all else, so whatever a human wants goes. theres no "rule book for humanism" also saying humans are the ultimate authority is purely arbitrary and ad hoc. its also circular
“Yes but if quantum theory cannot prove that 2+2 is 4 then ice cream cannot be explained in a universe bound by physics, therefore religion is true and therefore the Christian God is true. Balls in your court, atheists!”
Equally valid syllogism: P1: The theory of plate tectonics is true. P2: The theory of plate tectonics does not account for Jim Carrey. C1: Jim Carrey doesn’t exist.
If it wasn't for that one line in Leviticus, they would 100% be having sexual experiences with non-human animals as they claim they have "Dominion over" them. In fact, it would be straight-up zoosadism that we'd see since they wouldn't care about the suffering of the creature- no room for a nuanced position, just straight up blood cult behaviour. After all, supposedly some ancient cultures accepted the seed from animals because they thought it would make their offspring strong with the aspects of the animal (bucks, wolves, etc), so if not for Lev I think this practice would still persist (modern science may prove it doesn't work like that, but that's why they just Believe it anyway).
@@damon22441 Or they would find some way to claim their Bible says it's bad, or just find a way to make up some excuses to why it didn't come from their doctrine. They can just use the same old excuse of, "it's written on our hearts" or something.
@@ThEjOkErIsWiLd00He certainly didn't ask Mary when he cucked Joseph. He didn't even show up to accept he was the father; instead he got his wingman to go and tell Mary to leave town. And 30 years later, when absentee dads usually come asking for money or something, and his bastard son called him for help, he STILL was nowhere to be seen. Top lad.
@@DarthStuticus so eating touching owning animals is immoral now? It's not true. Animals can't just "not consent" they have no IDEA of the concept of "consent" this is a human construct. So no its not immoral. Bestiality by itself is amoral
@@WhiteScorpio2 They would highlight the "informed" requirement. Of course this means animals can never be informed of anything. Are instincts informed? When two animals follow their instincts to breed, does neither consent? Does it matter whether they do? If an animal is generally unable to be informed of anything, does its consent matter, inasmuch as a rock's consent matters? If no demonstrable harm is caused by an act and an animal shows no distress (or indeed, even shows positive behaviors), is the act wrong, considering the assumption that animals cannot be informed at all, ever? Would petting a dog be a nonconsensual act and therefore wrong?
1. Some people enjoy listening to Coldplay. 2. The heliocentric model of the solar system cannot establish why some people enjoy listening to Coldplay. 3. Therefore, the heliocentric model cannot be true. 4. Therefore, the Earth is flat.
@@freeyourmind7538 1. Your comment is not in the most recent nor the most popular. 2. You cannot account why if your argument is "not wrong" it is not in those categories. 3. Therefore you are the only one hүpo crit℮ here. You are welcome.
Mat's attempt to justify things is fucking bizarre though. Sex requires consent, so not getting consent from the animal before sex is worthy of a crime. Ok, that could be right, but then he's ok with people Killing the animal and eating it. So killing and eating something requires LESS consent than Sex with the thing? Wait a second, hold up, sometihng ain't right.
@@technomancermagus8357 you messaged in the wrong thread but correct, matts and his sheep are illogical, they cant stomach the trith, playing their word games again
huh....I don't quite get that.....are you saying atheists are unable to say why they created a law to stop people from driving so fast that people more often get hurt?
@@skagenpige88 That would be an argument based on Humanism, not Athieism. Nothing about the lack of existence of a god says anything about the value of human life, or the morality of endangering it. Or the morality of anything. If one accepts atheism, and wants to have a philosophically grounded system of morality, one must look to philosophies of ethics. Humanism is a popular one for the non-religious.
I'm still trying to see why in Mat's world sex requires consent, which I agree with, but killing something and eating it doesn't require consent? How does that track?
@@technomancermagus8357 I can't speak for Matt, but to argue a distinction between the two scenarios I would focus on the benefit gained from the act, and whether it does or does not outweigh the costs. Sex: benefit is purely pleasure for the actor. Food: benefits include pleasure but also nutrition and health advantages, economic considerations, overall food and other products production capacity (some land is unsuitable for arrible farming but can be used to farm animals). It could be reasonable to argue that because of the different benefits created by these two acts that they are not equivalent in the assessment of their morality. To take this view you would have to hold the position that the consent requirement is not absolute, but can be outweighed by sufficiently large benefits to be gained by violating it. An example could be eminent domain. Generally you can't be kicked out of a house you own without your consent, but if the state needs that plot of land to build an airport there are processes they can go through to make that happen (with proper compensation of course). The benefits to everyone of having an airport outweigh your violated consent in this matter. Perhaps Matt places a value on the consent of animals that is not zero, but is less than the value of consent of humans. That would allow some things to be done to animals that he would not tolerate if applied to humans, but would also give him a basis for disallowing some other things being done to both humans and animals.
Mat doesn’t have to defend non belief. It’s like arguing against the existence of wood fairies. But hey, if you think they’re real, enjoy. Just don’t try to make the government a theocracy. Yes. These religious zealots are off the wall.
**THANK YOU** for talking about animals not being able to consent! I've thought this for years and no one ever talks about this being the most important reason. Consent is *everything.*
It is also a False Dilemma, you can switch "atheistic world-view" with ANY other point of view, like Big Foot or The Jedi FORCE. Therefore, it has been REFUTED.
Yeah, the argument context was clearly just an assertion that their religion makes and since you can't disprove a negative it wins by default, only the subject itself was a hot topic meant to turn heads. Actual window dressing for a tired and beaten-to-death nonargument.
*Here's a new syllogism refuting gravity:* 1. Bestiality is wrong. 2. The existence of gravity cannot establish why Bestiality is wrong. 3. Therefore, gravity cannot exist. The only way the conclusion (3) can be false is if you disagree that bestiality is wrong (1), or if you believe that it can be established that it's objectively immoral for sex between two different species (2) under the presuppositions of gravity. Are there any courageous gravity believers who want to attempt refuting either premise? Because this is what you must be able to do in order to support the viability of your own worldview.
This is exactly right. I could accept all the premises and just deny the conclusion and when they say the conclusion follows I just point out the importance of truth preservation with a VALID STRUCTURE. If you had actually given a formal argument then yeah I'd be committed to the conclusion, but since you think you can just throw random propositions out with no structure.... 😅
Its always so silly when people think they can "refute" atheism. Atheism just means you arent convinced, the only possible way to refute it is to be a presuppositionalist and say that there are no people who don't believe in god. This is a profoundly stupid thing to do, so most people don't do it. But to then say that you debunked atheism is a complete blunder.
Even, a presuppositionalist argument wouldn't refute atheism. It's not any better at refuting than if I said that I don't believe something someone says and they reply by saying "yes, you do".
@@a10miletooth". Even if a god was proven to everyone in the world, it wouldn't be refuting atheism. It would stop people being atheists, yes, but it wouldn't refute that they didn't believe in a god previously or that someone couldn't be born and not believe in a god later on.
What they usually mean is "refute deconversion", resp. to stay a believer. Sometimes they mean "refute the arguments for deconversion" or "refute the claim that there is no God"... or something totally different, which has nothing to do with atheism.
What absolutely kills me is that theism is the thing that can be used, through the function of faith, to believe anything someone wants. This type of argument where theists and apologists basically use the things they believe to show why the other side can't believe them is very strange to me. It reminds me of the "atheists believe that something came from nothing, so I can't believe that," when it is literally the theists who believe in ex nihilo! Broken brains if I have ever seen them.
Then they always seem to love to claim atheists are closed minded, while not even being able to see a perspective from outside of their own. A lot of their "problems", they seem to create for atheists is based on their perspectives not ours. Then it's almost always framed as something atheists have to believe based on their own perspectives. As atheists we might do that with some religious doctrine but it's not the same as telling someone what they're supposed to think based on your perspective vs trying to understand a religious doctrine on its own through your personal perspectives.
A simple response is to turn this exact argument back on Drago: 1. God doesn't exist 2. The theistic worldview cannot establish proof that God exists 3. Therefore, the theistic worldview cannot be true
I looked up Drago on Twitter and he found it a badge of honor you commented on his posting. He, of course, didn't admit you are correct. Guys like this never admit they could possibly be wrong in either theology or structure of their argument.
I believe I just found a link for him on Substack. I don't have access, but the link included the claim, "Free will can never be disproven." Which also sounds like a claim that he can see into the future.
You are helping my understanding of why I have always been an atheist despite a mildly religious upbringing. The moment you posed the argument I went straight to consent being the issue.
Even if we wanted to pretend that atheism is a worldview, the syllogism would still be incredibly flawed. If the proposed syllogism was properly re-written and re-structured as a proper argument, it would still be committing a formal fallacy, known as "denying the antecedent". Here's the re-write: 1. If atheism establishes bestiality as wrong, then it must be true. 2. Atheism does not establish bestiality as wrong. 3. Therefore, atheism must not be true. 1. If p, then q. (I don't have a mirrored "c" on my keyboard to properly denote the conditional symbol, and > isn't close enough) 2. ~p 3. ~q That is literally a textbook invalid argument! Even if we wanted to pretend that both premises were completely true, the syllogism still would not support the conclusion. As for the premises, lots of things are true that do not establish bestiality as wrong. Similarly, lots of things are false that DO establish bestiality as wrong. Therefore, premise one is faulty. Premise 2 is faulty because atheism is not linked to bestiality in any way. This same syllogism could replace "atheism" with "McDonald's" or "salads" and make just as much sense. Not that we need to pile on, but the proposed syllogism also commits an informal fallacy, a red herring. It attempts to divert attention from the validity/soundness of the arguer's position by appealing to a controversial or emotional topic... which is a subset of the red herring fallacy. So many levels of wrong to this... P.S.- Wrote this up while the video was paused and I read the argument. Of course, after I did that Matt touched on most of this without doing the "technical" re-write and declaring the formal fallacy.
