# Libertarian Gets WRECKED in Debate With Andrew Wilson—He QUITS!

**Channel:** Hope In Christ
**Source:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-XUL3DgcOw
**Transcript page:** https://www.withtranscript.ai/video/f-XUL3DgcOw

## Chapters

- 0:01 — Opening the Ethics Debate
- 1:38 — Objectivist Ethics Explained
- 6:13 — Critique of Rand and Axioms
- 9:26 — Roadkill, Harm, and Fallacies
- 14:34 — Testing Sexual Ethics Boundaries
- 23:38 — Consent, Norms, and Incest
- 37:50 — Property Rights and Public Exposure
- 46:20 — Final Clash Over Evidence

## Transcript

**[0:01] Speaker A:** Yes, I can.

**[0:02] Speaker B:** All right.

**[0:03] Speaker A:** Any issue with my microphone? The last time I did one of these on StreamYard, I kept echoing in the in the recording.

**[0:09] Speaker B:** No, there's no echo.

**[0:11] Speaker A:** Okay, perfect.

**[0:14] Speaker B:** All right. So, uh, responding to my tweet about feminism, you said you wanted to debate.

**[0:20] Speaker A:** Yes. Not feminism. I said I wanted to debate your ideology against mine, which is what I've been wanting to debate with you for quite some time. And the reason I wanted to debate it with you is because I saw you utterly dismantle Dave Smith in a debate

**[0:36] Speaker B:** by asking him the very question that I had been wanting to ask him about what was his standard of morality. Once I saw you do that to him, I thought, well, I no longer want to debate Dave. I wanted to debate you.

**[0:49] Speaker A:** Okay. What do you want to debate me about?

**[0:52] Speaker B:** I wanted to debate with you about ethics.

**[0:55] Speaker A:** Oh, okay. So, Christian ethics against what ethics?

**[0:58] Speaker B:** Objectivist ethics.

**[1:00] Speaker A:** Objectivist being what?

**[1:02] Speaker B:** Einran. The philosophy of Einran.

**[1:04] Speaker A:** Sure. No problem. Let's go ahead and do that.

**[1:08] Speaker B:** And uh I really just respect the fact that you did it this quickly. Uh that's that that's quite respectable.

**[1:15] Speaker A:** Oh, no. I'm happy to do it, especially uh especially if you're an An Rand ethsist. So, yeah, that's fine. Um since you're the challenger, I'm going to let you open. I'll give you seven minutes to make your case and then uh I'll do a seven-minute response and we'll just open the floor and go back and forth.

**[1:32] Speaker B:** Okay. So, are we on right now? I don't even know.

**[1:35] Speaker A:** We're live right this second.

**[1:36] Speaker B:** Oh, all right. Perfect.

**[1:38] Speaker B:** Well, Einran's ethics in essence first I guess the thing to do would be to define ethics and ethics is ultimately a code of values that guides human behavior. So the fundamental concept in there the concept that needs to be defined and explained would be that of value because if values are subjective then there can be no ethics and rand defined a value as that which you seek to gain or keep I'd like to expand on that by saying a value is any object or object or quality that's desirable as a means or end in itself in itself. So now the question becomes well where does this come from? Well, the whole concept of value only arises when you have living beings, living entities. Because living entities are the only entities that face the alternative of existence or non-existence. At any given time, a living entity has to use the material that it gains from its environment in order to promote and sustain its life.

**[2:43] Speaker B:** So that being the case, an organism's life is its standard of value. Now when it comes to human beings, the difference between human beings and all other living organisms is that human beings have free will. We have to choose how to behave. We have to discover those things in our environment that are good for us and that are bad for us so that we can pursue the former and evade the latter. That is the science of ethics. The things that we should do, those things that we should pursue. Now obviously I'm an individual. I'm an individual with free will with a conceptual faculty. Reason is my means of survival. It's also my only means of knowledge. So that which is good for me is that which is good for a rational being or or a being that uses reason as its means of survival.

**[3:33] Speaker A:** So if my life if all humans are individuals and human life is a standard of value then when I'm assessing what is moral or immoral I gauge it by what is good for me and what is bad for me that which is good for me is moral that which is bad for me is immoral but that's not enough but once you know that then you actually have to discover those things that are good for you so if reason is my means of survival and my means of gaining knowledge then I have to cultivate my ability to reason I have to cultivate my rational faculty. So that would be a value. I also can't live aimlessly. To do so would be to utterly destroy myself because I'd be living by whim. But whatever emotion happened to strike me. So I need purpose. So that's my second ruling value.

**[4:18] Speaker A:** Finally, I have to consider myself as worthy of living. I I need to one have the confidence that I can achieve my life, can achieve my happiness, and I have to believe that I deserve it. That's self-esteem. So my three fundamental values would be reason, purpose and self-esteem. Now how do I go after those things? Well, I practice the virtues. Virtues are the means by which we attain our values. So that would be rationality, the use of my rational faculty. I have to be productive because I need to produce those things in life that are going to sustain me. Honesty because I live in reality, so I have to live in accord with reality and not try to fabricate a fictitious one. independence because I'm an individual and to live as a dependent on someone else would be a par to live as a parasite and could ultimately lead to my destruction and ultimately would justice because if I want to live

**[5:10] Speaker A:** in a good world I should give to others that which they deserve and then expect to do so that they would do so in return and also because it's important to encourage the good and discourage the bad. pride which is just the pursuit of my own moral perfection. That's another one of the virtues. Constantly striving to be better to not allow any breach to not allow any breach of integrity. Integrity which means loyalty loyalty to rational principles. So if I am going to live an ethical life those are the values and virtues that I need to live by. Now you'll notice that none of these are commands from God. None of them are rely on an extra sensory mode of perception. None of them rely on faith. It's all grounded in the nature of what I am and what I need to survive. And it's all contingent on one fundamental choice.

**[6:01] Speaker A:** I have to want to live. If I don't want to live, then ethics becomes irrelevant to my life. I just need to sit back and die. And with that, I think I can let turn it over to you for your seven minutes.

**[6:13] Speaker A:** I don't think I need a full seven.

**[6:15] Speaker B:** Yeah. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. Do you Did you want to take a second and tell people where they could find you?

**[6:21] Speaker A:** Oh, sure.

**[6:21] Speaker B:** And maybe introduce yourself briefly.

**[6:24] Speaker A:** Yeah. Sorry. My name is Michael Liuititz. I'm the host of the Rational Egoist podcast. It's available on YouTube, uh, Spotify, anywhere you get your podcast. And I deal with the type of things that we're talking about today. Ideas, ideas in philosophy, economics, politics, psychology, criminal justice, uh, whatever may be the case. if it's an idea, I'm interested in it. And uh just so everybody knows, I spent 25 years in prison. I've been out for less than two. Um while in prison, I authored two books. One, Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime and also View from a Cage: My Transformation from Convict to Crusader for Liberty.

