Like all “fallacies,” slippery slope is often used in an incorrect way to attack valid arguments. The real fallacy in some slippery slope arguments comes from arguing, with no evidence, that some proposed change will likely or necessary lead to an unacceptable state of affairs. The fallacious part comes from having no evidence for the claim. In this case, you could say the evidence there was a true and valid “slippery slope” was that the justification used by activists for the beginning of the slope was an incorrect ethical view. Once people accepted that ethical view, many bad implications of it started to be supported by activists, leading to an unacceptable state of affairs. This is a totally valid argument, and if what the argument supposes is true, it is a good and true argument. I wrote this to hopefully demonstrate to you that logic is a tool to find the truth, and if Christianity is the truth, then Christianity is the only view that can be adequately defended with logic. Don’t let people who use logic incorrectly stop you from using it correctly, not that you were doing that with what you said, but it might have suggested that.
Particularly in the realms of legality and morality, people often make arguments of the form "X should be legal/moral based on principle X." When you point out that as they have articulated it, Principle X provides no restriction against the legality/morality of many other activities that your interlocutor is not publicly proposing ought to also be considered legal/moral, you are not engaging in a slippery slope fallacy, you just stating the logical consequences of using principle X for your moral or legal system. In the same way that someone who says that a law which is too broadly worded allows for application beyond the scope of those pushing the law are actually arguing for, that's not a slippery slope argument, it's just saying that a law is badly written. Those in favor of broadening a view of sexual ethics beyond what was traditionally acceptable very frequently use such vague moral principles and then cry slippery slope when people point out that those vague moral principles are completely unworkable except to normalize the particular behavior they want to normalize at the particular point in time.
No kidding. And yet the sad thing is, in some cases, appeals to a slippery slope really are fallacious. Usually though, it is liberal arguments, not conservative ones, that use it fallaciously.
@@musiccrocodile8606- It's why one should prioritize modesty and proper attire, and why the pride affiliated rarely engage with as much; as one can't be sodomized if such pursuers can't manage to undo all of the buttons of a fully dressed man. 😂
Why is it a good quote? Just because someone argues for the permissibility of something, doesn't mean they engage in that thing. Trent has no idea whether this person is a pervert or not.
@@JezuesChavez tell me in your atheist world view where that is wrong? The big bang universe doesn't care about the 32.000 evolved germs being killed or dying of old age, imagine trying to apply the Christian and Judaic morality of ''you shall not murder'' to an atheist nihilistic world view that says we're all evolved germs that choose who and when certain germs get subjective moral superiority like the nazis and communists did just a few decades ago.
@JezuesChavez the midianites were wicked idolaters and God spared those 32,000 virgins and subsumed them into the nation of Israel. Sounds to me like they got a pretty good deal out of it
Amongst the worst forms of corruption are those that are spiritual and intellectual. Witness the fallen angels who are immaterial and yet are emblematicly evil. Because Singer offers arguments in support of depravity, it does not mean that he does such.
I love what you said at around 14:30; the statement “it's not just a perverts opinion, it's an academic perverts opinion” just so perfectly describes our modern understandings of sex.
The question is why should utilitarianism be the holy grail. It doesn't. In materialism everything goes. If one is a masochist one will want discomfort for oneself, if one is a sadist, one will want pain for others. Most atheists don't realise that the consequence of atheism can only be nihilism and anything else is arbitrary and parasited off what came before it. They just don't get it. And maybe that's good because there would be more depression and self harm but people who claim God does not exist will claim arbitrary moral standards where criticism of the current topics of the day is a high crime/sin while claiming there are no objective mores. They're all irrational.
I teach philosophy at a classical Christian school. I always have my students read a little bit of Singer and we discuss his views on hedonistic utilitarianism. My students usually baulk at how absurd and horrible his views are.
Got to respect Trent Horn's rock-solid unchanging logical approach. This man does not walk away from any argument no matter how disgusting. He just starts dismantling it. It is an approach which is necessary in a world that no longer has any disgust - you cannot shrug any new idea off as absurd or disgusting anymore because there will be someone who supports it. As you say, mora hazmat suit.
Exactly. If you tell someone they're overweight, you're "fat shaming" if you tell someone they're sexual conduct is immoral they say you're "kink shaming". Vice and degeneracy are protected and supported nowadays and it's gross
Is murder less disgusting than bestiality or porn? Yet when discussing that topic and related things, such as abortion, people don't feel 'disgusted'. Come on, for an academic there is no disgust here. There is only methodological rigor. Your argument has to be philosophically sound and empirical claims need empirical proof which can be a pain to research.
@@peterc.1419that academics may hold to the conceit of not being disgusted or repulsed only reveals their desensitization, regardless of topic. It does nothing to validate their supposed objectivity, appearances notwithstanding. An honest scholar, when questioned, wouldn't (or shouldn't, at the very least) deny the reprehensibilty of immoral acts. To attempt otherwise is to compromise the integrity of the research. It's hardly objective to disregard a natural human reaction to some form of evil, *especially* if it isn't consciously recognized on the part of the researcher.
@peterc.1419 a real comparison would be to rape, not porn. Saying that having unconsensual sex is acceptable because it's better than murder is a huge slippery slope. And it's only a matter of time until these """experts""" start saying that rape of a human is acceptable too
@@ironymatt There is no desensitization. You discuss topics. When people discuss nuclear war we don't imagine scenes of civilians covered by extensive burns. I don't see how this is conceit. It's just people who visualise things and emote too much which is a problem of the modern generations. Don't make things about yourself and your reactions. It's not about you and how "you feel". It's about facts. I don't get how people get "sick to the stomach" when speaking in abstract terms about situations which are hypothetical with a focus on societal aspects of these acts and not the acts themselves. I think it's a type of narcissism where one puts one's feelings out, but one's feelings are irrelevant. There is a place to discuss feelings too and psychotherapy and those who have clinical problems should seek mental help and support in appropriate places.
Well spelled out, Trent. Having reached my 80th year, it is startling to realize how fast it seems that the basis for deciding what is ‘right or ‘wrong’ has become “whatever you think is true, is true.” The tentacles grew exponentially out of this. In society there is no definition for ‘truth’. And the way is open for anything. Challenging. Praise God He never changed and that is a truth that means truth.
Yep, I always wondered how the Israelites could destroy Molech only to worship Baal, but I'm starting to think, "You know what, we're not that far off from being in the same position ourselves." Edit: Spelling error.
@@paulnash6944 Book of Judges man. Society degenerates, people return to a system(by system I mean morality of what's right and wrong) that they ditched before. Said system brings them to prosperity? They take it for granted, and they ditch it and society degenerates again. We are all victim to this. None is righteous. No, not one.
Thanks for putting on your moral hazmat suite on these incredibly evil and stupid topics. Im not watching this because its so blindly self-evident how wrong it is
That’s Trent’s point actually. It is self evident, NOW. BUT it may not always be that way, so he put on his hazmat suit and talked about it. I put on mine and watched it. It’s definitely not an episode that you want to be grabbing snacks for though.
I don't know why Trent seems to approve of intentionally refusing to equip yourself with the arguments against something. What if you met someone who said it's blindingly self-evident in the other direction? You'd be at an impasse.
I coulsnt get past two minutes once I realised the topic of discussion. I'll be back once I've prayed and psychologically prepared myself for this. If there was a way for me to show this to all the people who implied I was a loon for making 'slippery slope' arguments 8 years ago when I said this was a natural consequence of 'love is love', I would.
Ikr! This episode has been mentally jarring, it is a hard topic to talk about but it must be talked about! I agree, this whole "love is love" thing basically allows so much evil stuff to happen. Homosexuality was just the start, this truly is a slippery slope!
At this year’s Christmas party, when asked if I wanted more kids (I currently have two), I told some of the guests, “Oh yes! At least two or three more.” One lady in particular balked, and I kid you not, started to get teary-eyed, then said, “But aren’t you worried about global warming?” I said that I care about the environment, sure, but that I’m not sure what that has to do with children. She just stared and said, “Well, what about the suffering they’d go through in the future as the climate worsens?” I said that I’m pretty optimistic about mankind-that our ancestors raised their children through immensely worse conditions than we are in now. Children are the salt of the earth. Side note: this lady is in her seventies, never married, no children of her own. She’s a sweet enough lady, but I couldn’t help but think she had all her priorities wrong. When you’re more concerned about saving a tree than having a family, I’d say you haven’t thought through your moral convictions all the way to their logical conclusions. If your carbon footprint is your ultimate concern, the only possible position to have is an anti-life one. To be alive is to be a carbon emitter. I wonder how many would think it fine to cull off a certain percentage of the human population if it meant “preventing more global warming.”