The intention is probably closer to: 1. If A is true, B is not wrong. 2. B is wrong. 3. Therefore, A is not true. That is valid, but still the first premise doesn't hold, the poster alludes to objective morality which I think is incoherent, and the theist would probably have a hard time justifying the second premise without begging the question (by assuming their religion is true), appealing to emotion or just making it a bare assertion.
It's The Fallacy of the Converse, and it occurs a lot - e.g., in advertising. Here is a dumb, off the top of my head, example: "1. If you're an atheist, then you're awful. 2. Joe Biden is awful. 3. Therefore, Joe Biden must (secretly) be an atheist."
@carriehallahan5568they could agree more with someone who doesn’t have a platform but because matt has one and is closest to their view, that’s good enough
Good grief this is a train wreck of a syllogism. I could fix it and make a valid pair of arguments from it, but that only highlights how unsound it would be. It's like playing a chesss game against a complete beginner and the guy makes a bunch of moves that are impressively illegal AND terrible at the same time! White plays Queen to a6 on move 1.
Thank you so incredibly much Matt, I get exasperated when theists resort to these kinds of attacks on nonbelievers, but have difficulty finding and articulating the flaws in their arguments, to have you demonstrate this makes this video indispensable towards the progress of humanity.
Daniel! That was the most dishonest and disgusting debate I ever watched. The fact that he is still allowed on that platform turned me off all debates they presented.
I love this topic. The argument this guy makes is obviously just a reskin of the same, tired one refuted endlessly. I think it's a great whetting stone to churn ideas around bestiality. The religious arguments are easily dismissed, but thinking around it in various philosophies, I think, can either reveal something about the philosophy or what you thought you understood. This particular subject is great because so many people hold the default value (immoral) uncritically, and it's never helpful to hold ideas uncriticized. Know the reasons why you think things, challenge those reasons every opportunity you get, refine an ultimate understanding (nuanced, necessarily).
For some reason morality is tied to a powerfull individual that has no reason to gives account of what he does with us And they expect us to believe. Their God Be cause otherwise you go to hell or you get Armageddon. Just dumb reasoning. Yet he is all loving and all caring.
@@AgnesBooth-zu7tw Like I said, the religious arguments are easily dismissed. At this point, I consider every argument for/from a religious point of view low-hanging fruit, thanks to the sheer amount of data/evidence we have now. Big thanks to the scientists in their fields for chipping away at our shackles.
Wow, this argument is from my compatriot... On behalf of all intelligent people in Bulgaria, I sincerely apologize for the existence of this individual!😂😂😂
Funny There was this Mexican guy who smuggle a bottle of liquor into Qatar And the secretary of external relations Marcelo Ebrad. Said and I quote He doesn't represent our country. (not speaking of moral values) You can see the irony here. The gulty man is mexican regardless of what he did. He does represent a portion of our country but not our values.
You have to keep in mind, a lot of these people are the types that think "informed, enthusiastic consent" means two adults signing a literal contract before having sex, or speaking like robots authorizing consent. Just tremendously, deeply unserious people.
I wonder if Mat believe that killing and eating somebody requires consent but by his logic with the animal argument he does not as he does not feel that do so should be a crime.
@@technomancermagus8357 How can two people who are to drunk to give consent or resist advances, have sex? I'm pretty sure it's illeagel to take advantage of a blackout drunk person in any state isnt it?
@@JamesMorgan-ne8qu Sure, but I've seen people who were black out drunk, and were able to physically have sex. The law seems, in those cases, to assume the man is a rapist even if they are both equally drunk.
1:40. Matt nailed it again, (as usual) and there is really no need to watch further. Just more evidence that social media outspoken religious defenders are stupid.
My issue is the second point. Why choose "bestiality"? Why not "murder"? Can Atheism establish why murder is wrong? It's just a stupid argument any way you see it.
Because the subject itself does not matter and the core argument is the same exact circular one where "Religion proclaims A, you can't prove not A, therefore Religion right." He chose screwin' the pooch because it's incendiary.
Synthetically, murder is wrong. It's part of the definition. Whether God exists or not is irrelevant. Just like the existence of God is irrelevant to "married bachelor" being a contradiction.
Yeah it doesn't need to have anything to do with bestiality. It's the old morality argument. And yes, it's circular. The first premise depends on the conclusion being true.
And the bible is full of death The people of Jericho were eliminated Every single individual including animals. Only the material stuff was left standing. Because it was their promise land. It's horrible. God encourage it and allow it.
You have way more patience than me, Matt. I'd have been tempted to respond 'You need to demonstrate your first premise, not just assert it. You have not done so, therefore you have no argument.'
@@jcldctt I would agree that believing in things that are aren't true is an act of stupidity, but are you saying that Atheism is believing in things that aren't true?
1. Bestiality is wrong. 2. Cosmology cannot establish why bestiality is wrong. 3. Therefore, Cosmology cannot be true. That is also an invalid structure, but I skipped that part to mimic the argument better. The argument is still wrong and invalid and proves absolutely nothing about either bestiality or cosmology! Sometimes it feels like humanity is becoming more stupid by the day. Religion leads people to believe nonsensical things.
*1.)* All fish live underwater. *2.)* All mackerel are fish. *Conclusion:* If Drago buys kippers, it will not rain. ... Atheism is a position on a single proposition: That god(s) exist(s). Full stop. Anything else Drago wants to talk about is strictly *_outside_* the scope of support.
D@mn good video. Well done. 00:15 No. What's stupid is you having to censor yourself because of words. Because TH-cam doesn't want words being used to talk about subjects. I know that sounds silly but that's it in a nutshell. I can't even type certain words on here, without misspelling them, for fear of my comment being flagged.
I'm sorry to say that I just found you today through videos of your dialogue with Jordan Peterson and have subscribed to the multiple channels you are on. I've been an Agnostic Atheist the majority of my life simply because I'd like to think I am fairly reasonable and logical and have a decent grasp of Christianity's history through a great deal of reading. ie "The First Council of Nicaea." I lean towards actually documented written historical record from more than one source. I have thought the bible was a batshit crazy book since my parents sent me to a private Christian school for the 3rd grade. When all is said and done, especially after 50 years of life on this Earth, I simply and wholeheartedly reject anything or anyone which requires me to bow down and worship them or it.
Another problem: atheism is a personal and individual position on a subject, but morality rules are defined by communities and societies. Whether you find bestiality good or bad is irrelevant. Your community has a position that is established in laws and traditions. In this argument, apples are compared to oranges. A personal belief is supposed to be comparable with the rules and traditions of a community. Let's look at the case of underage children marrying older people. I can have the opinion that everyone, including minors, should have freedom of choice, or the opinion that the older person should be jailed. But this action is moral, immoral, legal, illegal, ethical, or unethical mostly because of the laws and traditions of your community.
In addition to consent, the fact that it exposes the person and the animal to actual biological danger and suffering. I feel like we should add this just in case someone asserts they did have consent somehow lol
How does it expose them to biological danger and suffering? Necessarily? This sounds like the argument against homosexuality that anal sex is 'dangerous'.
@@ronhoward121 There have been many cases of bestiality, and the animals have died shortly after due to stress, or health deterioration as a direct result of the r*pe
This is the same conclusion I came to a while ago- the reality of xenogeneic diseases- but to me it sounds a lot like being afraid to fly planes because sometimes they crash. Even in Rule Utilitarianism it comes off as unnecessary. Regardless, I think we can all agree that bringing unnecessary suffering to another thing is immoral.
@@ronhoward121well the harm is always unnecessary because the act itself is unnecessary. The only question is is there any harm? If there is an act without consent then that is harm. If there is no way to demonstrate consent then we have to assume there is a risk of harm.
If you need a book to tell you that bestiality is wrong please don't bother talking to me about morality. Same goes for murder and rape. Thesists really set the moral bar low. Frankly, they scare me.
@@damon22441 ummm, forcing people or animals to do things they don’t want to through force, coercion or threats is not good. Like, objectively. Also, harming people or animal point blank, is wrong. Simple.
@@xXEGPXx Thanks for projecting what you wanted to see in my statement onto me. I literally just asked for his reasoning since he only stated "needing a book to hold you back doesn't make you moral [para]." Moron.
Is there a video somewhere where Matt discusses veganism or something? Did Matt make a bunch of vegans mad? It's weird to me how much of the comments section seems to be about that.
They have a pont in that consent is one of Matt's favourite concepts for arguing on issues of morality, and its quite easy to frame an argument showing that not being vegan violates the consent of animals. One could argue that consent of animals is not required the way it is for humans, but in this video Matt explicitly extends the consent requirement to animals, which makes the vegan questions a natural follow up.
It's more that he has never publicly (as far as i'm aware) made a reasonable argument why he isn't vegan or at least pro-vegan. He is a popular figure who talks about morals to a huge audience but hasn't given any justification why he believes it IS immoral to have sex with an animal for your own pleasure when you don't need to and don't have consent, but for some reason it ISN'T immoral to kill an animal for food for your own pleasure when you don't need to and don't have consent.