**[7:05] Speaker B:** Okay. Um so I'm going to make my uh my opening statement a bit more brief. Um I've been kind of taking some notes here as you've been going. Let's start with Anne Rand. Anne Rand was a scumbag. She um if I remember correctly, she was cheating on her significant other with a man who was significantly younger than she was. She was having an affair, diance. And most of her ethics came from the fact that she was trying to create justifications against universal ethics into individual ethics so that she could justify her said bad behavior. Her book Atlas Shrugged, she made all of the corporatists the good guys. that was the only way she can reconcile having a non-government was that a government was then formed from a corportocracy. Uh and that's exactly what it became. John G took all of the major corporate heads, created a brand new government in an island somewhere.

**[7:58] Speaker B:** All the all that she did was shift one government to another government. It was one of the dumbest stories that I've ever heard. Um so the idea that you got your standard of ethics from an Rand I think is laughable but uh moving into the ethical claims themselves all you did was give me an axiom and on that axiom you have built your entire ideology the axiom is flawed so let me explain the flaw and the axiom we'll start with something simple justice. All right justice is universally very difficult to define. When you define justice, you define it as, I don't know, some way in which somebody writes some wrong against you. Uh, I have no idea what that means or how that could be a right, right? A a writed wrong. Can you uh, for instance, if somebody cuts your ear off, do you cut their ear off back?

**[8:48] Speaker B:** Is that just? I think you could make the argument that it is. But from your perspective, I think you would argue that it is not. Though I don't know how you could make such an argument, right? So all of these just kind of blend from the singular changeable axiom which is my preferences. So you say that Dave Smith uh during my criticism of him, I'm going to give you the same exact criticism and I guarantee you're not going to be able to give me any answer to it. So I'm going to bellay the rest of my opening statement to just demonstrate this for you. Give me a reason why non-reproductive incest is wrong. A single moral reason why non-reproductive incest is wrong.

**[9:26] Speaker B:** Well, first of all, I'm not just going to grant you to ask me that question. I'm going to address the other things you said. First, you addressed Iron Ran's character, which is completely irrelevant to me. Your ad homonym attacks against her mean nothing as far as what she said. It's like saying, "Well, my doctor's real fat and he smokes cigarettes, so therefore, if he tells me to take penicellin when I have a virus, I'm not going to do it." That's silliness. Her character is irrelevant. I don't care about it one way or the other. You then psychologized as to her motivation. And you said she tried to change from a universal ethics from it to an individual ethics. That's false. Her ethics is universally applicable. You then said that I talked about justice as remedying some wrong. That's not what I said. What I said is justice means giving people what they deserve.

**[10:09] Speaker B:** That means rewarding the good and punishing the bad. As far as Atlas Shrugged being a sort of warship of corporatism, that that's just false. Atlas Shrugged is a praise and a absolute monument to men of the mind to people who actually produce to entrepreneurs to scientists. It has nothing to do with what we associate with corporatism today or these corporations that are are seeking favors from the government and that sort of thing. Now, as far as your question is, how do I say that nonreroductive incest is wrong? Note that you're assuming it is. You're starting with the assumption that is is

**[10:51] Speaker A:** No, I'm not assum I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking you if you can make a moral argument.

**[10:55] Speaker B:** I'm I'm going to tell you the truth. It's not really something that I've thought in depth about if if you're talking about a a brother.

**[11:03] Speaker A:** How how can all of you fall prey to the same argument every time? Can you tell me why

**[11:09] Speaker B:** can you make a single argument from your worldview for why nonreroductive incest is wrong? Or can't you? I didn't say it was wrong. I said I don't know.

**[11:19] Speaker A:** Okay. So, is it wrong about it?

**[11:21] Speaker B:** Is it wrong?

**[11:22] Speaker A:** I don't know.

**[11:22] Speaker B:** You don't know if non-reproductive incest is wrong?

**[11:25] Speaker A:** No, I haven't thought about it. I haven't thought about

**[11:30] Speaker B:** Okay. If a guy If a guy's walking down the street

**[11:33] Speaker A:** and he finds roadkill on the ground and he lives by himself and he picks it up and he has sex with it. Is that wrong?

**[11:39] Speaker B:** I would say yes. It is. Well, here's the problem is in order to demonstrate that these things are wrong is you're getting into very concrete things. Yeah. And you have to get into the psychology of human beings. What revolts us? What doesn't?

**[11:52] Speaker A:** Great. I'm waiting for you to do that to tell me why it's wrong.

**[11:54] Speaker B:** The effect on us and what the roadkill thing.

**[11:57] Speaker A:** Yeah. Why is it wrong?

**[11:58] Speaker B:** Have sex with roadkill. Why is it wrong?

**[12:00] Speaker A:** Well, because ultimately human beings were sexual beings, right? And there is norms of behavior that are encoded in our DNA as far as what we ought to have sex with and not. for somebody to do what you're saying.

**[12:12] Speaker B:** That's a facious argument.

**[12:14] Speaker A:** Well, it's not.

**[12:15] Speaker B:** Yeah, it is. It's an appeal to nature. You're just saying you're just saying because

**[12:19] Speaker A:** Yeah, you're you're you're doing you're doing a naturalist fallacy because you're appealing. You're saying because we're sexual beings, we should be able to do this. That's insane.

**[12:27] Speaker B:** I didn't say we should be able to do.

**[12:28] Speaker A:** Okay. Well, then can you tell me why we shouldn't?

**[12:30] Speaker B:** Hold on. What? Hold on. Well, let's back up just a little bit. Okay. We'll back up because because I do notice this is that you want to push me on these particular

**[12:37] Speaker A:** Yeah, I do. Because that's how I test your logic. So, I want to know if it's okay to have sex with roadkill when it's on the ground. If it's not, why? Answer my question, sir.

**[12:45] Speaker B:** Wait, hold on. Do you think that if you raise your voice in that way and talk that way, it makes you right?

**[12:50] Speaker A:** No, I think that that you avoiding the question makes me right. I

**[12:54] Speaker B:** I'm not I'm just pointing out the fallacy. There's no Hold on. For you to say that to appeal to nature negates an argument.

**[13:02] Speaker A:** Yeah, it is. It's called the natural. Yes. Would you like me to give you the Here, I'll give the fallacy.

**[13:07] Speaker B:** You could give me G. Moore's argument all you want, sir. I don't care. You're you're appealing to to what he said. If you're saying that anything that

**[13:15] Speaker A:** the appeal to nature fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone assumes something's good or bad because it is natural or unnatural. That's exactly what you did. Is a facious argument called you out on it. Now, if you could please answer my question, that would be great. G, is it immoral to pick up roadkill off the street and it? And why? If you think that ethics is going to boil down to whether somebody wants to have sex with roadkill, then your view of ethics is flawed.

**[13:39] Speaker B:** Great. Can you answer my question?

**[13:41] Speaker A:** No, I'm not going to answer.

**[13:42] Speaker B:** You're not going to answer my question because you can't answer the question. Same thing as Dave Smith said the same thing. Oh, it's dumb question. It's a dumb question. Why? You can't answer. I don't understand. If it's a dumb question, why can't you answer?

