Vaush Can't Answer a SINGLE QUESTION in Morality Debate!

Vaush attempts to interrogate Andrew on his ethics mid-debate but refuses to answer a single question in return...
Follow The Crucible
►STREAMING PLATFORM - COMFY.STREAM
►DISCORD - / discord
►REDDIT - / thecrucible
►ROCKETCHAT - thecrucible.chat
Support The Crucible
►PATREON - / the_crucible
►PAYPAL - t.co/79gmxAC811
►BECOME A MEMBER - / @the_crucible
#TheCrucible #Vaush

[@IndiaNumberOneCoubtry]

Vaush was that kid who never lost at tag because he called timeout a nanosecond before you got him

[@sicparvismagna5786]

This implies Vaush had friends to play tag with

[@Sardonic-Angel]

Who knew the last Bollshevik standing would be a LadyBoy with a man'bun.

[@Kazekoge101]

He goes to the park and watches them now@@sicparvismagna5786

[@esoislife9961]

Man this random Vausch is bad at debate he just got owned by a much smarter man. Who also follows the traditional style of debate and doesn't allow u to derail at all. He wanted him to so bad. This did how u beat the woke, don't play their game. Just keep asking the same question ignoring all their attacks and antagonizing behavior

[@robinsss]

@@Sardonic-Angel oh it's pile on Vaush time

[@aafinkle5162]

Vaush took a big L here, not being able to engage with a hypothetical is literally always an instant loss

[@trumpbellend6717]

Let me ask you a couple of "hypothetical" questions .... Is it ever moral to kill babies or children ?? 🤔 *YES or NO* ?? If your subjective invisible God kills or orders the killing of babies or children, would that make it moral ?? 🤔

[@trumpbellend6717]

It appears you were unable to engage in a hypothetical, so you get a big *"L"* dear 🤭🤫

[@Nemisisfrog]

But vaush did eat breakfast yesterday.

[@Pissjuggernaut]

"I cant explain it if you don't understand." Vaush

[@deanmccrorie3461]

If you can’t explain it simply, then you don’t understand it -Einstein (probably not him, but idk who else)

[@panther-nk2hn]

@@deanmccrorie3461 bilbo baggins?

[@brandons9027]

@@deanmccrorie3461 he explained it rather simply.

[@edwardfala7723]

Not sure who this guy is, but he is the most successful I have seen at not letting Vaush derail the conversation.

[@chocolateneko9912]

Andrew is quite good at that from what I've seen.

[@brandonringer7592]

He does this to Destiny when he speed rambles

[@Blandy0487]

Andrew is the worst person to watch when you're trying to stop smoking

[@KingBowserVlog]

Makes me wanna have a smoke, tbh.

[@guyledouche7939]

This is the guy that said an adult can have a positive sexual relationship with a child.

[@ghengiskhan9308]

No way can I get a source

[@BatmanBeyondBelief]

@@ghengiskhan9308look up his recent folder leaks. Someone will point you back to that statement he made

[@richardkalmwater5996]

Was it on Think Before You Sleep where he said this?

[@justinmadrid8712]

@@ghengiskhan9308 It's pretty well known that Vaush is a closet you know what.

[@theoneaboveallthelivingtri5862]

​@@ghengiskhan9308 vaush have been stating multiple time pedo views, such as CP should be fine to own, he is also a zoofile

[@ruzd4real374]

I have never witnessed such hard-core apologetics and rhetorical evisceration than what is found here on the crucible. It's really a breath of fresh air. Thank you and keep up the great work!

[@deanmccrorie3461]

If you like this level apologetics with bite I recommend Sam Shamouan. He eats heretics and apostasy for breakfast Specializing in Muslim destruction

[@Kazekoge101]

Jay Dyer is a master at this

[@alansnyder9]

Vaush, everyone being a utilitarian does nothing if NO ONE acts like one.

[@warrenstemphly5756]

Hipsters using big words trying to sound like a Oxford professor

[@thasandmanmorrison8469]

there is an old english term for people that do this. i tried to look it up but could not find it. many of those terms are funny. but that description identifies vausch to a T. a person who uses a verbose manner of speech to sound more intelligent than he is. and in debate, he uses the same as a tactic to deflect and gaslight. if he is blocked or not allowed to interject. he almost immediately gets condescending and the ad hominem and labels of fascism come out. it seems like a pretty set pattern for him

[@Adam-i5h8f]

@@thasandmanmorrison8469i have to hear this word… please man find it or at least tell me where to start

[@Adam-i5h8f]

@@thasandmanmorrison8469is it sesquipedalious?

[@thasandmanmorrison8469]

@@Adam-i5h8f bi, it was some weird old english slang like a fopwobble (just made that up) but i cannot find or remember it.

