Inmendham responded to my latest video. I urge everyone to watch his response here. I will no longer be leaving comments on Inmendham's videos (as some of my comments will continue getting spam-marked) which means I'll be refuting his molesting of context and timelines here. This will be a time-stamped, point-by-point contextualization of the arguments and replies. My initial hope was to simply post this as an "update" on the underbar of my last video, but YT won't accept it. I'm guessing it's too long for an underbar.
Before I proceed with the time-stamps, I'll address a reoccurring complaint from Inmendham. He kept pointing out that my thought experiments weren't at all relevant because I initiated every bit of this by showing up on a video of his where he had set the tone. He accused me of defiling this tone and asserted that he doesn't give a shit about any hypothetical scenario in my blog. He repeatedly stated that he wouldn't have bothered with anything on my blog had I not commented on his video. How then, are we to explain this video he made months ago? This is a response to a blog I wrote, riddled with those very conjectural events which he's now purportedly disinterested in. This response I received from him was entirely unsolicited, so he is actually the one who started this by replying to my "AntiNatalism And Dissection" blog back in December. I commented on that video response and told him that I would be following up with him "hopefully soon". Well, that "soon" turned out to be months as I had a hectic schedule up until mid March (and still do in some respects). Rather than following up on a three month old video of his, I left two comments on his brand new Objective Morality video (where he specifically argued for the very net-equation I argued against in the blog he replied to). I didn't think that me commenting there would matter to him at all, because we have evidence of him having displayed interest in my previous offerings, just a couple of months prior. I wouldn't even be mentioning any of this now if it hadn't been for him making a colossal fuss over my commenting on his video out of nowhere. I don't do YouTube consistently, so of course I comment "out of nowhere". Was I supposed to send a week-long notice ahead of time?
01:00 Inmendham references my channel icon and uses it to point out how ironic it is to him that this entire "Game" conversation is obnoxious to me. What's obnoxious to me is Inmendham's dwelling on values-as-facts, along with his churlish insistence that any AntiNatalist with a pluralistic outlook on ethics has a superficial view of AntiNatalism, and is an insult to philosophy to boot. He then says that I don't view value to be at all real, which aims to suggest that I don't view suffering to be real. Consult the underbar of my 2nd to last video for an explanation of why this is an incongruous connection to draw.
05:50 No, he cannot maintain that he set the barrier confines for what's on the discourse table, because he already took my argumentation bait by addressing my hypothetical scenarios for three days straight, before suddenly deciding that it's not his conversation and that it's not worth paying attention to. I wasn't the one who did the rearranging, he was.
08:30 He complains about me possibly quote mining him. In my video, I started playing what he was saying at the "That's what it all comes down to" mark in his video because it led to me missing absolutely nothing of essence and was the perfect opener from which he went on to misrepresent my position by bringing up small-pox. I never engage in contextomy, and he can play everything he said prior to that part if he wishes to corroborate that as being true. I pressed him on the small-pox because he all too often ventures off into the putting-words-in-opponent's-mouth territory and it needs to stop. Me pointing it out, may dissuade him in the future.
09:40 Albert Einstein jaywalking analogy fail as jaywalking immediately necessitates a societal context. Einstein also wouldn't do what Inmendham thinks he would in terms of self-sacrifice, as anyone who is at all familiar with even his most well-known quotes already knows.
10:20 Inmendham claims that I said we can never come up with an answer to net equation questions. The fatidical scenarios posed by me guaranteed crystal-clear outcomes, and I went on to provide reasons for their objectionable means/ends despite the net gain.
13:40 Nice to see he's still evading my "1,000,001 units > 1,000,000 units" 1-Unit-Of-Net-Gain scenario for which there is no multiplier effect, by rearranging it to fit his "If I go to hell, I can save 1 million people from hell" scenario, which is oriented around a valuing of individual-per-individual sorted metrics, rather than plain units. This is an inconsistent route for him to take considering how often he's been pointing out that individuals aren't the goal-post. Then he lies about how I was the one who changed his version to my version. Anyone can look at the timelines of our exchanges. I brought my version up first. He changed it to his because he doesn't want to deal with the hideousness of the net-principle when it's applied to one unit of net gain.
15:10 He finally says "OK, I wasn't able to migrate myself to this one idiotic thought experiment where I'm thinking of one individual and its consequences on itself". I thank him for admitting this, but he did migrate to it days ago, and reluctantly made his answers clear. Then he wanted to focus on the societal framework only. I think it's clear why.
16:05 Now he truculently points out that his thought experiments had certainty built into them. Okay. So did mine. Does he still not realize that mine had certainty built into them as well? I couldn't have been more clear in all my comments and in the previous blogs. And he calls me the cheater here. Re-trace your steps Inmendham.
17:20 He again states he made "Million-to-one profitability" arguments. But as I keep pointing out, if he's arguing for the net principle (which he is) he needs to account for my "1 unit of net gain" scenarios as well. This is how principles work, regardless of how badly he wants to run away from them in their worst hour.
19:20 He's still coming up with his own scenarios. Now it's one for fifty. He so blatantly doesn't care to deal with the net-principle ongoingly, despite knowing full well that it's applicable to every last one of my event constructs.
