It worked with Sye Ten Bruggencate.😅

My Dad used to say “It ain’t braggin’ if you can really do it.” 😁

@@ramigilneas9274 the Q and A with sye was really eye opening to me. I saw in a question or two a man who had been convinced an entity was real, and was intellectually honest with himself (at least for a flash) about the implications of that entity’s described character. So when I listen to sye debate I see clearly someone who believes the entity he worships is an inescapable monster, and argues with everyone he can to convert them. Not for his own aggrandizement or satisfaction, but genuinely to save as many people from this lovecraftian dictator. He’s dishonest in many of his arguments, but if I’m right about his true position, then his actions are defensible. As Christopher Hitchens said “thankfully there isn’t any reason to believe such a deity exists”.

Isn’t that the truth!!! Imagine advocating this gross nonsense.

Tbh, I think he just wants to protect his beloved prophet and justify whatever he did. For him Islam and the prophet are perfect and everyone who disagrees is just spreading "liberal propaganda".

Not just him, there were all Mslims commentators agreeing with him and making justifications for chld rpe on the comment section of the debate posted on " moderndaydebate".

I listened it all the way trough, and I think IP did a pretty good job altough I feel like it could have been a lot better still. Missed some chances that would really have a big impact. Like all IP had to do to show that the analogy of "a 40 year old woman has equal risk" was to bring up that it is about consent. While he mentioned this at other points he didnt hammer it down when daniel kept repeating this which was pretty frustrating.

Yeah, consent from a child is often similar to consent from a very inebriated person. They simply are not aware enough to make a responsible decision.

Mslims in the comment section of that debate have no idea of what consent means. Some of them told me that when Aisha at 6 was *silent* when Muhammad took her as a bride, that meant there was consent on her part. Facepalm! I tried to explain to them that consent involves understanding the full implications and consequences of a decision and being able to make an informed and voluntary choice. Not being silent or even saying yes or no,, because a child does not have the cognitive functions of an adult to understand. I told them "A child who is only 6 years old does NOT have the cognitive ability, emotional ability, mental ability, life experience to fully understand the implications and consequences of marriage.So, it is not possible for them to give consent to a marriage. Children should be protected and allowed to grow and develop before being thrust into adult responsibilities such as marriage." Then they replied that the PARENTS gave consent! Another facepalm! I then told them parents do not have the right to make decisions that violate the individual rights of their child. Marriage is a serious decision that requires informed consent from both parties involved, broom and bride, NOT THEIR PARENTS. Children are not capable of giving informed consent due to their lack of maturity and life experience. Even if a child says "yes" to marriage, they may not fully understand the consequences of such a decision. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the right to marry and found a family, but it also states that marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses NOT THEIR PARENTS. This means that neither parental nor societal pressure should be a factor in deciding whether or not to marry. You know what they replied to that? Why then parents force children to get an education! I mean the stupidity of these people knows no bounds!

The word you are looking for is "informed" consent. Whereas children can not give it as they lack the faculties to truly be informed of their decisions and its consequences.

Correct, that's why consent needs to imply _informed_ consent, and why we distinguish consent and _assent_. And children can only _assent_, if that. I used to be confused when people said "children can't consent" because... they _can_ say yes. But it's _informed_ consent that they're actually referring to, and I'd argue that only informed consent is actual consent. Otherwise it's only assent, at most. And children at the prepubescent age absolutely do not possess the capacity to provide informed consent on whether or not to marry someone, especially since the only cultures that would ask that of a child are cultures that also don't allow for divorce and have extremely disproportional power dynamics between men and women (since it's always older men marrying young girls, and never the reverse). So once they're married, they're stuck. It's not like they can easily just up and leave by the time they come of age and understand the word better. But even if they _could_ leave, it would obviously still be wrong.

He's probably already on several lists but he's just careful enough not to say anything illegal to say.

Who's Daniel ?

That would be nice. Unfortunately Dan H has too many child sex advocates on his side to go down so quickly. He’s a vile individual corrupted by Islam and boosted by more of the same.

What career? Lol.

More like... Fine, I'll do it myself..."

But he's not a rapper

I already had some discussion around consent with muslims that support child marriage. The argument they gave me was that as long as the parents consent to the marriage, it's ok. Because that's what parents do : take decision for their child when they are too young. I'm pretty sure Daniel would use the same argument.

