Whatever Podcast - Andrew Wilson vs. NotSoErudite HEATED MARATHON DEBATE ｜ Whatever Debates 25

00:00:00.000 Welcome to a debate edition of the Whatever Podcast, coming to you live from Santa Barbara,

00:00:26.940 California.

00:00:27.920 I'm your host and moderator, Brian Atlas.

00:00:29.380 A few quick announcements before the show begins.

00:00:32.040 This podcast is viewer-supported, so please consider donating through Streamlabs.

00:00:36.660 That's streamlabs.com slash whatever.

00:00:38.240 TTS is going to be $199 and up.

00:00:41.240 There will be no instant TTS.

00:00:43.500 TTS will come in batches at various breaks throughout the debate.

00:00:47.780 You can see the description for all triggers and full details.

00:00:51.620 Without further ado, I'm joined today by Andrew Wilson, host of The Crucible.

00:00:57.200 He is a blood sports debater and political commentator.

00:01:00.960 Also joining us today is Kyla, or as she goes online, not so erudite.

00:01:06.880 She has an undergraduate in psychology and a graduate diploma in psychometrics.

00:01:11.960 She is a content creator, streamer, and is a political and social commentator.

00:01:17.360 You each have about a three-minute opening statement each, and then straight into open conversation.

00:01:22.880 I believe you're going first, Kyla.

00:01:24.280 Sure.

00:01:24.880 Do we have any prompts we want to read first?

00:01:26.340 Do you want me to just jump into it?

00:01:27.420 Oh, yeah, sure.

00:01:29.200 Well, I'll read the prompts then, so that we're going to cover four prompts, time permitting.

00:01:34.160 There's Christian nationalism is un-American.

00:01:37.140 That's prompt one.

00:01:38.000 Prompt two, Christians should attempt to maintain political power in U.S. 1.00

00:01:42.980 and rule through Christian ethics as it is the superior system.

00:01:46.980 Prompt three, secular states are destined to likely revert back to religiously informed governments

00:01:54.140 because atheists have no moral basis for which to govern.

00:01:58.000 Excuse me.

00:01:58.920 Prompt four, moderate liberal values are not compatible with Christianity. 0.70

00:02:04.560 Modern.

00:02:05.640 Oh, excuse me.

00:02:07.020 Modern liberal values.

00:02:08.480 My mistake.

00:02:09.400 Go ahead.

00:02:10.960 America is not a church, and that is not a weakness.

00:02:13.600 It is one of the greatest strengths of America.

00:02:16.340 The American experiment was built on a bold idea.

00:02:19.080 Faith must be freely chosen.

00:02:21.180 Conscience must be protected.

00:02:22.480 Political power must be limited.

00:02:24.140 Limited.

00:02:24.960 The founders, men of inquiry, men of science, men who built universities and ran experiments,

00:02:29.660 drafted a constitution that banned religious tests for office.

00:02:33.820 That was not hostility to Christianity.

00:02:35.600 That was confidence in its integrity.

00:02:37.780 Because when church and state merge, bias corrupts the state.

00:02:41.220 But more importantly to me, power corrupts the church.

00:02:45.640 Separation does not weaken the church.

00:02:47.340 It protects it.

00:02:48.660 America's ethos is simple.

00:02:50.700 We do what works.

00:02:51.860 And how do we know what works?

00:02:55.060 Science.

00:02:56.200 We test.

00:02:56.880 We measure.

00:02:57.380 We build.

00:02:57.960 We refine.

00:02:58.680 If it fails, we discard it.

00:02:59.960 If it succeeds, we scale it.

00:03:01.580 That instinct, that relentless pursuit of truth through evidence is not anti-Christian.

00:03:07.420 It is a reflection of intellectual humility.

00:03:10.960 America is industry.

00:03:12.840 America is laboratories and shipyards and production lines that outwork empires. 0.83

00:03:17.860 America is a Manhattan project. 0.71

00:03:19.700 Physicists racing equations against tyranny and winning.

00:03:22.780 America is a P-51 Mustang.

00:03:24.700 Not sacred tradition.

00:03:26.660 But engineering superiority screaming across the sky.

00:03:30.520 That spirit defeated fascism.

00:03:32.480 It destroyed communism.

00:03:33.760 It mapped the atom.

00:03:35.240 It put satellites in orbit.

00:03:36.540 It built the medical systems, infrastructure, and technology that shaped the modern world.

00:03:40.700 My America fears no truth.

00:03:42.960 It preserves through discovery.

00:03:44.400 It does not shrink from paleontology, geology, or evolutionary biology.

00:03:48.720 Truth is not an enemy of faith.

00:03:50.920 If God is sovereign, then no discovery threatens him.

00:03:53.740 Evolution and belief have coexisted for generations.

00:03:56.620 Scientific advancement need not displace theological conviction.

00:04:00.020 America did not fight a revolution to resurrect sacred hierarchy.

00:04:04.960 It did not cast off empire to create another throne draped in religious conformity.

00:04:09.600 It created a republic confident enough to protect the liberty of conscience for all people.

00:04:15.560 Religious principles need no safeguarding anyway. 1.00

00:04:18.440 Christianity survived the Roman Empire.

00:04:20.620 It persisted despite Nero trying to kill him.

00:04:23.320 It grew to prominence and converted the known word not by sword but by the quill.

00:04:27.760 I wish my Christian brothers and sisters today still had the same confidence in the gospel that they had then.

00:04:34.480 My America is equal protection under the law.

00:04:39.180 Freedom of speech.

00:04:40.260 Limits on state power.

00:04:41.680 Those are not principles foreign to Christianity.

00:04:44.480 They echo the belief that every person bears dignity.

00:04:46.960 That coercion cannot produce genuine faith.

00:04:50.000 And that moral transformation begins in the heart, not in legislation.

00:04:54.140 Christianity has flourished for many of the same reasons that America has.

00:04:56.960 They have thrived without subjugation and they have spread without war.

00:05:01.620 And when they did either of these two things, people came to hate it.

00:05:05.840 The American dream and the holy word persuade because people believe their truth, not because it is enforced.

00:05:14.140 America moves forward.

00:05:15.540 America builds. 0.91

00:05:16.460 America competes.

00:05:17.320 America leads.

00:05:18.280 Not by fusing church and state but by unleashing human ingenuity without demanding theological uniformity first.

00:05:23.780 America is doing what works.

00:05:26.400 And that is why it leads the world.

00:05:27.720 Are you just taking the water break or do you?

00:05:35.100 Done.

00:05:35.280 Done?

00:05:35.620 Okay, perfect.

00:05:36.640 Andrew, go ahead with your opening statement. 1.00

00:05:39.080 I'm way too hung over for this shit. 0.99

00:05:40.860 But I got a beer. 1.00

00:05:42.120 So that'll help me hear the dog a little bit.

00:05:45.220 So just to be blunt, some of the reasons that I don't particularly enjoy debating with Erudite is because there's a specific style she has, which is called the pop quiz style.

00:05:56.600 When Kyla gets in trouble around arguments and worldviews, she drops a pop quiz. 0.86

00:06:02.320 Do you know what X is?

00:06:04.460 X usually being a random obscure fact, which has little to nothing to do with the conversation.

00:06:09.520 And your inability to answer, it's met with smug delight and up speak as she explains some random fact.

00:06:14.660 The reason I bring this up is because I want the audience to be aware that I really just hate the pop quiz debates.

00:06:23.080 It's an old Twitch takes and it's just, to me, it's cringe.

00:06:26.920 It's not the Socratic method.

00:06:28.280 It's just, I'm going to introduce a pop quiz about some factoid that is completely irrelevant to the debate.

00:06:34.740 But anyway, when leftists say anything is un-American, I'm forced to laugh about it.

00:06:41.880 Progressives and liberals like Erudite here only have one single value structure ultimately and it's loyalty to an amoral liberal system.

00:06:50.580 To progressive liberals, and I kid you not, let's give an example.

00:06:57.600 The example of Bob.

00:06:59.400 Bob can go buy a brand new deluxe PC for his 18-year-old daughter, put a camera on top of it, and manage her career as a porn star and OnlyFans.

00:07:08.120 While he's upstairs with her former teachers fapping to it on his Oculus porn helmet. 0.99

00:07:14.340 And there isn't a fucking thing anybody can do about it. 0.99

00:07:16.640 Because Bob pays taxes. 0.99

00:07:19.020 Bobby gets up every stinking day and he goes to work and he rolls up his sleeves and he gets the job done. 1.00

00:07:25.020 And by God, if Bob wants to fap to daughter porn with her former teachers, who the fuck are you? 0.99

00:07:30.560 If Bob wants to loan his wife out to his friends for an all-night, blitzed-up, legal-drug-fueled gangbang and then finish it off by snorting prescription painkillers so he doesn't come too early, 1.00

00:07:42.320 then by God, that's his right as an American and a patriot. 1.00

00:07:46.100 Who the fuck are you sick fascists to judge Bob? 0.99

00:07:50.140 He ain't breaking any laws. 1.00

00:07:51.780 He pays his taxes and he's following the system, baby.

00:07:54.720 And that's what matters.

00:07:55.760 The liberal process of amoral systems rather than immoral.

00:08:01.880 Everything's permitted. 0.71

00:08:03.880 If the global hegemon of the world needs to put machine guns to the back of little Africans' heads so they can dig out the special Sudanese cell phone crystals, 1.00

00:08:12.540 then so fucking be it. 0.99

00:08:14.200 Bob needs his perfect reception for his satellite-driven cell phone in order to get the perfect nude image of his wife being split down the middle like a piece of meat in an all-white bread sandwich. 1.00

00:08:24.100 And who the fuck are you to tell Bob shit? 1.00

00:08:27.220 Nobody. 1.00

00:08:28.540 That's who. 0.97

00:08:29.920 Just a judgmental little fascist trying to legislate morality in an amoral system, 0.95

00:08:34.640 which is oriented around a nonsense of a smorgasbord of moral buffets, 0.85

00:08:41.140 which boils down to a choose-your-own-degenerate adventure.

00:08:45.000 Nothing short of that is un-American.

00:08:48.480 Here's a bunch of un-American stuff, depending on when you were alive. 0.98

00:08:51.520 Universal suffrage, pretty fucking un-American. 0.98

00:08:53.820 Abolishing slavery was pretty fucking un-American. 1.00

00:08:56.320 Homosexuality was definitely un-American. 1.00

00:08:58.320 Age of consent laws were un-American. 0.57

00:09:00.120 Incest laws were un-American. 0.94

00:09:01.540 Income taxes were un-American.

00:09:03.440 Sex outside of wedlock was un-American. 0.93

00:09:05.340 Refusal to duel when being called out was un-American. 0.77

00:09:08.040 Not being white was un-American. 0.83

00:09:09.860 Co-ed schools were un-American. 0.98

00:09:11.600 Black people in white schools, so un-American we needed the military involved. 1.00

00:09:15.640 The list goes on and on. 0.98

00:09:17.480 But according to Erudite, Christian nationalism is un-American because America basically begins

00:09:22.200 in the early 20th century based on Lincoln models of federalism.

00:09:25.960 That's what's American.

00:09:28.040 Part of that, of course, should be not listening to a person who grew up under a king in a constitutional

00:09:32.620 monarchy like she did.

00:09:34.640 Gross. 1.00

00:09:35.540 Bunch of fascist bootlickers over in Maple Land. 1.00

00:09:38.580 That's pretty fucking un-American, too. 1.00

00:09:40.860 Christian nationalism is as compatible with Americanism as the liberal order of amoral 1.00

00:09:47.920 systems allows, which means perfectly compatible, because there isn't any ought to tell it no.

00:09:53.360 The entire proposition from the liberal angle itself is self-refuting.

00:09:57.180 It just goes like this.

00:09:58.640 If people vote for Christian nationalists, what are they doing which is un-American? 0.55

00:10:02.660 The answer? 1.00

00:10:03.440 Fucking nothing. 1.00

00:10:04.160 If they vote in a KKK, Nazi, fascist, Hugo Boss, SS uniform-wearing lunatic who packs the 1.00

00:10:10.440 cork, persecutes all non-whites, all within the whim and the confines of the amoral system, 0.99

00:10:18.140 then what's un-American about that? 0.98

00:10:20.040 And the answer? 0.99

00:10:21.000 Fucking nothing. 0.99

00:10:22.780 Because the progressive liberal system is built on nothing. 0.99

00:10:26.200 Just vague appeals to my rights and my freedoms and my own system, which allows you to get

00:10:32.100 rid of the system.

00:10:33.200 It's absurd and self-refuting.

00:10:36.740 That's my opening.

00:10:38.880 Cool.

00:10:39.100 So I guess to clarify, maybe we should clarify Christian nationalism, because I feel like

00:10:43.520 that's going to be a bit of a crux of the conversation.

00:10:45.940 So how do you want to define it?

00:10:49.200 To the definition of Christian nationalism would just be the proposition that Christians utilize 0.62

00:10:55.200 influence and authority to stay in the moral majority and that they adopt systems towards

00:11:01.360 Christian ethics.

00:11:02.080 When you say moral majority, what does that mean to you?

00:11:05.960 It means that most laws and social systems confine around Christian ethics.

00:11:12.400 Okay.

00:11:13.280 So you would like to basically see a change of current statecraft to include more Christian 1.00

00:11:18.760 policies?

00:11:19.240 All Christian policies. 0.70

00:11:21.760 Can I ask to what extent?

00:11:23.860 To as much of an extent as liberalism allows, which is all extents.

00:11:29.100 Okay.

00:11:29.400 So when you advocate for Christian nationalism, though, I'm sure you and I would probably agree.

00:11:33.720 Probably if, say, the more of the moral majority becomes Christian, particularly in the way 0.99

00:11:38.280 that maybe you're advocating for, we would probably move in the direction of reducing

00:11:42.080 constitutional policy and increasing Christian policy specifically, probably all the way up

00:11:48.720 to including theocracy.

00:11:50.060 No, they're not incompatible.

00:11:51.460 So you don't think that constitutional policies.

00:11:53.720 So under liberalism, this is a great thing about liberalism.

00:11:57.420 Um, so do you remember, like you had this conversation with a guy the other day?

00:12:02.840 Um, I don't know how long ago it was, but he was like a fan of mine.

00:12:05.820 He called in, it was about Christian nationalism.

00:12:07.700 I think you got the clip on your channel.

00:12:09.680 There was a point there where I started laughing because he said, basically what I did, he was

00:12:16.560 like my proposals that I want all the systems and this and that to kind of reflect the image 0.98

00:12:21.780 of my preferences and he were like, fuck that, you're not allowed to bastardize my religion 0.95

00:12:28.400 by implementing policies, uh, against, you know, what my preferences are. 0.99

00:12:33.420 And I thought, that's like the most American thing I can think of.

00:12:37.280 The most American thing I can think of is that, uh, a Canadian immigrant is like, you know 0.99

00:12:45.640 what, this is my country now and you're not going to fucking bastardize it with whatever 1.00

00:12:50.360 your shit is because I don't want you to. 1.00

00:12:52.420 And the other guy's like, I don't give a shit what you want. 1.00

00:12:55.100 We're going to do it anyway. 0.99

00:12:56.540 And then it goes vice versa.

00:12:57.780 And it's like, that is liberalism.

00:13:00.140 Ultimately, if we want to get rid of alcohol via an amendment, we can.

00:13:05.100 If we want to bring it back via an amendment, we can and have.

00:13:08.060 If we want to get rid of guns, we can and have.

00:13:10.860 We want to bring them back.

00:13:12.280 We can and have.

00:13:13.580 It's like everything is permitted.

00:13:15.500 So yeah.

00:13:15.900 So by your logic then, Christian nationalists not only are trying to win the culture,

00:13:20.360 they're trying to win the state to impose Christian policy on the state.

00:13:24.600 Well, via, well, not in there through Congress, they're imposing liberalism on the state actually.

00:13:29.840 Well, in this case, because if, well, I don't want to, if it's, I'm not, I'm not going to

00:13:34.260 equivocate.

00:13:35.020 If Christian nationalists amend every single constitutional amendment within the confines 0.95

00:13:39.700 of liberalism to reflect only Christian policy by, by your metric, that's liberalism.

00:13:44.240 So the issue is that I'm not like a, a democratic absolutist, right?

00:13:49.020 I don't believe in democracy in the state.

00:13:50.660 I believe in like some level of limited democracy.

00:13:53.340 In fact, even now we have what we have like electoral democracy.

00:13:56.460 We don't have, we have elected representatives.

00:13:58.400 We don't have direct popular vote, which I think is good.

00:14:01.200 I think that that's a better democratic system than for example, pure absolute democracy,

00:14:06.120 like popular vote.

00:14:07.040 So there's always limits on democracy, right?

00:14:09.520 So when you say liberalism, I think the issue is like liberalism to you just mean, it seems

00:14:13.800 like what it means to you is we can vote for stuff.

00:14:16.800 Is that what it means?

00:14:17.780 What does it mean to you?

00:14:18.500 It's an, it's what you outlined in your opening.

00:14:21.840 Liberalism is just a sequence of systems.

00:14:24.540 It's science, man. 1.00

00:14:26.140 And it's building shit and it's industry. 0.99

00:14:28.020 And it's all of these isms, which really are just confined to, I want a system. 0.99

00:14:33.940 So liberalism is an amoral system.

00:14:36.380 Do you think science is liberalism?

00:14:37.660 No, but I think that liberals adopt science as part of their system.

00:14:41.580 Well, yeah, they allow, do you think capitalism is liberalism?

00:14:44.180 I think they adopt capitalism as part of their system.

00:14:46.780 Could they adopt other things?

00:14:48.560 Sure.

00:14:49.060 Okay.

00:14:49.240 So then what's liberalism?

00:14:50.880 Liberalism is an adaptation of an amoral system.

00:14:54.440 What is this?

00:14:55.300 Sorry.

00:14:55.560 At a statecraft level, what does this mean?

00:14:58.540 That you have a system, which is an amoral system. 0.90

00:15:01.460 Why is the amoral piece essential to?

00:15:03.860 Because that's why, that's why you prefer secularism.

00:15:07.120 You want a system, which is amoral.

00:15:09.920 So it's based on individualism.

00:15:12.120 It's based on...

00:15:13.340 Is individualism amoral?

00:15:14.940 Yeah.

00:15:15.280 Well, from the liberal view, it is.

00:15:16.800 Yeah.

00:15:17.080 How is individualism amoral?

00:15:19.700 Because there's no ought.

00:15:21.400 There's no ought under a liberal system for you to do anything.

00:15:25.680 Sure there is.

00:15:26.180 There's oftentimes, right?

00:15:27.180 Like a liberal system doesn't impose any certain moral.

00:15:30.200 Well, the most common consensual...

00:15:31.540 Wait, what'd you say?

00:15:32.080 A liberal system doesn't impose any certain morals.

00:15:34.500 That doesn't make it...

00:15:35.360 So when you say amoral...

00:15:36.200 That means amoral.

00:15:36.980 Oh, so like they're agnostic.

00:15:39.060 No, they're amoral.

00:15:40.020 It's worse than agnostic. 1.00

00:15:41.820 How is that?

00:15:42.520 Because under...

00:15:43.480 Sorry, what's the difference between amoral and agnostic on morality?

00:15:45.880 Yeah, so you can be agnostic about something which is moral or immoral, right?

00:15:51.720 That's true.

00:15:52.780 But that doesn't mean you're amoral.

00:15:54.700 But what you're looking for is a system which is amoral.

00:15:57.740 So you're saying like, look, we're not going to make any moral prescriptions

00:16:01.300 because that's not what the function of the state is.

00:16:04.240 So do you think what the Founding Fathers did was amoral?

00:16:07.920 Like it's not something to respect.

00:16:09.540 It's not something valuable.

00:16:11.080 What do you think about the Founding Fathers?

00:16:12.420 What does that have to do with anything?

00:16:13.760 The Founding Fathers created the American world.

00:16:16.360 It seems like you're saying America is liberalism and this liberalism is weak.

00:16:20.400 Or do you think America is something else?

00:16:21.720 Well, it became liberalism when you destroyed the Republic with universal suffrage in the 14th Amendment.

00:16:26.860 That's...

00:16:27.340 I mean, the Republic was just the language utilized to talk about a specific type of democracy, right?

00:16:31.780 Oh, it had a foundationalism.

00:16:33.460 You're talking about 39 out of 50 signers.

00:16:36.640 Only three of them were deists.

00:16:38.420 And foundationally, the states under the 10th Amendment were allowed to adopt their own religions and did.

00:16:45.400 It was only until we got to the 14th Amendment way later that this was no longer the case.

00:16:51.000 And in your opening, you got that wrong.

00:16:52.980 The Establishment and Free Exercise Clause specifically said Congress shall make no law respecting an established individual religion prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

00:17:00.680 At the federal level.

00:17:01.360 That's true.

00:17:02.080 The federal level implied to the states.

00:17:03.520 No.

00:17:03.940 That happened later under the 14th Amendment.

00:17:05.840 No, under the Constitution.

00:17:07.060 In fact...

00:17:07.080 I'll show you.

00:17:07.840 Brian, pull up.

00:17:09.300 The 14th Amendment stops states from adopting religion.

00:17:13.240 I'll show you so that you understand how the process worked.

00:17:15.900 So do you think that the Founding Fathers established a religion for the nation?

00:17:19.500 No, they established the 10th Amendment, which says that all, all rights which are not given to the federal government are given to the prospective states.

00:17:28.480 Because the First Amendment covered that federally, this was part of a compromise, that compromise happened because of the Articles of Confederation.

00:17:36.140 So the Articles of Confederation initially were the libertarian wet dream.

00:17:39.520 But they didn't work because states couldn't have uniform commerce or uniform dollars or a uniform military.

00:17:46.160 So they adopted a form of federalism and compromised.

00:17:48.820 The compromise was the 10th Amendment.

00:17:51.700 The 10th Amendment stated that actually states could have their own religions.

00:17:55.920 And they did.

00:17:57.120 Almost all the states had their own religion post-constitutional ratification.

00:18:01.980 And most people don't know that.

00:18:03.420 By own religion, what do you mean?

00:18:04.340 Do you just mean the test clause?

00:18:05.840 No.

00:18:06.480 No, no, no, no, no, no.

00:18:07.140 They had state religions.

00:18:08.960 The test clause.

00:18:09.740 You had to be in power.

00:18:10.260 No, not a test clause.

00:18:11.540 They had actual state religions.

00:18:14.700 Inside each independent state, they had their own religions minus, I think, two or three.

00:18:18.900 So why did the federal United States not have a religion?

00:18:21.880 Why did it allow the states to make those choices? 0.97

00:18:23.760 Because of the 10th Amendment.

00:18:25.140 But what was the principle?

00:18:26.540 What were the Founding Fathers trying to do?

00:18:27.960 What do you think the Founding Fathers cared about?

00:18:29.060 To separate the power of Federalists between Anti-Federalists and Federalists.

00:18:33.160 So they compromised on two major amendments.

00:18:35.680 The Second Amendment, which initially was way looser in language.

00:18:40.120 And then they compromised on the 10th Amendment as well.

00:18:43.220 Because states wanted to have their own militias.

00:18:45.580 They wanted to have their own militaries.

00:18:46.780 They wanted to have their own currencies.

00:18:48.740 Congress was like, look, we need to have the power to raise armies.

00:18:52.280 We need to have the power to coin money.

00:18:54.060 If you allow us to have those two powers, then all the other prospective powers will give to the states.

00:18:59.540 Which they did.

00:19:00.520 That included religion.

00:19:02.140 So the Founding Fathers intended for it to be a Christian nation to have some level of...

00:19:07.100 They intended for each state to be able to govern as they saw fit in order to implement religions that they chose to.

00:19:13.380 But to the exclusion at a federal level specifically of any religion.

00:19:16.880 Right?

00:19:17.140 But that's not what's in contest here.

00:19:19.280 That is in what's contest, right?

00:19:20.820 If we're talking about America, we're talking about the nation.

00:19:24.000 We're talking about the Founding Fathers, the minds behind the founding of the nation.

00:19:27.720 The Founding Fathers put in amendment processes for us to amend things.

00:19:31.760 Including the First Amendment, right?

00:19:33.440 Sure.

00:19:33.880 Yeah.

00:19:34.080 But if they wanted to blend church and state, why wouldn't they write that in?

00:19:38.460 They did blend church and state.

00:19:40.100 They did not.

00:19:40.560 Because under the Tenth Amendment, they allowed states to adopt state religions.

00:19:44.400 It was only when the Supreme Court looked at the 14th Amendment way later in our history that they decided...

00:19:51.080 And by the way, that amendment had nothing to even do with this.

00:19:53.200 That was about citizenship.

00:19:54.520 State religions isn't the same thing as America having a federal religion.

00:19:57.500 You realize this, right?

00:19:58.480 Who ever postulated that we needed to have a federalized religion?

00:20:04.540 Well, I'm talking about separation of church and state for America.

00:20:07.580 If states can have their own religion inside the state, and it becomes the state religion, does that, in your opinion, violate that separation of church and state?

00:20:16.020 Well, if there's a test clause, yeah, it probably potentially would violate that.

00:20:19.260 So if the state imposes a test clause for federal power, that would be an issue.

00:20:22.760 Do you know in the last...

00:20:23.880 It was super common at the time that most states had clauses.

00:20:26.900 In fact, the Founding Fathers were so intense about ensuring separation of power that despite most colonies at the time having a test clause for holding power of being religious, they explicitly barred it in, what was it, Article 6?

00:20:40.420 Oh, yeah?

00:20:40.920 Then how come in Maryland you had to declare until 1960-something, I believe, that you believed in God in order to hold office?

00:20:48.000 Because in Maryland they made that decision, but at a federal level...

00:20:50.440 Well, we're talking about...

00:20:51.120 We're not talking about Maryland.

00:20:52.020 We're talking about America.

00:20:53.640 Yeah, America...

00:20:54.440 Is Maryland America?

00:20:55.360 America is a coalition of states, which have federalized.

00:20:59.620 That's what's going on.

00:21:00.660 But don't you think that the Constitution of America maybe matters from we're talking about the ethos of America?

00:21:05.140 Sure.

00:21:05.600 Okay, so when the Founding Fathers...

00:21:07.340 You mean that completely amendable thing?

00:21:09.340 Completely amendable makes it sound way looser than it is.

00:21:12.640 Amending and adding amendments is incredibly difficult.

00:21:13.760 It is way looser.

00:21:14.620 Look, what's un-American about amending the First Amendment?

00:21:17.100 Nothing.

00:21:17.640 Okay.

00:21:19.000 So then, inside of your worldview, it's completely constitutional to amend the First Amendment to get rich...

00:21:24.720 Hang on, hang on, hang on.

00:21:26.140 To get rid of the Establishment Clause, that would be totally appropriate under your worldview. 0.71

00:21:29.440 No, I think that would be a violation of the American ethos.

00:21:31.200 I think it's bad and...

00:21:32.640 Well, here...

00:21:33.240 How?

00:21:33.640 Because America believes...

00:21:34.760 America's built on these things.

00:21:36.040 I think that the Founding Fathers...

00:21:37.180 You don't believe America...

00:21:38.300 Okay.

00:21:38.800 Does America have...

00:21:39.560 Hold on.

00:21:39.580 Do I get to finish my thoughts or are you going to interrupt me?

00:21:40.880 Go ahead.

00:21:41.180 Go ahead.

00:21:41.420 Okay.

00:21:41.880 Right?

00:21:42.220 I think what's really important here is that, like, the Founding Fathers, I think, are essential

00:21:46.220 to understanding the ethos of America.

00:21:47.960 I don't think they're the only piece, but if we want to look at, like, a litany of America

00:21:51.220 over time, what we have, for example, is the Founding Fathers, despite the nation being

00:21:55.800 dominantly Christian, despite the states having test religious clauses, the Founding Fathers

00:22:00.840 looking at that going, no, we need a separation of church and state.

00:22:05.320 It's essential.

00:22:05.820 That's not what happened.

00:22:06.660 That is absolutely what happened.

00:22:08.180 Not only is it not what happened, but within the framework that you're talking about, you

00:22:11.680 just said it's not un-American to amend...

00:22:13.700 How did it not happen?

00:22:14.560 Hang on.

00:22:15.040 You just said it's not in any way un-American to amend the First Amendment.

00:22:19.580 The First Amendment is...

00:22:20.480 I should have clarified that, because when we say American, I'm meaning the ethos.

00:22:24.640 What I should have said is it's not anti-constitutional.

00:22:26.640 The Constitution would allow for it.

00:22:27.840 Okay.

00:22:28.200 Then let's follow that line of logic and see if that's true.

00:22:30.460 Does American have any sort of, like, ethnic ethos?

00:22:34.500 Yeah.

00:22:35.120 What is it?

00:22:36.040 Dominantly white culture, hegemonically. 0.58

00:22:38.620 So that's part of the American ethos?