[@zencyn4682]

​@thasandmanmorrison8469 all I've managed to dig up is Wiscung, which means false knowledge. And Sesquipedalian, which is synonymous with pompous. Specifically being someone who overuses big words to sound smarter. I don't know if one of these were what you were thinking of

[@ghostapostle7225]

If your ethics is tied to outcome, it means it's tied to something that might exist but currently doesn't, wich means your ethics it's not grounded on reality but on expectation. And then Vaush accuses Andrew of not basing his ethics on reality.

[@Jafar545]

As much as I despise Voosh, by your own logic he has the better point here. An outcome can at least be estimated through experience and precedent meanwhile the transcendentalist approach is based upon the human interpretation of the supposed laws of an alleged entity or forces (by definition) surpassing reality itself...

[@showmeanedge]

​@@Jafar545nope. We have revelation - no need to rely on interpolation

[@Jafar545]

@@showmeanedge How would you define "revelation" precisely?

[@ghostapostle7225]

@@Jafar545 No, because that's not how casualisation works. Suggest you to search the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. If you rely on outcome, you can never know what to exepct a priori, wich means you can't base your ethics on reality but merely an uncertain expectation of outcome. Now, you're right, to base your ethics on the transcendent will have the dificult of the correct interpreation but it's the only way we can remotely have a fundamental ethics based on reality. Utilitarianism isn't a difficult only but an impossibility in principle, because even the outcome must be interpreted to be good or bad, so it's still would need to rely on the existence of a transcedent bases of ethics.

[@Jafar545]

@@ghostapostle7225 Casualisation? Do you mean causation? Of course it is easy to theoretically point to the dangers of spurious correlation but given the reality of the world this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam in itself. On the contrary, you can't base your expectancies on reality if you are not familiar with probable outcomes. This should be rather self evident by the fact that people do not tend to learn morality in a vacuum but either experience or are taught about outcomes. The transcendental can obviously not be proven "real" due to it's very nature transcending reality, so the notion that anything derived from it is based on reality is paradoxical in se. Of course there are some problems with utilitarianism, but the idea that it has to necessarily have a transcendental component to it is far from the only option. You can also fairly easily make an argument for instinct based consequentalism like it has been done within this particular school of thought since it's very inception...

[@DobbyTheGamer]

Vaush: WOAH WOAH WOAH HOLD ON HOLD ON Ah yes, what a convincing debater

[@kirkt5111]

If farts could talk, they'd sound like Vaush

[@FB-nw8pp]

[@slight6069]

wtf hahaha

[@Wukong330]

Vaush is one of the guys that loses a game but claims victory anyway for some imaginary grievance like cheating that isn't actually cheating.

[@deanmccrorie3461]

Have you noticed Vaush is copying destiny. Go to 5:45. When he says ‘absolute fact’, he says it like destiny. With that same rigorous aggressive certainty

[@charleshill1906]

He used to be a Destiny follower and his debate style, mannerisms, reactions, outbursts, strategy...they're all a copy paste. The dude is also a pedophile advocate and Destiny were friends until he found out Vaush was trying to groom underage kids in his community.

[@corpgov]

I always assumed they were the same person

[@bigol9223]

vaush, hassan, they're all destiny disciples, it's how they learned to behave in "debate"

[@MacDamon999]

He doesn’t hate your position. He hates that you are the one standing on your position and he wants to kill you so he can stand on your position.

[@trumpbellend6717]

Care to elaborate with some specifics dear, or is this the limit of your profound input?

[@MacDamon999]

@@trumpbellend6717 stop kissing up to me like an asshole🤣

[@trumpbellend6717]

​@@MacDamon999 🤮 ew you kiss asshole's ? 😱

[@bakters]

That was deep. And likely true, too. A comment section which makes me feel dumb? I'm glad I subscribed.

[@TheMasonator777]

Vaush can’t even look at the camera straight, much less give a straight answer.

[@the98themperoroftheholybri33]

Vaush is the kind of person who reads about a concept, thinks it sounds like a good idea, and suddenly supports it, rather than think about it's consequences and over arching actions

[@brandons9027]

Not really. Andrew had to lie in the debate so thats kind of a bsd sign

[@Zurvan101]

Evading answering a question that he doesn't like is Vaush's greatest achievement in life.

[@trumpbellend6717]

Please name the specific "objective" moral standard we should all adhere and aspire to?? Or would you simply prefer to "evade" the question dear ?? 🤔

[@Zurvan101]

@@trumpbellend6717 bait

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@Zurvan101 Lol evasion it is then 😜 Perhaps its best if you just go back to your colouring book and leave these discussions to the adults dear.

[@showmeanedge]

​@@trumpbellend6717the answer is God. If you disagree explain why your answer is preferable without getting into a pointless debate about whether God exists. I say He does and I'm not budging so you're just going to have to justify why your moral schema is objectively better.