Yep, and also, of course I worry about what world my children will inherit, but I also would never expect it to be without challenge and suffering. I hope I raise the kind of people who will face challenge forthrightly with courage, honor, and wisdom. I would rather my children suffer meaningfully than live lives of opulent hedonism that corrupts and debases them. This world and its suffering is temporary, the state of their soul matters more
I was at the March for Life in Berlin this year and as we passed some protesters against the March, a guy walking besides me said "Save the trees and kill the children..." A poignant summary of their philosophy.
"that our ancestors raised their children through immensely worse conditions than we are in now." 2/3rds of Europe died during the plague. Have you not see footage from great depression from early last century. But what the "sweat enough old lady" is concerned about that our ancestors didn't have to contend with: Global Temperature Is Rising The Ocean Is Getting Warmer The Ice Sheets Are Shrinking Glaciers Are Retreating Snow Cover Is Decreasing Sea Level Is Rising Arctic Sea Ice Is Declining Extreme Events Are Increasing in Frequency Ocean Acidification Is Increasing The planet is paying the price supporting human life and western culture and materialism. This is why your cult is dangerous. People have genuine concerns from the data we observe, and the only thing you can do is ridicule. That's the equivalent of me saying you worship a dead jew and a skydaddy.
Is 'sweat' a typo for 'sweet'? Apologies for splitting hairs. P.S. Good on ye for defending openness to life! Let us hope and pray the lady turns around from a confusion that might conclude in her embracing the culture of death, even if she's late in her life.
Thank you for covering this. I know it was hard for you to talk about but SO necessary because I have a friend who loves to entertain these outrageous arguments. Sometimes I’m so overwhelmed by the moral repugnance that I lose my ability to craft a logical defense…so this is helpful. Thank you!
What's interesting is how secularist types misunderstand the "form" of a fallacy for the "essence" of a fallacy/why it's a fallacy in the first place (Stephen Woodford/Rationality Rules, the guy who came up with the fallacy card game or whatever, is the picture that comes to mind for this). It results in many instances of the "fallacy fallacy", or, rhetorically, what I like to call "fallacy barking." For instance - regarding the "what is a woman" question, the common definition these people will give is "whoever identifies as a woman", saying Christians have a similar definition for Christian (i.e. "whoever identifies as a Christian is a Christian"). If the religious person responds "that's not what a Christian is", they often get accused of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. However... the NTS fallacy only applies when the criteria are arbitrary. Imagine if a person who is claiming to be a Scotsman, despite not being born there, not being a citizen, never even visited the country, and having no Scottish ancestors. The person is clearly not a Scotsman, but the "form of the fallacy" can be present, allowing them to cite anyone saying they aren't a Scotsman of committing the NTS fallacy. However, the criteria for what constitutes a Scotsman are not arbitrary. Another example - a person gets accused of making an ad hominem fallacy when, in reality, they're just insulting you. Insulting may not necessarily be nice or productive, but it isn't fallacious. An ad hominem is saying "you're wrong because you're dumb", and an insult says "you're wrong, therefore, you're dumb." Not the same thing. The insult might represent the "form" of a fallacy (i.e. it might look like one) but it doesn't contain the "essence" of one (i.e. it isn't actually a fallacy) Furthermore, the "slippery slope" is treated in a similar manner. Imagine person A trying to talk person B down from jumping off a building by saying the following: "if you jump off, then you'll be in the air. And if you're in the air, you won't be supported by the ground. And if you're not supported by the ground, you'll still be affected by gravity. And if you're affected by gravity, then you'll fall. And if you fall, you'll accelerate toward the ground. And if you accelerate toward the ground, you'll eventually hit the ground. And if you eventually hit the ground..." you get the point. This instance takes the "form" of a slippery slope fallacy, but it isn't actually there, since causation is reasonably known to have been established in this case. "Slippery slope" is only a fallacy if causation is unestablished, and I think the past few decades have shown causation to have been reasonably established with regards to the degrees of sexual liberation within society, as this video demonstrates. If an atheist type starts "fallacy barking" at you (specifically about the slippery slope fallacy and sexual matters), I think it's appropriate to ignore them. The religious right has, once again, been vindicated.
Trent played that clip of Cenk making a distinction between acts wherein consent is in play as opposed to those acts in which it isn't, a point many others speak of. It doesn't matter if something like bestiality becomes more accepted or even widespread, since it can always be argued against and opposed on these grounds. In addition, I'm sure a lot of people have an a priori commitment to opposition to bestiality, with or without the harm metric Trent speaks on, and probably having much more to do with personal aversion to the notion rather than the harm it could or would do to an animal.
Very thoughtful. Btw I've come up with a kind of 'opposite' to the No True Scotsman fallacy which I call the 'violent pacifist' fallacy. As you said with Christianity, if one claims to be a Christian, (or pacifist) but one acts opposite to Christian teachings (or violent) then by default, they cannot be a Christian. Another term is 'Cino' or 'Christian In Name Only'
Seeing as I was a kind of default liberal 15 year old (yay public schools....) back then and then a libertarian later down the road I'm sorry I used to laugh at the slippery slope. Seeing that the slippery slope wasn't always fallacy probably played a small part in my conversion.
Is that why religious theocracies practice and legalize pedophilia and bestiality the most? And why consent laws and their enforcement is the harshest in ‘secular’ Europe? Or why child marriage is exclusively legalized in conservative US states because of backing from religious fanatics? There’s no ‘slippery slope’ because there can be no consent with either children or animals. That’s enough of a reason to oppose those practices. The only slippery slope here occurs when your morality endorses whatever your book of choice says, regardless of consent.
@@RationalistMH I think by religous theocracies you include Muslim countries. They aren’t in our camp. We are not pro-religion, we are pro-true religion. The Catholic Church has always taught that consent is a necessary but insufficient condition for licit intercourse.
It's not that there is no slippery slope, it's that it isn't a logical necessity so it doesn't work in a formal deductive argument. It works fine in a probabilistic argument, though.
Thank you so much for this video. I am not a Catholic but a member of another Christian denomination. It is great to see that there are people out there standing up for what is without a doubt ethically right.
@@ModernLadyHe knew and did nothing against it, allthough he easily could have, so he is the one to blame. This all powerful all good god fable really makes no sense at all.
@TgfkaTrichter By definition, since He is God, He cannot be "to blame" because He is the source of morality. Moreover, the reason He permits evil is because He has lovingly gifted us free will. That doesn't mean freedom from consequences, and there are certainly natural consequences of evil and sin on display in this world.
@@connorhurley9512 and what is with all the evil, that cannot be explained away by free will? Also what is with sexual tendencies, that we are born with, which is a thing, you know? You story makes no sense, no matter how you spin it. There is a reason, why Apologists are needed to defend religious claims, which they normally do by lying.
@@TgfkaTrichter "he did nothing against it", false, he told us to not do that, he told us how to not do that, he gave us tools to be forgiven when we do evil and repent, and he outlined the consequences for repenting and for not repenting.
After the Destiny debate, I had commented on the video listing all the horrific things Trent had gotten Destiny to admit to and I had a bunch of Destiny bros say "well you're just saying it like it's obviously wrong, without saying why" I was appalled, but they were shocked when I explained that you cannot sin against an animal, abusing an animal is a sin against God by corrupting yourself and transgressing His natural order. The debate went on until finally I argued for Christian Moralism being superior to Utilitarian Harm reduction ethics with the below (1) We all have a moral system, for most of us that system runs in the background and we don't think about it much. (2) When those systems are actually brought to the forefront and must be articulated is when we can test them (3) if your system cannot condemn obviously bad things like the above mentioned then I contend that it's a broken system (4) Destiny's system is based on utility which is slippery as a concept and has no eternal grounding principles so it must be informed by social consensus. With no grounding for morality, we're left with law so this morality requires a social consensus to create morality. What does this mean in practice? You must have a governing body that doesn't just enshrine or respect morality, but actually CREATES it and thus Government dethrones God. I would contend that this is a much more arrogant and grasping worldview than the traditional religious view. This also demonstrates why he requires socialism. He talks a lot about freedom, but in the end his morals demand huge government systems. The only freedoms he cares about are the freedoms to pursue pleasure. (5) My religious ethics stand outside of government. I don't believe they are created by social consensus of what constitutes harm reduction. This is why the founding fathers said that our constitutional system only works on a religious populace. To have freedom from government, you must have deference to God and common purpose. (6) Because my ethics stand outside of government, I don't require every one of them to be law. In some twisted sense, Destiny's morals are so enmeshed with social consensus and studies that he feels he cannot have any moral certainty even on these obviously grotesque things until he has social consensus/law then he can just point to the law whilst not morally condemning anything which would topple the whole system. What about Destiny's system would have led to the abolishment of slavery? One of the most popular arguments for slavery was a utilitarian argument. Now I'm sure Destiny would bring in his other fundamental axiom, consent, to protest that he'd be against slavery, but he just grants himself "consent" as a concept with no 'why' behind it. Worldviews like that seem to me to be built on top of older moral systems and then they knock out the foundation they're built on thinking it'll still stand over time. One thing most people realize about humans is that we need a 'why' or we fall apart. No adequate 'why' often leads to depression or hedonism. (7) I am not contending that Destiny likes these things or would do them, on the contrary, I think he knows how they sound, but he is compelled to refrain from strong condemnations in order to uphold the consistency of his utilitarian ethics. Is that really much better? Like most westerners, Destiny has Christian ethics running the background of his moral system, but he doesn't realize that. (8) See our nation used to agree that we were all created by the same God and thus we all had divine and innate human value and a nature that was both inherently flawed and also grasping for eternity. It took us a while to all agree on that. That belief took root and grew. Growing from that belief is the idea of moral obligation and that we had a duty to conform to God's moral purpose. All these combinations flowered into the crown of the West. (9) Now we have completely rejected conformity to natural purpose so our flower has no leaves, we have abandoned God so it has no roots, and we're desperately trying to prop up the idea of innate human value with "consent." (10) Even if you're repulsed by the idea of believing in God, surely you can see the value in accepting the concepts of innate human value and natural purpose. Now I think your ethics are incomplete without God, but a flower can live for a time in a vase.
