Mark Spence Proves Moral Absolutes to a College Student

mark_spence...

[@LivingWaters]

This is Mark Spence. Look him up on Instagram.
instagram.com/mark_spence/?hl=en

[@liammcelroy6734]

Yeah!!! Go get em' mike!

[@robertvann7349]

A is B or p is non p, law of contradiction, Illogical impossible contradiction.
A non conscious non intelligent non being caused the A is B Illogical impossible effect of
B conscious intelligent being
A is B a false scientific hypothesis only the opposite is objectively true.
A is A law of non contradiction
God must exist
A conscious intelligent being caused the effect of
A conscious intelligent being in the universe
No contradictions this is an ABSOLUTE.❤❤❤🎉🎉🎉

[@seiedmohammadrezafatemi3878]

Mark seems to be logically irrelevant. The young man says morality is not objective, and Mark keeps asking objective questions about morality. Wrong or beautiful, are objective. For a moral relativist these two are as meaningless as if you say wrong, or beautiful or potato or blue

[@Jason-cn5vo]

It's proof that the law is written on his heart.

[@liammcelroy6734]

@@Jason-cn5vo amen

[@40sndFan]

He really had him by the neck there

[@mohmedsadig5089]

Well that is easy if you look at him

[@marana.th4]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 y'all wildin

[@jaypugh9943]

Lmao

[@kalebball5144]

Brother

[@robertgroves8691]

No need at all

[@nogames8982]

At least he listened. He didn’t just yell and scream like so many of them do. I think he learned something that day.

[@oORiseAboveOo]

Yeah but he was caught in a corner, because he’d be cr u ci fied by the marks ist/fem e nist/leftists if he dared argue the stance that r a pe is al ways wrong. For instance, child bri d es in Isl am is r a pe, of course, because chi ldren can’t consent. But in their culture it’s seen as a des i rable, normal thing. That’s what this young man’s position was on cultures, he only said the opposite regarding r a pe for his own preservation.

[@jouisimo5701]

the guys argument only works if you believe in God. its not a good argument for God

[@adm22531]

There's nothing to learn here, insisting that morality is objective and then asking a loaded question does not make your argument correct.

[@DanielHodder7]

@@oORiseAboveOochild brides exist in the US too. You know that right? It’s still very much legal in many states

[@dustindover9967]

​@adm22531 then your argument is nothing but opinion. Just like the individual said .

[@BrandonS-lk2qc]

Kudos to both for a respectful and intelligent conversation. We need that back... And change will follow

[@melanp4698]

Respectful and intelligent, hmh... That's debatable.

[@steveskinner3910]

Can you imagine if we as a species would be evolved enough to discuss issues and thoughts this way? What we could learn from each other? This, in my opinion bodes well my thought that an IQ test should have to be passed to vote in America. I believe the overall quality of our candidates would improve over a short period of time and we wouldn’t be left where we are now.

[@Brad2325]

I'm mostly surprised by the fact that UA-cam didn't censor the word "rape."

[@luisluna5835]

I think it is not youtube, but the channel uploading the video, UA-cam will not monetize the video if there are things youtube do not like, so you can say whatever you want, you will not get money tho

[@Dwe245]

Bless this young man for respectfully discussing this. It is refreshing to hear a discussion without word salad.

[@salserokorsou]

Without word salad, full of dishonesty.

[@TexBond-cz9pd]

The problem with these type of debates is that the young people have not thought through the reasons behind their beliefs and are inexperienced in vocalizing them. Often the language used in these type of debates is loaded with nuanced meaning and is therefore biased toward one side or the other. I am glad that some students are mature enough to respond with internal reflection as opposed to verbal abuse/ name calling or flight.

[@salserokorsou]

@@TexBond-cz9pd you are mighty wrong.

[@chriswilcox3383]

@@TexBond-cz9pdwhat do you stand for?

[@EugeneParallax]

@@salserokorsou No, he's right. This entire dialog is loaded with debater conflating words to lead the kid to a wrong conclusion based on kid's own moral compass, rather than on his rational faculties.

[@timmojb]

These kids have never had a challenging conversation

[@vCLOWNSHOESv]

It's hard to have a challenging conversation when you're 8 feet tall with a 6 foot body.

[@mommasbigboy8656]

Isn’t this a “challenging conversation”?

[@netlans]

I mean a man with a lot of debating experience had a thought out attack plan and a way to set the child up. Have a talk with other adults maybe? Morals certainly can be subjective. Like abortion. The child is not all wrong and not all morals are equal.

[@cygnusustus]

This preacher has never had a challenging conversation.
If rape is objectively immoral, how does he deal with the fact that God commanded rape?

[@patio87]

@@cygnusustuswhen did god conmand rape?

[@chrisshervey4979]

When you're backed into a corner, the only way out is truth.

[@high_intelligence_specimen]

That's a dumb phrase

[@chrisshervey4979]

@@high_intelligence_specimen only intelligent people understand it.

[@jamesszabadics5911]

The power of respectful discussion

[@Wo1tii]

A respectful discussion does not include talking down on someone like he does.

[@jamesszabadics5911]

@@Wo1tii there was no personal insults and the discussion remained on the topic. Using an example to show there are some moral absolutes. Respectful. no shouting chanting or appeal to emotion.

[@Wo1tii]

@jamesszabadics5911 yeah I know he wasn't talking down on him, preassuring the other guy in any way shape or form for him to come to the conclusion he wants that rape will become an absolute bad since everyone thinks rape is bad.
But not everyone does, neither was it like that nor is it now. There exists rapists and those don't think it is morally wrong (or at least some). But those few exist, hence it is not everyone, hence it isn't absolute.
He rushed him into a wrong conclusion by not giving him time to think and alway interjecting after the short answer he heard. Something a respectful person would do.

[@jamesszabadics5911]

The participants in this "short" video debate did not have to end up agreeing and yet they did, there was time to object and make a counterpoint but the young fellow realised he was wrong and thats fine, no disrespect was evident at any time.

[@Wo1tii]

@jamesszabadics5911 well I see you have the ability to read:
The guy in the video is not correct saying rape is absolutely morally wrong. His claim lives on every person on this planet thinking rape is morally wrong, yet not every person thinks that way. Otherwise there wouldn't be rape in the first place if everyone thinks it is absolutely morally wrong. Since his point stands on EVERYONE thinking that, but there are SOME who DON'T so his conclusion is wrong since it is based on a wrong premise.

[@petehobson1054]

Shout out to the student who didn't blindly argue his pint and saw Mark's point.

[@1337Jogi]

Mark did not have a point though.
Morality is not absolute.
It sometimes feels so because we were taught morals in a particular way.
He could have said the same example with slavery. And most people today would say slavery is objectively wrong.
Yet many cultures and philosophies - the Bible included condone slavery.

[@petehobson1054]

@@1337Jogi So is rape ever morally acceptable?
As for slavery, term slavery in Hebrew which is referred to in the Bible was voluntary servitude to pay off debt. Once it was paid the servant was free of his debt and no longer in servitude.
Having said that it was not something done due to a law in the Bible. It was a cultural thing going on at the time. The Bible spoke of making sure people were not abused and set out rules to correctly treat those who were in servitude. Paul even said to treat them as an equal.
The distinction between the two types of slavery is seen in the Bible when the Israelites are taken as slaves against their will by Eygpt. This was not voluntary servitude, this was slavery and was opposed.
Cultural does not mean something is moral correct though, in a similar way, some cultures will sell young children to be brides to grown men and will then be made have sex, raped effectively. Now this is culturally acceptable but would you say that this is morally acceptable?