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@showmeanedge // "the answer is God" // Tell me dear is your OPINION regarding the "correct" God who's allegedly the basis for morality a "SUBJECTIVE" one or a "OBJECTIVE" one ?? 🙄 Can we use *ANY* "God" as the basis for this "objective" moral standard you speak of or just the SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE invisible being *YOU* determined to be the "correct" one out of the many thousands man has preposed.? 🙄 🤔 If its the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if its the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍 The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔 // " explain why you answer is preferable" // Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. The recognition and evaluation of the consequences our choices have with regards to ourselves and others. My NOT believing in a mythological god in no way impedes the ability of forming such moral assessments. We are self aware conscious pain and emotion feeling individuals capable of love or hate, incredible acts of altruism or depravity. It's how we navigate through life and these potential extremes that define us, not our belief ( or lack of ) in your specific subjective invisible friend.

[@michaels775]

He said hypothetical have to represent reality, after giving a hypothetical involving telling the future. Does he believe in prophets?

[@YSFmemories]

These people dont understand duty. Thats quite literally the difference between good people and bad people

[@TommyGunzzz]

The clown trio is complete, Sinthe, Destiny, and Vaush

[@deanmccrorie3461]

Notsoerudite and you’ve got the Quatra ultimate!

[@deanmccrorie3461]

Ultimate circus *

[@ryann935]

Sinthe at least honestly believes what he says, vaush and cuck boy only say the things they do to make money and justify thier degenerate lives

[@MischievousDingo]

@@deanmccrorie3461 Nah not really notsoerudite is too stupid to be in on it

[@trumpbellend6717]

The son the father and the Holy ghost, now THAT'S a "clown trio" dear🤭😂

[@Logos_Unveiled]

Top debate channel on YT 💪🏻💯

[@brendanmassie9586]

It’s insane how prideful people are in online debates that they are always too scared to engage in the oppositions thought experiment. The irony is that vaush is intelligent enough to anticipate that his own argument is shit and that’s why he avoids answering foundational questions.

[@trumpbellend6717]

Perhaps YOU can answer a few "foundational questions" from the theistic perspective for me dear ?? Can you please define "morality" and "good" for us all...... does it relate to human wellbeing or suffering and how we treat each other ? Is it relative or absolute ? Objective or subjective and if objective what is the specific standard ? What purpose does it serve ie what the goal of a moral system ? 🤔 If these basic questions are beyond you then please don't waste either my time or your own in further discussion

[@trumpbellend6717]

Is it not YOU that believes you are made on the image of a PERFECT omnipotent omniscient GOD ??? Dispite the latest studies revealing there are at least 2 trillion galaxies out there. With just our own galaxy alone contains upto 400 billion stars with who knows how many planets. Yet YOU think it was all created because a god wanted to have a relationship with little ol'e YOU. 😜 Now THATS what I call "PRIDEFUL"

[@showmeanedge]

​@@trumpbellend6717lol it's hilarious that everyone just leaves you on read.

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@showmeanedge ?? 🤔🙄

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@showmeanedge Sorry dear but do you think you might write your comment in a manner that would make it readable ?

[@Francis_Castiglione]

It's useless to give Vaush air time

[@RezaQin]

100 percent

[@Sardonic-Angel]

So it's settled Second hand tyrone-come makes you dumb& unethical

[@josephnewton2097]

You could see Vaushs smugness from space

[@Unknown-us3ii]

When Vaush finds someone who understands his own word salad and is asked to expand on it XD

[@brandons9027]

You really think andrew did well here? Amazing Even after andrew opening lied about vaush say post modernism?

[@thasandmanmorrison8469]

@@brandons9027 vausch was lost from the gate. vausch is not a good debater. he got owned by andrew. the examples that were brought up vausch was not even able to make any sensible argument relating to it. and as someone else pointed out. vausch's answer is the same to any quesiton. "that depends". but then never breaks it down. his debate style appears to be word salad and mixed with condescensionand intentionally ignoring every question put to him unless pressed by the moderator. if he cannot dominate a debate or his opponent sees through his ridiculous manner of speech. vausch will get visibly frustrated call the person a fascist and that they are there in bad faith. have yet to see vausch have a good debate. but i have seen this exact pattern play out time and time again in his debate style. he should reformat his podcast and give up the debates.

[@brandons9027]

@@thasandmanmorrison8469 no your criticism is basically that you don’t like his attitude and that’s pretty ridiculous. Don’t waste my time if you’re not gonna say something that’s worth addressing please

[@thasandmanmorrison8469]

@@brandons9027 i specifically said debating style. you are trying to insert attitude. i outlined his debating pattern and his failure to adapt during a debate. he clearly got frustrated and resorted to condescension and ad hominem. did you even listen to the entire debate? doesn't sound like it.

[@brandons9027]

@@thasandmanmorrison8469 he got frustrated, yeah but that doesn’t mean anything. Andrew is an idiot. Of course you get frustrated. You’re worried about his emotional state not worried about his actual arguments. I don’t care. Shallow of an analysis that I don’t even feel like critiquing it anymore.

