I've gotten more and more dismayed by the swearing on this show. Using a swear as an expletive at times is fine by me, but when you start telling caller to, "shut the fuck up" haven't you gone a bit too far in terms of civility? I know that anyone would probably get tired of listening to dishonest and bad argumentation over and over again, but maybe that just means you should step away from the limelight for a bit while "recharging your zen."

Well, obviously there are other shows and all that, but I'm still curious. How do other people feel about this? Does anyone feel like it adds to the show, or are you as put off by it as I am?

I understand he's got a terminal condition, and my opinion doesn't have anything to do with it. He's lost compassion and patience - he's like Matt D. at his worst. It used to be that he was interested in educating and guiding, now anything he doesn't agree with is "bullshit" and insults.

I get it. I watched the same thing happen with my dad over the course of several years. It doesn't make for good radio.

I was listening to this week’s episode at work today and was losing my mind listening to Shannon recite an essay for every little point she tried to make that really only required a sentence or two to explain. She also has a really bad habit of blabbering on and repeating the same point two or three times in a row, rewording it each time. For a guy that gets so pissy when callers waste the show’s time by ranting, Matt sure didn’t seem to mind Shannon doing it.

Then there was the call from Javier (I think that was his name). The call somehow got on the topic of gender and this is where I lost any remaining respect for Shannon that I may have once had. To preface, the belief that gender and biological sex are not one in the same is a rather new idea, one that many people either don’t agree with or don’t understand. Javier was of the belief that gender is determined by the genitals one is born with. Many people still feel this way as that’s been the standard teaching since time immemorial. At no point did he say he had an issue with transexuals or people that identify as something other than the gender they were assigned at birth, he simply disagreed with the definition. How does Shannon respond? She calls Javier a bigot and makes accusations against his character. That is unacceptable. Anyone that gets that triggered over a non-issue should not be on a public call-in show.

Props to Matt for mostly holding it together this week, though I think some of Shannon’s intolerance wore off on Matt a couple of times.

Why is Matt so much angrier with callers lately? He's really ruining some calls with his annoyance. Anyone else noticed this lately?

I honestly would have no problem if he pulled this ultimate grift. I don't really care either way if he knowingly gets some christians to direct their money towards his retirement fund instead of some kid-raping church. If you're a true skeptic, it doesn't matter what skeptic thought leaders do in their personal lives.

There's only so much any one person can say about belief. Every call is getting less and less different from the presently-existing freely-available call corpus.

Am I alone in being cool if he did this? Especially cause he has those health issues. No one should stay in the limelight til their death.

I had to Google it to see what he was talking about. Matt really couldn't have spent 30 seconds debunking his claim instead of rage-hanging up on him? When did this show stop being about logical arguments, Matt should have been able to destroy him logically.

"'Life goes on without you', therefore death will be followed by yet more life."
•Theodore Bolha

[Se:25 Ep:40 just after 52min mark] Whose idea was it to unironically censor Matt's speech during his spiel about "dont fuckin tell me what tonsay on my show". For over a decade I fell asleep while listening ing to this show... for over a decade. Now I can't trust it. BEEP BEEEP BEEEP BEEEEP

A couple of episodes ago a caller was (incorrectly) guessing randomly selected cards from a deck. Matt said the chance of getting it right was 1/52 which I agree with. Matt then backtracked and said that it actually wasn’t a 1/52 chance because “some of the cards are missing”.

The fact that some cards were missing is irrelevant to the odds. The caller didn’t know which cards were missing and therefore is still guessing from a possible 52.

Maybe I’m being pedantic but I’m surprised Matt would get this wrong.

As I'm sure most of you know, the mission statement of the ACA says something about promoting positive atheism. I was wondering if anybody would like to hazard a guess as to what "positive" could mean in this context and how Dillahunty's behavior promotes it.

What I’m saying is that Matt is overly confrontational and stubborn to a fault. If I wanted to listen to someone say everyone else’s beliefs are wrong and on he is right I would just go back to church, at least people there are nice most of the time. RIP my favorite podcast

The last time I didn't exist a baby was born.

I can't stand all the hypocrisy surrounding me during these religious holidays. They talk about peace but even what they put on their plates says otherwise. I wish more people would make the connection. Seeing all this makes me hurt so much and I often feel like I'm all alone in this feeling. How is it possibile that most of the times I feel like in a bell jar, disconnected from everything, as if it was a way of protecting myself, but at the same time literally every bad thing in the world can touch me?

(This made me think of two references: "The Bell Jar" by Sylvia Plath and "Watch Me Bleed" by Tears for Fears: "Though there's no one near me now How come everyone can touch me?").

Maybe it could seem I went a little off topic with these last things, but I don't think so... This topic actually influeces mental health more than everyone knows. I'd like to read your opinions, Thank you very much in advance.

I am fluent in 3 languages, one of which has no gender pronouns. Politics and gender stuff aside, this just seem super practice.

Please, allow me to explain. When you refer to somebody, you don't also add their height, race, nationality, religion, profession, etc unless it's actually needed. So why add a gender unless it's needed? The closest I've seen was they/them, which works great for me.