00:22:41.060 Yeah, to some degree.

00:22:41.720 Yeah, significantly, right?

00:22:42.860 Like, white Protestant... 0.86

00:22:43.420 Should it stay that way?

00:22:45.000 I like it, yeah.

00:22:46.560 So it should...

00:22:47.180 America should stay a white Protestant nation? 0.96

00:22:49.880 That's not the central piece of the ethos.

00:22:52.060 You said, does it have a cultural ethos?

00:22:54.140 And I said, white... 0.70

00:22:54.520 I'm asking if...

00:22:55.560 Okay, should it stay white?

00:22:58.060 No, I don't care about the white piece. 0.91

00:22:59.080 And that's not part of American ethos?

00:23:00.660 How is that the case?

00:23:01.820 Absolutely something that can be a part of the ethos and also change.

00:23:04.380 Because the ethos here that's central isn't the whiteness that I was pointing to.

00:23:07.720 It's some of the cultural values that come in.

00:23:09.520 For example, Protestant work ethic, right? 0.64

00:23:11.340 Taking value in the product that you make as a company.

00:23:14.900 And if America no longer had any of that and became completely atheistic but still followed 0.73

00:23:18.920 these constitutional amendments, that's still plenty American, right?

00:23:21.580 As long as I hold to central ethos of what I think the American dream and vision is.

00:23:25.040 That's why I'm asking you...

00:23:26.080 Which we outlined, for example, with the Founding Fathers at the Declaration of Independence.

00:23:28.640 Well, then if it's not whiteness and it's not cult... 0.94

00:23:30.920 It's not whiteness.

00:23:31.500 And it's not anything cultural...

00:23:32.640 I'll be donated $69.

00:23:34.560 Oh, my God.

00:23:35.200 Sorry.

00:23:35.260 It means that according to...

00:23:36.600 No idea what happened there.

00:23:37.780 I apologize.

00:23:38.360 It's okay.

00:23:38.760 No worries.

00:23:38.820 If it's not...

00:23:39.600 So here's what I'm asking.

00:23:40.860 If it's not ethnic... 0.91

00:23:42.160 What do you think American ethos is?

00:23:43.540 Do you have any American ethos?

00:23:44.720 And it's not cultural.

00:23:46.100 I said it's not...

00:23:46.920 It is cultural.

00:23:47.760 It's cultural.

00:23:48.460 Yeah.

00:23:48.740 Okay.

00:23:49.120 So what are the cultural things?

00:23:50.560 What is American culture?

00:23:52.800 Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, doing things at work, ingenuity, discovery.

00:23:58.440 Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

00:24:00.700 Wait.

00:24:00.840 What do you think American ethos is?

00:24:02.260 And what...

00:24:02.980 Hang on.

00:24:03.180 What was the other thing you said?

00:24:04.300 I think ingenuity.

00:24:05.640 Ingenuity.

00:24:06.200 Those are some of them.

00:24:06.860 So as long as...

00:24:08.160 Do you reject these as part of the American ethos?

00:24:09.960 I do.

00:24:10.320 So as long as none of these, life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, or ingenuity is violated,

00:24:17.640 then it's in the spirit of America.

00:24:19.940 Potentially.

00:24:20.440 We would have to look at it in a relativistic, right?

00:24:22.320 Like these ethos-like things, we have to understand what we're talking about.

00:24:25.900 You'd have to give me an example.

00:24:26.660 That's what I'm asking you about is what we're talking about.

00:24:28.740 So if any of these things...

00:24:29.580 So what do you think is American?

00:24:31.560 Well, so I think that what's core at the central kind of product of Americanism is this idea of systemic liberalism.

00:24:40.200 The system itself is what American... 0.97

00:24:43.720 What is systemic liberalism mean?

00:24:44.140 What's that?

00:24:44.720 What is systemic liberalism?

00:24:46.520 Yeah.

00:24:46.780 So it's just the idea that like, ah, there's a secular separation.

00:24:52.000 There's systems in place within the constitutional confines.

00:24:56.360 There's things which we're appealing to in law.

00:24:59.300 Do you like America?

00:24:59.720 I don't think that liberals...

00:25:00.940 I don't think that liberalism and modernity is doing anything other than looking at those systems.

00:25:06.760 I think that originally, our founders wanted to have something which was much more akin to ethno-nationalism, for sure.

00:25:13.520 I think that they wanted to have something that was much more akin to nobody voting in universal suffrage at all,

00:25:18.300 because they didn't give anybody the right to vote.

00:25:20.020 Why?

00:25:20.180 So I don't think that those things were foundational to the American experience, because the founders didn't allow it.

00:25:25.060 Why didn't they?

00:25:26.000 Because they didn't want people to come over here who weren't Western English, basically.

00:25:32.260 That's not why.

00:25:32.940 Yeah, it is why.

00:25:33.600 No, you can read it in Federalist No. 2.

00:25:35.460 The argument for suffrage is very clear from Hamilton.

00:25:38.800 Okay, wait.

00:25:40.280 On suffrage.

00:25:40.900 Have you read the Anti-Federalist Papers?

00:25:42.780 No.

00:25:43.420 Do you realize there's Federalist Papers, there's the Anti-Federalist Papers?

00:25:46.840 Yes.

00:25:47.100 These were compromises which were made from the original Articles of Confederation.

00:25:52.120 What did suffrage mean to the founding fathers?

00:25:53.580 Originally, the 39, I believe it was 39 out of 50 delegates who signed the Constitution, only three were deists.

00:26:00.060 Most of them were Protestants, Loyalist Protestants, by the way.

00:26:03.520 And on top of all of that, most of them wanted only white states and made it very clear they only wanted white states.

00:26:10.040 They put that into the very ethos of what they considered Americana.

00:26:13.620 Do I think that modern liberalism is looking at any sort of people group?

00:26:18.340 No.

00:26:19.300 Is modern liberalism looking at any sort of cultural environmentalism in order to say, hey, this is what America is?

00:26:28.340 No.

00:26:28.820 All you can appeal to is systems.

00:26:30.600 That's it.

00:26:31.080 That's all you have is a system. 0.91

00:26:32.700 Liberalism is a system of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and ingenuity, whatever the fuck that means.

00:26:37.920 It doesn't even mean anything.

00:26:39.600 Of course it means something.

00:26:40.580 What?

00:26:41.460 What do you mean what?

00:26:42.200 What is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

00:26:45.800 I could completely amend the First Amendment and still do all of those things.

00:26:49.100 I think the issue is that most of the country would oppose you amending the First Amendment because the First Amendment is foundational to what makes America great.

00:26:55.340 So what if most of the country opposes it?

00:26:57.720 It's built into liberalism.

00:26:59.600 If all it is is opposition.

00:27:00.980 What happens if the whole country opposes it is because America is this consensual emergence of a bunch of people that believe in something.

00:27:06.900 And what if we decide that we don't believe in the First Amendment anymore and amend it?

00:27:10.760 What's un-American about that?

00:27:11.740 Do you not believe in the First Amendment anymore?

00:27:12.920 That has nothing to do with the argument.

00:27:14.440 What is un-American about amending the First Amendment?

00:27:18.200 Well, again, American is this ethos.

00:27:19.880 It would be technically constitutional, but I would argue that it would be a bad constitutional move, and I think it would violate the Founding Fathers.

00:27:25.360 And I think the Founding Fathers were on to something when they made that first separation of free speech and separation of church.

00:27:30.880 Okay, should we adhere to everything the Founders said or no?

00:27:34.480 No, not necessarily.

00:27:35.320 Well, then who cares if we violate it?

00:27:38.360 Who cares?

00:27:39.420 What do you mean who cares?

00:27:40.100 Yeah, if you're like, look, if you violate the things that the Founders wanted, that's not un-American.

00:27:45.680 But this is un-American because it might violate what the Founders wanted.

00:27:48.680 You're in contradictions, P and not P. 0.87

00:27:49.760 These are not contradictions.

00:27:51.520 Pluralism allows for competing values, right?

00:27:53.860 Sure.

00:27:54.660 And so what you're kind of doing right now is you're sitting here and you're being like, well, there's two children.

00:27:59.400 They're your children on one side and your husband's on the other side.

00:28:02.220 Who are you picking?

00:28:03.080 And let's say I pick the two children.

00:28:04.420 You're going, why do you hate your husband?

00:28:06.700 And I'm saying, that's not what's happening here at all.

00:28:09.660 First of all, that's not the analogy.

00:28:11.580 The analogy would actually be this.

00:28:13.340 You have your husband and your children on both sides.

00:28:15.920 You pick both.

00:28:17.120 This other guy has his husband and children, and he doesn't pick both.

00:28:19.980 That's not how pluralism and monism work.

00:28:21.660 Wait a second.

00:28:23.020 As long as you're saying that both of these sets are both moral behaviors because you have an amoral system, meaning you wouldn't restrict either of these things.

00:28:31.660 That's not necessary.

00:28:32.080 We absolutely restrict people's behaviors, and we often restrict people's behaviors for the benefit of the state, right?

00:28:37.480 Laws exist.

00:28:38.880 And who makes them?

00:28:40.580 The people that we vote, elect.

00:28:42.420 I see.

00:28:42.920 So if we elect people who vote in different laws, how's that un-American?

00:28:47.640 So it would be against the American ethos if a whole bunch of Christian nationalists, for example, convinced people that we should actually reduce things like liberty.

00:28:54.680 I think that we would be moving away from the American ethos.

00:28:55.840 You wouldn't be reducing liberty.

00:28:57.220 Absolutely.

00:28:57.620 It would just be a different kind of liberty.

00:28:58.880 If you start imposing church into state, for example, and the only religion that you can practice is Christianity, that would be violating liberty.

00:29:05.740 If we amend the process, how?

00:29:07.960 Even if you amend the process.

00:29:09.160 So you can amend the process to make us a less free nation, but what I would say is that would be wrong.

00:29:14.440 That would be un-American, yes. 0.89

00:29:15.500 How?

00:29:15.960 Because America is built on life and liberty.

00:29:18.000 America is built on the fact that you can amend America.

00:29:20.940 No, America is built on it.

00:29:22.560 Why do we have an amendment process then?

00:29:24.500 Why wouldn't TJ, when he's writing the Declaration of Independence, why wouldn't he, for example, say, America is just what we vote for.

00:29:30.840 It's just like consensus stuff, man.

00:29:32.320 It's just like loosey-goosey.

00:29:33.420 He says specifically an ethos that drives the dream, right? 0.84

00:29:36.720 And you're saying, well, this ethos, this dream, it's just silly.

00:29:39.860 It's nothing.

00:29:40.300 I mean, it's just not nothing, right?

00:29:41.960 It makes me go, do you hate America?

00:29:44.200 It's foundationally on liberalism, on the liberal view, right?

00:29:46.880 So you think America is nothing.

00:29:48.400 Let each other finish.

00:29:49.340 It's not built on any sort of ethnicity.

00:29:52.340 It's not built on any sort of cultural union.

00:29:55.000 Well, I did say culture.

00:29:56.060 Well, but you just said life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

00:29:59.060 Is that not, cannot that be cultural values?

00:30:01.060 No.

00:30:01.740 Why not?

00:30:02.220 What's cultural values?

00:30:03.020 What does it mean?

00:30:03.760 What's an example of a cultural value? 0.96

00:30:04.680 Well, what the fuck does it mean? 0.77

00:30:05.640 What's an example of a cultural value, if not something like life and liberty? 0.97

00:30:09.120 A unison of cultural values are usually foundation to ethical systems.

00:30:12.400 No, they're not.

00:30:13.060 So what's a cultural value that you would say, that's a cultural value?

00:30:16.160 I just told you, I would use, I would utilize for culture, some kind of glue.

00:30:20.220 That would be a unison.

00:30:21.440 Otherwise, it's not cultural.

00:30:22.600 Okay.

00:30:22.760 What's a Scottish cultural value?

00:30:25.900 Irish.

00:30:26.380 Sorry, you're Irish. 1.00

00:30:27.160 That's an Irish cultural value.

00:30:28.700 Yeah.

00:30:28.940 So I think that Irish cultural values would, again, revolve around foundationalism, religious

00:30:34.120 ethical systems.

00:30:35.040 Like what?

00:30:36.080 Well, for Ireland, I think, what, the Protestant Catholic?

00:30:40.580 So the cultural value of being Irish is being Catholic.

00:30:44.200 I think that there's a union between the people group and the ethical foundations.

00:30:49.620 So how are Irish people different than British people who are also on the back of Anglican

00:30:54.020 or Catholic?

00:30:54.320 Well, because they're not, right?

00:30:55.800 So England has a completely different set of people groups, which come from Britannians.

00:31:01.000 The Britannians who came in, settled all of England. 0.94

00:31:05.480 When the church came in and then they separate into Anglican, they have now a completely different

00:31:10.160 set of value structures than other places do, including Western Europe.

00:31:14.100 So the British cultural value?

00:31:17.780 Well, I would say...

00:31:18.120 So the only thing that makes British and Irish people different is one's Catholic and one's... 0.97

00:31:22.380 A different people group.

00:31:23.940 Let's...

00:31:24.140 Okay.

00:31:24.460 Steelman might...

00:31:25.060 What's a cultural value for Irish people? 0.66

00:31:26.460 Steelman might position real quick.

00:31:27.640 I'm asking you actually to steelman mine because you're insisting that when I list these ethos...

00:31:31.920 How can I steelman your position when you're asking me questions?

00:31:34.820 I'm asking you questions because you seem to be unsatisfied with the answers that I have

00:31:38.580 supplied because you're not granting me...

00:31:40.560 People group plus ethical system.

00:31:42.440 If you're going to get us on interrupting, it has to be mutual.

00:31:44.440 Okay?

00:31:45.160 Yeah.

00:31:45.780 So I gave you an example of a couple of cultural ethos and you said, what?

00:31:49.220 This is nothing.

00:31:49.860 It doesn't mean anything.

00:31:50.840 And so then I said...

00:31:51.580 Wait, hold on.

00:31:52.240 So then I said, can you give me an example of, let's say, Irish cultural ethos?

00:31:56.640 Okay, sure.

00:31:57.180 Hold on.

00:31:57.900 And you said Catholic.

00:31:59.280 And I said, what makes them different then from just another group of people that are

00:32:02.900 also Catholic?

00:32:03.380 They have different set values.

00:32:04.740 Like what?

00:32:05.540 Like, for instance, they have different religious foundationalism.

00:32:08.140 They have different values in their society that they honor.

00:32:09.800 What is an Irish cultural value?

00:32:11.660 Give me one.

00:32:12.120 Not life, not liberty, not pursuit of happiness.

00:32:14.940 How am I wrong?

00:32:16.480 I don't know.

00:32:17.180 I'm not Irish.

00:32:18.680 Well, I don't...

00:32:19.280 So Irish's values is just being Catholic? 0.75

00:32:21.060 If it's just isms of like...

00:32:23.100 A cultural value is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

00:32:25.800 Then it's like, okay, then cultural values are also just not life, not liberty, and not

00:32:29.880 pursuit of happiness then?

00:32:31.800 Does that make any sense to you?

00:32:33.340 That's not what anyone's saying.

00:32:34.560 I'm literally just...

00:32:34.880 It is what you're saying.

00:32:35.740 Wait, let each other finish, please.

00:32:37.360 I'm just asking you for a single example of an Irish cultural value.

00:32:40.440 Yeah, when you're talking about let each other finish, please.

00:32:42.360 And you're just saying Catholic.

00:32:44.720 So what's an example of an Irish cultural value?

00:32:46.980 So do you agree that Catholic would be an example of an Irish cultural value?

00:32:50.900 I wouldn't say it's unique to Ireland, no.

00:32:52.700 So why would it need to be unique?

00:32:54.420 Well, if we're talking about Ireland...

00:32:55.300 Is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness unique to America?

00:32:57.900 So are you just saying that cultures don't really exist?

00:32:59.900 They're just the religions? 0.83

00:33:00.580 Like, there's no difference between Irish people and another group that's Catholic as

00:33:06.440 well, like Spanish people? 0.60

00:33:07.900 So what a culture is, is going to be the grouping of the people, the consideration of the value

00:33:12.160 group of those people, and then the foundations of those people.

00:33:14.460 So what's an example of an Irish cultural?

00:33:16.900 Catholicism.

00:33:17.480 So how is that different than Spanish people who are also Catholic?

00:33:19.800 Because they have a different people group.

00:33:22.060 So what emerges that's different between these two groups?

00:33:24.020 Language, customs, orders.

00:33:26.440 Yeah, values.

00:33:27.780 Not just values.

00:33:28.660 Of course not just values.

00:33:30.580 Well, you can have...

00:33:31.500 Actually, they have a lot of shared values.

00:33:33.560 Sure, of course, yeah.

00:33:34.200 But again, you have to take the people group, then you have to take the social orders, then

00:33:38.140 you have to take the foundationalism in order to create culture.

00:33:40.420 For you, you're saying life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

00:33:44.020 Now, I gave you concrete examples of cultural values.

00:33:47.420 Can you tell me what this means?

00:33:49.640 Sure.

00:33:49.740 What does that mean?

00:33:50.320 So if we're talking about the culture of people, I think one of the relevant things for

00:33:54.900 the American culture might be, not excluded to, the founding fathers and what they

00:33:59.540 thought, you know, the founding of the entire nation kind of matters.

00:34:02.640 So in the Declaration of Independence, for example, Thomas Jefferson outlines life, liberty,

00:34:07.820 and the pursuit of happiness.

00:34:08.760 That is a unique thing, a unique hallmark of being American.

00:34:11.380 Jefferson didn't sign the Constitution.

00:34:13.320 That doesn't mean that he didn't write the Declaration of Independence.

00:34:16.460 We're talking about the Declaration of Independence.

00:34:17.700 The Declaration of Independence was a propaganda piece built on an axiom which said, under God,

00:34:23.740 right?

00:34:23.960 So as an American, you just don't care about the Declaration of Independence.

00:34:26.560 I'm saying that when we're talking about foundationalism, the reason I bring up that Jefferson didn't

00:34:31.800 sign the Constitution.

00:34:32.860 We are.

00:34:34.060 We're talking about value structures.

00:34:35.680 You're saying that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

00:34:38.340 You're saying life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is the foundation of Americanism.

00:34:42.440 Nope.

00:34:42.780 Then what is?

00:34:45.740 What is the foundation?

00:34:46.940 It's the foundation of America is the founding fathers.

00:34:50.160 It's the Constitution.

00:34:51.220 It's the Declaration of Independence.

00:34:52.280 It's the entire idea.

00:34:54.120 It's systems.

00:34:54.600 Well, it's systems and it's ethos.

00:34:56.500 What's, well, you see what I mean though?

00:34:58.360 It's, that's circular.

00:34:59.620 It's not, how is it circular?

00:35:01.300 Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, that is not the foundation of America.

00:35:06.520 Right?

00:35:07.640 I suppose they can be foundations in that like they're irreducible.

00:35:10.920 Life, liberty are kind of irreducible.

00:35:14.180 Why couldn't they be reduced?

00:35:15.720 Because it's going to become circular eventually.

00:35:17.320 Like most things will become circular.

00:35:18.560 So you have a culture that values work ethic.

00:35:21.040 Yeah.

00:35:21.260 How do you reduce that?

00:35:22.660 What does that mean?

00:35:24.040 What?

00:35:24.440 That people work really, really hard?

00:35:26.500 Yeah.

00:35:26.780 Isn't that kind of just like, you're just kind of saying the same thing.

00:35:29.080 Yeah, that's a heuristic.

00:35:29.340 Sure.

00:35:29.380 So it's circular.

00:35:30.600 I'm not sure that it's circular, but it's a heuristic.

00:35:32.520 How is saying work ethic is people work hard, not circular?

00:35:35.940 Well, you could give qualifiers for what hard work is.

00:35:38.520 Well, you didn't.

00:35:39.140 You just said hard work is.

00:35:40.600 I don't need to.

00:35:40.620 You just asked me how and I explained it.

00:35:42.320 Okay, so this is one of the keys of.

00:35:43.700 So now when we're talking about foundationalism, you said life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness,

00:35:46.520 but then said that that's not a foundation and then only pointed to systems.

00:35:50.280 I said, no, no, no.

00:35:51.160 I didn't say it's not foundation.

00:35:52.740 I said it's not foundationalism.

00:35:54.240 Because when I'm hearing that, and I could be wrong, when I hear foundationalism, I'm assuming

00:35:57.680 that you mean the philosophical framework.

00:36:01.200 Yeah.

00:36:01.840 Yeah.

00:36:02.220 So when I'm saying foundational, I just mean essential.

00:36:04.160 So what's the philosophical framework of the United States other than a system?

00:36:09.600 I'm not.

00:36:10.240 I'm not.

00:36:10.860 So when I'm saying the cultural ethos, I'm not talking about the philosophical framework.

00:36:14.660 I'm asking you, what is the philosophical framework of the United States other than a

00:36:18.620 system?

00:36:19.180 What?

00:36:20.280 Well, it is a system.

00:36:21.540 Yeah, exactly. 0.99

00:36:22.080 So all you're appealing to in your liberal ethical system is a fuck is just systems. 0.99

00:36:27.860 It's an amoral system. 1.00

00:36:29.600 That's it.

00:36:30.140 So state crafter systems.

00:36:32.060 Yes.

00:36:32.740 Yeah.

00:36:33.040 So me, so we can make this super easy.

00:36:36.740 We can make this super easy.

00:36:37.860 Then is changing the first amendment immoral.

00:36:42.360 No, but I think it would make the country worse.

00:36:44.440 So it's an amoral system.

00:36:46.260 I would argue like it's probably immoral because probably the people doing it, right?

00:36:50.000 Like which, which people want to change free speech?

00:36:52.720 Who cares?

00:36:53.420 What would make it, what would make it immoral?

00:36:55.040 Well, the context and the individual who's doing it might make it immoral or not.

00:36:58.220 Yeah.

00:36:58.360 But in and of itself, it's not.

00:37:00.100 It might be right.

00:37:01.320 Things are relative.

00:37:02.360 Okay.

00:37:03.040 So in and of itself is not relative anymore because it's just in and of itself.

00:37:08.640 So I am a moral objectivist and a relativist, right?

00:37:13.000 What?

00:37:13.940 You're a P and a not P? 0.86

00:37:15.720 No, I believe in that morals are objective, but also that they are relative.

00:37:20.980 This is standard.

00:37:22.160 This is like Aristotle stuff. 1.00

00:37:23.940 What the fuck? 1.00

00:37:24.720 What? 1.00

00:37:25.220 Okay.

00:37:25.520 So, uh, stealing is wrong.

00:37:27.700 Uh-huh.

00:37:28.400 However, the guy whose family is going to die if he doesn't steal, relatively, contextually,

00:37:32.880 might be okay for him to steal in that situation, right?

00:37:34.980 You're just talking about pluralism.

00:37:36.520 I'm not just, I'm not, what's the competing values here?

00:37:39.440 Because under pluralism, what you're saying is that there's many pathways to get to what

00:37:43.800 the spirit of the thing is.

00:37:45.420 That's not what pluralism is.

00:37:46.640 It is.

00:37:47.360 Nope.

00:37:48.120 Okay.

00:37:48.420 What is it?

00:37:48.860 Okay.

00:37:49.260 I wrote it down because I, it's when, it's multiple irreducible competing goods in moral

00:37:54.340 pluralism.

00:37:55.780 Multiple what?

00:37:57.020 Irreducible competing goods.

00:37:58.680 Meaning that there's multiple pathways to get to somewhere.

00:38:01.680 Nope.

00:38:02.320 That means, for example, that you have two moral systems that are both good.

00:38:06.080 Uh-huh.

00:38:06.320 So justice and mercy.

00:38:07.640 And there's multiple ways to use them to get to the thing we're trying to get to?

00:38:11.100 Nope.

00:38:11.740 No.

00:38:11.980 In this case, they're competing against one another.

00:38:13.640 So in the case, for example, of somebody who's cheated on his wife, there's morals of justice

00:38:18.720 that we would want to uphold.

00:38:19.780 But there's also maybe morals of mercy or union of family.

00:38:23.300 And so to make a decision, there isn't an obvious correct answer between justice or mercy.

00:38:28.500 Usually we have to do some type of balance between the two things.

00:38:31.300 Or we could do no type of balance and utilize one in order to get to the same objective as the other.

00:38:36.320 What would, what's the objective here?

00:38:38.060 So for instance, if we wanted to like prosecute a guy for a crime, we could say, we're only going

00:38:43.040 to prosecute him on this crime based on justice.

00:38:45.460 That could be one value set, which we adhere to, right?

00:38:49.200 Yeah, sure.

00:38:49.700 We could also appeal to something else like dignity.

00:38:52.680 I don't know.

00:38:53.260 Let's just say we put that up and say, that's what we're going to use instead.

00:38:56.600 Well, the justice people and the dignity people, right?

00:38:59.720 Neither one of them are wrong.

00:39:00.800 And they're both going towards the same goal, which is execution of guy just or execution

00:39:04.900 of guy good or execution of guy fine.

00:39:07.100 Well, I guess if the goal, if you want to make this like pluralist, I guess if you're a

00:39:11.340 Because it is.

00:39:11.980 Are you a virtue ethicist?

00:39:13.620 Yes, of course.

00:39:14.780 You're a virtue ethicist.

00:39:16.000 Okay.

00:39:16.180 So you want to basically utilize and Well, I'm a Christian ethicist, but virtue ethics

00:39:20.440 is involved.

00:39:21.080 Yes.

00:39:21.520 Okay.

00:39:22.020 Gotcha.

00:39:22.520 So in the case of, um, why are we here?

00:39:25.680 Yes.

00:39:26.260 We were talking-

00:39:26.740 Because we're talking about systems.

00:39:27.860 Systems.

00:39:28.100 How is the United States something other than just a system?

00:39:30.880 You said in and of itself, if we change the first amendment, that would not be immoral.

00:39:36.180 You don't think America is anything-

00:39:37.500 Let each other finish, please.

00:39:38.380 So you don't think America is anything but its system.

00:39:40.980 There's nothing else that makes America unique that you can point to and say, that's America.

00:39:44.880 Under the liberal view, no.

00:39:46.540 Under your view, I'm asking your view.

00:39:48.120 Well, under my view, I think that there was once upon a time a powerful idealism, which

00:39:54.540 was founded around Christian ethics, that was foundational to America, which is now basically

00:39:59.180 destroyed by modern liberalism.

00:40:00.940 Foundational as in founding fathers or foundational in what way?

00:40:03.480 It was foundational to the moral, the moral character of the people who lived here.

00:40:07.560 So then why did they write it out in the federal papers?

00:40:10.640 Write what out?

00:40:11.760 The church.

00:40:13.160 From statecraft.

00:40:13.700 They didn't.

00:40:14.680 No, they didn't.

00:40:15.560 They separated in the first amendment, only that the federal government couldn't pass a

00:40:21.740 religion on the people.

00:40:22.720 But under the 10th amendment, states could still maintain their religions.

00:40:25.880 And then most states came to agree that actually the federal precept was better, right?

00:40:29.840 No.

00:40:30.420 Yeah.

00:40:30.580 No, what happened actually was a lot of states were looking at moving back towards that,

00:40:35.480 which is why this whole idea of the 14th amendment being reinterpreted the way that it was to

00:40:41.260 say that states couldn't do that happened.

00:40:43.320 I feel like we have a very different understanding of suffrage.

00:40:49.880 That's not suffrage. 1.00

00:40:50.940 That's the 19th amendment. 0.85

00:40:52.140 14th amendment?

00:40:53.140 Yeah.

00:40:53.380 14th amendment, I think, is citizenship.

00:40:55.800 It's about birthright citizenship.

00:40:57.020 Right.

00:40:57.360 You're right.

00:40:57.380 It's about birthright citizenship.

00:40:58.360 Yeah.

00:40:58.400 You're correct.

00:40:58.780 The 14th amendment? 0.84

00:40:59.380 Yeah.

00:40:59.640 Yeah.

00:40:59.740 It's the 14th amendment prohibits states from infringing on religious freedom by applying

00:41:05.560 the first amendment to them through the due process.

00:41:08.200 Read the 14th.

00:41:10.280 Uh-oh.

00:41:11.140 Read it.

00:41:14.040 I just did, but hold on.

00:41:17.380 There's sections.

00:41:17.800 He wants you to read it in a way that goes to his argument.

00:41:19.840 Hold on.

00:41:20.000 I just want him to read the amendment, but I think that that's the case.

00:41:23.480 Yeah.

00:41:23.680 Besides, even if it wasn't, it's not dunk for you.

00:41:25.780 You didn't remember.

00:41:26.360 Or wait, it is, so the idea of remembering isn't what matters in a conversation of like

00:41:31.480 which idea is more true, right?

00:41:33.140 Yeah.