[@ghpatriot]

Vaush to everything: That depends

[@panther-nk2hn]

"That depends" Pov: moral relativism

[@Tarz2155]

Vaush be like you don’t know what they’re talking about and you don’t actually believe something and I’m smarter than you because I’m a sociology 😂

[@larryallen4902]

2:08 Voooosh literally cannot ground his ethics. 🙄🙄

[@trumpbellend6717]

Sorry dear but what "objective" standard do YOU ground your ethics in ?? 🤭😂

[@Selrisitai]

@@trumpbellend6717 I don't think it's a prerequisite for ethics to be grounded in "objective" standards.

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@Selrisitai Lol neither do I dear, all that a moral system requires to function is a pre-agreed framework with a common goal and rules based upon said goal. Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. The recognition and evaluation of the consequences our choices have with regards to ourselves and others. My NOT believing in a mythological god in no way impedes the ability of forming such moral assessments. We are self aware conscious pain and emotion feeling individuals capable of love or hate, incredible acts of altruism or depravity. It's how we navigate through life and these potential extremes that define us, not our belief ( or lack of ) in anyone's specific subjective invisible "God"

[@eeeemmteeee]

An honewt person gives understandable answers. A dishonest person engages in rhetoric and pedantry to divert the discussion toward a different question they can answer more honestly.

[@JC-de1ik]

I wish you would've told me about the rights of the dead before....oh God what have I done

[@Walklikelions]

Classic Vaush.

[@Enochian_yeshuaite]

Epistemological differences as usual.

[@dustins382]

Andrew: answers question in a few words "divine command" (potentially leaving further clarification, but it's still answered) Vaush: um yeah I guess if this is such way and maybe and there's some context and maybe only if this or that but I can't really explain and maybe...

[@idiotproofdalek]

And why is that good? Easy answers are always true?

[@bonzocleach2496]

This is a mess. What the hell are these two guys talking about?

[@Lelldorin84]

Vaush needs to go back to finish highschool

[@PepijnvanderZijden-nr4eq]

guys... vaush literally answers every question here..

[@jasons5904]

Nice things to say about Vaush: He’s a human being. At a glance, he appears to be a man. He speaks English. He is on the same screen as someone who is good at debating. Way to Go, Vaush

[@dustins382]

Other nice things: He is very good at sophistry He can speak many words per minute He can avoid answering a question very well by obfuscation ("it depends on what you mean") He knows how to listen well enough to find a way to not understand what was actually said He can identify "masculine logic" from simple questions (@2:37)... (from saying outcomes are not solely utilitarian...? Huh?)

[@trumpbellend6717]

He does not believe our moral status the result of a talking snake convincing a rib woman and mud figurine man to eat a magic fruit against the wishes of an invisible being who thinks it moral to *_"kill all the males from amongst the little ones"_* 👍 That's a big improvement on the other guy

[@trumpbellend6717]

He thinks we should be held accountable for our own actions as opposed to being held accountable for those of our distant ancestors. He rejects the concept of scapegoating as endorsed by Christian soteriology that is the antithesis and negation of our societal perception of accountability and responsibility. 👍

[@jasons5904]

@@trumpbellend6717 if only 10cent words would make a point correct. In no way, shape, or form, does Christianity promote a doctrine of scapegoating one's responsibility for their own actions in this life. Christian doctrine, as in the doctrines founded upon the teachings of Jesus Christ, command repentance from sin, confession of sin, loving others as much as we love ourselves, loving God above all else, obeying God's commands, generosity and charity to those in need, investigation of matters in order to determine truth, and then standing in the truth, no matter the consequences. If we wrong someone, we are to confess our wrongdoing to that person(s), make recompense, and do so without being forced by the state, settling the matter with the person(s) directly, or through the church, when direct communication is not appropriate. As well, any Christian that studies the Scriptures should tell you that we believe in the just punishment of crimes carried out by the state. We believe in the death penalty for serious crimes such as murder and grape. The propitiation of Christ's sacrifice is a payment of the sins of a person in the eyes of God. No one is condemned to the eternal hellfire because they commit murder. Redemption is offered to every sinner through Christ Jesus. That does not mean that we do not properly execute the justice of God's law to lawbreakers. A murderer should be given a just trail, without any unnecessary delays. Then, if guilty, they should spend the shortest amount of time possible, while maintaining justice, until they receive the death penalty. If they repent and come to Jesus within that time, they can be at peace, knowing they will have forgiveness with God, before they meet their just end. We do not believe in imprisoning people for extended periods of time, without them working. That is theft from the tax payers to pay for the living of a criminal that is not working to feed themselves. Instead of learning about Christ, from those that do not follow Him, I encourage you to learn about the LORD and Saviour from those that love Him, and from His Scripture. There is nothing more important in this life, than to seek God. May God bless you and your family.

