monkeyboy & Dawn on Theism/Abortion | TikTok Live!

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 พ.ย. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 45

  • @davec-1378
    @davec-1378 หลายเดือนก่อน +9

    My new favorite modal scope!
    “Noma noma logical”

    • @jimothy9943
      @jimothy9943 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Necronomiconological

    • @dr.h8r
      @dr.h8r หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Necrological 💀

  • @HumblyQuestioning
    @HumblyQuestioning หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    1:13:58 "what's dna" 🤣🤣🤣 oh man the US education system is sad

  • @UltraViolet-pb9nw
    @UltraViolet-pb9nw หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    Sophist Dawn Marxist + Sophist Ann ☕️🌱 is a diabolical sophistry combo.

    • @jmike2039
      @jmike2039 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Don't let dawn forget it either

  • @peterrizzo6336
    @peterrizzo6336 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    Leo didn't apply FLO in the best way, that's why monkeyboy got him on sperm.

  • @Leg-locky
    @Leg-locky หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Mari convo was hilarious…good content

  • @tuav
    @tuav หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Hey bro i hope all is well.
    Just out of curiosity, what made you start defending the pro-choice stance?

    • @darth_mb
      @darth_mb  หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@tuav friends debate abortion and wanted me to debate it so I got into it.

  • @flurry1337
    @flurry1337 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Lol just noticed the nuclear bomb in his definition: human= egg+ sperm. This means Jesus wasn’t human since there was no sperm😂🙈

    • @darth_mb
      @darth_mb  หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@flurry1337 nice catch lol

  • @benroberts2222
    @benroberts2222 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Regarding abortion: you could object to the idea that a fetus has a particular future psychological profile because of the potential for it to develop into identical twins

    • @darth_mb
      @darth_mb  หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@benroberts2222 how does that take away from its potential psychological profile?

    • @benroberts2222
      @benroberts2222 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@darth_mb a rough argument:
      - a zygote has the potential to develop into identical twins and the potential to develop into a single person
      - each twin would have a distinct, particular psychological profile
      - in the single person case, the zygote would develop into one single psychological profile
      => the psychological profiles in existence are different under each outcome, so there is not one particular psychological profile the fetus has the potential to be. It appears to have the potential to be at least two, and both don't have to be actualized.
      The argument would need some massaging to deal with determinist objections, my strategy there would be to argue that some compatibilist choice the mother makes could influence the gestational environment which could alter fetal development.
      And I don't think this is the only way that a fetus can develop different psychological profiles it's just an easier case to argue for

    • @pika_speed
      @pika_speed หลายเดือนก่อน

      ​@@benroberts2222 That's only for the first two weeks, yeah?

    • @benroberts2222
      @benroberts2222 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@pika_speed I'm just objecting here to the idea that a fertilized egg is headed for a particular psychological profile (a self I think). I personally don't think there's ever a time when you're guaranteed that a particular future self will arise but I don't know how to argue for that in the general case; basically that ongoing environmental factors in our development play a large role in who we are

    • @pika_speed
      @pika_speed หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@benroberts2222 I just meant that the splitting thing can only happen for the first two weeks

  • @Mezzz7
    @Mezzz7 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    OMG MONKEYBOY FACE REVEAL

    • @darth_mb
      @darth_mb  หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      @@Mezzz7 yeah my 73 face reveal goes hard!

  • @FlencerMcflensington
    @FlencerMcflensington หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Y’all are so mean! Good job on abortion. Second guy, Dawn was hilarious…and mean lol😂

    • @darth_mb
      @darth_mb  หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@FlencerMcflensington Dawn is a sophist so don't expect him to be charitable or intellectually honest 🤰

  • @odinallfarther6038
    @odinallfarther6038 หลายเดือนก่อน

    There are many lectures on TH-cam , keep your bar high . Take notes the notes are not ment to be read , read your notes occasionally as you revise or reread re/listen to the material . Listen to or read more than once with a gap between rereading/listening . Note taking / diagrams what ever, has a multitude of benefits .

    • @darth_mb
      @darth_mb  หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@odinallfarther6038 ?

  • @daniellance8716
    @daniellance8716 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    can anyone reference some books or another means that I can acquire more knowledge about philosophy and logic? it’s hard to track the conversation for me right now.

    • @darth_mb
      @darth_mb  หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@daniellance8716 just read SEP for general phil. Russell Marcus has a logic textbook you could check out. Friend named Kane Baker(mentioned in video) is a PhD on TH-cam, has a channel talking about philosophy that can be helpful.

    • @daniellance8716
      @daniellance8716 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@darth_mb thank you i’ll read up on that

    • @tuav
      @tuav หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      SEP and IEP are probably the fastest way to catch up. Just search up the topics you'd want to learn and all on those sites.
      When it comes to books, I'd recommend:
      Knowledge, Reality, and Value by Michael Huemer is good for an intro. to philosophy.
      For a start on abortion, Dialogues on Abortion by Bertha Manninen is recommended.
      The best book defending the pro-choice position imo is The Ethics of Killing by Jeff McMahan
      The best book defending or overviewing the pro-life position is The Ethics of Abortion by Christopher Kaczor
      And for theism and atheism, I would just suggest reading Alexander Pruss and Graham Oppy. A good intro. to phil. of religion from a theistic stance is the one by Brian Davies.
      For an introduction to philosophy of religion from an atheistic standpoint, I still think Robin LePoidevin is the best: "Arguing for Atheism"

    • @odinallfarther6038
      @odinallfarther6038 หลายเดือนก่อน

      I'm not being sarcastic ! A dictionary will get you far .

    • @daniellance8716
      @daniellance8716 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@tuav woah that was a very comprehensive starter kit so seriously thank you lol i have lots of reading to do. doesn’t bother me tho i do want to at least have an understanding of what im hearing so im not lost and its interesting to hear so i appreciate it

  • @odinallfarther6038
    @odinallfarther6038 หลายเดือนก่อน

    What is sentient 🤔 does the feather test qualify as sentient 🤔 ?

    • @pika_speed
      @pika_speed หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Having a subjective experience

    • @odinallfarther6038
      @odinallfarther6038 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@pika_speed is a physical response to touch a subjective experience ?

    • @pika_speed
      @pika_speed หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@odinallfarther6038 To have a subjective experience just means that there's something that it's like to be that thing. There's nothing that it's like to be a rock

    • @odinallfarther6038
      @odinallfarther6038 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@pika_speed I don't see why the introduction of a rock . If something that is not a plant but is biological and it responds to touch would that fall within your definition of sentient ?

    • @pika_speed
      @pika_speed หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@odinallfarther6038 Sorry you seem slow so I'm disengaging. I brought up a rock as an example of something without a subjective experience, because there's nothing that it's like to be a rock, which is just to say it doesn't have a subjective experience.