**[13:52] Speaker A:** I will answer. I will answer it, but I don't want to answer it now. I want

**[13:55] Speaker B:** Oh, that's nice. I want you to answer it now.

**[13:58] Speaker A:** Well,

**[13:58] Speaker B:** instead of offiscating how it is. Okay. Well, no.

**[14:00] Speaker A:** No. Don't ask me a question. Answer my question. Don't ask me a question. Answer my question.

**[14:06] Speaker B:** Does this Does this tough guy act actually work with

**[14:09] Speaker A:** No, I'm just trying to get you to not offiscate.

**[14:11] Speaker B:** That's it.

**[14:12] Speaker A:** I gave you my answer that if a person has sex with roadkill, I would say it's wrong because it's not in that person's self-interest to do so. Why is it not in a person's self-interest to do so? Because it as human beings, we come with a certain psychology. To do things that are harmful to our psychology is harmful.

**[14:31] Speaker B:** Demonstrate it's harmful.

**[14:34] Speaker A:** What do you mean demonstrate?

**[14:35] Speaker B:** You demonstrate it's harmful.

**[14:37] Speaker A:** Demonstrate that it's harmful for me to have sex with Ro. Dude, this is so far away from an ethical discussion.

**[14:43] Speaker B:** No, it's right in the ringer of an ethical discussion. It

**[14:45] Speaker A:** has nothing to do with it. It does. It has nothing to do.

**[14:47] Speaker B:** You just said it's okay. I'm sorry. Did you make a claim just now that having sex with roadkill is wrong because it's harmful? So since you made that claim, I'm critiquing the claim and asking you how is it harmful and your answer is this is an ethical discussion.

**[15:02] Speaker A:** That's not what I said.

**[15:03] Speaker B:** Yes, it is.

**[15:04] Speaker A:** Dude, no. What I'm saying is ethics has to do with the way that we live every day.

**[15:08] Speaker B:** Okay.

**[15:09] Speaker A:** Now, what I what I want to do is go back to first principle.

**[15:13] Speaker B:** Yeah, that's great. I want you to answer my question.

**[15:15] Speaker A:** But I but dude, I'm not operating based on your standards and your assumptions.

**[15:20] Speaker B:** I know. I'm using your standards and your assumptions.

**[15:21] Speaker A:** No, you're not. My standard is this is life the standard of value or not. Can you attack that? That's what I want to see.

**[15:28] Speaker B:** Well, I don't know if if we can get there because right now I need to see if you even have

**[15:31] Speaker A:** that's the first principle.

**[15:32] Speaker B:** I just want to see if you have a coherent worldview at all. So, I'm going to start with this coherent world.

**[15:38] Speaker A:** I'm going to start with this if this is coherent or not.

**[15:41] Speaker B:** Okay.

**[15:42] Speaker A:** Tell me why. Demonstrate to me why it's harmful to go in your backyard and dig up grandoff nobody ever finds out about it and her corpse. demonstrate why that is unethical or wrong or harmful. Demonstrated.

**[15:56] Speaker B:** Dude, if your view of ethics is so warped that you're looking at an argument having sex, this is not an argument. It is. It actually is. Can I tell you why it is? Can I tell you why it is? I can't wait to hear it.

**[16:07] Speaker A:** Because Because ethics has to do with the way we live our everyday lives.

**[16:11] Speaker B:** Yeah, I know. Like digging up a dead body and having sex with it.

**[16:14] Speaker A:** Who's doing that?

**[16:15] Speaker B:** Okay. You would agree with me that people have done that? I would agree with you that that is not the norm of human.

**[16:20] Speaker A:** So what I want to know why it's wrong. Why is it wrong?

**[16:24] Speaker B:** I want to know how you

**[16:25] Speaker A:** I don't want I don't want you to ask me a question. I want you to answer one.

**[16:29] Speaker B:** I don't care.

**[16:30] Speaker A:** You can't You can't answer the question, bro.

**[16:33] Speaker B:** I can, but I'm not going to play that game with you. Of course. I I don't want to play that game with you. You can laugh and you can play all the games you want.

**[16:40] Speaker A:** It's not a game

**[16:41] Speaker B:** and maybe your audience at Dimwit goes for that and that's fine.

**[16:44] Speaker A:** Do Okay. Do you agree that inside of what you consider to be normative ethics, there's going to be sexual ethics? Sexual ethics going to be a part of that, right?

**[16:52] Speaker B:** Yes.

**[16:53] Speaker A:** Okay, great. And I'm asking you a question in regards to the sexual ethics of your system.

**[16:57] Speaker B:** And I want to know why why it is that it's not okay to to go hump a dead body. Why? Tell me.

**[17:05] Speaker A:** And I've told you 15 times and I'll tell you again. If you want to keep asking me that, I'm going to keep telling you. I'm not going to address that until we address fundamental. Well, then we don't have anything else to talk about. You answer my question.

**[17:16] Speaker B:** Hold on. Hold on. Aren't you a divine command theorist?

**[17:18] Speaker A:** Bro, it doesn't. We right now. Hang on. Hang on. Right now. Right now.

**[17:23] Speaker B:** Yeah.

**[17:23] Speaker A:** We have two ought claims on the table. You claim right that you ought not have sex with a dead body or roadkill or your sister. You claim we ought not

**[17:36] Speaker B:** Hold on. Hold on.

**[17:37] Speaker A:** Wait. Wait. You're not claiming that we ought not do that.

**[17:40] Speaker B:** Hold on.

**[17:40] Speaker A:** Or you are claiming we ought do that. I said in terms you asked me first. Oh, this is first of all, this is the dumbest ethical question I've ever heard in my life.

**[17:48] Speaker B:** Then answer it.

**[17:49] Speaker A:** Yeah, answer it.

**[17:50] Speaker B:** The reason I don't want to answer is it No, it has nothing to do with that. It has granting you the sanction of a ridiculous question.

**[17:58] Speaker A:** It's not a ridiculous question. Saying saying something's ridiculous to show me where it's facious, where I'm not asking you about not claim, where I'm not asking you about sexual ethics. Make a argument. It's ridiculous. Isn't an argument. It's ridiculous. You want to answer the question?

**[18:11] Speaker B:** No. What's ridiculous is trying to have an ethical debate and start off with the most purant disgusting thing that you could possibly come up with.

**[18:19] Speaker A:** Why? Why is that wrong? Why is that bad for me to do? Why is it bad for me to test your logic by showing you that you have a flaw when it comes to sexual ethics? You can't answer basic questions about sexual ethics.

**[18:30] Speaker B:** And I'm going, okay, the reason it's flawed is because we haven't even discussed first principles yet. Are you going to accept all the claims that I made and then ask me how having sex with a dead body violates those?

