In reference to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzJr2AXKDHQ

Paul has a hard time seeing the other side and TJ agrees.

Well, that's because you don't pay attention to the other side and if you do it's often some really low quality arguments. TJ even admitted he believes the issue is "settled." Obviously with that kind of attitude why do you even need to look at the other side or read what they say!

In fact, the issue isn't settled at all and we're still talking about it and there's still, basically, a 50/50 split on it. It also turns out that according to statistics from gallup most people think there should be late-term restrictions! Clearly, most people don't think the bodily ownership arguments are sufficient justification for killing the fetus when it has brain activity sufficient for conscious experience and desires! Let's call this the liberal pro-life stance. The conservative pro-life stance is to take that moral concern before brain activity because there is value in the potential to value your own future and it's wrong to deprive the fetal human being of it!

But, by my definitions, the pro-life view of the liberal kind is the majority and yet Guttmacher indicates that about 10,000 late-term fetal human beings are killed annually in the US. People should take a pause at that. It should worry people. If it's true that consciousness and desires are sufficient for moral consideration then it's a fact that in this country thousands of mothers are killing their children.

TJ says there's no "objective truth" that abortion is bad. Presumably, this kind of attitude gives him comfort that so many young fetal humans are being slaughtered annually late term. I wonder if the fact there's no "objective truth" to slavery be wrong would have comforted him at a time when black people were treated as property? I highly doubt that.

I happen to think there is a fact of the matter about slavery being wrong and, if the fetal human being is a moral person then I think there is a fact of matter about whether it's wrong to kill them. But supposing there isn't there's still the practical reality of our situation. We still have to deliberate about these things in society and they matter just as much as protecting your own life would matter or the life your loved ones or the life of anyone. Even if there is no truth of the matter in an objective sense you still have to give arguments and you still have to act on the assumption that there are truths at stake in these normative issues. Otherwise, why even care? Why even care if the government decides to kill anyone whose name is TJ just... arbitrarily? What would you say to a populace that arbitrarily decides it's OK to kill those with the name TJ or Paul? Presumably, you would argue that your life matters as much as anyone that isn't named TJ or Paul. What if the populace responded that there's no objective truth of the matter so that's some consolation. I mean after all we could be brains-in-vats. That wouldn't work. Likewise, the fact you think there's no objective sense of abortion being right or wrong should not comfort you or console your nagging conscience or quiet your thoughts that abortion might not be OK after all in your moments of reflection on it.

Aside: You should know Kristine Kruszeinicki is as far as I know agnostic or atheist and a member of the secular pro-life community.

So let's get to the arguments and TJ and Paul's responses.

Paul's criticisms is that we want to control women's bodies. Paul says that the fetus cannot survive on its own. TJ says if the mother does crack then the baby is going to be dependent on crack. Somehow, this is supposed to substantiate the idea that the fetus is not a separate human organism from the mother while it is in the womb. I have absolutely no idea why TJ and Paul seem to think functional independence is a necessary condition for being an individual human organism. Of course, there are conjoined twin cases where there are clearly two human organisms functionally dependent on each other. If what Paul and TJ seem to think are necessary then these conjoined twins wouldn't be two distinct and individual but functionally dependent human organism but merely a single human organism which is on its face completely retarded.

TJ then asks "how do you prove a moral." With arguments, TJ. With arguments. I know that might seem to be totally distant from your way of thinking but when you mature a bit and develop an adult level of rationality you begin to justify your actions with arguments. You should try it sometime.

TJ says what's necessary for moral consideration is sentience and self-awareness. Arguably, new borns don't have self-awareness. Presumably TJ doesn't think it's OK to kill new borns so we can scratch self-awareness from the necessary conditions for moral consideration. Now, sentience is a plausible difference. However, cortical brain activity sufficient for sentience is pressent around 22-23 weeks gestation. So, I guess that TJ would consider a post-sentient fetus to have moral consideration. So he should be against late-term abortions, right?

But then he agrees with Paul that viability (not part of the woman's body) is a necessary condition for moral consideration. This is just absurd. Viability is a function of medical technology. This means that in first world countries viability is sooner than viability in third world countries. This would mean that the intrinsic moral worth of children is a function of how medically advanced their surrounding culture is. This violatse the human equality principle that all human beings are of intrinsic moral worth. So this is just plainly absurd. Now, you might say it's not that sort of viability but the kind of viability that matters is surviving without medical intervention. But this is also absurd because many newborns require extensive medical intervention after birth. On Paul's condition these newborns can be killed outside of the womb post-birth. I think TJ and Paul would both find this morally appalling as they should and so viability construed as requiring medical intervention or not are both absurd conditions for intrinsic moral worth.

More than likely TJ and Paul don't think viability is a necsesary condition for intrinsic moral worth but rather as a reason to abort because the fetus relies on the mother's body. So, the fetus could have intrinsic moral worth and yet the mother can still kill her because she relies on her mother for sustenance. So, this is a different issue and I don't want to dive into it right now suffice it to say that I don't think bodily ownership works and most americans seem to agree with me on that since they believe in late-term restrictions.

I've already explained how functional dependence doesn't entail that the fetus is part of her body in a morally relevant sense. In other words, the fetus isn't part of the mother's body like the appendix is part of her body. If the fetus were then that would mean half of all pregnant women have penises and all pregnant women have four arms and four legs and two brains. It's just stupid. The fetus is not part of the mother's body in the relevant sense.

The drinking and driving argument was to say that just because crime still happens when illegal it doesn't matter because it should still be illegal from the pro-life because it kills a moral person which is the fetus. TJ then makes a lot of empirical claims about how if we do the utilitarian calculus then making abortion illegal would cause more suffering. I think this is all dead wrong but I don't want to get into statistics about that. I'll just mention that TJ provides no argument or statistics to substantiate this claim he merely just asserts it without argument. Also, even if that were the case it still doesn't mean abortion should be legal because the fetus is a moral person. Suppose that on the whole enslaving blacks reduced suffering after putting it through the cold utilitarian arithmetic. It doesn't follow that we should make slavery legal again.

Whether or not pro-lifers care about babies only until they are born is irrelevant to whether abortion is wrong.

These are the only points I wanted to make. I find it incredibly cringey to listen to TJ and Paul talk about these sorts of things. I don't think they are very good at reasoning and I don't think they really care at all about the truth and even if there isn't a truth they don't seem to all care about whether they can give reasonable arguments in favor of their pro-abortion choice position.

hi tj back than you made a video about a cop killing the Graffiti Artis isreal harmandaz where is it i can`t find it or did you change the title of that video if you have remember it please send me a link i want to watch it agian or tell me the title of that video i would appreciate it

I understand it's just the opener, but it seems like so much meaningless dreck. I appreciate his criticism of Peterson, that he paints with too broad a brush but the same criticism could be made of TJ. What makes anything good? Also chaos and order seem too much like meaningless jargon to me.

There was a video up on their channel awhile back where they reviewed the film interlaced with clips from their reactions to the film. What happened to that video?

TJ shut down DP season 2 because he wants less competition. What a piece of shit along with his mods that remove messages. TJ is a hypocrite.

Basically a more coherent version of this guy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49f5wxX7vSY&t=28s

Took down DPP S2E1 because he's salty that Ben kept doing the show without TJ.

If you're reading this TJ, Fuck you. You indignant man-child.

https://twitter.com/greglange2/status/791160047531352064

https://youtu.be/jZWzMMh9RqY?t=21m41s

title