Truth(Vegan) Vs Archi (Anti Vegan)

All right, bro. I'll just be defending name the trait. I want you to establish a morally relevant trait in which humans possess that animals don't and make it so you can kill animals and make it morally impermissible to kill humans.

Why would I need a trait for it to be permissible? Why do you need to establish a trait for it to be permissible? Oh, because if it's the case that the traits are one by or one to one, right, then there or morally relevant traits at least are one to one, right?

It's simply the case that there is no distinction in killing animals and killing humans. So both would just be morally impermissible. I see.

I see. So you want me to give a distinction for why I think killing animals is different from killing ant from killing humans? Yes.

from a from a moral standpoint. Yeah. Sure.

I think from a standpoint of why I wouldn't is because I find more cognitive relatability and I think there's a higher volume for intelligence realization than there is for an animal. All right. Um so when you say cognitive relatability and things of that nature, uh let's just take it that we have a person who's [ __ ] right?

So let's say we have Curo and Curo's just a dumbass. He'll never reach an IQ above like 30 or so, right? Would you just say that it's just morally permissible to kill all people like Curo if their retardation is so severe to the case that they cannot properly access their qualic senses or the sensory experience sensory experiences.

I don't think there'd be any issue with killing them though. Um, so you I'm guessing you'd also just kill all disabled people who have like for example when you said like a quail or sense depriving thing. Uh, you'd also be okay with killing all blind people and killing all like deaf people, I guess.

Well, no, because those don't fit the traits of specific retardation that I've supposed to. I mean, but I'm saying in the or in the case. So, you're just saying that in the case that [ __ ] he is [ __ ] and he is unable to experience these things fully, it would be okay to kill him, right?

And I'm just saying that if it's the case that that is the justifier, we can take the justifier as well and apply it on these other instanc I'll answer your question. if their initial volume is not high enough to where they can realize this and their potential to realize this is to none or from 5% to zero in other cases. Okay.

I think that it'd be completely fine killing them. I don't think I'd have an issue with that. I don't think it would matter at that point.

Right. Yeah. So I guess I just ask you to give uh like I guess a mor or why you know [ __ ] mor morality is a thing that can be quantified by intelligence.

So like we could just go around killing all the stupid people for example. Um I think that if that's your personal view I've already outlined my particular trait that you asked for in the beginning and that's not upon or entailed within the trait that I've labeled. So that could be an interpretation.

Yeah, that's just not mine. Wait, and can you give them moral justification for the training which you prescribed? You just said like I guess they wouldn't be able to fully reach Excuse me.

Why would I need to give justification for this trade? Uh the justification, right? I'm just asking you cuz obviously, right, um I would kind of agree animals don't necessarily have this thing, but I've also given you examples of humans who don't have this thing, right?

You've said, "Well, it's okay to kill those humans. " Right? So, now I'm just asking you, why would that be the case?

How do you explain why? And you you've just said that it's a particular, but I just want substantiation for the particular because I like, for example, like wait, just just real quick. So, for example, right, I think most people here or a lot of people would have particulars against that thing or priors against that thing, right?

And you're saying, well, I believe this thing to be the case, right? So obviously if I have an intuition going against this thing, you have an intuition going for it. I would just need an actual argument for you to substantiate right this thing.

You don't you don't at all because my position I'm not the one affirming an argument. You're the one running an argument on me. Right.

You ask my particular and I'm saying that this is the set for my view. I'm not arguing that this view is, you know, the the the most correct view. I think there could be other instances and other valuations that outline why what's it called?

killing animals is okay. Um, and I think that some views can be either complete or incomplete yet hold yet hold separate particulars from me. So my my my view is not establishing what this particular is some unique particular that just makes it right.

I'm just justifying the consistency within my own personal framework. Your argument is is its purpose is to deconstruct my framework and establish some kind of reductio. Okay.

This isn't what you're doing at the moment. You're just trying to shift the burden. No, it's not a shift of the burden because of the fact that the argument right the way that it actually attacks the framework in which you previously established is just asking right why this trait is morally relevant and if you can't substantiate it then you can't build your framework off it.