**[18:43] Speaker A:** Yes or no?

**[18:44] Speaker B:** Listen, if it is the case

**[18:46] Speaker A:** that your whatever you determine to be your first principles are not first principles. Okay.

**[18:52] Speaker B:** Can you refute the first principles?

**[18:54] Speaker A:** Well, okay. Stop.

**[18:55] Speaker B:** That's what I want.

**[18:56] Speaker A:** Stop, bro. Let's get into this first. Okay.

**[18:58] Speaker B:** Okay.

**[18:59] Speaker A:** I'm asking you an ought question. Very basic ought question under your worldview.

**[19:04] Speaker B:** Yes. Is it okay for a brother to his mother or his father if it leads to non-reproduction? Are they allowed to do that or not?

**[19:16] Speaker A:** Okay. And what I'm saying to you is you're not going to answer. No, I'm not interested in discussing that.

**[19:21] Speaker B:** Well, okay. Well, I am I am interested in discussing it.

**[19:24] Speaker A:** Why? Because I want to know the entailment of your position. I this this will get to the heart of whether or not you can actually answer any of these these claims when it comes to your system. Your ethical system covers sexual ethics. You want to go to first principles argue over first principles. That's fine. That's fine. But first, before we get to that, the same argument Dave Smith fell prey to. You're also falling prey to the entailment. Yes. You just hold on, bro. Bro, hang on. Let me finish and then I'll let you talk. Okay. Okay. Go ahead. I just want an answer to this question. Can you under your ethical system, your ethical system, whatever that is, right? Give me an answer to the question of why it would be wrong for somebody's son to have sex with them if it led to non-reproduction or having sex with a dead body if nobody ever found out about it.

**[20:17] Speaker A:** Can you tell me why those things would be wrong?

**[20:21] Speaker B:** First off, what Dave Smith fell prey to. Dude, I'm I'm not interested in this. I'm interested in an answer.

**[20:27] Speaker A:** You said that my claim at the beginning was I respected what you did with Dave Smith. What I respect

**[20:33] Speaker B:** I'm doing the same thing to you.

**[20:35] Speaker A:** But you're really not as the same question

**[20:39] Speaker B:** because dude I Okay, back up for two. Just talk first principles.

**[20:46] Speaker A:** No, we can't. We're going to start We're going to start with sexual ethics. And I want to know

**[20:51] Speaker B:** because I want to know the answer. Dude, dude, do you does this yelling stuff do you really think that accomplishes

**[20:56] Speaker A:** Do you think that speaking softly making no arguments isn't frustrating to people?

**[21:00] Speaker B:** Dude, I my my argument is the questions you're asking are irrelevant.

**[21:06] Speaker A:** That's not an argument. That's not an argument. No, it's not.

**[21:08] Speaker B:** Because it is. Want me to tell you why it's irrelevant?

**[21:11] Speaker A:** I can't wait.

**[21:11] Speaker B:** It's irrelevant to everyday life. Cuz the vast majority of people that are listening to this and that are walking around the world that need ethical guidance aren't interested in having sex with dead bodies. They're sisters and mothers.

**[21:23] Speaker A:** That's great. But they are interested in a system which can answer to the question of if you can or can't. So can we get back to whether you can or can't? Can you?

**[21:31] Speaker B:** Ought you. Is it okay? Or ought you not. Ought you not you not dig up grandma and Ought you not do that?

**[21:38] Speaker A:** Why do you talk like that?

**[21:39] Speaker B:** Cuz I want you I want an answer.

**[21:42] Speaker A:** Okay, I'm going to answer that. And once I answer the dead grandma question, can we get to first principles? Yes or no?

**[21:48] Speaker B:** Sure. But you better actually give me an answer.

**[21:51] Speaker A:** Hold on. Because if I answer this question, Yeah. But here's the thing. You can disagree with me and that's fine. But I then want to go to first principles.

**[22:00] Speaker B:** That's great.

**[22:00] Speaker A:** I don't want to spend all day

**[22:01] Speaker B:** That's nice. But I mean, why would I argue? Why do I need to get to the first principles of a man who can't answer whether or not you ought not dead bodies? Why would I even need to get to your first principles?

**[22:10] Speaker A:** I said you ought not.

**[22:11] Speaker B:** Yeah. Why though? Why?

**[22:14] Speaker A:** The reason you ought not to do it is because it's not in your interest to do.

**[22:18] Speaker B:** Yeah. Prove it. demonstrate how it's not in your interest. Yeah.

**[22:22] Speaker A:** Okay. As I've said, but then you say it's a naturalistic fallacy. But you're right.

**[22:25] Speaker B:** That is a natural f. I just read the fallacy. The appeal to nature fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone assumes that something is good or bad because it's natural or unnatural.

**[22:33] Speaker A:** Hold on. I'm not assuming it's bad because it's not natural.

**[22:36] Speaker B:** Okay. Then why is it bad?

**[22:38] Speaker A:** It's bad because the natural makeup of human beings

**[22:43] Speaker B:** operate in a certain way.

**[22:44] Speaker A:** Okay. That's a naturalist fall. That's the same fallacy, bro.

**[22:47] Speaker B:** No. No, it's not. Let me ask you a question, Andrew.

**[22:50] Speaker A:** Okay. Then homosexuality is wrong because it's not natural.

**[22:54] Speaker B:** That's not what I said. I didn't

**[22:55] Speaker A:** No, that's what I'm saying. Am I wrong?

**[22:57] Speaker B:** I'm saying it's not natural.

**[22:59] Speaker A:** I'm saying it's wrong because it's harmful to the person that does it.

**[23:03] Speaker B:** Okay. Then homosexuality is wrong because it's harmful to the person that does it.

**[23:06] Speaker A:** No, because it's not harmful to the person.

**[23:08] Speaker B:** Oh, okay. Got it. Right. Okay. So, now we have an argument. Great.

**[23:13] Speaker A:** Why is homosexuality not harmful? Because homosexuality lies within the normal range of human behavior. It's not psychologically damaging to a person to engage in homosexual behavior.

**[23:28] Speaker B:** Okay? So, so as long as you you don't have psychological damage from screwing a dead body, right, and enough people screw dead bodies, then it's okay.

**[23:38] Speaker A:** But that's not the case.

**[23:39] Speaker B:** Yeah. But that's not my question as to what is the case. I'm asking you if if if people if people then but this is an entailment of your logic. So if as long as we had 2% of the population that screwed dead bodies, okay, and they didn't have any psychological damage that we could ascertain from it because they just said that they liked it like homosexuals do, then you would have no problem with people screwing dead bodies, right,

**[24:03] Speaker A:** Andrew? If human beings could flap their arms and fly

**[24:06] Speaker B:** Yeah, I'd like an answer to my question, bro.

**[24:08] Speaker A:** It is because

**[24:09] Speaker B:** this is an entailment of your argument. It's not. Now you're introducing fiction into the equation.

**[24:14] Speaker A:** No, I'm introducing I'm all I'm asking is this hypothetical.

**[24:18] Speaker B:** Is is thing X wrong? You say, "Nope, thing X isn't wrong." In this case, homosexuality isn't wrong because it doesn't have psychological damage and enough people do it that it's within sexual normativity. So, an entailment of that would be great. Then, if it was within the purview of sexual normative Stop, bro. Stop. Let me finish.

