Divinity/Liam vs Capp on ethical egoism @tohno.whatsoever

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-13

[00:00:18]begging. You are collection begging, right? And you know that you made that blender, which is why you wanted to eat time up for the optics. Now, you asked, well, what do I mean when I defend the proposition? Um, what do I what do I mean when I defend the proposition, right? And you said we can take semantic neutrality on the term argument. So I told you from the onset that when I talk about these arguments, all I'm saying is that I'm demonstrating it to be uh the case and I'm demonstrating it to be conceptually ethical. Okay? And you might be asking what does it mean to be the case, right? When I talk about it being the case, all that means to say is that it's pragmatically acceptable or conflict free within our given conceptual scheme. And what it means to be conflict free because I know you need the amps. It's just that you take some conceptual schema, right? Uh you have the set and then you want to say that no member within the set offers up some type of undercutting relation or attacking relation.

[00:01:08]towards a member of the set for just reasons to reject. Now clearly if it's the case that the the property falseeness doesn't obtain right then I can't be presupposing something that's false. Okay. So, what I want you to do here, right, because you talked about burdens, uh, I reject burdens altogether, you're going to need to give some justification that I have any type of burden within this dialectic, right?

[00:01:30]Cuz we can just take some type of given dialectical model where burdens aren't the type of things that obtain. Okay.

[00:01:36]So, can you give that justification cuz you made the claim that it is the case that I have a burden. So, can you can you uh, you know, justify that?

[00:01:42]>> And that's the case by veilent decidability, right? [ __ ] >> Yeah, continue the conversation. Am I good? Am I good to speak? Okay, I'm okay.

[00:01:52]>> Yeah. So, let's just respond to that.

[00:01:54]Uh, according to the flow, one, you didn't respond to what I said about um aerotic literally being tangential. You just said that it was me, you know, sucking up time for optics. That was like a really clever way to appeal and not address the issue, which is that what you said didn't enter into a undercutting or attacking relation with the content of what I said. on your own grounds. It was irrelevant. Right?

[00:02:16]That's why I called it a tangent. I don't know why you would adopt your theory of argumentation to void a lot of philosophical rigor just to [ __ ] utilize it in a way that's inconsistent with what you're advocating for. Um again, I the point I made was that whenever you're defending, I'm speaking my warranting is going to be that for which my interrupting is warranted within the dialect. No, it's not in your validity. I want you to further explicate the concept. You're getting beat the [ __ ] up right now and you want you're begging for moderation because you know you're getting beat the [ __ ] up. Can you further explicate the concept of validity? I don't know why I don't even know why I should adopt these type of talks within my given conceptual model. Okay. So answer the question.

[00:02:55]Answer the question. You're stalling for the optics and I want you to further explain. So you said validity is tangential. I don't know why I should adopt these type of concepts within my given conceptual scheme. But also you haven't justified that I have a burden within this given dialectic. I told you I reject burdens. So you're going to have to justify that as well. So explicate the concept of vertical validity so I can address the main for which you cried about me not addressing the concept the concept you're getting beat the [ __ ] upate the concept moderators [ __ ] >> where where the mods at I don't understand so >> explicate the concept of I'm going to continue what I'm saying uh now look >> explicate the concept of validity [ __ ] relax >> oh I'm [ __ ] explicate the concept you're getting beat the [ __ ] up right now you're getting thrown the [ __ ] off you know what the [ __ ] you're talking conflict freeositions.

[00:03:42]>> Okay, dude. Well, what do you think we're talking about right now? But nevertheless, >> I don't know what the propositions.

[00:03:48]>> Okay, maybe there's going to be this type of intrinsic relation.

[00:03:51]>> I mean, I do feel like talking about these type of things.

[00:03:53]>> Every time I say literally uh you're going to be talking about these type of intrinsic relations, there's going to be intrinsic terms, right? And I reject that. Okay.

[00:04:01]>> Like we need to move to I don't understand.

[00:04:05]Does this guy just like not [ __ ] >> They have burdens on the table right now.

[00:04:09]>> You have multiple burdens on the table.

[00:04:10]>> You didn't believe in burdens, [ __ ] >> Well, we could we can use we can use burden in this type of other way, right?