So for example like you can't you ask for me to substantiate this you didn't ask for why it's morally relevant. I've already explained why it's morally relevant. You've said well it aligns with my particulars but I've just said that I can make the same that wasn't my explanation that or I mean you can repeat it but I'm pretty sure it was my explanation for why it's morally relevant is because for our ability to realize moral agencies and moral capabilities are dependent on our volume of intelligence.

And if this if there's a species or a set of species who cannot realize them and this ability then that means they in as far as themselves cannot act and engage within this moral set. So if they cannot act and engage within this moral set I think that that there would be a lack of reasoning for why they should be morally considered upon this set if they but by if they themselves do not act upon it. It would seem as if we have there there would be this invisible implication or this invisible obligation for us as higher individuals to to give the same respect that that that we share upon each other to to beings that that don't even have the same respect or beings that don't even realize or the existence of the same respect.

And I think that is an invisible obligation and implication that requires some justification prior. So I I don't think the whole inconsistency is within my logic. I think the whole in an inconsistency without that approach is that it assumes this obligation.

All right. So, um I I guess I would just say here like what what you've given me is like this idea that it's fine um or whatever to kill them because of the fact they lack the ability to I guess give moral agency or show these big signs of intelligence which people do. So then I would just ask you the question, is it okay to kill babies?

Um, I think we both agree that babies can't show moral agency such as humans or not. I think I think they have the volume too. When you say the volume too, you just mean the potential.

You can say that the potential ceiling. Yeah. Um I guess then we could just go off of uh so would you say that we should just value things or give or establish rights based off what things will happen in the future within certain context.

So if we're going to establish or at least talk within the context of the aperture of moral agency is what we what we assign moral agency to I guess for whatever reason. Obviously, I think potential would be very very important within my framework essentially because I've already established and committed to the view of volume. Okay, volume just refers to the amount of capacity.

That's a good way to think of it. Okay, mass just refers to everything that is inside that. Okay, and I think I think what's inside that can develop and develop.

I think it could be relativistic from person to person because some people have a better sense of understanding than others obviously, right? But even be even even regardless of that I don't think the fact that just because there is a state of existence to where you don't have this doesn't emuation of value the potential that you will have this because I I think there are good results and I think there are productive results that we view from this and I think that of it in itself is something that would connect to my personal framework because I myself am another human that at one point didn't have that. So I think it'd be inconsistent of me to attack that baby for it.

But if we're going to talk about all senses of potentiality, I think it'd be ignorant for you to go based off of everything that might potentially happen, right? I think there are important properties of the present that we should operate on in order to assure that our future is correct. Yeah.

So, I do want to make that distinction. I don't think we should value that in every instance, but I think it is extremely relevant to the instance of a baby in referring to their potential ceiling for moral realization. All right.

So then what I would ask you is like for example, I know you said not all situations, but just to get a bit of clarification here, for example, would you be okay with killing a fetus in the womb or aborting a baby? Um, in what context? Um I guess just from like when you say in what context you just mean uh like in a moral sense hold on hold on I think that was disingenuous of me to ask that question because I don't think that even matters towards your question.

I'll answer it directly. I do think it's okay but I think that it's context dependent. So when you say context dependent you're just saying well the fetus lacks these traits in which the baby has right.

Um, I guess that would make it bad to [ __ ] go kill the baby. Yes, I think there is something true of a baby, something that is already born that is untrue of a fetus, something that is not already born. Um, so why would the value I guess of this thing or why would the thing that makes the potential matter be the act that the baby's born?

Okay, that was a very confusing question. So, I'll try to answer it the best way I can. But the difference is because that volume is already established once that baby is born.

Okay. So once they already have this volume, we understand for certainty that it will accumulate upon time. Now whether how far that accumulation will go or what the totality of that accumulation will eventually be by the end of their life that is something that we are uncertain on obviously but we are very c we are very certain that it will accumulate in some way.

A fetus we don't have this certainty or guarantee. So seemingly it doesn't have the actual volume or the share particular trait that I was referring to in the instance of a baby, right? Because they don't have these neurological capabilities.