[@1dle1ndustries]

​@petehobson1054 can you argue that the bible requires consent/ willing participation in both parties for procreation (ie 'explicitly condemns what we would now consider to be 'rape')? there are slippery semantical arguments that justify certain 'types of slavery' with cultural perspective, can make the same arguments about the 'moral absolutes' regarding 'rape'. if you were sold as a child bride to your husband and he expected a child from his 14yr old wife, are we really gonna argue that 'consent' was a 'moral' factor?

[@RJR1787]

Yeah I thought for a second he was gonna justify Rape just to try and win an argument 😂

[@MLdoktor]

@@petehobson1054 indentured servitude was only for israelites(men) , while they had slaves in he more common meaning from non-Hebrews. Don't be so dishonest.

[@dustymedlock]

For anyone who says “There is no absolute truth”, just ask them “Is that true, like absolutely true?”

[@pecotrain7399]

It’s been said the only thing that is absolute is the definition of absolute.

[@dustymedlock]

@@pecotrain7399 is that true?

[@Linsquip_]

Is it always true?

[@dustymedlock]

@@Linsquip_ if I were to say no, would that be true? Would it be true every time I said it?

[@grandosprey6450]

The meaning of something being “absolutely” true is that no matter the case the truth is applied to, it will always produce the same outcome. To say that morals are absolute must mean that every creature capable of morality would have the same morals. That breaks down pretty quickly. Even when only talking about humans, the majority dictates the morals. That’s the natural byproduct of peaceful coexistence. In some countries that means that the men dominate the women into complete submission. No status, freedom, education, bodily autonomy, etc… and that is their moral code. They even point to their religious texts as a source of inspiration. So no, there is no universal/absolute morality.

[@heatherwoods5703]

It's so good to show a person where their opinions lead. It is a more effective way for them to discover "for themselves" that they're wrong.

[@eicisback]

I have faith in this young folk, he's not s t u p i d, he knows when he's wrong and can digest it.

[@woodrowboudreaux9951]

Dude just arrived at a destination that he did not know he was going to.

[@MLMLW]

Lol. Yeah, you could see the light coming on in his head. 😆

[@ars-almadel_salomonis9680]

Simple as that.

[@geminichild79]

That's because children who's brains do not fully develop until the age of 25, are out here acting morally superior to ACTUAL ADULTS. Adults who have much more life experience and who are fully developed mentally. They are challenging people who have far more ability to actually view a BIGGER picture. That's why college is such an important space and time period for our children. Why their professors and what they are being taught or shown is so very important. Why the protests and children screaming words at people they don't even know the meaning of, simply because it's fashionable to be part of a "movement". They feel like they're effecting change but how easily this young man is lead to a place where he can so easily abandon his own opinion in a matter of minutes is a prime example of how they are still children and so maleable.

[@MLdoktor]

​@@geminichild79 well, is there absolute or objective morality?

[@billquakenbush1692]

Both.​@@MLdoktor

[@joshw3010]

Saying there are no absolute truths is an absolute truth statement.

[@jamesgarrett5218]

Truth is absolute, making everything else is a lie. Stating that there is no absolute truth contradicts questioning if the statement is absolutely true. Truth is 100%, otherwise all else is lies.

[@DM-dk7js]

He didn’t say that. There’s such thing as absolute truth, just not for MORALITY. THO.

[@jamesgarrett5218]

@@DM-dk7js Morality is from our Creator. Without morality man would have self destructed long ago. Moral decay is what world is presently suffering. Destroyed from within.

[@carlisroy6666]

​@@jamesgarrett5218lol. Imagine getting moral lessons from the god who murdered children for calling man baldy.

[@DM-dk7js]

@@jamesgarrett5218let’s start with “morality is from our creator”.
Okay, accepting that premise, WHY is it considered objective tho? How did you determine it is objective and not subjective?

[@edenjs1503]

Kudos to the young guy. Intelligent, calm and collected. Even if his argument was ultimately futile, his demeanor was exemplary. Sure a lot of people commenting here could learn from his example!

[@jakebaldwin7172]

Yeah agreed. I was an absolute moron at this kid's age. He deserves respect for hanging in there and having the discussion.

[@Smoothdice6520]

His argument wasn't futile. He just didn't have all his talking points ready to go like the preacher. It's all relative.
Coulda easily turned it around and said "is killing moral?"
Also God never asked Mary for consent to put Jesus in her belly..

[@cypresspuz]

You must be out of your fooking mind. That androgynous giraffe was a schmuck

[@paulsmith7579]

His argument wasnt futile it was correct. There are no moral absolutes and everybody with half a brain knows it.

[@user-lo7ss5ks6t]

​​@@paulsmith7579 so therfore rape is relative morally speaking?

[@julietellsthetruth4811]

Mad respect for the kid who was able to admit that he was wrong and change his mind. This is what we need: more intelligent dialogue, less screaming and swearing.

[@interestedbystander196]

Did he change his mind, though? All he said was that _FOR HIM_ he felt a certain way about it, but that didn't change his overall position that other people might feel differently about it.

[@meinbherpieg4723]

@@interestedbystander196 He at least started down the path of realizing his presumptions are not as air tight and universal as he thought. Everyone is a relativist until they're the one getting raped or murdered by selfish and hateful people.

[@interestedbystander196]

@@meinbherpieg4723 Agreed.

[@vinceallen4577]

The Bible says in the end days people wouldn't know right from wrong- calling evil good and good evil

[@mooreremodeling]

We are clearly in the end days.

[@PhullyNo1]

The Bible does that in its own writings. “Bash the babies on the rocks”. Sounds pretty evil if you’ve ever met a baby.

[@tsriftsal3581]

Exactly. It's mind boggling that in these so called modern times people ignore the order to put the awl to the ear of your slave as the Lord commanded.

[@JAGFamily10]

And guess how many times people have thought end days were present .. like thousands .. lol still has never happened .. but I’m sure your the one who got it right ..

[@Thematerialhandler1]

The Bible also talks about how to sell a man’s daughter as a servant (slave). Or he shouldn’t SELL her to foreigners. People following a Bible is pretty evil.
Exodus 21
If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

[@A.O.G_Clothing_and_Apparel]

I honestly don't understand how people get brainwashed by stupidity.

[@nicole_silvers]

They just cling to certain beliefs because they want to be a part of something. The left claim to have the moral high ground and this kid fell for it

[@jpix96]

Hmmm,
it's actually not a brainwash.
It's just that ideas could sound great when you keep them to yourself inside of your mind. Yet, when tested... They might turn out not so great.
It might be people are just scared to share there ideas because of people who would mock them. Or it might be it's convenient to keep them as justification to yourself. 😅

[@nicole_silvers]

@@jpix96 People like this are absolutely brainwashed! Specifically by the media and corrupt politicians. If they weren't brainwashed then they wouldn't believe such obvious nonsense so easily. The liberals have become so radical that they're unhinged

[@slappy8941]

They pay a lot of money to be brainwashed, and therefore it works more effectively.

[@Taijiutsu]

@@jpix96 Nope. It's literally indoctrination and brainwashing.

[@alexflorin24]

Wisdom is one of the gifts God wants us to ask from Him

[@notenoughyettoomuch]

So exactly where our moral absolutes derived from

[@Viconius]

The kid had never had it explained or had to think it out by himself. He's had an elitist educator spoon-feeding him dogma.

