Once we decide what we care about, the facts can be very helpful in helping us reason about

how to achieve the goals that we care about, but the facts can't tell us which goals to care

about in the first place.

Which means that Ben Shapiro and Iron Rander as much operating on feelings as anybody else.

Of course, because if they didn't have values, you know, there weren't preferences that they had about moral and political outcomes,

then they would just be stating in facts in a neutral way and they would never actually get around to having opinions about capitalism versus socialism,

or whether altruism was good or bad, or whether abortion was right or wrong,

or any of these other things that the Rans and the Shapiro's of the world are constantly

talking about. Because any time you have any kind of argument where the conclusion follows

for the premises, and the conclusion is a

political or moral conclusion, then there has to be a moral political premise in there somewhere

or it just wouldn't follow.

It's funny, right?

Because they do the little bait and switch where when we talk about something like compassion

as one of our core values, that gets turned into a feeling. That gets

characterized as a feeling, right? And so therefore, any argument that proceeds with value as

kind of the underlying moral premise is an argument based on feeling versus if, you know,

they come through and they say, well, capitalism, individual, individual liberty. It's like,

like, that's somehow a fact. That's not a feeling. So I feel like they're like one of the

moves is to really

conflate like quote unquote feelings or quote unquote emotion with what are actually just just

like almost axiomatic moral premises, right? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it's fine to say

...