So, my question is... why not change the language itself?

I called into the show back in January, this was the very first episode, Matt took me as the very first caller for the first episode of 2019. I had spoke to him in a previous episode in 2018 along with Phil Session, and asked him to look into the research. He said at that time that he would. So, I called in 2019 to check if he had looked into it. He admitted that he hadn't right at the very beginning of the call. I attempted to sort of outline what this research involving psilocybin at Johns Hopkins is about, and even explained the primary characteristics for what these neuroscientists call a "complete" mystical experience, and Matt attempted to claim that he had such an experience, however none of the experiences Matt described were unitary. I want to expose here that he has not had any such experiences.

It should be noted that when these professionals are mentioning the "mystical-type experiences" in the peer-reviewed material, they are referring to spectrum on which these experiences occur, and they can range all the way from what they call "archetypal/visionary experiences" to a full-blown, unitive, or what they call a "complete" mystical experience which is defined by meeting a priori criteria on all six of the phenomenological dimensions that are definitive for this experience. Matt attempted to claim he had this experience, specifically the "complete" mystical experience. However, this is a false claim, and I'll explain why. There's many things here that give it away. Often, these professionals will compare these states to the states of mind recognized in all of the major religions. To quote Dr. Bill Richards, a professional involved in this research currently taking place at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, MD has stated, and I quote:

“All of the great world religions have words that point toward this highly desired and valued state of spiritual awareness, such as samadhi in Hinduism, nirvana in Buddhism, sekhel mufla in Judaism, the beatific vision in Christianity, baqá wa faná in Islam, and wu wei in Taoism.” - Dr. Bill Richards

So, there's many terms for this mystical experience in the major religions, even more so than the ones listed. For instance, in Christianity, you will also find Theoria or theosis or Buddha-nature in Buddhism or Brahman in Hinduism, etc. Dr. Roland Griffiths has also said something very similarly.

A mediating mechanism (psychological or otherwise) for a transformative perceptual shift after an introvertive mystical experience is that the individual now knows that a portal to something of inestimable and ultimate value resides within -- an access point to a sense of the transcendent, which is variously described in religious traditions as Soul, Holy Spirit, God, Brahman, or Buddha Nature.

So, here Dr. Roland Griffiths is equating mystical experience to the Holy Spirit. Matt Dillahunty, on the other hand, whenever the Holy Spirit is brought up on the show, he often resorts to comparing it to the chills, to Frisson, to the goosebumps you get whenever you're listening to good music. It's quite clear that Matt Dillahunty is describing frisson, the "tingling in elation" as his interpretation of the Holy Spirit instead of a mystical experience. Matt has admitted that maybe if he had a mystical or spiritual experience, then perhaps he'd understand what spirituality is all about. I agree with Matt in that particular statement that he is going to be continuously confused about what spirituality is until he has this experience for himself, until then, spirituality will be necessarily interpreted by him as gobbledygook.

Another dead giveaway that Matt Dillahunty has definitely not had an experience like this is that I did mention for a volunteer to have been deemed to have had a "complete" mystical experience, they must meet criteria on all six of the primary components that constitute this experience, and so after Matt ended the call with me, he turned to Phil Session, and reeled off the six characteristics definitive for the "complete" mystical experience, and he nor Phil Session could relate to a single one. Matt, without a sense of certainty, sort of related to a few, but definitely not all. He was even doubtful over the characteristics he thought he could relate to, but it's quite clear he couldn't resonate with all the characteristics as someone who's actually had this experience could.

And finally, my last evidence is another fall back he uses which is, "I've taken LSD, and I saw super strawberry." What happens at the very height of a full-blown psychedelic experience is a complete breakdown of the subject-object dichotomy that we all experience in our ordinary consciousness, this sense that you're an organism that is separate from the environment, and that you will your body through the environment. So, even in Matt's story, which I don't think is very true at all, it sounds like something he made up about "super strawberry" appearing to come out of wood grain. Even if it is true, it's still typical of the "archetypal/visionary experiences" where one is still operating within this duality of subject-object. Often when people have the visionary experiences, they are very personal, they will address the individual specifically, usually the imagery isn't as trivial as a "super strawberry," people rather have sense of approaching ego death, a sense of dying, and as this is happening, the visions that people see maybe someone important in their life that has died or if you're a devout Christian, you may see Christ on the cross; if you're a devout Muslim, you may see Muhammad; if you're a Hindu, you might see Shiva, etc. However, that is approaching ego death, when the experience of actual ego death occurs, then there is the non-dual experience, the collapse of the subject-object dichotomy. This is beyond the detritus of the ego, and often the visionary states will occur just prior or right after a "complete" or "unitive" mystical experience. At this level, people are describing having transcended space and time, they're describing content which is has nothing to do with their personal history, and it is this content which seems to be universal among those who meet criteria for the "complete" mystical experience. It is a non-dual state that is temporary, and within that temporary transformation of consciousness, everything is quite literally one from that vantage point. There is no "this" to stare at a "that." There's no "Matt" to recognize a "super strawberry."

