@pleaseenteraname1103 since it seems to be an issue, even though I thought it should obvious, I meant Dan's rhetorical punches, accurate and devastating as they are, to his metaphorical face. Purely a metaphor.
The high school debate team energy is strong with this one. No condemnation intended (I was that guy, some years back) but the monotone rapid-fire delivery of many weak arguments is classic. Thanks for your patience and perseverance: Keep up the good work.
The worst burn in scholarship is pointing out that you are better acquainted with your opponent’s own sources. This felt like hitting him with a steel chair
Mr a Brooks is, once again, astoundingly disingenuous. I'm not surprised, but I wish it were less common to find ridiculous dodging and equivocating on the part of apologists. Thankfully, there are honest interlocutors like you out there. Thanks as always, Dan 🙂
IMO, it's because their primary concern isn't getting to the truth, but rather making the strongest possible argument in support of their position, which they absolutely believe embodies truth. So they can get away with prevarications and misleading statements if it inevitably gets the listener to the "right place."
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y I don't think it's wilful, for the most part, but, yeah, I remember being this guy, so certain that my arguments and beliefs were unassailable, and only fools wouldn't heed my warnings.
@lynnefox4892 I can agree about wilfulness when it comes to amateur laymen but when it comes to these 'professional' social media channels and especially people with academic credentials I believe they're lying to themselves in a few cases but lying outright and with a purpose in most cases. With the caveat that some of them are genuine 'Believers' and think the end justifies the means.
Brutal. I love how you hold a person to the subject and won't let them switch when they realize the fallacy of their arguments. I always hated encountering people with your skillset back in my own door knocking days
I'd expect he'd be much happier if the switch was done by "OK, I see you're right, so I thought this over and now think that ..." or equivalent. (In which case - depending on the new position - he might well decide to answer "OK, that is outside of my expertise, as far as I can see you can certainly take that position, have a nice day" or similar.)
I'm really happy that you, Dan are willing to take the time to tackle such a low hanging fruit's "arguments". It's not only that he's not engaging in good faith, it's that he cannot do it in many cases. He struggles to follow a line of reasoning, and the few times he understands the situation, he plays the fool and tries to move the goal post. So there is the difference between being well prepared and knowing your stuff, and regurgitating the words of other apologists.
While I agree with most of what you said, I’m not ready to commit to him “playing the fool.” Maybe I’m wrong, but he looks like a high school kid, maybe a college freshman. I believed I had solid evidence and arguments for my views when I was that age, after all I read my Bible and listened to Rush Limbaugh😂. I can only hope that this creator’s intellectual curiosity will lead him to stop repeating what he hears from his pastor/conservative radio, or what individuals he agrees with say on the internet, and begin pursue knowledge without the conclusion in mind.
@@q.e.d.9748 Well, I pretty much said that generally he's incompetent, and in few cases he's dishonest. I wouldn't leave the whole weight of his bad responses solely on his ignorance, nor solely on his dishonesty. I do not think he is absolutely ignorant in the literal sense, I am sure he ties his shoes by himself. He is pretty much a young Frank Turek, I don't see any curiosity in him, but I do hope he develops it in time.
Wow Dan, you gonna get charged with murder after you massacred that poor guy like that? Brillinat work :) You're one of my favorite examples to bring up about critical thinking. Appreciate everything you do.
Oh, Mr. Brooks - go back to school. Learn how to not cherry-pick your sources, which is a huge problem for all apologists when reading both scientific & philosophical research. This is exactly why I’m a Patron. Because we need people like Dan out here, doin this good work.
I almost feel bad for this kid for being so confident in his ignorance. He doesn't even seem to understand the concept of personhood. The fact that he thinks science needs a microscope to determine the moral foundation of personhood tells you everything you need to know about this kid. I wonder if he even knows that there are different branches and fields of scientific study.
I wonder if he is a creationist. They quote science bits (mostly incorrectly) to support their arguments and ignore the mountain of science that proves them wrong.