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@jasons5904 BELIEF is NOT *"CHOICE"* or a mere act of volition. Sure someone can pretend to believe anything but the things one actually believe are not something you choose they are an involuntary response to one's level of information and understanding of their environment. You are either convinced or you are unconvinced and its EVIDENCE that convinces. I could not just make myself believe in pixies no matter how much I closed my eyes and stamped my feet. Anymore than you could right now "choose" to be convinced that God is not real or that the laws of gravity don't apply to you if you step off that cliff. Tell me could you genuinely "choose" to believe the internet does not exist and we are not having this discourse now ?? I'm talking about being CONVINCED of it bud not just pretending!! Give me an honest answer , could you right now "Choose" to believe in Thor or Zeus ??? 🤔 No of course not for exactly the same reason I can't choose to believe in Yahweh. Now if I recieved some irrefutable knowledge or evidence then I would have no "choice" but to believe, I would have to deny my own reasoning and senses. That what changes beliefs, not "choice" If you came home and found your spouse in bed with the neighbour, could you just "CHOOSE" to believe in her fidelity and go back downstairs to make her a nice cup of tea ?? 🤣😅🤣

[@BredyTruver]

He's so evasive..)) Vaush hasn't got a morality system (it shows), so he will try to twist and turn, like an eel on a pan, doing everything to evade answering questions that could get him negative points. In the end, he doesn't say anything much, so it would seem harder to corner him. He doesn't debate points, jumping from one point to another. And he's got some arrogance to trash-talk the opponent. In reality he's not debating (as he doesn't know anything about philosophy) - it's just a rhetoric show for him. Two main points in this video remained unanswered by him (morals and utilitarianism).

[@thasandmanmorrison8469]

it seems that vausch during debate. if he is not able to dominate and control a debate. you are automatically labeled a fascist (i really do not think he knows what fascism is) and a bad faith debater.

[@MrMattias87]

And this vaush guy was the one who slammed the cass report as 'pseudoscience' and here he is making a 'pseudo' argument.

[@thebugman6864]

The hypothetical is not absurd and very possible actually. Vaush simply does not have a reason as to why fucking a corpse safely is "bad" in his worldview.

[@Selrisitai]

I also think Vaush wouldn't _mind_ saying that having sex with a corpse is O.K., he just doesn't want to be caught out saying it without a qualification.

[@dmazing9981]

Hey Andrew! The discord link in your description no longer works. How can I learn and get involved?

[@Thanatos_1313]

Thanking u for nailing him down on this :)

[@JAYJAYBEBE]

All moral ethics faces a similar problem. If I say "it's based on the collective goals of society" then a Christian could just say "if our goal as a society was to rape women, we would still know it was wrong". But also, If a Christian says "It is based on God and the goodness of his nature" I could just say "if it was in God's nature to rape women we would still know it was wrong". They would say "That would never be in God's nature, because its wrong!", but that's just circular logic. If you ground morality in God, then whatever God is would be good. So if he was a woman rapist, you would have to say that was good. We "know" these things are wrong because of empathy, we just feel it in our bones that such a thing is a horrific abomination. Without empathy though, it really wouldn't matter. It's all subjective.

[@SaintNektarios]

Where does empathy come from?

[@iguess2739]

Is the way you want to live objectively the most valuable way to live or subjectively the most valuable?

[@okramoffacebook1381]

0:15 This sentence is so much above a stoners head

[@wilkiebunkers1352]

I can't stand either of them

[@Mogwat]

Morality is derived from our understanding of ethics, which in turn is derived from our comprehension of the consequences of our actions. By placing ourselves in the path of the consequences resulting from our own actions, we gain insight into how to behave or how we aspire to behave, as well as the type of behavior we expect from others. In simpler terms, ethics involves learning about what is right and wrong and why it is so, while morality entails putting that knowledge into action. For example, an ethical person knows that cheating on their spouse is wrong, whereas a moral person would actually refrain from engaging in such behavior. It's important to note that morality does not necessarily depend on the concept of God, as humans have acted morally long before the invention of religious beliefs. Rape and murder can be deemed morally wrong without invoking religious beliefs by appealing to the principles of ethics, the understanding of consequences, and by empathizing with the victims of these acts. From an ethical standpoint, we can recognize that rape and murder cause severe harm and suffering to individuals and communities. By placing ourselves in the position of those who might experience such acts, we can gain a deeper understanding of the pain, fear, and loss they would endure. Imagining ourselves as the victim of rape or murder allows us to empathize with the immense physical, emotional, and psychological trauma inflicted upon individuals who undergo such experiences. This exercise in empathy helps us recognize the profound violation of their rights, autonomy, dignity, and freedom. Additionally, by comprehending the consequences of our actions, we can understand the detrimental impact of rape and murder on society as a whole. These acts undermine the fabric of social trust and stability. By placing ourselves in a society where rape and murder are prevalent, we can empathize with the fear, anxiety, and insecurity that would pervade our lives. Such acts disrupt the bonds of community, hinder cooperation, and prevent the healthy development of human relationships necessary for a harmonious society. By considering these ethical principles, understanding the consequences, and empathizing with the victims, we can conclude that rape and murder are inherently wrong. They inflict unimaginable suffering, violate fundamental human rights, and erode the well-being and stability of individuals and communities. This justification does not rely on religious teachings but rather on the inherent value and dignity of human life, as well as the understanding of the negative impact of such acts on both the individual and society at large.