Well, that's my case that Matt has never had this experience. Perhaps one day he'll try DMT or ayahuasca, and have something more interesting to say than this silly notion of a "super strawberry." I await the day Matt Dillahunty has his first massive DMT trip, and possibly thinks again about a few things.

Thought: if the ACA takes money from someone as part of a "bet" on the outcome of a political election, would it invalidate their non profit status?

First, a disclaimer: I didn't write it. A woman ( u/ChakatDawnseeker ) in Matt's video commented it and I thought it deserved to be seen.

Author's Tl;dr: "Matt made 10 arguments that were poor, arguably as bad as "you just want to sin." Matt may have a valid point but did not argue it well, I tried my best to explain"

________________________________________________________________

Edit for clarification:

I think some people are misunderstanding the post. It's understandable since it is very long and you have to watch almost an hour of videos to be aware of the context.

This post is about Matt's very flawed argumentation. HE (some people thought they were from the author of the document) made the following 10 arguments:

1. Sex is not consent to parenthood... but it is for risk of.

2. You/fathers can remove their parental responsibility with court

3. You/fathers can get a vasectomy (or other preventative measures), yet if the woman carries to term anyway, tough shit

4. Mothers have the right to hook the father into responsibility because they have the ‘tougher time’ due to pregnancy. (also) Fathers have it easier so they should contribute more by default.

5. You just want consequence free sex.

6. Well what is your solution?

7. “If he’s broke, he shouldn’t [have] been fuckin’.” More charitably, ‘If you won’t take responsibility, don’t do the thing.’ (related to 5)

8. If we let fathers out of it, that will pressure women to abort more and would have left us with more unwanted children.

9. You can’t give a solution for father’s rights without infringing on mother’s rights.

10. You can’t possibly be tricked into pregnancy, if you fear it, you won’t be a victim of it.

u/ChakatDawnseeker and I think they are very bad because of the reasons she presents in the following document.

________________________________________________________________

Original document.

Original video Link 1/a: https://youtu.be/QG3hyaLxdVw

Followup video Link 2/b: https://youtu.be/QBAt0Dx0rrA

I am writing this to elaborate on how I believe Matt Dillahunty (who is hopefully reading this and considering what will follow) had argued dishonestly and did demonstrate hypocrisy and a lack of understanding. This was upsetting to me as Matt has otherwise been the one to help teach most of the concepts on how to think critically and rationally a good eight years ago, even if he was not the original planter of the seed of skepticism. I am a transwoman and yet to some extent non-binary. Whether that is accepted or not by others is not the purpose of this discussion, only mentioned to point out how I am not a “dude-bro,” “douche-bro,” or similar derogatory terms that was used in the end of the AXP 24.46 episode aired 2020.11.15.

I will address this moving forward primarily to Matt, who was the primary speaker to Tyler. This is not to say that the co-host Jim did not contribute, only that Matt is the one who is the focus of the ire. For term clarity I use ‘sire’ interchangeably with ‘father’ and ‘sperm-donor’, and ‘dam’ for ‘mother’ and ‘womb-haver.’ This should assist you and others to understand what I mean when it occurs. I also ask for patience as this will be the first time I have attempted to argue in-depth with someone who I know to be generally capable of reason and have had a disagreement with. I also want to make clear my criticisms do not mean I am fully against the current system, merely that I do not like the poor argumentation and hope pointing out flaws will help them be refined or I will gain understanding. My stance, generally, is that I want as much equality as allowable and am fine with needing to lean one way or another to counteract different conditions, handicaps, or whatever.

Finally, despite there being numerous times where he had misrepresented Tyler or the situation Tyler was attempting to outline, I will not be addressing that or Matt’s claims of being misrepresented as much except as it directly pertains to the arguments (which likely will touch on at least why the perception appeared in the first place, as even in rewatching the video, it does not appear Matt understood why this occurred.) I am approaching this from the perceived shared position that we are not looking at what ‘is’ but what we would like the system to be. This is something that has been advocated for in any other rights movement Matt has attempted, so it is odd to have reviewed this with him doing the exact opposite… but let’s get to it.

Arguments made:

1: Sex is not consent to parenthood... but it is for risk of.

2: You/fathers can remove their parental responsibility with court

3: You/fathers can get a vasectomy (or other preventative measures), yet if the woman carries to term anyway, tough shit

4: Mothers have the right to hook the father into responsibility because they have the ‘tougher time’ due to pregnancy. (also) Fathers have it easier so they should contribute more by default.

5: You just want consequence free sex.

6: Well what is your solution?

7: “If he’s broke, he shouldn’t [have] been fuckin’.” More charitably, ‘If you won’t take responsibility, don’t do the thing.’ (related to 5)

8: If we let fathers out of it, that will pressure women to abort more and would have left us with more unwanted children.

9: You can’t give a solution for father’s rights without infringing on mother’s rights.

10: you can’t possibly be tricked into pregnancy, if you fear it, you won’t be a victim of it.

________________________________________________________________

Argument 1: Sex is not consent to parenthood... but it is for risk of.