**[24:33] Speaker A:** I Hold on. No, because you misstating my point of view.

**[24:35] Speaker B:** Okay, go ahead and state it again. I did not say because enough people do it it's okay.

**[24:40] Speaker A:** Okay. Well then then why is it okay again?

**[24:42] Speaker B:** What I said it's it's within the norm of human beings.

**[24:46] Speaker A:** Yeah. But what is norm except x amount of people do it? That's it. How do you determine what is normal absent that?

**[24:51] Speaker B:** Hold on. Hold on. What I but what it's the reason it's okay is because it's not harmful. That's why.

**[24:58] Speaker A:** Yeah. But you you're when I ask you to demonstrate how it's not harmful. You say because it's within the Stop. Bro, bro, let me I just let you make your argument. Calm down.

**[25:08] Speaker B:** You're right. You're right. So,

**[25:10] Speaker A:** if I ask you this question, I say, "Well, how do you know that that it's within the norm?"

**[25:15] Speaker B:** If it's within the norm, that must mean that x amount of people do it. Otherwise, it would not be normal. It would be abnormal, right? It would be something other than normal.

**[25:26] Speaker A:** Yes.

**[25:27] Speaker B:** What What do you mean? Say that again.

**[25:28] Speaker A:** So, if you say e x behavior is within the norm of human behavior, right? X behavior then that would require X amount of humans to do it in order for you to ascertain that it's normal otherwise it would be abnormal right

**[25:40] Speaker B:** okay I'll go for that

**[25:41] Speaker A:** yeah so if that is the case then what the case you are making is that homosexuality is fine because x amount of people do it I don't know what that number is right but apparently 2% is fine because it's that's about what the number of homosexual males is 2% so as long as 2% of people engage in

**[25:59] Speaker B:** it's about I think it's higher than that but okay

**[26:01] Speaker A:** okay but let's Let's assume in the 70s it was 2% then. It doesn't matter, right? The point is is that you wouldn't say in the 70s that this was wrong either anymore than you would right now when it's only 2%. So the thing is is that all it requires is 2% of the population to do it because now we're inside of what is normal, right? And two that that it doesn't cause psychological harm. So then an entailment, so then an entailment of this would be this. Then

**[26:26] Speaker B:** as long as a person who is screwing a dead body is not being psychologically harmed by it, you would have to demonstrate how they are. And as long as there was at least 2% of people who did it, you would now call this normal sexual behavior, right?

**[26:41] Speaker A:** No.

**[26:42] Speaker B:** No.

**[26:42] Speaker A:** Okay. No. Okay. Can't wait to hear how.

**[26:45] Speaker B:** Well, Andrew, this is my fundamental claim.

**[26:48] Speaker A:** But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I stated it wrongly. Honestly, I wasn't uh think this is not a topic having sex with animals that I think about regularly. Right.

**[26:58] Speaker B:** I'm sorry that you don't think about sexual ethics regularly.

**[27:00] Speaker A:** No, no, no, no, no. I think about sexual ethics between consenting adults.

**[27:04] Speaker B:** Yeah, I know. But how do you test those things unless you put them to broader spectrums? It makes no sense.

**[27:09] Speaker A:** Listen, you can do that. But this is what I know, right? In my ethical standard, I said that what's if something is harmful to the person acting, it's unethical. in homosexuality.

**[27:23] Speaker B:** First of all, it's between consenting adults. If it's not between consenting adults, then it's wrong.

**[27:28] Speaker A:** Dead. Well, wait, wait, hang on. I have to stop one point at a time because I want to make sure I get this correct.

**[27:33] Speaker B:** Yeah,

**[27:34] Speaker A:** you agree with me that a dead body would not need to consent.

**[27:37] Speaker B:** I agree. It can't.

**[27:38] Speaker A:** Well, it would not need to.

**[27:40] Speaker B:** No, but it can't.

**[27:41] Speaker A:** Yeah, I know. I know. I know. But the entire It also just would not need to.

**[27:45] Speaker B:** No, no, no, but that's not really the the the fundamental here that I'm talking about. I'm just saying it's as long as it's between consenting adults, it's okay. That's what I'm saying. But now I know that homosexuality, whether it be uh lesbian behavior or male on male behavior, is not harmful to the person doing it. I simply have never heard

**[28:07] Speaker A:** or saw or imagined a case of a person having sex with animals where it's not harmful to the person doing it.

**[28:15] Speaker B:** Okay. Demonstrate how psychologically demonstrate how. Demonstrate how.

**[28:19] Speaker A:** Listen, what do you what do you mean by how?

**[28:22] Speaker B:** I want to know. I want to. So, so whatever the case is when you say this is not damaging to homosexuals to engage in homosexuality, right? Whatever that basis is that you determined that that was not harmful should be the same basis you can use to determine it is harmful if somebody does this with a dead body. Can you tell me what it is? All I can tell you is is this is that in terms of self-esteem, in terms of self-confidence, in terms of getting along in society, uh all these things now, the people that I've known, and all I can go by is experience. The people that I've known that have done this depraved stuff you're talking about,

**[29:02] Speaker A:** you've known people who have done this stuff.

**[29:04] Speaker B:** I I served 25 years in prison. You You bet your ass I knew people who did this stuff. None of them were well. They were all felt badly about themselves. They all behaved in aberant ways otherwise. So I can only go by the empirics. If you're looking for an axiom to say that if somebody does that this it's going to harm them. I can't provide that. Um but I don't believe in reasoning in that way anyways. I believe in empirics and all I can

**[29:30] Speaker A:** empiric requires inductive reasoning.

**[29:33] Speaker B:** Yeah.

**[29:33] Speaker A:** Yeah. And I'm just using a base of inductive argument. And what and what I'm telling you is every person that I've met, read about, encountered that has done the type of things that you're talking about has been psychologically dam.

**[29:47] Speaker B:** So this is an literally what you're doing right now is a second fallacy which you're providing which is literally uh you're making an appeal to self. You're just appealing to yourself and saying because I have never met anybody that had good outcomes from this that means nobody could have good outcomes from this. No, no. What I'm saying is

**[30:07] Speaker A:** great. Then I need you to tell me why it would be then by the logical entailment of this then if if it were the case then that a person

**[30:15] Speaker B:** uh did not have psychological issues from this and their self-esteem went up and they enjoyed the act and right nobody even knew about it. They were just doing it in their basement. Are they doing anything wrong?

**[30:27] Speaker A:** Well then we wouldn't be dealing with human beings as I know them.

**[30:30] Speaker B:** Yes. You still would be dealing with human beings as you know them. No. Yes. Because you're talking about a scenario that I can't even fathom.

**[30:38] Speaker A:** And you're saying,

**[30:38] Speaker B:** "What do you mean you can't fathom it? You can fathom it?" Fine.

**[30:42] Speaker A:** I can't.

**[30:42] Speaker B:** Do you agree with me that there have been men in history who have dug up dead bodies and had sex with them?