[@lrn_news9171]

Prove that morality predates religion

[@aishai7592]

​@@lrn_news9171that's like saying prove learning comes before school. If morality came "after" religion then how would u know religion was morally correct. If u wanted religion to be morally correct you have to understand that morals come first. The same way you can't have a school without understanding that there are somethings to learn.

[@AnimalAlmighty]

@@aishai7592Nicely put.

[@davidnguyen7891]

If your ethics are based upon a church authority that believes in God as your lord and savior, then you need to prove that God exists

[@BredyTruver]

Please, don't try to pretend that you're blind, man. Such argument was presented in this video by Andrew. The moral argument is one of the best arguments for the God's existence. And Vaush had nothing to answer to that. So... And nobody gives a shit if you don't see that or "remain unconvinced". And on the other side you don't seem to have any basis for ethics, so what's with the superficial comment? And since you've reached those thoughts via process of thinking, you would also need to prove and justify the process of thought. 'Cause we all know thinking is not based in biology. You've got a brain - that we can prove and see, but we cannot scientifically prove the existence of a mind/thoughts.

[@davidnguyen7891]

@@BredyTruver god has not been proven to exist. That’s why it’s called a a religion, because it is faith based. If you’re going to base your policies and legislation on faith then just say that. No need to hide behind semantics. But the rest of the world will most likely not go along with it. This is why Christian’s will always lose the culture war. Not only are their beliefs are very controlling and fascistic and unpopular, but they are also unproven

[@Blandy0487]

Can you prove that any ideology is true?

[@zack3799]

Sequence of dooties heh

[@drcrispyjohnson2242]

He punches dead blah blah blah

[@shanenolan5625]

Dead body it imoral and illegal.

[@gumdeo]

L-aush.

[@nobody-qt1pk]

Andrew, next time, invite a chirping bird to the program so I can follow the counterargument being made. Because I understood not a single point that Vaush was trying to make. It was like a chirping bird

[@brandons9027]

Are you just that ignorant? Its fairly obvious what vaush was saying

[@nobody-qt1pk]

@brandons9027 yep, I guess so. Congratulations to you for following his conversations. Good job!

[@brandons9027]

@@nobody-qt1pk so you just turn your brain off to any info you dont like? Example, when andrew as for a policy that reverses the birthrate trend, vsush cited maturity leave. Did you understand how that is a mitigating policy? Because andrew couldnt.

[@nobody-qt1pk]

@brandons9027 No, I dont turn my brain off to info I do not like. I genuinely dont really care. I watched this conversation merely to see people argue ethics.

[@brandons9027]

@@nobody-qt1pk so you watch a debate, but you don’t care about the content. Because you care about ethics? no no what you said makes no sense. I don’t think you care about the content at all. I don’t think you care about ethics either.

[@christking85]

Vaush isn't someone who debates in good faith. He will always dodge questions or change what was asked and answer what he wants to.

[@trumpbellend6717]

What is the "objective" moral standard we should all adhere and aspire to?? 🤔 or are YOU going to _"dodge the question"_ ??

[@christking85]

@@trumpbellend6717 You felt really smart writing your comment didn't you? I can feel the ignorance and entitlement oozing from it.. Moral standard - Protect women and children, do not cause harm to others unless physically threatened, Do not steal, Do not lie, Do not introduce adult content to kids.. That should be enough for you to start with. .. Wasn't hard right? Unless you are evil. Which Vaush is. Maybe even you

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@christking85 You feel really idiotic reconciling with reality our moral status being the result of a talking snake convincing a rib woman and mud figurine man to eat a magic fruit against the wishes of an invisible being who thinks it moral to *_"kill all the males from amongst the little ones"_* don't you dear 🤭🤣 // "Protect women and children" // _"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them_ *But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child* _ox and sheep, camel and donkey"_ (1 Samuel 15 : 3 ) There are dozens of these dear, 🤢🤮 is this where the mental gymnastics kick in and your argument changes from one of _"it's always wrong to kill children"_ to one of _"it's moral to kill children if my subjective invisible God says so"_ ( because they deserve it ) 😉

[@christking85]

@@trumpbellend6717 Did you try to respond? it says 3 comments but only shows 2. Please tell me you were so triggered that you got your comment removed by youtube. If not it must have been someone just as smart as you lol