[@Yo-Its-Jeff]

This speaker never gave him a chance to think. It’s not a tough question if you think about it for three seconds. No, there is no objective morality.

[@hey.you.in.the.bushes]

I tend to think the preacher projects far more elitism than the professor.

[@tonygabagool]

@@hey.you.in.the.bushesespecially one making 150 gs to own college kids. Never mind helping the poor which was the main thing Jesus said to do. He also said rich people don’t go to heaven do it seems like mark needs to reread the Bible.

[@oORiseAboveOo]

@@tonygabagool
Jesus didn’t say rich people don’t go to heaven, but that it’s harder for them to.

[@cygnusustus]

Obviously nobody has explained to this preacher that his god-based morality is also subjective, by definition.
Silly Christians...

[@Davincion1]

He's really sticking his neck out to defend his views.

[@davidbrownfield5808]

He's in the wrong neck of the woods.

[@TheNoblegaz]

Lol... 😂 that's crazy😂😂

[@kolpants]

that moral absolute really took him to the necks level.

[@charlesco7413]

His favorite song is "thankyou, necks."

[@MatthewFearnley]

Are you a Christian?

[@michaelmennies1685]

This is not about moral absolutes, it is about morals that almost every person agrees on, that does not make them absolutes.

[@user-of5do4do5s]

Would you feel obligated to support an organization that seeks to stamp out child trafficking? If there is any act out there that you would feel inclined to put an end to (impose morality), that makes it an absolute. If it isn’t an absolute, then the Nazis were free to do as they pleased, the slave trade was justified, and child traffickers are free to operate openly. Intrinsic right and wrong constitutes the developed world that you have the privilege of living in. And those rights granted you the ability to speak as you do with such an elementary understanding of ethics and philosophy.
I guarantee you would change your tune if you were living under tyranny. This bogus about “subjective morality” would very quickly be replaced by “this is just wrong” in the blink of an eye.
I understand that you clearly have beef with the idea of a higher power, but that doesn’t mean you are exempt from following your beliefs to the full conclusion.

[@michaelmennies1685]

@@user-of5do4do5s The fact that a large majority of people agree on certain moral choices does not make them absolutes, it just means there is consensus. Not long ago slavery was not considered immoral. Today there are people that believe capital punishment is morally wrong, and there are those that think it is not. Same with abortion, or self defense, or stealing to feed your family. So either we "discover" absolute morals over time, or we simply agree over time that we think a certain behavior is bad. I do not support any of the things that you mention above, but that is simply because I personally find them wrong, or better to say I find them anti-social and prefer to have a social compact in which we call that behavior illegal. But regardless of what I believe humans will continue to do them, because we can be a very cruel species - and the only thing that stops that behavior is some type of policing based on a set of laws passed in that country. So, no, I do not think there is any "absolute morality", only codes of behavior that people agree to for various reasons.

[@user-of5do4do5s]

@@michaelmennies1685 How then do you account for the change? It takes a group of people to initially make the call that something is intrinsically wrong first to start a movement. And that’s the thing about absolute morals, that small group is able to sway entire nations (and then the entire world) by the simple fact that some things are simply not okay.
Let’s also look at history. The entire civil rights movement was started on the basis of moral absolutes, of which the United States itself was founded upon: “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that are men are created equally.’” - MLKJr That’s as absolute as it gets.
Or also women’s suffrage: “The power that coerces, that controls without consent, is unjust. Such is the status of most American women.” - Adella Hunt Logan 1905
Or WW1: “The Nuremberg Trials established the principle that neither ‘obeying the law’ or ‘following orders’ is a sufficient legal defense for those accused of violating basic standards of civilization.” - Madeleine K Albright
Every single major movement centered around moral/ethical issues was started with the understanding that certain things are NEVER justified. They are founded on absolute moral principles. Such as the equality of all humans. That in and of itself is a moral absolute that applies to all three examples I gave above. Even if you only believe that, it is an absolute that spans into more specific categories of human rights, and grants us the justification to impose regulation/retaliation against those that infringe upon it.
I can say that not all cultural practices around the world that some Americans may see as immoral are justifiable moral absolutes; however, that doesn’t not discount the ones that absolutely exist. Such as the value in a human life.

[@user-of5do4do5s]

@@michaelmennies1685
All moral/ethical movements began on the basis of moral absolutes. Otherwise, what leg then do you propose these groups had to stand on if not on absolutes?
The founding principle of the US and quoted by MLK during the civil rights movement: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.” That’s a moral absolute.
Women’s suffrage: “The power that coerces, that controls without consent, is unjust. Such is the status of most American women.” - Adella Hunt Logan
An absolute once again.
WW1 & the Nuremberg Trials: “The Nuremberg Trial of the German war criminals was tacitly based on the recognition of the principle: criminal actions cannot be excused if committed on government orders; conscious supersedes the authority of the law of the state.” - Albert Einstein
Moral relativism delegitimizes moral/ethical movements because absolutes are the foundation of ALL movements. Not to mention, your argument is circular. You say that popular opinion defines morality, yet intrinsic moral standards are the driving force for human rights movements. You can’t just reap the benefits of positive ethical change and then undermine the foundational principles of all of those movements (intrinsic moral standards).

[@user-of5do4do5s]

@@michaelmennies1685 I’ve tried to type my reply out several times and it keeps getting removed so I’ll sum it up.
That is circular because all moral consensus/human rights movements are based on intrinsic moral standards. You can’t say that popular opinion defines morality when moral change is exclusively brought about by the recognition of moral absolutes.
Civil Rights movement: “all men are created equal”
Women’s suffrage: “silencing the voice of women is unjust”
WW2: “following laws/orders does not override one’s conscious and responsibility to uphold human rights”

[@Themoralofthestory.]

The farmer called he wants his strawman back.

[@meepmeep545]

its refreshing to find a student(?) who doesn't whine the argument by yelling

[@mv3261]

Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. It's a good read.

[@LivingWaters]

I agree. Good book. It's a shame Francis B. abandoned the faith.

[@veridicusmaximus6010]

@@LivingWaters He became wiser!

[@mistypedhi]

Moral absolutes has been proven since we realized we can measure frequency. We can even observe and figure out what emotion a tear came from by looking at its molecular structure. Morality is objective.

[@Tomanator73]

It’s all relative, until it’s personal.

[@mattmiller7276]

Bro never skips neck day...

[@mph38]

Did I ask?

[@jakewhite9179]

​@@mph38 I did

[@mph38]

@@jakewhite9179 you actually didn't. Nice try lil bro

[@jakewhite9179]

@@mph38 you read all 1k comments in 6 minutes? Nah, didn't think so

[@mph38]

@@jakewhite9179 lololol lil blud thinks he's onto something 😭😭🤓🤓🤡🤡🫵🫵🫵🫵

[@purplepigment4283]

What happens when you never take a single philosophy class.

[@commandershepard7728]

Yes, you are correct. We get your comment.

[@gaidenshinji8969]

i never took one day of that in my life yet this kid saying what he is was absolute nonsense to me. im just not a sheep brain wanting the world to not hold me accountable for anything i do.