[00:04:15]You don't have to hold that they're the case. You can say you can say that burdens are these type of things for which we adopt in so far as you can be a fictionalist about burdens. You can be a fictionalist about burdens, [ __ ] You can be a fictionalist about burdens and say that it's not the case that burdens obtain. [laughter] But they're fictional in so far as they're useful for the given dialect. Okay? Are you dumb? You guys are done.

[00:04:36]>> You can be a fictionalist about >> are useful for the given dialectic, but you don't have to affirm that they obtain.

[00:04:44]>> Can can you contend with that? Cuz you just you just tried to convey it as if I blender when I just said you can do a fix about burdens.

[00:04:50]>> I'll talk about in closing, bro. That's where we need >> Okay. I mean, if you want to conclude here, you're you just [ __ ] lost by the way.

[00:04:58]>> You got it, bro. Give your uh give your last statement and I'll >> Okay. So from the onset I put into uh question the elitic property right. Um and then he said I'm presupposing something that's false in which falsity is an elitic property which is what I'm bringing into question. So he was trivially question begging there. Um then he said what do I mean when I defend the proposition. Um I told him I'm defending it as the case in so far as it being pragmatically acceptable uh or conflict free. Then I told him I don't believe in propositions. Right?

[00:05:26]You can just be a fictionalist there and say that it's useful for the given dialectic. Um then he said he whole point about aerotic validity and I told him to explicate the concept and he didn't actually explicate the concept right because that was the main point he was crying he was crying he was crying about me not responding to so I told him explicate the concept so I can [ __ ] respond and have him stop crying and then he didn't want to expuck up I drugged this [ __ ] into the attic and he knew he couldn't met a debate right he's trash he's not a good debater at all right um he told could presuppose neutral semantics uh for the argumentation talk. He didn't bring into account. Um he didn't really he didn't really offer up any type of attack relation to anything I'm saying. Uh I think he's extremely [ __ ] Uh and yeah. Um you can give her closer now.

[00:06:19]>> Thanks big bro. Um yeah so just recall how we got here. Let's just account for the context. it'll make complete sense why a cappuccino is a liar and a fraud.

[00:06:30]Um what had happened was he did not so in trying to justify the proposition which he you know we agreed was a proposition in trying to justify the proposition that it is that it is not the case that ethical egoism is true he offered up um you know basically truth nihilism or whatever truthism whatever um and then you know after I said we could talk about that and we could investigate um some of the [ __ ] there you know namely that I wanted to talk about liars paradox I wanted to talk about the paradoxes what this guy did okay as I in response I said or no.

[00:07:01]Yeah. What he did is he said do you need the amp? Right. In response to this meta issue about do you need the amp? Right.

[00:07:06]Where he tried to pigeon hole me into a yes or no and then like forced closing after I wanted to talk about the subs of the issue. When he felt that coming he you know pig do you need the amp. I said it was tangential and then after I called it tangential right um I I then said it was aerotically invalid. Now what I said was aetically invalid was the question do you need the amp?

[00:07:22]Because the question presupposes something false. Now, it's important to understand that this is not a kind of begging the question because it's not the case that my statements about aerotetic validity about the meta comment about um you know whether or not it's whether or not I need the amp.

[00:07:34]That's not getting given um as a defense of the primary issue which is whether or not it is the case that some propositions are true. Um so it's not the case. That's begging the question after I pointed this out. He simply did not respond to it. Right? He just said that I was trying to pigeon for optics and actually conceded this point and it went completely dropped. Um now after I wanted that he then you know talked about his theory argumentation talk about what it means for something to be pragmatically useful right um and instead of allowing us to go into the actual issue trying to demonstrate paradoxes trying to derive them right when instead he did it he went on this [ __ ] [ __ ] thing where he goes oh yeah um you know you're presupposing burdens but you know I don't believe in burdens so what you need to do I don't believe in obligations so you're going to need to give a justification for the existent burden never mind the fact it's obviously a [ __ ] burden it's extremely performant if this [ __ ] [ __ ] decides to backpedal after getting silent stun locked for three seconds ago Well, actually, you could interpret burden in a fixless way. Yeah, you could have interpreted [ __ ] Burdens in any which aic way whenever I [ __ ] use burden language. But in fact, you did this stupid [ __ ] thing where you saw direct con, right? So, you have this [ __ ] dual interpretation of whatever the understandably reasonable interpretation of the semantics would be whenever I utter something along the lines of you need to give or um you know, you're obligated to give. Um, and you did all this [ __ ] factory in attempt to just avoid the fact that you don't have a very good argument in defense about ethical weas. And that's why when we were even discussing the de the debate of the proposition, you wouldn't give up the argument that you already [ __ ] conceded within 5 seconds originally a month ago. Um, and you beg the debate on a topic like this that way you could do these [ __ ] linguistic tricks and tactics for people to just see that no ultimately you're fraud and you got blown the [ __ ] out despite your best attempts. So look, when judgment comes and ultimately you [ __ ] lost, you understand? Like >> it's okay. So uh just internalize this loss. Let's go. Let's go judge.