Meanwhile, babies are human sponges essentially. Well, then what I just ask is um I guess right here you're just saying [ __ ] they have you know this thing if interrupted they'll grow or whatever and their volume will be established. Then I just say like well that is also true.

Um, for most cases, uh, dealing with fetuses or babies, right? If these babies aren't aborted, um, it's just simply the case they'll most likely go on to survive or whatever, just as the fetus will, if not killed, most likely go on to survive, right? So, they would still have the, I guess, volume and what you've prescribed.

Okay. What is what's your point? I don't think that addresses anything I said.

Yeah. So, if it's the case that you're what? I'm pretty sure what what's the view you gave?

You said uh it's context dependent and it wouldn't apply to abortion here. Oh, yeah. So, I'm saying that if it's the case, you can't give a distinction between this thing and this thing um I just say they're analogous and the volume would matter.

Um if you think you gave a distinction, we can in the wreck. Does a fetus have volume of knowledge? Volume of knowledge?

What do you mean? Does a fetus have any Does a fetus have does a fetus have an invisible capability of having knowledge and accumulating moral sensibility over time? Of accumulating moral sensibility over time?

Uh, wait. Does a baby Wait, does a baby have it? Question.

Yes, it does. No, no, no. I thought you were going to ask if that accumulation.

If you're asking at that time, that's an irrelevant question because I'm referring to accumulation and the progressive rate of change. I'm not referring to a singular event. That's irrelevant.

Yeah. So my whole point here is just that the fetus would as well have this progressive rate of change if uninterrupted of babies or not babies but fetuses having neurological capabilities. You said that fetuses show something that they have neurological I'm asking you can provide a citation that these fetuses have a neurological capability or that they volume that will accumulate over time because I disagree with you and I think that's an utter lie.

No. All right. So basically what I'm telling you is that uh they don't have to have it like at that time.

My my whole point is that sure the babies don't have it at that time either. You've admitted it yourself, right? So what I'm telling you is that basically it's in the volume they have that volume at the time.

Yeah. Yeah. That's what we're trying to go over if they both have the volume.

All you've established is that it that they or I guess or you're trying to establish that they in particular have this one thing at set time. I'm saying well the babies um you're not telling me why in the future right they wouldn't be able to achieve a similar thing so you haven't made I guess or broken the symmetry in which I prescribed or tried to prescribe well I believe that a baby okay has this volume because they have a brain I think a fetus doesn't have this volume because they don't have a brain does that make sense to you you're saying he can't accumulate over time. I'm saying that even though the fetus has the That's not what I just said.

Answer my question. Yes. Yes.

Yes. You're saying the volume, right, would be prescribed because of the fact that he has a brain, right? And all I'm telling you is that well, if we've already went over the case that the fetus doesn't already have or isn't accumulating the events at that certain time, it would simply be the case the fetus isn't either.

I'm saying that both over time will go on if uninterrupted to accumulate. A fetus will not go on to accumulate knowledge. This is you're referring to when a fetus no longer is a fetus and I do not abort fetuses that are no longer fetuses because they are not fetuses up until that point.

They are fetuses beforehand. You're referring to two different states of existence. And also I send citations in chat in case you try to deny that babies learn or have a value for capacity to learn.

Oh, wow. Hold on. Wait.

So, what was I guess when you say there's a symmetry breaker here, what's your definition for or when would you prescribe it to be I guess a baby? That's actually an amazing question. So, within my view, I would describe it to be a baby when it is born.

Okay. Right. And then it says, um, yeah, yeah, wait.

So, if you're saying, uh, it's a baby, uh, upon birth, right? It's not abortion, but if you're saying that it's a [ __ ] a baby upon birth, then I would just ask you, right? Um, like I'm pretty sure they have brain activity in the womb and they can experience inside the womb.

Now, would that not be, I guess, experience or knowledge or whatever? You want to Did I say that? Did I Well, first off, this begs the question.

Does this experience um have any implications of moral sensibility? Does the experience upon being born have implication of Oh, are you referring to upon being born? Cuz I thought you were referring to when there's still What?