[@quinnritiqal819]

@@gaidenshinji8969 The logical fallacy in the statement "I never took one day of that in my life yet this kid saying what he is was absolute nonsense to me. I'm just not a sheep brain wanting the world to not hold me accountable for anything I do." is ad hominem.
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone attacks the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. In this case, instead of addressing the kid's argument about morality not being absolute, the speaker dismisses it by attacking the kid's credibility and labeling those who might agree with him as "sheep brain." This shift from the argument to personal attacks undermines the logical validity of the response.
There is another flaw in dismissing the statement "morality is not absolute" as nonsense, and it relates to the straw man fallacy.
The straw man fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents or oversimplifies an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack or dismiss. In this case, by labeling the assertion "morality is not absolute" as nonsense without engaging with the nuances and complexities of the argument, the speaker is not addressing the actual content of the claim.
To meaningfully refute the idea that "morality is not absolute," one would need to provide a reasoned argument supporting the idea of moral absolutism, rather than dismissing the opposing view as nonsense without any substantive engagement.
Additionally, dismissing a philosophical claim as nonsense without providing a reasoned critique can also be seen as an appeal to ridicule, where the speaker attempts to discredit the argument by mocking it instead of engaging with it logically.

[@DM-dk7js]

The theist position on morality is what happens when you intentionally forget what objective means and pretend something subjective becomes objective when THEIR god says so, which inconveniently is nowhere to be found in the definition of objective.

[@tonygabagool]

@@quinnritiqal819much more concise to state that an ought cannot be derived from an is. Christian doctrine believes something is not good bc god says so, but god says so bc it is good. Morality is independent of god so it exists if god does not exist.
Now you cannot refute the claim that an ought cannot be derived from an is.

[@slim2826]

Casual Ray Comfort peeking in the background 🤣

[@lojo1]

Kid should’ve stood his ground.

[@izakvisser9295]

What is wrong with people nowadays? Is a word like rape a forbidden word? Why? Since when? Who decided on that? What makes it an unspeakable word? Has humanity gone insane? Do we have to fill in our own vowels now?

[@jasonmay4341]

People who get raped don’t like to see it because it triggers trauma and social media platforms often sensor words that do that

[@Timotheuster]

The insane amount of censorship is baffling. Some people even feel the need to censor words like Hamas or Homophobic simply because they're associated with touchy subjects.

[@SimonASNG]

If you use the word in a UA-cam Video, UA-cam will reduce your traffic. Same with words like "kill", which is why UA-camrs usually say, "unalive". UA-cam knows this and (semantic treadmill) will eventually ban the alternative words, but for now, they see it as "bending the knee" and allow those words to pass. It has got to the point where I have had people use the alternative words with me in face to face conversation.

[@BonesTheCat]

IT's because people use words like that to attack others. I agree with you, but that's big brother "protecting us".

[@Timotheuster]

@@BonesTheCat Cause God forbid someone's feelings might be hurt lol

[@frankdecardenas53]

That was a great explanation, moral absolutes is what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

[@jeddy2925]

Yup, cuz we’re not animals

[@steppilariosa6449]

But yet people justifying their sins and comparing them like animals ​@@jeddy2925

[@foreignwarren7361]

​@@jeddy2925we most certainly are 😂

[@richardwilkins1283]

No, higher cognition and abstraction separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

[@Veran1337]

So what do you do then when you have two cultures that have totally opposed moral stances on a given subject? How do you work out who is right and who is wrong?
What about when an entire society believes something to be right, and only a few argue it is wrong, like slavery?
It is easy for us to claim moral absolutism, and claim we know what is right and wrong intrinsically, but so did every generation before us.
What will later generations say about our current moral vie that abortion is legal? Will they say it is murder? Or will they consider the owning of animals, and trapping them in cages away from their natural habitat to be evil?
Everyone thinks that their morals are correct and unassailable, until someone comes along with the different opinion which they consider to be equally unassailable!
The Nuremberg trial where they tried and convicted Nazi officers ran headlong into this dilemma!

[@normsky5504]

Proving that a little information is a dangerous thing.

[@wadesharp11]

Does this kid have the longest neck in history😂A human giraffe

[@whyme007]

His brain turned into a pretzel there.

[@EugeneParallax]

Doesn't make him wrong.

[@wolfskymoon9919]

Just because this kid doesn't believe rape is a beautiful thing, does not mean that there are people or cultures out there that don't believe it's a good thing..
The speaker conflated this kids opinion with the truth he said previously..

[@whyme007]

@@wolfskymoon9919 which culture considers rape a "beautiful thing"? Some cultures have not criminalized marital rape, but rape as a stand alone act is criminalized across the board. Also, this kid was asked whether he thought rape was objectively wrong, that's a simple answer.

[@swolfington]

@@whyme007 Plenty of cultures deny the existence of marital rape, and do, in fact, believe that wives should be completely subservient to their husbands in that regard, as a matter religious obligation.

[@aerospacesystems8658]

​@@whyme007 F
In certain cultures, acts like rape and murder are not only accepted but also encouraged.
Recently, Hamas militants have engaged in widespread sexual violence, killings, and maiming of adults, children, and infants, proudly boasting about their actions. They even contacted their relatives with exhilaration to recount their atrocities and received cheers.
Thus, Spence's moral dichotomy seems to function solely within his subjective mental framework.

[@nancylowe2692]

I think he's thinking! Thinking is good!

[@justsomeguy859]

Yeah, he’s thinking, “ Why doesn’t this preacher understand something that’s so obvious?”

[@Lwydius]

@@justsomeguy859 That there are situations in which R is the moral thing to do dependent upon cultural norms?

[@paulperez6167]

​@@Lwydiuseven if that is true that wouldn't disprove the existence of moral absolutes.

[@justsomeguy859]

@@Lwydius Morality is a system of principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong behavior. In order to determine what is right and wrong behavior, you first have to determine a goal. The goal will be subjective, because only a thinking being, a subject, can determine a goal. There are no objective goals that exist independent of a thinking being. For example, some people and cultures have the goal of following their god’s commands, whatever they may think those commands are. Other people, like myself, have the goal of increasing well-being for as many humans as possible. People who have the same goals will be more likely to have the same ideas about what is right and wrong behavior, though there will still be some disagreements on how to best accomplish a certain goal.
I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that many people think morality is automatically based on human well-being. If human well-being is the goal, then R is immoral, because it causes suffering. If there is some other goal, such as appeasing a deity, it may not be considered immoral if people are convinced that the deity desires that behavior. Ironically, the same people that seem to assume morality is based on human well-being often also claim that their morality is based on the desires, or nature, of a particular deity. This often causes cognitive dissonance, such as when Christians have to rationalize why the god described in the Bible both commanded and carried out genocide on multiple occasions. They know that behavior is ‘wrong’, based on the goal of increasing human well-being, but they also believe that whatever their god commands is moral. That’s when you have ridiculous rationalizations such as “God commanded the slaughter of the Canaanite babies to punish the Canaanite people for sacrificing their babies.”

[@justsomeguy859]

@@paulperez6167 Do you think moral absolutes exist? I guess it would depend on your definition of morality. If you build a subjectively chosen goal into the definition, like ‘moral behavior is that which increases human well-being and decreases human suffering’, then you could judge actions against that goal. And some actions could be considered to be absolutely in conflict with that goal.

[@Balthazar2242]

His tactic: "just think about your philosophy for maybe 5 seconds."
Dude: "woh"

[@AzimuthTao]

"I'm standing on a little plastic stool, so I must be right".

[@letsthinkforamoment8904]

"Proclaiming to be wise they became fools" Theyll attempt to do philosophical gymnastics to get around the most basic morals and justify their opinions and continue in their ignorance.