He clearly doesn't care about consent

Daniel doesn't care about consent.

​@@amosfwo4609 Islam doesn't care about consent. The entire structure is dictatorial.

​@@locococo7362 still a big yikes

Thank god Daniel doesn't have the broad vocabulary of JP. At least now it's clear what he thinks. JP gets away with a lot of fancy word salad because it takes too long to process what he says.

i watched it. and it was pretty painful😅

AronRa clearly defined religion. The problem was that he didn't hold people to that definition.

That was the first one you saw? heh..

Yeah, let's face it you are more likely to get decent arguments out of people that don't find the stupid justifications for religion convincing.

'maturity' and even 'adult' are arbitrary distinctions. We could have 'adult' be 19 instead of 18, in the USA, for instance. Obviously we are, as you rightly point out, concerned about the psychological maturity in the sense of being mentally prepared for sex, love, intimacy. This is the problem though; there is no specific age that someone is 'mature' in this way. People will reach this a different ages. So 'mature consent' is just not feasible as it's subject to this arbitrary nature; how one could determine said maturity level and whether it constitutes 'valid consent' would be difficult [to say the least], since it would vary as people grow psychologically at different rates. The only practical solution is to make informed decisions [ultimately arbitrary] on a specific age when we allow sexual consent, marriage, et cetera, based on our understanding of human psychology. What's the alternative? Investigate every individual to see if it was 'mature consent'? I think Matt said 'consent' without including 'mature' because he's banking on the understanding that consent entails an age that said society has deemed 'mature' since typically its implicit that people below the 'adult age' cannot legally give consent.

Just to flesh this out a bit with a concrete example: in England and Wales, "consent" must, at a minimum, include that the person has agreed by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. This, in turn, depends on numerous contextual considerations, including age, maturity and understanding; the history of the relationship; whether the person complained about is in a postition of power relative to the complainant; any threats or promises made contingent on the decision and so on. For some acts, there is a presumption that a person must have attained a minimum age to give a valid consent (eg in England and Wales, consent to sex under 16 is considered valid in only very restricted circumstances, and no-one under 13 can give a legal consent to sex, under any circumstances).

But Dillahunty believes that a 9yo CAN give valid "consent"- And to acts far more irreversably harmful than (horrific as it is) sex with an adult, or even marriage. Dillahunty endorses the "early transition" of children as young as 9 or 10, which is done based on exactly ZERO empirical evidence of any medical issue at all; It is SOLELY justified by the decision-making of the child- A decision with the INTENDED goal of chemically stunting a perfectly healthy child's normal, natural development, to have that child reach adulthood (ie. the age where their consent finally DOES become meaningfull and valid) ALREADY drug-dependent, and for that initially-healthy to end up drug-dependent FOR LIFE. (And that's only considering the INTENDED effects; There are also sky-high rates of UNINTENDED effects- partial or total loss of adult fertility. Partial or total loss of adult sexual function, and the ability to EVER orgasm. Plus a laundry-list of issues like spinal and joint problems, low bone density, obesity, etc). Logically, it's impossible for Matt to claim that a pre--teen child IS mature enough to make THAT decision... but is somehow also NOT mature enough to make the 100% reversable decision, that does NO physiological harm, to marry?!? (Note- This is absolutely NOT a defense of the insane idea that a 9yo child is old enough to marry; It's simply pointing out that MATT'S LOGIC says that a 9yo DOES have this maturity, and capacity for valid "consent"...)

To add to the critique of MDD, they do no real moderation. It’s almost comically bad, where the “moderator” is more or less just paying attention to chat. Also there is the endless, awkward and scripted plugs for other debates and the channel itself. They never seem to end and interrupt the flow of everything. I honestly keep MDD in the background sometimes so I have chalked up some views for sure, but as a platform it’s pretty bad.

Hmmm ... I'd think Cosmic Skeptic could take on a debate of this sort (but he might not want to). He'd most likely win though.

Oh wow, that's a really good suggestion

Good suggestion. Even tho he is no longer a Christian, my mind immediately goes to Hitchens when he said, “even the diest still has all of their work ahead of them.”

Really, he's not a Christian anymore? What's his reason ?

Didn't matt debate him once when he was still a christian?