**[30:50] Speaker A:** Do I agree that's happened?

**[30:51] Speaker B:** Yes. Then you can fathom it. Fine. So now, now that we've established that you can fathom that,

**[30:57] Speaker A:** not what you said.

**[30:58] Speaker B:** Yeah, it is what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that all I would have to do is say then as long as this sicko dug up a dead body and banged it, okay, and then said I have much higher self-esteem because of that and it makes me feel really good that you would have no argument against it. Correct? If if you're saying that if say you had an entity change it from human beings to some other thing to to to for instance let's look at uh dogs

**[31:24] Speaker A:** for instance.

**[31:25] Speaker B:** Dogs have sex with their sisters. They have sex with all types of things. They eat feces. There's nothing ethically wrong with a dog doing that. A dog is first of all, it can't make choices.

**[31:36] Speaker A:** Well, a dog is operating off of what is mechanical.

**[31:40] Speaker B:** Yes. And that but that's my very point is that the nature of human beings is such that what you're talking about harms them according to

**[31:48] Speaker A:** you. That's a Okay. So, so here we go. We're starting with the rejection of the claim of harm, right? I have a I'm gonna So here I'll make this really easy for you.

**[31:58] Speaker B:** Okay.

**[31:58] Speaker A:** What harm could there possibly be from your view if a brother bangs his sister and she can't have children and they really love each other?

**[32:09] Speaker B:** Okay. And what I'm saying to you is that scenario I've not spent a lot of time thinking about maybe I still need to know.

**[32:18] Speaker A:** And what I'm going to say to you, Andrew, is maybe there's nothing wrong with it. I don't know. I don't really care.

**[32:23] Speaker B:** You don't know. You know, so so in your world, if there is nothing wrong with that, then the laws that we have on the books against that would be unjust. Correct.

**[32:34] Speaker A:** Oh, I I think laws on the books against it, against non-reproductive sex are unjust. Sure.

**[32:40] Speaker B:** Sure.

**[32:41] Speaker A:** Okay. So

**[32:41] Speaker B:** whether whether Hold on, but hold on. But that holds whether the behavior is right or wrong. It doesn't matter. I It's consenting adults. There shouldn't be laws against it. That's a different question altogether.

**[32:52] Speaker A:** Okay. So, so from your view, you don't think there's anything wrong with this?

**[32:59] Speaker B:** I didn't say that.

**[33:00] Speaker A:** Okay. Well, then can you tell me?

**[33:03] Speaker B:** Look, I need you to tell me one way or the other. Is it wrong or not?

**[33:06] Speaker A:** Hold on. I don't know. I've done that enough.

**[33:09] Speaker B:** Well, okay. From now on, every question you ask me, I'm just going to say I don't know.

**[33:13] Speaker A:** Even if you know, so you'd lie.

**[33:15] Speaker B:** Well, I'm not sure that I know. How How would I know that I know? How should I How would I know if I know something?

**[33:22] Speaker A:** But now you've Hold up. But now you've switched the topic from ethics to epistemology.

**[33:27] Speaker B:** Yeah. So under epistem how would I even know right? Really know that that you don't know. How do I know right now that you don't know that this is wrong or this is right? I think you see I think you do know. You just don't want to tell us.

**[33:43] Speaker A:** You just don't want to tell us.

**[33:44] Speaker B:** Well, Andrew, here's the thing. There's two things that that go on when you ask me a question like that. one, I've grown up in a culture that absolutely abhores that sort of thing. So, my gut reaction is to be repulsed by it, right? My gut reaction is to be absolutely repulsed by it. But I also know that my gut reaction isn't a guide to making decisions. It isn't a guide to drawing conclusions. My rational mind is. And given that I have no interest in any relatives of mine, and given that nobody I know has any interest in any relatives of theirs, it's just not a topic of ethics I've spent much time thinking about. I have spent a lot of time thinking about whether people should lie, cheat, steal, be honest with other people.

**[34:26] Speaker A:** Well, no, you're lying to me. I'll show I'll prove that you're lying right now.

**[34:30] Speaker B:** So, here's how I know you're lying. You say, "I haven't spent much time thinking about uh this particular sexual ethic." Right? That I could agree with. However, you don't really need to because the entailment of the ethic is going to be the entailment of the ethic. In this particular case, you say if two consenting adults are doing X thing, right? They should be able to do X thing. That that's not problematic from your worldview. As long as as long as they're having sex and they're both consenting, that's not problematic. You just don't want to say that it's not problematic.

**[35:00] Speaker A:** Andrew, I didn't say it's not problematic. I said it shouldn't be illegal.

**[35:04] Speaker B:** Oh, okay. So, it is problematic.

**[35:06] Speaker A:** I don't know. I said I have never thought about it.

**[35:08] Speaker B:** Okay. Can you can you give me any type of consensual sex between two consenting adults that you would consider problematic

**[35:17] Speaker A:** between two consenting adult? Yeah. Assume

**[35:20] Speaker B:** well any any

**[35:25] Speaker A:** the only type of sex I've really ever thought about was sex with women that are adults and I have thought about the homosexuality thing only because it's something that's widely debated.

**[35:36] Speaker B:** Okay. Can you repeat my question to you?

**[35:38] Speaker A:** Your question to me was, are there any type of consensual uh sexual behaviors between adults that are problematic?

**[35:45] Speaker B:** Yeah. Can you can you answer that question?

**[35:48] Speaker A:** And what I'm saying to you is I don't know.

**[35:51] Speaker B:** You don't? So, okay. So, not only do you not know if if a brother and sister banging each other is problematic, but you're not even aware of any consensual sex of any kind, is problematic?

**[36:02] Speaker A:** Whoa, whoa, whoa. Consensual sex between adults is what you said. Yeah.

**[36:07] Speaker B:** And I'm And hold on. And I'm assum

**[36:08] Speaker A:** And you don't know if any of that's problematic either.

**[36:10] Speaker B:** Wait, hold on. But Andrew, I'm assuming you mean adults that are of sound mind and not some

**[36:16] Speaker A:** Yeah. Yeah. I assume that people who are engaging in incest are of sound mind, too.

**[36:21] Speaker B:** Okay. Well, that's that if that's fine. And what I'm telling you is the incest question is something I have not thought in depth about.

**[36:27] Speaker A:** Yeah. I didn't ask you about incest this time. I asked you a different question.

**[36:31] Speaker B:** Yeah. And but the only types of adult sexual behavior that I'm aware of are between men and women. Men and men, women and women.

**[36:40] Speaker A:** Yeah. So, and none of that's problematic as long as it's consensual. Right.

**[36:45] Speaker B:** Uh those specific things of not between non- relatives you're talking about.

**[36:51] Speaker A:** Offhand, I would say no. It's not.

**[36:53] Speaker B:** Yeah. No. Right. So, so, so, so wait a second. So, you have thought about this. You have Hang on here. So, you've thought a great deal about this and as it turns out, you can't think of any form of consensual sex between adults. Any form of consensual sex between adults, which would be problematic. And yet, somehow when we get to incest, suddenly you don't know. I don't know. I you know, I'm not sure. I you know, I really haven't thought about it.