Just a thought: Even though animals are often legally viewed as things and property, laws should also be introduced to protect them and used to punish people who mistreat other living beings (whether human or animal) and an animal would not do so on its own and came up with the idea of using an absolutely alien creature in this way. You only find rare combinations within a species group -> horses and donkeys; Dogs, domestic cats, etc. Animals in the wild seem to be much more picky.
What constitutes an “obviously bad thing”? That itself falls into moral relativism because attitudes towards particular behavior may vary by culture. Slavery wasn’t always an “obviously bad thing”, including from a religious perspective. If intuitions can be wrong, then that can’t be used to bolster your moral argument.
@@Ciarian the wisdom of repugnance can certainly be used to bolster an argument, it just can't be used as the only basis. Also, you missed the entire point. I am the one arguing that these things are NOT obviously wrong in the secular Humanist worldview, but that our current culture operates on Christian ethics in the background and thus most people still have remnants of the fruits of that system. The 2 main principles I was discussing were (1) the idea of inherent human value and (2) the idea of natural purpose or natural order. Sex is ordered toward reproduction and thus one determination of sexual ethics would be proximity to that natural purpose. Trent explains this in the video. The abolishment of slavery is a fruit of the argument for inherent human value. The fundamental tenant of today "consent" is not a granted moral principle. It rests in the laurels of the Christian ethic
@@Hearth123 one of your major points is that if a system of ethics cannot condemn “obviously bad things” it is broken, but what is “obviously bad” can often be culturally relative. If intuitions can be wrong then they can’t be used to bolster your argument. The Catholic sexual ethic is not very intuitive to me, masturbation being an evil I flat out reject.
Actually you can say veganism is moral and bestiality is wrong based on conciousness and suffering, however what you would have to conclude is that we are stuck in this immoral world therefore we should move towards the unknown good by acting virtuously (reducing unjust suffering), in all forms of life.
I’m struggling with my own immorality and some of our brothers have gone to this extent? 🙇🏾♂️🙇🏾♂️ Was a really uncomfortable topic couldn’t watch whole thing. Really unbelievable and unimaginable . Dear GOD, save your people 😢
"some of our brothers". Are you a nonbeliever? If so, have you never heard of Peter Singer? I'm a nonbeliever and was already familiar with Singer, and have been for a long time. When I saw this video was about him, I wasn't surprised about the content therein, lol.
Thank you, Trent, for exposing these works of darkness and offering caution on the weak arguments as well as that which does defeat the defence of the enemy. God bless.
I think the fact that this man is one of the most famous living philosophers in the world-as opposed to an unknown shmuck who is immediately rebuked, dismissed or called out by default by anyone he spouts or promotes this wretched insanity to-already speaks volumes to the state of the world
My fiancée had to do a philosophy course a little while ago, and I noticed Peter Singer in the curriculum when I was helping her out. His opinions regarding foreign aide and how the US and other 1st world countries should support other countries rubbed me the wrong way. Can't say I'm surprised to hear this is also part of his beliefs.
@@michaelsbeverlyI guess that the term sodomy has absolutely nothing to do with “Sodom” lol. “ Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” - genesis 19:4-5. Hm seems pretty sexually oriented to me? Lol man, some people will do anything to protect their golden calf of sexual liberation.
@@michaelsbeverly I think you should probably take the log out of your own eye. Nothing they said was incorrect. Lot's daughters got him drunk and slept with him. They each bore him a son, Moab and Ammon. Their descendants would later wage war against Israel. All of this is attributed to the fact that Lot's daughters were raised in a morally depraved city.
The lack of self awareness in progressive circles tells you there are communes where what Peter Singer spreads are not only permitted but celebrated, advanced, and acted upon.
As some deep into politics, like myself, learning good arguments against the current Evils of Our Age is a must. I am sorry You have to suffer these subjects, so degenerate politicians like myself are equipped to face the horrors of the day. This video is hard to watch, but it does offer benefit. Sincerely in Xto A Ghetto Conservative Mike B. B. From Philly, P.A. U.S.A.
Destiny and his ilk would have us contemplating existence like rats seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. I choose to contemplate higher, deeper, and better things
Also, Aquinas himself told that bestiality is the highest deviation of chastity. Its the worst expression of the Unnatural Vice, the worst of the species of lust.
@@michaelsbeverly What is more disgusting? Seeing an ignorant person who never bothered to read the studies that explained what happened and so while you they are resting from the drugs they are on and in between moments of beating up their loved ones, they come here as a hypocrite and troll.
Thank you, Trent, my brother in Christ for doing what you do. I have been undergoing a spiritual reawakening and I want you to know that you have been an integral source of knowledge and wisdom for me. I was so far from Christ that I had forgotten there was ever a path. Serendipitously, I stumbled upon this channel one day several weeks ago and you not only reminded me of the path, you helped me find the courage and strength to actually walk it. Stay safe. ✌️
Giving kids PTSD by forcing sex of any kind on them is harm. The education has been forcing sex on our kids for decades now, Even when I was a kid they were showing films for self care including how to deal with the monthy bleeding of girls, something parents are suppose to do and as they saw the films too they should have know now to do.
A perversion is a diversion or misuse of natural purpose... like you stated, 'outside of its intended purpose'. As Romans Chapter 1 so eloquently puts it from the first verse... there is an argument from nature (which we attribute coming from God) against certain things. Wonderful and insightful... and scary.
the rate of moral rot in today's world is incredible. how lost this world is without Christ and the Church is insane, and more proof that not just we, but society needs the Church to be a major part. goodness grief
Given that we (hopefully) all agree that children cannot consent to sexual relations because they don't understand the ramifications of sex, wouldn't this also apply to animals? And if they're saying that sex can sometimes be just about feeling good physically, then wouldn't this also lead them to justifying child molestation? After all that's the one thing both children and animals know about it.
But again, if we train or eat animals without their consent, what makes it wrong to use them for sexual pleasure with their no full knowledge consent? And also what do you do about the no harmful ways to have sex with animals?
@@EdgardoSilva-od3td Well I was just highlighting how we consider informed consent to be important when it comes to sex specifically, and showing where the slippery slope leads if we stop. So long as consent is important when it comes to sex overall, then it's an argument against bestiality unless you say that the full ramifications of sex amount to physical pleasure. So it's not about the consent itself, but about how we can perceive something special about sex. Not the exact point Trent landed on, but similar.
We need a stronger reason to say it's wrong to sexualize children, or for children to sexualize themselves, than their lack of understanding of sex's ramifications. Not that informed consent isn't necessary, but it is insufficient. First, I think one could make an argument that there could exist a 10 year old and a 20 year old, neither of whose brains' are fully developed, where the former understands the ramifications far more than the latter (perhaps the former grew up seeing close friends and family personally affected or was in a very sex-positivie environment, while the latter was incredibly sheltered). It should not follow that this 10 year old has a stronger claim to consenting to sex than the 20 year old. Second, we do all sorts of things to children which they do not/cannot understand the full ramifications of. E.g. give them medications, perform surgery on them, paedo-baptism (if you believe in that), etc. This is one reason trans surgery for children is such a slippery slope; it's a bridge between surgery (which we do think we can do to children/children can "consent" to) and sexuality (which is inappropriate for children). If a child can "consent" to removing their tonsils, why can't they consent to changing their sex? And if they can consent to changing their sex, why can't they consent to sex? Again, I'm not saying consent isn't important in sex, but it's insufficient. I think Trent's conversations with Destiny show some of the deep flaws of trying to use consent as a sole basis, and I would argue Destiny doesn't follow his own logic to some of its more gruesome conclusions. This is part of Trent's argument here, that consent is insufficient to decry sexualizing children.