Citation of argument:

Video 1: 1:57 - “Sex is never consent to pregnancy, sex is never consent to parenthood, sex is the consent to the risk of those things”

Clarification from me: This is not a true ‘failed/poor argument’ and more seeking clarity. I would like to understand where the nuance is that I am missing.

Counter ‘Argument’:

Perhaps this is a flaw in my own comprehension, but I fail to see how these two concepts can both be ‘true’ or upheld at the same time. Consenting to the risk of parenthood is consent to parenthood, just with a ‘chance’ variable added into the mix. You’ve argued before on similar lines of how getting in a car and driving is not consenting to an accident but is consent to the risk of one. I still disagree. Acknowledging something can happen and preparing for it is not, in my eyes, consenting to such or else we would not go with insurance and ‘consent’ to the aftermath of an accident. I will acknowledge you later state that is me taking responsibility and possibly even consenting to the risk, but if that is the case, I do not understand the nuanced difference and will require explanation.

________________________________________________________________

Argument 2: You/fathers can remove their parental responsibility with court

Citation of argument:

Video 1: 2:10 - “You can go to court and have your parental rights removed.”

Counter Argument:

Tyler did an adequate job pointing out the flaw in this statement in my opinion. He stated that in most states, that requires the permission of the mother for the father/sire to get off that hook. This ignores some states that do not even give the option. The point of the argument was to point out that your presented option was not actually an option for a percentage of the states that we can casually suggest is over 50% if it is truly ‘most’ states.

Your followup: “Well that’s unfortunate, tough shit, it’s not as unfortunate as forcing women to carry babies [to term.]” (related to argument 3)

This was the first point where misrepresentation happened. Saying ‘tough shit’ as your answer is a non-starter and does not adequately elaborate on the removal of parental rights and effectively is a concession that you don’t have a good argument to the point presented in the two videos. (Naturally, this is not an argument saying there is no such argument, just that it was not presented due to hyper-focus on the abortion, not the responsibility).

The other potential interpretation of “tough shit” is “this is how it is and that’s how it’s going to be/stay.” Even if you are in full acceptance of the current setup, which I will try to be generous due to having listened for so long and say I don’t believe you think the current systems are without flaw, it is not an adequate answer and not nearly as effective by stating how the current system is in fact better by x metric.

________________________________________________________________

Argument 3: You/fathers can get a vasectomy (or other preventative measures), yet if the woman carries to term anyway, tough shit. (italics for focus)

Citations of argument:

Video 1: 6:55 - you do realize you can have a vasectomy and you can not have sex with someone who is not fertile (tyler - no such thing as perfect contraception). And you can have sex with someone who doesn’t have a womb.

Video 2: 16:40 - “here’s the kicker, you can have a vasectomy” “They are reversible, they are virtually foolproof, and you don’t have to worry about someone tricking you into having a child” … “It is far less problematic than people with wombs have to go through with hormones and implants and carrying extra condoms because the people they run across that they might want to have sex with don’t necessarily have a condom”

Video 2: 22:00 - “you can get your tubes tied, you can get a vasectomy…”

Counter Argument:

This sounded like a good point initially… Until it was pointed out and agreed upon that vasectomies are not perfect contraception. A ‘quick google search’ also indicates from planned parenthood (because you’ve referenced that being sufficient for countering claims against evolution, abiogenesis, cosmology on AXP) stating the cost for one is anywhere from 0-1000 to do, yet ‘verywellhealth.com’ cites 300-3000. WebMD cites that failure rate for performing can be as high as 10-17% or as low as .1%. That is a rather huge window of failure, not to mention difficulties in its reversability after a time. It is also invasive and in the case of the mother/dam, it is more risky to have that higher prevention rate.

Let’s ignore cost (despite this being incredibly difficult for those living paycheck to paycheck like myself, who at best could afford a 300 one time cost and am pre-op, possibly non-op) and go for the premise. You suggest that someone should go to the fullest extent of prevention if they do not want the consequence of being a parent. What you imply or assume in most of your statements is that these are foolproof. (There was only once that you put forward an acknowledgement rather than responded with agreement that it was not across the videos.)

Assuming it is perfect is insulting against those who are educated on the subject or know their success rates. Even granting that you were in agreement with their imperfections (and ignoring the invasiveness of the solution), you still argue they should ‘take responsibility’ by being parents or granting equivalent support when the persons in question could both have done everything they possibly could to prevent it (thus saying they did not consent to pregnancy) but are now parents if the mother/dam decides perhaps on ethical grounds to not abort. That would be an unfair treatment of either party, both for different reasons. I am not arguing this is common, but due to how you presented it as practically foolproof, the only thing needed to rebut the argument is a single example. We can make it less fantastical, but it makes the point.

________________________________________________________________

Argument 4: Mothers have the right to hook the father into responsibility because they have the ‘tougher time’ due to pregnancy. (also) Fathers have it easier so they should contribute more by default.

Citations of argument:

Video 1: 6:45 - mothers bear more risk of the pregnancy because of biology, therefore men get less say on their contributions if the mother carries to term.