**[37:19] Speaker A:** You can't. Listen, here's the thing. I answered your question. I told you I have thought about it as relates to my own sexual behavior and the people I associate it with. And I have thought it in regards to homosexuality because that's a a common thing in our society. I have not thought about it in relation to incest. While my gut reaction f finds it problematic, I can't immediately think to any objections to non reproductive incest,

**[37:46] Speaker B:** but I'm not prepared to say yes, it's completely moral because I haven't thought about it.

**[37:50] Speaker A:** Yeah. Okay. Well, let me ask you a different question. uh in in libertarian land under Anne Rand.

**[37:56] Speaker B:** I'm not a libertarian, so I don't know where the

**[37:58] Speaker A:** Well, you're an an Rand uh I'm sorry. You're an An Rand ethicist.

**[38:03] Speaker B:** Well, I wouldn't even say I don't even like to really say that. I mean, okay, whatever.

**[38:08] Speaker A:** Hold on. I'm

**[38:08] Speaker B:** You just gave your entire opening statement on it, but Okay.

**[38:10] Speaker A:** Yes. No, hold on. I'm an adherent to Ein Ran's ethics.

**[38:13] Speaker B:** Okay, great. So,

**[38:14] Speaker A:** and the capitalist system that she advocates.

**[38:16] Speaker B:** Great. So, if you had a piece of property that was near a school and the public uh put a school near your property but not on your property, uh should you are you allowed to go up on top of your roof because it's your property and masturbate in full view of all the children at the school?

**[38:32] Speaker A:** Expose myself to children? No.

**[38:34] Speaker B:** Well, it's on your property though.

**[38:36] Speaker A:** Hold on. But yeah, but I'm clearly inflicting myself onto somebody else's property. But it also I would say there shouldn't be public school. So, there's that. But why would

**[38:45] Speaker B:** Wait a second. Wait, wait. That's really weird.

**[38:48] Speaker A:** No, hold on. No, it's not because we you told me that if we addressed the the issue you wanted to, we

**[38:53] Speaker B:** Well, I don't feel like we've addressed it yet. I haven't gotten an answer.

**[38:56] Speaker A:** What is your obsession with sexual devian?

**[38:58] Speaker B:** Well, because what it does is it's very useful. Weird.

**[39:02] Speaker A:** It's really Okay. Well, weird's not an argument. What it does is what it does is it demonstrates how foolish your ideology is when you can't even answer basic questions that have been settled by the way settled for thousands of years. They've been settled.

**[39:17] Speaker B:** It's a basic question whether it's ethical for brothers and sisters to have sexual basic question. Yeah. For sexual for sexual normativity in society. That's pretty basic.

**[39:28] Speaker A:** That's really not a basic question.

**[39:29] Speaker B:** Yeah, it's a very basic question. It really isn't. And what I said was

**[39:32] Speaker A:** Well, then no question's a basic question. What question is a basic question by your standard then? Is any question a basic question?

**[39:39] Speaker B:** Sure. What? What? Sure. A basic question would be what is the standard of right and wrong?

**[39:43] Speaker A:** Oh, that's a basic question. Is it?

**[39:45] Speaker B:** Yeah.

**[39:46] Speaker A:** Basic means.

**[39:47] Speaker B:** Yeah. I mean that's infinitely more complex.

**[39:51] Speaker A:** Uh the question of right and wrong than uh whether or not a brother can bang the sister. that I how how in the world could you say that right and wrong that right and wrong is a basic question but but when I when I ask you is this right or wrong you say I don't know

**[40:10] Speaker B:** I haven't thought about it what do you want from me I I don't know like how have you thought about every single possible behavior on earth and the possible ramifications more

**[40:19] Speaker A:** I think I thought about most of the common ones yeah

**[40:22] Speaker B:** but that's not common

**[40:23] Speaker A:** yeah it's pretty common

**[40:25] Speaker B:** no not in my life it's not Maybe in your

**[40:27] Speaker A:** It's more common for people to engage in incestuous relationships than it is homosexual ones.

**[40:32] Speaker B:** Not in my experience. I don't know who you're

**[40:34] Speaker A:** Well, it's not an experience thing. We have empirical data on that.

**[40:38] Speaker B:** Okay. Uh but it's not something that confronts my life.

**[40:41] Speaker A:** It is something that confronts your life. What do you mean? It's really not.

**[40:44] Speaker B:** Oh, I'm sorry. You don't live in the society with these people then?

**[40:47] Speaker A:** I not that I know of. If they're running around somewhere, they're certainly not telling me about it. This gets back to the very heart of the purpose of ethics and why we want ethical systems and that is so that we can discover the proper

**[40:59] Speaker B:** that's so that we can just say I don't know when someone asks us what's right and wrong.

**[41:02] Speaker A:** No, it's so that we can

**[41:04] Speaker B:** so that we can say I don't know.

**[41:05] Speaker A:** No, it's so we can live our lives ethically. You're bringing up a scenario that's never confronted me, never will confront me, doesn't confront anybody I know, so I've never thought about it. And you're saying, "Well, you should think about it." Well, I don't want to think about I think it's weird and it kind of creeps you out.

**[41:19] Speaker B:** Oh, it's weird and it creeps you out. Great. Great. So, your standard for ethics is it's weird and it creeps me out.

**[41:24] Speaker A:** No, no, because I'm not saying it's right or wrong because it

**[41:28] Speaker B:** Yeah, I know. I know. You want to talk to me about what is right or wrong and when I ask you a question about what's right or wrong, you just say, "I don't know."

**[41:35] Speaker A:** Oh, I will talk to you about right and wrong of issues that I've thought about. You want to focus on this weird one about brothers and sisters. Why?

**[41:44] Speaker B:** Well, then then we'll we'll continue with this then. You say it's wrong for you to get up on your ceiling and or on your roof and masturbate in full full view of a skew on your private property, right?

**[41:53] Speaker A:** Can we do you have to bring up these lun

**[41:55] Speaker B:** No, they're not. Listen, I don't I don't understand why you can't answer basic questions.

**[42:00] Speaker A:** I did say it was wrong anyway, but I just would like

**[42:02] Speaker B:** Yeah, I know. And that's what we're going to test. That's what we're going to test. That's what we're going to test.

**[42:06] Speaker A:** But wasn't this supposed to be a give and take or

**[42:09] Speaker B:** Yeah, we haven't got to the I haven't gotten a position out of you yet.

**[42:12] Speaker A:** You got a firm position out of

**[42:13] Speaker B:** No, I don't know. It was not a position.

**[42:16] Speaker A:** That's on one instance, Andrew.

**[42:18] Speaker B:** Okay. Well, then I'm trying to move to an instance where I don't get a an I don't know. So, here I'm going to move to a different one. Okay. So, in this particular case, you're on top of the roof, right? You're jerking it on your own private property, right? It's your property. Dem who who are you harming?

**[42:35] Speaker A:** I'm harming the children that are watching.

**[42:37] Speaker B:** How?

**[42:38] Speaker A:** Whether I'm on my property or not.

**[42:40] Speaker B:** How? Well, I'm harming them first of all because they're being exposed to something that's not age appropriate for them that they shouldn't be.