[@MLdoktor]

If you saw someone get raped and had the power to stop it without any risk of being hurt yourself, is it more moral to just watch it happen or more moral to stop it?

[@user-ep6qd1be8m]

​@@MLdoktor😂😂😂 I think it's funny how you're trying to trap people with the same thing more than once. The answer is obvious and you know the answer. You may be able to fool certain people when it comes to God but you're not fooling God himself😂😂😂😂

[@forexdissector9565]

@@user-ep6qd1be8m How do you know God even cares. Maybe all this is part of his plan. Have you talked to God and gotten a response? Have you seen him before? Or are you just fooling yourself.

[@MLdoktor]

@@user-ep6qd1be8m What do you mean?

[@firebald2915]

They decided they want to be god... and make their own rules.

[@mojoschmee9320]

This young man displayed that he does indeed believe in logic and mathematics, and instantly recognized the flaw in his stance.

[@tykejack]

Except his stance wasn't flawed. His opponent created a false dichotomy.

[@EugeneParallax]

@@tykejack Correct. You can bet - give him a day to evaluate the claim, and he would be able to parry it using the same logic he used at the beginning. Only emotional arguments can work "on the spot".

[@johnp.johnson1541]

Weirdly, he had been blinded to his stance for however long held it until that moment.

[@johnp.johnson1541]

@@tykejack And that false dichotomy is what, exactly? What are the two things he created supposedly. Name those.

[@nathanc8478]

@@tykejack his stance was flawed because he was unwilling to go where he needed to for a philosophical debate. He bent to peer pressure of not wanting to be outcast at his school due to some poorly edited UA-cam "gotcha" moment.

[@toddbaumann3980]

He just got schooled for free in a 5 minutes

[@His-Story.ForHisGlory]

Believes in the laws of logic but doesn't believe in moral absolutes....right, that's logical😂

[@johngraymusic]

It's easier to say no I don't believe in moral absolutes or the (Ten Commandments) which we've all broken. Because then you don't think about your sins and the consequence of going to hell.

[@breestringham1063]

I think it's easier to believe in moral absolutes than not. People hate being wrong, so they'll assume what they Believe in is correct. I find the idea of a perfect being punishing people for sins abhorrent. Why not teach them in a kind way? The whole concept of hell is evil. But you didn't think that's true. You see it as justice (I'm assuming). And that means we have different moral perspectives, meaning it's not absolute. Someone will always disagree, and that's okay.
And you may disagree with me on this, and I apologize for bringing up a catch 42. But I wanted to share my perspective, and couldn't figure out a way to do so without it.

[@johngraymusic]

@@breestringham1063 if everyone in the world disagrees that's fine, that's your right and freesom of choice as a person with a will. But knowledge is power and wisdom is a guide to the concerned about am I on the right path or not. God doesn't like or enjoy sending anyone away from His presence but as we know in this life that the law must be up held in order to have order around us to maintain peace and harmony as I think you probably understand what I'm saying. Our way of life and our laws are parallel with God's system and its simply called, you reap what you sow. And the moral demand God has upon us requires anyone to put away their own wisdom, humble themselves and learn of his ways that result in true love and peace toward all and God. And the wisdom of man will not help you but lead you exactly where you are now, wise in words but knowing nothing about God. John 3:16

[@breestringham1063]

@@johngraymusic I would not send my child to prison. The punishment would not fit the crime. God is infinitely bigger than we are to a child, so I'd give much greater grace than that of a child in my opinion. Eternal damnation seems very very harsh for mistakes anyone can make. Especially if he's all powerful, and added evil desires to us. If God gave us our morals in an absolute way, would we not all agree on what's right and wrong?

[@johngraymusic]

@@breestringham1063 don't take my word for it, ask Him yourself. He can hear you know.

[@raygunn2455]

No, let me ask you a question. If god is all mighty and knowing, that would include the fact that he created the good and evil on this planet. Things like the devil were his creation and instead of stopping the evil doing it was a prince to pay for autonomy? Why would an all loving and powerful god subject its own creation to hell? It makes no sense. You’re argument that atheists don’t want to think about there consequences is similar to religious individuals not accepting there own mortality. You believe there’s an afterlife because you are scared this is all there is to life. Pretend stories are the only thing that keep you from committing atrocities. It’s very sad and you need to seek professional help.

[@nottellin1340]

His brain just did a factory reset.

[@rizdekd3912]

Maybe, but he may think through it and realize the challenge by Turek can be met by an atheist.

[@johnjones5977]

@@rizdekd3912 bull.

[@chronographer]

The preachers brain reset. He literally contradoctedhima lf and reset at the end. The dude agreed to 'I believe rape is wrong, but it could be morally beautiful' and the preacher said 'okay so you agree in moral absolutes'... Uh no, he just did the opposite.
When you go off script these preachers brain melts because they don't have any logical argument.

[@dougmasters4561]

​@rizdekd3912 no atheist can answert the conundrum of subjective morality. Morality is objective. The best an atheist can do is agree that it is and then go and argue as to how.

[@rizdekd3912]

@@dougmasters4561 "no atheist can answert the conundrum of subjective morality. Morality is objective. The best an atheist can do is agree that it is and then go and argue as to how."
Demonstrate how morality is objective.

[@UnderAgedTrader]

Tbf by his logic he isn’t saying it’s beautiful. He is saying it is never good or bad. And depending on the culture people could see it as good or bad.

[@jacobwrona]

Philosophical discussions need to go on until their conclusion no matter how uncomfortable they make anyone feel. Lack of respectful discourse is what is destroying society currently.

[@experto180]

Love when people ask the question, only to answer it themselves.

[@Magneticitist]

That giraffe is doing the best human impression I ever seen

[@MatthewFearnley]

Are you a Christian?

[@bonniesgarden7869]

Don't make fun.

[@Magneticitist]

@@bonniesgarden7869 Yes Fuhrer, I shall make misery instead.

[@tiffanyaugustine8455]

​@@MagneticitistToo bad you're not intelligent enough to not go after dude's physical appearance. I'll bet you're a real peach.... 🙄😅😂🤣

[@miskittt]

This is why we need teachers in the classroom that teach critical thinking skills.

[@Michael-dt9lo]

Sadly they replaced CTS with CRT.

[@CoCo8102.]

Remember that its wrong ONLY when it happens to you and your loved ones.

[@gofiqure8927]

Wow, what a fisherman. We need more Mark Spences.

[@tonygabagool]

Getting rich off the gospel is pure evil. Jesus strait up said rich men don’t go to heaven 😡

[@hope4allisbest553]

@@tonygabagoolActually that’s not in the Bible. Many wealthy people, even wealthy women financially supported Jesus’ ministry. The Bible says the love of money is wrong, not having money itself. Money is a tool. The love of money is where things can go terribly wrong.

[@jamesmaybury7452]

‘I believe in the laws of logic but I don’t apply them to my own thinking. ‘

[@jamesogg3774]

If someone has a different opinion than me they can't be logical

[@jamesmaybury7452]

@@jamesogg3774 that’s a non-sequitur.

[@jamesogg3774]

@@jamesmaybury7452 Talking about the law of logic, I mentioned whether something is logical or not, you state "that's a non-sequitur" . I guess that's case in point

[@danymajr]

This man could have saved us all a lot of time by simply saying, "anything is possible."

[@mrkay6813]

Indeed,
there are moral absolutes.
My standard of morality is the law of God revealed in the Bible.