00:41:33.420 Hang on.

00:41:34.220 So it's not about me getting it done.

00:41:35.780 Let him read the amendment.

00:41:36.820 I don't know why you said that.

00:41:38.900 Aren't we trying to talk about ideas here?

00:41:40.480 Yeah.

00:41:40.840 So whether I remembered or not, like poo-poo for me, I should have remembered 14th amendment,

00:41:45.000 but if the 14th amendment says what I'm suggesting, that's point to my ideas, not me getting away.

00:41:51.140 There's different clauses.

00:41:51.620 Yeah.

00:41:51.740 Should I read all the clauses?

00:41:53.500 Okay.

00:41:54.060 One citizenship clause.

00:41:55.480 Yes.

00:41:56.140 There we go.

00:41:56.760 It declares that anyone born or naturalized in the United States is a U.S. citizen, including

00:42:01.540 formerly enslaved people.

00:42:03.060 Yep.

00:42:03.520 Overturn the Dred Scott versus Sanford decision number two, due process clause.

00:42:08.000 It says states cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process

00:42:12.780 of law.

00:42:13.320 So I was right.

00:42:13.740 This protects individuals from unfair state government actions.

00:42:16.700 Clause three, equal protection clause.

00:42:18.720 It requires states to provide equal protection of the laws to all people.

00:42:22.080 This clause became the foundation for many civil rights decisions, including Roe v. Wade, Brown

00:42:27.620 versus Board of Education, Obergfell versus Hodges.

00:42:31.000 So these were all interpretations of the amendment.

00:42:33.760 There's nothing in there about religion.

00:42:35.400 You're right.

00:42:35.960 But you said that that was the 14th amendment was saying that states could have their own

00:42:39.360 unique religion.

00:42:40.560 But in fact-

00:42:40.860 No, that's the 10th amendment.

00:42:42.900 Wait, why were you citing the 14th amendment?

00:42:44.480 Because I was telling you that most of the reason, states wanted to move back to the idea

00:42:49.760 of religiosity.

00:42:50.840 It was through the interpretation of the 14th amendment, which had nothing at all to do

00:42:55.360 with religion, had to do with birthright citizenship.

00:42:58.500 And due process.

00:42:59.160 They were, they focused on that.

00:43:01.120 And here's how they did it.

00:43:02.820 What they were saying was, basically, states aren't going to be able to tell anybody who

00:43:09.260 is or isn't a citizen.

00:43:10.640 Okay?

00:43:10.940 They're not going to be able to do that anymore.

00:43:12.820 And it needs to be uniform.

00:43:14.520 So what happened is the Supreme Court began to rule that, oh, well, since it has to be

00:43:19.360 uniform, we'll apply the first amendment there too.

00:43:22.340 This is way, way, way late in the game though.

00:43:25.840 Okay?

00:43:26.560 Early constitution, remember at this time, your founders are all dead, right?

00:43:30.820 All these people are dead.

00:43:32.700 They didn't want anything to do with that.

00:43:34.680 They wanted the states to be able to make those prospective decisions themselves, which they

00:43:38.700 were doing.

00:43:39.820 Sure.

00:43:40.220 So there was a compromise, particularly the compromise was because they needed to unite

00:43:43.880 the colonies, but a lot of the colonies had a lot of different predilections about how

00:43:47.420 to run statecraft, right?

00:43:49.020 And so one of the reasons why they wrote out separation of church and state at a federal

00:43:52.400 level, but allowed states to maintain it, is because they wanted states to still join.

00:43:56.100 It was very important to them, particularly since the revolution was about to happen, that

00:43:59.760 they had the states unified under one another.

00:44:02.420 Well, again, so the 14th Amendment didn't, none of that proved that you were right at all.

00:44:07.800 Yes, it did.

00:44:08.360 A hundred percent did.

00:44:09.360 It has nothing to do with religion.

00:44:11.520 That was my point, not yours.

00:44:14.120 That was my point.

00:44:15.260 I never said the 14th Amendment had anything to do with religion.

00:44:17.700 You did.

00:44:18.260 You said, yes, you did.

00:44:19.600 I haven't written, I've only said the first amendment.

00:44:20.620 And I said, no, it was citizenship.

00:44:22.300 And you were like, no, no.

00:44:24.020 Oh, wait, it is citizenship.

00:44:25.840 And then Brian, he did a quick Google search.

00:44:28.160 And what he was reading was an interpretation of it.

00:44:30.580 When he read the actual amendment, no, I was correct.

00:44:33.860 I've never denied that it was about citizenship.

00:44:36.020 I said, what does the 14th Amendment have to do with religion?

00:44:37.900 You said, read it so that it favors Andrew.

00:44:40.180 But it did favor me, because I was right.

00:44:41.760 Well, he started reading it and it had nothing to do with religion.

00:44:44.640 It had everything to do with, like, equal liberties.

00:44:46.600 No, it was the opposite.

00:44:48.120 He was saying first that, hey, this was about religion, when it wasn't.

00:44:53.260 No, he wasn't.

00:44:53.860 What?

00:44:54.160 No, he was not.

00:44:55.020 Yes.

00:44:55.240 What was the first thing you read, Brian?

00:44:56.440 Okay.

00:44:57.600 It was the citizenship clause.

00:45:00.060 Mm-hmm.

00:45:01.240 There's the due process clause.

00:45:02.580 No, no, no.

00:45:02.940 Before that, the first thing that you read.

00:45:04.760 Oh, the first one.

00:45:06.840 Before I looked it up again.

00:45:08.440 Oh, that the 14th Amendment prohibits states from infringing on religious freedom by applying.

00:45:13.140 Thank you.

00:45:13.920 Infringing on religious freedom. 0.68

00:45:15.300 Thank you.

00:45:16.280 He was saying that the 14th Amendment was about religion.

00:45:19.560 I said, no, it's not.

00:45:20.520 That was about, that was literally about citizenship.

00:45:24.040 Okay.

00:45:24.200 I can look stuff up for you, too.

00:45:25.620 I appreciate that. 0.98

00:45:26.620 It's fucking crazy. 0.99

00:45:27.520 Wait, nothing crazy. 1.00

00:45:28.980 It's the Family and Friends event at Shopper's Drug Mart.

00:45:32.000 Get 20% off almost all regular-priced merchandise.

00:45:35.220 Two days only.

00:45:36.300 Tuesday, February 24th, and Wednesday, February 25th.

00:45:39.600 Open your PC Optimum app to get your coupon.

00:45:45.960 Stuck in that winter slump?

00:45:47.780 Try Dove Men plus Care Aluminum-Free Deodorant.

00:45:50.940 All it takes is a small change to your routine to lift your mood.

00:45:54.040 And it can be as simple as starting your day with the mood-boosting scents of Dove Men Plus Care Aluminum-Free Deodorant.

00:45:59.860 It'll keep you feeling fresh for up to 72 hours.

00:46:03.300 And when you smell good, you feel good.

00:46:06.220 Visit Dove.com to learn more.

00:46:09.200 Crazy's happened here.

00:46:10.120 Yes, it has.

00:46:10.960 So would you agree that in this conversation, I brought up the First Amendment around religion?

00:46:15.220 You have brought up the 10th and 14th to justify why, actually, the states were given power to decide their own religion.

00:46:21.720 Not just the 10th.

00:46:22.740 The 14th was how it was reinterpreted to get away from the idea that states could have their own religion.

00:46:29.000 Okay.

00:46:29.480 Gotcha.

00:46:30.300 I see.

00:46:31.040 So can we read the 10th?

00:46:32.800 Yeah.

00:46:33.120 Yeah, sure.

00:46:33.480 One moment.

00:46:39.520 All right.

00:46:40.380 The 10th Amendment, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.

00:46:54.080 Which is why, post-foundation...

00:46:55.960 Just state power.

00:46:56.880 So none of that is states establishing a religion at all.

00:46:59.660 Yeah.

00:47:00.620 This is just saying the federal government respects the state's right to make certain decisions.

00:47:04.360 Like in suffrage, the state reserved the right to decide who is people, right? 0.56

00:47:08.400 How many states maintained a state religion post-constitutional ratification?

00:47:13.120 I believe all of them did initially.

00:47:15.140 Then what is your argument?

00:47:16.800 My argument is that the states are not America.

00:47:19.920 The founding fathers are.

00:47:20.560 Then what is America?

00:47:21.320 Well, the founding fathers are probably a lot closer than what Maryland thought.

00:47:25.340 That's not Maryland.

00:47:26.520 The states.

00:47:27.500 Yeah.

00:47:28.080 Well, Maryland...

00:47:28.640 The states would be all...

00:47:30.600 Is Maryland a state?

00:47:31.760 Uh-huh.

00:47:32.180 But all states.

00:47:33.060 It's different than one state.

00:47:34.160 Sure.

00:47:34.420 And yet all states felt that religion and church should be unified, that they should have a state religion, that there should be a test for religion.

00:47:40.380 And the founding fathers knew that and despite that, wrote it in explicitly that Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion and prohibit the free exercise thereof.

00:47:50.460 That way the states could do it, yes.

00:47:52.980 They were not saying what the states were going to do.

00:47:55.100 They were saying America, which is federal...

00:47:58.720 Yeah.

00:47:59.040 No, it's also state, which is why we have the 10th Amendment.

00:48:01.940 America is federal government.

00:48:04.080 And state government.

00:48:05.180 So Maryland is America.

00:48:07.320 America is a state...

00:48:08.360 Or Maryland has a state government.

00:48:10.180 I didn't say that it didn't.

00:48:11.320 Oh, great.

00:48:11.800 And is that state government allowed to do all the things that the federal government can't do, that it's not in the powers of the federal government via the 10th Amendment?

00:48:18.360 What matters more to what America is?

00:48:19.380 Now, what matters is answering my question.

00:48:21.260 What matters to what America is?

00:48:21.380 Is Maryland allowed to do whatever Maryland wants to do under the 10th Amendment as long as that's not in the hands of the federal government?

00:48:27.840 As long as those aren't things which are allocated to the federal government, can Maryland do what it wants?

00:48:32.580 By and large, is Maryland's not violating any of the Constitution.

00:48:35.000 Great.

00:48:35.240 Let each other finish.

00:48:36.160 Great.

00:48:36.520 So if that's the case, then there was actually no reason at all why states could not have their own state religions, and they did.

00:48:44.320 So what do you think is more important for America?

00:48:46.940 What a state did, like Pennsylvania, or what the founding fathers wrote into the founding documentation of the entire country?

00:48:52.820 The founding fathers wrote the 10th Amendment into the founding documents.

00:48:56.140 Yes, to respect the state's ability to make decisions.

00:48:58.480 Like have a state religion.

00:48:59.660 Sure, but also multiple things like commerce.

00:49:02.240 And also state religion.

00:49:04.000 Sure, but then they also explicitly prohibited at a federal level any involvement of a state religion.

00:49:11.520 There's no federal state, there's no federal religion.

00:49:15.300 That's never been in dispute.

00:49:17.200 Yep, that has been in dispute because the question here is what's more American?

00:49:22.020 What Pennsylvania did in like the 1700s?

00:49:25.380 That's not the question.

00:49:25.460 The question is whether Christian nationalism is un-American.

00:49:28.500 That's my question to you.

00:49:29.560 What matters more for America?

00:49:31.020 America, the American ethos, understanding America as a country.

00:49:33.980 What Pennsylvania did at the founding of America, or what the American founding fathers wrote.

00:49:39.240 Both.

00:49:39.580 Both are important.

00:49:40.500 Which matters more.

00:49:41.400 Neither one of them matter more than the other.

00:49:43.000 They're equally valid.

00:49:43.940 Equally matter the same.

00:49:44.700 The system wouldn't work without the validity of both state and federal government.

00:49:47.600 That's not what we're saying.

00:49:48.360 You're saying that the Pennsylvania policies are equally as valid as the federal constitution.

00:49:52.220 Under the 10th amendment, yes.

00:49:54.020 No.

00:49:54.700 Yes.

00:49:55.100 No, no, no, hold on.

00:49:56.000 You're equivocating again.

00:49:57.800 How?

00:49:58.200 You're being naughty.

00:49:58.960 Because you're pretending, like what we're talking about is now statecraft, that Pennsylvania

00:50:03.360 policy was valid under the constitution.

00:50:05.600 But that's not what I'm saying.

00:50:06.540 What are you saying?

00:50:07.240 I'm saying, I'm asking about the American idea.

00:50:09.140 Okay.

00:50:09.540 The idea of America.

00:50:10.240 The system.

00:50:10.500 What matters more to the history and understanding of America as a nation?

00:50:14.340 Both.

00:50:15.560 Which matters more?

00:50:17.140 That's.

00:50:17.720 Yes.

00:50:17.940 So you're saying they're equal.

00:50:18.700 When you say.

00:50:19.360 Pennsylvania matters just as much as the founding fathers.

00:50:21.880 When you say more or less.

00:50:22.400 Which is fine.

00:50:23.100 It's just absurd.

00:50:23.700 Absent.

00:50:24.240 How is it absurd?

00:50:25.460 The system doesn't work unless you have the state governments.

00:50:27.860 It doesn't work.

00:50:28.700 That's not what anyone's saying.

00:50:29.940 Nobody here is denying that states have constitutional power.

00:50:31.320 So how could it be more important what the founders did when it was intricate that the

00:50:35.080 states had the rights?

00:50:35.940 To America as an idea, I think what the founding fathers write kind of matters.

00:50:40.100 Like the most.

00:50:41.220 Yeah.

00:50:41.560 Why?

00:50:42.060 Because they're founding the federal government.

00:50:44.140 They're founding.

00:50:44.480 Based on a compromise with the states?

00:50:46.520 Yeah.

00:50:46.740 But they're founding a nation.

00:50:48.500 Based on the states.

00:50:49.880 But the nation is not Pennsylvania.

00:50:52.040 The nation is America.

00:50:52.640 The nation is a collection of states.

00:50:54.400 So why is it the case that if all the states had all these religious practice and all these

00:50:58.260 religious law, why didn't the federal government, if they wanted to unify them, why didn't

00:51:01.800 they just write in, you know, that America is a Christian nation?

00:51:05.560 Why didn't they do that?

00:51:06.420 Because you had what was called pan-Protestantism.

00:51:09.120 Each one of these states had different religious organizations in them.

00:51:13.100 And some of them wanted to be this type of Protestant.

00:51:16.220 Some wanted to be Catholic.

00:51:17.720 Some wanted to be Quakers.

00:51:19.080 So they gave them the 10th Amendment. 1.00

00:51:20.700 And the 10th Amendment said that they could do that shit. 1.00

00:51:23.080 They could be a Protestant state. 1.00

00:51:24.720 They could be a Catholic state.

00:51:25.940 Why not just say they have to be Christian? 0.94

00:51:26.280 Why not just say at a federal level that they can just be the Christian? 0.76

00:51:28.860 Because the states demanded that the federal government not step in to tell them what their

00:51:34.000 state religion had to be.

00:51:35.240 That's not true.

00:51:35.740 So actually the-

00:51:36.600 That was the compromise.

00:51:37.860 Yes.

00:51:38.620 Yes, it was.

00:51:39.520 Yeah.

00:51:39.860 No, no, no.

00:51:40.200 Hold on.

00:51:40.840 Hold on.

00:51:41.300 The compromise here is that states are allowed to make certain rules of law within state that

00:51:45.560 don't, that are not within the federal purview.

00:51:47.980 That is the compromise, right?

00:51:49.860 Yes.

00:51:50.140 That's one compromise.

00:51:52.460 Okay.

00:51:53.380 Okay.

00:51:53.800 I don't know why you're interjecting there at all.

00:51:56.300 Because it matters.

00:51:56.620 Thank you for the clarification.

00:51:58.840 This is like being like, there's three ways of feminism. 1.00

00:52:02.180 And I'm like, there's four.

00:52:02.860 And you're like, three's within four.

00:52:04.320 It's like, okay.

00:52:04.900 Thank you.

00:52:05.200 No, it's nothing like that.

00:52:05.900 It's identical to that.

00:52:07.140 It's like saying the states, the reason that this compromise happened in the First

00:52:10.620 Amendment is because a Catholic state didn't want the federal government to tell

00:52:14.460 them they had to be a Protestant state.

00:52:15.700 But they did want the federal government to say that they could have a Catholic state,

00:52:20.220 and they did under the Tenth Amendment.

00:52:21.840 So why is it the case that within like the first federal address, all of the states were

00:52:26.000 extremely upset because they mentioned nothing about God.

00:52:28.760 There was no establishment of America as a nation of God.

00:52:32.140 There are ways, for example, that they probably could have compromised between all of the religions

00:52:35.520 so that it wasn't saying a Catholic leader, but just saying a Christian leader, right?

00:52:39.540 They could have done that, but they didn't do that explicitly to the upset, actually,

00:52:43.880 to the upset of the religious leaders, to the upset of some of the founding fathers.

00:52:48.120 It's because...

00:52:48.900 So why did they do that?

00:52:49.660 Because Protestants didn't consider Catholics to be Christians.

00:52:52.820 That's why.

00:52:54.520 That's not why.

00:52:55.420 It is why.

00:52:55.940 No, TJ writes about this.

00:52:57.580 The reason why, right?

00:52:58.920 And you have this in the Federalist Papers.

00:53:00.180 The reason why is because they were breaching away from a king who was also a spiritual leader,

00:53:07.020 right, in the UK, and they had a huge issue with it.

00:53:09.540 They viewed this blend of church and state, especially at a federal level, as a problem.

00:53:15.060 In fact, I suspect, if you go into it, a lot of the founding fathers thought that all the states

00:53:18.700 shouldn't have a state-level religion.

00:53:20.600 They just weren't going to comment on that because they needed to unify the countries.

00:53:23.860 Incorrect.

00:53:24.080 And over time, the colonies adopted the exact same framework that the founding fathers had.

00:53:28.380 If you can't, just try to let each other finish.

00:53:30.700 So first of all, there was a couple, a couple of them who didn't want to.

00:53:35.140 That's true.

00:53:36.360 But the thing is, is like...

00:53:37.680 Well, they all agreed to that.

00:53:38.440 The entirety of the federal government...

00:53:40.500 Well, I'm talking about there was a couple of founders who didn't want states to have

00:53:43.100 a religion.

00:53:43.880 That's what I'm specifically referencing.

00:53:44.720 You're talking about the deists.

00:53:46.140 Not just the deists.

00:53:46.980 There was others who weren't deists.

00:53:48.120 But by and large, most of them were fine with the compromise.

00:53:51.060 So a majority of the founding fathers...

00:53:52.900 Is it my turn now?

00:53:54.020 So here's what actually happened.

00:53:55.620 Because since you have revisionist history, I don't know what you came up with.

00:53:58.960 Okay.

00:53:59.760 You couldn't say in the First Amendment that this is to be a Christian nation specifically,

00:54:06.100 unless you gave a specific denomination, because denominations did not recognize other ones

00:54:10.980 as being Christian.

00:54:12.260 So what they did instead was they said, look, Congress is not going to make an establishment

00:54:16.320 of a religion, period.

00:54:18.420 We're going to leave that to the states.

00:54:19.780 And then they put in the Tenth Amendment.

00:54:21.500 And that's exactly what the states did.

00:54:23.120 They put in their own religions. 0.61

00:54:25.620 Why could they have...

00:54:26.500 So why did they ban religious test clauses?

00:54:28.200 You could easily make religious test clauses... 0.68

00:54:30.340 They still had them in almost every state.

00:54:32.120 No, no, no.

00:54:32.560 At a federal level, it's Article 6.

00:54:34.440 It's explicitly banned.

00:54:35.720 No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust

00:54:41.060 under the United States.

00:54:42.660 Because there could be instances where you had people who were representatives of states

00:54:47.140 who for some reason needed to operate at the federal level, right?

00:54:50.640 They didn't want to be like, hey, you're a Catholic, so your oath is no good here.

00:54:55.040 Or you're a Protestant, so your oath is no good here. 0.97

00:54:57.560 Or you're a this, so your oath is no good here.

00:54:59.560 That was part of the compromise.

00:55:00.700 Why didn't they just use the Apostles' Creed?

00:55:02.840 Both Protestants and Catholics at the time acknowledged the Apostles' Creed.

00:55:05.920 Because they didn't recognize each other as Christians, so the compromise...

00:55:08.180 That doesn't matter.

00:55:08.720 They both recognized it.

00:55:09.660 The Apostles' Creed isn't Catholic or Protestant.

00:55:12.300 It's just Christian, right? 0.99

00:55:13.620 Whether or not they would fight about who's a heretic or not.

00:55:16.120 Why not, if you want a religious test clause that compromises between these two religions,

00:55:19.820 why didn't they just write in the Apostles' Creed?

00:55:21.840 I'm sure they were familiar with it.

00:55:23.080 Because they didn't recognize each other as Christians.

00:55:25.920 Meaning, at the federal level, if you swore in as a Catholic, let's say, right, 0.97

00:55:29.900 in order to fucking, I don't know, help with some piece of legislation 0.96

00:55:33.240 or do something that you were supposed to do at the federal level, 0.97

00:55:37.280 the Protestant nations or states might be like, we don't recognize that

00:55:40.980 because that's an oath of a Catholic.

00:55:42.680 So at the federal level, they had to stay secular.

00:55:44.840 The Apostles' Creed would have said that the Apostles' Creed is Catholic.

00:55:47.740 What does the Apostles' Creed have to do with anything we're talking about?

00:55:50.080 The Apostles' Creed is like one of the central creeds to what we say is Christian.

00:55:54.260 So what?

00:55:54.740 That has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

00:55:56.160 Of course it does.

00:55:57.120 Why would...

00:55:57.940 So you said if a Catholic takes the Apostles' Creed test,

00:56:00.500 why would a Protestant be upset about that?

00:56:02.520 Why did the federal government...

00:56:03.760 It was not within the federal purview to make the determination 0.99

00:56:06.940 of getting the states to compromise on the fucking Apostles' Creed. 0.97

00:56:10.620 It was under their purview to say, hey, what we're going to do is make it 0.98

00:56:15.140 so that you don't have to swear any oaths from the Catholic or Protestant perspective,

00:56:18.580 but rather we'll leave that to the states.

00:56:21.240 The states can make it so that you can swear that you're a Protestant 0.73

00:56:24.740 or you can swear that you're a Catholic or you can swear this or you can swear that.

00:56:28.300 It was up to the states' perspective under the Tenth Amendment.

00:56:31.980 Right.

00:56:32.380 But at a federal level, it was barred.

00:56:35.080 And you're saying there isn't a world...

00:56:35.900 And nobody's disputing that.

00:56:36.780 Hold on.

00:56:38.240 I don't...

00:56:38.740 We just like going in a circle.

00:56:40.140 We can keep going in a circle, but I'm not going to let this point go

00:56:42.400 because I think that one of the issues is that what you're trying to do is say,

00:56:45.040 well, because the states had this rule, that means that was the founding of America.

00:56:48.560 And it's like, no, the founding fathers knew that this existed,

00:56:51.120 knew, for example, the Apostles' Creed existed.

00:56:53.400 And despite all of this, despite the standard of all of the states

00:56:57.780 utilizing a religious test, they rejected.

00:57:00.920 Not only did they reject it, they explicitly wrote it in in Article VI

00:57:04.620 that no test can be utilized, despite the fact that the founding fathers were pretty smart.

00:57:09.740 I imagine if they wanted a religious test in there that could satisfy both Protestants

00:57:14.160 and Catholics, they probably could have found it, like the Apostles' Creed.

00:57:17.080 So your whole position is, why didn't the founders try to find some way that all of the

00:57:22.600 different religious denominations could agree to some creed and enshrine it in the First Amendment?

00:57:27.600 That's your argument?

00:57:28.440 My argument would be, if they wanted a blending of church and state,

00:57:31.500 they were pretty intentional to go out of their way to ensure there was no blending of church and state.

00:57:36.300 Except they gave the states the Tenth Amendment so that they could blend the church and the state.

00:57:39.880 They can't tell the states what to do.

00:57:40.940 That was part of the colony deal. 1.00

00:57:42.220 No shit! 1.00

00:57:42.620 That's my point! 1.00

00:57:43.420 But at a federal level, they went above and beyond to explicitly bar this.

00:57:48.320 They went above and beyond to make the compromise that each single state could have their own religion

00:57:54.400 if they wanted it, and the federal government wasn't going to tell them what that had to be.

00:57:59.180 Would, no. Religious clause. Would not. 0.73

00:58:02.200 Yes.

00:58:02.880 Would not.

00:58:03.360 That was the compromise. Federal government can't tell us what our religion's going to be.

00:58:08.060 Why are you spurging out with that?

00:58:08.840 And the feds were like, okay, we can do that.

00:58:12.580 Do you think the founding fathers were maybe a little bit thoughtful and intentional,

00:58:16.480 that they worked pretty hard to figure out the compromises? 1.00

00:58:18.900 Some of them were lazy fucking womanizing pieces of shit, but what's the point? 1.00

00:58:21.980 They could be womanizing, and also, my point would be that if they wanted a religious test 1.00

00:58:26.780 clause that could unify the religions, they probably could have found one that would have

00:58:30.100 worked, because they found a whole bunch of other compromises.

00:58:32.680 What would it be?

00:58:33.120 The Apostles' Creed is one good example.

00:58:35.320 Okay, did Quakers follow the Apostles' Creed?

00:58:37.340 Yes, I believe the Quakers followed the Apostles' Creed.

00:58:38.700 Did Mormons? 0.95

00:58:39.780 I believe Mormons also follow the Apostles' Creed, yes.

00:58:41.760 Really?

00:58:42.280 Yes.

00:58:42.500 Let's find out if Quakers follow the Apostles' Creed. 0.99

00:58:45.400 Can you look it up?

00:58:48.180 Look up if Quakers follow the Apostles' Creed. 1.00

00:58:51.860 Let's find out.

00:58:52.540 Do you know what the Apostles' Creed is?

00:58:53.940 Are we, oh, pop quiz Kyla?

00:58:56.180 Pop quiz Kyla?

00:58:57.360 Are you saying you don't?

00:58:58.620 Yeah.

00:58:59.200 Most Quakers do not formally use or recite the Apostles' Creed. 0.66

00:59:02.200 Really quick before.

00:59:02.960 Hold on.

00:59:03.420 Hold on.

00:59:04.000 Really quick.

00:59:04.860 We're coming up on the hour.

00:59:06.300 Would you guys like to shift to a new prompt here in a few minutes?

00:59:11.220 Yeah.

00:59:11.620 So you're telling me that they, so they don't acknowledge the Apostles' Creed, or are you

00:59:15.620 saying that they don't believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he died and rose

00:59:19.560 again?

00:59:21.900 Kyla.

00:59:22.280 That's the Apostles' Creed.

00:59:23.180 They don't recognize it.

00:59:27.100 That's the Apostles' Creed.

00:59:28.120 That's it.

00:59:28.500 They don't recognize it.

00:59:29.540 Hold on.

00:59:29.960 I do have a bit more information here.

00:59:32.040 It says many Quakers, especially in more evangelical branches, would agree with much of the theology

00:59:38.720 in the Apostles' Creed.

00:59:39.640 However, they generally do not recite it in worship or require members to affirm it.

00:59:47.420 I don't know if that changes it.

00:59:48.520 So that wouldn't have been a unifier.

00:59:50.700 How would that not have been a unifier?

00:59:52.320 Because even if they theologically think it's sound, they're not going to recite the Apostles'

00:59:56.280 Creed.

00:59:56.460 No, no, no.

00:59:56.900 That's not what they said.

00:59:57.740 They didn't say they won't say it.

00:59:59.060 It said that they don't require people to say it, which is not the same thing.

01:00:02.000 I'm not talking about a catechism.

01:00:03.320 I'm talking about a theology.

01:00:04.580 Your entire argument is why couldn't the Founders find some compromise that every single independent

01:00:10.200 Protestant, pan-Protestant religion could agree to for some kind of creed for oaths?

01:00:15.940 My argument is that if the Founders... 1.00

01:00:16.820 That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. 0.99

01:00:18.280 Here's what they did instead. 0.99

01:00:19.340 They went, we're just not going to legislate any sort of formal religion on your states,

01:00:23.600 and you can do that instead.

01:00:24.660 Classic Andrew.

01:00:25.400 It's just absurd.

01:00:26.300 It's just absurd.

01:00:26.960 That's an actual absurd position.

01:00:28.300 It's not absurd.

01:00:28.800 The Founding Fathers were pretty smart guys.

01:00:30.600 I think that they could think about things they wrote a lot.

01:00:33.000 I think if they wanted to blend church and state intentionally, they would have done so.

01:00:36.520 Can you guarantee me?

01:00:37.320 But instead, hold on, but instead, they explicitly wrote into the Constitution that they would

01:00:41.160 not do so federally, and over time, all states agreed with that and wrote out religious clauses.