No, no, no. I am I am I'm just asking you does your experience and what you've prescribed to be the symmetry breaker. Does that actually have the trait in which you're asking me to prescribe?

Does my experience actually have the trait? What are you talking about? Yeah.

So, so the trait in which I'm asking for Wait, wait. Yeah. Yeah.

So, the trait in which I'm asking for is like I guess you're saying uh he has the ability uh to [ __ ] what is it the capacity to learn or make moral distinguishments or some [ __ ] like that, right? What? Sorry, I was reading chat.

What are you saying? has his capabilities. The the [ __ ] fetus or not fetus but the baby upon being born and I'm just if he does.

Yeah, I actually already sent citation for this and answered this question. Wait, so when you send Hold on where in the citation does it say it? So if you go into it right, if you if you read it says quoted by Allison Gnik has a PhD and Scott McStuff who also has a PhD.

Okay. So it simply states that learning begins from the time babies are born and there's even more evidence. Okay.

And also Zach Pnoff it's he states that from the moment of birth when you cut the cord that baby is taking in the environment and is responding to the environment and is learning. That's the citation and the piece of evidence. It's actually right there.

Yeah. So wait then I would just say like would you say that it's learning? Um, like I wouldn't say this fulfills your burden because this doesn't say anything about it learning uh or having new capacity.

Wait, wait, listen. Or having some new capacity for this, I guess, moral thing. It just says it learns as in like I guess it can experience the outside world and learn about the outside.

It doesn't specify that's what it means by learning. It doesn't specify it, but I'm just giving you Wait, wait. So, I'm just giving you an alternate interpretation of what you're saying that is useless to me.

Can you address my actual argument? Um, no. It's not really useless to you because you're using this to establish this certain thing to be the case.

And I'm just saying this other thing to be the case. You're saying that my citation is excuse me. You're saying my citation is invalid because of the fact that it's not referring Yes, it is.

Excuse me. Because of the fact that it's not referring to the same set of learning that I'm referring to. That is what you said.

Please don't be disingenuous because there is a recording. That is not the case. You used you tried to discredit me by giving your own definition of learning.

That is extremely disingenuous and that is extremely myopic. You are just claiming because your aperture of the word learning is like this that this must obviously lead to heavy consequences and have heavy implications on my article. That is your perspective.

We can use different pieces of the article to where directly talks about babies absorbing information that proves that they do volume. It doesn't have to even stop there. If you just read my article, it proves my point for me and it states directly.

Now, you don't even have to scroll that much. Within one scroll, it can say this. I feel like this is disingenuous and I I think this is honestly useless to go over.

That's very interesting, sir. But, um, basically, uh, I guess what you've told me is that [ __ ] I'm applying my own word or whatever. All right.

I I guess I would just say like I'm not really applying my own word or definition. Um, I'm giving an interpretation to a word that would align or co-align with what I'm saying. You have a separate interpretation that's also inclusive of what you're saying.

I'm just saying, can you prove that this thing is, I guess, definitively the case without relying on something that can be seen as vague without relying on something that could be seen as vague. Anything could be seen as veg to a [ __ ] right? And and the thing is I can't presupposing that I'm a [ __ ] Excuse me.

Excuse me. But I said I can prove this distinction. So will you allow me to give my evidence without interrupting?

Go ahead ma'am. Thank you. Now we understand from this article, okay, what it says directly.

Okay. And this is how we can infer that my definition of learning is what it's referring to which just means to take in or or or to or to have a new set of information whether that is inferential knowledge or whether that is knowledge that you know you try to acquire from from a book or whatever. Okay, whatever it may be, but some form of knowledge is inquired from when you are born.

Okay, it states this because it says when babies are born, they are able to discriminate between the sounds of language that they've heard and sounds of another language. This is one example. They babies would not be able to do this if they had not inquired data from their particular set of of language that they have familiarized.

But the fact that they have familiarized this is already evidence alone that they observe information. This is common sense. The second citation generally says so I think the big message is in in old days 10 years ago people would say so when does a baby start to see when people when does a baby start to hear this is literally referring to these questions.