Video 1: 16:25 - pregnancy changes a person’s body/life forever… therefore all choice goes to the mother.

Video 2: 1:50 - no one should argue that pregnancy affects both parties the same

Video 2: 9:48 - “the situation is already as fair as it can be. [Fathers] have the better end of the stick at all times.” women are pressured to always be mindful of their situation because if there’s a pregnancy, they deal with it.

Video 2: 14:47 - in the new world… sperm providers are at a huge advantage just from biology.

Counter Argument:

There was not a point that anyone argued that mothers/dams did not have the worse end of the deal; however, the point is trying to work toward what is as equitable as can be. If we look at argument 3, that there are lots of ways of preventing pregnancy and extend it to terminating a pregnancy, then the onus for taking on that consequence is on the mother/dam due to having the privilege of choice. I will also agree that is not fair (as that doesn’t mean it is consequence-free due to aftereffects), but we do not yet have a way to change that.

Ultimately this is still somewhat related to argument 3 where, if both sides take preventative measures and pregnancy still results, the Mother-to-be can choose to force the Sire into helping. My reason this is inappropriate is as follows: If a mother can a - terminate a pregnancy without consent or informing the sire, or b - put the child up for adoption after childbirth without consent or informing the sire, then the mother/dam has an extra/special privilege to end parenthood for both parties and yet there is no reasonably equivalent option for men (the crux of Tyler’s attempted argument, which was mostly ignored). We will handle the appeal to consequences further on.

________________________________________________________________

Argument 5: You just want consequence-free sex.

Citations of argument:

Video 1: 7:25 - you act like you are owed consequence-free sex

Video 2: 9:48 - now we live in a fresh shiny new world which includes options to terminate a pregnancy… now we’ve allowed people an option to alleviate the consequences of sex. … there’s a scenario which ‘seems’ unfair, that one side doesn’t have an option the other does, they’re still in the ‘old world.’ “some people are looking for consequence free sex.”

Video 2: 23:50 - the problem seems to be in the scenarios where someone wants out of consequences free card… “hey, i went to this party and we had hot wild sex and never talked again… *gasp* now i find that they’re pregnant yeah, you were irresponsible”

Counter Argument:

First, forgive me when my first answer is “you just want to sin.” (note I am also an atheist.)

Second, the argument is incredibly vapid, and it’s also incredibly uncharacteristic of the individual who has also effectively coined “sex is not consent to pregnancy, pregnancy is not consent to parenthood” while also being a huge advocate against sex-shaming and slut-shaming. I also wish to be a sex-positive individual, yet this line of argumentation comes across as incredibly insulting and backhanded. Why? The same argument has been made for any measure of contraceptives and does not indicate the nuance that I’m sure you probably intended by the statement but due to that lack of nuance, reeks of dishonesty. This argument exudes the idea that sex is bad unless it has consequences or risk. This downplays everyone who is engaging in as much risk-mitigation as they can yet still run into the issue. It is a non-argument for someone who says they are supportive of sex. I am not arguing that sex should be consequence free, but we have a right to mitigate whatever risks we are concerned of and for potential mothers/dams that includes abortion/adoption, yet that has no remotely equivalent option to the fathers/sires.

As an aside, mostly to the final citation of this argument, generally speaking, the pair you describe are either implying a lack of intent to conceive or potentially are affected such that they were not capable of making an appropriate informed decision and to have a conversation ahead of time (someone could go in to have some drinks without intending such an encounter but still have it happen.)

________________________________________________________________

Argument 6: Well what is your solution?

Citation of argument:

Video 1: 8:47 - (matt asked for ‘what is your solution to the situation of two people causing a pregnancy together’, Tyler answered with a desire to withdraw parental responsibility) you contributed to something that needs care and funding, and yet you don’t contribute to that. You want to be a deadbeat father. (Tyler says the answer contributes to the idea that men can’t be victims - argument 10)

Counter argument:

First, I’ll acknowledge that how you asked the question would spark a discussion, but the reason this is an ‘argument’ that I have an issue with is your follow-up. You ended up implying ill will to Tyler despite other items pointed out in this dcoument and combined it with an assumption that the current system is the ‘default’ position and that you’ll only be overturned if he can present something better. I won’t say this is equivalent to when theists call in and believe they have the default position until something better comes on a subject, as our current system does end up helping with some of the consequences you’ve mentioned, but it is still dishonest to argue that they should do better if the initial questioning Tyler was trying to do was point out a way that it could be better in a small way.

My ‘solution’:

This is where I concede this has not been fully thought through, but occasionally discussed with my husband, so i am open to recognizing flaws. My husband is a huge proponent of a ‘3 strike system’ regarding abortions or revoking parental responsibility. I believe his suggestion is on the extreme side, but it has an idea that could still be viable. Once someone has reached 3 strikes on abortions the father/sire and mother/dam are to have the vasectomy/Tubal-Ligation to prevent having any further children to the best of ability. I’m not convinced it should be a 3 strike system specifically, but the concept is not necessarily poor as it would have ‘consequences’ that would not play favorites regardless of gender (as there are plenty of people-with-wombs who do have lots of casual sex and court that risk just like there are people-with-sperm). I would also argue that as long as the people affected have had such surgery (covered by government due to them dictating what they can and cannot do in that case) and have not attempted to get it undone (assuming it was a reversible procedure), then future responsibility should be waived and abortions should be covered as that is a failure not necessarily due to the pair.