01:00:47.000 What was the Tenth Amendment for?

01:00:49.020 I don't know.

01:00:50.420 Okay.

01:00:51.240 We just hit the hour mark.

01:00:53.300 Shall we...

01:00:53.460 Do you want to tell me?

01:00:54.580 Shall we switch prompts?

01:00:56.140 The thing we've been talking about for the last...

01:00:57.880 Well, I assumed that you were going to give me more information about it.

01:00:59.980 Well, I need to give you more information.

01:01:01.180 You don't even know what it is.

01:01:01.780 We do have a TTS coming in, so maybe...

01:01:03.360 Can I just pause?

01:01:04.020 I think something...

01:01:05.160 I don't know what you're doing right now, because I feel like we need to talk about

01:01:08.680 these...

01:01:08.960 Okay.

01:01:10.340 No, continue.

01:01:11.000 Continue.

01:01:11.980 I'm going to wait for his tantrum to be over, and then I'll go.

01:01:14.200 Okay.

01:01:14.700 Well, let me...

01:01:15.200 I'll let you know when it's over.

01:01:23.800 Okay.

01:01:24.400 Are we done?

01:01:26.220 Are you still tantruming?

01:01:27.920 Me just sitting here as a tantrum?

01:01:29.100 And you, like, were throwing in not willing to listen to me and throw your hands in the

01:01:32.680 air.

01:01:32.840 I just look back like this.

01:01:33.260 That's all.

01:01:33.460 I'm doing cross-eyes and, like, making fun of me. 0.89

01:01:35.200 Well, that was silly.

01:01:36.120 It's silly to say that you think that the founders should have found some way that every 0.81

01:01:40.920 single independent pan-Protestant religion would find some kind of unifying creed they

01:01:46.820 would all just suddenly agree to, rather than them just saying, we're just not going to

01:01:50.440 impose any religious standards on states.

01:01:52.900 You guys can do it yourself.

01:01:53.780 Yeah, I think that if the founding fathers actually believed that the merging of church

01:01:58.000 and state was important, they would have found a way to write it into the Constitution.

01:02:01.680 They did, via the Tenth Amendment.

01:02:03.080 They did not.

01:02:03.100 They did.

01:02:03.800 No, allowing states to have choice and purview is not the same thing as writing church...

01:02:10.320 Were states allowed to make their own religions or not?

01:02:12.580 Yeah.

01:02:12.940 Okay.

01:02:14.640 That has nothing to do with, for example, saying that the church doesn't get a hand in states

01:02:19.540 craft, which is written exclusively into the 1A.

01:02:22.420 Only at the federal level.

01:02:24.020 Yes.

01:02:24.500 Because they didn't have a unification for things like oaths and other things that all

01:02:29.980 the pan-Protestants would agree to at the federal level.

01:02:32.760 They just couldn't think of anything.

01:02:34.160 They were like, man, we really...

01:02:35.480 They argued about it nonstop.

01:02:37.020 This is your premise.

01:02:37.420 This is your premise.

01:02:38.320 The founding fathers actually really wanted to write in the merging of church and state.

01:02:43.660 No, they didn't.

01:02:44.460 It was something that they really cared about.

01:02:45.460 At the federal level, they didn't.

01:02:46.640 But they couldn't find a way to federally write these things in together.

01:02:50.580 And so, don't interrupt me.

01:02:51.640 And so, instead, what they did is they wrote it out and they just let states do so they

01:02:55.820 could sneakily blend in their blurring of church and state.

01:03:00.800 That's your argument.

01:03:01.600 Truly, truly, your intellect...

01:03:04.160 Yes or no?

01:03:04.720 Is that your argument?

01:03:05.420 ...is dizzying.

01:03:06.500 No.

01:03:06.960 My argument is that the...

01:03:08.120 Are we getting personal?

01:03:09.100 ...that the founding fathers...

01:03:10.620 Are we getting personal?

01:03:11.640 Because you said no personal when we started this.

01:03:13.360 Do you want...

01:03:13.720 Wait a second.

01:03:14.440 You said my intellect is dizzying. 1.00

01:03:15.720 Yeah, you can call me stupid. 0.99

01:03:16.940 So, the thing is, is like, I am so curious about this. 0.98

01:03:20.860 I actually don't even understand this position now.

01:03:22.240 I just want to be clear that we're breaking the rules of decorum by your standards.

01:03:25.680 So, the federal government...

01:03:27.220 Was that really harsh?

01:03:28.960 Like, truly, your intellect is dizzying?

01:03:30.680 I would say...

01:03:31.080 That's harsh?

01:03:31.460 I would say in general...

01:03:31.840 That's a movie line, by the way.

01:03:33.080 I would say in general...

01:03:34.060 That if we want to have a good engagement back and forth, we, for example, agreed to things

01:03:37.300 like not getting personal.

01:03:38.400 That's not personal.

01:03:39.200 It's from the Princess Bride.

01:03:40.380 It's a joke.

01:03:40.880 So, you only meant it as a joke. 0.99

01:03:42.040 You weren't trying to call me stupid. 1.00

01:03:43.760 Well, this position's stupid. 1.00

01:03:45.280 Are you calling me stupid? 1.00

01:03:46.260 And I can prove it. 1.00

01:03:46.540 Because when you say my intellect is dizzying, it feels like you're saying...

01:03:48.760 It is dizzying. 1.00

01:03:49.660 So, you think I'm stupid. 0.99

01:03:50.020 But the thing is here, I don't get... 0.99

01:03:51.660 I don't know why I wouldn't just own that you're insulting me.

01:03:53.540 This is so crazy.

01:03:54.340 It's like, you go, wait a second, Andrew.

01:03:57.780 It would have been way better for the pan-Protestant and Catholics at the federal level for them

01:04:05.420 to somehow agree on some kind of unifying creed.

01:04:08.820 Didn't say better.

01:04:10.020 Or make more sense that they would agree to some sort of unifying creed, even though

01:04:13.940 Protestantism can also change.

01:04:15.980 They can have, like, a new denomination which pops up that doesn't agree with this.

01:04:19.580 And so, they're like, wait a second.

01:04:22.260 Instead of doing that, what we'll do instead is we'll leave it up to the prospective states

01:04:26.460 and then they can impose whatever religion...

01:04:28.520 Because we secretly want the blending of church and state.

01:04:30.980 Kyla, calm down, Kyla.

01:04:31.380 I just want to finish.

01:04:32.240 Okay.

01:04:32.600 Okay.

01:04:33.320 The states can blend and always were able to blend church and state.

01:04:38.320 Yes.

01:04:38.780 And yet the federal level can't and doesn't.

01:04:41.240 That was never in question.

01:04:42.480 So, what is in question here is, by your logic, the founding fathers, they actually secretly

01:04:48.500 wanted the church and state to be blended, but they couldn't write it in because the Christians... 1.00

01:04:51.740 Where did you get that?

01:04:52.860 Your argument.

01:04:53.700 I never argued that.

01:04:54.760 This is the implication of your argument.

01:04:55.720 It's not even the implication of it.

01:04:57.120 Of course it is.

01:04:57.160 You're saying that actually the founding fathers, they did want the blend of church and state.

01:05:01.420 Do you think that?

01:05:02.400 They wanted the states to be able to blend church and state.

01:05:05.100 Do you think that the founding fathers wanted America to have a blend of church and state?

01:05:09.380 That they wanted the church to help make state practice?

01:05:10.640 It depends on which ones you're talking about.

01:05:12.100 Some of them did.

01:05:12.840 Some of them didn't.

01:05:13.500 The majority, you said the majority of founding fathers.

01:05:15.420 No, the majority of the founding fathers who signed, I said, were not deists.

01:05:19.820 That's what I said.

01:05:20.740 You also said the majority of them were like some...

01:05:23.940 Foundational Protestants, yes.

01:05:25.100 Yeah, they were men of God, right?

01:05:27.080 And from different denominations.

01:05:28.200 And do you think that those men of God couldn't have tried to, like, if they wanted to write

01:05:32.180 in that the federal government has a blending of church and state, that they couldn't have

01:05:36.200 found a way to possibly do that?

01:05:37.820 Or they just give it to the states prospectively, which makes more sense.

01:05:40.720 Why would they then explicitly write it out of the federal government?

01:05:44.500 Because they wanted it to go to the states specifically, so that for purposes of things

01:05:49.600 like oath-keeping and things like this...

01:05:51.040 Why would they make a rule, then, that says states must maintain some form of Christian 0.99

01:05:55.200 religion?

01:05:55.900 Because that doesn't mean anything.

01:05:58.240 If you say, you have to be a form of Christian, who gets to make the determination of who a Christian

01:06:04.280 is?

01:06:04.580 Usually, it's going to be the Christian people of that state, right? 1.00

01:06:07.620 Exactly!

01:06:08.600 That's my whole point!

01:06:09.520 It's not your whole point.

01:06:11.460 Yes, it is!

01:06:12.100 No, it's not.

01:06:13.200 Who...

01:06:13.560 If the founders, if at the federal level, they can't make a determination of who a Christian

01:06:17.800 is or isn't, and that's why you leave it up to the state, the state determines.

01:06:23.180 So, by your implication, you're saying the founding fathers did actually want church and

01:06:27.540 state to not be separate.

01:06:28.940 However, they couldn't find a way to write it into constitution, other than through the

01:06:32.580 10th Amendment, which doesn't even talk specifically about...

01:06:33.920 You're getting one whole part of this wrong.

01:06:35.180 Don't interrupt me.

01:06:35.800 Don't interrupt me.

01:06:36.860 You can correct me after.

01:06:37.760 Just write it down.

01:06:38.120 Okay, go ahead.

01:06:38.600 Okay, so you're saying the founding fathers, by implication, they actually did want the

01:06:43.660 church and state to be blended.

01:06:44.880 They actually valued that.

01:06:45.980 Are you getting that?

01:06:46.520 Because you're saying that they wrote it into the constitution by allowing the states

01:06:49.840 to do it, which is implying then that the founding fathers did want church and state

01:06:54.200 to be blended.

01:06:55.040 They just couldn't write it in within the First Amendment clause, so they allowed the states

01:06:58.480 to do it as a sneaky way to smuggle in church and state.

01:07:01.380 Oh, Lord.

01:07:01.640 This is like the worst straw man ever.

01:07:03.300 No, here's my actual position.

01:07:04.520 The actual position is due to the Articles of Confederation and that not working, we knew

01:07:08.600 that we needed to have a federalist nation.

01:07:10.220 Otherwise, we couldn't have currency, a standing army, anything like this.

01:07:12.940 Because of that, the states who were completely distrustful of having a federal government because 0.97

01:07:16.420 they had just fought off a massive fucking kingdom were very distrustful. 0.96

01:07:20.620 And so they needed to sell it to them. 0.98

01:07:22.140 The way that they sold it to them is they were like, well, since it's all pan-Protestanism,

01:07:25.620 we can't figure out our foundationalism, we will take a secular approach at the national

01:07:29.560 level.

01:07:30.540 And what we'll do is institute the Tenth Amendment, and each of you can put in your own

01:07:34.260 religions if you want to.

01:07:35.940 That was the compromise.

01:07:37.720 It has nothing to do with the motivation of the founders at the federal level wanting

01:07:41.200 it, not wanting it, loving it, not loving it.

01:07:43.660 Of course it does, because this is my argument.

01:07:45.020 Hang on.

01:07:45.260 Okay, that's great.

01:07:46.480 But you just said what you're saying is, which infers that's my argument, and it's not.

01:07:51.960 My argument is there's a compromise between the states and between the feds, and the

01:07:57.100 compromise was that the feds were not going to tell the states what religions they could

01:08:02.040 or couldn't have, period.

01:08:03.980 And was the compromise, why are the fathers, were the founding fathers compromising?

01:08:07.900 Because they had a hope that the church and state would stay connected, they just couldn't

01:08:11.340 write it in?

01:08:12.000 Is that what you're saying?

01:08:13.560 At which level?

01:08:15.280 So they were hoping that the nation broadly would stay Christian within the statecraft, 0.88

01:08:20.500 that there would be no separation of church and state.

01:08:22.600 However, they couldn't write it in.

01:08:23.760 No, they wanted at the national level to adhere to the idea that only the states could impose

01:08:32.900 whatever their religious value structures were.

01:08:36.160 I'm asking, is it more reasonable to conclude that the founding fathers wanted a separation

01:08:39.440 of church and state, or that they did not want a separation of church and state?

01:08:43.180 You have to explain, express at which level, though.

01:08:45.700 I'm assuming that if they felt it at the federal level, they probably felt it at the statehood

01:08:48.440 level.

01:08:48.580 I don't know why a founding father would be like, I don't want it at the state level,

01:08:51.600 but I actually do.

01:08:52.260 You said compromise, right?

01:08:53.460 Jefferson didn't like that states had religions, and he made that clear.

01:08:58.120 But other presidents made it clear that they were fine with it.

01:09:00.500 So the majority of the founding fathers, do you think that they wanted separation of

01:09:03.300 church and state?

01:09:04.060 At the national level, that was the compromise, yes.

01:09:06.620 Do they want it, though?

01:09:07.700 I don't know.

01:09:08.520 I can describe to you each of their motivations.

01:09:11.260 What's your presumption?

01:09:11.940 Some of them did, and some of them didn't.

01:09:13.420 Do you think most of them did, or most of them didn't?

01:09:15.020 I don't know if it's most.

01:09:16.180 Well, you said a majority of the founding fathers.

01:09:18.960 Well, I would say...

01:09:19.860 I said weren't deists.

01:09:21.000 No, you also said that they were loyal, Protestant, good old Christian boys.

01:09:24.580 Yes, that's true.

01:09:25.040 They were.

01:09:25.440 So my argument would be that these good old Christian boys all agreed that separation of 0.99

01:09:29.220 church and state mattered.

01:09:30.240 That's why they wrote it into the Constitution.

01:09:31.800 At the federal level.

01:09:33.580 They didn't even prescribe states having a state religion.

01:09:36.260 They just didn't take the states right...

01:09:37.200 That was the compromise.

01:09:38.520 They just didn't take the states right away from them doing so.

01:09:41.900 That's not the same thing.

01:09:43.440 So they allowed the states to implement their own religions?

01:09:47.800 At a state level, but they would not at a federal level.

01:09:51.160 Then what are we arguing here?

01:09:52.700 We're arguing about whether or not the founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state

01:09:56.340 or not.

01:09:56.700 At the federal...

01:09:57.620 Okay, I don't know how else to make this clear.

01:09:59.480 Why would they want it not at the federal level?

01:10:00.520 At the federal level, they did not want a federal religion because states got to make

01:10:07.020 a religion.

01:10:07.660 Why didn't they want a federal religion?

01:10:08.860 Because they were compromising with the states.

01:10:11.060 Sure, but do you think that overall, if they didn't have to compromise, they would have

01:10:14.520 preferred a federal religion?

01:10:17.720 Well, there wouldn't even...

01:10:18.780 The whole framework of the nation would be so different.

01:10:21.480 I don't even know how to speculate on that.

01:10:22.760 You're right.

01:10:22.820 It would be completely different America if we didn't have separation of church and state 0.71

01:10:26.080 because the founding fathers, despite mostly being Christian, just being loyal Christians,

01:10:30.520 they understood the necessity of separation of church and state.

01:10:33.720 No, no, no.

01:10:33.980 It would be a different America because there wouldn't then be states' rights, the Tenth 0.80

01:10:38.020 Amendment.

01:10:38.880 There wouldn't be...

01:10:39.500 The whole system would be totally different.

01:10:42.560 We're 10 minutes over time.

01:10:44.320 So I don't have any idea what you're even referencing here.

01:10:46.100 Look, if you want to rewrite absurdism into it, that's totally fine.

01:10:48.960 But it's pretty obvious that if the founding fathers wanted to have no separation of church

01:10:53.280 and state, they could have done something.

01:10:54.700 They could have employed in some direction.

01:10:56.460 I don't even know what she's arguing.

01:10:58.260 How about this?

01:10:58.760 You could steal, man, me, and try.

01:11:00.520 I don't have time on this prompt.

01:11:01.420 You seem to be saying that...

01:11:02.860 You guys want to do a...

01:11:03.660 Was it the motivation, if it was the case, that there was no states?

01:11:09.200 Would the founders have preferred no religion?

01:11:11.440 So I've made already an affirmative claim, which I said, well, the founding fathers, despite

01:11:15.300 being dominantly Christian, despite valuing their Christianity, despite most of the nation 0.72

01:11:19.280 being either Protestant or Catholic, went out of their way to write religion out of a federal

01:11:25.320 nation, grounding America at a nation level as a non-religious nation state. 0.96

01:11:31.940 In fact, so non-religious.

01:11:34.560 So non-religious. 0.97

01:11:35.380 Here's the problem.

01:11:35.900 Hold on.

01:11:36.220 I'm not done.

01:11:36.680 Okay.

01:11:37.040 Go ahead.

01:11:38.920 Go ahead.

01:11:39.440 Really quick before you go.

01:11:41.580 We are a bit over time on this prompt.

01:11:43.760 It does give them some time to tantrum. 0.74

01:11:45.120 So you can read your TTS if you want.

01:11:46.940 Well, do you guys...

01:11:47.460 What tantrum? 0.94

01:11:48.160 I'm just sitting here.

01:11:48.880 You're eye rolling and like getting upset, which is totally fine.

01:11:51.280 Like it's an impassioned situation. 0.99

01:11:52.460 I actually don't understand what the fuck you're even talking about. 0.98

01:11:56.040 That's kind of the... 0.99

01:11:56.700 I really don't.

01:11:57.800 Do you guys want to continue on this prompt or do you want to move on to something else?

01:12:01.040 I just want to speak to that specific thing you said.

01:12:03.040 That's kind of one of my issues with that.

01:12:04.880 Andrewism is you're not attempting to understand what I'm saying in any way.

01:12:07.940 And usually...

01:12:08.420 I just tried to steal man and you cut me off.

01:12:10.960 When I was trying to steal man your position, you cut me off.

01:12:13.160 I corrected you because you were steal manning me incorrectly.

01:12:15.960 Okay.

01:12:16.340 Got it.

01:12:17.340 So here's the thing.

01:12:18.200 Well, if you're going to steal man me, you should probably be correct.

01:12:20.160 And in a good faith conversation, I want to understand you and you want to understand me.

01:12:25.020 So let me summarize your position.

01:12:26.340 Okay, go ahead.

01:12:26.940 My understanding of your position is that you don't know.

01:12:29.680 You're agnostic as to whether or not the founding fathers wanted church and state to be blended.

01:12:35.280 But you believe that essentially they allowed the states to do it so that the states could stay religious.

01:12:40.180 And they wrote it at a federal level because they recognized that they would have to compromise

01:12:43.320 and they couldn't find a good compromisation amongst the states because they were of different religions.

01:12:48.760 Correct?

01:12:49.160 No.

01:12:49.340 How is that incorrect?

01:12:50.600 Well, the first part is what you're messing up.

01:12:52.640 Okay.

01:12:52.980 It's irrelevant whether or not the signers of the constitution themselves would have ascribed

01:12:59.540 for a state religion or not.

01:13:01.120 I think the founding fathers of the election is important.

01:13:03.280 What's relevant is what they actually did with the states.

01:13:06.920 The state itself, the prospective states, are as much of import as the federal government.

01:13:13.020 That's what anti-federalists thought.

01:13:15.240 You have a federalist mindset for some reason.

01:13:17.240 You keep on – I understand the disconnect.

01:13:20.000 The disconnect is you keep thinking that federal systems are more important than state systems.

01:13:25.300 No, no, no.

01:13:25.840 They're definitely not.

01:13:27.120 I love to finish.

01:13:28.060 Hang on.

01:13:28.420 Not only are they definitely not, but that's where the disconnect is.

01:13:31.380 Here's what's actually happening.

01:13:32.900 There was a compromise that was done.

01:13:35.040 The compromise was that there was no possible way that Catholics over here were going to recognize the oaths of Protestants over there, not if the federal government was making the demand that you had to be X thing in order to swear an oath or do a thing.

01:13:49.260 So what they did instead was they said, what we're going to do is we're not going to implement a nationalized religion.

01:13:55.600 The prospective states instead are going to be able to implement whatever religious institutions that they want.

01:14:01.000 They were perfectly fine with them blending church and state.

01:14:03.600 Yes, perfectly fine with it.

01:14:05.420 Do you think they preferred it?

01:14:06.700 Many of them, yes.

01:14:07.680 So why didn't they write it into the federal constitution?

01:14:09.860 I don't know how else to explain it.

01:14:12.100 I actually don't.

01:14:12.900 I don't even know how to explain it.

01:14:15.840 Maybe a prompt switch.

01:14:17.240 Maybe a prompt switch.

01:14:18.200 I think we should probably do.

01:14:19.200 How could I ever explain it better than I just did?

01:14:21.540 Maybe a prompt switch could be good.

01:14:23.760 Sure.

01:14:24.280 The issue is I don't know if you want to have a good faith conversation or not.

01:14:27.720 It seems like the answer is no because in a good faith conversation, we're both trying to understand the most coherent version of one another's opinions.

01:14:34.380 We're trying to actually understand what the person is saying.

01:14:36.280 Then why did you just ask me explain it to me when I just explained it to you?

01:14:39.640 What?

01:14:39.920 You said, then explain to me why they did that.

01:14:42.920 And I'm like, I just explained to you why they did that.

01:14:45.560 So again, then I was going to say my next argument against that.

01:14:49.460 Yeah.

01:14:49.780 Right?

01:14:50.080 Which is that you're telling me that the founding fathers and all of their intelligence and all of their battling and their ability to do so much, like found America, they couldn't figure out a way to compromise amongst the religions if they actually all dominantly preferred a blending, a church and state blending.

01:15:07.720 They just couldn't figure that out.

01:15:09.100 They did find a way to do that.

01:15:09.920 So you're saying they actually did do that sneakily through the 10th Amendment.

01:15:13.200 It wasn't sneakily.

01:15:14.240 It was up frontally.

01:15:15.580 Why wouldn't they just write that in the First Amendment? 0.96

01:15:17.260 Why would the First Amendment bar the union of church and state?

01:15:20.840 Because at the, okay.

01:15:22.480 If they wanted at a federal level, they could have.

01:15:24.140 At a federal level, what they did was they said, okay, we're not going to implement any religiosity on independent states.

01:15:33.640 We're not going to do that ever.

01:15:35.920 Why?

01:15:36.280 Because each independent state gets to have their own religion as part of the compromise that they made with the federal government due to the Articles of Confederation.

01:15:45.840 Or.

01:15:46.880 There's no or.

01:15:47.700 Yes.

01:15:47.980 There's no or.

01:15:49.440 Well, the or here is the more reasonable assumption.

01:15:51.940 The founding fathers wrote in an explicit separation of church and state at a federal level because that's what they wanted.

01:15:58.800 They understood that when you blend a church and state, it corrupts not only the nation, which they had just separated from a corrupted nation that was utilizing state, craft, and religion.

01:16:09.420 And they recognized that it also corrupted the religion, which there was many issues with the corrupted religion of the Anglican and then Catholic and then Anglican British church.

01:16:20.020 No, that's not what happened.

01:16:21.260 Okay.

01:16:21.420 What happened, first of all, they had not just done this.

01:16:25.140 Okay?

01:16:25.580 Okay.

01:16:25.980 They had the Articles of Confederation first.

01:16:28.800 That happened first.

01:16:30.920 And what happened is they were just not able to govern because each state was like a mini kingdom and they wanted their own currency and their own militaries.

01:16:39.980 Okay?

01:16:40.520 And so for like the common defense, they wanted to have some sort of federalism in order to do this.

01:16:45.800 Did they unify under one currency?

01:16:48.280 That was one of the primary reasons they wanted unification was because of a currency.

01:16:51.680 Okay.

01:16:51.920 So why couldn't they unify under one religion?

01:16:53.300 Because what she wanted was she wanted to have trade between each state. 0.89

01:16:59.340 Yeah.

01:16:59.520 But when you're talking about their religions, this was pan-Protestant.

01:17:04.520 So there was no unification there.

01:17:06.500 So they were willing to unify on a whole bunch of stuff, but they just couldn't for the life of them figure out a way to unify the religions because they actually did want the church and state to be blended.

01:17:15.920 They wanted the church to have weight and say on statecraft.

01:17:20.580 They just couldn't write it in at the federal level.

01:17:22.480 So they just let states do it.

01:17:23.580 Well, who's the church?

01:17:25.120 The church would be the Christian church.

01:17:27.140 Who?

01:17:28.080 Christian church.

01:17:28.820 Who's that?

01:17:29.940 The Christian church.

01:17:30.820 Who?

01:17:31.980 There's multiple branches of it.

01:17:33.560 Oh, there are.

01:17:34.380 Yep.

01:17:34.580 Okay.

01:17:35.280 So because of that, were there multiple branches which had different states they were in?

01:17:40.640 Probably to some degree, although I imagine a lot of states mostly had a lot of everything.

01:17:45.140 I suspect that a lot of states had Protestants.

01:17:46.520 A lot of them had a lot of one thing.

01:17:48.320 Really?

01:17:48.880 Really.

01:17:49.440 Okay.

01:17:49.700 So there was just like the Quaker state. 0.94

01:17:52.020 I mean, it was mostly brought up like that.

01:17:53.760 The Mormon state, but it didn't.

01:17:54.860 There was some.

01:17:55.540 Was there a Mormon state?

01:17:56.240 There was some delineation, but no.

01:17:58.860 Was there a Mormon state?

01:17:59.660 No.

01:18:00.140 So the thing is, is like, look, when you look at it, because of pan-Protestanism, each 0.62

01:18:06.400 state independently is going to have their own religion.

01:18:08.960 That had nothing to do with them being able to coordinate trade under one currency.

01:18:12.940 So say if one of those states happened to be Muslim, do you think that they would have 1.00

01:18:15.800 been like, woo, they get to have their own religion?

01:18:18.060 Do you think that would have been okay?

01:18:18.980 No, I think, I don't think so.

01:18:20.780 So they did want a Christian nation.

01:18:22.420 Well, no, I think that they were banking on white immigrants not being, not being Muslim. 0.75

01:18:26.800 Sure, but they probably did want a Christian nation.

01:18:29.060 And they had some feelings about the Catholics and the Protestants, but they recognized that

01:18:33.280 they were more united than, say, pagan religions.

01:18:34.120 I think that they just thought that most of the immigrants coming in would be Western

01:18:37.640 Europeans, and so not Muslims. 1.00

01:18:40.360 Gotcha.

01:18:40.680 So they had no, but say the Founding Fathers did have an expectation that a lot of, that

01:18:45.360 a branch or a sect of paganism was about to be popularized in America.

01:18:49.060 They'd be okay with the state just being some pagan religion, some Nordic pagan religion that 0.69

01:18:53.420 a bunch of these white Europeans were appealing to.

01:18:55.760 There wasn't, I don't even think that at that time they could have even envisioned that.

01:18:59.100 Hypothetically, though, if there was, would they have been okay with that?

01:19:00.940 I think that you, I don't think there would have been a state federal compromise if that

01:19:04.060 was the case.

01:19:04.680 Oh, interesting.

01:19:05.800 Why?

01:19:06.360 Because I think that the states would have been like, we're not going to allow a Muslim 1.00

01:19:09.500 state.

01:19:09.920 So the federal government would have imposed a religion on them, except.

01:19:13.320 They wouldn't have imposed a religion necessarily.

01:19:15.220 Except wait, they didn't do that.

01:19:16.200 In fact, the federal government explicitly wrote that out.

01:19:19.160 That would make my point.

01:19:20.240 That would make my point.

01:19:21.080 How would it make your point?

01:19:22.040 Because if the federal government wouldn't be okay with a Muslim government, then they 1.00

01:19:26.840 probably should have written in that you have to be a Christian government in some

01:19:30.320 way.

01:19:30.440 They probably could have found something connected amongst all the Christians to

01:19:33.900 ensure that the states could be it.

01:19:34.440 They just did it through racialism.

01:19:37.980 Okay.

01:19:39.180 If that's what you want to be.

01:19:40.120 Were they importing a bunch of brown people from Muslim countries when I wasn't looking or

01:19:43.560 something? 0.99

01:19:43.660 They were importing a bunch of black people for slaves. 0.99

01:19:45.500 Yeah. 0.94

01:19:45.700 You mean the Christians?

01:19:47.580 The ones that they turned into Christians? 0.99

01:19:49.300 A lot of them had pagan religions and African religions that actually a lot of people.

01:19:53.480 And then they put them all in churches and made them convert. 0.88

01:19:56.580 Yeah.

01:19:56.860 Forced them to convert.

01:19:57.780 That worked super great.

01:19:58.760 That's awesome.

01:19:59.020 Well, whether it worked or not, they still were banking on Christian.