So obviously the the the purpose of this article is referring to the fact that or is referring to to answer the question of when these babies start observing knowledge that is even more evidence. If we go into the second point of what it's referring to right um what's it called? Obviously, it's going to be referring to gaining.

Yo, did he cut out? Sorry. It's going to refer to the information for when babies start to see, when babies start to visualize.

And these are the experiences that I'm talking about. Your definition. One moment.

One moment. Okay. All right.

Go ahead. So, yeah, your your your definition, what's it called? Not only is it so specific, so particular, so weird, right?

I don't want to misuse this word, but it appears very proprietary, right? But but very very cut to a specific context. Okay.

Not only is is it that, but the thing is this is common intuition. Like this is something like I'm I'm not going to try to argue out of emotion here, but I would genuinely fullheartedly believe you understand babies start learning. You understand from the moment that babies are born that they are observing information the article in which Go ahead.

What is What does this have to do with you? All right, bro. Basically, it talks about how fetuses can learn.

Um, I'm pretty sure in an auditorial sense. In an auditorial sense. Okay.

So, through sound. Okay. Do you think Okay.

Do you think that hearing pulses and being able to distinguish frequencies is is is enough to actually encapsulate actual language? And what I mean by actual language, because that can be very very vague when I say this. I mean language that is collectively organized and that you're able to communicate other points with.

Um, I mean, no, I wouldn't say they're the same one to one, though. Okay, good. Because right now it states that it's examining this electroc cardiography that that is purely referring to behavioral habits and stimulation a fetuses exhibit when they're given certain pulses and certain stimulations, right?

So, obviously what it's referring to is is a bit distinct from what I'm referring to. And even though this is the case and I think well I think most people around the world can agree this is the case. Can you explain why this trait has what's unique of this trait or not what's unique of this trait what's familiar of this trait that's familiar with mine right because I can explain what's in excuse me excuse me excuse me cuz I could explain what's unique for my trait that is unique from this.

Not only that but I don't think this also gives any credence for why they are they have any volume for morality. What what does have to do with what we're talking about? All right.

Yeah. So basically what it has to do what you're talking about is you were talking about how learning begins once the fetus is born and fetuses cannot learn. Um the article clearly states fetuses actually can learn.

So now I just need a new distinguished fire or symmetric I guess that doesn't that doesn't address what I've said. Can you please adjust the question? Um you can repeat the question.

And I'm pretty sure I've already addressed. The question here is that can you please explain how this in any way represents or at least gives any kind of invisible implications that these fetuses because they can respond to certain pulses and frequencies that they have a volume for for moral sensibility and moral understanding. Oh well, I don't think you substantiated as to why these basic or base experiences would lead to moral understanding.

Right. I've just given you right that both of these What was my initial when you asked me for my This is important. This is important.

I promise this is important. I promise this is important. When you ask me initially, excuse me.

Just for a second. Just for a second. Just for a second.

I promised. I promise this is important. I'm not trying to Okay.

Okay. Cuz I'm not trying to interrupt viciously, but you're you're going to lead back to the same point and waste your breath. You would ask me initially for the trait which I established was this was this volume for or this capacity for for this moral for this moral ability or this moral realization.

You were completely fine with this. Now when I'm asking you or when you're trying to give this trait to detail why this why my trait uh at least isn't unique in any sense and why a fetus can also exhibit the same trait for moralization you you have to commit to this. I just asked you if this is the case and you you said no you don't believe this leads directly to moral realization.

That obviously means that you are establishing something that is either distinct from what I'm referencing or you think that what I've established or what I've brought is substantiated is not sufficient enough to prove that they have a value from moral realization which if either is the case you have to clarify that. But what you're doing is dropping is dropping your commitment and what you're doing is not actually addressing my particular in your words. No, no, no.

So yeah, the second would just be um or the latter of what you said is just what I'm actually doing here. I'm just disagreeing with the fact that these things uh show the ability to um I guess for that baby to make these I guess moral choices or whatever, right? And then I'm just saying Yeah.