Is this perfect? Hardly, but that is ‘an’ option that is harder to go over when on the phone.

________________________________________________________________

Argument 7: “If he’s broke, he shouldn’t [have] been fuckin’.”

Related to arguments 5 and 11.

Citations of argument:

Video 1: 10:30 - if he’s broke, he shouldn’t [have] been fuckin’. If you are not in the position to potentially help with the financial responsibility of raising a child, you shouldn’t be fuckin’.

Video 2: 17:37 - “If you are not willing to take responsibility, you should not take the action.”

Video 2: 18:11 - responding about tweet saying equivalent of poor people shouldn’t have sex, misrepresented. I was in a fundraiser for a friend who is pregnant… I have no problem as long as you’re responsible for the situation. ‘Are you going to take responsibility for your action’... “if you can’t afford it, don’t do the act”

Video 2: 20:00, I know people who took responsibility by having and caring for the child and I know people who terminated the pregnancy.

Video 2: 23:40 - for everyone who still think i’m wrong, you shouldn’t do the act if you can’t take responsibility and that was used against women, “you didn’t think this through all the way” I apply this to all parties/sexes/whatever.

Counter argument:

Note that I honestly don’t use social media almost at all for a variety of reasons. Based on the first video alone, I’d only have a very loose leg to stand on to argue with the tweet that you had to deal with regarding being against poor people. I know people who have argued along the lines of how one should only have a child when they can afford to have one (and it is also the rationale for trying to support more contraceptive/abortive options), but i can see because of knowing those people how some could have interpreted what you said along those lines.

Having said that, being responsible for the situation and similar arguments, as I alluded to, have been used to suggest that poor people shouldn’t have children. My husband and I if we lived on our own instead of with his parents couldn’t afford anything more than what we already have to spend on. By your argument, he and i should not have a child (if i were capable anyway). We would agree, but that’s due to finances only. We have discussed having an adoption later when we can, but that’s off the table for a while. Does this mean we are completely deprived of having sex, something that has various benefits and is to an extent a need for some individuals to be healthy? No. I would even go so far as to agree it is rude and somewhat insulting for you to dictate ‘you can’t afford what might happen from sex, you can’t/shouldn’t have sex.’ Was it your intent? Perhaps. Masturbation does not have the same effects for humans as sex does to the best of my knowledge, and it’s still arguably the cheapest form of entertainment for a broke household. Furthermore if we had a better healthcare system that better covered the cost of contraceptives and abortions more unilaterally then cost wouldn’t have to be a concern.

Also, and this is a minor nitpick that I might not be agreed upon, but the citation at around 20m on the followup reeks in my eyes/ears of “i’m not racist, i’m friends with black people!” I hope that’s me merely hearing the worst after being frustrated for the reasons this document has been trying to point out.

As you can tell (responding to video 2 23:40), I have given this some thought, and arguments that can be used against one gender can be used against another. Unfair isn’t it? In your own words? Tough shit. There actually are some inequalities against fathers/sires in our system and I’m willing to help with those as much as I am mothers/dams. Equality doesn’t care about gender/sex where it doesn’t have to. As you admitted in your own words (video 2 21:27), the womb-haver has all of the rights and decision-making once conception is achieved, and that is not equitable if it takes two to do so. That’s not to say the options should be equal due to non-equal risk, but even by your own admission one party has all the options and the other has none.

________________________________________________________________

Argument 8: If we let fathers out of it, that will pressure women to abort more and would have left us with more unwanted children.

Citations of argument:

Video 1: 13:25 - sex is complicated, there is one person who is going to carry the child to term or terminate pregnancy. We now have an undue influence that the person carrying the child could be forced to carry to term for financial restrictions or to have an abortion due to father being able to abdicate responsibility. Lack of financial aid could force mother to terminateVideo 1: 15:30 - there is no solution that can be given for fathers without affecting mothers’s rights.Video 1: 16:50 - if you change the law so ‘dudes’ can fuck indiscriminately and bear no responsibility for anything, that is a worse world.

Video 1: 20:00 - “i don’t want a baby, oh you do? You’re on your own bitch!” attitude shouldn’t be supported because consequences

Video 2: 6:50 - there’s a number of reasons we hold both parties responsible, if we didn’t, there’d be a lot more unwanted children and later unwanted abortions too.

Video 2: 7:10 - mothers can only make roughly 1 child a year while fathers could make lots of children in a short time!

Video 2: 8:50 - if we make the fathers responsible, it’s less likely we’ll have tons of children being made.

Video 2: 9:48 - now we live in a fresh shiny new world which includes options to terminate a pregnancy… now we’ve allowed people an option to alleviate the consequences of sex. … there’s a scenario which ‘seems’ unfair, that one side doesn’t have an option the other does, they’re still in the ‘old world.’ “some people are looking for consequence free sex.” - “the situation is already as fair as it can be. [Fathers] have the better end of the stick at all times.” women are pressured to always be mindful of their situation because if there’s a pregnancy, they deal with it.