@@TestTestGoThat argument falls flat. It's just stupid. Not wanting excessive and unnecessary harm to befall your prey doesn't mean you can't still eat the damn thing. I don't want to watch chickens get set on fire, but as long as they're being given quick deaths I don't care about them dying. I used to hunt a lot as a kid, that teaches you how we're also just a part of this food chain, that we're animals too. By your same logic, shouldn't we ask ISIS soldiers if they consent to us killing them, even if they're actively shooting at us? Consent to sex isn't the same as consent to life. The day we stop being animals is the day is eating meat starts being immoral.
@@MrMking1991"When you don't need to" No, you absolutely do need to eat and you absolutely need protein. Tell me, is there enough alternate sources of protein that eight and a half billion humans could all stop eating meat tomorrow? The answer is no, that wouldn't work. So, until that day comes where either technology or production reaches that mark, there's zero logical reason to expect everyone to stop eating meat. That aside, your sexual pleasure is nothing, it isn't necessary to your survival in the slightest, says I, an asexual. Food however is something you have to have, so your pleasure in it isn't the same as sexual pleasure. Also, we just don't need to justify this in the first place. Who are you anyways? Why does anyone owe vegans some explanation of why they do anything? You have moral hangups with eating animals, we don't, it isn't more complicated than that. Here's another moral dilemma that you've never bothered to ponder, why are you okay with eating plants but not animals? Animals and plants are both organisms, they're both life. Plants also communicate with each other and even have signals for distress and pain. You don't consider that though, because you view them as so alien to us that they aren't really life in your eyes. What, just because watermelons aren't fluffy you think they deserve to die? In this way, you're also a hypocrite. At least the rest of us are willing to eat things regardless of what form of organism it is, instead of drawing a line at the ones that are more like us than the others.
@@NottherealLucifer your tone is incendiary and unhelpful. You're too emotionally invested in the issue to argue in a reasonable manner. I'm not a vegetarian or a vegan, but that doesn't stop me from thinking about the issue from their perspective. Some people posting in this comment section clearly think there is a conflict in Matts moral position. I am discussing where they might be seeing that conflict and ways one could argue around it. "That's a stupid argument" and "obviously my unsupported conclusion is correct" are not refutations and say a lot more about the value of your arguments than mine. If you want to engage in a constructive conversation, I would recommend you justify why its OK to kill and eat an animal, but not OK to have sex with one. Preferably in a dispassionate manner without insulting anyone. You assert that "not wanting excessive and unnecessary harm to befal your prey doesn't mean you can't eat them". Why is that true if your prey is most any animal, but if your prey were a human this whole scenario would be dreadfully imorral (as I assume you would agree). If there are things that you permit to be done to animals that you would not permit to be done to humans then there must be a moral distinction in your mind between humans and other animals, so saying "humans are just animals" is at best equivocation. Moraly you treat them differently.
In my opinion, Matt, these topics are, first and foremost, an attempt to distract, shift the burden of proof and/or to maneuver the topic of conversation to another topic or level. If that’s right, simply reply: Would you agree that a person's - a non-believer's, skeptic's, agnostic's, apistevists, or atheist's views are irrelevant to the validity of your personal god claim(s) and do not extricate you from your burden of proof to demonstrate either your specifically defined god, or some asserted holy text, is what you claim it is? If no, how do their views influence the validity of your personal god claim(s) and your burden of proof to demonstrate that either your specifically defined god, or some asserted holy text, is what you claim it is?
Furniture no. But it's inanimate so kind of redundant. Dolphins... well, strangely that's up for debate, but it seems Dolphins don't care about consent themselves in certain cases.
The problem there is, if we're talking about consent between animals, you have to use that for all animals and the interactions between other non-human animals. Do other carnivores get consent from their prey?
@@terrencelockett4072no you don’t. If animals don’t have higher brain functions, then it is impossible for them to comprehend consent, or even the sanctity of life, the way we can. That doesn’t excuse us from trying to respect the life and free will of other animals.
Hmmm consent, you say? I wonder when Matt will become the world's greatest vegan when he realises he has already been arguing for it for years. (Sensory pleasure and convenience not justifying immoral acts)
@@Mmmmilo If bestiality is wrong by virtue of an animal's bodily autonomy, why is slaughtering an animal not wrong by virtue of an animal's bodily autonomy?
@@ronhoward121 Bestiality is 1 animal, and 1 person; where the animal is pretty much tortured (and may in fact die due to health or mental deterioration after), for the supposed benefit of pleasure for the person. Meanwhile, with people eating meat, they (not always sadly), but are ideally put down with little to no pain (instantly), and are used to keep millions of people alive; considering eating is a necessity. On top of that, meat has plenty of vitamins and proteins that are unobtainable elsewhere that lead to a more healthy human body. They are not even in the same ballpark
@@apersonontheinternet8354 Your description of bestiality does not conform to every example of human/animal sexual expression, and you should probably be willing to admit that. You state the worst examples of one and claim the best examples of culling (when we know millions of animals are tortured for meat). So the question remains: is it torture that is wrong, or sexual interaction? If the latter, why is it wrong if the torture is absent? You've sidestepped the question: if bodily autonomy is Matt's justification, then it equally applies to torture AND non-torture culling. So Matt would have to agree that culling animals is morally wrong, at least all else being equal. Personally, I think he would just say that killing an animal IS wrong, but there are valid justifications in the pursuit of some of the goals you mentioned. Still, it's a speciesist view, which I think he would admit.
Matt u surprised me, I didn't think u would even touch the moral game cuz u didn't have too. But I get the practical reason why as it is more persuasive. But I dismissed this tweet easily by just saying, all beastiality is, is an interaction between a collection of molecules we call humans and a collection of molecules we call animals. Pretty much going this route that nothing can be truly objectively immoral or moral and all morality is, is a subjective human creation. Props for going the more persuasive route to the normal average joe tho. U killed it brother!
It is kinda sad and funny that informed consent comes up in this context but not in the context of keeping billions of animals in captivity all their lives and then torturing them to death just to enjoy their taste.
I was about to comment on this same topic. I’m not trying to argue or be obtuse here - I genuinely would like to know how one can object to beastiality on the grounds of consent, yet not hold the same objection to killing animals for enjoyment (whether sport or love of bacon) And let’s not devolve into the “stranded on a deserted island and have to kill to survive” scenario. I’m talking about in the western world in areas where one can easily obtain non-animal sources of sustenance. To me it seems inconsistent, but open to hear good faith discussion on the matter.
It’s true that there are plenty of people with trash diets who only eat meat for taste. But, to be fair, there are also plenty of health conscious people who eat meat for the nutritional benefits. If taste were the only factor, I would already be vegan. I did try going vegan for a few months and felt mentally and physically worse, so I went back to a diet with meat. If lab grown meat were already available and affordable, I would definitely be buying that instead of meat from animals.
Absolutely! I have heard stories of people who started with little or no knowledge but managed to emerge victorious thanks to Ana Graciela Blackwelder.
I raised 75k and Christina Ann Tucker is to be thanked. I got my self my dream car 🚗 just last weekend, My journey with her started after my best friend came back from New York and saw me suffering in dept then told me about her and how to change my life through her. Christina A. Tucker is the kind of person one needs in his or her life! I got a home, a good wife, and a beautiful daughter. Note: this is not a promotion but me trying to make a point that no matter what happens, always have faith and keep living!!!
I have a different reason why bestiallity is wrong for me. However, the consent seem to be cherrypicking, because we never ask for consent to take eggs of a chicken and nor slaughering an animal for food.
I like how things that are just generally bad ideas become a moral question to some people. It's like they conflate "a good majority of people wouldn't partake in this activity" to mean "activity morally bad." Most people aren't gonna eat festering roadkill, but it isn't because of morality. Most people aren't gonna have sex with a horse, but it isn't because it's immoral.
When I saw the title of the video I thought that would hear a stupid argument but since I've heard some really out there arguments it wouldn't be the stupidest. Then, I read the post with the argument and, literally, had to reread it because I didn't think that someone could actually present such a stupid argument. 😑
The interesting part about stipulating the same penalty for a man and a woman is that this means that any time it is not spelt out this way, the author intends the penalty or rule to only apply to the one it mentions and not both, the religious script gets a lot more sexist when that apologetic is gone.
The idea that morals can only come from God is (IMO) trivially refuted because they very naturally stem from the golden rule. That, incidentally applies to bestiality too when (lack of) consent is a consideration.
Recently saw a discussion with Alex O'Connor that talked about moral emotivism. It basically comes down to, when you're saying "X is wrong" what you're really saying is that "i dont think feel people should do X" or even simpler "Nay X". Under that moral framework, "bestiality is wrong" can easily be explained, even without all of Matt's points in the video
This is off topic. I was born 1957 and grew up watching old thriller pictures that were pretty much based on the same type of characters. Watching those images while growing up imposed a stereotype in my mind. Specifically speaking, Matt Dillahunty fits the stereotypical image of the mad scientist's minion egor. That character is the polar opposite in every manner except for appearance. Let me tell you that I love Mat; He's an inspiration. I just laugh at how many societal stereotypes that were portrayed which turned out to be absolutely antithetical to reality. For instance, Aron Ra would have been viewed as the classic criminal biker dude... Just saying, between Matt and Aron, I'm just blown away by these guys.
Don't let religious cultists call you an atheist. Tell them you are an antitheist. I am sick and tired of having their narrative taken as if it's the baseline.
It does amuse me that *any* time they find "something", it's more of a problem for *their* worldview than anything else. And, to no-one surprise: They are *very* keen on keeling people that question them. Like... SO weird how they can't defend their positions, and always goes for disposing of the opposition.