The CDC statistics on MSM (sodomy) are quite alarming. The Pope should be asked," How can a good God sanction what science proves is so destructive of the human body?"
God allows free will. He has given you His laws and teachings. The question that really needs to be asked is not of the Pope, but of ourselves as to why we allow that behavior not why a good God allows use to use His gift of free will to allow such behavior.
Trent, I'm praying for you as you continue to brave the darkest recesses of society. I can't imagine how heavy it must be to constantly engage with the worst kinds of depravity and the people who not only defend it but promote it. Thank you for the important work you're doing!
It seems to me the primary reason that bestiality is wrong is because God says it is. That's not to say there isn't harm from it. My sense is that the harm is less obvious. For one, it seems to me it's more harmful to humans than it is to the animal. Because sexual activity is such a sacred act, the further you get from its intended use, the more degrading it becomes. I also imagine there is deep psychological and spiritual/demonic type stuff that is part of the act. It also seems to me that sex is a theological statement. When a husband and wife engage in sexual activity, they are in a sense glorifying God a "re emphasizing" the image of God, the gospel etc.
I'll have to look for that (or you could just tell me the season and episode 😃). It makes me think of Ralph's extremely odd fetishes... perhaps it came up that way? 🤔
I dont think the speciesist argument has to even be rebutted. It is just a word salad. Just because a string of words can be said doesn't mean it's coherent. Only the people who have a broken mind entertain broken ideas
@@thehumblepotatoreborn9313 Oh, I know. You see this strategy with all sorts of depravity. They lose the mental battle and begin to try to condition those around them.
Trent, why introduce Cenk into a conversation on this topic without citing the infamous video where he stated he doesn't think "relations" with horses is wrong if the horse enjoys it? How he still has a career after that is beyond me.
I take 7 medications a day, most of which have multiple side effects. No one is forcing me to take them, but I take them even though I really really don't want to. I try to donate platelets regularly, I really really don't want to, but I do it any way, even though no one is forcing me to. I go grocery shopping once a week...oh wait I like doing that but oddly no one has to force me to do that either.
"Yeah but Animals do it, and humans are Animals." This is my favorite counterpoint. It is spouted nonstop by Atheists, without them realizing what that truly implies.
The thing with this issue is that it can only be properly understood in light of other values which is what makes so difficult to defend on its own. Pope Francis himself talked about this.
Trent, just wanted to stop and say thank you for what you do, and praise God for giving us you. For someone to do what you do, it requires not only an intense interest in debate and apologetics, it also requires you to delve your mind into disgusting matters on a daily basis and face the fallen world for what it is, but then you also use your gifts and your interests and you put yourself out there in the spotlight, taking huge risks with your source of income in a world unfriendly to your message, and going into the type of places Jesus went to firmly spread the Gospel. You are a gift to all Christians and when you have the mic, God is winning
It’s like asking someone would you want to be a duck with a human head or a man with a ducks head it’s not really a question or an argument neither opinions are good.
It’s disturbing that people appeal to the animal’s “consent” when discussing this. That they think the animal is the victim in this disgusting degradation of humanity.
@@kevinmurphy5878 It’s not. Animals are eaten. Animals are stepped on. Humans have dominion over them. All you’re doing is inviting a utilitarian argument to show that they actually like it. It doesn’t matter if they like it. The act is an abomination.
The idea of "behavioral consent" is terrifying when you consider that some people have an arousal response while being raped. "Your Honor, she consented to the sexual encounter when she was wet."
“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.”
-George Orwell
I mean they are hardly intellectual if they affirm bestiality.
I am becoming increasingly convinced that the slippery slope isn't a fallacy at all.
Like all “fallacies,” slippery slope is often used in an incorrect way to attack valid arguments.
The real fallacy in some slippery slope arguments comes from arguing, with no evidence, that some proposed change will likely or necessary lead to an unacceptable state of affairs. The fallacious part comes from having no evidence for the claim.
In this case, you could say the evidence there was a true and valid “slippery slope” was that the justification used by activists for the beginning of the slope was an incorrect ethical view. Once people accepted that ethical view, many bad implications of it started to be supported by activists, leading to an unacceptable state of affairs. This is a totally valid argument, and if what the argument supposes is true, it is a good and true argument.
I wrote this to hopefully demonstrate to you that logic is a tool to find the truth, and if Christianity is the truth, then Christianity is the only view that can be adequately defended with logic. Don’t let people who use logic incorrectly stop you from using it correctly, not that you were doing that with what you said, but it might have suggested that.
Particularly in the realms of legality and morality, people often make arguments of the form "X should be legal/moral based on principle X." When you point out that as they have articulated it, Principle X provides no restriction against the legality/morality of many other activities that your interlocutor is not publicly proposing ought to also be considered legal/moral, you are not engaging in a slippery slope fallacy, you just stating the logical consequences of using principle X for your moral or legal system. In the same way that someone who says that a law which is too broadly worded allows for application beyond the scope of those pushing the law are actually arguing for, that's not a slippery slope argument, it's just saying that a law is badly written.
Those in favor of broadening a view of sexual ethics beyond what was traditionally acceptable very frequently use such vague moral principles and then cry slippery slope when people point out that those vague moral principles are completely unworkable except to normalize the particular behavior they want to normalize at the particular point in time.
It depends on the situation. Sometimes it doesn't apply, but sometimes, it REALLY does
No kidding. And yet the sad thing is, in some cases, appeals to a slippery slope really are fallacious. Usually though, it is liberal arguments, not conservative ones, that use it fallaciously.
The slippery slope fallacy fallacy.
hide your wives, hide your kids, hide your dogs
They rapin' errbody out here!
You don't have to confess
You can run and tell that HOMEBOY.
hide yourself too
@@musiccrocodile8606- It's why one should prioritize modesty and proper attire, and why the pride affiliated rarely engage with as much; as one can't be sodomized if such pursuers can't manage to undo all of the buttons of a fully dressed man. 😂
"It's not just some random pervert's opinion. It's an academic pervert's opinion!" -- The quotable Trent Horn
I have to use that quote at the next opportunity!
That really is a great quote!
Awesome quote
Humans are superior by Gods order. But each species’ dignity Ned’s to be respected.
Why is it a good quote? Just because someone argues for the permissibility of something, doesn't mean they engage in that thing.
Trent has no idea whether this person is a pervert or not.
As usual, Dostoyevsky is spot on: "Without God, all things are permitted"
tell that to the 32,000 female virgins in numbers about how useful God was to them.
@@JezuesChavez tell me in your atheist world view where that is wrong? The big bang universe doesn't care about the 32.000 evolved germs being killed or dying of old age, imagine trying to apply the Christian and Judaic morality of ''you shall not murder'' to an atheist nihilistic world view that says we're all evolved germs that choose who and when certain germs get subjective moral superiority like the nazis and communists did just a few decades ago.
@JezuesChavez the midianites were wicked idolaters and God spared those 32,000 virgins and subsumed them into the nation of Israel. Sounds to me like they got a pretty good deal out of it
@@JezuesChavezwrong faith my friend
@@JezuesChavezhuh?
Peter Singer won't eat an animal because he thinks it causes an unacceptable amount of suffering but he'll take one to his bed? Absolutely disgusting
I wonder if Singer asks the animal's permission before he engages in sex with it. If not, it could be interpreted as rape.
What do Peter (((singer))) and Judith (((Levine))) have in common?
Amongst the worst forms of corruption are those that are spiritual and intellectual. Witness the fallen angels who are immaterial and yet are emblematicly evil.
Because Singer offers arguments in support of depravity, it does not mean that he does such.
@@PadraigTomas he gets off on the idea.
@@stevedrake1861 who cares about animal’s consent. This is about the dignity of man.
I'm 3 minutes in and I don't want to hear any more.
I need a better moral hazmat suit.
Keep fighting the good fight, Trent... I'm bowing out.
I love what you said at around 14:30; the statement “it's not just a perverts opinion, it's an academic perverts opinion” just so perfectly describes our modern understandings of sex.