Just that, they do not consider children autonomous human beings deserving of rights. Ever notice conservatives shouting about "parent's rights" but never the rights of children?

@Orange Stapler I figured him out years ago, Ive just never listened to him speak before. I read the first page of his book, he got so many basic, easily checkable with google and wikipedia, things wrong about evolution in the first few paragraphs that I knew he had nothing worthwhile to say. If you can't get basic stuff right, like how long ago humans and lobsters last common ancestor lived, then you either don't care about truth and accuracy or you are deliberately misleading people to help make whatever inane point you are driving at.

We don't let children make a lot of potentially harmful decisions for themselves regardless of whether they want to do something or not. It's our job as adults, parents, care givers etc, to keep them safe until their pre frontal cortices are mature enough to make good decision or they've reached an age that allows them to make their own choices regardless of the outcome.

@@pamigreenway We don't let children make potentially harmful decisions, even if they want to... *UNLESS that child makes the 100% unsupported (and totally incoherent, unless you believe in "souls") claim, in denial of 100% of the empirical evidence, that they are (in some mystical, pseudo-spiritual sense) "REALLY the opposite sex"... In which case, Matt "super-duper-rational big-boy" Dillahunty decides that we can just ignore every single scrap of VERIFIABLE, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, because the unsupported assertion, justified by nothing more than "...but it FEEELS true, to me" is obviously the REAL truth!!! And only evil, hateful bigots would EVER oppose irreversably chemically mutilating this perfectly healthy child, HOPEFULLY making the initially-healthy child drug-dependent for life, for the purpose of making them (superfically APPEAR to) conform to the exact same gender norms that Matt PRETENDS to oppose... Matt is EXACTLY as irrational, and as eager to disregard the empirical evidence, as the religious nuts he criticizes, because he shares beliefs with 100% identical justification to theirs. There is absolutely ZERO empirical evidence supporting the claim that "Jesus died for our sins". Yet believers still accept that claim as "the REAL Truth", justified SOLELY on the basis of "but... but it FEEELS true, to me..." Identically, there is absolutely ZERO empirical evidence supporting the claim that "trans-women ARE women". Yet believers (like Dillahunty) still accept that claim as "the REAL Truth", justified SOLELY on the basis of "but... but it FEEELS true, to me..." Matt literally believes that speaking the magical spell "I identify as [x]" (somehow?) instantly transforms you into [x]. Christians and Muslims have some dumb, goofy ideas... but not even THEY are as irrational as Dillahunty's bizarre, faith-based religious belief that "IDENTIFYING as" a thing, is somehow the same as actually BEING that thing... -He PRETENDS to support women... but then endorse an ideology which literally erases "women", as an evidence-based biological catagory, from existence. It puts fully-intact, convicted male raapists in a cell with (real-world, evidence-based) women. It has erased the rights of women and girls to privacy, to safety, to self-determination, to fair sports. He PRETENDS to support feminism, but denies that "women" as an evidence-based, sex-based catagory even EXIST,and priorities the "validation" of 0.2% of males, above the basic safety of 100% of women and girls... -he PRETENDS to support gays and lesbians... but then endorsed an ideology which accuses ALL gays and lesbian s of being "hateful transphobic bigots, simply for BEING same-sex attracted (rather than "same-GENDER atrracted", which has never been a thing... He PRETENDS to support gays and lesbians, yet just like Christianity, Islam, and ALL homophobic ideology, Matt's beliefs demand that lesbians be prepared to have sex with males, and that gay men have sex with females... He PRETENDS to support gays and lesbians... but he's happy to allow THOUSANDS of same-sex attracted children (who are VERY often gender non-conforming, and also confused about their identity) suffer needless childhood chemical mutililation, after being mis--ID'd as """"trans kids"""" (by doctors who presume to know the future...), resulting in loss of adult fertilty, loss of adult sexual function, inability to EVER orgasm, significant loss of bone density (all documented results of puberty-blockers) And the fact that he's actively supporting the 100% medically unjustified, irreversable chemical (and surgical, from age 12 up) mutilation of children, justified ONLY by a claim with exactly ZERO empirical evidence, which relies on THE EXACT SAME "but it FEEELS true to me" reasoning as every other religion on earth, makes Matt's religious beliefs FAR, FAR more (measurably, objectively, physiologically) harmful than any other mainstream religion... (And like the dumbest kind of Christians, when you criticize Matt's religious beliefs for their 100% absence of empirical evidence, he won't even TRY to produce any actual evidence to prove the critic wrong; Instead, he just asserts that he can psychically read your motivations, and that rejecting his evidence-free beliefs automatically MAKES YOU immoral- "a hateful, bigotted transphobe!!" in his terms. ie, the EXACT SAME strategy as Christians, who respond to critics with accusations of "YOU JUST HATE GOD AND WANT TO SIN!!!!" A decade ago, Matt was a rational (if self-righteous, smug, and arrogant) man. Now he's relying on the EXACT SAME logic and arguments, as the most basic, irrational theists, to defend his anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-lesbian, 100% evidence-free religious beliefs...