So even though I think he argued his position pretty badly he move goal posts and he didn’t seem to articulate his position very well at all. I do agree with his definition of personhood, I think to be a member of the human species in within itself is to be a person all other definitions become incredibly arbitrary, and whenever we attempt to assign specific attributes to person but it also becomes incredibly arbitrary. Like consciousness, and etc. personhood depending on your definition is entirely subjective. As I said in one of my comments that you probably didn’t read, I think the reason he’s not finding his terms because he really just doesn’t see a distinction between being and person, so he doesn’t really feel the need to argue in favor of personhood or put forward any type of argument because he doesn’t see a distinction. And to Dan he see’s that says question begging. It really depends on the pro-choice person you’re responding to cause many pro-choice people reject that fetuses have personhood precisely on the grounds that they don’t believe it’s a human being. When you say microscope you talking about in relation to fetuses? That’s actually not a ridiculous Standard at all in anyway. Also I don’t think you’re being that fair I recommend not using language like kid that just comes off as very condescending. But I agree with Dan, Brooks has not done very much research and did not really defend many of his claims he essentially conceded a lot of them like the Bible supporting the pro-life position or the early Church position on abortion he didn’t really attempt to defend either of those claims.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 - It was partially meant to be condescending. Also, he is a kid. He is clearly a teenager. Okay, you agree with his definition of personhood. So?! I disagree with your definition. I don't think merely having human DNA makes you a person. I believe that consciousness is also required. No, when talking about personhood, talking about microscopes is ridiculous. I know you think that a fetus and personhood are the same thing but they really aren't and that isn't just my opinion. Can a fetus make a decision on its own? It becomes incredibly arbitrary if people insist that consciousness is a requirement of personhood? So if you have a fetus that is developing without a brain, is that still a person? You think at the moment of conception, there is another person in the woman's womb? Do you then think that person has more rights than the mother so that the fetus MUST be carried to full term despite the mother's wishes?!
This guy is the gift that keeps giving. The idiocy of a self-righteous simpleton holding himself in high regard. @TheistBrooks also has some reading comprehension issues or the lie he lives in is so very deep. I doubt he has read a whole book. Such a confused boy. Another win in Dan's column. 👍👍👍👍👍👍🖖🖖😎😎
WHOOOOOOO!!!!! Dude that was good. I mean I feel sorry for the other guy, cause I know a lot of people have the same beliefs as he does, and they don't actually mean ill. but knowing one's beliefs stem from feelings is okay too, just don't try to make scripture History or Science say things they don't claim.
When someone dissects your argument and addresses each point calmly with referenced and evidential facts, the only honest recourse is to acknowledge the point and thank the other person for helping you to understand. It is not to double down by changing what was already said or by inventing fresh strawman arguments and non-sequiturs. We all make mistakes but it is such a shame that this young man is too adamant to even understand, or at least admit, where he has been in error.
Apologists tend to double down instead of admitting they are wrong. When you see this guy's comment section, it's no wonder why he isn't willing to admit that he lost an argument.
@@Ejaezy Yes, indeed. The comments section of every apologist reads the same. Each one is something along the lines of "Bless you, you are doing God's work" with the occasional non-believer pointing out the lies and misrepresentation.
@@FredHarry-hi4gl Because that's what I observe. I point out the failures of apologetics all the time (especially to street preachers) and of the tens (if not hundreds) of times that I have, only one street preacher admitted he was wrong and misspoke.
In my jurisdiction, the criminal code uses the term “person”, it is the person who has rights not the human being. Human being is a scientific label to denote membership of a species, person denotes the subset of human beings who have been given the minimum required set of rights.
I think about the case of sapient non-humans, like non-Terrestrial species landing or the Silurians moving to the surface. They will never be humans, but we will still need to decide if they are people. How would our religions and laws encompass the new reality? What if, for example, our new friends the Xorns are R strategy breeders and some humans figure out their hatchlings make tasty snacks?
I just asked Justice and It has a great answer: the mother cannot be distinguished from the in-cell infant and the mother has full embodiment of civil rights. An abortion is allowed until the baby is born.
First, he says that science agrees that personhood begins at conception, then he says you can't look at an embryo under the microscope and see a moral status (aka personhood). He's really good a disproving claims, unfortunately, the claims he debunks are his own.
Schooled him immaculately, whether or not he will ever understand how or why. I find there to be an early indicator, or clue, of a person's comprehension skills. It involves either the construction of, or the ability to understand a seemingly, pretty basic analogy. Wondered if anyone else has picked up on this?
And this is why after the last video ,I spoke about auto claims and how in that, the state does not virew an unborn child the same as a born human. They do not require payment for injury claims for an unborn anywhere near the same rate as even a young child in school or a baby. And they pay it out as either part of the emotional distress on the surviving family or as part injury claim that has a propert amount aspect. Full humans are worth X amount and unborm worth Z amount.
His assertion from nothing that personhood exists from the moment of conception is wild. What about a fertilised egg is a person? The future potential person they _might_ become? If that's the standard then I guess parents don't have a right to their own testes or ovaries because everything contained in those _also might become a person._ Personhood isn't guaranteed at conception (a fact that means he should actually be pretty concerned about the state of natal medicine in the US, notably he doesn't seem to be), and so either his claim demands further regression to defending the components of a person _before_ conception because they meet the exact same criteria he's applying to conception, or else he has to acknowledge that personhood is _something else other than mere life._ Claiming that personhood starts at conception is an unstable claim that has to go one of those two ways.