**[42:48] Speaker A:** How do you make that determination?

**[42:50] Speaker B:** Because it's I make that determination because what the nature of children are again. And now you're

**[42:55] Speaker A:** the nature. Wait. The nature of children.

**[42:57] Speaker B:** Hold on. Yeah.

**[42:58] Speaker A:** What if they're teenagers?

**[42:59] Speaker B:** Hold on. Hold on. Are

**[43:00] Speaker A:** So what if it's a What if it's a middle school?

**[43:02] Speaker B:** Hold on. But you asked me about children. Now you're going to middle school.

**[43:05] Speaker A:** Well, I still think those are children. I still think those are children. But once I answer that, then you're going to go to adults.

**[43:11] Speaker B:** No, I'm not going to go to adults. I'm just going to stay I'm staying with children.

**[43:14] Speaker A:** The same thing because

**[43:16] Speaker B:** I want to know why it's not age appropriate.

**[43:18] Speaker A:** Hold on. I just answered you.

**[43:19] Speaker B:** Yeah, you just said cuz you made you did the same fallacy again. Appeal to nature fallacy.

**[43:23] Speaker A:** Yeah, it's not an appeal to nature fallacy.

**[43:26] Speaker B:** Yeah, it's because of the nature of children. What is that? You're saying that there's an onlogical nature of children that that's going to harm them?

**[43:32] Speaker A:** That what I'm saying is because of what children are, they're not ready for that type of sex. Prove it. Prove it.

**[43:40] Speaker B:** Prove it. You think they are?

**[43:42] Speaker A:** No.

**[43:43] Speaker B:** No, I don't. But I'm I'm not I'm doing an internal critique. Has nothing to do with my position. My position has nothing to do with your position. Nothing.

**[43:52] Speaker A:** Andrew. So my position is again based on empirical reality of children who have dealt with that stuff. They've been harmed. They've been psychologically scarred. That's what happened.

**[44:04] Speaker B:** Can you demonstrate that? I can only demonstrate it with stats and report then do so. I will wait.

**[44:11] Speaker A:** Well, I'm not going to sit here and Google it. Do you think it harms?

**[44:14] Speaker B:** It's your claim.

**[44:17] Speaker A:** It's your claim. You asked the question.

**[44:19] Speaker B:** That's not a claim. A question's not a claim. You ignoramus. Do you know the difference between a claim and a question?

**[44:26] Speaker A:** Tough guy. Tough guy. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I'll drop the soap on you, bro. I'll drop the soap on you, bro. You went from You went from zero to felon in 2.5 seconds, didn't you? Zero to felon in 2.5 seconds.

**[44:41] Speaker B:** Dude, it's not going to felon. It's talking about having a respectful discussion.

**[44:44] Speaker A:** Listen, it's not respectful. You It It isn't It You have to be an ignoramus if you conflate a question with a claim. A question is not a claim.

**[44:54] Speaker B:** No, you're right. I misspoke. I apologize.

**[44:56] Speaker A:** So So moving back, I made no claim. I'm doing an internal critique on your claim.

**[45:00] Speaker B:** Hold on. You asked a question and my answer was based on the empirical reality of reports of all the psychology I've studied that children are harmed by this type of you're asking me

**[45:14] Speaker A:** show me

**[45:16] Speaker B:** show you what data like

**[45:18] Speaker A:** yes you're an empiricist

**[45:20] Speaker B:** okay so if I get the data for you then will you move on

**[45:23] Speaker A:** yeah if you get the data that you can demonstrate that it's harmful for uh children to see naked adults Right. That I want to see it.

**[45:32] Speaker B:** Hold on. I didn't You didn't say naked, dude. That's not what you

**[45:35] Speaker A:** Oh, okay. I see. So, as long as you're on the roof totally naked,

**[45:39] Speaker B:** it's okay.

**[45:40] Speaker A:** You changed the question now. You switched the question.

**[45:42] Speaker B:** This is No, no. It's in the same theme of the question.

**[45:45] Speaker A:** If you're sitting on your roof naked in front of all of these middle schoolers,

**[45:49] Speaker B:** hold on.

**[45:50] Speaker A:** What's the Tell me the harm.

**[46:20] Speaker A:** All right, dude. So, I I just Googled your question. Do you want me to send them all to you?

**[46:25] Speaker B:** Yeah, send it send it to me via Twitter. Now, if this is if this is a if this is a study, and I'm going to go through the study right this second. And I'm real good at doing it cuz I argue with progressives all the time. If this has nothing to do with a question, I'm going to demonstrate it in 5 seconds and we're going to get right back to it.

**[46:46] Speaker A:** No, you know what? I'm going to send these to you after. I don't want to talk about this anymore.

**[46:51] Speaker B:** Yeah. I don't care.

**[46:52] Speaker A:** Oh, I don't care what you care about.

**[46:53] Speaker B:** Yeah. I don't care that you don't care that I don't care.

**[46:55] Speaker A:** Yeah. I wanted to have a

**[46:57] Speaker B:** We are having a discussion about ethics right this second.

**[46:59] Speaker A:** No, you're not.

**[47:00] Speaker B:** Yes. Yes, we are.

**[47:01] Speaker A:** Actually, no. You're talking about sexual deviants.

**[47:03] Speaker B:** I'm talking about sexual ethics.

**[47:05] Speaker A:** No, you're talking about sexual devian.

**[47:07] Speaker B:** Dev, how do you know it's devian? Unless you're using an ethical standard.

**[47:10] Speaker A:** I am using

**[47:11] Speaker B:** Great. Then we're talking about sexual ethics, sir.

**[47:14] Speaker A:** And we're talking about sexual ethics right this second, sir.

**[47:16] Speaker B:** Okay. Can we talk about

**[47:18] Speaker A:** Yeah, we can as soon as I need to get at some point I need to know that I can get a single answer out of you.

**[47:26] Speaker B:** You got it.

**[47:27] Speaker A:** What is the answer? Okay. I So, here I'll just make this super simple. Guy owns his house, middle school next door. He gets on top of his roof every day completely buckass naked. Demonstrate the harm.

**[47:43] Speaker B:** The harm is the reports of kids. Do you think

**[47:46] Speaker A:** what reports?

**[47:47] Speaker B:** Serious. Seriously.

**[47:48] Speaker A:** My position has nothing to do with your position. How

**[47:52] Speaker B:** it does? Because if

**[47:53] Speaker A:** How does my position have anything to do with yours? Because because I I would assume and maybe I'm wrong that most people understand that this harms children.

**[48:02] Speaker B:** That's that's an argument adopulum.

**[48:05] Speaker A:** Another fallacy. You're a fallacy machine. You can't make an argu. Yeah, it's an argument adopulum. You just say cuz most people know it, therefore it's true. That's an argument at popular.

**[48:14] Speaker B:** You think that's why it's true? That's not what I said.

**[48:16] Speaker A:** You said most people.

**[48:17] Speaker B:** No, I I said most people know it. I didn't say