[00:09:08]>> Okay. me as the agreed upon judge. I think agreed upon >> you go get the trialent recursive enumerility >> [ __ ] You're not the judge.

[00:09:20]>> All right, [ __ ] >> Whoa. Whoa. Relax, man. Relax. Okay, roast.

[00:09:29]>> All right, so let's let uh never get serial guy next. Cool guy, what's I think it's server muted.

[00:09:40]>> Well, can can me and my colleague Pippy convene before we give >> Bro, get Cool Guy get verdict one.

[00:09:46]>> Oh, uh, well, I have uh something prepared. Uh, I think um Divinity won because he successfully collapsed his opponent's burden fictionalist substrate into a self-negating olic asymmetry before the dialectical frame could stabilize, which is frankly amazing.

[00:10:00]It's one of the most impressive things I ever seen happen in a debate. And once he demonstrated that the opponent's quasi inferial norm scheme was still relied on covertly robust truth tracking commitments, the entire anti-realist architecture under an immediate modal decoherence. Uh and the attempted retreat into weak lethic niism only accelerated the implosion. I mean divinity simply recontextualized the opponent's semantic permissibility operative through his second order defeater lattice and exposing contradiction between his pragmatic expressivism and his transcontextual justificatory indexing. And then after that uh every response generated additional meta epistic leakage. Um >> you're by the way shut the [ __ ] up gang.

[00:10:31]It was a good It was a good effort put up.

[00:10:34]>> Okay.

[00:10:35]>> The question I'm asked. Why would that be the case?

[00:10:39]>> Okay. Who else?

[00:10:41]>> Pippy next to us. Pippy next to >> uh Yeah, Liam won.

[00:10:47]>> Scam.

[00:10:47]>> That's your record. [ __ ] >> Hey, scam the [ __ ] out of me. By the way, >> I'm never letting these [ __ ] judge my [ __ ] again. [laughter] >> You're never judging the debate again.

[00:10:58]>> What's up? I ain't going to lie, [ __ ] Even if you the second time you scammed me.

[00:11:00]>> Hold on. I ain't going to lie, G. Every time a [ __ ] talk about you lost, you talking about they scammed him. Even if you won this [ __ ] you keep talking about every [ __ ] that tell you lost, you they scammed you. Not every [ __ ] out getting scammed, gang.

[00:11:12]>> Not every [ __ ] is out to get you, G.

[00:11:14]Come on, >> [ __ ] Shut the [ __ ] up.

[00:11:19]I'm this I'm let the I'm going let the YouTube do what it do, man. Cuz everybody seen this [ __ ] just got beat the [ __ ] up in front of all these [ __ ] You totally want to debate the best debate.

[00:11:27]>> Like between between me and you, why would you want to poach yourself using like misogynistic and homophobic language?

[00:11:33]>> What?

[00:11:33]>> Cuz I can, [ __ ] The [ __ ] >> I mean, a [ __ ] in there, too.

[00:11:37]>> Divinity, you think cuz he called you a [ __ ] like, "Oh my god, you're using my like [ __ ] called me a [ __ ] too."

[00:11:43]What the [ __ ] >> Divinity, have you heard this [ __ ] You done said, [ __ ] what the [ __ ] man?