I believe he is reading from a script. I don't criticize that. I'm sure he knows that he is "punching above his weight" (when it comes to intellectual training), so he leans on well prepared statements. That is OK. The bigger problem is that he cannot see how his brazen certainty does not have a foundation. When you engage a discussion on THIS level, you should discover how complicated and convoluted reality turns out to be: - "Scripture" is not clear - "The early Church" is not a monolith - Science is not lining up behind fundamentalist religion (quite the contrary) and although some of it might be "modern ideology" MOST of it are based on careful considerations. And I think it is time for this young man to become self aware enough to get just that
A tangent here. I find it rather ironic that appealing to god's supposed pro-life position actually _weakens_ the Christian's argument against legalizing abortion. America is a secular nation, and no law should be enforcing the position of a particular religion, and certainly not the position of that religion's focus of worship. If Christians say "we are pro-life" and we want abortion to be illegal, that actually carries more weight morally and socially than appealing to god.
It's hard to see the truth when the real goal is to promote dogma. It's not easy to break free of dogma, but eventually, data eats away at beliefs if you are open to it. Otherwise, we do damage thinking that we're serving the truth.
Which everyone does. I think he change the conversation not intentionally from whether or not the God of the Bible is pro life and why we believe that which is what the video that he was responding to you with asking, to what constitutes human personhood I don’t think he’s being deliberately dishonest this kind of thing happens. McClellan do the very similar thing with inspiring philosophy when it came to Deuteronomy 32, he changed the conversation from did the biblical authors believe El and yahweh are distinct deity’s to did the earliest Israelites believe this. This kind of thing just happens in these types of conversations whether or not people realize it or not. Also let’s be honest Dan has a dogma as well. But I think Dan by far has the upper hand in this exchange which I don’t really think that’s the point but Brooks does not seem very informed and he didn’t even seem to know his own sources very well.
I claim this is the primary failure of American primary education: failure to think and argue logically. It produces all kinds of problems in our society and it often gets expressed most ridiculously on the radical ends of both political parties.
Well I can certainly agree with that. Even though I don’t find Dan’s position to be very logical it seems to mostly be built on fallacies. Just based on the superficial level but I haven’t got all the nuances or a deep nuanced articulation from him of his own position so I shouldn’t make any assessments about it necessarily. And it’s not just education even people with higher education still make the most laughably easy mistakes, for instance there’s a video where there’s a guy asking Harvard students for crying out loud who won the Civil War and many of them didn’t even know the answer😂 so it’s pretty outstanding.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 I just finished The Undoing Project by Michael Lewis. It's about two titanic psychologists from Israel (Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky) who spend most of their career trying to figure out why humans make bad decisions (lots of bad logic). Some of their experiments are performed at conventions of statisticians - they are people with PhDs that behaved against their own statistical discipline. Emotions take over our logic all the time. I'm sure Dan is no different from the rest of us there.
Yes, I imagine their is a small, miniscule subset of hardcore leftists with absolutely no power within the party or this country. Think Worker's World Party; are they still around? And then the other party is completely run by and beholden to their most radical elements. What this should show is that the people who can think critically do not end up as radicals.
I cannot help but sigh when folks accuse Dan (and others) of a fallacy without demonstrating which ones and how. It illustrates the laziness of the kid he finished responding to in the video
Ahhh teenagers… they think they know everything. As an evolutionary biology major, I can quite confidently say that there is NO CONSENSUS amongst biologists as to when life begins. Nor is there consensus as to when personhood begins. Each biologist has their own opinions on both subjects according to their education and personal ethics and experience. I hope I’ve made myself clear on this subject
@@TheArkAndScripture You do realise that "the Devil" is not once used in the Bible and that there is zero verifiable evidence for either heaven or hell? Oh, and if you need an imaginary being and the threat of punishment to keep you moral - then you have no morals
The canonical books and the bible do not lead to a pro-life position, but the early church was definitely opposed to abortion by the time the Didache was written (which is before several books of the New Testament).
Science can not tell us what is moral or immoral. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive. It tells us nothing about what we _should_ do. The fact that something has human DNA, or anything else about its physiology, says nothing about what rights it should or should not have. Any moral or ethical system will have some ideal, some goal that it is trying to achieve. Science and evidence and critical thinking cannot tell us what that goal should be. They can tell us what actions will bring us closer to or further away from that goal, but we can only figure out what that goal should be by looking at human needs.