I think that bestiality laws should be based on animal harm, not on consent. It's true that an animal can't have the same level of understanding to give the same kind of consent we should expect from human to human interactions, but saying that animals can't consent at all is basically false, because this would mean that every time I pet a dog I'm violating his consent as he can't consent me to pet his head, even if he's begging me and wagging it's tail, and presenting me his belly.
If Drago was alive in 500BC: 1. Lightning comes from clouds. 2. The atheistic worldview cannot establish why lightning comes from clouds. 3. Therefore, the atheistic worldview cannot be true. So many hidden assumptions, so little time 😅
I agree with you on all points, but I do want to bring up a scenario to remind you (as I'm sure you've experienced these kinds of things many times before) of another "gotcha" they might feel they have against your consent argument. I was a hobbyist apologist once and know much of how they think as well. SCENARIO: what if an animal decides they want to, for instance, hump someone's leg, then the person gives THEIR consent instead of the other way around? Granted, with animals, I understand that they really have no idea of the concept of consent, and that it is tantamount to your point. But they might argue that if the animal is already in the act, it's given its implied consent. Implied or not, one cannot deny the actions of the animal nor can one deny it's what the animal actively wants and is doing regardless the motivation (as in perhaps: instinctual VS intellectual). Yes, this is a fairy-tale avenue to take. But do we really put it past them? I would also say that I assume that intellectual consent is what you mean when talking about consent (in general), and that animals simply can't do that, so bestiality is wrong because of that simply by default.
As for bestiality, animals seem to very poor at recognising species boundaries. I certainly have never been tempted by bestiality and believing it is wrong is kind of moot, as I have every expectation, that there is no serious political debate as whether it should be legal. It is an argument from consequences at best.
If we followed the From Nature argument, dolphins alone would show all manner of things is permissible. Great thing about being Mankind The Wise (The Wise) is we can assess suffering and formulate nuanced positions to minimize it.
@@damon22441Yes, we call ourselves wise. It is of course relative. I think we got rid of any cognitive competition. I think if we could get a second opinion it would be less flattering.
P1: Bestiality is wrong.
P2: Pythagoras' Theorem cannot establish why bestiality is wrong.
C1: Therefore, Pythagoras' Theorem cannot be true.
Checkmate, right-angled triangles.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Where was this argument when I was in middle school?
Winner 🏆
1.) Slavery is wrong.
2.) The Christian worldview not only cannot establish why slavery is wrong, it establishes that slavery is RIGHT or at least NOT wrong.
3.)Therefore the Christian worldview cannot be true.
Do I win anything?
Seriously this "argument" is a great example of both fractal wrongness and not even wrong.
The Christian worldview can absolutely account for why slavery is wrong. After all, YHWH and Jesus explicitly said it's wrong and explicitly made it illegal... Oh wait.
Slavery is Constitutional per the 13th Amendment.
1 is the premise, though if it is truly wrong is still a subjective interpretation. Some countries to this day have slaves but let's go by the common consensus as a reference and say most people think slavery is morally wrong.
2) according to Christianity (and it's father religion) slavery is acceptable and guidelines are given for it. It is directly mentioned in OT and NT as a given one must endure and never mentioned anything about it being immoral or something that should not be.
It definitely doesn't go against it. It endorses and continues it based on the old testament.
3) non sequitur fallacy. Even if we take premise at 1 as absolute, and the information at 2 as evidence to establish 1, we don't get to the conclusion in 3. It would at best be Christianity is morally wrong when it comes to slavery.
1. Beastiality is wrong.
2. Christianity can't establish WHY it is wrong. It just asserts that it is.
3. Hence Christianity is wrong.
The Christian worldview can account for why slavery is wrong, but that account is contradicted by the much more direct and explicit biblical account for slavery being not only right, but divinely mandated
Whenever anyone says ‘atheistic world view’ they’ve already lost the argument by demonstrating they have no idea what atheism means
Pretty sure it is synonymous with " reality " ?
Check out my comments in the main comment, tell me i am wrong that you and matt are just lost and hypocrites
Thanks
For me, whenever someone throws out an insult, or mocks someone for their comment, that person has already lost the argument. Matt throws out insults in every video. And let's not forget the rage quit he did against Andrew Wilson.
@@gozz7733 Seeing how wilson conceded the debate before inmediatly chaging it to other topic no one (not even the moderators) had accepted to debate about. It is hard to see how that was a "quit" there.
For me, whenever someone has to make believe about something that was literally captured on video, that person already lost the argument.
@@Julian0101 if anyone is in a debate, they present an argument to prove the other person wrong. Period. rage quitting is just that. Quitting. There is no reason to quit and walk out. I’ve been in countless debates in high school and college. I’m now on my 50’s. I’ve never rage quit a debate. And I’ve heard some crazy debates.
1) Slavery is immoral
2) God explicitly instructs how to obtain and own slaves
3) Therefore God is immoral
immoral according to who
@@toofargonemcoc according to humanism which holds human well being as the ideal for morality. It is objectively immoral under humanism, to go through with slavery.
@@apersonontheinternet8354 thats the dumbest shit i read. theres no ultimate authority in humanism apart from the human, so if a human decides something bad is okay, theres no authority to stop it.
humanism puts humans above all else, so whatever a human wants goes. theres no "rule book for humanism"
also saying humans are the ultimate authority is purely arbitrary and ad hoc. its also circular
@@toofargonemcoc At least humans exist
@@toofargonemcocIt's a premise
That's like saying quantum theory is false because it doesn't account for why people like ice cream.
Oh, but it does, it does. Did you not read Heisenberg's original dissertation which included the ice-cream corollary?
“Yes but if quantum theory cannot prove that 2+2 is 4 then ice cream cannot be explained in a universe bound by physics, therefore religion is true and therefore the Christian God is true. Balls in your court, atheists!”
But you can't prove it's not. Look at the trees🤣
@@sherlockholmes6990 You mean dessertation?
Like creationists claim that the theory of evolution is BS because it doesn't account for the origin(s) of life.
Anything that involves both the concepts of stupid and theism HAS to somehow involve Dinesh D'Souza.
Dinesh is pretty good politically. Same with a lot of the religious right. As long as they don’t mix them
@@Hscaper Yeah, that's why he went to prison for political crime. Are you on crack?
Nope, if someone's reasoning is faulty, it's faulty. There are no gods and capitalism is a world of 💩. Any questions?
@@Hscaper Dinesh is a dickhead of the 1st order. He thrives on mixing them up.
You forgot dishonesty.
after the classic "trees are a proof of God existence" i never thought someone would come up with a dumber argument... but here we are 🤦♂
Apologists are playing a game of limbo: How low can you go!
Trees ARE a proof or God's existence!!! See the beautiful leaf, how it shines in the sun. The leaf must have been made by God. GOD PROVEN
@@radscorpion8 yikes!!
@@radscorpion8Yes. Apollo is an amazing God.
@@radscorpion8 I know you're being sarcastic, but that pretty much sums it up.
Equally valid syllogism:
P1: The theory of plate tectonics is true.
P2: The theory of plate tectonics does not account for Jim Carrey.
C1: Jim Carrey doesn’t exist.
He might exist ... _but can he be true?_
Your argument is.... Ssssssssmokin'
Liar Liar.
I KNEW IT
Proof by contradiction:
P3: Jim Carrey does exist.
C2: Therefore, the theory of plate tectonics is false. Scientists lied to us!!!
Of course they forgot about consent, explains a lot about them really doesn't it.
If it wasn't for that one line in Leviticus, they would 100% be having sexual experiences with non-human animals as they claim they have "Dominion over" them. In fact, it would be straight-up zoosadism that we'd see since they wouldn't care about the suffering of the creature- no room for a nuanced position, just straight up blood cult behaviour.
After all, supposedly some ancient cultures accepted the seed from animals because they thought it would make their offspring strong with the aspects of the animal (bucks, wolves, etc), so if not for Lev I think this practice would still persist (modern science may prove it doesn't work like that, but that's why they just Believe it anyway).
@@damon22441
Or they would find some way to claim their Bible says it's bad, or just find a way to make up some excuses to why it didn't come from their doctrine. They can just use the same old excuse of, "it's written on our hearts" or something.
Well, their god clearly doesn't understand consent
@@ThEjOkErIsWiLd00He certainly didn't ask Mary when he cucked Joseph. He didn't even show up to accept he was the father; instead he got his wingman to go and tell Mary to leave town.
And 30 years later, when absentee dads usually come asking for money or something, and his bastard son called him for help, he STILL was nowhere to be seen. Top lad.
I would just point out that Under our societal definition of Informed Consent, animals cannot consent.
Just for the sake of the argument, why not?
@@WhiteScorpio2 I haven't watched the video yet... but I am going to assume the answer is that animals cannot be "informed."
@@DarthStuticus so eating touching owning animals is immoral now? It's not true. Animals can't just "not consent" they have no IDEA of the concept of "consent" this is a human construct. So no its not immoral. Bestiality by itself is amoral
@@kajekage9410 so how would you inform an animal to eat it or touch it?
@@WhiteScorpio2 They would highlight the "informed" requirement. Of course this means animals can never be informed of anything. Are instincts informed? When two animals follow their instincts to breed, does neither consent? Does it matter whether they do? If an animal is generally unable to be informed of anything, does its consent matter, inasmuch as a rock's consent matters? If no demonstrable harm is caused by an act and an animal shows no distress (or indeed, even shows positive behaviors), is the act wrong, considering the assumption that animals cannot be informed at all, ever?