You know it's gonna be a rough one when Trent starts off with "I really don't want to talk about this." God bless you Trent for what you do.
I keep expecting people to just say, "Oh, well, I guess utilitarianism doesn't work. Let's try something else." But they don't.
It's because it gives them permission to do what they want. They don't want to give that up
What would be the utility in that?
The question is why should utilitarianism be the holy grail. It doesn't. In materialism everything goes. If one is a masochist one will want discomfort for oneself, if one is a sadist, one will want pain for others. Most atheists don't realise that the consequence of atheism can only be nihilism and anything else is arbitrary and parasited off what came before it. They just don't get it. And maybe that's good because there would be more depression and self harm but people who claim God does not exist will claim arbitrary moral standards where criticism of the current topics of the day is a high crime/sin while claiming there are no objective mores. They're all irrational.
But it IS working, and exactly as intended. Why would they abandon it? It's so reliable
Sadly true.@@Mr-Thou
I teach philosophy at a classical Christian school. I always have my students read a little bit of Singer and we discuss his views on hedonistic utilitarianism. My students usually baulk at how absurd and horrible his views are.
Which is to their credit.
Singer should be in prison.
@@jackieo8693
At the VERY least!
@@peace-and-quiet agreed 💯
I wish my uni was more like your school ☹️
Got to respect Trent Horn's rock-solid unchanging logical approach. This man does not walk away from any argument no matter how disgusting. He just starts dismantling it. It is an approach which is necessary in a world that no longer has any disgust - you cannot shrug any new idea off as absurd or disgusting anymore because there will be someone who supports it. As you say, mora hazmat suit.
Exactly. If you tell someone they're overweight, you're "fat shaming" if you tell someone they're sexual conduct is immoral they say you're "kink shaming". Vice and degeneracy are protected and supported nowadays and it's gross
Is murder less disgusting than bestiality or porn? Yet when discussing that topic and related things, such as abortion, people don't feel 'disgusted'. Come on, for an academic there is no disgust here. There is only methodological rigor. Your argument has to be philosophically sound and empirical claims need empirical proof which can be a pain to research.
@@peterc.1419that academics may hold to the conceit of not being disgusted or repulsed only reveals their desensitization, regardless of topic. It does nothing to validate their supposed objectivity, appearances notwithstanding.
An honest scholar, when questioned, wouldn't (or shouldn't, at the very least) deny the reprehensibilty of immoral acts. To attempt otherwise is to compromise the integrity of the research. It's hardly objective to disregard a natural human reaction to some form of evil, *especially* if it isn't consciously recognized on the part of the researcher.
@peterc.1419 a real comparison would be to rape, not porn. Saying that having unconsensual sex is acceptable because it's better than murder is a huge slippery slope. And it's only a matter of time until these """experts""" start saying that rape of a human is acceptable too
@@ironymatt There is no desensitization. You discuss topics. When people discuss nuclear war we don't imagine scenes of civilians covered by extensive burns. I don't see how this is conceit. It's just people who visualise things and emote too much which is a problem of the modern generations. Don't make things about yourself and your reactions. It's not about you and how "you feel". It's about facts. I don't get how people get "sick to the stomach" when speaking in abstract terms about situations which are hypothetical with a focus on societal aspects of these acts and not the acts themselves. I think it's a type of narcissism where one puts one's feelings out, but one's feelings are irrelevant. There is a place to discuss feelings too and psychotherapy and those who have clinical problems should seek mental help and support in appropriate places.
Well spelled out, Trent. Having reached my 80th year, it is startling to realize how fast it seems that the basis for deciding what is ‘right or ‘wrong’ has become “whatever you think is true, is true.” The tentacles grew exponentially out of this. In society there is no definition for ‘truth’. And the way is open for anything. Challenging. Praise God He never changed and that is a truth that means truth.
God condones slavery and the beating of slaves, is that ok?
>sex is not a big deal but let's totally rearrange society for the sake of free and judgement-free sex
Yep, I always wondered how the Israelites could destroy Molech only to worship Baal, but I'm starting to think, "You know what, we're not that far off from being in the same position ourselves."
Edit: Spelling error.
@@paulnash6944 Book of Judges man. Society degenerates, people return to a system(by system I mean morality of what's right and wrong) that they ditched before. Said system brings them to prosperity? They take it for granted, and they ditch it and society degenerates again. We are all victim to this. None is righteous. No, not one.
@@paulnash6944 We also have a quisling establishment that would crucify the only guy telling the truth.
Thanks for putting on your moral hazmat suite on these incredibly evil and stupid topics. Im not watching this because its so blindly self-evident how wrong it is
Yeah I thought I would watch this while eating lunch, but had a strong second thought about it right before coming across your comment 😂
That’s Trent’s point actually. It is self evident, NOW. BUT it may not always be that way, so he put on his hazmat suit and talked about it. I put on mine and watched it. It’s definitely not an episode that you want to be grabbing snacks for though.
@@maureenwick8231exactly! Necessary.
I don't know why Trent seems to approve of intentionally refusing to equip yourself with the arguments against something. What if you met someone who said it's blindingly self-evident in the other direction? You'd be at an impasse.
I coulsnt get past two minutes once I realised the topic of discussion.
I'll be back once I've prayed and psychologically prepared myself for this.
If there was a way for me to show this to all the people who implied I was a loon for making 'slippery slope' arguments 8 years ago when I said this was a natural consequence of 'love is love', I would.
Ikr! This episode has been mentally jarring, it is a hard topic to talk about but it must be talked about! I agree, this whole "love is love" thing basically allows so much evil stuff to happen. Homosexuality was just the start, this truly is a slippery slope!
At this year’s Christmas party, when asked if I wanted more kids (I currently have two), I told some of the guests, “Oh yes! At least two or three more.” One lady in particular balked, and I kid you not, started to get teary-eyed, then said, “But aren’t you worried about global warming?” I said that I care about the environment, sure, but that I’m not sure what that has to do with children. She just stared and said, “Well, what about the suffering they’d go through in the future as the climate worsens?” I said that I’m pretty optimistic about mankind-that our ancestors raised their children through immensely worse conditions than we are in now. Children are the salt of the earth.
Side note: this lady is in her seventies, never married, no children of her own. She’s a sweet enough lady, but I couldn’t help but think she had all her priorities wrong. When you’re more concerned about saving a tree than having a family, I’d say you haven’t thought through your moral convictions all the way to their logical conclusions. If your carbon footprint is your ultimate concern, the only possible position to have is an anti-life one. To be alive is to be a carbon emitter. I wonder how many would think it fine to cull off a certain percentage of the human population if it meant “preventing more global warming.”
Yep, and also, of course I worry about what world my children will inherit, but I also would never expect it to be without challenge and suffering. I hope I raise the kind of people who will face challenge forthrightly with courage, honor, and wisdom. I would rather my children suffer meaningfully than live lives of opulent hedonism that corrupts and debases them. This world and its suffering is temporary, the state of their soul matters more
I was at the March for Life in Berlin this year and as we passed some protesters against the March, a guy walking besides me said "Save the trees and kill the children..."
A poignant summary of their philosophy.
Globull is a cult, it is known
"that our ancestors raised their children through immensely worse conditions than we are in now." 2/3rds of Europe died during the plague. Have you not see footage from great depression from early last century. But what the "sweat enough old lady" is concerned about that our ancestors didn't have to contend with:
Global Temperature Is Rising
The Ocean Is Getting Warmer
The Ice Sheets Are Shrinking
Glaciers Are Retreating
Snow Cover Is Decreasing
Sea Level Is Rising
Arctic Sea Ice Is Declining
Extreme Events Are Increasing in Frequency
Ocean Acidification Is Increasing
The planet is paying the price supporting human life and western culture and materialism. This is why your cult is dangerous. People have genuine concerns from the data we observe, and the only thing you can do is ridicule. That's the equivalent of me saying you worship a dead jew and a skydaddy.
Is 'sweat' a typo for 'sweet'? Apologies for splitting hairs.
P.S. Good on ye for defending openness to life! Let us hope and pray the lady turns around from a confusion that might conclude in her embracing the culture of death, even if she's late in her life.
Thank you for covering this. I know it was hard for you to talk about but SO necessary because I have a friend who loves to entertain these outrageous arguments. Sometimes I’m so overwhelmed by the moral repugnance that I lose my ability to craft a logical defense…so this is helpful. Thank you!
What's interesting is how secularist types misunderstand the "form" of a fallacy for the "essence" of a fallacy/why it's a fallacy in the first place (Stephen Woodford/Rationality Rules, the guy who came up with the fallacy card game or whatever, is the picture that comes to mind for this). It results in many instances of the "fallacy fallacy", or, rhetorically, what I like to call "fallacy barking."