Well.....I have mixed feelings on this debate. There is no doubt that the Professor defeats the young man (who seems barely more than a kid). I'm not sure that is any surprise considering the opponents and their respective backgrounds, nor do I see the fans in the comment section behaving any too nobly in dancing over the corpse of the poor lad. "Hit him again!" would be a fair summary of those. A more interesting conversation (perhaps impossible in this shot/counter-shot format) might be around issues such as when *can* we reasonably assess this "personhood" to be attained? Is organized religion of any help in the question? Is it strictly and ultimately a matter of laws? Or are there any moral ramifications to the questions raised that can even be quantified coherently? Are there moral consequences to arguments that are logically sound that we should still be cautious about? I get that the Professor is wary of conservative Christian "identity politics". I am too. But where do the lines of social consensus lead on issues like this? It looks like the more extreme voices in either camp would reliably split down predictable political lines.
This kid keeps blocking punches with his face
Yeah, there are plenty of reasons this guy's argument is faulty without tripping into an ad hominem attack.
@@niknotnikki Sorry, I don't understand your reply
Come on that’s just cheap.
@pleaseenteraname1103 since it seems to be an issue, even though I thought it should obvious, I meant Dan's rhetorical punches, accurate and devastating as they are, to his metaphorical face.
Purely a metaphor.
@nicholastime1513 I do know what an ad homenim is. I just didn't catch who you meant was using ad homilenims against whom.
The high school debate team energy is strong with this one.
No condemnation intended (I was that guy, some years back) but the monotone rapid-fire delivery of many weak arguments is classic.
Thanks for your patience and perseverance: Keep up the good work.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣❗❗
Ben Shapiro build and empire with those tactics.
@@EdmundSkyeI'm sure this guy looks at Shapiro as a role model, despite being of the wrong faith.
Good point. You can see this with most theists and religiously driven debaters : Shapiro, D'Souza, Kirk, Turek etc etc.
The worst burn in scholarship is pointing out that you are better acquainted with your opponent’s own sources. This felt like hitting him with a steel chair
Yeah.
Dans got the WWE moves.
Better study before you go up against Dan!
@@pattyumoh4806I'm never going up against Dan......
Let's see. Straw man, cherry picking, quote mining, moving the goalposts... anyone get a line on their Apologist's Tactics bingo card yet?
One away, my man. I just need ad-homeinem. So close. 🫰
Mr a Brooks is, once again, astoundingly disingenuous. I'm not surprised, but I wish it were less common to find ridiculous dodging and equivocating on the part of apologists. Thankfully, there are honest interlocutors like you out there. Thanks as always, Dan 🙂
Pretty much all apologists are liars for jesus
I would say limiting the criticism to "dishonesty" is a favor. He's also really ignorant and lazy.
IMO, it's because their primary concern isn't getting to the truth, but rather making the strongest possible argument in support of their position, which they absolutely believe embodies truth. So they can get away with prevarications and misleading statements if it inevitably gets the listener to the "right place."
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y I don't think it's wilful, for the most part, but, yeah, I remember being this guy, so certain that my arguments and beliefs were unassailable, and only fools wouldn't heed my warnings.
@lynnefox4892 I can agree about wilfulness when it comes to amateur laymen but when it comes to these 'professional' social media channels and especially people with academic credentials I believe they're lying to themselves in a few cases but lying outright and with a purpose in most cases. With the caveat that some of them are genuine 'Believers' and think the end justifies the means.
Brutal. I love how you hold a person to the subject and won't let them switch when they realize the fallacy of their arguments. I always hated encountering people with your skillset back in my own door knocking days
I'd expect he'd be much happier if the switch was done by "OK, I see you're right, so I thought this over and now think that ..." or equivalent. (In which case - depending on the new position - he might well decide to answer "OK, that is outside of my expertise, as far as I can see you can certainly take that position, have a nice day" or similar.)
Dan, you have the patience of a saint when you hold your interlocutors to account. Well done sir.
Can we get merch that says “you failed to read past your own confirmation bias”?
I still want a shirt that says "in absolutely no way shape or form whatsoever"
@@aaronpolichar7936 🤣🙌
I'm really happy that you, Dan are willing to take the time to tackle such a low hanging fruit's "arguments".
It's not only that he's not engaging in good faith, it's that he cannot do it in many cases.
He struggles to follow a line of reasoning, and the few times he understands the situation, he plays the fool and tries to move the goal post.