Would petting a dog be a nonconsensual act and therefore wrong?
Bringing the pain, as usual. Thx Matt.
1. Some people enjoy listening to Coldplay.
2. The heliocentric model of the solar system cannot establish why some people enjoy listening to Coldplay.
3. Therefore, the heliocentric model cannot be true.
4. Therefore, the Earth is flat.
Check out my comments in the main comment, tell me i am wrong that you and matt are just lost and hypocrites
Thanks
@@freeyourmind7538 1. Your comment is not in the most recent nor the most popular.
2. You cannot account why if your argument is "not wrong" it is not in those categories.
3. Therefore you are the only one hүpo crit℮ here.
You are welcome.
Mat's attempt to justify things is fucking bizarre though.
Sex requires consent, so not getting consent from the animal before sex is worthy of a crime.
Ok, that could be right, but then he's ok with people Killing the animal and eating it. So killing and eating something requires LESS consent than Sex with the thing?
Wait a second, hold up, sometihng ain't right.
@@technomancermagus8357 you messaged in the wrong thread but correct, matts and his sheep are illogical, they cant stomach the trith, playing their word games again
@@freeyourmind7538It is way more complex than that regarding eating meat vis a vis beastiality. Matt didn’t give the full picture unfortunately.
Speeding is illegal. Atheism cannot account for the illegality of speeding. Therefore, Bestiality.
huh....I don't quite get that.....are you saying atheists are unable to say why they created a law to stop people from driving so fast that people more often get hurt?
@@skagenpige88 That would be an argument based on Humanism, not Athieism. Nothing about the lack of existence of a god says anything about the value of human life, or the morality of endangering it. Or the morality of anything.
If one accepts atheism, and wants to have a philosophically grounded system of morality, one must look to philosophies of ethics. Humanism is a popular one for the non-religious.
you had to go and ruin speeding for me!
I'm still trying to see why in Mat's world sex requires consent, which I agree with, but killing something and eating it doesn't require consent? How does that track?
@@technomancermagus8357 I can't speak for Matt, but to argue a distinction between the two scenarios I would focus on the benefit gained from the act, and whether it does or does not outweigh the costs.
Sex: benefit is purely pleasure for the actor.
Food: benefits include pleasure but also nutrition and health advantages, economic considerations, overall food and other products production capacity (some land is unsuitable for arrible farming but can be used to farm animals).
It could be reasonable to argue that because of the different benefits created by these two acts that they are not equivalent in the assessment of their morality. To take this view you would have to hold the position that the consent requirement is not absolute, but can be outweighed by sufficiently large benefits to be gained by violating it.
An example could be eminent domain. Generally you can't be kicked out of a house you own without your consent, but if the state needs that plot of land to build an airport there are processes they can go through to make that happen (with proper compensation of course). The benefits to everyone of having an airport outweigh your violated consent in this matter.
Perhaps Matt places a value on the consent of animals that is not zero, but is less than the value of consent of humans. That would allow some things to be done to animals that he would not tolerate if applied to humans, but would also give him a basis for disallowing some other things being done to both humans and animals.
Mat doesn’t have to defend non belief. It’s like arguing against the existence of wood fairies. But hey, if you think they’re real, enjoy. Just don’t try to make the government a theocracy. Yes. These religious zealots are off the wall.
Wood fairies are real though
Humanity has created some twisted stuff that's real. It makes you wish the fake stuff was real instead.
can men become women?
@@toofargonemcocyes, I made your dad a woman
@@toofargonemcoc ask someone who studied biology at university level, your question isn't even valid
**THANK YOU** for talking about animals not being able to consent! I've thought this for years and no one ever talks about this being the most important reason. Consent is *everything.*
What about when a dog humps you?
pretty crazy that so many religious people were getting kooky with their animals that their big book had to carve out a specific rule against it haha
The ancients were very sick mentally
It is also a False Dilemma, you can switch "atheistic world-view" with ANY other point of view, like Big Foot or The Jedi FORCE.
Therefore, it has been REFUTED.
Idk, I guess it depends on if the big foot believer wants to bang sasquatch 😆
Yeah, the argument context was clearly just an assertion that their religion makes and since you can't disprove a negative it wins by default, only the subject itself was a hot topic meant to turn heads. Actual window dressing for a tired and beaten-to-death nonargument.
@@damon22441 Well said.
Yes. The worst arguments against something are ones that would work with any premise.
*Here's a new syllogism refuting gravity:*
1. Bestiality is wrong.
2. The existence of gravity cannot establish why Bestiality is wrong.
3. Therefore, gravity cannot exist.
The only way the conclusion (3) can be false is if you disagree that bestiality is wrong (1), or if you believe that it can be established that it's objectively immoral for sex between two different species (2) under the presuppositions of gravity.
Are there any courageous gravity believers who want to attempt refuting either premise?
Because this is what you must be able to do in order to support the viability of your own worldview.
Good call Matt, worth presenting, maybe he'll actually think about it, who knows?
If an argument's structure is invalid, you can throw it out. No need to waste a second on the premises.
Yes, but why not use it as a learning tool for those not well versed in logic?
@@BMB57 Help them make the argument valid then show why the premises are false or at least not known to be true
This is exactly right. I could accept all the premises and just deny the conclusion and when they say the conclusion follows I just point out the importance of truth preservation with a VALID STRUCTURE. If you had actually given a formal argument then yeah I'd be committed to the conclusion, but since you think you can just throw random propositions out with no structure.... 😅
Yeah exactly what I thought about Atheism
Right. That would be like making someone recognize someone else as a man when u know they are a woman. Looney Tunes. Right?
The non-minotaur worldview cannot account for why adultery is wrong, so therefore the minotaur must exist.
Its always so silly when people think they can "refute" atheism. Atheism just means you arent convinced, the only possible way to refute it is to be a presuppositionalist and say that there are no people who don't believe in god. This is a profoundly stupid thing to do, so most people don't do it. But to then say that you debunked atheism is a complete blunder.
Well... there's also proving/demonstrating a god, but.... that one has a pretty poor track record.
Even, a presuppositionalist argument wouldn't refute atheism. It's not any better at refuting than if I said that I don't believe something someone says and they reply by saying "yes, you do".
@@a10miletooth". Even if a god was proven to everyone in the world, it wouldn't be refuting atheism. It would stop people being atheists, yes, but it wouldn't refute that they didn't believe in a god previously or that someone couldn't be born and not believe in a god later on.
What they usually mean is "refute deconversion", resp. to stay a believer. Sometimes they mean "refute the arguments for deconversion" or "refute the claim that there is no God"... or something totally different, which has nothing to do with atheism.
No atheism is confident that there is no god. Agnostic is not being sure
What absolutely kills me is that theism is the thing that can be used, through the function of faith, to believe anything someone wants. This type of argument where theists and apologists basically use the things they believe to show why the other side can't believe them is very strange to me. It reminds me of the "atheists believe that something came from nothing, so I can't believe that," when it is literally the theists who believe in ex nihilo! Broken brains if I have ever seen them.
Then they always seem to love to claim atheists are closed minded, while not even being able to see a perspective from outside of their own. A lot of their "problems", they seem to create for atheists is based on their perspectives not ours. Then it's almost always framed as something atheists have to believe based on their own perspectives. As atheists we might do that with some religious doctrine but it's not the same as telling someone what they're supposed to think based on your perspective vs trying to understand a religious doctrine on its own through your personal perspectives.
Check out my comments in the main comment, tell me i am wrong that you and matt are just lost and hypocrites
Thanks
@@freeyourmind7538 Your comment is really cute, but you are super confused. Have a good one!
The Big Bang is just creationism without god.
A simple response is to turn this exact argument back on Drago:
1. God doesn't exist
2. The theistic worldview cannot establish proof that God exists
3. Therefore, the theistic worldview cannot be true
Such beauty
I feel I'm dreaming.
I looked up Drago on Twitter and he found it a badge of honor you commented on his posting. He, of course, didn't admit you are correct. Guys like this never admit they could possibly be wrong in either theology or structure of their argument.
I believe I just found a link for him on Substack. I don't have access, but the link included the claim, "Free will can never be disproven." Which also sounds like a claim that he can see into the future.
@@rfwrenno need to see into the future to understand why this is necessarily the case
I think Matt is waaaaay too generous by calling this word salad an "argument."
You are helping my understanding of why I have always been an atheist despite a mildly religious upbringing. The moment you posed the argument I went straight to consent being the issue.
The struggle and desperation of religious people in the Information Age is shocking...Dunno how they can still push on.
I really appreciate these videos.
Even if we wanted to pretend that atheism is a worldview, the syllogism would still be incredibly flawed. If the proposed syllogism was properly re-written and re-structured as a proper argument, it would still be committing a formal fallacy, known as "denying the antecedent". Here's the re-write:
1. If atheism establishes bestiality as wrong, then it must be true.
2. Atheism does not establish bestiality as wrong.
3. Therefore, atheism must not be true.
1. If p, then q. (I don't have a mirrored "c" on my keyboard to properly denote the conditional symbol, and > isn't close enough)
2. ~p
3. ~q
That is literally a textbook invalid argument! Even if we wanted to pretend that both premises were completely true, the syllogism still would not support the conclusion.
As for the premises, lots of things are true that do not establish bestiality as wrong. Similarly, lots of things are false that DO establish bestiality as wrong. Therefore, premise one is faulty.
Premise 2 is faulty because atheism is not linked to bestiality in any way. This same syllogism could replace "atheism" with "McDonald's" or "salads" and make just as much sense.