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@christking85 I guess you must feel really foolish reconciling with reality our moral status being the result of a talking snake convincing a rib woman and mud figurine man to eat a magic fruit against the wishes of an invisible being who thinks it moral to _"kill all the males from amongst the little ones"_ 🤭🤣 // "Protect women and children" // _"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them_ *But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child* _ox and sheep, camel and donkey"_ (1 Samuel 15 : 3 ) There are dozens of these dear, 🤢🤮 is this where the mental gymnastics kick in and your argument changes from one of _"it's always wrong to kill children"_ to one of _"it's moral to kill children if my subjective invisible God says so"_ ( because they deserve it ) 😉

[@okramoffacebook1381]

This is force fed narcisissm tirned ego

[@trumpbellend6717]

I find it difficult to have a serious discourse about morality with someone who considers our moral status the result of a talking snake convincing a rib woman and mud figurine man to eat a magic fruit against the wishes of an invisible being who thinks it moral to *_"kill all the males from amongst the little ones"_* 🤭😂🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@siruristtheturtle1289]

Lmao, you are seething so hard in this entire comment section. Keep coping lad, you have no basis to consider literally anything as inmoral, and you know it deep inside.

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@siruristtheturtle1289 Lol Is the killing of babies and children objectively immoral *YES or NO* ? If killing babies is carried out or instructed by your "God" is it moral *YES or NO* ? Is your OPINION regarding the "correct" God who's allegedly the basis for morality a "SUBJECTIVE" one or a "OBJECTIVE" one ?? 🙄 Let the mental gymnastics ensue......

[@siruristtheturtle1289]

@@trumpbellend6717Are you stupid? To your first question: Actions alone aren't moral or inmoral, as they are dependant on a disposition of the heart and a given context. There is actions that are almost always inmoral, but even in the case of things like killing other human beings, the Bible doesn't condemns soldiers or those acting in rightful self-defense. Now, to answer your question: If the order is given by God, then yes, it is by mere definition moral and good. You don't seem to realize that we christians believe that God is the basis for everything that is good, it is part of his energies, therefore nothing he does or orders can be evil. We believe GOd is not only the creator, but the ultimate judge and arbiter of human life, therefore, he has the right to choose when a life must ends and by what means. You really thought this was a gotcha? Really? And I am yet to hear how you justify your own morality, by the way.

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@siruristtheturtle1289 🥱 Yawn, after a lovely night's sleep I awake to this "piffle" how disappointing and how telling yet typical of Christian apologetics it is. Let's dismantle it piece by piece like some old jigsaw shall we. // "Dependant on a disposition of the heart and a given *CONTEXT"* // *Dictionary* *Moral Relativism* _the view that moral judgments can be seen as true or false according to a historical, cultural, or social _*_"CONTEXT"_* *Got Questions* ( Christian website ) *"Moral absolutism* _is the philosophy that mankind is subject to absolute standards of conduct that _*_DO NOT CHANGE with circumstances the intent of the acting agent_*_ or the result of the act_ _These standards are universal to _*_all humanity despite culture or era_*_ and they maintain their relevance_ *whether or not an individual or a culture values them* _It is never appropriate to break a law that is based on one of these absolutes"_ Lol how ironic here you are advocating for a form of *"MORAL RELATIVISM"* based upon your subjective God whilst simultaneously asserting morality is objective and absolute 🤭😂🤣🤣😂 I suggest you go back to your colouring book and leave these discussions to the adults dear 😉

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@siruristtheturtle1289 // "acting in rightful self defense" // Wow so the killing of women children and babies is now _"self defence"_ shame on you and those like you that sacrifice both your humanity and your reasoning at the alter of Yahweh for the promise of an afterlife. It's a price I'm not willing to pay. 🤢🤮 You know just a couple of years ago in africa ( Nigeria I think ? ) a islamic fundamentalist group who's name I cant put on here ( the posts get deleted ) Anyway the leaders of this group told their followers that god wanted them to destroy the local towns with different religious veiws. They did so killing thousands women toddlers babies none were spared EXCEPT hundreds of young school girls whom they kidnapped. Over the next year or so several hundred escaped or were rescued by special forces. Most were found to be heavily pregnant. The whole world condemned this for the attrocity it was, yet YOU think theologically and morally they did nothing wrong except commit the crimes in the name of a different subjective invisible "God" than your own .🤬🤬. I have two young daughters and the thought of this happening to them would be more than I could bare. The brainwashed monsters that justify this garbage have no place in todays society and certainly not in a discussion about morality. 😡😡

[@scytale6]

what is a util?

[@mikethered4864]

Vaush's response to the dead body question should have been "Society benefits by having ethical standards of respect for the dead. Ethical standards provide their fullest and best utility to society when they are equally expected of people regardless of whether or not someone else finds out or is directly affected. Therefore, there is no scenario where someone could f**k a dead body and it not be a net-negative for society. You are asking for a moral judgement on an impossible situation."