So there is the difference between being well prepared and knowing your stuff, and regurgitating the words of other apologists.
He's probably asking ChatGPT what to say and just reading it off the screen
While I agree with most of what you said, I’m not ready to commit to him “playing the fool.” Maybe I’m wrong, but he looks like a high school kid, maybe a college freshman. I believed I had solid evidence and arguments for my views when I was that age, after all I read my Bible and listened to Rush Limbaugh😂. I can only hope that this creator’s intellectual curiosity will lead him to stop repeating what he hears from his pastor/conservative radio, or what individuals he agrees with say on the internet, and begin pursue knowledge without the conclusion in mind.
@@q.e.d.9748 Well, I pretty much said that generally he's incompetent, and in few cases he's dishonest. I wouldn't leave the whole weight of his bad responses solely on his ignorance, nor solely on his dishonesty. I do not think he is absolutely ignorant in the literal sense, I am sure he ties his shoes by himself.
He is pretty much a young Frank Turek, I don't see any curiosity in him, but I do hope he develops it in time.
I had yogurt for breakfast. I see you had that guy. 😂😂😂
Wow Dan, you gonna get charged with murder after you massacred that poor guy like that?
Brillinat work :) You're one of my favorite examples to bring up about critical thinking. Appreciate everything you do.
Depend on whether that guy is a "person" or not. 😝
Dude it's good to hear you angry. I like the dispassionate (if snarky) scholar, but it's good to know there is a passionate scholar underneath.
You can't learn when you're afraid of being wrong.
I would add that you can’t learn when you start with a conclusion.
It's nice when the signature TikTok bass hit and synth trill at the end of their downloads can act as such a clear mic drop.
Oh, Mr. Brooks - go back to school. Learn how to not cherry-pick your sources, which is a huge problem for all apologists when reading both scientific & philosophical research.
This is exactly why I’m a Patron. Because we need people like Dan out here, doin this good work.
Guy refuses to take the L. He's of course going to put out another response video to Dan despite all his arguments being shredded and burnt to ash.
also, the irony that he doesn't realize his conservative religious defense (? if you want to call it that?) is, itself, identity politics.
Thanks for staying with this guy.
I almost feel bad for this kid for being so confident in his ignorance. He doesn't even seem to understand the concept of personhood. The fact that he thinks science needs a microscope to determine the moral foundation of personhood tells you everything you need to know about this kid. I wonder if he even knows that there are different branches and fields of scientific study.
Dontcha know "science" is a thing done by people in labcoats looking through microscopes? Social science, neuroscience, what's that?
I wonder if he is a creationist. They quote science bits (mostly incorrectly) to support their arguments and ignore the mountain of science that proves them wrong.
So even though I think he argued his position pretty badly he move goal posts and he didn’t seem to articulate his position very well at all. I do agree with his definition of personhood, I think to be a member of the human species in within itself is to be a person all other definitions become incredibly arbitrary, and whenever we attempt to assign specific attributes to person but it also becomes incredibly arbitrary. Like consciousness, and etc. personhood depending on your definition is entirely subjective. As I said in one of my comments that you probably didn’t read, I think the reason he’s not finding his terms because he really just doesn’t see a distinction between being and person, so he doesn’t really feel the need to argue in favor of personhood or put forward any type of argument because he doesn’t see a distinction. And to Dan he see’s that says question begging. It really depends on the pro-choice person you’re responding to cause many pro-choice people reject that fetuses have personhood precisely on the grounds that they don’t believe it’s a human being. When you say microscope you talking about in relation to fetuses? That’s actually not a ridiculous Standard at all in anyway. Also I don’t think you’re being that fair I recommend not using language like kid that just comes off as very condescending.
But I agree with Dan, Brooks has not done very much research and did not really defend many of his claims he essentially conceded a lot of them like the Bible supporting the pro-life position or the early Church position on abortion he didn’t really attempt to defend either of those claims.
@@pansepot1490 what science proves that the pro-life position is wrong?
@@pleaseenteraname1103 - It was partially meant to be condescending. Also, he is a kid. He is clearly a teenager. Okay, you agree with his definition of personhood. So?! I disagree with your definition. I don't think merely having human DNA makes you a person. I believe that consciousness is also required. No, when talking about personhood, talking about microscopes is ridiculous. I know you think that a fetus and personhood are the same thing but they really aren't and that isn't just my opinion. Can a fetus make a decision on its own? It becomes incredibly arbitrary if people insist that consciousness is a requirement of personhood? So if you have a fetus that is developing without a brain, is that still a person? You think at the moment of conception, there is another person in the woman's womb? Do you then think that person has more rights than the mother so that the fetus MUST be carried to full term despite the mother's wishes?!