Not that we need to pile on, but the proposed syllogism also commits an informal fallacy, a red herring. It attempts to divert attention from the validity/soundness of the arguer's position by appealing to a controversial or emotional topic... which is a subset of the red herring fallacy. So many levels of wrong to this...
P.S.- Wrote this up while the video was paused and I read the argument. Of course, after I did that Matt touched on most of this without doing the "technical" re-write and declaring the formal fallacy.
The intention is probably closer to:
1. If A is true, B is not wrong.
2. B is wrong.
3. Therefore, A is not true.
That is valid, but still the first premise doesn't hold, the poster alludes to objective morality which I think is incoherent, and the theist would probably have a hard time justifying the second premise without begging the question (by assuming their religion is true), appealing to emotion or just making it a bare assertion.
It's The Fallacy of the Converse, and it occurs a lot - e.g., in advertising. Here is a dumb, off the top of my head, example:
"1. If you're an atheist, then you're awful. 2. Joe Biden is awful. 3. Therefore, Joe Biden must (secretly) be an atheist."
From the opening garbled invalid syllogism rhe FIRST thing came to my mind is CONSENT.
Totally agree Matt. Great video
Nevermind the fact that depending on species, one could end up killing the animal or getting killed by said animal....
The Bible doesn't even care about consent. So you are more moral than the Bible.
I'm giving this a like before it begins. The Line always deserves it.
This isn't the line its the atheist debate project
@carriehallahan5568 Omfg, liking a video doesn't mean you agree with it...
@carriehallahan5568they could agree more with someone who doesn’t have a platform but because matt has one and is closest to their view, that’s good enough
@carriehallahan5568 okay
Chill, people. Sometimes engagement is simply engagement. I'm sure Matt doesn't mind any infirmity he,or you, might find in my sentence.
P1: Bestiality is Wrong
P2: The Pythagorean Theorem cannot establish why bestiality is wrong
Conclusion: The Pythagorean Theorem is incorrect
Goddamn you!
My roof just collapsed because of it's triangular structure.
@@loki6626😂😂😂😂😂😂
Good grief this is a train wreck of a syllogism. I could fix it and make a valid pair of arguments from it, but that only highlights how unsound it would be. It's like playing a chesss game against a complete beginner and the guy makes a bunch of moves that are impressively illegal AND terrible at the same time! White plays Queen to a6 on move 1.
Aha, checkmate! Red won.
😂
Thank you, Matt. Every time I listen to you, I learn so much. This was exceptional.
Thank you so incredibly much Matt, I get exasperated when theists resort to these kinds of attacks on nonbelievers, but have difficulty finding and articulating the flaws in their arguments, to have you demonstrate this makes this video indispensable towards the progress of humanity.
Daniel! That was the most dishonest and disgusting debate I ever watched. The fact that he is still allowed on that platform turned me off all debates they presented.
I can see this guy dunking on his nerf hoop after thinking of this. He probably thought it was the cleverest thing in the world.
He read it to his Sunday school. And the whole room clapped. 👏
The tactic Sye used during that debate was, first and foremost, Shifting the Burden of Proof-full stop.
how do you know 😉
You earned a subscriber this day my friend, from a fellow atheist.
Outstanding Matt! Thank you!
I love this topic. The argument this guy makes is obviously just a reskin of the same, tired one refuted endlessly.
I think it's a great whetting stone to churn ideas around bestiality.
The religious arguments are easily dismissed, but thinking around it in various philosophies, I think, can either reveal something about the philosophy or what you thought you understood.
This particular subject is great because so many people hold the default value (immoral) uncritically, and it's never helpful to hold ideas uncriticized. Know the reasons why you think things, challenge those reasons every opportunity you get, refine an ultimate understanding (nuanced, necessarily).
Well said.
For some reason morality is tied to a powerfull individual that has no reason to gives account of what he does with us
And they expect us to believe. Their God
Be cause otherwise you go to hell or you get Armageddon.
Just dumb reasoning.
Yet he is all loving and all caring.
@@AgnesBooth-zu7tw Like I said, the religious arguments are easily dismissed. At this point, I consider every argument for/from a religious point of view low-hanging fruit, thanks to the sheer amount of data/evidence we have now. Big thanks to the scientists in their fields for chipping away at our shackles.
Wow, this
argument is from my compatriot...
On behalf of all intelligent people in Bulgaria, I sincerely apologize for the existence of this individual!😂😂😂
Funny
There was this Mexican guy who smuggle a bottle of liquor into Qatar
And the secretary of external relations Marcelo Ebrad.
Said and I quote
He doesn't represent our country. (not speaking of moral values)
You can see the irony here.
The gulty man is mexican regardless of what he did.
He does represent a portion of our country but not our values.
You have to keep in mind, a lot of these people are the types that think "informed, enthusiastic consent" means two adults signing a literal contract before having sex, or speaking like robots authorizing consent. Just tremendously, deeply unserious people.
@@Xbob42 What? That's literally you guys. Didn't California pass a law that says drunk sex is not considered consentual?
I wonder if Mat believe that killing and eating somebody requires consent but by his logic with the animal argument he does not as he does not feel that do so should be a crime.
@@John-nv5zy Technically if two people are drunk and have sex under that sort of law, but should be charged with a crime, but that's not how it works.
@@technomancermagus8357
How can two people who are to drunk to give consent or resist advances, have sex? I'm pretty sure it's illeagel to take advantage of a blackout drunk person in any state isnt it?
@@JamesMorgan-ne8qu Sure, but I've seen people who were black out drunk, and were able to physically have sex. The law seems, in those cases, to assume the man is a rapist even if they are both equally drunk.
They're so tiring in their smug, self-satisfied, uninformed arguments.
I haven’t watched your content in a long time. I love the beard
1:40. Matt nailed it again, (as usual) and there is really no need to watch further. Just more evidence that social media outspoken religious defenders are stupid.
My issue is the second point. Why choose "bestiality"? Why not "murder"? Can Atheism establish why murder is wrong?
It's just a stupid argument any way you see it.
Excellent point.
Because the subject itself does not matter and the core argument is the same exact circular one where "Religion proclaims A, you can't prove not A, therefore Religion right."
He chose screwin' the pooch because it's incendiary.
Synthetically, murder is wrong. It's part of the definition. Whether God exists or not is irrelevant. Just like the existence of God is irrelevant to "married bachelor" being a contradiction.
Yeah it doesn't need to have anything to do with bestiality. It's the old morality argument.
And yes, it's circular. The first premise depends on the conclusion being true.
And the bible is full of death
The people of Jericho were eliminated
Every single individual including animals.
Only the material stuff was left standing.
Because it was their promise land.
It's horrible.
God encourage it and allow it.
Hmmm...
1) Murder is wrong.
2) Belief in the existence of cheese cannot explain why murder is wrong.
3) Therefore, cheese must not exist.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. If this is your impression of his argument then you did not understand
@@BFizzi719 is that you Kent Hovind?
You have way more patience than me, Matt. I'd have been tempted to respond 'You need to demonstrate your first premise, not just assert it. You have not done so, therefore you have no argument.'
You're doing human's work, Matt!
I bless you.
WE NEED
matt dillahunty on Joe Rogan & Shawn Ryan show
Rogan is a fucking coward, he'd never do it.
Why? Joe Rogan is a credulous moron who believes whatever anyone tells him. He is the opposite of a skeptic in every way.
Yes
I used to watch Matt Welsh
But after he said video games were bad without providing further context and reasoning, I stop watching him.
WE NEED
God to save us from calamity named world war 3
In the 21st century and many centuries in the past, religion was a waste of time. It set us back for at least 1000 years!
We see it in america... they enter the medieval times... shit we dealed with hundreds of years ago in europe
Atheism is a statement on one, and only one thing. Belief in a deity. It doesn't say anything else is okay, or not okay. Secular morality would.
Prediction we are going to start hearing this argument as support for the moral argument on the call in shows within a month
Actual 'argument' offered to me before.
"Atheism is wrong because its stupid."
That was it.
Nice. Who would name their kid Atheist though....
@@jcldctt I would agree that believing in things that are aren't true is an act of stupidity, but are you saying that Atheism is believing in things that aren't true?
@@bodricthered Ha!
@@jcldctt that is not science. Science does not determine what is true, it only shows what seems true based on our most current information.
@@jcldctt I can agree with that statement, though your earlier one I did not agree with.
1. Bestiality is wrong. 2. Cosmology cannot establish why bestiality is wrong. 3. Therefore, Cosmology cannot be true. That is also an invalid structure, but I skipped that part to mimic the argument better. The argument is still wrong and invalid and proves absolutely nothing about either bestiality or cosmology! Sometimes it feels like humanity is becoming more stupid by the day. Religion leads people to believe nonsensical things.
*1.)* All fish live underwater.
*2.)* All mackerel are fish.
*Conclusion:* If Drago buys kippers, it will not rain.
...
Atheism is a position on a single proposition: That god(s) exist(s). Full stop.
Anything else Drago wants to talk about is strictly *_outside_* the scope of support.
Atheism is not a belief system or system of morality.
D@mn good video. Well done.
00:15 No. What's stupid is you having to censor yourself because of words. Because TH-cam doesn't want words being used to talk about subjects. I know that sounds silly but that's it in a nutshell. I can't even type certain words on here, without misspelling them, for fear of my comment being flagged.