For instance - regarding the "what is a woman" question, the common definition these people will give is "whoever identifies as a woman", saying Christians have a similar definition for Christian (i.e. "whoever identifies as a Christian is a Christian"). If the religious person responds "that's not what a Christian is", they often get accused of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. However... the NTS fallacy only applies when the criteria are arbitrary.
Imagine if a person who is claiming to be a Scotsman, despite not being born there, not being a citizen, never even visited the country, and having no Scottish ancestors. The person is clearly not a Scotsman, but the "form of the fallacy" can be present, allowing them to cite anyone saying they aren't a Scotsman of committing the NTS fallacy. However, the criteria for what constitutes a Scotsman are not arbitrary.
Another example - a person gets accused of making an ad hominem fallacy when, in reality, they're just insulting you. Insulting may not necessarily be nice or productive, but it isn't fallacious. An ad hominem is saying "you're wrong because you're dumb", and an insult says "you're wrong, therefore, you're dumb." Not the same thing. The insult might represent the "form" of a fallacy (i.e. it might look like one) but it doesn't contain the "essence" of one (i.e. it isn't actually a fallacy)
Furthermore, the "slippery slope" is treated in a similar manner. Imagine person A trying to talk person B down from jumping off a building by saying the following: "if you jump off, then you'll be in the air. And if you're in the air, you won't be supported by the ground. And if you're not supported by the ground, you'll still be affected by gravity. And if you're affected by gravity, then you'll fall. And if you fall, you'll accelerate toward the ground. And if you accelerate toward the ground, you'll eventually hit the ground. And if you eventually hit the ground..." you get the point. This instance takes the "form" of a slippery slope fallacy, but it isn't actually there, since causation is reasonably known to have been established in this case.
"Slippery slope" is only a fallacy if causation is unestablished, and I think the past few decades have shown causation to have been reasonably established with regards to the degrees of sexual liberation within society, as this video demonstrates. If an atheist type starts "fallacy barking" at you (specifically about the slippery slope fallacy and sexual matters), I think it's appropriate to ignore them.
The religious right has, once again, been vindicated.
I have some thoughts, if you're interested...
Trent played that clip of Cenk making a distinction between acts wherein consent is in play as opposed to those acts in which it isn't, a point many others speak of. It doesn't matter if something like bestiality becomes more accepted or even widespread, since it can always be argued against and opposed on these grounds. In addition, I'm sure a lot of people have an a priori commitment to opposition to bestiality, with or without the harm metric Trent speaks on, and probably having much more to do with personal aversion to the notion rather than the harm it could or would do to an animal.
someone knows dialectics, i see :)
Very thoughtful.
Btw I've come up with a kind of 'opposite' to the No True Scotsman fallacy which I call the 'violent pacifist' fallacy.
As you said with Christianity, if one claims to be a Christian, (or pacifist) but one acts opposite to Christian teachings (or violent) then by default, they cannot be a Christian.
Another term is 'Cino' or 'Christian In Name Only'
I think all the opponents of Same Sex mirage in the 2000’s are owed an apology by Democrats.
They're still saying "the slippery slope is a fallacy," so that won't happen
Same sex marriage is a trojan horse for destroying society from the inside we need to ban before it s too late
Seeing as I was a kind of default liberal 15 year old (yay public schools....) back then and then a libertarian later down the road I'm sorry I used to laugh at the slippery slope. Seeing that the slippery slope wasn't always fallacy probably played a small part in my conversion.
Is that why religious theocracies practice and legalize pedophilia and bestiality the most? And why consent laws and their enforcement is the harshest in ‘secular’ Europe? Or why child marriage is exclusively legalized in conservative US states because of backing from religious fanatics? There’s no ‘slippery slope’ because there can be no consent with either children or animals. That’s enough of a reason to oppose those practices. The only slippery slope here occurs when your morality endorses whatever your book of choice says, regardless of consent.
@@RationalistMH I think by religous theocracies you include Muslim countries. They aren’t in our camp. We are not pro-religion, we are pro-true religion. The Catholic Church has always taught that consent is a necessary but insufficient condition for licit intercourse.
As The Babylon Bee wrote: "There is no slippery slope", says movement hurtling down slippery slope at maximum velocity.
It's not that there is no slippery slope, it's that it isn't a logical necessity so it doesn't work in a formal deductive argument. It works fine in a probabilistic argument, though.
Thank you so much for this video. I am not a Catholic but a member of another Christian denomination. It is great to see that there are people out there standing up for what is without a doubt ethically right.
Crazy, it is as if the creator of the universe had reasons for not allowing things
Almost like he knew what we would be up to.
@@ModernLadyHe knew and did nothing against it, allthough he easily could have, so he is the one to blame. This all powerful all good god fable really makes no sense at all.
@TgfkaTrichter By definition, since He is God, He cannot be "to blame" because He is the source of morality. Moreover, the reason He permits evil is because He has lovingly gifted us free will. That doesn't mean freedom from consequences, and there are certainly natural consequences of evil and sin on display in this world.
@@connorhurley9512 and what is with all the evil, that cannot be explained away by free will? Also what is with sexual tendencies, that we are born with, which is a thing, you know? You story makes no sense, no matter how you spin it. There is a reason, why Apologists are needed to defend religious claims, which they normally do by lying.
@@TgfkaTrichter "he did nothing against it", false, he told us to not do that, he told us how to not do that, he gave us tools to be forgiven when we do evil and repent, and he outlined the consequences for repenting and for not repenting.
After the Destiny debate, I had commented on the video listing all the horrific things Trent had gotten Destiny to admit to and I had a bunch of Destiny bros say "well you're just saying it like it's obviously wrong, without saying why" I was appalled, but they were shocked when I explained that you cannot sin against an animal, abusing an animal is a sin against God by corrupting yourself and transgressing His natural order. The debate went on until finally I argued for Christian Moralism being superior to Utilitarian Harm reduction ethics with the below
(1) We all have a moral system, for most of us that system runs in the background and we don't think about it much.
(2) When those systems are actually brought to the forefront and must be articulated is when we can test them
(3) if your system cannot condemn obviously bad things like the above mentioned then I contend that it's a broken system
(4) Destiny's system is based on utility which is slippery as a concept and has no eternal grounding principles so it must be informed by social consensus. With no grounding for morality, we're left with law so this morality requires a social consensus to create morality. What does this mean in practice? You must have a governing body that doesn't just enshrine or respect morality, but actually CREATES it and thus Government dethrones God. I would contend that this is a much more arrogant and grasping worldview than the traditional religious view. This also demonstrates why he requires socialism. He talks a lot about freedom, but in the end his morals demand huge government systems. The only freedoms he cares about are the freedoms to pursue pleasure.
(5) My religious ethics stand outside of government. I don't believe they are created by social consensus of what constitutes harm reduction. This is why the founding fathers said that our constitutional system only works on a religious populace. To have freedom from government, you must have deference to God and common purpose.
(6) Because my ethics stand outside of government, I don't require every one of them to be law. In some twisted sense, Destiny's morals are so enmeshed with social consensus and studies that he feels he cannot have any moral certainty even on these obviously grotesque things until he has social consensus/law then he can just point to the law whilst not morally condemning anything which would topple the whole system. What about Destiny's system would have led to the abolishment of slavery? One of the most popular arguments for slavery was a utilitarian argument. Now I'm sure Destiny would bring in his other fundamental axiom, consent, to protest that he'd be against slavery, but he just grants himself "consent" as a concept with no 'why' behind it. Worldviews like that seem to me to be built on top of older moral systems and then they knock out the foundation they're built on thinking it'll still stand over time. One thing most people realize about humans is that we need a 'why' or we fall apart. No adequate 'why' often leads to depression or hedonism.
(7) I am not contending that Destiny likes these things or would do them, on the contrary, I think he knows how they sound, but he is compelled to refrain from strong condemnations in order to uphold the consistency of his utilitarian ethics. Is that really much better? Like most westerners, Destiny has Christian ethics running the background of his moral system, but he doesn't realize that.
(8) See our nation used to agree that we were all created by the same God and thus we all had divine and innate human value and a nature that was both inherently flawed and also grasping for eternity. It took us a while to all agree on that. That belief took root and grew. Growing from that belief is the idea of moral obligation and that we had a duty to conform to God's moral purpose. All these combinations flowered into the crown of the West.
(9) Now we have completely rejected conformity to natural purpose so our flower has no leaves, we have abandoned God so it has no roots, and we're desperately trying to prop up the idea of innate human value with "consent."