01:20:01.980 Yes.

01:20:02.300 Yeah.

01:20:02.440 They were forcing them in.

01:20:03.320 And by the way, they didn't even see blacks as being a people at the time.

01:20:07.480 You're right.

01:20:08.060 So one of the issues is, for example, they write about this.

01:20:12.740 They don't want, for example, black people voting because they were, some of the states 1.00

01:20:16.020 were worried about other religions getting in because a lot of the black people held 0.88

01:20:20.220 to pagan religions. 0.55

01:20:21.540 Wait.

01:20:21.980 Okay.

01:20:22.220 Who wrote about this?

01:20:23.800 I believe, I believe this would have been in like Connecticut.

01:20:27.500 There was a bunch of issues specifically in Connecticut around suffrage of women and suffrage

01:20:31.280 of black people.

01:20:32.300 When?

01:20:33.900 I think like 1818.

01:20:35.060 I don't have it on the top of my head.

01:20:36.240 So long after what we're talking about?

01:20:38.380 Like 30 years after what we're talking about.

01:20:39.780 So long after what we're talking about?

01:20:41.800 Not really.

01:20:42.540 I don't know why.

01:20:43.040 Yeah, really long after.

01:20:43.920 Wait, why would you think that that's not relevant?

01:20:45.560 Because, how would that have any relevancy?

01:20:47.280 Because the founding fathers at the time obviously would have known that the black slaves had 1.00

01:20:51.820 their own pagan religion.

01:20:53.280 Wouldn't they be worried, for example, that the pagan religion spread?

01:20:57.420 Why would they be worried about the slaves?

01:20:59.880 They were constantly worried about tyranny of any form.

01:21:02.720 They were constantly worried about select interest groups rising up and taking away power from

01:21:06.940 other people.

01:21:07.400 And that's why they put in the three-fifths clause.

01:21:11.040 Okay.

01:21:11.480 Wait, sorry.

01:21:14.260 What are the three-fifths clause?

01:21:15.260 Why don't you tell me?

01:21:17.020 Or is that a pop quiz? 0.87

01:21:18.220 That black people only count as three-fifths of the vote?

01:21:21.620 Right.

01:21:22.020 Oh, three-fifths.

01:21:22.760 I heard a different word.

01:21:23.960 I heard three...

01:21:24.620 I didn't hear three-fifths.

01:21:27.380 Yeah, problem solved.

01:21:28.900 And they were banking on whites coming in from basically Western European nations.

01:21:32.900 Right. 0.89

01:21:33.040 So they actually were a little bit worried about black pagan tyranny. 0.97

01:21:36.320 They just wrote it out of the Constitution.

01:21:37.480 Well, they were worried about Southern states being able to outvote Northern states.

01:21:40.900 They were worried in general.

01:21:42.020 So this goes back to suffrage, right?

01:21:44.020 If you look, for example, at Hamilton's writing of suffrage, which is really important.

01:21:47.440 It's one of the founding documents. 0.94

01:21:48.400 I don't know what the fuck this has to do with what we're talking about. 0.93

01:21:50.600 Voting? 0.98

01:21:51.760 Yeah.

01:21:51.900 What does this have to do with the fact that you still haven't acknowledged that the whole

01:21:56.560 reason that there was this compromise which happened and that the federal government said,

01:22:01.740 from our perspective, we're going to leave this up to the states via the Tenth Amendment.

01:22:05.060 Because they...

01:22:05.620 It's literally because they wanted to allow the states to put in whatever religious institutions

01:22:10.420 they wanted.

01:22:10.660 But also, theoretically, no religious institutions, right?

01:22:13.420 The federalists...

01:22:14.160 No.

01:22:14.720 They weren't...

01:22:15.320 They didn't have the purview to tell the states that.

01:22:17.820 Yeah.

01:22:17.920 So the federal government would have been opposed.

01:22:20.600 Is that what you're saying?

01:22:21.220 They would have actually been opposed to a secular state.

01:22:24.820 Like if a state just got rid of all the religious clauses that it had, would that be okay?

01:22:29.760 Under the purview of the Tenth Amendment, states could do that.

01:22:32.300 Yeah.

01:22:33.220 You're right.

01:22:34.100 It's almost like the founding fathers didn't care about blending church and state.

01:22:38.920 They actually cared about separation of powers.

01:22:40.660 So if you want to ask me about the suffrage stuff, the reason why the suffrage stuff is relevant

01:22:44.360 is because when they were talking about voting, voting is really important.

01:22:47.920 As far as like stakeholders, this is what Hamilton and Madison talk a lot about, right?

01:22:53.620 The voter has to be somebody with a high stakeholder in the country.

01:22:56.040 And they were constantly afraid that votes could get utilized in such a way that select

01:23:00.660 interest groups could tyrannize other interest groups, right?

01:23:03.200 Which is why they had lots of separations of power, like the separation of church and state.

01:23:08.680 At the federal level.

01:23:09.740 Which they cared a lot about.

01:23:10.980 At the federal level.

01:23:12.220 You're right.

01:23:12.720 The thing not in dispute.

01:23:13.900 Yeah.

01:23:14.500 So when we're talking, so the thing that's in dispute here, as I'm saying, America and

01:23:18.480 the founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state.

01:23:21.640 At the federal level.

01:23:22.640 Yep.

01:23:23.540 So what?

01:23:24.860 I think the federal level is pretty important.

01:23:26.480 This was never in dispute.

01:23:27.140 Is America important?

01:23:28.640 Is America federal?

01:23:30.300 It's both.

01:23:31.380 So what matters more when we're talking about federal policy?

01:23:34.840 The system completely doesn't work unless you have both states and federal.

01:23:38.000 Does the federal government have hierarchy over the state?

01:23:40.900 No.

01:23:41.520 Yes.

01:23:42.000 On everything that the federal government has decided has hierarchy over the state.

01:23:44.700 So the federal government has hierarchy over the state over everything the federal

01:23:48.780 government has the powers of hierarchy over the state with.

01:23:51.220 Has decided to have power over.

01:23:52.620 So by that same logic, does the state have hierarchy over the federal government?

01:23:56.020 No.

01:23:56.260 Because if the federal government, for example, decided to overimpose on the state, they would

01:23:59.280 fight it in courts.

01:24:00.340 Technically, the federal government has rules.

01:24:02.000 It's obviously the case.

01:24:02.960 No, that's not even how the system works.

01:24:05.520 The states, prospectively, can override the federal government on all sorts of issues

01:24:09.520 when it comes to the Tenth Amendment.

01:24:10.740 That's what it's there for.

01:24:12.540 That's the separation of powers you're talking about.

01:24:14.900 Yeah, it's one of the separation of powers.

01:24:15.260 What you just said was incoherent.

01:24:16.820 If it's the case that you say the federal government, yes, they have authority over the

01:24:22.540 states based on everything they have the authority over the states with.

01:24:26.260 It's like, sure, but the same thing applies to the state.

01:24:29.060 What you're talking about, when you say more or less important, that's not even a coherent

01:24:34.280 question.

01:24:35.060 That wouldn't even be the same system.

01:24:36.840 It would be a completely different system.

01:24:38.700 So if the federal government decides to go to war and draft people, can the states do

01:24:42.320 anything about that?

01:24:44.380 Under the current law, I don't think they can.

01:24:46.800 Okay, gotcha.

01:24:47.700 And if the federal government, for example, decided to send the National Guard into Minnesota,

01:24:52.500 have they been able to do that?

01:24:53.480 Uh, only to federal buildings, yes.

01:24:57.720 Well, there's more than that, but yeah.

01:25:00.060 Now, where?

01:25:00.960 The National Guard has been sent in to just control riots generally across California, I

01:25:04.320 mean, this year.

01:25:05.260 Only to federal buildings.

01:25:06.900 I mean, they go into crowds and disperse crowds, like outside.

01:25:09.440 In front of federal buildings.

01:25:11.000 Okay, gotcha.

01:25:11.760 So the government, the federal government just can actually impose into a state.

01:25:17.040 And on federal property?

01:25:18.900 In like limited ways, yeah, of course.

01:25:20.240 Can they go in, can the federal government go occupy the state building?

01:25:25.280 No. 0.99

01:25:25.820 Okay, then what the fuck are you talking about? 0.99

01:25:27.900 I'm talking about a hierarchy of two things. 0.99

01:25:30.400 Number one, the American ethos.

01:25:32.720 Yeah.

01:25:33.100 Right?

01:25:33.360 This is where we all started.

01:25:34.760 I was saying, the American ethos is life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, ingenuity, creation,

01:25:41.020 right?

01:25:41.200 All these things.

01:25:42.040 Yeah.

01:25:42.300 And you said, where is that?

01:25:44.020 And I said, well, in the Declaration of Independence is a start.

01:25:46.180 And with the Founding Father's value.

01:25:47.920 No, I didn't say, where is it?

01:25:49.000 I said, what is it?

01:25:50.240 You also said, where?

01:25:51.320 Yeah.

01:25:51.620 What is it?

01:25:52.940 And, okay, I'm not quibbling.

01:25:54.820 What is the philosophy of it?

01:25:57.220 And you still haven't told me.

01:25:58.520 Well, you still haven't told me what an Irish ethos is.

01:26:01.400 Because all these things are circular.

01:26:02.580 Well, I did.

01:26:03.360 Well, the liberty is the foundational piece.

01:26:04.820 Yeah.

01:26:05.020 So you're just referring, so liberalism is just a referent back to a system.

01:26:09.120 And if it's just a referent to a system, and I can change the First Amendment.

01:26:12.940 Well, liberalism is a system with a collection of values.

01:26:14.700 If you can change the system within the confines of liberalism, you shouldn't have an objection.

01:26:19.580 Because if I can change the First Amendment, the only thing you would be appealing to that I shouldn't is not the system.

01:26:24.620 It's just your preference.

01:26:26.420 Well, I would be appealing to what the American ethos is.

01:26:28.880 Yeah.

01:26:29.120 I do not think America—

01:26:30.060 Which is what?

01:26:31.500 Free speech is one of them.

01:26:33.340 Right?

01:26:33.640 The separation of church and state is the second one of them.

01:26:36.040 Also amending the Constitution is one of them.

01:26:38.180 Yeah, with extremely high bar.

01:26:39.740 And what's amazing is that Americans would probably agree with me that it would be un-American to remove free speech, right?

01:26:45.080 Unless we go 20 years in the future where they don't.

01:26:48.020 Those people aren't American. 0.97

01:26:49.740 Okay.

01:26:50.600 Do you think that the—

01:26:51.840 Wait, do you think most people would agree with me that free speech is American?

01:26:54.060 Right.

01:26:54.380 At this current moment, sure.

01:26:55.280 Do you think most Americans listening would go, of course free speech is American?

01:26:58.140 At this current moment, sure.

01:26:59.160 And in the future, 40 years from now, if our children don't believe that, they've lost what it means to be America.

01:27:03.740 Then how come they didn't have the same referent to it 55 years ago?

01:27:07.160 What do you mean?

01:27:08.060 What?

01:27:08.460 Yeah.

01:27:08.680 So how come it wasn't, you know, if we're looking just 100 years ago, we're talking about things like the First Amendment, Second Amendment, various things like this.

01:27:16.920 You could go into a Western town, they could strip you of your guns.

01:27:19.660 That was totally legal.

01:27:21.020 That was a violation of the Second Amendment, right?

01:27:23.460 But the way—

01:27:24.180 So it was legal.

01:27:24.960 When you're talking about presentism—

01:27:26.280 So it was a violation of being America, but they could just physically do it?

01:27:28.720 Well, at the time, it wasn't ruled as a violation, was it?

01:27:31.080 Okay, gotcha.

01:27:31.840 So, but do you think it's more American to have access to guns?

01:27:34.520 I think that when you say more American, it's incoherent, and here's why.

01:27:38.800 Of course not.

01:27:39.200 You're just focusing on what do present people within the liberal system think is American.

01:27:44.940 No, I'm actually creating a—

01:27:46.220 Do you think in 1800, they thought it was very American to let women vote?

01:27:49.360 No, probably not.

01:27:50.460 Okay.

01:27:50.680 Do you think that right now, that if I asked, do you want to take the right of women away

01:27:55.120 to vote, that people would say that that was un-American?

01:27:57.300 Yeah, I think they would.

01:27:58.040 Okay, thank you.

01:27:58.280 Thank you.

01:27:58.740 Wait, so do you think—

01:27:59.640 Thank you.

01:27:59.800 Wait, so you're just saying America's nothing.

01:28:02.020 America doesn't mean anything.

01:28:02.800 From the liberal perspective, it's just a system.

01:28:05.040 No, no, no, from your perspective.

01:28:05.800 America doesn't mean anything.

01:28:06.640 Actually, you know what?

01:28:07.120 I guess from my perspective, too, it is the case that liberalism, that the liberal identity,

01:28:13.300 which is America, is just reduced to systems.

01:28:16.860 So America doesn't mean anything to you.

01:28:19.280 I think that it might have.

01:28:20.240 It's just empty.

01:28:20.920 If you had something—if you had some sort of, like, cultural glue, or you had some foundational

01:28:25.500 glue, or something that we could appeal to—

01:28:27.440 There's no distinct American culture that we could point at.

01:28:29.960 Point to it.

01:28:30.460 Not just point to, but see it historically.

01:28:32.380 Point to it.

01:28:33.020 I did.

01:28:33.480 Where?

01:28:33.720 Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, ingenuity.

01:28:35.780 Those are slogans.

01:28:37.140 No, these are foundational values.

01:28:39.820 How is it that if I change—so in England, do they have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

01:28:44.480 I think they—well, they don't have those specifically, but they do seem to have adopted

01:28:47.700 a lot of liberal things, like free speech.

01:28:49.400 They have, like—

01:28:50.540 They don't have free speech.

01:28:53.480 Okay.

01:28:54.900 I'm not getting into UK, like—

01:28:56.980 You can go to jail for insulting someone via a text message.

01:29:01.400 Gotcha.

01:29:01.720 So you would say that English people don't value free speech.

01:29:04.160 I'm just asking if they have life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

01:29:07.340 I said, no, they don't.

01:29:08.540 That's—they probably have different versions of it.

01:29:10.520 Is America the only place that has life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

01:29:12.880 No, I think lots of cultures can have overlapping values.

01:29:15.560 Which ones?

01:29:16.000 I mean, the same way that you just said that the Irish ethos—

01:29:18.380 Just absolutely—just tell me which one.

01:29:20.620 No, you stop.

01:29:21.380 Answer my question.

01:29:22.080 Which one?

01:29:22.920 No, I'm going to answer your question.

01:29:23.880 You're not going to answer it.

01:29:24.360 I am going to answer your question, but I'm going to answer the question the way that I

01:29:26.540 would like to.

01:29:27.060 You're not going to answer it.

01:29:28.460 Do you just want to have temper tantrum after temper tantrum?

01:29:30.260 I want you to answer the question I'm asking.

01:29:31.520 Okay.

01:29:31.800 I'm going to answer your question, and then I'm going to have a meta-conversation with

01:29:34.400 you, because I thought that we were going to have a good-faith conversation, because

01:29:36.620 it's crazy.

01:29:37.480 My favorite debate that I've ever had was with you.

01:29:40.160 The one where you imposed a bunch of rules in the hallway?

01:29:43.120 The one where we said, would you agree to being good-faith?

01:29:46.540 And you said, yes.

01:29:48.000 Yeah.

01:29:48.180 So you're just agreeing that you're being bad-faith with me now?

01:29:52.440 You know, Brian was there.

01:29:53.520 That's not how the conversation went.

01:29:55.140 I said specifically that I was concerned about you making personal attacks about my husband,

01:29:59.060 and that you are not going to be good-faith.

01:30:01.280 Yeah, but here's the thing that's funny about that.

01:30:03.340 I went back and reviewed that conversation, right?

01:30:05.780 It was no different than what I'm having with you right now.

01:30:07.500 The only difference is that I'm actually holding you to the things you say.

01:30:10.180 The difference is that, so for people who are unaware when I say bad-faith, I just want

01:30:14.320 to be clear.

01:30:14.680 Forget the meta-conversation.

01:30:15.140 Answer the question.

01:30:16.120 You obfuscated.

01:30:16.980 No, I'm going to stay at the meta-conversation.

01:30:17.460 You're not going to answer it.

01:30:18.260 I will answer it afterwards.

01:30:19.280 You're just not going to answer it, period.

01:30:20.680 No, no, write it down. 1.00

01:30:21.460 Just answer the fucking question. 0.99

01:30:22.580 No, write it down, and I'll answer it afterwards. 1.00

01:30:24.240 You can be an adult.

01:30:24.860 That's good faith?

01:30:25.820 Is that good faith?

01:30:26.540 Yeah, it is good faith.

01:30:27.200 It is good faith.

01:30:27.800 Yeah, I said I will answer your question afterwards.

01:30:29.980 Write it down.

01:30:31.100 Just where else do they have life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

01:30:33.500 I imagine lots of countries value things like liberty.

01:30:36.000 I think most Western liberal democracies value liberty, for example.

01:30:39.020 So Western liberal democracies have life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

01:30:41.880 I didn't say life, liberty, and pursuit.

01:30:43.060 I said liberty in this case.

01:30:44.120 So I didn't ask you about liberty.

01:30:45.480 I asked you about life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

01:30:47.820 What other nations have that?

01:30:49.380 For example, so they wouldn't have the exact language, but liberty is held by most Western

01:30:54.380 liberal democracies.

01:30:55.400 Life, for example, is also, in some version of the way that they would describe it, also

01:30:58.960 valued by most Western liberal democracies.

01:31:00.820 Because America is so great, we kind of set the tone of what the ethos of a Western liberal

01:31:06.300 democracy generally looks like.

01:31:08.120 In the same way, for example, that you said the ethos between Ireland and Spain is both

01:31:13.000 Catholic, and then they're different culture.

01:31:16.580 You're doing this, like, so when, here's the sneaky thing.

01:31:19.520 But again, back to this, I want to finish.

01:31:21.120 No.

01:31:21.380 The thing is, is you didn't actually tell me if all Western nations have life, liberty.

01:31:25.240 Hold on, should I not just answer your question?

01:31:26.040 No.

01:31:26.700 If you say all countries have, because you give this a contradiction.

01:31:30.080 All countries.

01:31:30.620 I did not say all countries.

01:31:31.440 All Western.

01:31:32.560 Western.

01:31:33.200 I said most Western liberal democracies share some version of these values.

01:31:36.560 Give me one.

01:31:36.960 I said Canada.

01:31:38.140 Okay, Canada has life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

01:31:40.540 Do they have free speech?

01:31:41.360 No, I said liberty.

01:31:42.720 Which, I want a country that has life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

01:31:46.160 I didn't say that every single country shares every single cultural value.

01:31:48.240 Does any country share that?

01:31:49.800 Yeah.

01:31:50.700 Which one?

01:31:51.620 So, in the case of liberty.

01:31:53.420 No, all of them together.

01:31:54.920 No, all of them together, in the way that it's phrased as a uniquely American thing.

01:31:58.040 So, just to make sure, I just want to make sure I got this right.

01:32:03.020 Only America, only in America, can you pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

01:32:07.040 That's not what I said, and you know that that's not what I'm saying.

01:32:08.580 Then where else can you do it?

01:32:09.820 Now, we're going to have the conversation about good faith versus bad faith.

01:32:12.360 So, one of the things that has to happen when you have a good faith conversation is you have to actually try to understand the person.

01:32:17.120 You can lecture the chair.

01:32:18.180 I'm going to go out of a smoke.

01:32:18.720 Wait, wait.

01:32:19.080 Perfect.

01:32:19.700 Actually, that's even better.

01:32:20.840 Really quick, let me let the two super TTS come through while we have you. 1.00

01:32:24.680 All right, guys, we have Hale Pope.

01:32:28.140 Thank you.

01:32:28.880 Hale Pope donated $200.

01:32:31.740 It's lent, so I'll be nice.

01:32:33.780 She's confusing the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, which would also be wrong.

01:32:39.300 Neither of those were unanimously accepted by the Founders or their state's populations.

01:32:44.640 Me, when I make things up, I guess.

01:32:46.200 Good job, Hale Pope.

01:32:47.320 Hale Pope, thanks for your message.

01:32:48.920 We have one more coming through here.

01:32:51.760 Give me just one moment.

01:32:53.020 Guys, if you want to get a TTS in, that's streamlabs.com slash.

01:32:57.700 Oh, it triggered.

01:32:58.740 Hale Pope donate.

01:33:00.040 A second time.

01:33:00.960 He's going to pay double for that.

01:33:01.900 You've got to send in another one, Hale Pope.

01:33:03.860 Thank you.

01:33:04.220 Thank you.

01:33:04.640 You're welcome.

01:33:05.560 Thank you, Kyla.

01:33:06.520 We have one coming in from not Professor Dave.

01:33:10.440 There's a bit of a delay now because the Hale Pope one caught up our system.

01:33:15.880 Hale Pope.

01:33:16.480 Hale Pope.

01:33:17.000 He's getting, he's raking in all those dollars.

01:33:18.860 There it is.

01:33:19.880 There it is.

01:33:20.260 But if you guys do want to get a TTS message in, you can do so.

01:33:23.640 Streamlabs.com slash whatever.

01:33:26.040 $199.

01:33:27.020 Yes.

01:33:27.760 There it is.

01:33:28.320 Thank you.

01:33:28.740 Not Professor Dave donated $200.

01:33:31.920 Two truths.

01:33:32.920 That's an attack of Rachel.

01:33:34.340 God is a social construct with an unverifiable existence.

01:33:38.260 Ran through Rachel.

01:33:39.320 Rachel Wilson has a double digit body count. 1.00

01:33:42.560 Smoking increases the risk of lung disease and premature death.

01:33:46.180 I did not.

01:33:48.880 That's just in a Rachel attack. 0.99

01:33:50.880 Guys.

01:33:51.400 Rude.

01:33:51.660 Don't be rude to Rachel Wilson.

01:33:53.180 Okay.

01:33:54.000 Rude.

01:33:54.760 Professor Dave.

01:33:55.240 I didn't, I'm sorry.

01:33:56.060 I'm sorry.

01:33:56.620 I didn't read it first.

01:33:59.960 That's between you and him.

01:34:02.080 Can I have a smoke now?

01:34:02.740 Yeah.

01:34:02.960 Yeah.

01:34:03.060 Yeah.

01:34:03.140 Of course.

01:34:03.800 Okay.

01:34:04.200 Of course.

01:34:04.920 We can talk a little bit about good faith versus bad faith.

01:34:07.520 Are you done your TTS?

01:34:08.540 You want, yeah, yeah.

01:34:09.260 We're all done.

01:34:09.940 I'm going to talk to the crowd.

01:34:11.260 I mean, I can talk to you too.

01:34:12.760 So one of the things that you're seeing me get frustrated by is that typically when you

01:34:16.280 have a good faith engagement, which the previous debate that we had with Andrew, that

01:34:21.300 was one of the requirements that I talked about.

01:34:23.320 Specifically, I was like, I don't really want to just do a debate with somebody who's

01:34:26.080 just bad faith for like six hours straight.

01:34:27.940 It's not super enjoyable.

01:34:29.220 So when we say good faith, I just want to be clear.

01:34:30.920 When I say somebody's bad faith or good faith, it's not like moral condemnations.

01:34:33.680 People are bad faith all the time. 1.00

01:34:35.020 I'm bad faith some of the time.

01:34:36.180 He's bad faith some of the time.

01:34:37.520 But good faith typically means you're trying to hear the genuine version or what's reasonable

01:34:41.960 to conclude from what they're saying and grant some of their presumptions to build out whether

01:34:47.460 or not that idea has flesh or not.

01:34:49.360 So what happens though is that Andrew Wilson will often do this technique where he'll kind

01:34:55.920 of straw man and pillory over like a couple of unique words and then refuse to actually

01:34:59.540 understand what I'm saying, right?

01:35:00.760 So the obvious argument that I'm saying is, wouldn't it make more sense?

01:35:04.940 It seems a little funny.

01:35:06.220 I don't know if it's fair.

01:35:07.560 He can't respond.

01:35:08.620 He said, I got to do it when I want.

01:35:09.780 He said, I don't want to do this.

01:35:11.060 I'm going to walk away.

01:35:11.360 I guess he didn't grant it.

01:35:12.600 Right?

01:35:12.840 So when I say, for example, in the case of states versus federal, he's saying, well,

01:35:17.000 the federal government did want church and state to be united.

01:35:19.860 They just couldn't write it in because they couldn't find a unifying clause of faith.

01:35:23.500 That's what he's saying.

01:35:24.320 And therefore they allowed it in through allowing states to make decisions.

01:35:28.940 But the 10th amendment doesn't say states should make a religion.

01:35:31.240 It just allowed them to, because at the time that the constitution was written, almost all

01:35:35.160 states had a religious clause for holding office.

01:35:37.820 The issue is that if the federal government wanted, which is absolutely America, wanted

01:35:43.720 to establish some sort of, you don't want to be on screen when I say this, right?

01:35:48.400 I said, you don't want to be on screen when I say this, hey?

01:35:51.160 What do you mean?

01:35:52.120 Oh, you just swapped it over to just me?

01:35:53.580 It's just a better angle.

01:35:54.880 Okay.

01:35:57.320 When, there's a reasonable argument here to be made of, what did the founding fathers

01:36:02.760 intend?

01:36:03.420 What was their actual vision and principle?

01:36:05.100 Because I think it's a pretty good principle.

01:36:06.280 And if their principle was they actually wanted no separation of church and state, they would

01:36:11.000 have found a way to write it into the original constitution, even at a federal level.

01:36:14.140 But they didn't.

01:36:14.960 In fact, not only did they not, they explicitly wrote it out.

01:36:17.880 So just because they allowed states to continue the practice that they rejected at a

01:36:21.780 federal level is not them saying, we want church and state to be united.

01:36:26.140 They said explicitly in both this document and at multiple points about the Declaration

01:36:31.780 of Independence, especially the original version that TJ wrote, that there is a strong intention

01:36:36.240 of separation of church and state.

01:36:37.820 This is talked about in the Federalist Papers.

01:36:39.560 This is something valued by many religious people.

01:36:41.560 And part of why so many religious people, majority of whom were founding fathers that

01:36:46.920 signed, signed this and agreed to the separation of church and state is because they had seen

01:36:51.260 what happened in England.

01:36:52.560 They saw the erasure, not just of the state, but also of the faith in the, in the bonding

01:36:57.560 of these two things, which is bad.

01:36:58.860 It's bad for the religion and it's bad for the state. 1.00

01:37:02.880 Okay.

01:37:03.680 Yeah.

01:37:04.020 Good times.

01:37:04.820 Good times.

01:37:05.780 Uh, I just wanted to say, uh, Rachel Wilson, if you're watching, I'm very sorry.

01:37:10.740 I apologize for letting that TTS go through.

01:37:12.860 Usually if there's something that's insulting to overly insulting to one of the guests, I will

01:37:20.220 hide it.

01:37:20.840 But that was a mistake.

01:37:22.840 I didn't read the whole thing.

01:37:24.440 I got, I got baited and I read the first sentence.

01:37:29.060 I was like, Oh, it's probably pertinent to the discussion.

01:37:31.240 Uh, Rachel, if you're watching, sorry, let that one come through.

01:37:34.060 I'll have to, Andrew is back.

01:37:36.980 Andrew's back.

01:37:39.340 Yeah.

01:37:39.940 Why is there confusion?

01:37:41.360 I think.

01:37:42.240 What do you mean?

01:37:44.180 Confusion?

01:37:45.440 There's no confusion.

01:37:46.800 I'm not confused.

01:37:48.460 Oh, what do you mean?

01:37:50.640 Uh, I was saying, uh, apologies for letting.

01:37:54.420 That TTS come through.

01:37:56.040 I didn't.

01:37:56.200 Yeah.

01:37:56.400 He was apologizing to you for the TTS coming.

01:37:58.220 I didn't read it prior.

01:37:59.720 I read the first sentence.

01:38:00.880 I was like, it's probably fine.

01:38:01.900 Whatever.

01:38:02.400 I apologize.

01:38:03.100 So sorry, Rachel guys.

01:38:04.380 W is in the chat for Rachel.

01:38:05.780 Um, shall we switch prompts or do you guys want to continue?

01:38:09.400 We've been on it for an hour and 30 minutes.

01:38:11.960 No, we can go to this.

01:38:12.740 Well, let me read you at least before we, if you do choose to dive in the other prompts

01:38:17.480 that we do have.

01:38:18.640 Modern liberal values are not compatible with Christianity. 0.82

01:38:21.640 Secular, uh, another prompt.

01:38:22.920 Secular states are destined to likely revert back to religiously informed governments because 0.98

01:38:28.260 atheists have no, no moral basis for which to govern. 0.99

01:38:31.420 And then the other prompt, Christians should attempt to maintain political power in the

01:38:35.780 U S and rule through Christian ethics as it is the superior system, which maybe we talked

01:38:42.460 a bit about in, from the first prompt.