“You should have read on.”🤣
This guy is the gift that keeps giving. The idiocy of a self-righteous simpleton holding himself in high regard.
@TheistBrooks also has some reading comprehension issues or the lie he lives in is so very deep. I doubt he has read a whole book. Such a confused boy.
Another win in Dan's column. 👍👍👍👍👍👍🖖🖖😎😎
I like your practice of, when someone commits a logical fallacy, you explain why it's a fallacy instead of just throwing the name of the fallacy out.
When protecting lies, dishonesty becomes necessary
I love how you just sticked to the point ❤
Mic drop.
I hope this young man takes the incredible opportunity you’ve given to learn.
WHOOOOOOO!!!!! Dude that was good. I mean I feel sorry for the other guy, cause I know a lot of people have the same beliefs as he does, and they don't actually mean ill. but knowing one's beliefs stem from feelings is okay too, just don't try to make scripture History or Science say things they don't claim.
When someone dissects your argument and addresses each point calmly with referenced and evidential facts, the only honest recourse is to acknowledge the point and thank the other person for helping you to understand. It is not to double down by changing what was already said or by inventing fresh strawman arguments and non-sequiturs.
We all make mistakes but it is such a shame that this young man is too adamant to even understand, or at least admit, where he has been in error.
Apologists tend to double down instead of admitting they are wrong. When you see this guy's comment section, it's no wonder why he isn't willing to admit that he lost an argument.
@@EjaezyI thought they are trying to prove their point as valid when did it become a compitition and why do u put it like that
@@Ejaezy Yes, indeed. The comments section of every apologist reads the same. Each one is something along the lines of "Bless you, you are doing God's work" with the occasional non-believer pointing out the lies and misrepresentation.
@@FredHarry-hi4gl Because that's what I observe. I point out the failures of apologetics all the time (especially to street preachers) and of the tens (if not hundreds) of times that I have, only one street preacher admitted he was wrong and misspoke.
Here, Dan. You seemed to have dropped this mic.
The kid brought fallacies to a fact fight.
Moral of the story: know when you have lost.
I like that you keep hammering the question of what question you were answering
Protestantism wasn't so opposed to abortion until about 50 years ago.
True facts. In the days when politics weren't the purpose of church.
Absolutely amazing I was probably a mic drop moment if I've ever seen one I love this very good job you are amazing I am a big fan
It’s draining listening to Brooks. He says a lot of words really fast that I struggle to keep up.
Cleanup in aisle 2! Danzilla the McClellanator strikes again...
Damn. Poor kid never stood a chance.
I want to know the original poster's take on if an egg should be considered to be a full-fledged chicken.
PLEASE keep pointing out their logical fallacies!
This kid appears to be an expert on fish, specifically the red herring.
Data over dogma indeed... 🍻
Dan gettin' a bit salty...I love it. 😅
I don't like how he holds the camera so high when he speaks into it. But that's beside the point
Hard to know if Brooks is ignorant or a liar but one thing is sure… I fear he is a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
He should record himself running into the 🚪 behind him, over and over and over
Love this series of videos
Not only the debate : @TheistBrooks is especially "over"!
Dr. Dan wins!
Flawless Victory!
Fatality…
In my jurisdiction, the criminal code uses the term “person”, it is the person who has rights not the human being. Human being is a scientific label to denote membership of a species, person denotes the subset of human beings who have been given the minimum required set of rights.
I think about the case of sapient non-humans, like non-Terrestrial species landing or the Silurians moving to the surface. They will never be humans, but we will still need to decide if they are people. How would our religions and laws encompass the new reality? What if, for example, our new friends the Xorns are R strategy breeders and some humans figure out their hatchlings make tasty snacks?
You were too kind. He says his argument is backed by science - unspecified science. Then rejects science as relevant when it’s convenient to him.
Well framed and stated, as usual. But, in the name of Christian virtue, please lend him a tripod.
Wow. Why is this kid trying to debate Dan McClellan? It’s like me trying to play Michael Jordan one on one
The main problem with Brooks is his attitude. If he could be a bit humbler, it would be easier for him to find the truth.
I’d almost swear I heard a mic drop. Probably my imagination.
Not really a debate when one person just keeps flailing around yelling out whatever argumentative points come to mind, relevant or not
The Trojan Source strikes again! (Re. Rationality Rules)
This dude is going to make 100% sure he leaves this argument with Zero respect.
Kid got demolished
I just asked Justice and It has a great answer: the mother cannot be distinguished from the in-cell infant and the mother has full embodiment of civil rights. An abortion is allowed until the baby is born.