[@dmr0718able]

Go get context and come back. That's your homework this weekend. 🧐​@@Quint-ib4nf

[@dynomantar9733]

The belief that religion is somehow required for morality is absolutely asinine. This theory's been debunked over and over, but certain people just need to belief in something, even when they logically know its just a fantasy.

[@temushin]

The Bible's totally okay with rape.

[@robertgroves8691]

@@dynomantar9733hasn’t been “debunked” at all. Certainly many people present counter arguments and we are free to interpret them and come to our own conclusions. But to say it’s “debunked” means it has been categorically proven to be wrong. That isn’t true.

[@gaudiestivy4297]

@@Quint-ib4nfnope. Love and salvation

[@MatthewFearnley]

I think this is confused by the transition from “morally right” to “morally beautiful”.
(EDIT: I'm writing this as a Christian who does believe in objective morality.)

[@idontgetthejoke4813]

Yup.

[@melindamercier6811]

Oh my goodness, now you want to play semantics? Just place “morally right” in place of “morally beautiful”. Pointing this out is not the gotcha you think it is. If you claim it’s “morally right”, you’re either devoid of morality or in denial of truth. No other argument can be made.

[@MatthewFearnley]

@@melindamercier6811 I don't think it completely undermines his argument. I just think it would have been clearer if the same words have been used consistently.
Particularly since "right" is generally absolute, and "beautiful" is often subjective.

[@idontgetthejoke4813]

@@melindamercier6811 it's called loading, and he's playing semantics by doing it not us. it would be morally right to choose to have 1 person murdered over 5 people, but that's not beautiful.

[@darren7953]

@@MatthewFearnleyur a dumbass

[@nineteenninetyfive]

No, he demonstrates it is unacceptable in our culture to say such a thing.

[@Sal-619]

Let’s bring sanity back. Most of us know that history shows stupidity comes around every 50-70 yrs.

[@paulmillbank3617]

Morality changes over time. 2000+ years ago in Israel and elsewhere rape had different criteria. Today if you force your wife to have sex that’s rape. Back then that wasn’t rape. Culture sets the rules for morality.

[@jeremiah5319]

As we are now living in a time where theism is much more observed than Atheism, would it be okay to make Atheism illegal and subject to penalties of law for its social offenses?
If it's just by democratic rule, why not? Let's try it. Just to find out if your theory of subjective morality is correct. I'm betting it will fail big time. In fact, I'm betting you're afraid to approach this topic.

[@paulmillbank3617]

@@jeremiah5319 You would need to fundamentally change our culture, but we are part of the way there and even further than that if Trump gets elected again. It’s not unprecedented, something very similar happened in Germany 80 some years ago when the Nazi party decided the most moral thing was killing all the Jews. So, to answer your question it sure could be moral and I’m sure there’s a few theists right now that think it’s the greater good making it the most moral thing ever proposed. At least that gives you a platform. Maybe chat with the old timers in the KKK to get their moral compass on lynching black Americans and see if they struggle with the guilt of immoral behavior. I kinda doubt that they do.

[@OverlyCriticalAnime]

​@@jeremiah5319There are cultures that already do that. They have set that standard regardless if you agree with or not. Just look at China.

[@theyellowmeaning7507]

​@@OverlyCriticalAnime​china is an immoral hellhole. they skim oil from trashcans and gutters to put in food for other people. they actively practice s*x slavery. there was a big story that came out a while back called 'iron chain girl' where a woman was found in a outdoor shed who was chained to the floor and had had all of her teeth removed to prevent her from biting others or her tongue. the local government tried to cover it up, and then the national government covered it up.

[@huanglong08]

@@OverlyCriticalAnime What are you talking about? Both atheism and theism are allowed in China.

[@MichaelHarrell-xo2bz]

Should have held the dude up for his wallet then ask him is stealing wrong

[@scottyhehehe5367]

He could argue that he needed the $$$ more than the other guy. I'm not saying it's right, but he could make that argument and many would agree under certain circumstances.

[@DarkoFitCoach]

​@@scottyhehehe5367its still theft regardless if some other ahole needs it more isnt it

[@drummer4mysavior]

Longest I’ve ever heard Mark talk without mentioning food 😂

[@ccool300]

That's a very logical giraffe

[@skipstalforce]

Some one give that kid a hamburger

[@zach3965]

Why not a cheeseburger. U got somethin against cheeseburgers?

[@Altered76]

That guy has the longest neck to not be part giraffe.

[@rapidshai310]

He can belive that rape is bad but there still can be a society somewhere sometime in history that see or saw rape as something good or permissible

[@dainguy2136]

Are you saying that is not wrong? Even if that society believes it?

[@rodmanjohnson9593]

Also called Islam.

[@Bobainthome]

@@dainguy2136 I believe what @rapidshai310 is saying is it's wrong to us but somewhere it's not an absolute wrong.

[@vapypr]

​@@BobainthomeI'm sure there are and have always been societies where murder, slavery and rape were not considered evil. Where the strong "rightfully" dominate the weak.

[@paulperez6167]

Yeah that's Islam. But it doesn't matter what they believe. It's evil regardless.

[@hz.kemalpasa2997]

"I feel this way so it's a fundamental part of physical reality." I thought pride was a sin.

[@LeighmLyte]

This was very reassuring, & proved a lot, even to me as a baby Christian & moral philosopher.
I believe in & side with morality, but his take will help me explain so much more to others & protect the truth!

[@whatistruth101]

Talking to these brainwashed students who think they know anything yet they know nothing

[@zachx4338]

It's amazing to say brainwashed when religion itself is brainwashing. Pot calling the kettle black.

[@dylansimpson8591]

The whole point of being a student is to admit you know nothing lol
I’ve seen far more uneducated people poke at people trying to learn out of insecurities they hold and their media bubble showing very carefully cultivated several second clips of a student losing an argument.
Remember that we’re all brainwashed, and pointing a finger at anyone else claiming they’re the ones that are makes you look like a chimp

[@UhmActually.]

Yeah they should stop engaging

[@dylansimpson8591]

@@UhmActually. the full video showed several of them schoolin that guy
Idk why he only posted the one that had his “gotcha” lol

[@hardboiledaleks9012]

the projection is strong with this one!

[@schneidy81]

The fact that the preacher had to lead him to the logical conclusion of his asinine belief is sad

[@ryanpowell9003]

Only sad in that college students legitimately go 20 years without hearing a good explanation of the gospel. That's my testimony at least.

[@edc120912]

Are you Absolutely sure about that?

[@donaldmartinez1764]

Yeah asserting that morals are absolute doesn’t change the fact that’s it’s just an opinion that you think it’s absolute.. without the demonstration it’s actually absolute it’s just an unjustified assertion.. I find questioning other peoples world views and just asserting you’re correct to be brain dead logic.. you can easily question someone’s morality to try to make them look dumb but we all have the same problem of not being able to demonstrate it at the end and it’s still subjective until otherwise… in my opinion..

[@edc120912]

@donaldmartinez1764 he wasnt attempting to make him look dumb. He was helping to stop playing dumb and face what he truly believes.
A world with relative morality can not work. If you say yes than please don't go to court when someone does you wrong. Because in doing so you are assuming that there are moral laws that all should follow.