01:38:45.600 We've, I think that's what the prompts are a little bit like slidey between them all.

01:38:49.600 Cause they're, they're decently interrelated.

01:38:51.440 Um, yeah, but I'm, I'm happy to pick up wherever Andrew would like to pick up.

01:38:53.940 Andrew, do you have any insight on whichever one you want to go with?

01:38:58.280 It's up to you, boss.

01:39:00.520 Let's do modern liberal values are not compatible with Christianity. 0.95

01:39:04.120 Oh, we're going to the last one.

01:39:05.160 Okay.

01:39:05.320 Yeah.

01:39:05.760 Well, I mean, again, if you guys have a reference over something, that one's fine with me.

01:39:09.660 Sure.

01:39:10.220 So there are no Christian values in modern liberalism.

01:39:13.480 It's just an appeal to a system.

01:39:15.440 Sure.

01:39:15.820 But the system doesn't have to be.

01:39:17.040 So my argument basically say, I don't think that Christian, uh, rule should be utilized

01:39:21.400 as statecraft.

01:39:22.180 I think separation of church and state is one of the most fundamentally important things,

01:39:25.680 not just for a state, but more so for a Christian.

01:39:28.500 That's an odd claim.

01:39:29.400 You agree?

01:39:30.740 Sure.

01:39:31.300 Okay.

01:39:31.640 Were you driving that odd?

01:39:33.420 Uh, from my faith.

01:39:34.540 So your faith tells you that Christians should be liberal? 0.99

01:39:38.360 No, I said that the separation of church and state.

01:39:40.860 So your Christian values tell you that Christians should not be in charge of states?

01:39:44.700 Yeah.

01:39:45.480 Okay.

01:39:46.200 And, um, do you think that Christians who were in charge of states before were wrong?

01:39:51.620 Yeah.

01:39:52.240 You do?

01:39:52.980 Okay.

01:39:53.600 Which ones?

01:39:54.600 Um, all the ones that came after Jesus and did it. 0.98

01:39:58.220 So you think that historically they just got it all wrong?

01:40:01.300 Yeah.

01:40:01.660 I think that like, if you look, for example, at like, if you, I mean, we can get into the

01:40:05.640 typological argument here, but if you look at like all of the history of the Bible, for

01:40:09.160 example, um, what we see over time is when we go from the old Testament to new Testament

01:40:14.300 and for those, cause I'm not trying to do a pop quiz just for those who are listening

01:40:17.060 that don't know what a typological, it's just like a type.

01:40:19.540 We're looking at types typically from old Testament to new Testament.

01:40:21.900 It's a pretty standard, like apologetics or a theological argument that gets made.

01:40:26.460 So when you look, for example, through the old Testament, we have multiple periods that

01:40:30.640 I'm sure you would agree to judges, Kings, priests.

01:40:33.160 Agreed?

01:40:33.740 Okay.

01:40:34.460 So what we see is basically a blending, a high blending of, of statecraft and faith that

01:40:40.100 gets reduced over time with the final answer of Jesus who actually actively and aggressively

01:40:46.080 rejects statehood, rejects politics and rejects any kingmanship.

01:40:50.080 In fact, that's a large reason, not the only reason, but a large reason why the Jews felt 0.90

01:40:54.240 that he was not the Messiah is because they didn't see a physical political kingdom unifying,

01:40:59.220 um, the Northern and Southern kingdoms.

01:41:01.800 Okay.

01:41:02.240 So back to the ought claim, Christians ought not, uh, be in charge of governments and government 1.00

01:41:08.680 systems.

01:41:09.240 It depends on what you mean when you're saying that.

01:41:11.900 Well, you said that, uh, that Christians ought not do that, right? 1.00

01:41:16.740 I don't think that Christians should try to push for a blending of church and state. 0.99

01:41:20.940 Okay.

01:41:21.780 And does state need to be a nation?

01:41:24.560 When I say state, I mean a nation.

01:41:27.000 So how come it's only at the national level?

01:41:31.080 Well, I would be at the, I guess when I say, so when I say nation, I guess I should say governmental

01:41:35.800 level.

01:41:36.280 I don't want, uh, and when I say this, I don't mean that Christians can't be a government official.

01:41:41.200 Christians should not impose Christian ethics into rule of law. 0.98

01:41:46.260 I have not, I don't know.

01:41:47.460 I don't, haven't thought about tribes, but there's governments, right?

01:41:49.980 Not really.

01:41:50.680 Not like meaningful.

01:41:51.920 Why is that not meaningful?

01:41:53.060 I would not say that anyone who's like a political philosopher would look at a tribe

01:41:56.780 and call that a government.

01:41:57.900 Usually when we mean government, we mean post the invention of the nation.

01:42:01.120 What about a nation city?

01:42:03.040 Yeah.

01:42:03.500 Nation state.

01:42:04.380 That's not well, a nation city, let's say the city itself.

01:42:09.880 If there's like a formalized Roman, like to some degree, like if there's a formalized

01:42:14.180 actual government, not just like a tribe, then sure, potentially.

01:42:17.240 But again, I would need to know what we're talking about here.

01:42:19.760 I need like more specific examples.

01:42:21.980 Like you have a city that has a hundred thousand people in it and they, they have a government

01:42:27.260 there, right?

01:42:28.460 That government should not, uh, mix church and state.

01:42:32.800 Yeah.

01:42:33.280 They shouldn't rule with Christian ethics as a thing that makes laws.

01:42:36.760 Okay.

01:42:37.200 What should they rule with?

01:42:38.560 Uh, consensus.

01:42:39.140 Consensus because I like democracy.

01:42:41.060 Consensus.

01:42:41.660 Yeah.

01:42:42.020 Okay.

01:42:42.720 And more importantly, laws have to be what works. 0.72

01:42:45.700 And what happens when the consensus says kill babies?

01:42:48.240 Well, that would be against like what works, right? 0.87

01:42:50.520 No.

01:42:51.060 Yeah. 0.97

01:42:51.360 It's a nation is not going to work very well if they kill other babies. 0.99

01:42:54.520 A nation would work just fine if they kill other people's babies. 0.99

01:42:58.260 Uh, no. 0.63

01:42:58.620 Cause that nation would be then a target for probably war, not just from that nation, but probably 0.99

01:43:02.240 neighboring nations.

01:43:02.820 Cause it seems like in general, most people have this emergent value of not killing babies.

01:43:07.380 Okay.

01:43:07.660 I don't understand.

01:43:08.460 Let's say that for like 100 years, a nation kills every third baby that comes up in the

01:43:13.440 nation.

01:43:13.760 It's like overpopulated. 1.00

01:43:14.940 So they just take a rock and bash its fucking brains in. 1.00

01:43:17.780 I don't know. 1.00

01:43:18.200 How's that?

01:43:18.740 China as an example.

01:43:19.200 How's that not working?

01:43:20.460 Uh, it seems like it was really, really bad for China.

01:43:22.560 It seems like it was really bad for the fact that people don't like seeing dead babies

01:43:25.920 skewered everywhere.

01:43:26.940 Uh, it seems like it crushed their population.

01:43:28.860 As long as the nation though, consents to that.

01:43:31.660 Well, it's not just about what the nation consents to.

01:43:33.880 Like, yes, you said, and your exact words, I wrote them down.

01:43:37.200 They should rule via consent because I like consent because I like democracy.

01:43:42.960 Yeah.

01:43:43.180 So when I say rule by consent, that doesn't mean that states craftmen aren't imposing laws

01:43:47.920 that are reasonable and work, right?

01:43:49.420 The law is about like what makes a state work.

01:43:51.640 Yeah.

01:43:52.080 But there's no contradiction in how the state would not work if they killed every third 0.99

01:43:56.840 child.

01:43:57.520 How would that state logistically work?

01:43:59.280 I feel like that state would work fine.

01:44:00.860 They do used to do it all the time.

01:44:02.440 They used to sacrifice children all the time inside of Rome, inside of many states.

01:44:06.100 Sure.

01:44:06.260 But it worked just fine.

01:44:07.460 Well, not really.

01:44:08.440 Like, yes, really.

01:44:09.680 Well, I would argue a lot of the, where are, where are those nation states?

01:44:13.080 They lasted a lot longer than America. 0.88

01:44:15.000 Some of them.

01:44:15.540 Where are they?

01:44:16.420 Well, are you saying that?

01:44:18.520 So that's a fallacious argument.

01:44:20.700 It's not fallacious.

01:44:21.140 Are you saying because this didn't continue in perpetuity, that means it didn't work?

01:44:26.520 I could just say, well, don't you agree that America as it exists right now is not going

01:44:30.280 to exist in perpetuity, therefore it doesn't work?

01:44:32.680 Yeah, probably because there are, theoretically, and hopefully there'll be better systems that

01:44:35.480 emerge.

01:44:35.640 Okay.

01:44:35.920 So then it doesn't work?

01:44:38.620 By and large, no.

01:44:39.700 Not by what I'm meaning.

01:44:40.960 What?

01:44:41.780 Okay.

01:44:42.600 So I just want to make sure.

01:44:43.760 What?

01:44:44.060 So Rome didn't fall, right?

01:44:45.260 Just because of one thing.

01:44:46.300 But when we look at, for example, a nation that kills every third baby.

01:44:48.760 Can you grab me another beer while you're out?

01:44:50.080 Well, this probably wouldn't work for a number of reasons.

01:44:52.460 Number one, citizens don't like killing their babies. 0.99

01:44:55.880 But if they did.

01:44:57.180 They don't.

01:44:57.720 Yeah, but if they did.

01:44:58.420 They don't.

01:44:58.840 Yeah, but if they did.

01:44:59.960 What person enjoys killing their babies? 0.94

01:45:01.940 Like a pagan nation, let's say. 0.93

01:45:03.820 I would basically argue that they don't enjoy killing their babies either.

01:45:06.740 Usually, like even when you look at pagan nations where babies are killed, right, oftentimes 0.98

01:45:10.360 when you can find evidence for it, the mother of that child, for example, or the father of

01:45:14.340 that child are completely opposed to it.

01:45:15.940 It's usually forced upon them, right?

01:45:17.780 They don't enjoy it necessarily.

01:45:19.180 And usually the child sacrifice was occurring.

01:45:20.680 But if there's consensus, what grounds would you oppose the consensus?

01:45:24.560 What makes the state work best for most of the people?

01:45:26.980 Yeah.

01:45:27.200 And most of the people have now given you consensus that this is working best for us.

01:45:31.760 You can't give consensus that this is working for us.

01:45:34.060 We actually have to look at like material like outcomes, right?

01:45:36.520 So, for example, how we know that America's law system works pretty well, although there

01:45:41.020 are problems, is the fact that our military is the strongest.

01:45:43.640 We have the most amount of scientific output, which is awesome, right?

01:45:46.680 That we are the number one currency in the world, the largest thing.

01:45:50.200 So we know, okay, the system that we essentially kind of erected around, for the most part, works

01:45:55.060 pretty well.

01:45:55.920 It's a pretty competitive system.

01:45:57.740 Okay.

01:45:58.200 But that's post hoc.

01:45:59.640 Do you agree with me that it takes time for you to gather data on a system which is implemented?

01:46:03.880 Yeah.

01:46:04.300 Okay, great.

01:46:04.880 So for five years, we have a consensus that we kill every third baby, and the people go 0.77

01:46:11.920 along with it, and they adore it. 0.93

01:46:13.240 They think it's great.

01:46:14.360 We don't have the data to show them how wrongheaded they are yet.

01:46:17.700 I don't think that would emerge.

01:46:18.520 So, okay, but it has emerged.

01:46:20.100 I think it's...

01:46:20.940 But it has.

01:46:21.780 No, it has not.

01:46:22.840 Yes, it definitely has.

01:46:24.120 There's definitely been many nations where they kill their children, including China. 0.99

01:46:27.500 So I don't know what you're talking about.

01:46:28.700 But it didn't work.

01:46:29.740 In fact, one of the...

01:46:30.480 Yeah, that's post hoc.

01:46:32.440 That's you post hoc saying.

01:46:33.600 It didn't work after the fact.

01:46:35.360 We're talking about in the fact.

01:46:36.100 That's how you develop statecraft.

01:46:37.240 In the fact, though, when it's happening...

01:46:40.740 Yeah.

01:46:41.200 ...what are you appealing to to oppose it?

01:46:44.800 Me personally?

01:46:46.000 Yeah.

01:46:46.580 Oh, me personally.

01:46:47.200 Well, I'm a defined command theorist.

01:46:48.280 I would say that murdering babies is wrong.

01:46:50.420 Okay. 0.81

01:46:50.900 Gotcha.

01:46:51.440 Yeah.

01:46:51.580 So the consensus would be wrong.

01:46:56.520 Against my morals, yeah.

01:46:58.280 Okay.

01:46:58.680 So you hold a form of dualism.

01:47:03.460 No.

01:47:04.020 This would be relativism.

01:47:06.220 Well, not really.

01:47:08.020 It's not relativism.

01:47:08.340 It's relativistic.

01:47:09.300 It's probably the best word.

01:47:09.960 Relativistic, perhaps.

01:47:11.280 But it's...

01:47:12.720 This sounds like dual ethics.

01:47:14.720 No.

01:47:14.880 It's just relativistic.

01:47:15.980 It's just relativistic.

01:47:17.020 Well, why is consensus good?

01:47:20.160 It's not ontologically good.

01:47:21.740 Okay.

01:47:22.080 Good.

01:47:22.520 So...

01:47:22.720 I think it makes the most...

01:47:23.520 I think for the most part...

01:47:24.380 Okay.

01:47:24.880 Well, I can answer you.

01:47:26.220 All right.

01:47:27.220 Breathe.

01:47:27.580 You're going to be okay.

01:47:28.680 So for the most part, I think that, for example, consensus is good because it's worked.

01:47:32.580 I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system,

01:47:37.520 which has worked pretty damn well.

01:47:39.000 I think the world outside is pretty good.

01:47:40.760 There are a lot of problems that people will point to.

01:47:42.640 But I think America overall is a pretty good nation.

01:47:44.560 I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed at any

01:47:48.720 time in history. 0.91

01:47:49.860 So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian

01:47:55.020 ethics, right?

01:47:56.000 Well, it would probably be multiple things, yeah, that I would appeal to.

01:47:58.820 Like, I would use multiple evidences for it.

01:48:01.060 Well...

01:48:01.560 The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies. 0.96

01:48:05.520 Okay. 0.96

01:48:06.040 Gotcha. 0.98

01:48:06.740 Do you think it's wrong to murder babies? 0.65

01:48:07.580 But if there was a consensus...

01:48:09.460 Well, yeah, of course.

01:48:10.180 But if there was a consensus, you said that's the thing that we should run things by is

01:48:15.140 by consensus.

01:48:15.900 That might become state law.

01:48:17.320 But I'm saying to you, A, I think that would fall out of state law very quickly.

01:48:21.000 And I would probably be a person who would advocate strongly against that state law because

01:48:23.880 not all state laws are moral.

01:48:25.080 Based on your morality.

01:48:26.320 To some degree, but I wouldn't be imposing my morality on other people.

01:48:28.280 What if the consensus is that you're not allowed to oppose the consensus?

01:48:32.200 Like an authoritarian regime?

01:48:35.840 Well, no, that wouldn't be authoritarian.

01:48:37.760 That would be democratic.

01:48:40.620 How so?

01:48:41.520 Because you can democratically vote in laws which are oppressive.

01:48:45.600 Sorry.

01:48:46.180 So, I feel like you're just making something into democracy that doesn't exist.

01:48:50.940 Could you explain it more?

01:48:51.720 Yeah. 0.99

01:48:52.500 If everybody votes tomorrow in a democracy that Kyla can never say another fucking word 1.00

01:48:58.200 or else, I don't know, she gets beat to death with a rock. 0.99

01:49:00.740 I would have due process. 0.95

01:49:02.600 Okay.

01:49:03.080 Well, the thing is, is you didn't say...

01:49:04.580 And I could argue free speech.

01:49:05.700 That violates my amendment.

01:49:06.640 Hang on.

01:49:06.920 You didn't say due process.

01:49:08.380 You said consensus is how we should rule.

01:49:11.120 Consensus is typically how we select for, like, electoral people.

01:49:14.820 And then electoral people are hopefully, although not always, supposed to be educated in such

01:49:18.980 a way that they can make statecraft policies that brings about most good for citizens.

01:49:23.440 Because I don't think statecraft is in and of itself moral.

01:49:26.440 Okay.

01:49:26.740 So, we're not actually appealing to consensus for how we should run things then?

01:49:29.740 Well, to some degree, because the stakeholder is the voter.

01:49:33.600 So, to some degree, you have to appeal to what stakeholders believe, which is the voters.

01:49:36.960 So, what's preventing voters in a liberal democracy from voting in laws which go against

01:49:41.700 your morals?

01:49:42.340 Well, I would basically, I would argue that God puts, like, a sense of conscience within

01:49:46.440 each of us.

01:49:47.400 And I don't think that almost anyone actually emerges in such a way that they say it's good 0.98

01:49:51.760 to kill babies. 0.98

01:49:52.480 I think, for example, pagan institutions did erect very historically.

01:49:56.380 And you will notice that they don't exist anymore because they don't work very well and people

01:50:00.580 don't like them.

01:50:01.640 And I also would argue that they were moral at the time.

01:50:04.160 Right?

01:50:04.360 And so, in the case of statecraft, we would use consensus to vote in elected representatives.

01:50:10.080 And these elected representatives would impose laws.

01:50:12.080 But if we don't agree with those laws, then we can oust that person.

01:50:15.320 Yeah, but that's not my question.

01:50:16.840 My question is, what actually prevents inside of a liberal society from people utilizing

01:50:23.960 consensus in order to pass laws which are immoral, from your view?

01:50:30.760 Immoral from my view? 0.99

01:50:31.660 Yeah.

01:50:32.040 Nothing, but I don't think that every...

01:50:33.300 Wait, I don't think that all of my moral system should be rule of law.

01:50:36.360 I understand.

01:50:37.040 Do you think that?

01:50:37.580 All I'm doing is making sure that I get it right.

01:50:41.360 Can I ask you a question?

01:50:42.260 Yes.

01:50:42.620 Do you think that all...

01:50:44.140 But before you do, I'm going to interrogate the position that you can interrogate mine.

01:50:47.340 I would just like to have some back and forth.

01:50:48.920 That's the fair way to do it.

01:50:49.980 Well, no.

01:50:50.300 But the problem is, is you just divert.

01:50:51.840 Wait, no.

01:50:52.420 Yeah, it is.

01:50:53.000 The first conversation we had, the first, like, segment...

01:50:55.420 I don't care about the meta.

01:50:56.680 Just let me finish the interrogation of the position.

01:50:57.980 I'm not dropping the meta because you're doing some...

01:51:00.380 You refuse to allow...

01:51:01.780 I want...

01:51:02.460 How is it bad faith to want to interrogate your position?

01:51:04.140 Because I haven't said you can interrogate my position.

01:51:06.860 I said, can you wait for a second so I can ask you some questions?

01:51:09.720 Because in the case where I was interrogating your worldview with the position,

01:51:12.600 the first prompt, I also allowed you to interrogate my worldview in return.

01:51:15.820 Let me do the interrogation first and then you can do your second.

01:51:19.520 Okay.

01:51:19.820 So do you think that we should...

01:51:20.800 No, no.

01:51:21.360 I said, let me do my interrogation first.

01:51:23.620 You can do your second.

01:51:24.320 I'm saying I would like a back and forth.

01:51:26.280 But all that does is derail from the questions I have.

01:51:30.500 Derails from the dunk that you're trying to leave me into.

01:51:32.620 How is it dunk?

01:51:32.820 I understand that it does that.

01:51:34.160 Well, because what you're trying to do is to get to some foundational thing of being

01:51:36.280 like, see, it's born on nothing.

01:51:37.380 And it's like, okay, Andrew...

01:51:38.520 That's what's bad faith.

01:51:39.720 Do you want to just go to Agrippa's Trilemma?

01:51:41.240 Not allowing your position?

01:51:43.000 Everyone knows that this is what's happening.

01:51:45.740 So you're saying that your position, when it's interrogated, its foundation is going to

01:51:48.920 be incoherent?

01:51:49.640 I would say every single foundation of any worldview, normative, or metaethics is unjustifiable.

01:51:55.020 Yes.

01:51:55.240 This is what axioms are.

01:51:56.540 Oh, really?

01:51:56.980 They all fail Agrippa's Trilemma. 0.92

01:51:58.360 Yes.

01:51:58.760 How do you not fail it?

01:51:59.320 Because of Agrippa's Trilemma. 0.99

01:52:00.620 How do you not fail Agrippa's Trilemma?

01:52:02.100 Oh, man.

01:52:03.000 That's really weird.

01:52:04.360 Tell me again.

01:52:05.080 What does Agrippa's Trilemma say?

01:52:06.820 It's dogmatism.

01:52:08.020 All justification systems fail at a foundational level because they will fail in one of three

01:52:13.700 ways, or all of three ways.

01:52:15.080 Dogmatism, infinite regression, and circular reasoning.

01:52:17.420 Is that position justified?

01:52:19.000 No.

01:52:19.400 Okay.

01:52:20.100 So anyway, back to this.

01:52:21.200 Wait.

01:52:21.800 So you run away from Agrippa's Trilemma?

01:52:25.160 Okay.

01:52:25.760 You know what?

01:52:26.740 Sure.

01:52:27.380 I ran away from it?

01:52:28.220 Yeah.

01:52:28.860 You just said that Agrippa's Trilemma is not a justified position.

01:52:31.720 Well, what do you mean by justified?

01:52:33.820 Well, whatever you mean by Agrippa's Trilemma.

01:52:36.380 Well, it's an internal critique of justification systems.

01:52:39.260 What do you mean is Agrippa's Trilemma unjustified?

01:52:41.640 It is a philosophical tool that we can utilize to understand that at a foundational level,

01:52:45.680 no belief systems.

01:52:46.920 How do you solve Agrippa's Trilemma?

01:52:48.100 Like truth.

01:52:48.800 How do you solve Agrippa's Trilemma?

01:52:50.100 Well, it's self-refuting.

01:52:51.460 This has been known for a thousand years.

01:52:52.900 I don't know if you know this or not.

01:52:54.540 It's a self-refuting.

01:52:55.820 Agrippa's Trilemma is self-refuting.

01:52:57.500 So how do you not engage in dogmatism?

01:52:59.480 If all things are axiomatic, right?

01:53:02.180 You assume.

01:53:02.980 The reduction to axiomatic, are we making a truth claim?

01:53:06.380 You are making a truth claim.

01:53:07.560 Okay.

01:53:08.020 And is that truth claim justified?

01:53:10.060 No.

01:53:10.560 No.

01:53:11.400 Yeah, because you assume.

01:53:12.340 Wait, are you not making a truth claim?

01:53:13.820 It doesn't matter.

01:53:14.760 Of course it does.

01:53:15.360 Are you not making truth claims?

01:53:16.500 Wait a second.

01:53:17.220 Does your moral system not utilize truth claims?

01:53:19.200 Did you posit an argument to me?

01:53:22.420 Which was Agrippa's Trilemma?

01:53:24.320 Yep.

01:53:24.700 And was that argument justified?

01:53:27.440 No.

01:53:27.900 No more than any.

01:53:28.700 Wait, is your arguments justified?

01:53:30.360 That, what does that have to do with you?

01:53:32.220 I'm internally critiquing you this time.

01:53:33.560 You can internally critique me with your argument?

01:53:35.860 How are you not, yeah, so I said, how do you not fail Agrippa's Trilemma?

01:53:40.340 And you said, Agrippa's Trilemma doesn't matter.

01:53:42.840 That's not how you solve Agrippa's Trilemma.

01:53:44.100 I didn't say it doesn't matter.

01:53:44.840 You said it's unjustified.

01:53:46.000 Well, it's self-refuting.

01:53:48.380 How is it self-refuting?

01:53:49.400 Because if you claim that you're making a truth claim that's unjustified, then you're

01:53:54.940 not making a truth claim.

01:53:57.560 Sure you are.

01:53:58.560 You're just assuming.

01:53:59.620 Agrippa's Trilemma, I guess, engages in dogmatism.

01:54:01.520 That it's not justified?

01:54:03.180 Yeah.

01:54:03.540 So Agrippa's Trilemma, I suppose, engages in dogmatism itself.

01:54:06.260 But how is it self-refuting?

01:54:07.840 You just explained it.

01:54:09.000 Every single system is self-refuting them by this level.

01:54:10.960 Is that a truth claim?

01:54:11.820 Yes.

01:54:12.220 Okay.

01:54:12.580 And does that fail because of Agrippa's Trilemma?

01:54:14.280 Yes.

01:54:14.560 So should I take anything you say seriously?

01:54:17.000 Give me a single truth claim.

01:54:18.380 I don't have to make your argument.

01:54:19.840 He's going to run from this one again.

01:54:21.060 Watch.

01:54:21.600 Give me a single truth claim that doesn't fail Agrippa's Trilemma.

01:54:24.280 Go.

01:54:24.560 Okay.

01:54:25.200 First of all, back up.

01:54:26.660 Whose argument is this?

01:54:28.020 Give me a single truth claim that doesn't fail Agrippa's Trilemma.

01:54:30.980 Whose argument is this?

01:54:31.660 I knew you were going to weasel on this one.

01:54:32.680 I'm just going to stay here.

01:54:34.160 Okay.

01:54:34.520 Stay here.

01:54:35.100 Whose argument is it?

01:54:36.540 Right now, both of us.

01:54:37.580 We're both having a conversation.

01:54:38.520 Wait a second.

01:54:39.640 Are we not both having a conversation?

01:54:40.760 I didn't argue that Agrippa's Trilemma is true.

01:54:44.020 You did.

01:54:45.000 I said it's true in like an assumed way, in the way that all things are assumed.

01:54:49.140 So is it true or not?

01:54:50.860 It's true in like a, I suppose, like, yeah, true in the way that we mean true for everything

01:54:55.380 else that's true.

01:54:56.000 What does that mean?

01:54:56.820 Well, give me an example.

01:54:57.920 Yeah.

01:54:58.020 It's not my argument.

01:54:59.260 You don't get to interrogate me for your argument.

01:55:01.440 No, no.

01:55:01.640 I'm asking you for counterfactual to prove you wrong.

01:55:03.180 I don't need to.

01:55:04.100 It's your argument.

01:55:04.820 My argument is nothing is.

01:55:07.360 Nothing is this thing you're saying.

01:55:08.980 Nothing's true?

01:55:09.420 Can you provide me a counter?

01:55:10.360 So nothing's true?

01:55:11.080 I didn't say nothing's true.

01:55:11.960 I said truths are assumed.

01:55:12.700 Then what's true?

01:55:13.480 Truths are assumed.

01:55:15.180 Tautologies.

01:55:16.440 Truths are assumed tautology?

01:55:18.300 Do you know?

01:55:18.660 Yeah.

01:55:19.120 No.

01:55:19.380 Truths are assumed.

01:55:20.500 They're tautologies.

01:55:21.600 Truths are tautologies.

01:55:23.320 Oftentimes at a foundational level.

01:55:24.760 Yeah.

01:55:25.060 Often or are?

01:55:26.280 Are.

01:55:27.020 Are.

01:55:27.580 Yeah.

01:55:27.680 So is Agrippa's Trilemma a truth tautology?

01:55:30.040 It's not an axiom.

01:55:31.580 It's a philosophical system.

01:55:32.760 And it's a philosophical like equation how you test your own thinking.

01:55:36.540 So how do you.

01:55:37.060 And so.

01:55:37.820 Okay.

01:55:38.220 I'm super confused.

01:55:39.240 Give me a truth claim that doesn't solve Agrippa's Trilemma.

01:55:41.180 I don't have to make your argument.

01:55:43.500 This isn't my argument.

01:55:44.400 My argument is all arguments foundationally will fail Agrippa's Trilemma.

01:55:48.140 Okay.

01:55:48.420 So you are making an argument.

01:55:49.840 You're saying.

01:55:50.440 Yeah.

01:55:50.640 That's not true.

01:55:51.660 I didn't say anything like that.

01:55:53.020 Of course not.

01:55:53.260 I asked you.

01:55:54.140 Do you think that that's true?

01:55:54.980 How it was true?

01:55:55.440 Wait.

01:55:55.700 So you're agreeing with me that no truth claim.

01:55:58.120 I didn't agree with anything.

01:55:59.340 So you.

01:55:59.720 Those are the options.

01:56:00.800 I don't have to do anything.

01:56:01.960 You're making an argument. 1.00

01:56:03.040 I guess you could be a coward and you could run away from. 0.98

01:56:04.980 It's not cowardice. 0.94

01:56:05.660 You posit that there's.

