Philosopher Reviews Ben Shapiro Vs Destiny Debate

Philosophy Call-ins, Games, and Q&A
Ask Questions here (£3 Text To Speech) : streamelements...
🔴 Watch My Free Webinar: perspective-ph...
🔴 Check out my free Philosophy course: • Free Philosophy Course...
📚📚Comprehensive courses📚📚:
Introduction to Western Philosophy:
perspective-ph...
Introduction to Metaphysics and Epistemology:
perspective-ph...
Introduction to Ethics and Politics:
perspective-ph...
Patreon:
/ perspectivephilosophy
TIP JAR 💰 streamelements...
Book recommendations📚 www.amazon.co....
Discord: / discord

[@YoungMatt81]

The thing i got most from this conversation is Ben thinks the iceberg is the lack of two parent households. All society's ills, apparently, stem from parent scarcity.

[@jossyinc]

That’s what the data suggests

[@David-ps6pq]

@@jossyincno it does not

[@jossyinc]

In the context of the video it does, read the studies quoted… or provide counters I can read?

[@YoungMatt81]

@jossyinc first off, saying that something is accurate within the boundary of a conversation is an unusual argument. It sounds as if you're saying no other facts outside of a conversation exists. Second, it was brought up by destiny how conservatives constantly kick the can down the road when trying to pinpoint a source cause. In this, Ben seems to stop at the need for a 2 parent household as the root. This is sneaky, IMHO, because as a conservative he would love nothing more than to have a traditional, nuclear, man/woman household be the nexus of the good and the bad. He stops there because, socially, it's what he wants, but he also stops there because he knows there's nothing anyone, especially the government, can do to make parents stay together. His argument is doing anything is basically useless because if the parents aren't together, then the die is cast. Course, he did say something about shotgun marriages, which sounds kinda tyrannical tbh. The fact is ben is great at debating for his goals, not so much for idealism or optimization. Is two parents better than a single? Yes. But data is suggesting that community raised kids are better off. That is, with parents, but also highly socialized. There's data supporting this

[@stalwartzero7001]

He says people of higher education have higher rates of marriage… so could giving resources to underprivileged kids lead to higher education..leading to higher marriage rates that you think are the cure for society!? Regardless it was 18 minutes in and he still never answered the question. What a joke

[@x-b5516]

I loved the show ❤

[@michaelweber5702]

Billy Joel may be good but I have never heard anything from him that I like ... Maybe I will someday ...

[@destinsuggs5265]

I’m not very educated on the Israel issue but wouldn’t the same advice with Afghanistan apply in that conflict? Just wondering why not but again I’m 90% out of the loop there.

[@Nonresponder01]

Im new here and just heard him say there is evidence for a God. Is this gods in general, or the Christian god only? What is the evidence?

[@supergatorhator]

He read it in a book.

[@crushinnihilism]

The evidence is logical proof. You get a necessary base for reality. NOT the Christian God. You get an evidence of a creator. NOT necessarily the Christian God either. Polytheism is more likely

[@Nonresponder01]

@@crushinnihilism wait what does "the evidence is logical proof" mean?

[@sollbruchstelleamknicklich9495]

@@Nonresponder01 We have rules of logic, like: the law of the excluded middle, which states that a proposition cant be at the same time true and false. So far so understandable...now, when we consider arguments, we apply such rules to given propositions: "It is raining right now" - means if its true, then it cant be the case that its not raining. That this is the case lies within the structure of thinking and is not empirically deduced, its analytically deduced. To further devolp this the example, we can introduce further rules of inference, like "modus ponens" which states: if P implies Q - then: P is true therefore Q. It is raining = P , u will get wet = Q, so: its raining = u will get wet. P -> Q. so if this sequence is true then: P -> not Q is false. Which means - if the statement: It rains, therefore u will get wet is true - then the statement: it rains, therefore u wont get wet must be false. - at no point we needed empirical evidence to arrive at this conclusion. For a more tangible example - thats how Math works: you dont proof mathematical propositions by looking at the world empirically, u use logic to proof them.

[@supergatorhator]

@@sollbruchstelleamknicklich9495 I feel like this breaks down in a lot of applications where you are looking at complex systems. That being said, how would you apply this in a way that would somehow be considered proof of intelligent design?

[@ErnestoConfused]

At root, it seems like they both want the same thing. A highly educated, prosperous, morally consistent, safe, free, and generally gregarious society for them and their family to exist in. I think this is what most of us want. If only we would stop associating the realm of policies (of which none but serious academics, autodidacts, and politicians truly understand), which manifests in this red vs blue divide, with this vision, i think we would all get along at least a little bit more.

[@ronjames9759]

Given the fact that we have psychopaths in power, lobbying, billionaire influence, geopolitical influence etc. No. We should not let these mythical politicians who understand politics make all the decisions.

[@crushinnihilism]

The political system has failed. Screw democracy. The God is dying. Something new is coming

[@SiriusSphynx]

In Eastern Orthodoxy its taught that God emptied Himself entirely into the form of Christ and then was sacrificed and resurrected. Hence the new covenant. So, at least how I was taught, it's somewhat true to say God has died and something New is coming. By the way I'm not religious anymore but I do appreciate the uniqueness of what I was taught as opposed to most western forms a christianity. Particularly protestantism

[@crushinnihilism]

@@SiriusSphynx Im a pagan. I believe in cyclical time, or what people call mythic time. We're simply on the tail end of a cycle.

[@ronjames9759]

It’s coming 🥵