[@donaldmartinez1764]

@@edc120912 yeah that’s just your opinion like I said.. can you demonstrate that there is a moral law with more then an assertion? If not then that’s just your opinion that anyone can reject.. you along with everyone all suffer from the same problem.. all opinions accept people claim there opinion is objective which they can’t prove.. all you have to do is agree on what is morality and you can make objective assessments off the morality agreed on.. or else it’s everyone saying they hold the objective key to morality and everyone rejecting each others morality.. its dumb..

[@BAND-MAID-USA]

Do you believe you can find a turtleneck that is your size. Ask him that, ask him that.

[@finnthinkin7695]

He almost swallows his tongue at the end!😂

[@gamerdad5509]

When you get that warm fuzzy feeling between your ears when your brain works for the first time.

[@EugeneParallax]

Something that the questioner probably haven't felt since his initiation into clergy.

[@johnnance8577]

There are many cultures out there but he's not part of them. He's just afraid to make a decision his friend will disagree with. Gutless.

[@jasonmay4341]

Gutless? His words are being manipulated on a public platform, he’s smart for not letting them twist his words.

[@pureoxin8135]

The honest answer is: yes there probably is someone out there who can see R as beautiful

[@hershmergersh6733]

He's conflating morals with beauty. A moral action isn't always beautiful.

[@Sanxioned1]

​@@hershmergersh6733exactly. It's not very cleverly done either. Blatantly straw manning the student. Rape is by definition wrong, so the question itself is nonsensical.

[@pureoxin8135]

@@Sanxioned1 by what definition is it wrong? The question is ultimately about perspective.
The question of whether someone can find R to be good is a valid question

[@cbr274]

Moral questions are determined through objective discussions and drawing conclusions about what is best for people/society. Morality has never came solely from a holy book.

[@danielklett5065]

"There's no moral absolutes"
"Only a sith deals in absolutes. I will do what I must."

[@leonardselph1977]

How can he believe in logic when he uses none?

[@MLdoktor]

If you saw someone get raped and had the power to stop it without any risk of being hurt yourself, is it more moral to just watch it happen or more moral to stop it?

[@dmur612]

How does logic determine that r*pe is wrong?

[@quinnritiqal819]

@@MLdoktor What does the Bible say about rape?

[@MLdoktor]

@@quinnritiqal819 That it's okey if it your wife or female warcaptives

[@christopherpeery7436]

At least he had the decency to follow his logic all the way through and realize its massive flaw

[@tjblues01]

Well, in this case the preacher is... not so right. There are no moral absolutes. Neither in secular humanism nor in theism. In humanism, morality is a social construct. In theism, especially in Christianity, morality cannot be absolute not objective because it would make God 1. not creator of everything, 2 not omnipotent as he would have to follow the rules that are external to him.
No matter how do you would cut it, the morality is more or less subjective.

[@brando3342]

⁠@@tjblues01 Not true. That’s just the Euthyphro dilemma and that has been sufficiently argued against for many many years now.
God IS the good. Goodness is part of God’s nature. The Euthyphro dilemma is just a classic case of a false dichotomy. God doesn’t “follow” a moral code. He exists in accordance with His nature.

[@tjblues01]

@@brando3342 >God doesn’t “follow” a moral code. He exists in accordance with His nature.<
Therefore, morality is subjective and God is THE subject. All what God does and commands MUST be good - even if it's the worst of disgusting things ever. For ex. murdering children; God did that at least 2x; The Flood and k|lling all firstborn in Egypt.
Can God change his nature? If yes, then there is no objective or absolute morality. If not, then his not all powerful and does not control himself; his nature is just like animal instincts.
If morality is objective / absolute then God is just a messenger relying it it us. But his not necessary for us to discover rules of orality on our own.
BTW. theology does not have answer for the Euthyphro dilemma.

[@brando3342]

@@tjblues01 *Sigh* UA-cam commenters are exhausting.
Nothing can “change its nature”… that’s literally logically and practically impossible. God isn’t omnipotent in the sense that he can do illogical things… those aren’t “things”. God can’t created a married bachelor, for example, because that isn’t “a thing to do”, that’s just a nonsensical combination of words.
When we talk about subjective and objective, that is in the sense of *human* opinion. God is not a human, God is on a completely different level than human beings. If you think otherwise, than you think too little of God. God being the good means that yes, everything he does is good, it means he always acts in accordance with his nature.
You can complain about the events in the Bible, but you’ll be complaining about an all powerful, omniscient Being. One who knows all things, and has the mental capacity to weigh the stakes of every act ever committed or allowed, and to know what the results will be. You contend to know better than God? Good luck arguing with the literal creator of the universe with your tiny three pound brain.
Imagine thinking you have stumped theologians who have been addressing these questions for literally centuries. The hubris is mind numbing 🤦‍♂️

[@joewatson2138]

@@brando3342 Nice you utterly lost that exchange and it became so obvious when you resorted to ad hominem how very Christian of you. I also have a a similar question for you as @tjblues01 If God is both omniscient and omnipotent then is the all powerful God powerful enough to change the future? If the answer is yes then it negates his omniscience and if not it negates both pray and God's omnipotence. Even if you stick to omnipotence then can God create a stone so large that even he can't lift it. Your arguments have no moral basing other than the presupposition of a God it is called 'begging the question' and it is a logical fallacy. Lastly the the irony of you employing the word hubris in this context is side splitting. You are the one who is claiming that, not only do you know there is a God but that you are following the right one and that your interpretation in correct. At least have the humility to be agnostic about knowledge ...believe what you want

[@DystopiaFatigue]

"There are absolutely no absolutes."😂

[@PenixBowties]

The main defining factor between Left and Right is the fact that the Right are intellectually consistent while the Left are intellectually inconsistent.

[@askbrettmanning]

You don't believe in moral absolutes? Are you absolutely sure?

[@joewatson2138]

No that is the point, I need the axiom first

[@guillaumericard1233]

Moral relativism can't come to the conclusion that r*pe can be a "beautiful thing", because beauty is also subjective, therefore it can't be part of a truth.
Also, moral relativism doesn't mean morality doesn't exist, just that it's based on what we humans subjectively perceive as what is good for us.

[@jdnrust1590]

What if what I think is good for me is bad for you?

[@joewatson2138]

@@jdnrust1590 This is why the secular values that the western world are built on are so important

[@hardboiledaleks9012]

Religion doesn't teach people to think, you are talking to deaf ears. But it is nice seeing someone try. : )

[@SimonASNG]

He is not saying always beautiful, he is asking the kid if it can be beautiful in some places. Try to keep up.

[@christianmoore7932]

But to a culture it can be subjectively

[@RonBensonOO7]

They calls this verbal check mate

[@danielyepez5421]

This stunned look in this students face is not synonymous to him. A ton of college kids look exactly like this. Its a vulnerable mind ready to shrug at everything with their hands raised to torso level facing out. It's not much further from hands raised up in the air, completely ready to submit to whatever belief is thrown at them. This is the failure of parents not enstilling a solid moral foundation.

[@user-bl9fr4vo9x]

Without morals there's a whole lot of evil.

[@quinnritiqal819]

With morals there's also a whole lot of evil.

[@Heartwing37]

It blows my mind that basic logic has been cultivated out of the brains of the last few generations….

[@breestringham1063]

I'm curious by what you mean. How so?
From my perspective, I always thought people younger than myself have to be more analytical because of how much more disinformation they run into. More necessities to be logical leads to kids adapting.
I'd like to hear your thoughts!

[@07laines07]

They were taught what to think, not How to think.
That makes all the difference.