01:56:06.940 That Agrippa's Trilemma is true. 1.00

01:56:08.740 Yep.

01:56:09.240 Okay.

01:56:09.680 And I'm saying that's assumed.

01:56:10.660 Because all things are at a foundational level are assumed.

01:56:12.840 And I said.

01:56:13.280 Can you give me an example.

01:56:14.120 Is God assumed?

01:56:15.360 Yeah.

01:56:15.860 God is dogmatism.

01:56:16.760 Okay.

01:56:17.100 So you think.

01:56:18.140 Assuming God exists.

01:56:18.720 So when I ask you.

01:56:19.700 Does God exist?

01:56:20.640 And you say yes.

01:56:21.360 That's not true.

01:56:22.540 It's true.

01:56:23.120 And I'm assuming it.

01:56:24.760 How is it true?

01:56:26.220 It's true because I believe it's true.

01:56:28.740 I'm a divine command theorist.

01:56:30.420 So.

01:56:31.500 Okay.

01:56:31.860 So.

01:56:32.480 I just want to make sure I got this right.

01:56:34.440 How do you.

01:56:35.120 Posit.

01:56:35.780 He's just going to run away from this.

01:56:37.240 When you.

01:56:37.260 When you posit.

01:56:38.160 Well.

01:56:38.440 You have to pay like 10 bucks to force him to answer this question.

01:56:40.820 How do you posit the arguments?

01:56:42.640 And then I.

01:56:43.220 I have to answer to the argument.

01:56:44.680 So if I pose an argument.

01:56:46.560 Yeah.

01:56:46.700 And I give you the justification for my argument.

01:56:48.560 Yeah.

01:56:48.660 And it seems like the way that you're acting.

01:56:50.640 Is that you think that that is.

01:56:52.160 Incorrect.

01:56:52.600 Then you have to pose me a counter.

01:56:53.920 So I said.

01:56:54.400 If I'm wrong.

01:56:55.520 Andrew.

01:56:55.940 You can just prove me wrong.

01:56:56.960 Like that.

01:56:57.480 Find me a truth claim.

01:56:59.100 Uh-huh.

01:56:59.360 That isn't fundamentally unjustifiable.

01:57:02.420 Yeah.

01:57:02.680 So.

01:57:02.860 Go ahead.

01:57:03.300 How do you find me one truth claim that doesn't fail Agrippa's Trilemma?

01:57:05.580 First of all.

01:57:06.960 Who posits Agrippa's Trilemma is true?

01:57:09.220 Andrew or Erudite?

01:57:11.200 Agrippa's Trilemma isn't.

01:57:14.060 This is like.

01:57:14.920 This is like saying Euthyphro's dilemma is true. 0.99

01:57:17.740 Is Euthyphro's dilemma true?

01:57:19.220 Okay.

01:57:19.780 Again.

01:57:20.720 Why are you asking me questions about your argument?

01:57:23.280 Because what you're doing.

01:57:24.340 I think you're.

01:57:25.280 I can't tell.

01:57:26.220 I can't tell if you genuinely don't understand Agrippa's Trilemma maybe.

01:57:29.620 Or if you're being bad faith.

01:57:30.880 Those are the only two options.

01:57:31.420 How am I being bad faith when you posit an argument and I ask you about it?

01:57:34.680 Hold on.

01:57:34.700 Alex Andrew I said there's two options.

01:57:36.680 You genuinely don't understand or you're being bad faith. 0.89

01:57:39.480 Or there's a third option which is maybe you don't understand.

01:57:42.300 I do understand how dilemmas work in philosophy.

01:57:44.620 Then let's.

01:57:45.300 Are trolley problems true?

01:57:46.660 If Agrippa's Trilemma. 0.75

01:57:48.800 Is like a trolley problem.

01:57:49.840 Yeah.

01:57:50.100 I just want to make sure.

01:57:51.020 Agrippa's.

01:57:51.120 It's a philosophical test of logic.

01:57:52.500 Okay.

01:57:52.780 I got it.

01:57:53.460 So when you're talking about Agrippa's Trilemma.

01:57:56.120 Would you have any criticisms for this argument that you're making?

01:57:59.600 I can't solve it.

01:58:00.820 That's the point of the dilemma.

01:58:02.200 Okay.

01:58:02.460 So when you say that the.

01:58:04.900 When I ask you is Agrippa's Trilemma true?

01:58:08.140 I can't solve it.

01:58:09.460 Is it true though?

01:58:10.420 Is a trolley problem true?

01:58:11.880 Is Euthyphro's Dilemma true? 0.83

01:58:13.520 What are we doing right now?

01:58:14.200 Yeah.

01:58:14.460 I think.

01:58:14.880 I think philosophically you can.

01:58:16.500 You can say that the conclusion is true.

01:58:18.960 Wait.

01:58:19.060 Or false.

01:58:19.360 No.

01:58:19.540 No.

01:58:19.820 Agrippa's Trilemma isn't a conclusion.

01:58:21.880 Agrippa's Trilemma is a problem.

01:58:23.120 It's a philosophical problem.

01:58:24.180 Is Euthyphro's Dilemma true? 0.83

01:58:25.560 Wait.

01:58:25.740 Wait.

01:58:25.820 Wait.

01:58:25.900 I'm not talking about it.

01:58:26.760 I'm talking about Agrippa's Trilemma.

01:58:27.860 Yeah.

01:58:28.080 It's a problem in the same way that Euthyphro's Dilemma is.

01:58:31.060 Okay.

01:58:31.580 So walk me through it.

01:58:32.620 Is trolley problems true?

01:58:33.140 Walk me through Agrippa's Dilemma.

01:58:34.860 I'll make sure I understand it.

01:58:35.860 Okay.

01:58:36.100 Agrippa's Trilemma posits that no beliefs are justifiable foundationally because they will

01:58:40.700 fail one of three ways.

01:58:42.800 Dogmatism, infinite regression, or circularity.

01:58:45.300 And I'm saying, can you find me an example of a true claim that doesn't fail Agrippa's

01:58:49.040 Trilemma? 0.84

01:58:49.180 Well, that sounds to me like you're positing propositions in a conclusion.

01:58:53.980 I'm giving you something similar to like a Euthyphro Dilemma or a trolley problem to

01:58:57.820 see if you can solve it logically.

01:58:59.320 Yeah, yeah.

01:58:59.680 But that has nothing to do with Agrippa's Trilemma, which we're talking about.

01:59:03.040 It has everything to do with Agrippa's Trilemma because you're asking if it's true, which

01:59:05.760 is like asking me if trolley problems are true.

01:59:07.420 No, it's not.

01:59:08.340 Are trolley problems true?

01:59:09.500 If it's propositional, this sounds like propositional logic to me.

01:59:13.560 You're actually giving me premises and a conclusion.

01:59:16.500 Is the conclusion true?

01:59:18.320 This is not what's happening.

01:59:19.400 It's a dilemma.

01:59:19.960 Is the Euthyphro Dilemma true?

01:59:21.280 Well, that's a whole different thing.

01:59:23.260 These are a one-to-one comparison.

01:59:24.760 This is the comparison I'm trying to make because I feel like you're not understanding

01:59:27.020 what a dilemma is.

01:59:27.720 Write it out for me.

01:59:29.940 I don't need to.

01:59:32.340 Wait, how do you solve Euthyphro Dilemma?

01:59:34.420 Well, right now, I just want it written out so I can see if this is a non-propositional

01:59:38.300 problem.

01:59:38.840 Okay, I'm just going to write out what I've said.

01:59:40.340 Okay.

01:59:40.900 Okay.

01:59:41.180 All foundational beliefs.

01:59:58.180 Private chat, Nathan, if you want to pull it up.

02:00:00.340 Yeah, get the TTS in here.

02:00:02.440 Make Brian some money, okay?

02:00:04.240 Oh, no, I was going to pull up Agrippa's trilemma. 1.00

02:00:07.060 Oh, so it's on screen?

02:00:07.900 Let's make people know what the heck you guys are talking about.

02:00:10.960 Go F-11 with it, Nathan.

02:00:12.740 Do you have it?

02:00:15.600 Okay, can you?

02:00:16.460 It also goes by Munchausen trilemma, I guess.

02:00:20.340 I would just look up specific Agrippa's trilemma.

02:00:22.920 Well, scroll down.

02:00:24.340 Just finish it while writing it.

02:00:25.840 I want to see if it's proposition.

02:00:26.920 Yeah, continue on, though.

02:00:28.280 Go ahead.

02:00:28.580 Scroll down.

02:00:28.980 Keep going.

02:00:33.480 It says the name.

02:00:34.920 Scroll down.

02:00:37.000 It says, so Munchausen trilemma is also known as Agrippa's trilemma.

02:00:42.460 So I guess it's just a different name for it.

02:00:43.980 Scroll back up.

02:00:45.360 Yes, I see the three there.

02:00:46.840 Okay, so I'll read this.

02:00:46.860 Here, we'll keep working on this.

02:00:47.860 But the circular argument in which the proof of some proposition presupposes the truth

02:00:51.920 of that very proposition, the regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof

02:00:57.780 ad infinitum, the dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts, which are merely

02:01:03.260 asserted rather than defended.

02:01:05.960 The trilemma, then, is having to choose one of the three equally unsatisfying options. 0.94

02:01:10.900 Okay.

02:01:11.200 Hopefully you can read that.

02:01:12.760 Sorry if you can't.

02:01:13.620 Just tell me if you need me to rewrite something.

02:01:15.980 To do circular argument, infinite regression, or dogmatism.

02:01:19.420 So then, you believe in objective truth, right?

02:01:23.660 I believe in objective morals, yeah.

02:01:25.560 Objective.

02:01:26.040 And, like, scientific realism.

02:01:27.180 Are they objectively true?

02:01:29.040 Yeah.

02:01:29.400 Morals?

02:01:30.100 Well, objectively, like, they exist outside of me.

02:01:33.320 Is that true?

02:01:34.820 Yeah.

02:01:35.980 Okay, what makes it true?

02:01:37.420 I'm assuming.

02:01:39.140 So, is everything you assume true?

02:01:41.960 No, but everything I assume is true, because I'm really good at philosophy.

02:01:46.580 How do you solve?

02:01:47.620 All I'm asking.

02:01:48.080 It has nothing to do with me.

02:01:49.520 It does.

02:01:50.140 You don't believe.

02:01:51.320 So, here's what's happening.

02:01:52.360 It doesn't.

02:01:52.900 How do you solve Euthyphro's dilemma?

02:01:54.440 Why do I need to solve your problem?

02:01:55.840 Because if I'm posing you, Euthyphro's dilemma, a philosophical problem, you can't go, is the

02:02:00.380 problem true?

02:02:01.140 That's not, that's.

02:02:02.080 I'm not even asking about that.

02:02:03.320 That's, like, sidestepping the conversation.

02:02:05.000 I'm asking if you believe that this is correct, and you also believe that objective morality

02:02:10.500 is correct.

02:02:11.380 Yeah, correct.

02:02:12.060 Correct in the way that we're assuming a gripist trilemma.

02:02:14.140 Correct in the way that, like, trolley problems are good at testing logic.

02:02:16.680 So, we're just both making assumptions about everything?

02:02:19.340 Everyone is, well, that or you're infinitely regressing.

02:02:22.380 Those are your two.

02:02:22.920 Well, there's your circular reasoning, which is just tautology.

02:02:25.520 So, everyone's kind of doing tautologies.

02:02:27.240 So, we're just assuming God.

02:02:28.760 Yeah, of course.

02:02:29.800 Okay.

02:02:30.100 How do you, how are you not?

02:02:31.320 So, all of these things, all of these things in philosophy are just going down to these

02:02:36.060 three categories for you?

02:02:37.840 No, not these, these aren't categories.

02:02:39.920 These are ways in which you're fallacious.

02:02:42.300 You're thinking is fallacious.

02:02:43.160 So, it's saying all beliefs, all metaethics, normative frameworks are fundamentally unjustifiable

02:02:47.620 because they can't solve for one of these three things.

02:02:49.840 Thank you.

02:02:50.120 I see.

02:02:50.880 And I'm asking you, how do you solve for it?

02:02:52.900 I can't.

02:02:53.400 I'm going to adopt it.

02:02:54.480 He's like, Euthyphro's dilemma.

02:02:56.040 I don't know.

02:02:56.560 Hey.

02:02:56.720 Can't find an answer to it.

02:02:57.900 No, no, no.

02:02:58.080 I'm going to adopt it.

02:02:58.980 You're right.

02:02:59.820 Okay.

02:03:00.040 I'm just going to every, I'm just going to assume everything's true because I assume

02:03:03.800 it.

02:03:04.700 That's, that's fine.

02:03:05.660 But now.

02:03:06.360 That's what you said.

02:03:07.120 Now you're in line with like, so this is one of your issues.

02:03:10.240 That's what you said.

02:03:11.080 Yeah, yeah.

02:03:11.420 No, that's fine.

02:03:12.280 Welcome to my world.

02:03:13.120 Okay.

02:03:13.500 Yeah, I'm in your world.

02:03:14.580 We're based over here.

02:03:15.260 Okay.

02:03:15.520 The issue is that I wouldn't go to secular people and be like, you don't have a moral 1.00

02:03:18.460 ethical system because it's unjustifiable.

02:03:19.800 Because I already know that mine's unjustifiable.

02:03:21.880 I'm assuming.

02:03:22.480 I'm doing dogmatism and they're doing usually infinite regression. 0.81

02:03:25.280 So they're being cowards and they're being like, Oh, I don't know. 0.69

02:03:27.920 So then you can't make a justification for why I shouldn't like pull out a machine gun 1.00

02:03:31.940 and kill everybody. 0.89

02:03:33.180 These are not the same thing. 0.99

02:03:34.620 You understand?

02:03:35.020 They're not.

02:03:35.440 Yeah.

02:03:35.640 So when I'm talking about foundational beliefs.

02:03:37.460 Yeah.

02:03:38.440 Pop quiz.

02:03:39.120 What's foundational?

02:03:39.800 Do you know what foundationalism is?

02:03:40.720 Yeah.

02:03:41.820 It's going to be the pillar in which the belief stands on.

02:03:43.800 Yeah.

02:03:44.020 Okay.

02:03:44.200 So not all statements or beliefs are foundational.

02:03:47.480 Thanks for the pop quiz, by the way.

02:03:47.980 You're welcome.

02:03:48.480 Well, I don't actually do pop quizzes.

02:03:49.760 I usually ask questions.

02:03:50.180 That's your whole debate style, but go ahead. 0.58

02:03:51.380 It's not me knowing more information than you is not like some, some, some crazy, like

02:03:56.880 maniacal tactic.

02:03:57.980 And in fact, when we get to the point where you do, this is the issue, Andrew, is it speaks

02:04:01.180 to your insecurity that when I ask you questions about whether or not you know something I'm

02:04:04.420 asking in genuine good faith because they're like esoteric and I don't expect people to

02:04:08.180 know them, but you take it as an insult to like your pride or something like that.

02:04:12.100 Of course, because you think I'm doing something like maniacal when it's like me asking you,

02:04:15.900 do you know what a gripper's trilemma is? 1.00

02:04:17.500 Isn't to say, ha ha, idiot. 1.00

02:04:19.820 You don't know anything about a gripper's trilemma. 1.00

02:04:20.960 Why aren't you even talking about philosophy?

02:04:22.200 It's for me to go, okay, if you don't, let me explain it to you.

02:04:25.260 And then I'm curious how you would reason through it.

02:04:27.420 Yeah.

02:04:27.620 I would just reason that I'll adopt it.

02:04:29.360 And anybody that I decide to impose my will on can't actually say that I'm unjustified.

02:04:34.900 Of course you can.

02:04:35.920 How?

02:04:36.520 Well, you wouldn't say that your foundations are unjustified, but they would say, for

02:04:39.320 example, here's a list of evidences and arguments as to why I don't think you should

02:04:42.460 none of those are justified.

02:04:43.400 They're all going to be circular.

02:04:44.180 Well, you would build it off of tautologies.

02:04:45.120 So what?

02:04:46.000 Everything's built off of tautologies.

02:04:47.180 There's no justification.

02:04:48.240 Tell me you can't do anything.

02:04:49.260 Wait, do you think math doesn't exist because-

02:04:50.800 What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

02:04:52.600 Math is tautological.

02:04:53.600 Oh my God.

02:04:54.300 Wait, do you not know that?

02:04:55.000 What is the justification-

02:04:56.120 Pop quiz time.

02:04:56.660 Do you know that math is tautological?

02:04:57.620 So how can you tell me, you see what I mean?

02:04:59.280 Pop quiz. 0.99

02:05:00.440 Well, I'm doing it now because you're just being ridiculous. 0.99

02:05:02.320 Yeah, yeah, yeah. 0.99

02:05:03.880 Squirrel brain.

02:05:04.740 Can you tell me-

02:05:05.980 I'm pretty focused.

02:05:06.640 Can you tell me how it is then that you can create any justifications that anybody's ever

02:05:11.720 doing anything wrong?

02:05:12.560 Logic and reason.

02:05:13.300 You build on top of like tautological axioms that seem reasonable based on kind of assumptions,

02:05:18.520 but they seem reasonable.

02:05:19.340 And you build upon an entire structure of world belief, which is what-

02:05:22.320 But none of them are justified?

02:05:23.540 At a foundational level, no.

02:05:25.460 All beliefs are unjustifiable.

02:05:26.580 Well, then you don't-

02:05:28.080 How do you solve dogmatism?

02:05:29.080 When you just told me then that I can't go to secular people and tell them that their beliefs

02:05:34.480 are unjustified-

02:05:35.880 You can't and be consistent.

02:05:38.740 So then we should just throw philosophy out.

02:05:40.580 No.

02:05:41.060 Why not?

02:05:42.040 It's not justified.

02:05:44.120 At a foundational level, it's just a tautology that we make up, right?

02:05:47.160 Yeah, because people accept tautologies because that's how you think about the world, right?

02:05:50.260 Okay.

02:05:50.480 Like math, we just accept tautologies and math.

02:05:52.880 We have to because you have no starting point if you don't.

02:05:54.840 So we assume these things and then we build on top of them.

02:05:57.120 And then the beauty of things like math and science, in the case of like, you know, science

02:06:01.940 realism, is you can use math and these things to observe and test and see if you're actually

02:06:05.560 mapping onto the correctness of the world.

02:06:07.320 I see.

02:06:07.780 Yeah.

02:06:08.060 So then if I-

02:06:09.300 Inductive and deductible.

02:06:09.580 So then if I utilize the assumption that God is real, this would-

02:06:13.020 That's dogmatism.

02:06:13.640 Yeah.

02:06:13.840 Yeah.

02:06:14.020 This would satisfy you because you also use the assumption that God is real?

02:06:18.140 I'll just grant it.

02:06:18.660 Of course.

02:06:19.160 I always grant it.

02:06:19.740 Well, then if that's the case and we assume that God's real and then we assume God's commands

02:06:25.180 and then we build our case off of that, that's justified.

02:06:29.420 As justified as something can be.

02:06:31.020 Yeah.

02:06:31.860 Okay.

02:06:32.320 Well, then I don't know what we're arguing about.

02:06:34.480 We'll just do that.

02:06:35.260 Well, we were arguing because you wouldn't ask for Griffith's dilemma and saying that it

02:06:38.240 wasn't true and coping super hard about it.

02:06:39.620 No, I was asking you if it was true.

02:06:41.380 Well, we're arguing this because you were walking me along this thing and being like, secular

02:06:44.480 people have no justification for their worldview.

02:06:46.780 And I went, well, we can go there, Andrew, but I'm just going to like jump ahead to a

02:06:50.060 Griffith's dilemma.

02:06:50.820 But I still want to get back to the interrogation now.

02:06:52.660 Okay.

02:06:52.800 But your line of argumentation is going to fall apart because when you go, well, why are

02:06:55.940 you assuming that this is good?

02:06:57.040 I'll go, we're assuming it.

02:06:58.400 Okay.

02:06:58.640 That's fine.

02:06:59.220 But anyway, back to, can we get back to this now?

02:07:02.420 Sure.

02:07:02.900 Okay.

02:07:03.260 So when we're talking about the issue of secularism-

02:07:06.360 Yeah.

02:07:07.060 Or not secularism, I'm sorry, liberalism.

02:07:09.440 Wait.

02:07:10.320 Liberalism is what we're discussing here.

02:07:12.520 So we'll pull back up on the note since we went down that whole train of nonsense.

02:07:16.120 It's not nonsense.

02:07:17.080 It's like foundational philosophy.

02:07:18.600 Phil 101, really.

02:07:19.680 It's kind of important.

02:07:20.640 You're right. 0.97

02:07:20.960 And you like to weaponize it for your dumb audience against mean people to like innocent 0.98

02:07:25.300 only fans girls to be like, see, their belief system is justified. 0.97

02:07:29.100 And it's like, no one's a foundation level.

02:07:29.980 Name a single time when I've done that.

02:07:31.540 Every time you were on the show.

02:07:33.340 Yeah.

02:07:33.540 So give me, do you have one?

02:07:35.980 Yeah.

02:07:36.420 When you debate any secular person, when you debated Charlie, when you debate Destiny, when

02:07:40.060 you debated Nymo, when you debated Xena, when you debated like et cetera, et cetera.

02:07:43.260 No, my argument is actually that if you're-

02:07:45.500 You usually go, your belief system's unjustifiable.

02:07:47.240 That's a dire thing.

02:07:48.700 Your beliefs are unjustifiable.

02:07:49.820 I do the opposite.

02:07:50.600 I start at the end.

02:07:51.620 I just say, if it's the case that it's just preferences, then you have absolutely no criticism

02:07:56.700 for me imposing mine.

02:07:58.360 Well, most secular people, if they're good on philosophy, wouldn't say, well, it's not

02:08:01.680 just preferences, right?

02:08:02.620 It's some mixture of like, we use, if they're utilitarian, they would use utiles.

02:08:06.980 These are all preferences.

02:08:08.400 Not really.

02:08:09.260 These are like, there's no more preferences than you preferring God.

02:08:12.460 That's my point.

02:08:14.020 But then all of this is empty.

02:08:15.420 That's right.

02:08:16.320 So your arguments are-

02:08:17.540 So then you would have-

02:08:17.760 Wait, wait, but then you have to grant that your arguments are just as empty as theirs.

02:08:20.560 If that's the case, then you would have no room to criticize me for imposing my preferences.

02:08:25.640 Sure we could, because then we could just use reason and logic and evidence of what

02:08:28.920 seems to benefit people.

02:08:30.140 Your preferences versus my preferences?

02:08:31.100 I think it's reasonable to assume that I prefer that people are well, that people experience

02:08:36.800 less harm, right?

02:08:38.000 And I think that's a reasonable preference to have, because I want it.

02:08:41.780 Then it's perfectly reasonable for me to say no.

02:08:44.320 I didn't say it's unreasonable.

02:08:45.600 Then there's nothing to argue there.

02:08:47.180 Because you're insisting that they're unjustifiable while you are.

02:08:49.820 And I'm saying, no, you're all unjustifiable, but both are actually reasonable.

02:08:52.980 You can have your Christian preferences, but as a Christian, I'm fighting you and saying, 0.99

02:08:56.960 actually, your preferences are icky and bad for the faith. 0.50

02:08:59.200 Don't do it.

02:08:59.660 Also, Jesus wasn't political, so you're kind of going against what Jesus taught.

02:09:03.480 Also bad to do.

02:09:04.460 Okay, so then back to this, when we're talking about liberalism and the system of liberalism

02:09:08.740 and you're appealing to consensus, right?

02:09:11.300 If the consensus is that they want to kill every third baby, which is just part of their

02:09:16.360 preferences, man, and they assume that it's fine, you can't actually critique that then.

02:09:23.000 Of course you can.

02:09:24.060 We do it all the time.

02:09:25.700 With what?

02:09:26.220 You could use utilitarianism. 0.96

02:09:29.520 And you could say, actually, killing babies is bad because it makes a worse world.

02:09:32.520 It harms that specific baby.

02:09:33.900 It probably also harms the mother, which would actually decrease the amount of flourishing 0.64

02:09:37.460 and increase the amount of harm, which is why I think it would be bad to do.

02:09:39.720 That's what a utilitarian could say.

02:09:41.240 And then say, but you would say that that...

02:09:44.340 God doesn't like it when you kill babies unless he orders you to do it like in the alkytes. 0.75

02:09:47.480 And which one of you is right?

02:09:48.960 Well, we would have to fight.

02:09:49.840 I mean, the issue is like, we have to assume at the end of the level.

02:09:51.780 We'd have to fight, right?

02:09:52.860 Yeah.

02:09:53.100 And I would go, I think my argument's more reasonable.

02:09:55.900 I wouldn't say my argument's more justifiable at a foundational level.

02:09:58.940 This is what you do.

02:09:59.700 You try to say, my beliefs are foundationally justified and yours are not, which is why

02:10:03.060 I'm reasonable and you're not.

02:10:04.000 It's like, that's not true.

02:10:04.820 Actually, I do the opposite.

02:10:05.900 No, you definitely don't do the opposite.

02:10:06.260 I start at the end of the argument and say, I agree with you.

02:10:09.280 It's all preferences.

02:10:09.780 Just because the chronology of how you get there is different, it doesn't change that this is the

02:10:13.620 tactic that you typically utilize when you debate people.

02:10:15.980 Listen, I'm doing the same thing with you.

02:10:17.880 We're at the end now.

02:10:18.560 Yeah, you're like, I start at the end and I walk people all the way back to their foundational

02:10:21.740 axioms.

02:10:22.560 I'm just asking you this. 0.79

02:10:23.540 And then I go, see how silly this is? 0.85

02:10:25.180 I'm not silly. 0.92

02:10:26.140 And I'm saying, your address is unjustified, but there's reason that you can utilize.

02:10:29.740 I'm just asking you a single question here, which is that is consensus, when you're talking

02:10:33.840 about consensus, that's how you want things to be, right?

02:10:38.360 Well, no, this is not an ought.

02:10:40.140 Like a consensus isn't an ought.

02:10:41.380 I think it's the best system that's arrived so far.

02:10:43.340 If you can make up a better one, I'm not a doubt.

02:10:44.900 So when I asked you earlier, this is an ought and you said yes, that's not the case?

02:10:49.240 Well, there's a second part to what I was saying, I believe, at the time.

02:10:52.220 No, I asked you, is consensus how Christians ought to do things?

02:10:56.100 You said yes.

02:10:56.740 No, I didn't.

02:10:57.680 Yes, you did.

02:10:58.540 No.

02:10:59.220 I specifically wrote it down.

02:11:00.960 If I did, I didn't mean it.

02:11:02.560 You didn't?

02:11:03.120 No, I should have clarified.

02:11:04.140 What do you actually want to ask here?

02:11:05.160 Yeah, so I want to just ask you about consensus.

02:11:08.040 So if they want to kill every third baby, okay?

02:11:12.080 I would oppose this.

02:11:12.860 Yeah, but why would they be actually wrong?

02:11:15.400 I would, for example, I would, in the case of a pagan, I would probably appeal to their 0.91

02:11:19.280 own moral system.

02:11:19.960 I think that most people, for example, I believe, you probably believe this too, that God gives

02:11:23.800 us conscience, right?

02:11:24.520 He like puts a spirit inside of us that God's meta-ethical system emerges naturally out of

02:11:30.640 us, right?

02:11:31.200 So like what I would do, for example, is I would probably, first of all, try to examine 0.91

02:11:34.960 that pagan's belief system, and I would be like, do you actually think killing babies 0.98

02:11:39.240 is okay, right? 0.94

02:11:40.120 I would actually morally question them.

02:11:42.240 And one of the issues is that this is unobservable.

02:11:44.880 We can't truly know whether somebody thinks something is wrong or right.

02:11:47.840 But I think the knowledge of wrong or right is really important, kind of biblical, one might

02:11:51.940 even say.

02:11:52.660 So I would question whether or not they know it's wrong or right, and then I would appeal

02:11:56.300 to things like state.

02:11:57.380 So like civic ethics, for example, it doesn't work very well in nations to kill every third 0.99

02:12:02.820 baby.

02:12:03.220 You're just reducing your population.

02:12:05.080 Usually the mothers don't like it. 1.00

02:12:06.380 Usually the fathers don't like it.

02:12:07.860 Doesn't seem to have any good outcome.

02:12:09.280 In fact, most of the reasons why people in the past killed babies was to satisfy some sun

02:12:13.660 god.

02:12:14.120 And we would go, that's not an overly reasonable argument.

02:12:16.460 It's probably more reasonable to say we shouldn't kill babies.

02:12:18.680 That seems more reasonable.

02:12:19.680 So I could appeal to them within their own worldview of secularism or their own worldview of paganism.