I'm sorry to say that I just found you today through videos of your dialogue with Jordan Peterson and have subscribed to the multiple channels you are on. I've been an Agnostic Atheist the majority of my life simply because I'd like to think I am fairly reasonable and logical and have a decent grasp of Christianity's history through a great deal of reading. ie "The First Council of Nicaea." I lean towards actually documented written historical record from more than one source. I have thought the bible was a batshit crazy book since my parents sent me to a private Christian school for the 3rd grade. When all is said and done, especially after 50 years of life on this Earth, I simply and wholeheartedly reject anything or anyone which requires me to bow down and worship them or it.
Another problem: atheism is a personal and individual position on a subject, but morality rules are defined by communities and societies. Whether you find bestiality good or bad is irrelevant. Your community has a position that is established in laws and traditions. In this argument, apples are compared to oranges. A personal belief is supposed to be comparable with the rules and traditions of a community.
Let's look at the case of underage children marrying older people. I can have the opinion that everyone, including minors, should have freedom of choice, or the opinion that the older person should be jailed. But this action is moral, immoral, legal, illegal, ethical, or unethical mostly because of the laws and traditions of your community.
In addition to consent, the fact that it exposes the person and the animal to actual biological danger and suffering. I feel like we should add this just in case someone asserts they did have consent somehow lol
How does it expose them to biological danger and suffering? Necessarily? This sounds like the argument against homosexuality that anal sex is 'dangerous'.
@@ronhoward121 There have been many cases of bestiality, and the animals have died shortly after due to stress, or health deterioration as a direct result of the r*pe
This is the same conclusion I came to a while ago- the reality of xenogeneic diseases- but to me it sounds a lot like being afraid to fly planes because sometimes they crash. Even in Rule Utilitarianism it comes off as unnecessary.
Regardless, I think we can all agree that bringing unnecessary suffering to another thing is immoral.
@@damon22441 And so if the human/animal interaction doesn't bring unnecessary harm, is it moral?
@@ronhoward121well the harm is always unnecessary because the act itself is unnecessary. The only question is is there any harm?
If there is an act without consent then that is harm. If there is no way to demonstrate consent then we have to assume there is a risk of harm.
If you need a book to tell you that bestiality is wrong please don't bother talking to me about morality. Same goes for murder and rape. Thesists really set the moral bar low. Frankly, they scare me.
So, what tells you it's wrong?
@@damon22441 Logic, which is the reason you think its ok, because you have none
@@damon22441 ummm, forcing people or animals to do things they don’t want to through force, coercion or threats is not good. Like, objectively. Also, harming people or animal point blank, is wrong. Simple.
@@xXEGPXx Thanks for projecting what you wanted to see in my statement onto me. I literally just asked for his reasoning since he only stated "needing a book to hold you back doesn't make you moral [para]."
Moron.
@@giannaleng1897 No shit, that wasn't even what I asked OP about. See above.
If bestiality is wrong because the animal can't consent, wouldn't that make killing an animal for meat murder?
@@bape890 nope. Murder is a legal concept. You might make the case that it's immoral, but that doesn't make it murder.
Like mat said, legality froms from the sphere of society perspective , morality even tho its attached its another subject
Thank you Matt. You’re the man.
I thought Becky Lynch was the man silly me
@@andyferari6478 wow you must have a lot of free time. Ask Jesus to bless you with something better to do than dig through youtube comments!
@@mapache_del_sur I am blessed with life from god and I thank him for every moment unlike you or Jesus
@@andyferari6478bro that was a super sick burn. I think I’m gonna need a burn unit, intensive care and a trauma center!
@@mapache_del_sur you will be when the devil comes knocking
Is there a video somewhere where Matt discusses veganism or something? Did Matt make a bunch of vegans mad? It's weird to me how much of the comments section seems to be about that.
They have a pont in that consent is one of Matt's favourite concepts for arguing on issues of morality, and its quite easy to frame an argument showing that not being vegan violates the consent of animals.
One could argue that consent of animals is not required the way it is for humans, but in this video Matt explicitly extends the consent requirement to animals, which makes the vegan questions a natural follow up.
It's more that he has never publicly (as far as i'm aware) made a reasonable argument why he isn't vegan or at least pro-vegan.
He is a popular figure who talks about morals to a huge audience but hasn't given any justification why he believes it IS immoral to have sex with an animal for your own pleasure when you don't need to and don't have consent, but for some reason it ISN'T immoral to kill an animal for food for your own pleasure when you don't need to and don't have consent.
@@TestTestGoThat argument falls flat. It's just stupid. Not wanting excessive and unnecessary harm to befall your prey doesn't mean you can't still eat the damn thing. I don't want to watch chickens get set on fire, but as long as they're being given quick deaths I don't care about them dying. I used to hunt a lot as a kid, that teaches you how we're also just a part of this food chain, that we're animals too. By your same logic, shouldn't we ask ISIS soldiers if they consent to us killing them, even if they're actively shooting at us? Consent to sex isn't the same as consent to life. The day we stop being animals is the day is eating meat starts being immoral.
@@MrMking1991"When you don't need to" No, you absolutely do need to eat and you absolutely need protein. Tell me, is there enough alternate sources of protein that eight and a half billion humans could all stop eating meat tomorrow?
The answer is no, that wouldn't work. So, until that day comes where either technology or production reaches that mark, there's zero logical reason to expect everyone to stop eating meat. That aside, your sexual pleasure is nothing, it isn't necessary to your survival in the slightest, says I, an asexual. Food however is something you have to have, so your pleasure in it isn't the same as sexual pleasure.
Also, we just don't need to justify this in the first place. Who are you anyways? Why does anyone owe vegans some explanation of why they do anything? You have moral hangups with eating animals, we don't, it isn't more complicated than that.
Here's another moral dilemma that you've never bothered to ponder, why are you okay with eating plants but not animals? Animals and plants are both organisms, they're both life. Plants also communicate with each other and even have signals for distress and pain. You don't consider that though, because you view them as so alien to us that they aren't really life in your eyes. What, just because watermelons aren't fluffy you think they deserve to die? In this way, you're also a hypocrite. At least the rest of us are willing to eat things regardless of what form of organism it is, instead of drawing a line at the ones that are more like us than the others.
@@NottherealLucifer your tone is incendiary and unhelpful. You're too emotionally invested in the issue to argue in a reasonable manner.
I'm not a vegetarian or a vegan, but that doesn't stop me from thinking about the issue from their perspective. Some people posting in this comment section clearly think there is a conflict in Matts moral position. I am discussing where they might be seeing that conflict and ways one could argue around it.
"That's a stupid argument" and "obviously my unsupported conclusion is correct" are not refutations and say a lot more about the value of your arguments than mine.
If you want to engage in a constructive conversation, I would recommend you justify why its OK to kill and eat an animal, but not OK to have sex with one. Preferably in a dispassionate manner without insulting anyone.
You assert that "not wanting excessive and unnecessary harm to befal your prey doesn't mean you can't eat them". Why is that true if your prey is most any animal, but if your prey were a human this whole scenario would be dreadfully imorral (as I assume you would agree).
If there are things that you permit to be done to animals that you would not permit to be done to humans then there must be a moral distinction in your mind between humans and other animals, so saying "humans are just animals" is at best equivocation. Moraly you treat them differently.
In my opinion, Matt, these topics are, first and foremost, an attempt to distract, shift the burden of proof and/or to maneuver the topic of conversation to another topic or level.
If that’s right, simply reply:
Would you agree that a person's - a non-believer's, skeptic's, agnostic's, apistevists, or atheist's views are irrelevant to the validity of your personal god claim(s) and do not extricate you from your burden of proof to demonstrate either your specifically defined god, or some asserted holy text, is what you claim it is?
If no, how do their views influence the validity of your personal god claim(s) and your burden of proof to demonstrate that either your specifically defined god, or some asserted holy text, is what you claim it is?
"...if you can establish that It's objectively immoral to have sex between two different species..." Um, where does that leave Mules and Ligers?
Nature is Amoral.
@@damon22441 No! Ligers are ABOMINATION tigons are cool though
my mind went to if/when we find aliens with that
@@damon22441 Ligers are an abonmination! tigons are cool though
@@damon22441 I would say that morality is is an emergent property of brains, therefore a part of nature.
100% battery charge on the quote. Serious flex from Matt 💪🏼
More and more and more human beings need to watch and listen to this.
To Matt? This dude is convinced his husband isn’t ghay.
Can furniture give consent? What about dolphins? As a childless cat lady, I need to know.
I don't know about all of that but I do know that cats can give cat scent.
Furniture no. But it's inanimate so kind of redundant. Dolphins... well, strangely that's up for debate, but it seems Dolphins don't care about consent themselves in certain cases.
@@drrickmarshall1191 It was a jab at JD Vance ;)
@@00dfm00 Ah, thanks for the explanation. Can't say I'm familiar with the reference, but I'm sure it's well placed.
@@AquaPeet
I didn't have had such a healthy laugh since a long time ago... Thank you, kind stranger!
Consent?
Okay.
That is an argument for radical veganism if I ever saw one.
That's actually an interesting point. We're all hypocrites in some way.
Nothing radical about veganism, but indeed, be vegan
The problem there is, if we're talking about consent between animals, you have to use that for all animals and the interactions between other non-human animals. Do other carnivores get consent from their prey?
I always ask for consent before I bite my Apple
@@terrencelockett4072no you don’t. If animals don’t have higher brain functions, then it is impossible for them to comprehend consent, or even the sanctity of life, the way we can. That doesn’t excuse us from trying to respect the life and free will of other animals.
Hmmm consent, you say? I wonder when Matt will become the world's greatest vegan when he realises he has already been arguing for it for years.