[00:11:46]Like, you got it, bro. [ __ ] trying to talk like they a saint and [ __ ] You're not no [ __ ] saint. What do >> you mean, bro? I have a mouth of purity.

[00:11:55]You literally called me a [ __ ] end of debate by the way.

[00:12:00]No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Cuz this [ __ ] divinity and me got beef. Such a [ __ ] ass I should die because I got this argumentation. No turtle debating.

[00:12:10]>> Cool guy. Fix your fix the verdict. Are you Is that Master Splinter, bro?

[00:12:14][laughter] >> Wait, wait. Divinity deate debate big homie Flo.

[00:12:19]>> Oh, [snorts] what?

[00:12:21]>> This is the guy who dodged me in the theory of >> Flo. It's low. You're not being productive. Name a prop.

[00:12:25]>> Are you the guy who had your cricket cut out? Name a prop that he's going to debate you, right? You laid out a proposition beat the [ __ ] out of 5G, right?

[00:12:35]>> Wait, wait. Do y'all want to debate or not, bro? What does y'all want this?

[00:12:38]>> So, pick a proposition. Stop with this meta stuff.

[00:12:43]>> Let's debate.

[00:12:44]>> Pick a proposition.

[00:12:46]>> [ __ ] >> Stoping the theory of all.

[00:12:50]Hey, if anyone else talks about Flo and Wait, Cap. Cap, listen to this. If anyone else talks that's not Flo or Divinity, ban them. We'll ban them like right now.

[00:12:58]>> Where did the go? I need that wreck.

[00:13:00]>> All right, I'll give you the wreck. But ban any [ __ ] that speaks that's not them, too.

[00:13:04]>> Okay, that's going to get banned.

[00:13:07]>> Dick right now, [ __ ] When the debate starts.

[00:13:10]>> No, right now. Right now. Any [ __ ] that talks right now gets banned. Okay. Flo and Divinity speak.

[00:13:16]Yo um we can do God's existence.

[00:13:21]>> What do you mean by God? Flo, >> what do I mean by God? Um primary productive power such a way such that it's going to be the primacy. It's going to be the act by which all exist or everything exists. Not that for which is a thing.

[00:13:38]>> That's really interesting. Um >> very interesting.

[00:13:41]>> Maybe on another day, bro. I've had my way. Why you always ducking me? No.

[00:13:45]>> Flo, you got to say it chill cuz she's going to duck.

[00:13:48]>> You always ducking me.

[00:13:49]>> You got to say something simple.

[00:13:51]>> You always running, [ __ ] No. Give me that. You're Bro, you just >> Oh my god. Are you doing jumping jacks right now? Are you jumping? Say something simple, bro.

[00:13:59]>> I'm cheating on your mother, my [ __ ] And I'm coming on that [ __ ] every [ __ ] day, [ __ ] No, >> you doing jumping jacks right now, bro.

[00:14:06]>> Yo, Flo, say something simple. I' been clapping, bro. My [ __ ] that's what you were doing when that [ __ ] Infinity was putting his dick.

[00:14:12]>> You got mad passion, bro. You got mad passion.

[00:14:15]>> Are y'all gonna debate or bro? You got >> debate or no, bro? What the [ __ ] game?

[00:14:21]>> Maybe if I hop in the KG line another day, you know? I've just I've had a long day, you know? So, I just don't think that's you got no long, bro. The cool guy. [ __ ] you. Like, what's going on?

[00:14:30]What What's going on?

[00:14:31]>> What do you mean, bro? You hear the way that I handled your colleague, bro? Just lose on judgment 20.

[00:14:37]Uh, I mean that's exhausting, man.

[00:14:39]>> Hey, by chance, have you ever heard of the body with with the origins?

[00:14:42]Actually, not without the organs. You ever heard of it?

[00:14:48]>> Where did he go?

[00:14:50]>> Bro.

[00:14:50]>> Oh, yeah. I'm talking to you if you couldn't tell.

[00:14:53]>> Are you talking to me about the lo, bro?

[00:14:54]Are you talking about >> Yeah. I'm asking, have you ever heard of the body with the organs?

[00:14:57]>> You don't know nothing about none of that, bro. Stop talking.