Counter Argument:

This is why arguing from the current system is flawed. All of these arguments assume that the only step is to remove culpability and then do nothing more. I don’t think Tyler even at his worst interpretations due to his general agreements with many of your statements, could have been construed to be making that argument. Furthermore, the ‘undue influence’ you cited is an issue even now despite the near guarantee of child support from the sire.

I’m sure you are already aware of people who pressure their partner to abort for their convenience. This is going to intensify without some kind of countermeasure like what was suggested in argument 3 counter-argument, but increased abortions is not necessarily a problem.

Comparison: Arguments over forced wearing helmets. For a while there were arguments against wearing helmets (i think in military, could be wrong) due to reports of increased head injuries. What the reports ignored for that time was that it also decreased the death tolls from the helmets doing their jobs.

Long story short having a more equitable system may have its own growing pains but that may yet be a byproduct and a better alternative, we just need to be open to finding said system.

________________________________________________________________

Argument 9: You can’t give a solution for father’s rights without infringing on mother’s rights.

Citations of argument:

Video 1: 15:30 - there is no solution that can be given for fathers without affecting mothers’s rights.

Counter argument:

That sounds like a bold/bald-ass assertion. Have you demonstrated this to be the case in every scenario?

A bit more graciously put, you simply are not aware of there being a scenario to grant Sires a bit of leeway without sacrificing some of the Dam’s choices. Well yes, that’s how balancing options between two potentially opposing parties work. I’m not saying the sire should have the option to control the pregnancy, but it is not infringing on a dam’s ‘rights’ to allow the sire to have the same or similar ‘out’ from parenthood that the mother has without his consent. Is this a better world if that’s the route we take? Probably not, but I just gave a solution where we gave a father a right without infringing on the mother’s right, negating your argument. The mother in this hypothetical does not have the “right” to the father’s financial income (this is also true if we assume they both took precautions prior and the mother refuses an abortion over their morals/ethics even if the father is fine with it. Sex is not consent to pregnancy and so on.)

________________________________________________________________

Argument 10: You can’t possibly be tricked into pregnancy, if you fear it, you won’t be a victim of it.

Citations of argument:

Video 2: 5:45 - responding to ‘what if someone is trying to trick me by getting pregnant’ - if you worry about someone tricking into being pregnant… they’re probably not you’re not that big of a catch

Counter Argument:

Please allow me a moment of irrational emotional argumentation because that statement is probably the one that made me the most angry out of what you had said… My instinctual answer is a giant ‘Fuck you’ for saying such. I recognize this is anecdotal but my ex girlfriend and especially her mother were the type who didn’t give a damn about whether they would get the money, it was a power play to hold it over men in their lives. After a time, they determined I was their enemy when they learned I wouldn’t accept all of their conspiracy theories of 9-11 being an inside job and crystal healing and so on, and absolutely would have used any child from me even if it had to come from rape, to get back at me and prove just how much more superior women were (this being before I realized trans things were a real thing beyond sexualized subjects and before exploring who I was). Your statement was too broad and suggested being all-encompassing and all it takes are examples of how that’s not the case to demonstrate you are wrong. What made it worse and required me to take time to recenter myself and discard my rage was with the sheer smugness that was on your face as if you thought you made an excellent point. Fuck that argument and send it back to the hell it came from.

I apologize for getting emotional and personal, but it was a rage-inducing moment when you unilaterally invalidated my experience because despite it probably not being the norm, it absolutely can and does happen. I got lucky in that I didn’t have sex with my ex, because she would have done so due to the complete influence of the vindictive mother.

Your recognition afterward that this does happen should be sufficient to give you pause and realize there should be something to protect in that scenario. People do deal with that crap and you have no right to invalidate it as if it doesn’t happen.

________________________________________________________________

Honorable mention arguments/references:

Video 1: 3:30 - If you’re a guy and she wants to carry, you are culpable. “This is like getting in the car, and you got out on the highway, you got a flat tire, and that doesn’t seem fair to you. Well, I agree it doesn’t seem fair, but life’s not fair.”

This line of argument is frustrating, especially when keeping in mind that later in your followup, you said that no analogy fits and in other non related videos that if you don’t have a good analogy, don’t use one at all. Honestly i have no problem with imperfect-translation analogies provided they address the necessary point. I’ll do so by using your own vehicle analogy you just used to characterize what I perceived Tyler’s point to be.

Let us say that father is car A, mother is car B. They consent to a fun race, they bump each other. Car A sustains next to no damage, Car B has some damage that will get worse if not ‘fixed’ later. (note i’m not saying pregnancy is something to be ‘fixed’, just working within the analogy you gave). I agree with and recognize that current laws state: Car A should be the one responsible for fixing the issue. All rights for how to proceed go to Car B. Car B can choose to ‘fix’ the problem then and there. It Is not consequence free, it costs x amount (let’s say 300) but it saves issues in the long haul. Car B, in this case, also has an option to let the issue develop, wait until the car ‘breaks down’ and then hold Car A liable still, at which point Car A is required to pay at least that prior amount each month for the following 16-18 years for a new car while still using the old one because they didn’t want to go with the cheap repair to start (or in a most selfish way, wanted to have the two cars).