(10) Even if you're repulsed by the idea of believing in God, surely you can see the value in accepting the concepts of innate human value and natural purpose. Now I think your ethics are incomplete without God, but a flower can live for a time in a vase.
Just a thought:
Even though animals are often legally viewed as things and property, laws should also be introduced to protect them and used to punish people who mistreat other living beings (whether human or animal) and an animal would not do so on its own and came up with the idea of using an absolutely alien creature in this way.
You only find rare combinations within a species group -> horses and donkeys; Dogs, domestic cats, etc. Animals in the wild seem to be much more picky.
What constitutes an “obviously bad thing”? That itself falls into moral relativism because attitudes towards particular behavior may vary by culture. Slavery wasn’t always an “obviously bad thing”, including from a religious perspective. If intuitions can be wrong, then that can’t be used to bolster your moral argument.
@@Ciarian the wisdom of repugnance can certainly be used to bolster an argument, it just can't be used as the only basis. Also, you missed the entire point. I am the one arguing that these things are NOT obviously wrong in the secular Humanist worldview, but that our current culture operates on Christian ethics in the background and thus most people still have remnants of the fruits of that system. The 2 main principles I was discussing were (1) the idea of inherent human value and (2) the idea of natural purpose or natural order. Sex is ordered toward reproduction and thus one determination of sexual ethics would be proximity to that natural purpose. Trent explains this in the video. The abolishment of slavery is a fruit of the argument for inherent human value. The fundamental tenant of today "consent" is not a granted moral principle. It rests in the laurels of the Christian ethic
@@Hearth123 one of your major points is that if a system of ethics cannot condemn “obviously bad things” it is broken, but what is “obviously bad” can often be culturally relative. If intuitions can be wrong then they can’t be used to bolster your argument. The Catholic sexual ethic is not very intuitive to me, masturbation being an evil I flat out reject.
Actually you can say veganism is moral and bestiality is wrong based on conciousness and suffering, however what you would have to conclude is that we are stuck in this immoral world therefore we should move towards the unknown good by acting virtuously (reducing unjust suffering), in all forms of life.
Thank you for being a man and having the hard discussion Trent. Merry Christmas
I’m struggling with my own immorality and some of our brothers have gone to this extent? 🙇🏾♂️🙇🏾♂️ Was a really uncomfortable topic couldn’t watch whole thing. Really unbelievable and unimaginable . Dear GOD, save your people 😢
Have mercy on us and on the whole world
"some of our brothers". Are you a nonbeliever? If so, have you never heard of Peter Singer? I'm a nonbeliever and was already familiar with Singer, and have been for a long time. When I saw this video was about him, I wasn't surprised about the content therein, lol.
"Our culture is morally sick" is probably the most important thing I've heard recently. Thanks for this video, Trent.
I'm reminded of a phrase used a few times in the Bible, "burn with fire."
These people are sick. Thank you Trent for wading through the mud to defend truth
Almost as sick as paying for the death and murder of animals.
Thank you, Trent, for exposing these works of darkness and offering caution on the weak arguments as well as that which does defeat the defence of the enemy.
God bless.
Thank you for the effort you take to dismantle these unbelievable depraved arguments.
Almost as depraved as paying for the death and murder of animals, something that Trent is fine with apparently.
I think the fact that this man is one of the most famous living philosophers in the world-as opposed to an unknown shmuck who is immediately rebuked, dismissed or called out by default by anyone he spouts or promotes this wretched insanity to-already speaks volumes to the state of the world
My fiancée had to do a philosophy course a little while ago, and I noticed Peter Singer in the curriculum when I was helping her out. His opinions regarding foreign aide and how the US and other 1st world countries should support other countries rubbed me the wrong way.
Can't say I'm surprised to hear this is also part of his beliefs.
I think it's safe to say that there are some flaws in utilitarianism.
Not within its own framework. It doesn’t contradict itself, it just permits things that are gross.
“The world is a toxic dump of evil and sometimes you have to put on your moral hazmat suit and wade in.” - Trent Horn (2023).
That's a horrible way to view the universe which was created by a loving God for the purpose of glorifying Himself. 🤣
The last time a society practiced what is being practiced now, God smited the city. People turned to salt from the fallout!
Untrue.
The sin there was not being hospitable, it had nothing to do with sexual behavior.
@@michaelsbeverlyI guess that the term sodomy has absolutely nothing to do with “Sodom” lol.
“ Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” - genesis 19:4-5.
Hm seems pretty sexually oriented to me? Lol man, some people will do anything to protect their golden calf of sexual liberation.
@@michaelsbeverlyGiven the fate of Lot and his daughters and the fruit of creating some of the tribes of Israel's enemies. I would beg to differ.
@@LostArchivist Then you're putting your own opinion above the scripture.
Okay.
@@michaelsbeverly I think you should probably take the log out of your own eye. Nothing they said was incorrect.
Lot's daughters got him drunk and slept with him. They each bore him a son, Moab and Ammon. Their descendants would later wage war against Israel.
All of this is attributed to the fact that Lot's daughters were raised in a morally depraved city.
The lack of self awareness in progressive circles tells you there are communes where what Peter Singer spreads are not only permitted but celebrated, advanced, and acted upon.
I usually watch these videos while eating. Gotta save this one for later…
As some deep into politics, like myself, learning good arguments against the current Evils of Our Age is a must.
I am sorry You have to suffer these subjects, so degenerate politicians like myself are equipped to face the horrors of the day.
This video is hard to watch, but it does offer benefit.
Sincerely in Xto
A Ghetto Conservative
Mike B. B. From Philly, P.A. U.S.A.
Just got myself the Counterfeit Christ which I already enjoy! Thank you Trent
Destiny and his ilk would have us contemplating existence like rats seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. I choose to contemplate higher, deeper, and better things
"I don't want to live on this planet anymore" Simpsons guy meme. 😂
That’s Futurama.
@@Ruudes1483 oops my bad
Also, Aquinas himself told that bestiality is the highest deviation of chastity. Its the worst expression of the Unnatural Vice, the worst of the species of lust.
If they no longer feel disgust- then why would they care about consequences?
Oh, the discussions we have to have. What I have come to understand is that we really don't understand what sex is.
Is it that difficult to understand?
Thank you for carefully, presenting and exploring these issues
You have to wonder what goes wrong in people's lives to end up this sad and down.
porn
They have fallen to a great delusion. How can we get out of this mess?
The animal cannot give consent. That makes it the r-word.
Just like with priests and children.
What is more disgusting to you?
repulsive?
@@michaelsbeverly What is more disgusting? Seeing an ignorant person who never bothered to read the studies that explained what happened and so while you they are resting from the drugs they are on and in between moments of beating up their loved ones, they come here as a hypocrite and troll.
@@skitsschist11 rmonkey
@@skitsschist11 You’re not wrong
Thank you, Trent, my brother in Christ for doing what you do. I have been undergoing a spiritual reawakening and I want you to know that you have been an integral source of knowledge and wisdom for me. I was so far from Christ that I had forgotten there was ever a path. Serendipitously, I stumbled upon this channel one day several weeks ago and you not only reminded me of the path, you helped me find the courage and strength to actually walk it. Stay safe. ✌️
Giving kids PTSD by forcing sex of any kind on them is harm. The education has been forcing sex on our kids for decades now, Even when I was a kid they were showing films for self care including how to deal with the monthy bleeding of girls, something parents are suppose to do and as they saw the films too they should have know now to do.
You are so right our culture has no idea what “sex” really is. Keep up the good work.
I'm not Catholic, but ain't no one in this world wouldnt admit Trent horn is one of the best debaters on the planet
I would say one of the better debaters in the world. The world is a big place and not every debater is on the Internet!
Thank you for your service! God bless!
A perversion is a diversion or misuse of natural purpose... like you stated, 'outside of its intended purpose'. As Romans Chapter 1 so eloquently puts it from the first verse... there is an argument from nature (which we attribute coming from God) against certain things. Wonderful and insightful... and scary.
You are such a blessing for us sir. Thank you.
This is pure wickedness. Should interview Dr. Robert Gagnon on sexual ethics.
Trent, thank you for what you are doing. I know it is deeply unpleasant and wretched, but we need people like you on the front lines. Bless you.
the rate of moral rot in today's world is incredible. how lost this world is without Christ and the Church is insane, and more proof that not just we, but society needs the Church to be a major part. goodness grief
I'm still at "That's gross! What's wrong with you!" 🤢
Given that we (hopefully) all agree that children cannot consent to sexual relations because they don't understand the ramifications of sex, wouldn't this also apply to animals? And if they're saying that sex can sometimes be just about feeling good physically, then wouldn't this also lead them to justifying child molestation? After all that's the one thing both children and animals know about it.