[00:14:59]>> I'm going to tell you >> that we're letting this guy know about nothing, bro.

[00:15:03]>> The thing the thing is this. We have the body with the organs. Hold on. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop trying to over talk me. The body with the organs has a mouth.

[00:15:12]>> That's what we call knowledge gap.

[00:15:13]That's that's that's what that's what the folks here call a knowledge gap.

[00:15:16]That's what the natives here call.

[00:15:21]>> Just contemplate that, bro.

[00:15:22]>> Oh, you know what? [ __ ] >> yeah. I'm doing fine, bro.

[00:15:24]>> [ __ ] that. I'm >> Thanks for playing, though. Thanks for playing, though.

[00:15:28]Yo, Flo with the [ __ ] orans [laughter] and the body with organs has a purpose.

[00:15:41]Okay. And then when that mouth starts, [laughter] okay, it can suck. That's how you do [ __ ] cool every >> Yeah, I got you, bro. I got you to another one. Okay, bro. You always sucking dick. That's one of the purposes for the body with organs. [laughter] >> Why you sound like somebody uncle [ __ ] What the [ __ ] >> Okay.

[00:16:05]>> No, >> bro. He left. Broinity.

[00:16:11]>> He left.

[00:16:12]>> Like, [ __ ] [laughter] how you going to do that to me? What?

[00:16:18]What? What you doing? [laughter] What you at? Flow listen flow flow in the future bro when you >> something so where they going to say no bro >> floor you should have just said something simple bro >> I said bro I don't give a [ __ ] make this [ __ ] cool guy right the [ __ ] now [snorts] >> but you the big cool guy.

[00:16:56]>> I'm not the dating cool guy. Unmute him.

[00:16:58]I can't like, bro. Kylo, unmute cool guy.

[00:17:02]>> He shouldn't be muted. Hold on, >> bro. He is, bro. Just unmute him.

[00:17:07]>> Uh oh. I don't know who did that.

[00:17:10]>> All right. Give me a when because that [ __ ] dog me. [laughter] [snorts] >> Yo, >> cool guy. How long has it been >> until that [ __ ] has given me a theory of argumentation?

[00:17:24]>> Probably. Oh [ __ ] I'm mute. I'm muted.

[00:17:25]Uh I don't know, man.

[00:17:29]>> I think he's every single time I see that [ __ ] What do I ask for?

[00:17:33]>> You got to press him, man. He's going to keep running away from you. He's a [ __ ] cow.

[00:17:36]>> Exactly. I'm saying I think my [ __ ] you see that's >> Yeah, I think he's like really [ __ ] scared of me. Like I was talking to Bridge um I was talking to Bridge like 60 years ago and we was talking about how [ __ ] scared he is. He is a [ __ ] coward. He's a [ __ ] cow.

[00:17:54]Wait, how does Quirk say it? Yo, Chloe, mic up, you got to give me the [ __ ] quirk impression. He's a [ __ ] coward.

[00:18:00]>> What the [ __ ] are you talking about? Why would I do the cork impression? You dumb [ __ ] >> You can do it because you're Chinese.

[00:18:06][laughter] >> You need your He's a coward.

[00:18:09]>> Yo, have Divinity's doc for anyone who wants for like 20 bucks. Just DM me. I have his dog.

[00:18:13]>> Hey, bro. I I give you 300, >> bro. That [ __ ] bro, tell that [ __ ] Divinity singing words, bro. I'm going to get my [ __ ] I'm going to get my mahur that [ __ ] smoothie to start singing. I was What was that [ __ ] What's that song? Y'all can't sing it, my [ __ ] I suck. What was it called, bro?

[00:18:29]>> Not your first.

[00:18:32]Yeah. What the [ __ ] >> my [ __ ] My [ __ ] never saw Chad. What the [ __ ] is he talking?

[00:18:37]>> Better singer than this [ __ ] Ain't that right?

[00:18:39]>> No. No. I never saw that song. What is he talking about?

[00:18:41]>> Yes. The [ __ ] you did on the debate.

[00:18:43]We're on [ __ ] [ __ ] >> He sound like he lying. I ain't going to lie. He sound like you lying. I'm not lying. I'm not lying on God.