[@alekhinesgun9997]

And if nobody knew about it and the person doing it got utility from it, what now? There's no way to fiddle your way around the hypothetical. Vaush already says it's okay to harvest non living humans, why not f**k them too? Why is that too far?

[@trumpbellend6717]

​@@alekhinesgun9997 Sorry dear but what "objective" moral standard do YOU use to determine the morality of "f,, ing a dead body ?? 🙄🤔

[@alekhinesgun9997]

@@trumpbellend6717 Moral law and a moral law giver. Kind of the only way to have objective morality. Now if you'd like to answer the question that'd be great but you'll probably ignore it and continue asking me questions.

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@alekhinesgun9997 Tell me dear is your OPINION regarding the "correct" God who's allegedly the basis for morality a "SUBJECTIVE" one or a "OBJECTIVE" one ?? 🙄 Can we use *ANY* "God" as the basis for this "objective" moral standard you speak of or just the SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE invisible being *YOU* determined to be the "correct" one out of the many thousands man has preposed.? 🙄 🤔 If its the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if its the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍 The claim that theistic morality is somehow superior because its "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@alekhinesgun9997 // "Moral law and a moral law giver" // Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. The recognition and evaluation of the consequences our choices have with regards to ourselves and others. My NOT believing in a mythological god in no way impedes the ability of forming such moral assessments. We are self aware conscious pain and emotion feeling individuals capable of love or hate, incredible acts of altruism or depravity. It's how we navigate through life and these potential extremes that define us, not our belief ( or lack of ) in your specific subjective invisible friend. I prefer the flavour of vanilla ice cream over strawberry. Do we need an invisible being to provide an "objective" best ice cream flavour giver ? 🤔 Are those who agree with my preference not justified in buying vanilla over any other flavour when we go shopping absent an "objective" standard or "meaning" to our preference ?? 🙄🤭

[@justinmadrid8712]

I hate when Vaush accuses his opponent of supporting X, when his opponent is literally pointing out how only their system can explain why X is bad, and that Vaush's system cannot.

[@djpunkIIDX]

ah, discount destiny back at it, sounding more and more like him every day (except much dumber)

[@ryanremembers]

"via Divine Command", what a great way to say "because I said so". Using that one.

[@eljaroebeukes5118]

Or "because God says so" - Christians are pretty upfront about where there morals are grounded - that's kinda the whole thing. That's why he is he is asking Vaush to explain what his morals are based on - and he has no answer.

[@ryanremembers]

@@eljaroebeukes5118 it's Andrew saying God says so. So it comes down to because I say so. So he has no more footing than Vaush.

[@eljaroebeukes5118]

@@ryanremembers it's not just him saying that - the religion is based on believing in something greater than yourself. You can argue the merits if you want to but having a religious belief and saying "because I said so" are two different things. I think you know this.

[@ryanremembers]

@@eljaroebeukes5118 I agree it's based on believing in something larger than yourself. No qualms there. Literally everyone in the universe could believe what Andrew believes and it still wouldn't change the fact that it's *Andrew* saying what is and is not "divine command".

[@eljaroebeukes5118]

@@ryanremembers It's literally not him saying it - it's a belief system that has been around before any of us were even here. Am I not phrasing it correctly or do you not understand what the religion is? Also just to be clear - i hold the beliefs that our society are founded on and have been around for centuries in higher regard than some soft handed asshole in lumberjack cosplay on the internet saying "because I said so". Especially if he can't answer any questions directly.

[@neildepressedtyson540]

I don't know if I really even understand the debate here. I don't think Vaush "can't answer" this, I think he's struggling to understand what the hell this other guy is saying. He's using a lot of non-philosophical jargon and kind of pushing some weird pseudo-ethical babble.

[@olubunmiolumuyiwa]

He's simply saying if people *should* or have a *duty* to be utilitarian.

[@neildepressedtyson540]

Yeah but this makes absolutely no sense though. Of course you have a duty to do what's ethical in your ethical framework, it doesn't make sense without it. @@olubunmiolumuyiwa

[@olubunmiolumuyiwa]

@@neildepressedtyson540 But it would seem that Vaush was denying the duty to be ethical even in his own framework.

[@trumpbellend6717]

​@@olubunmiolumuyiwa No dear he just has a different subjective ethical framework than yours

[@robinsss]

@@neildepressedtyson540 my answer is if you own the body you are not doing anything immoral by having sex with it but if you don't own it then you are violating property rights

[@ryanmccafferty8196]

Vaush did way better in this debate than Andrew ever could.

[@Delusion_Conclusion]

🤡

[@brandonringer7592]

Vag doesn't even understand his util itarian policies.... Basically a free no morality society where the restraints are whether there is an action that is negative to a person. And since dead people are not people anymore by his same false logical precept of abortion, in his works you can fuck a dead body

[@televisiontunnelvision3303]

Vaush tried to answer your questions, but almost every time he started speaking you got testy and cut him off.

[@golfoftonkin]

Alex sucks