But again, if we train or eat animals without their consent, what makes it wrong to use them for sexual pleasure with their no full knowledge consent?
And also what do you do about the no harmful ways to have sex with animals?
@@EdgardoSilva-od3tdRepent.
@@EdgardoSilva-od3td Well I was just highlighting how we consider informed consent to be important when it comes to sex specifically, and showing where the slippery slope leads if we stop. So long as consent is important when it comes to sex overall, then it's an argument against bestiality unless you say that the full ramifications of sex amount to physical pleasure.
So it's not about the consent itself, but about how we can perceive something special about sex. Not the exact point Trent landed on, but similar.
There is an increasing number of people on the far left who don't even agree with the former let alone the latter.
We need a stronger reason to say it's wrong to sexualize children, or for children to sexualize themselves, than their lack of understanding of sex's ramifications. Not that informed consent isn't necessary, but it is insufficient.
First, I think one could make an argument that there could exist a 10 year old and a 20 year old, neither of whose brains' are fully developed, where the former understands the ramifications far more than the latter (perhaps the former grew up seeing close friends and family personally affected or was in a very sex-positivie environment, while the latter was incredibly sheltered). It should not follow that this 10 year old has a stronger claim to consenting to sex than the 20 year old.
Second, we do all sorts of things to children which they do not/cannot understand the full ramifications of. E.g. give them medications, perform surgery on them, paedo-baptism (if you believe in that), etc. This is one reason trans surgery for children is such a slippery slope; it's a bridge between surgery (which we do think we can do to children/children can "consent" to) and sexuality (which is inappropriate for children). If a child can "consent" to removing their tonsils, why can't they consent to changing their sex? And if they can consent to changing their sex, why can't they consent to sex?
Again, I'm not saying consent isn't important in sex, but it's insufficient. I think Trent's conversations with Destiny show some of the deep flaws of trying to use consent as a sole basis, and I would argue Destiny doesn't follow his own logic to some of its more gruesome conclusions. This is part of Trent's argument here, that consent is insufficient to decry sexualizing children.
“The ummmm neither” at 2:37 has me crying with laughter 😂
The CDC statistics on MSM (sodomy) are quite alarming.
The Pope should be asked," How can a good God sanction what science proves is so destructive of the human body?"
God allows free will. He has given you His laws and teachings. The question that really needs to be asked is not of the Pope, but of ourselves as to why we allow that behavior not why a good God allows use to use His gift of free will to allow such behavior.
Hola Trent, saludos desde México!! You have a lot of viewers here I hope your fanbase grow!
Gross, dude. I am so glad we got all that out of the way and I never have to think of it again.
Trent, I'm praying for you as you continue to brave the darkest recesses of society. I can't imagine how heavy it must be to constantly engage with the worst kinds of depravity and the people who not only defend it but promote it. Thank you for the important work you're doing!
This anonymous author should have his hard drive and electronic devices investigated by law enforcement ASAP.
Thank you for this Trent. It's nuts you even need to do this. Lord please help us
I almost forgot to like this...i mean I didn't like the topic but I liked the video. Thanks Trent!
Thank you for doing the really hard work Trent. Merry Christmas!
It seems to me the primary reason that bestiality is wrong is because God says it is. That's not to say there isn't harm from it. My sense is that the harm is less obvious. For one, it seems to me it's more harmful to humans than it is to the animal. Because sexual activity is such a sacred act, the further you get from its intended use, the more degrading it becomes. I also imagine there is deep psychological and spiritual/demonic type stuff that is part of the act.
It also seems to me that sex is a theological statement. When a husband and wife engage in sexual activity, they are in a sense glorifying God a "re emphasizing" the image of God, the gospel etc.
I disagree God wouldn't say it's wrong it wasn't objectively wrong.
I lost it at "allowing a dog to enjoy your leg"😂. God bless you Trent, most people couldnt keep a straight face on this topic.
Anyone who calls themself an "ethicist" these days is inherently unethical.
2:22 Mr. Horn awesome job catching the ‘HEADS’ I win; ‘TAILS’ you lose coins toss question. The true answer is NEITHER! 👏👏👏
Tony soprano also came to this conclusion in one of his sessions with Dr. Melfi
I'll have to look for that (or you could just tell me the season and episode 😃). It makes me think of Ralph's extremely odd fetishes... perhaps it came up that way? 🤔
@@wet-readlol no its the episode where he is talking about Vito being gay and he doesn’t know what do to about the situation
@@windmill63
Gotcha, thanks!
I happen to think that Teleology/Natural Law is Metaphysics *ON BLACK ICE*
Frankly, I think if someone even needs to be told these things, they’re too far gone. I would not want such people in my life.
I dont think the speciesist argument has to even be rebutted. It is just a word salad. Just because a string of words can be said doesn't mean it's coherent. Only the people who have a broken mind entertain broken ideas
Thank you for the content, Trent! You're one of my favourites! 😄
This poor man’s wife never wins an argument.
Oh boy, you do understimate the sheer power that wives have of winning any argument not matter how wrong they are.
Thank you, Trent.
The world isn’t complicated. Singer is obviously into this.
Definitely testing the waters
@@stevendouglas3781 I meant testing the waters as in seeing how people would react, but you're right
@@thehumblepotatoreborn9313 Oh, I know. You see this strategy with all sorts of depravity. They lose the mental battle and begin to try to condition those around them.
Thank you. This is important.
Just wait, MAPs are the next topic Peter Singer and other secular ethicists will bring up
Trent, why introduce Cenk into a conversation on this topic without citing the infamous video where he stated he doesn't think "relations" with horses is wrong if the horse enjoys it? How he still has a career after that is beyond me.
How far have we fallen when we need to debate such depravities?!
Keep in mind these are the same people who don't know what a woman is
It seems that people will deny the Slippery Slope until they have slid into the gutter.
Really appreciate this video.
Trent: "I really really dont want to talk about Beastiality"
Well... No ones forcing you, dude. You talk about what you want to talk about.
I take 7 medications a day, most of which have multiple side effects. No one is forcing me to take them, but I take them even though I really really don't want to.
I try to donate platelets regularly, I really really don't want to, but I do it any way, even though no one is forcing me to.
I go grocery shopping once a week...oh wait I like doing that but oddly no one has to force me to do that either.
"Yeah but Animals do it, and humans are Animals."
This is my favorite counterpoint. It is spouted nonstop by Atheists, without them realizing what that truly implies.
Animals and children can't consent, period.
and why can you kill and eat animals but not children?
The thing with this issue is that it can only be properly understood in light of other values which is what makes so difficult to defend on its own. Pope Francis himself talked about this.
to think, Peter Singer used to be my animal welfare and ethical vegetarianism hero.
Trent, just wanted to stop and say thank you for what you do, and praise God for giving us you. For someone to do what you do, it requires not only an intense interest in debate and apologetics, it also requires you to delve your mind into disgusting matters on a daily basis and face the fallen world for what it is, but then you also use your gifts and your interests and you put yourself out there in the spotlight, taking huge risks with your source of income in a world unfriendly to your message, and going into the type of places Jesus went to firmly spread the Gospel. You are a gift to all Christians and when you have the mic, God is winning
It’s like asking someone would you want to be a duck with a human head or a man with a ducks head it’s not really a question or an argument neither opinions are good.
The way my mind works, I of course have to wonder if the slippery slope continues. Glad you're not having to talk about necrophilia.
Cenk Uygur actually buys into this.
He's a nitwit, respectfully
I couldn’t even watch this. But I will leave a comment because ik it helps the channel!!
It’s disturbing that people appeal to the animal’s “consent” when discussing this. That they think the animal is the victim in this disgusting degradation of humanity.
I agree, I mean the animal is probably like, "Hey, now this is pretty cool. This is a beautiful lady, not some disgusting, hairy dog, like usual."
@@michaelfetter5413 eww.
The animal is also a victim. That's half the point
@@kevinmurphy5878 It’s not. Animals are eaten. Animals are stepped on. Humans have dominion over them. All you’re doing is inviting a utilitarian argument to show that they actually like it. It doesn’t matter if they like it. The act is an abomination.
Animals can be used for food but can't be tortured. Bestiality is torture.
Can't find the tweet anymore so clearly Singer took it down after the backlash. Says enough.
Is this Peter Singer a vegan? The things he's saying sounds exactly like the arguments I've heard some vegans made.
@Thatsmynametoo2 oi yoi yoi! Seriously?! TVT was bad enough.
The idea of "behavioral consent" is terrifying when you consider that some people have an arousal response while being raped.
"Your Honor, she consented to the sexual encounter when she was wet."