What? Quote mining to defend a dogmatic demand? Amazing.
Devastating...
Excellent.. thanks so much
Dan, you are a brave man. Engaging people who have drunk their fill of the kool-aid seems futile.
First, he says that science agrees that personhood begins at conception, then he says you can't look at an embryo under the microscope and see a moral status (aka personhood).
He's really good a disproving claims, unfortunately, the claims he debunks are his own.
How utterly embarrassing to get his sources so completely wrong. I would delete my profile if I ever did that
I need a new partner if you ever want to become a lawyer!
Don't mess with Dan just don't do it
Gotta love a good quote mine.
I am feeling Fremdschämen for this kid.
Schooled him immaculately, whether or not he will ever understand how or why.
I find there to be an early indicator, or clue, of a person's comprehension skills. It involves either the construction of, or the ability to understand a seemingly, pretty basic analogy. Wondered if anyone else has picked up on this?
This is a good video. 👍🏼
I would hate to find I was in disagreement with Dan
Wow! Geez this one hurt! hahaha
Nice, that guys so easily dislikeable for some reason 😂😂😂
Could he not put his phone on a bookshelf or something? I'm getting vertigo.
I am no fan of Peter Singer but how ignorant would an anti-abortion guy have to be to assume that Peter Singer agreed with them?
It occurs to me that people are taught by the church to cherry pick scripture and they tend to do the same with published scholarship.
Is this kid for real? He sounds like an AI that was trained using only the Bible and r/Apologetics.
And this is why after the last video ,I spoke about auto claims and how in that, the state does not virew an unborn child the same as a born human. They do not require payment for injury claims for an unborn anywhere near the same rate as even a young child in school or a baby. And they pay it out as either part of the emotional distress on the surviving family or as part injury claim that has a propert amount aspect. Full humans are worth X amount and unborm worth Z amount.
Lil bro clearly has a crush on Dan
Well, who doesn't?
@@rainbowkrampus I'm just in love with his mind😉
FWIW, all politics is identity politics, because everyone has multiple identities. (gender, sex, political party, race, socioeconomic status, etc)
His assertion from nothing that personhood exists from the moment of conception is wild. What about a fertilised egg is a person? The future potential person they _might_ become? If that's the standard then I guess parents don't have a right to their own testes or ovaries because everything contained in those _also might become a person._ Personhood isn't guaranteed at conception (a fact that means he should actually be pretty concerned about the state of natal medicine in the US, notably he doesn't seem to be), and so either his claim demands further regression to defending the components of a person _before_ conception because they meet the exact same criteria he's applying to conception, or else he has to acknowledge that personhood is _something else other than mere life._
Claiming that personhood starts at conception is an unstable claim that has to go one of those two ways.
Why does the contributor sound like a robot
I believe he is reading from a script. I don't criticize that. I'm sure he knows that he is "punching above his weight" (when it comes to intellectual training), so he leans on well prepared statements. That is OK.
The bigger problem is that he cannot see how his brazen certainty does not have a foundation. When you engage a discussion on THIS level, you should discover how complicated and convoluted reality turns out to be:
- "Scripture" is not clear
- "The early Church" is not a monolith
- Science is not lining up behind fundamentalist religion (quite the contrary) and although some of it might be "modern ideology" MOST of it are based on careful considerations.
And I think it is time for this young man to become self aware enough to get just that
A tangent here.
I find it rather ironic that appealing to god's supposed pro-life position actually _weakens_ the Christian's argument against legalizing abortion. America is a secular nation, and no law should be enforcing the position of a particular religion, and certainly not the position of that religion's focus of worship. If Christians say "we are pro-life" and we want abortion to be illegal, that actually carries more weight morally and socially than appealing to god.
It's hard to see the truth when the real goal is to promote dogma. It's not easy to break free of dogma, but eventually, data eats away at beliefs if you are open to it. Otherwise, we do damage thinking that we're serving the truth.
Which everyone does. I think he change the conversation not intentionally from whether or not the God of the Bible is pro life and why we believe that which is what the video that he was responding to you with asking, to what constitutes human personhood I don’t think he’s being deliberately dishonest this kind of thing happens. McClellan do the very similar thing with inspiring philosophy when it came to Deuteronomy 32, he changed the conversation from did the biblical authors believe El and yahweh are distinct deity’s to did the earliest Israelites believe this. This kind of thing just happens in these types of conversations whether or not people realize it or not. Also let’s be honest Dan has a dogma as well.