(Sensory pleasure and convenience not justifying immoral acts)
This is a bad take and you should feel bad.
@@Mmmmilo If bestiality is wrong by virtue of an animal's bodily autonomy, why is slaughtering an animal not wrong by virtue of an animal's bodily autonomy?
@@ronhoward121 these people dont think
@@ronhoward121 Bestiality is 1 animal, and 1 person; where the animal is pretty much tortured (and may in fact die due to health or mental deterioration after), for the supposed benefit of pleasure for the person. Meanwhile, with people eating meat, they (not always sadly), but are ideally put down with little to no pain (instantly), and are used to keep millions of people alive; considering eating is a necessity. On top of that, meat has plenty of vitamins and proteins that are unobtainable elsewhere that lead to a more healthy human body.
They are not even in the same ballpark
@@apersonontheinternet8354 Your description of bestiality does not conform to every example of human/animal sexual expression, and you should probably be willing to admit that. You state the worst examples of one and claim the best examples of culling (when we know millions of animals are tortured for meat).
So the question remains: is it torture that is wrong, or sexual interaction? If the latter, why is it wrong if the torture is absent? You've sidestepped the question: if bodily autonomy is Matt's justification, then it equally applies to torture AND non-torture culling. So Matt would have to agree that culling animals is morally wrong, at least all else being equal. Personally, I think he would just say that killing an animal IS wrong, but there are valid justifications in the pursuit of some of the goals you mentioned. Still, it's a speciesist view, which I think he would admit.
My only difference from Matt's stated position would be that the penalty should be 200 hours of community service per incident.
Matt u surprised me, I didn't think u would even touch the moral game cuz u didn't have too. But I get the practical reason why as it is more persuasive. But I dismissed this tweet easily by just saying, all beastiality is, is an interaction between a collection of molecules we call humans and a collection of molecules we call animals. Pretty much going this route that nothing can be truly objectively immoral or moral and all morality is, is a subjective human creation. Props for going the more persuasive route to the normal average joe tho. U killed it brother!
It is kinda sad and funny that informed consent comes up in this context but not in the context of keeping billions of animals in captivity all their lives and then torturing them to death just to enjoy their taste.
I was about to comment on this same topic. I’m not trying to argue or be obtuse here - I genuinely would like to know how one can object to beastiality on the grounds of consent, yet not hold the same objection to killing animals for enjoyment (whether sport or love of bacon)
And let’s not devolve into the “stranded on a deserted island and have to kill to survive” scenario. I’m talking about in the western world in areas where one can easily obtain non-animal sources of sustenance. To me it seems inconsistent, but open to hear good faith discussion on the matter.
Same here
It’s true that there are plenty of people with trash diets who only eat meat for taste. But, to be fair, there are also plenty of health conscious people who eat meat for the nutritional benefits. If taste were the only factor, I would already be vegan. I did try going vegan for a few months and felt mentally and physically worse, so I went back to a diet with meat. If lab grown meat were already available and affordable, I would definitely be buying that instead of meat from animals.
@@alann4598 what nutrients do you think you get from meat that you can't get from any plant?
@@alann4598 do you literally have to eat meat 3 times a day every day? Because that’s how most westerners live.
Hallelujah!!! I’m favored and blessed with $60,000 every week! Now I can afford anything and also support the work of God and the church.
Oh really? Tell me more!
This is what Ana Graciela Blackwelder does, she has changed my life.
After raising up to 60k trading with her, I bought a new house and car here in the US and also paid for my son’s (Oscar) surgery. Glory to God.shalom.
I know Ana Graciela Blackwelder, and I have also had success...
Absolutely! I have heard stories of people who started with little or no knowledge but managed to emerge victorious thanks to Ana Graciela Blackwelder.
I'm favoured, $60K every week! I can now give back to the locals in my community and also support God's work and the church. God bless America❤❤❤
I'm inspired.
Please spill some sugar about the bi-weekly stuff you mentioned.
I raised 75k and Christina Ann Tucker is to be thanked. I got my self my dream car 🚗 just last weekend, My journey with her started after my best friend came back from New York and saw me suffering in dept then told me about her and how to change my life through her. Christina A. Tucker is the kind of person one needs in his or her life! I got a home, a good wife, and a beautiful daughter. Note: this is not a promotion but me trying to make a point that no matter what happens, always have faith and keep living!!!
I started with a miserly $1500. The results have been mind blowing I must say TBH
How can someone get connection to that woman y'all speaking bout !!?
There is her line!!!! under this comment!!!!👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻🔁 Put the digits together.
Yes this one is a bad one. Way to argue it Matt!
Believers should be angry at Drago, because the level of stupidity displayed in his 'argument' would surely make the baby Jesus cry.
I have a different reason why bestiallity is wrong for me. However, the consent seem to be cherrypicking, because we never ask for consent to take eggs of a chicken and nor slaughering an animal for food.
I like how things that are just generally bad ideas become a moral question to some people. It's like they conflate "a good majority of people wouldn't partake in this activity" to mean "activity morally bad." Most people aren't gonna eat festering roadkill, but it isn't because of morality. Most people aren't gonna have sex with a horse, but it isn't because it's immoral.
When I saw the title of the video I thought that would hear a stupid argument but since I've heard some really out there arguments it wouldn't be the stupidest. Then, I read the post with the argument and, literally, had to reread it because I didn't think that someone could actually present such a stupid argument. 😑
The interesting part about stipulating the same penalty for a man and a woman is that this means that any time it is not spelt out this way, the author intends the penalty or rule to only apply to the one it mentions and not both, the religious script gets a lot more sexist when that apologetic is gone.
The idea that morals can only come from God is (IMO) trivially refuted because they very naturally stem from the golden rule. That, incidentally applies to bestiality too when (lack of) consent is a consideration.
Recently saw a discussion with Alex O'Connor that talked about moral emotivism. It basically comes down to, when you're saying "X is wrong" what you're really saying is that "i dont think feel people should do X" or even simpler "Nay X". Under that moral framework, "bestiality is wrong" can easily be explained, even without all of Matt's points in the video
Oh shit it's almost like people don't need a book written by dead farmers to unanimously agree something is right or wrong
This is off topic. I was born 1957 and grew up watching old thriller pictures that were pretty much based on the same type of characters. Watching those images while growing up imposed a stereotype in my mind. Specifically speaking, Matt Dillahunty fits the stereotypical image of the mad scientist's minion egor. That character is the polar opposite in every manner except for appearance. Let me tell you that I love Mat; He's an inspiration. I just laugh at how many societal stereotypes that were portrayed which turned out to be absolutely antithetical to reality. For instance, Aron Ra would have been viewed as the classic criminal biker dude... Just saying, between Matt and Aron, I'm just blown away by these guys.
Trigonometry cannot establish why bestiality is wrong.
That conclusion is like a slap in the face
Don't let religious cultists call you an atheist.
Tell them you are an antitheist.
I am sick and tired of having their narrative taken as if it's the baseline.
Strangely I have this random urge to go to New Mexico and West Virginia... no reason...
It does amuse me that *any* time they find "something", it's more of a problem for *their* worldview than anything else. And, to no-one surprise: They are *very* keen on keeling people that question them. Like... SO weird how they can't defend their positions, and always goes for disposing of the opposition.
I think our instinct is to consider wrong whatever creates repulsion in us.
God, you still got it Matt!
I think that bestiality laws should be based on animal harm, not on consent. It's true that an animal can't have the same level of understanding to give the same kind of consent we should expect from human to human interactions, but saying that animals can't consent at all is basically false, because this would mean that every time I pet a dog I'm violating his consent as he can't consent me to pet his head, even if he's begging me and wagging it's tail, and presenting me his belly.
Whats your opinion on Dr. Ammon Hillman with his translations of the new testoment??? Great content for a video.
If Drago was alive in 500BC:
1. Lightning comes from clouds.
2. The atheistic worldview cannot establish why lightning comes from clouds.
3. Therefore, the atheistic worldview cannot be true.
So many hidden assumptions, so little time 😅
I agree with you on all points, but I do want to bring up a scenario to remind you (as I'm sure you've experienced these kinds of things many times before) of another "gotcha" they might feel they have against your consent argument. I was a hobbyist apologist once and know much of how they think as well.
SCENARIO: what if an animal decides they want to, for instance, hump someone's leg, then the person gives THEIR consent instead of the other way around? Granted, with animals, I understand that they really have no idea of the concept of consent, and that it is tantamount to your point. But they might argue that if the animal is already in the act, it's given its implied consent. Implied or not, one cannot deny the actions of the animal nor can one deny it's what the animal actively wants and is doing regardless the motivation (as in perhaps: instinctual VS intellectual). Yes, this is a fairy-tale avenue to take. But do we really put it past them? I would also say that I assume that intellectual consent is what you mean when talking about consent (in general), and that animals simply can't do that, so bestiality is wrong because of that simply by default.
This guy is not just on top of Mount Stupid, he's floating in a high-altitude balloon far above it.
As for bestiality, animals seem to very poor at recognising species boundaries.
I certainly have never been tempted by bestiality and believing it is wrong is kind of moot, as I have every expectation, that there is no serious political debate as whether it should be legal.
It is an argument from consequences at best.
If we followed the From Nature argument, dolphins alone would show all manner of things is permissible.
Great thing about being Mankind The Wise (The Wise) is we can assess suffering and formulate nuanced positions to minimize it.
@@damon22441Yes, we call ourselves wise. It is of course relative. I think we got rid of any cognitive competition.
I think if we could get a second opinion it would be less flattering.