Yeah. So basically all I said was that I just disagree with what the latter of you said, what you said, right? Just the fact that the baby I guess can learn these things via these things, right?

uh that you send your article and and I'm just saying that my sufficient Yeah. You said what what isn't sufficient of the volume. Yeah.

Yeah. So like it would just be a case that I've I've once I've already kind of given you a distinguishment, right? I don't think that saying that someone can experience or walk around the world is grounds to saying they can understand moral problems.

So obviously this is a terrible and dangerous misrepresentation of what I'm saying. when we refer to volume. Okay.

Okay. I'll give an example. Do you think an object can high can have a high volume but a low amount of mass?

Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

Right. There could be very very big objects with not a lot of stuff inside of it. So you understand volume but but when we reach max volume we're reaching max capacity for what can be put inside of this object.

Correct? You understand this, right? Yeah.

Okay. Amazing. You understand the concept of fifth grade density.

Okay. Now if we understand this we understand that when we're referring to you know in a more abstract thing when we just use the frame or the word volume in this instance we're referring to the capacity of what utmost limit they can reach within the instance of moral sensibility and stuff like that. Okay you or not not just sensibility but just realization their their ability to engage within society their ability to have meaningful moral conversations.

Okay at least what we consider meaningful moral conversations ones that relate and actually uh give credence give points to things. But the thing is okay that does not mean that they will always have this state. We as humans did not always have a good sense of of you know morality.

All right or we didn't even have a fully developed understanding of morality. We we were born with this set. But through our in through gaining not only just inferential knowledge, but after we gain this inferential knowledge, through being able to understand and communicate, right?

Learn and and and actually view the world from an understanding perspective, we develop these things because we already have these preset conditions that allow for it, right? We don't just do it just because we're super cool and super awesome. Even though the human body is amazing and cool and awesome, but the brain allows for us to understand and realize these things.

Okay? So, uh, so that's why your response is not satisfactory because it assumes that I'm saying you have to already have these traits. But all I'm saying is that you just have to have the capacity.

That's all I'm wanting to hear. Yeah, I'm guessing you're saying the uh Oh, I have a question then. When would you say that the baby is cognitively intelligent enough to actually go on and make some moral progress?

All you're saying is that sure it has the traits to in the future possess these things, but like for example, um I guess I would say like [ __ ] I could have all the traits to be a pro basketball player in the future, right? But that doesn't mean, you know, oh, we should protect this guy cuz he's going to be a pro basketball player in the future, right? Or whatever.

Or treat me as such. So I'm just asking Well, one Wait, wait. So I'm just asking when do I become I guess this thing or have or gain this ability in respects to the intellect.

My article answers this question and I don't think that responds. I think that all you said is that he's gain the ability to learn but I've all I've said is that you can have the ability to learn but not have the ability to actually process and make these moral truths and you haven't given give an example of this. Um you can have an ability to learn.

Yeah. So like uh I guess the the example would would just be like a one-year-old or a one a one second old, right? You've said wait you've said wait.

You think a one secondy old doesn't have the volume to do. So So you don't think they will develop this in the future? Um that they'll develop in the future.

Yeah. But I'm saying that this future development would be But was that a you agree with this? Yes.

Yes. But this future development would be predicated upon a specific spot in which they've gained enough intellect. And I'm saying that Okay.

So that's enough to actually understand that right? Wait, we we need to come to this understanding. Why?

Because that's how volume works. Do you understand mass can accumulate over time? Do you know this?

Wait, wait. So I'm going to give an example. So when we have an object, let's say if we have a box, we have an empty what appears to be a visually empty box.

If we were to throw a photon in there with with a bunch of fancy mirrors, just a singular photon, and it kept going very very fast speed, the speed is accumulating. At some point, it will be a fully a full a box with full mass in it. It will have very a lot mass in it because of the photon's acceleration.

Does this mean that the box either has full mass or it has no mass? Was there no rate of change? Do you think it instantly went to the supreme?

Yes or no? No. Right.

Wait, what? Wait, wait, wait. Yeah, you just told me to say no.

