Jonathan Rueb

@ncslumdawg @Loragar @paleochristcon (though you could argue that objectivism better accounts for moral convergence, or that convergence is some weak evidence for objectivism. Convergence actually seems pretty weak though on the vast majority of moral propositions, if you look throughout history)

@ncslumdawg @Loragar @paleochristcon How does that suggest moral objectivism though? That is a first-order normative view. Cultural convergence on particular normative norms does not entail objectivism.

Exact prompt then. How about. Are the values and morals Destiny advocates for superior than the values and morals Andrew Wilson advocates for? That seems reasonable and in line with the dispute. Ill even put in some rules for both of us to make it better for you. I wont do personal attacks if you dont and we can do it in person or via video and you can have a couple of weeks. Seems like all the conditions are in line.

@Loragar @paleochristcon People having differing moral views seems perfectly consistent with realism. But assuming realism, at least one party would be in error here.

@paleochristcon How can you both have different morals if there's objective morality?

@Enpapchapado @CWonderGM @TheOmniLiberal I’m not an anti-realist myself btw, but these sort of objections to anti-realism are just very mistaken/confused.

@Enpapchapado @CWonderGM @TheOmniLiberal But they can. You’re claiming anti-realists cannot engage in first-order normative discourse? Or even criticise others? This just does not follow. Anti-realism has no particular normative implications (like that you must abide by other’s views, not criticise others etc.).

People can occupy a ton of different positions whether or not they believe in moral facts. It's the laziest, most 20 IQ high school Christian take to go "oh, this guy doesn't believe in moral facts, therefor everything is arbitrary and trivial and they can believe in anything!!!"

@CWonderGM @TheOmniLiberal This seems like a strange thing to say to an anti-realist. Their position is that there are no objective moral facts. Then your objection is apparently just that there would be no objective moral facts. Like, yea, that’s their view.

@TheOmniLiberal It’s kinda impossible to justify moral facts without an objective moral foundation to ground it. Otherwise it is arbitrary. You can believe in morality but you don’t have objective grounds to support it.

@juandelpueblo03 @_jp3gg @MistaVega That seems like a first-order normative question, to which the anti-realist can answer ‘no’.

@_jp3gg @MistaVega Is there any scenario where the holocaust was not immoral?

One of the most pathetic things that I see all of these fake centrist, right-wing podcasters do is just present the most ludicrous strawmans of a person to beat up on their shows like they're actually proving some profound point.

@ShuuReqium74 @BasicHeresy @paleochristcon But that just doesn’t follow? That’s a first-order normative proposition (e.g. ‘It is always wrong to SA kids’). Accepting it dos not entail realism. An anti-realist can accept it (unless they’re a nihilist). At most you get to something like an absolutist or deontological view.

@BasicHeresy @paleochristcon Therefore it's objective. Anyone that goes against this should find rope. Looking at Islam

I dont see you saying "Yes let's debate this" Lol. Hahahahahaha.

@KyleIgnatius @TheOmniLiberal That’s a first-order normative proposition (e.g. ‘It is pro tanto wrong to bash a baby to death for fun’). An anti-realist like Destiny can accept it. Unless he is a nihilist (maybe he is, idk. I think I heard him say he’s a non-cognitivist somewhere).

@TheOmniLiberal If it is not immoral to bash a baby to death then that's just your opinion that it's bad. You literally can believe in anything under your worldview.

@Liondesol77 @Cobratate @MyronGainesX ? It was widely and heavily recommended and pushed all over the world. And if you’re over a certain age (like 40s, potentially even 30s), have health issues, and/or work/live with elderly/sick people, it made good sense. And to avoid clots (very rare) you can avoid adeno vacc.