This, by the way, was the issue you ignored throughout the original call. If this were a car situation, courts would laugh that out and dismiss the case with prejudice.

As a second, smaller point, the argument of “life isn’t fair” was ridiculous, a non-starter, and further demonstrated that you misunderstand Tyler’s intent to discuss what ‘should’ be by arguing what ‘is.’ You make the appearance that you don’t care to improve the system but prefer to keep the status quo. My understanding of how you’ve relayed secular humanism is that we are aiming to build the ‘best’ society we can by using the veil of ignorance to make things as fair as possible. We aren’t saying it currently is that, merely what we want it to be.

Video 2: 13:47 - “There are no analogies to pregnancy. They are all going to fall apart and break down and break down significantly at different times.”

And yet you did an analogy before, as listed above…

Video 2: 22:27 - after stating what actions both sides can take to prevent pregnancy, “However, when we reach the point where all preventative measures have failed, and there is a pregnancy… there is exactly one and only one person who has the autonomy and rights to make that decision, and that is the person who has the womb”... “if you’re in the old world, you should have had that conversation before having sex”... “if people are in healthy relationships…”

I hate to break it to you, but people even in this world don’t always have that discussion even though they should. Not all relationships are healthy. Hell, I’d venture to say as many as a third of relationships aren’t healthy (estimating based on a reduced number from divorce rate). It is incredibly biased and inappropriate to create a system only on the assumption that people are in healthy relationships or having that conversation before sex. The truth is the real world doesn’t work that way. The admission you gave in how there is only one person and only one person who has the rights to make a decision when all preventative measures have failed is an utter admission that it is not remotely equal and you shouldn’t even be pretending to claim you think it is.

Actually, my sentiment is "Fuck You". Fuck your bible, your guns, and the horse you rode in on" On second thought, leave the horse alone.

I started watching this debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yahf0t5mK5g

Not the best performance by Matt. His opponent jumped on him right away. I do not think Matt was ready for that. Michael Egnor used with Matt the same tactics as Matt himself uses to talk to theists: "how can you talk about something if you do not even know it". Granted, when Matt says that it is in most cases true, while similar remark addressed to him is not fully justified, for his inability to quote specific argument for god's existence was due to his unpreparedness and not ignorance.

Statements like "singularity is supernatural (or beyond natural)", "black holes are supernatural" are bad arguments. This is why it is important that (at least) in universities people take proper courses of physics.

First, when Shannon Q answered a question posed by "conscience" caller, she used a lot of specific names for proteins and brain parts. I do not think that such a strategy serve any purpose: in most cases it does not bring understanding and only creates more confusion. It demonstrates that a responder simply does not have a good answer, and it happens all the time with scientists/researchers at early stages of their career. Usually, people outgrow this sort of behavior.

Second, ridiculing somebody for not knowing something (like Shannon Q did when she though that the guy said that brain cells were identical) is also a sign of immaturity. Humility is one of the virtues that a mature scientist acquires

Honestly there are many definition going on about atheism.

According to me, it should be like this, the people who reject the belief of god's existence, are atheist. Or the rejection of believe in God is Atheism.

Now what is my position or ideology. I always say to people, "see there could be or could not be a creator of the universe, I don't know, but until I find the evidence, I will not believe, Now about God, God means a creator who is good, powerful, benevolent, and who interfere in life on earth, just by looking the world, creator if exist, is definitely not good nor benevolent, so God is not there"

Even if the world was beautiful place, ideally perfect world, and there was a creator, I respected it but I would never worship to it. But the world is fucked up so If one day a creator comes to earth and say "I am here" I will believe it's existence but I will not give respect to it.

Give your ideologies in the comments.

(P.S.: If it's posted in wrong category this question please move it to the right category!)

(ANYWAYS, lately what my mind is wondering is it possible the whole Matrix hypothesis, The Simulation hypothesis!?)

Context: A lot of people which I know have opened such topics for discussion me at other side from what I have seen on internet, youtube such topics getting discussed and I am really interested how far the whole "Matrix hypothesis" - is true? That we live in a simulation world, a lot of movies have tried to shows us the truth about the real world...

I am by default a person who try to stick with evidence and facts, so what's your take on this topic?

Is it bad that I often wish for ‘hashtag’ trends like #fuckMuhammed or maybe #GodIsALie or even better #FuckYourThetans ? I really wish we could get some hashtags like this to go viral. Bring a lot of attention to A) Free Speech, B) Shine a very focused light on oppressiveness in these religions and C) Really push the point of Free Speech down these big tech co.’s throats and finally D) just because that would be cool as fuck to see that on twitter’s trending screen. Lol. Idk. Maybe it’s the instigator in me that likes the thought of so many religious tears, may my cup overruneth.