But my whole point is that here you're saying, well, they'll gain the intelligence to actually learn this thing later. Then I'm saying, well, the fetus will also gain these traits, so there's no reason to kill the Hey, monkey, I've already made this distinction. And that's let me finish my analogy.

Okay. What you just tried to say was because at some point they they they don't have this, which is why you tried to mention the one second that this somehow discredits the idea of volume. No, it does not.

Do you the idea of accumulation and the idea of time itself being the rate of change speaks for this itself. These things accumulate over time. And yes, if if you if you allow a fetus to transform from a fetus into a a birthed human and then allow them to transform from a birthed human to whatever state of being to where they realize consciousness, sure that progression, but I'm arguing at the time to where they are a fetus, that is a completely distinct time.

And I don't think they have this volume at this time. I I think that a baby has this volume, right? Which we we know from from neuroscience, right?

But a fetus does not have this. This is also something we know from neuroscience. I'm saying that the baby volume Excuse me.

They're the How is the volume limited? So when I say that the volume's limited, I'm just saying it takes a certain amount of intellect to process these things. You're saying that my fetus's volume wait just limit.

Let me talk. Right. So first I'm just saying there's a certain level of intelligence required to actually process these things.

then you're saying that the fetus's development or volume is also limited because of the fact that it has yet to acquire these things. But I'm just saying that oh well in both instances they'll acquire these things in the future. So I don't see as to why we shouldn't value them.

Okay. So again this is why I wanted to interrupt but you you supposed to know so you can finish your retardation. And by the way why lie in chat?

I did not say this. I specifically spoke against this but recording will speak for itself. You [ __ ] [ __ ] Now obviously you literally said this.

Excuse me. Excuse me. That's enough of you.

Now, back to what I was saying, right? We obviously understand, okay, that babies do not immediately have the intellect of geniuses or even the intellect of average people, even the intellect of you, surprisingly enough. Okay.

How does this mean that they have a smaller volume? That they have a smaller volume? Oh, I'm just saying that they have yet to acquire the volume through this thing.

And then, wait, Archie, I have a question. So, um, just answer. Wait, wait, wait.

Just to ask again. Just to ask again. So, you're not So, I guess now you're not okay with killing anyone who's disabled.

I specified with a lack of actually No, that's correct. I I I am not agreeing with that. So, let me ask you something.

Do you think every disabled person or [ __ ] person has a lack of moral sense moral realization? Wait, wait. I have a question.

No, no, no. Yes or no? Wait.

Yes or no? Wait, can you engage with the question? Wait, can you engage with the question?

Wait, wait, can you engage with the question? Question again, okay, so do you believe every [ __ ] person or mentally disabled person has a lack of moral realization? No, that's not what I've said.

Okay, so and what was my particular particular was this moral realization? Okay, don't be a liar. Don't be a disingenuous liar when you see people you realize they you recognize join VC.

I hate disingenuous. Engage with the conversation. Wait, wait.

Would you be okay with killing all sociopaths or like a person who's really isolated I guess and doesn't have I guess knowledge of these moral referring to someone who's completely uncapable of re of realizing these morals. I think it would be okay. So if they're uncapable of realizing I just don't think I just don't think that person exists unless they are completely devoid of this volume which sociopaths and psychopaths are not.

They actually can understand this. In fact, sociopaths more specifically can understand empathy. They can actually feel empathy.

Now, I do agree because so psychopaths their insular system which is neurologically uh recorded is a lot bigger and a lot more distorted than normal people that they don't experience empathy on the same level as us. But they do experience empathy. They do experience ranges of emotions and moral realization.

They just don't experience it on the same level as us. similar and on the on the opposite end, similar to people with BPD, borderline personality disorder, how they aren't super aggressive all the time, but they're portrayed that way because they experience emotions on the hyper end of things. Okay?

So, it's the opposite with people with psychopathy. They experience on the lower end of things. So, this is based on irrelevance, right?

I don't think a person that you're describing like that exists until they're completely devoid, completely vegetabled, to which I already told you, I completely agree. If they are in that state or if they are just in such an incredible amount of pain that they can no longer go, I think it's completely fine to kill them. I have no issue with this.