@Cobratate @MyronGainesX I’ll never understand why people got the clot shot

For years I have ignored Chris Williamson platforming my critics, detractors, and outright haters on Modern Wisdom. He has given them endless airtime to push their narratives, spin lies, and mischaracterize me completely unchecked, without any real pushback or balance. About two years ago, I even met Chris in person in Miami, and the interaction was cordial. Out of respect for that encounter and a desire to keep things civil, I chose not to call him out publicly, even though this pattern had already been going on for a long time. But enough is enough. @ChrisWillx, you are a coward, and I am calling you out publicly for this pattern of selective cowardice that has gone on far too long. You even recorded a full, multi-hour interview with Andrew Tate, then chose to shelve it entirely out of fear of backlash, while repeatedly amplifying Tate’s critics and giving them free rein to attack him. That is not principled podcasting. That is fear driven hypocrisy. And now Louis Theroux, disingenuous as ever in his so-called journalism, has released his manosphere documentary. He selectively edited and framed the footage to push a clear agenda, conveniently omitting key context and moments that would have told the full, unfiltered story. Fully expecting this, I recorded all my interactions with @louistheroux and his team. Tonight, I am exposing exactly what he was too scared to include. The audience deserves the truth, not a curated hit piece. Chris, you have had years, even after meeting me face-to-face to extend the same courtesy to me that you have lavished on my opponents. You have platformed lies about me repeatedly but never once given me the chance to correct them directly. Stop hiding behind your platform. Stop being a coward. Invite me on Modern Wisdom or stop platforming my haters letting them openly lie with zero pushback. Let the audience hear both sides unfiltered. At this point, if you don't let your audience hear both sides, it proves you are too scared of what I have to say. Address the gross misrepresentations head-on. Your move. The clock is ticking.

@patriot_gamez @Conserberal @darwintojesus And this seems inaccurate; e.g. I don’t think it’s clear at least some (like Hitler) were atheist, & anyway their motivations/ideologies often do not seem atheistic or anti-realist (they included absolutist and objectivist elements).

@patriot_gamez @Conserberal @darwintojesus What is the relevance of this here & how does it address the comment?

The Moral Collapse Argument Against Atheism 1. If atheism is true, then either moral realism or moral anti-realism is true. 2. If atheism is true, moral realism is false because objective moral facts cannot exist in a Godless, purposeless reality. 3. If atheism is true, moral anti-realism is false because it eliminates real moral obligation, value, human value, and authority, contradicting the reality of moral experience. 4. Therefore, atheism is false.

@BXMMA @PRaflik83681 But I think your reply only works if the proposition is genuinely self-evident (i.e. evident in and of itself, so can be known without the need of any argument or inference), and it doesn’t seem to be. If ‘axiomatic’ just means ‘assumed’ here, then it’s not justificatory.

@BXMMA @PRaflik83681 I guess I might accept that you may be rational to believe in God. But of course this basic belief would be defeasible and could be false. So you would still need to be open to arguments, objections, evidence etc. (not saying you have stated otherwise)

Why is it wrong to harm? Wait let me guess… because it’s harmful?

@nestroy_digers @darwintojesus Ofc there are other ppl who reject that wrongness is grounded in well-being, and think that it would be wrong. Though usually their views are not based on just feelings

@nestroy_digers @darwintojesus But if it’s stipulated that it really does no ‘harm’ (on whatever view of harm and well-being they take) whatsoever to anyone, then I guess they (who think wrongness is based on harm/well-being) may just say that it actually *isn’t* wrong.

@JunoenJupiter @kitten_beloved He’s not a rationalist afaik. Probably an EA

@kitten_beloved He feels compassion for his fellow bugs, yet still has the gall to call himself a rationalist, disgusting.

Checking in on the rationalists

@dewakkeren @AnfieldNews367 …especially so with this low-Covid-risk population. But don’t think it’s appropriate to characterise it as anything like ‘genocide’. 😅 Cases here were apparently mild and transient without indication of dysfunction or malformation.

@dewakkeren @AnfieldNews367 From a quick look, the risk in this dataset and analysis was 2.7 per 100000 after 1st dose, and 1 per 100000 after 2nd dose. Which is in-line with (if not lower than) previous analyses. Of course this still factors into the risk benefit analysis.

The amount of people saying George Baldock death was caused by the covid vaccine🤦🏻‍♂️ shows how quick people spread false information and fake news It is believed that he was intoxicated and accidentally drowned in his pool. Such sad news 💔

@Shnauser1 @HardTru64414273 For the trial to be powered for mortality, it’d need hundreds of thousands of participants and years to complete (it would likely never complete), which is really infeasible.

@Shnauser1 @HardTru64414273 @thebadstats @APBIOonly @RichardHanania @USMortality @HardTru64414273 No…? That just doesn’t seem right, unless I’m misunderstanding. A trial can lack the power to detect mortality differences (if any), but still rule out relevant effect sizes for AE endpoints (as is the case here and with vaccine trials in general)…

I love vaccines as a litmus test issue. It has nothing to do with ideology. If you have a negative opinion of the Covid vaccine, you’re probably stupid, and if there’s evidence you’re otherwise smart it means you have rightoid brain worms. Good to have an issue like this.