@@baconsarny-geddon8298 It’s amazing how obsessed you people are about how someone else identifies. You’re literally creeping in the comments with a verbose copy and paste diatribe waiting for a moment to bring up trans issues on irrelevant topics.

@@pamigreenway Parents in many states in the USA can consent to their child getting married, which means a parent seems to be able to consent to harming their own child if they wish. Sad, but true.

@@KBosch-xp2ut Yep, it's horribly true.

The use of 'puberty' is anachronistic. The sex (meaning actual intercourse) is permissible as soon as the child-wife can bear it (i.e. not be physical injured).

Fair point. Thanks

@@SansDeity Wow! I love you Matt. You're the reason I'm an atheist.

Alright mate? Just as a matter of interest, Is your username Goobbaaraa/Goovvaaraa in English? I've spent a lot of time in India and taught myself how to read and write in Hindi but that was a looong time ago so I'm just checking to see if I can still do it.

@@jonstrummer6930 gubbaara.

@गुब्बारा Ah ok. So it's the short 'oo' sound? I always get the 'u' or 'oo' mixed up. And the 'b' and 'v' as they look and sound similar. So my effort wasn't too bad!? Cheers mate.

@@jonstrummer6930 गु - gu गू - goo सु - su सू - soo व - vuh ब - buh Only difference is line inside the circle. Appreciate it mate. Not many people are interested in learning hindi. Good to know that.👍

@गुब्बारा Thanks mate. I was there for a while backpacking around India and Nepal for about 7 months the 1st time then a year later I managed 8 months. So I had plenty of time to do it. I did it mainly because a lot of the coaches I was catching only had their destinations written in Hindi. And I thought it was the right thing to do to learn the language of the country I was travelling in. It didn't go down too well in the south though! Like the folks in Tamil Nadu really didn't like to speak Hindi! Jai Hind, mera bhai!

in Islam wives consent doesn't matter. There is no such a thing as marital rape. Woman is property and does as the man wills.

Consent matters but not "as soon as they turn 18" that's not how it works

He would say for minors the parents consent. He mentioned this multiple times when pressed about early puberty in infants. But no parent would agree but from the religious side they would be moral to do so. And thank you for asking this question.

@@emilwandel Well in many USA states child marriage is legal and adults actually marry children in those so. I wouldn't say no parents consent to it. They do in modern day USA.

@@takoja507 don't be dense he wasn't talking about a specific country but how marriages ale are made between the parents of the groom and bride and obviously need their consent. This debate was not about legality of things but about morals. And believe it or not consent is also a moral consent not just a legal one.

Me neither and wheres his opening for daniel debate which he was gonna upload

The metastudy Tjump brought up had included the study AronRa had and also said that they were several hundreds agreeing with Tjump 2 against and 8 you couldn’t decide. The fact you can’t listen to a debate is a you issue :)

"Well that's just super" In my best reverend Lovejoy voice.

You contradict your own statement. 55% is considered THE MAJORITY ffs............

@@AlBundyOz I didn't say "majority". But he did say "negligible impact on human history"

Yeah, I also thought that was really weird statement. Maybe if you look it in a lens of “how does this affect western world” but that’s pretty small minded.

I think he meant that the Abrahamic religions have more influence and, especially, have done the most harm. Which is still iffy. From what I've heard, Hinduism does PLENTY of harm.

Pen and paper.

@@PhysiKarlz Is that on both iOS and Android?

@@dingdongism If you have one of those devices underneath the paper, yes.