But I think Dan by far has the upper hand in this exchange which I don’t really think that’s the point but Brooks does not seem very informed and he didn’t even seem to know his own sources very well.
Dunning-Kruger boy is trying to debate one of the top scripture academics.
Today I learned that Hypotheses are tested against a null fetus.
I tried to tell you yesterday that he wasn't debating in good faith.
God's pro life ? 2 Kings 2:23---Genesis and God wiping out all of mankind in the flood.
I claim this is the primary failure of American primary education: failure to think and argue logically. It produces all kinds of problems in our society and it often gets expressed most ridiculously on the radical ends of both political parties.
Well I can certainly agree with that. Even though I don’t find Dan’s position to be very logical it seems to mostly be built on fallacies. Just based on the superficial level but I haven’t got all the nuances or a deep nuanced articulation from him of his own position so I shouldn’t make any assessments about it necessarily. And it’s not just education even people with higher education still make the most laughably easy mistakes, for instance there’s a video where there’s a guy asking Harvard students for crying out loud who won the Civil War and many of them didn’t even know the answer😂 so it’s pretty outstanding.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 I just finished The Undoing Project by Michael Lewis. It's about two titanic psychologists from Israel (Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky) who spend most of their career trying to figure out why humans make bad decisions (lots of bad logic). Some of their experiments are performed at conventions of statisticians - they are people with PhDs that behaved against their own statistical discipline. Emotions take over our logic all the time. I'm sure Dan is no different from the rest of us there.
Yes, I imagine their is a small, miniscule subset of hardcore leftists with absolutely no power within the party or this country. Think Worker's World Party; are they still around? And then the other party is completely run by and beholden to their most radical elements. What this should show is that the people who can think critically do not end up as radicals.
I cannot help but sigh when folks accuse Dan (and others) of a fallacy without demonstrating which ones and how. It illustrates the laziness of the kid he finished responding to in the video
@@masterbulgokov Yes.
Ahhh teenagers… they think they know everything. As an evolutionary biology major, I can quite confidently say that there is NO CONSENSUS amongst biologists as to when life begins. Nor is there consensus as to when personhood begins. Each biologist has their own opinions on both subjects according to their education and personal ethics and experience. I hope I’ve made myself clear on this subject
Takes a 15 second google search to disprove your comment, your degree doesn't mean you know what you're talking about
Thank you, that was a great examination of the claims of Christian pro-lifers as well as addressing similar claims made by other religions
All Thankyou Dan I Am That Much Closer To The Devil And Hell Oh Thankyou Dan You Have Made Me A More Spineless Degenerate
@@TheArkAndScripture You do realise that "the Devil" is not once used in the Bible and that there is zero verifiable evidence for either heaven or hell?
Oh, and if you need an imaginary being and the threat of punishment to keep you moral - then you have no morals
The canonical books and the bible do not lead to a pro-life position, but the early church was definitely opposed to abortion by the time the Didache was written (which is before several books of the New Testament).
I really want TT to go away🙄🙄
Science can not tell us what is moral or immoral. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive. It tells us nothing about what we _should_ do.
The fact that something has human DNA, or anything else about its physiology, says nothing about what rights it should or should not have.
Any moral or ethical system will have some ideal, some goal that it is trying to achieve. Science and evidence and critical thinking cannot tell us what that goal should be. They can tell us what actions will bring us closer to or further away from that goal, but we can only figure out what that goal should be by looking at human needs.
Education is important. Why do people not do their own research?This kid just got schooled.
Well.....I have mixed feelings on this debate. There is no doubt that the Professor defeats the young man (who seems barely more than a kid). I'm not sure that is any surprise considering the opponents and their respective backgrounds, nor do I see the fans in the comment section behaving any too nobly in dancing over the corpse of the poor lad. "Hit him again!" would be a fair summary of those.
A more interesting conversation (perhaps impossible in this shot/counter-shot format) might be around issues such as when *can* we reasonably assess this "personhood" to be attained? Is organized religion of any help in the question? Is it strictly and ultimately a matter of laws? Or are there any moral ramifications to the questions raised that can even be quantified coherently? Are there moral consequences to arguments that are logically sound that we should still be cautious about? I get that the Professor is wary of conservative Christian "identity politics". I am too. But where do the lines of social consensus lead on issues like this? It looks like the more extreme voices in either camp would reliably split down predictable political lines.
I just can't man like just ummm yeah
Assuming that Dan don't read good may not be the winning strategy it appears.
🤔 Non-blinking child-robot defines "humanity" and "personhood" 😂
Yeah because charming people are never murderous psychopaths with no humanity 😂😂