[@AdamErwin-uk7uj]

In my experience as a public school teacher, logic is no longer taught in schools. Neither is critical thinking. There is a base of information that must be memorized, and tested by the state required exams. No longer is there time for teaching outside of that info.
Respectfully, in regards to being more logical due to misinformation, if students are only given one source of information (some, as a teacher, I refused to teach precisely because it was either incorrect or incomplete), they have no need or desire to seek out additional information. The 'gram or tiktok is more interesting than seeking out and critically engaging in information analysis and critical thinking.

[@lordmeandor2328]

@@07laines07 in my experience, there have always been people who were taught what to think, and then there are few who can figure out how to think.
This is not a generational thing.

[@fischersfritz468]

It's getting better though. The young boy is trying to use his brain while the "old" white man is just repeating what he heard a million times without thinking

[@christopherweber9464]

Kid learned more in that conversation that he ever did before.

[@charlessmith4714]

Moral absolutes are why the constitution will never be incorrect.

[@kurtneytodman9360]

We can have different moral ideologies that agree on some morals and disagree on others. Using something that is seen as morally wrong in multiple ideologies as an example to dismiss the difference in ideologies is misleading.

[@jameshinton429]

It’s not misleading at all, it’s objective Truth smacking you in the face. Can’t have it both ways. If there is no moral absolute, there is no basis to make any conclusion about any thing.

[@Daniel-it6qn]

Replace 'misleading' with 'logical' in your sentence and you are correct

[@getjinxed7354]

Aka it proves you wrong so you are just going to dismiss without any explanation because you have no argument to provide.

[@iMagUdspEllr]

We wouldn't want to construct an ethical framework that permits rape to be okay anywhere in any culture at any time. Sure, you could argue that just because we want something to be the case, doesn't mean it is justified. Fine. Well, you can construct that society if you want. But, that seems to be bad for everyone. Therefore, it is pretty hard to justify that approach for any society. But, constructing this framework does not require God. Acknowledging ownership of one's own body permits rape to be wrong. Christians lack so much moral fiber that they need the threat of eternal damnation to construct a framework that permits rape to be wrong.

[@jameshinton429]

@@iMagUdspEllr a moral absolute, absolutely requires God, otherwise it’s subjective and mob rule, or straight democracy if you prefer. Even then, there would have to be a jumping off point for right and wrong from something or someone great than us.

[@jacewilliamson4698]

Found the leap in logic. "Is right and wrong different for different cultures?" Yes "So theres no such thing as right or wrong." Woah woah hold on there buddy, thats like saying "I think its hot in Canada right now, but my buddy here is from texas and thinks its cold, so temperature doesnt exist" You can have relative right and wrong, context matters. For example, I punched someone in the face, is it wrong? You would say yes. But I'm in a boxing match, is it still wrong? You might say no. What if the person I punched was the referee? Probably back to being wrong. Something you consider to be wrong may be considered right for me, and vice versa. It doesnt mean right and wrong don't exist, it means its relative

[@jacewilliamson4698]

This is what you get when you have this dialog with a fully adjusted adult, notice these people debate random college students or high schoolers(kids or very young adults) their manipulation tactics usually dont work against older people who know these people are trying to put words in their mouth

[@jeffcarroll6553]

If it's I think then that' is subjective opinion which can always differ, nothing to do with temperature not existing.

[@jacewilliamson4698]

@@jeffcarroll6553 that's my arguement, that right and wrong are also subjective

[@vaulk8949]

Arguing that context exists therefor the demonstration in the video is an incorrect conclusion is to ignore that no one clamed that morality is without context.
You're also comparing perception to facts. Feeling temperature as being too hot or too cold cannot be compared to identifying RAPE as immoral.
So let's pose it to you. Is Rape wrong or is there a possibility that Rape can be a good thing?

[@ifmbm332b]

@@jacewilliamson4698 These people debate "random college students" because they are the most smug, righteous and self confident in their views. Just ask them. Remember, these are still adults. They can drive cars, they can die in a war, they can have kids of their own AND THEY CAN VOTE. People have been putting words in their mouth their whole lives, and they are brainwashed. That is precisely the problem.

[@happyscottman]

100% he seen where he was coming from..

[@MarkSpence]

I ask atheists all the time, “Are there moral absolutes?”
Sometimes they say, “Not sure.”
I then ask, “Is it wrong to torture an innocent child for fun?”
Now, most people will say, “Yes, that’s wrong.”
However, occasionally someone says. “I don’t know”.
If that happens, “That person doesn’t need an argument. They need a therapist, a padded room and a white jacket.”

[@LivingWaters]

So true.

[@ugabugabagaga]

Agreed , but what does atheism has to do with it?

[@frogsoda]

Just spitballing here but maybe it's because atheists generally don't believe in moral absolutes? Maybe? ​@@ugabugabagaga

[@mathieuklerckx836]

Your homicidal god would also need therapy then; if the bible is to be believed, god is not above murdering children, entire population, promoting rape and slavery as means of settling debts etc...Do you approve of these crimes ? You worship that deity so surely, you must approve, right ?

[@DookyButter]

@@ugabugabagaga atheists generally adhere to the worldview that there are no moral absolutes.

[@bryanrisso7508]

Ask a different person and he might say yes r*p* is ok. Youre confusing his opinion and saying he believes in moral absolutes.

[@enjoylife-cm8mn]

He's not confusing his opinion, he is challenging it. If your belief and opinion don't hold up to scrutiny, then you should seek to understand why. Moral relativism folds under any scrutiny. Simply put, if you arrived at your opinion without logic then you should keep your opinions to yourself.

[@iamyonathan]

@enjoylife-cm8mn Well said!!!

[@hamnchee]

​@enjoylife-cm8mn He didn't challenge the opinion, he challenged whether or not it was "absolute", which it isn't.

[@lucinema]

@@enjoylife-cm8mn Moral absolutism folds under any scrutiny. Simply put, if you arrived at your opinion without logic then you should keep your opinions to yourself.

[@Imabirdhaww]

​@@hamnchee incorrect. He did challenge his opinion. The student's opinion was moral relativism in all aspects. The speaker showed that the student held to moral absolutism as their foundational perspective. The question then becomes, where is the line the student holds from acts of moral absolutism to moral relativism.
The speaker wasn't stating in this discussion that his perspective removed all moral relativism. It's not in the video.

[@user-fd2xi9dx9u]

The smirk is what I watch for. Dupers Delight. Snakes have it. Then they bite you. He wiped that smirk of his face

[@Ostekat]

He did not demonstrate that there are moral absolutes. He demonstrated that he believes in moral absolutes.

[@AJ-to8lb]

It shows a lack of intellectual integrity when one's debate strategy is to put words in the other person's mouth.

[@quinnritiqal819]

Excellent point. If I were arguing against Mark Spence, I wouldn't let him do the nonsense he did here.

[@dustyhedger380]

What would you counter it with ? ​@@quinnritiqal819

[@cygnusustus]

Yep. But it is typical of apologists to lack intellectual integrity.

[@icy6074]

That kid stretched reality so far he got caught up in it, too.

[@Derek_Baumgartner]

Very glad to see the student there genuinely listening and trying to think it through.
So many times conversations like this instead turn into "...But you're a bigot/racist/wordoftheweek!"

[@Repo97]

I liked the politeness an respect of this argument!

[@Obi1Classic]

If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything.

[@CastleArchon]

I think that they could fall off those stands.

[@cygnusustus]

If you believe without evidence, you fall for everything.