All right. Um, you have no issue with killing anyone who is unable to I guess establish uh they like I guess moral values or moral agency, right? So because so you you translated that to people who can't establish a moral agency.

Bro, I'm not going to lie. You just ramble a lot, bro. It's a little I didn't ramble.

Your ears rambled off. Your ears indeed off in a random forest. You've overstayed your welcome in the talking, buddy.

My goodness. And you've overstayed your welcome alive. And you've overstayed your welcome in the server.

Can you engage with the conversation? You've overstayed your welcome in the dialectric, buddy. Can you conver you engage with the conversation?

Yeah. Yeah, man. I I think I've tried I've tried I've been seeking clarity.

You're not trying hard enough. Oh, can you I guess. But I've been seeking clarity.

Right. You haven't given it to me. I tried to No, you haven't tracked because you're mentally disabled.

You haven't tried. I mean, I haven't prove wrong. Prove us wrong.

Mentally disabled. Wait, so can you just give me the clarity instead of like trying to run away by not Can you ask questions then? I mean, I gave you what I thought happened, right?

Can you give me what actually happened? You gave me something that wasn't a question. If you're asking for clarity and you're going to whine like a little baby about it, I said right at the end.

Yeah. Yeah. So, I said right at the end and you said no.

So, then what happened, Archie? What did you say? Are you [ __ ] [ __ ] dog?

What do you mean I said right at the end and you said no? Do you think that sentence Can you think, a matter of fact, you be quiet. Can anyone in this VC try to depict or try to uh pick up on that?

This is what anyone in this VC can anyone in this VC tell me what that means? That I that he said right and then I said no right afterwards. Can anyone in this VC You're just a singular person.

Yeah. Um to actually check the chat. Does that seem [ __ ] to you?

Crickets. Absolute crickets. You're ridiculous.

Yeah. Um actually look in chat. Does this seem [ __ ] Do you have basic understanding of English, Archie?

More than you. Clearly. Clearly not.

You can't understand basic. You know the question. I don't know what the question is because you were a vague.

But anyways, you have yet to actually give me the clarity in which I was seeking. Um, I've actually asked you twice now. I'm not going to engage.

We can we can end this right now and you can lose right now. Unless if you don't want to give an actual argument. That's completely okay with me.

It's okay for me to lose and I like Yes, you heard me correct. The first time in your life. Yeah.

I'm asking for clarity, buddy. You said that already. Yep.

Yep. Yep. All right.

So, it's going to be the third that already. Wait, wait. So, what was the clarity in what you've given me?

You didn't ask a question that was meaningful. I told you it was vague. I I said in chat how I asked.

What did I just say after? What did I just say after that? I told you your question was vague and ambiguous.

No one in the chat can even give me the context of the question because of how [ __ ] vague it is. You asked a random question that your [ __ ] brain thought up. It's a random question.

So, no one will understand if I say like, "Hey, this is what you said, right? " Then you say no, right? No one will no one will get that.

Like no one knows what you're referring to, [ __ ] member. Oh my goodness. Obviously, I'm referring to what you've just said.

Are you stupid? Do you know a conversation? I just said multiple things after you referenced that initially.

You know that monkey should be encapsulated within a monkey. We're going to conclusions. We're going to conclusions.

We're going to I don't think you've addressed anything I've said. We're going to conclude. My goodness.

All right, man. Conclude. Oh, I meant you, Pen.

I already believe everything I've said efficiently responded to what you're saying. I think you drew this debate from veganism to abortion because you don't actually know how to name the trait. I think if you tried to use Isaac's Rolodex in front of him, then he would ban you personally from life in any server that he's in.

And this is ridiculous. Okay. I I think you don't actually know how to defend veganism.

I think you more so don't know how to defend any abortion argument. And I think you should read up to try to argue. What the heck is wrong with this dude?

Hey, I think you're a spur, buddy. And I think you're a mean person. I think I've actually thoroughly thrashed you.

I think you just went on a complete bender. Okay. I had a midlife crisis.