21:00 If we're dealing with a one-million-to-one profit, in terms of individuals, where all 1 million and 1 individuals can be said to have done nothing to get thrown in hell, nor do any of them like it in hell whatsoever: Then I would insert the 1 outside individual into hell in order to release the 1 million individuals out of hell, and not fret the absence of capitulation on the part of the 1 individual. This is a no-brainier for me, not because I believe the 1 individual is Obligated to save the million due to an imagined corollary, but because I simply prefer to see 1 million individuals saved in light of us having already established that every last one of them is equally undeserving of hell, as none of them signed up for it. The ratio here is one I find admissible. The distinctions are ultimately arbitrary though, not fact-based. The problem for Inmendham, is that the net-principle is still suitable for my "1,000,001 > 1,000,000" de-individualized harm units scenario. Inmendham has made it clear that he doesn't view ethical discourse from the standpoint of individuals, but harm units, and should therefore either place a magnifying glass on scenarios like the one I constructed, or drop the net-principle.
Some more harping on the fact that I commented to him 7 days ago. The pretense of him caring about who started what, is even more transparent the moment we consider that he stated he's going to be watching me like a hawk from here on out, and initiate combat on a plethora of other issues I delve into, regardless of what those issues may be. Hilarious. Contrived disagreement, here we come.
22:35 He says I called it a "desert" Island. No, I called it a deserted (uninhabited) Island. Learn to read Gary. It's obviously not a desert because I stipulated that the adult lives on a vegan diet. The Island is not barren.
23:55 He says I changed the topic. No. Inmendham's core topic revolves around the actualization of the net-principle, as he outlined in his "Objective Morality" video that I initially commented on. The scenarios I apply to this principle are continuity friendly.
30:20 Now he's going on about how these are impossible to deal with, because we as observers lose sight of the margins at a certain point. This would be a fine point, had he not been talking about my subsidiary thought experiments wherein I evoked conditions that made it possible for us to know the ins and outs of such margins. So this is also a non-sequitur.
32:50 The subject on the Island being competent doesn't undo the fact that we can cultivate the guaranteed knowledge of the conspicuously absent domino-effects we've already been assured of, in order to confirm that a net gain comes to fruition in my scenarios just as we do with his.
He contends that I'm now bound to "The principle of the Autonomy crap" regardless of the particular individual's tributary arrangement versus any other kind. The problem with this, is that I'm not the one binding myself to all-encompassing moral principles here. This is what I've been trying to explain to Inmendham all along, by pointing out the irresolvability of various moral entanglements. Not due to psychology, but discrete thoughtfulness. This doesn't mean that one must remain equidistant from all conceivable ought-statements. If I see it fitting to resist a given status quo, while others wish it eternized, one side will end up losing out. I'll do my best to make sure that it's not my side. Analogizing ethical arguments made by those who reject absolutist moral codes, to arguments over ice cream flavors or music, misses the point entirely because with ethics the crux of the matter often comes down to legality. It's either/or, unlike with music or food, where you enjoying your favorite band or ice-cream flavor won't in any way prevent someone else from being able to enjoy their own favorites. But if one's preference for vanilla could only be actualized through the outlawing of strawberry and chocolate, it's easy to see how arguing over ice cream flavors wouldn't seem as trivial anymore.
35:15 Again, he only wants to deal with the simplistic million-to-one cases, and not the pesky minutiae. If that's the case, quit referring to ethics as mathematics. Unless you also think that we shouldn't deal with complex mathematical problems, due to their own accompanying sets of minutiae.
40:00 He says we prevent athletes from taking steroids because we don't want them harming themselves. No, we prevent them because they are competing with other athletes, and some of them want no part of steroids but would get pressured into taking them in order to keep up with the ones who are genuinely content with taking them.
55:15 I'm talking about three for the price of one for the individual buyer that Inmendham himself analogized this to, and he says "No, not for the buyer, but for civilization". Stunning levels of cognitive dissonance at play here. To the bitter end of this, he has repeatedly failed to heed a most pertinent fact that I've tried to bring to the forefront; That deserted Islands are not Civilizations. Or did I miss a memo?
I urge Inmendham to revisit my two comments from seven days ago. He'll find that I brought up the Island scenario right off the bat, in one of those two comments. Inmendham should know this better than anyone else, because he argued that very comment of mine in a 25 minute response video. Contrary to the false impression Inmendham's regular viewers have now been left with, the Island scenario is not some curveball that I just threw in willy-nilly once the debate was well under way. The Island scenario is the cornerstone of our dispute, because the scenario's purpose is to try and make Inmendham second-guess his own application of 'Negative Utilitarianism' by taking the Negative Utilitarian formula to its bitter end, which entails saving people from their own purported imprudence. Inmendham plainly admitted that if the subject stranded on the island stands to accomplish nothing in the way of harm reduction, a rational thinker shouldn't hesitate to painlessly/instantly put the subject out of his own misery. Once again I'll stress that readers are encouraged to judge for themselves by reviewing the back and fourths between myself and Inmendham. No one should just take my word for it.
Inmendham also continued butchering the word value, importuning that we accept it as not requiring a valuer. And why? Because to hell with its formal etymology, that's why. The moment we accept that 'valuing' something is synonymous with 'treasuring' something, the statement "Sentience creates value" reads as unintelligibly as the statement "Sentience creates treasure". I won't be belaboring this anymore, because proper use of the word value is there for all to read up on within the very wiki article Inmendham glanced at while responding to my original objection.
Keep up the sloppy paraphrasing Gary, you're good for it.