02:12:23.960 Sure. 1.00

02:12:24.500 And they say, fuck you, we don't care. 1.00

02:12:27.380 Are they in my state? 1.00

02:12:29.600 No.

02:12:30.960 They're in another country?

02:12:32.220 Yeah.

02:12:32.460 I'm just asking why they're wrong, why they're doing something wrong.

02:12:35.300 Why they're doing something wrong to me?

02:12:36.280 Yeah.

02:12:36.420 Why is that wrong?

02:12:37.200 Yeah. 0.93

02:12:37.400 Because I think it's immoral to kill babies. 0.60

02:12:38.920 Why? 0.83

02:12:39.680 Because I think God doesn't like you to kill babies unless he orders it, like in the Malachi. 1.00

02:12:43.200 Because he assumed, you assumed that.

02:12:44.680 I assumed God.

02:12:45.240 Yep.

02:12:45.520 You assumed it.

02:12:46.220 And so they assumed.

02:12:46.960 Well, I'm assuming God.

02:12:47.900 Yeah.

02:12:47.980 So they assume not God.

02:12:49.260 Yep.

02:12:49.460 And so they come to you and say, well, you're just assuming this anyway.

02:12:53.100 And I would say, so are you. 0.99

02:12:54.640 And then they would say, good, we're going to go back to killing babies. 0.99

02:12:56.740 And the problem with that is what? 0.92

02:12:57.680 I would say, I'm going to use my language and quill to convince you that you're wrong

02:13:00.880 and that there's a more compelling and better way to leave.

02:13:02.660 And I'm going to appeal to the spirit that I think God puts into all of us to try to pull

02:13:05.880 out of you the fact that murder is actually really bad.

02:13:07.900 I see.

02:13:08.600 So if a Christian nationalist does that within a liberal system, they're not doing anything

02:13:12.420 wrong.

02:13:14.180 Yeah.

02:13:14.620 So you guys can try to compel people to Christianity, but my issue isn't. 0.84

02:13:17.760 No, we can compel you to, we can compel ourselves to the will of the state.

02:13:21.400 Why not?

02:13:22.880 What's wrong with that?

02:13:24.480 Sorry.

02:13:25.220 I don't know what you're saying right now.

02:13:27.060 If, if Christians take over the entire state, rewrite the entirety of the constitution 1.00

02:13:30.800 within your liberal framework.

02:13:32.480 They can in the liberal framework, but as a Christian, I think that they're being unchristian 0.99

02:13:34.920 by doing so.

02:13:35.200 Yeah, but who cares?

02:13:35.820 You're just assuming it.

02:13:37.300 God cares.

02:13:37.960 And I'm assuming that we're all Christians.

02:13:38.820 Yeah, but I assume God doesn't care.

02:13:41.600 I would question your Christian theology.

02:13:43.880 Oh, why?

02:13:44.940 I just assumed it.

02:13:45.920 Because scripture, do you think that like logic, reason, evidence, scripture doesn't exist

02:13:49.680 outside of like foundations?

02:13:50.980 It doesn't matter.

02:13:51.620 What matters is what I assume.

02:13:53.100 How would scripture not matter when I'm talking to fellow Christians?

02:13:56.880 Because I just assume things.

02:13:58.880 Well, no, you don't just assume things.

02:14:01.100 Why not?

02:14:01.500 You're equivocating again.

02:14:02.760 So what you're doing.

02:14:03.360 How am I equivocating?

02:14:03.820 Because you're saying assuming at a foundational.

02:14:05.880 So when I say assume, I mean at a foundational axiomatic level.

02:14:09.220 That is not the same thing as assuming.

02:14:10.160 My axiom is that I'm always right about everything.

02:14:13.780 Why can't it be an axiom?

02:14:14.780 Because it's not tautological.

02:14:17.120 I'm right because I'm right.

02:14:19.060 That's a tautology.

02:14:20.160 Yeah.

02:14:21.320 Now I can go, oh, I don't think that's justified.

02:14:23.720 And then I would prove you wrong.

02:14:24.660 Okay, but who cares?

02:14:26.120 You just said nothing's justified.

02:14:28.500 Sorry, are we just doing like nihilism warp tour?

02:14:30.640 Nobody should care.

02:14:31.540 Nobody should care about, you granted me that even at Christianity, you granted me that 1.00

02:14:34.720 your worldview is just as unimportant.

02:14:37.720 So how do you make people care?

02:14:39.840 Because that makes my point, actually.

02:14:41.680 So you're hands off.

02:14:42.740 You're like, none of it matters.

02:14:43.960 My system is just as unjustifiable and assumed as anyone else's.

02:14:46.660 Now I at least understand what you're saying.

02:14:48.560 So great.

02:14:49.820 If it's the case.

02:14:50.700 Took two hours and 15 minutes.

02:14:52.940 Yeah.

02:14:53.460 If it's the case that we're just assuming the worldview at a foundational level and

02:14:58.060 it's an axiom I'm right because I'm right.

02:14:59.740 Now we have a tautology.

02:15:01.360 Then there's actually no good reason for me not to assume that I'm just right about

02:15:06.680 reforming liberalism after my own image.

02:15:09.760 So reason can be include, it includes things like inductive and deductive logic.

02:15:13.760 This is the stuff that we build off of our axioms, right?

02:15:16.440 Can.

02:15:17.420 Well, that's what we do.

02:15:18.660 That's what all philosophical systems are.

02:15:20.420 That's what you do.

02:15:21.140 That's what I do.

02:15:21.800 Well, that's an assumption.

02:15:25.500 This is crazy.

02:15:26.300 Because foundationally you're assuming it, right?

02:15:28.420 Oh yeah, you're right, Andrew.

02:15:29.580 Everything doesn't matter anything at all.

02:15:31.340 In fact, everything that you say doesn't matter and none of your systems are justified and 0.94

02:15:35.020 it's all just arbitrary and silly. 0.89

02:15:36.860 That's what you're saying too. 0.84

02:15:38.600 By your view, yeah.

02:15:39.880 No, no, no.

02:15:40.300 You granted my view.

02:15:41.180 You said, I'll grant you Agrippa's Trilemma.

02:15:42.700 Yeah.

02:15:43.400 No, no, no.

02:15:43.820 This is our view now, baby.

02:15:45.320 You said you're joining me.

02:15:46.640 You're in the Agrippa's Trilemma acceptance state, okay? 0.98

02:15:49.400 In fact, then, if that's the case. 1.00

02:15:50.660 So you're just as arbitrary and just as stupid and we can't assume anything. 0.99

02:15:53.300 So if that's the case, then. 1.00

02:15:54.620 So we shouldn't talk about anything.

02:15:55.440 Why are we here?

02:15:56.000 Exactly.

02:15:56.360 Let each other finish, please.

02:15:57.600 So I just want to know.

02:15:59.020 Well, you're in my world.

02:15:59.740 How are you solving that now?

02:16:00.760 What would the argument, what now is the argument for me to impose Christian nationalism?

02:16:05.680 Let me ask that to you.

02:16:06.760 What's your argument for it?

02:16:07.840 Because I want to.

02:16:08.480 You're just assuming that though.

02:16:09.320 Because I want to.

02:16:09.660 Yeah, but you're just assuming.

02:16:10.800 It's a tautology, so I'm supposed to.

02:16:12.760 That doesn't make it right.

02:16:13.360 Exactly.

02:16:13.860 So it's fine to do.

02:16:14.680 So why are you saying that it's an ought statement?

02:16:16.840 Wait a second.

02:16:17.540 I'm assuming, right?

02:16:19.920 Yeah.

02:16:20.100 So why is it an ought statement?

02:16:21.120 Because I want it to be.

02:16:22.360 Because I assume it.

02:16:23.360 Okay.

02:16:23.640 So your system is wholly unjustifiable.

02:16:25.960 There's no reason why Christians should do it. 1.00

02:16:27.500 They're just like moving on vibes.

02:16:28.800 And there's no reason for Christians not to do it.

02:16:31.760 Okay.

02:16:32.520 Right?

02:16:33.580 So I believe in a.

02:16:35.880 I'm a foundationalist.

02:16:37.320 So I believe in.

02:16:37.960 Yeah, but you assume your foundations can't be justified.

02:16:40.440 Everyone assumes foundations.

02:16:41.780 You've already granted me this.

02:16:42.720 Then if that's the case, then who cares what your foundation is?

02:16:45.180 Because in philosophy, we typically ground foundations to some extent.

02:16:47.680 We don't do anything in philosophy.

02:16:49.100 I don't know what you do with philosophy.

02:16:50.740 Okay, Mr. Philosopher.

02:16:52.120 In any level of respected philosophy, we assume.

02:16:56.320 Which respected philosophers are you referencing?

02:16:58.800 Aristotle, Plato, Socrates.

02:17:02.620 What are some modern ones that I can think of?

02:17:04.320 What did Socrates?

02:17:04.920 Heidegger.

02:17:05.840 Socrates assumed that you couldn't justify anything?

02:17:09.260 Well, no.

02:17:10.080 What he.

02:17:10.480 Well, sort of.

02:17:11.280 What we do is we grant assumptions.

02:17:13.180 Because we understand that at a foundational level, they're all unjustified.

02:17:16.780 All you did was destroy the possibility for there to be objective morality.

02:17:21.080 That's it.

02:17:21.600 Nope.

02:17:22.140 Because I think God exists.

02:17:23.480 Yeah, but you just assume it.

02:17:24.620 So, but non-Christians also assume that he doesn't exist.

02:17:27.160 Yeah, so then if they have an anti-moral realist position.

02:17:30.860 I would use logic and reason to compel them as to why I'm correct.

02:17:33.380 Okay, let's assume for a second I'm a moral anti-realist.

02:17:36.640 Use logic and reason to compel me when you tell me that your whole worldview is just assumed.

02:17:44.520 Sorry.

02:17:45.600 You really love that assumed word.

02:17:47.200 Can you rephrase that in a way that's coherent?

02:17:49.340 That was coherent, but I'll do it again.

02:17:50.960 Okay, let's assume it wasn't.

02:17:52.160 Foundationally.

02:17:52.540 Let's assume.

02:17:53.360 I'm a moral anti-realist.

02:17:54.760 Okay.

02:17:55.060 Your moral foundations are assumed.

02:17:56.920 Mm-hmm.

02:17:57.940 And not justified.

02:17:59.480 And I would say, how do you solve a Grypa's Trilemma? 1.00

02:18:01.140 No, no, no, no, no.

02:18:02.120 You told me the moral anti-realist that.

02:18:04.900 Yeah, and then the anti-realist goes, well, your opinions are just assumed, right?

02:18:08.420 And I go, yeah.

02:18:09.080 How do you solve a Grypa's Trilemma? 0.99

02:18:10.420 Why would they need to?

02:18:11.320 They're anti-realists.

02:18:12.920 So even...

02:18:14.480 You just destroyed the possibility for objective morality, everybody.

02:18:18.800 No, I didn't.

02:18:19.340 You did?

02:18:19.860 No, even subjectivists fail a Grypa's Trilemma. 0.85

02:18:22.440 They fail by infinite regression.

02:18:24.600 Okay, again, who cares?

02:18:26.680 You forgot about that one, didn't you?

02:18:27.640 That doesn't hurt my argument.

02:18:28.940 Yes, it does.

02:18:30.000 If I'm an anti-realist, a moral anti-realist, I say there are no moral facts.

02:18:34.760 And that is completely and totally in line with a Grypa's Trilemma. 1.00

02:18:38.560 Oh, so a Grypa's Trilemma would say, how do you solve for infinite regression?

02:18:44.080 Why would I need to?

02:18:45.140 Because it's a fallacy.

02:18:47.880 So thinking's a fallacy?

02:18:49.440 No, infinite regression's a fallacy.

02:18:50.920 Okay, but everything's going to reduce to an infinite regress, right?

02:18:54.080 So what comes before thinking?

02:18:55.980 Well, that would be transcendentals would come before thinking.

02:18:59.020 Okay, what comes before that?

02:19:00.680 Well, we would make the justification of God, right?

02:19:02.780 So you're assuming...

02:19:03.780 So no, secular anti-realists would not assume God.

02:19:06.740 I'm talking about you.

02:19:07.740 No, not me.

02:19:08.760 You don't assume God?

02:19:10.060 I do assume God.

02:19:11.220 So then all of the transcendentals come from him?

02:19:13.640 Andrew, respectfully, I don't think you're ready for this conversation.

02:19:17.200 Oh, no, I'm having a good time with this one.

02:19:19.860 I just want to make sure that me, the moral anti-realist, right, that you are telling me

02:19:25.500 that objective morality is real, right?

02:19:28.220 Mm-hmm.

02:19:28.660 And I would use reason and logic and argumentation and I would build off of my foundational axioms

02:19:33.580 that a good faith moral anti-realist would just grant me.

02:19:36.460 So they'd be like, well, why do you believe God?

02:19:37.940 And I'm like, I just assume him.

02:19:38.980 And they're like, okay, well, I can't really contend with that.

02:19:40.640 It's just assumed.

02:19:42.000 And then I build my entire case for why I think morals are objective because I think God instilled

02:19:46.000 them outside of us and that they are in every person.

02:19:48.020 And I say, you can see this in the universal ways in which morals consistently emerge.

02:19:51.580 We see this trajectory of humankind moving towards greater and greater moral systems,

02:19:56.100 right?

02:19:56.300 Free speech and respecting one another and treating everyone kindly.

02:19:59.340 And what you'll notice most importantly is not only are those morals objective, but they're

02:20:03.020 the Christian ones because God is real.

02:20:04.940 My God specifically is real.

02:20:06.320 That's how I would do that argumentation.

02:20:07.540 Okay.

02:20:07.780 So are there moral facts?

02:20:09.780 Yeah.

02:20:10.160 Yes.

02:20:11.440 And are they just assumed?

02:20:14.680 Yeah, at a foundational level.

02:20:17.000 Okay.

02:20:17.440 So then any moral facts that I assume at a foundational level are equivalent to any moral facts you

02:20:22.980 assume at a foundational level?

02:20:24.280 No, not equivalent.

02:20:25.080 I didn't say these are all equivocal.

02:20:27.240 What would make them different?

02:20:28.560 My use of inductive and deductive logic is better.

02:20:31.320 I use better reason.

02:20:32.280 I have more evidence for my claims.

02:20:33.100 Well, better, hang on.

02:20:34.260 What does better mean here?

02:20:35.640 Better means like more coherent, more consistent.

02:20:37.920 Yeah, but why is that better?

02:20:39.660 Because it seems to produce better thinking.

02:20:42.120 It seems to work alongside.

02:20:43.740 That's a tautology.

02:20:44.900 Yes.

02:20:45.240 It's better because it's better.

02:20:46.500 Yeah.

02:20:46.980 Tautologies.

02:20:47.580 Welcome to philosophy, Andrew.

02:20:49.000 Yeah.

02:20:49.060 So then I just want to make sure.

02:20:51.020 So you're just going to endlessly be in a case of infinite regress in tautology?

02:20:55.860 Sweet of you.

02:20:56.420 I appreciate that.

02:20:57.080 And then there's no moral facts to just assume?

02:20:59.340 Just let me pour my energy drink that Brian respectfully, and then we'll get back into

02:21:03.980 you really struggling with philosophy.

02:21:05.600 Oh, I'm having a struggle.

02:21:07.160 That's true.

02:21:07.700 You are.

02:21:10.320 This has been very difficult for me.

02:21:12.020 I agree.

02:21:12.940 I mean, hey, you've at least accepted the reality that your beliefs are just as unjustified

02:21:19.920 as everyone else that you mock, which is great.

02:21:22.260 So it might make right.

02:21:23.600 No.

02:21:23.960 Yeah, it does.

02:21:26.560 Yes.

02:21:27.140 Why wouldn't it?

02:21:28.360 Because of things like coercive power versus legitimate authority. 1.00

02:21:31.340 Who cares about that shit? 1.00

02:21:32.380 You're just assuming it. 1.00

02:21:33.400 No.

02:21:34.140 So again, pragmatically.

02:21:35.820 It's foundation.

02:21:36.460 Whatever arguments you have are assumed.

02:21:38.360 Do you think all of this around me just doesn't exist because I'm assuming it?

02:21:41.280 Wait, wait, wait.

02:21:41.940 Material things?

02:21:42.700 Yeah.

02:21:43.140 Is philosophy material?

02:21:44.200 Yeah, it can be.

02:21:45.080 How?

02:21:45.700 Pragmatism is often.

02:21:46.620 How?

02:21:47.660 Pragmatism.

02:21:48.180 Yeah.

02:21:48.360 How's it material?

02:21:48.720 It's often interested in material effects.

02:21:50.440 That's not material.

02:21:52.220 You're just saying what it's...

02:21:53.440 I am so sorry.

02:21:55.180 Hold on.

02:21:56.980 Party foul.

02:21:58.340 You were so sweet to remind me, and then I destroyed your tech.

02:22:00.860 Yikes.

02:22:01.140 Can we get all the tech out of the way?

02:22:03.480 Can we get paper towels?

02:22:04.500 Yeah, just pass them to Kyla there.

02:22:07.740 A little spillage.

02:22:08.660 It's okay.

02:22:09.140 Here.

02:22:09.500 No, no, no.

02:22:09.880 It's all good.

02:22:10.920 I'll take care of it.

02:22:11.840 You guys continue with the debate.

02:22:13.020 It's all good.

02:22:13.440 Don't worry about it.

02:22:13.980 I'm so sorry.

02:22:14.660 No, it's all good.

02:22:15.500 Let's get on your stream deck first, though, so it doesn't get any wins.

02:22:18.100 Yeah, yeah.

02:22:19.100 Here, let me take care of it, though.

02:22:20.200 You guys can continue on with the conversation.

02:22:22.540 It's all good.

02:22:23.060 It's all good.

02:22:23.560 I'm so sorry about that.

02:22:24.180 It's okay.

02:22:25.400 I'll continue.

02:22:27.280 When I knocked that over, did that happen materially, or did we just all assume that

02:22:30.680 it happened?

02:22:31.700 Well, I would say that that happened in material reality.

02:22:33.900 Oh, and so how do we think about that?

02:22:35.600 How do we decide that actually it fell because of gravity versus God trying to push it down?

02:22:40.940 We would probably run an experiment or something like this.

02:22:43.540 Yeah, we would use, like, reason and logic to build up a belief system.

02:22:46.660 Well, the thing is, though, is, like, that wouldn't make philosophy material.

02:22:53.540 So, philosophy, like the art of loving wisdom, isn't material, but it commentates on materialism

02:22:59.700 all the time.

02:22:59.720 Yeah, but you just said it was material.

02:23:01.220 Well, parts of it can be material, yeah.

02:23:02.480 Which parts?

02:23:03.220 The part that is your brain thinking about things.

02:23:06.820 Is your brain not material?

02:23:08.060 Okay, so is the philosophy itself material?

02:23:12.440 Or is the brain material?

02:23:13.900 The brain's material.

02:23:14.540 Okay, so then not the philosophy again.

02:23:17.600 I don't know why you think that this is a dunk.

02:23:19.640 I'm not trying to dunk.

02:23:21.060 I said philosophy can engage in the material, of course.

02:23:23.380 But you said it was material.

02:23:24.700 And then I said, for example, one of the schools is pragmatism.

02:23:27.280 Yeah, but that's not material.

02:23:28.560 Sure, okay.

02:23:29.800 Okay.

02:23:30.040 You win.

02:23:30.560 That's all.

02:23:30.980 You're so smart, Andrew.

02:23:31.780 You got me.

02:23:32.320 I don't know.

02:23:33.120 Hey, you're way better at this than me.

02:23:35.580 Help me out, though.

02:23:36.300 So, I'm actually fine kind of staying right here.

02:23:40.400 So, you accept that your belief system is just as unjustifiable.

02:23:43.500 Oh, sure.

02:23:44.340 Especially for the purpose of this conversation.

02:23:46.220 No, no, no.

02:23:46.480 Not for the purpose of this conversation.

02:23:47.800 Don't be like bad faith.

02:23:49.020 That's not bad faith.

02:23:49.920 It is bad faith to presume things that you don't actually believe.

02:23:52.240 That's not bad faith.

02:23:53.840 Do not purport to me that you believe in things that you don't believe.

02:23:55.800 That is definitionally bad faith.

02:23:58.220 By self-delusion or self-deception or, in this case, explicit deception, saying, yeah, I believe this.

02:24:03.780 And it's like, no, you don't.

02:24:04.760 You literally don't.

02:24:05.780 Got it.

02:24:06.300 Or do you?

02:24:07.420 Do I what?

02:24:08.460 Do you believe that Agrippa's Trilemma means that all?

02:24:10.780 One.

02:24:11.280 You convinced me.

02:24:12.820 Okay.

02:24:13.160 So, now I'm not.

02:24:14.320 I don't know what to do with this.

02:24:15.440 I guess falling into snark is your way of solving your bad philosophy.

02:24:18.260 How am I falling into snark?

02:24:19.720 Because you are either being genuine.

02:24:22.660 You convinced me.

02:24:23.640 And rude.

02:24:24.240 You convinced me all moral foundations are completely unjustified.

02:24:29.040 And since all moral foundations are completely unjustified, any facts we build off of those are not going to be justified.

02:24:36.000 Well, they're not going to be axiomatically justified, but they can be reasonable and coherent.

02:24:39.820 So?

02:24:40.740 They're still unjustified.

02:24:42.040 Yeah, but we seem to, like, value these things.

02:24:43.480 It seems to produce good outcomes.

02:24:44.700 Yeah, but you could never say we seem, we seem, we seem. 0.99

02:24:47.460 It seems to me, like, that men could collectivize and just beat the shit out of women and stuff them in cages, too. 0.99

02:24:53.060 That seems to me like a possibility. 0.99

02:24:54.940 Sure, the issue is that a lot of.

02:24:56.240 There's no.

02:24:57.080 Other men wouldn't like that because men are in a class.

02:24:59.280 A lot of men would love it. 0.85

02:25:00.340 They did it for years.

02:25:01.160 Half the world enslaves half the women. 1.00

02:25:02.960 What do you mean?

02:25:03.700 Okay.

02:25:03.920 Men also freed a lot of women, right? 0.72

02:25:06.500 And they also enslave them.

02:25:07.820 Okay.

02:25:08.600 And so, who cares?

02:25:09.760 It's like, if that's the case, if all it is is a reduction to the idea that there are no moral facts.

02:25:15.680 Things that are unjustifiable does not mean that things don't matter.

02:25:19.200 Well, it means that there's no moral facts.

02:25:21.380 No, it doesn't.

02:25:22.500 Yes, it does.

02:25:23.300 No, because you have to assume.

02:25:25.600 You're assuming there's moral facts.

02:25:27.560 Yep.

02:25:27.840 Do you know what a fact is?

02:25:29.020 Yeah.

02:25:29.320 What is it?

02:25:29.900 A fact is something that is real and true.

02:25:32.040 Okay, so you're making a truth claim.

02:25:33.960 Yeah, I'm making a truth claim that God exists.

02:25:35.620 Uh-huh.

02:25:36.140 And that he has made a real objective world with real objective moral systems.

02:25:39.620 Are you not doing the same thing?

02:25:40.480 And you're assuming it.

02:25:41.060 Are you not doing the same thing?

02:25:41.660 I am.

02:25:42.160 I'm here, baby.

02:25:43.180 I'm right here with you.

02:25:44.280 So, what, do you think that you can't state moral facts now?

02:25:48.000 I think that anything that I would state as being a moral fact now becomes unjustified. 0.94

02:25:53.660 And since it's unjustified, I can do whatever the fuck I want. 0.98

02:25:57.740 Okay. 0.96

02:25:58.220 And there can be no actual objection to that now.

02:26:01.220 Of course there are.

02:26:02.040 We've destroyed all possibility for objective morality now.

02:26:05.620 Nope, because people have accepted that Agrippa's Trilemma exists for a long time, and we still

02:26:09.600 object to one another.

02:26:10.240 So what?

02:26:10.460 Because whether or not, so you and I assume the same things.

02:26:13.120 Those aren't moral facts anymore.

02:26:14.780 You don't have moral facts.

02:26:16.000 You just have assumptions.

02:26:16.860 Sure you do, because God exists.

02:26:18.200 We're assuming that God exists.

02:26:18.680 No, no, no.

02:26:19.600 That's an assumption.

02:26:21.020 It has to be.

02:26:22.000 Then if it is and has to be, there are no moral facts.

02:26:24.920 Nope, that's incorrect, because we're assuming moral objectivity.

02:26:27.520 Okay, give me a stance independent reason for the existence of God.

02:26:32.140 Sorry, a stance independent of reason?

02:26:34.140 Stance independent reason, a sir.

02:26:36.240 I don't know what that means, sorry.

02:26:37.620 So give me, other than because Erudite believes it, God is real.

02:26:42.380 Yeah, so I'm kind of a Thomist in this way.

02:26:44.320 I think that God demonstrates and shows himself in every part of the world.

02:26:47.440 I think that he is in the design of the trees and the depths.

02:26:50.800 That's a stance.

02:26:51.960 Yeah.

02:26:52.320 Yeah, I need a stance independent reason.

02:26:55.840 Sorry, so you want me to not use any logic or reason?

02:26:59.320 Just something outside of you, which would demonstrate this.

02:27:03.500 The Cambrian explosion.

02:27:06.420 Okay, and that demonstrates God?

02:27:08.720 I think it does, yeah.

02:27:09.560 Okay, and that's a stance independent reason?

02:27:12.080 Yeah, because the Cambrian explosion literally happened.

02:27:15.040 So therefore, it's a stance independent reason?

02:27:16.840 Yeah.

02:27:17.660 Are you sure?

02:27:18.480 Sure.

02:27:19.000 Okay, I just want to make sure.

02:27:20.820 So your stance independent reason is there's an explosion and that proves God.

02:27:24.520 I think that's one of the proofs, yeah.

02:27:25.900 Okay, got it.

02:27:27.060 And that's not your stance of that?

02:27:29.960 You're just doing like word games now.

02:27:31.520 No.

02:27:32.000 You are.

02:27:32.640 No, I'm just asking for a stance independent reason.

02:27:34.720 So how do you, how do you...

02:27:36.340 Well, it has nothing to do with me.

02:27:37.660 We get to do, like...

02:27:39.560 I'm with you.

02:27:40.940 There are no stance independent reasons for God.

02:27:43.140 Okay, so what you're doing, I guess I need to just be meta again, because we can't engage 0.96

02:27:46.000 in any fucking substance in this conversation. 0.97

02:27:47.540 This is the most substantive it's been. 0.99

02:27:49.300 It's literally not substance for you to go, I guess I'm assuming the same thing as you.

02:27:53.700 So you're just assuming and you're just assuming and you're just assuming and reason and logic

02:27:56.460 don't exist.

02:27:57.100 It's like, no, of course reason and logic exists.

02:27:59.340 I would have an objective...

02:27:59.900 Where?

02:27:59.920 Where do they exist?

02:28:01.160 Out there.

02:28:02.120 You can...

02:28:02.320 Where?

02:28:02.820 Math tautologies.

02:28:03.860 Humans don't create math tautologies. 0.88

02:28:05.560 They exist regardless of whether or not I want to engage with them.

02:28:07.960 Where?

02:28:08.500 Two plus two equals four, always.

02:28:10.400 Where?

02:28:11.140 Out there.

02:28:11.660 Where's there?

02:28:12.440 Two ducks and two ducks equals four ducks. 0.75

02:28:14.020 Yeah, but where's that?

02:28:15.020 The material world.

02:28:16.180 The material world?

02:28:17.740 This is what I mean, by the way, when I say that he's just trying to do word games now.

02:28:20.180 How is it a word game?

02:28:21.480 It's necessarily a word game, because everything that I am saying is completely reasonable,

02:28:24.940 coherent.

02:28:25.320 You're just trying to make it seem absurd.

02:28:27.300 That's what you're attempting to do.

02:28:28.460 How am I making anything seem absurd?

02:28:29.960 This is obviously what you're attempting to do, because you, A, will not allow me to internally

02:28:33.320 critique you in return and show the audience, for example...

02:28:35.800 You've convinced me.

02:28:37.260 What do you mean?

02:28:37.900 No, you're...

02:28:38.180 I have not convinced you.

02:28:40.120 And I'll just take it.

02:28:41.340 I'll just grant that I've convinced you.

02:28:42.760 You've convinced me.

02:28:43.380 But you're not letting me internally critique you now.

02:28:45.100 Go ahead.

02:28:45.560 Internally critique me.

02:28:46.420 Okay.

02:28:46.660 So how do you believe...

02:28:48.740 Like, why do you believe in God?

02:28:49.880 Why do you think...

02:28:50.300 What do you think is good?

02:28:50.960 Because I assume him.

02:28:52.040 Okay.

02:28:52.500 But why do you assume that it's good?

02:28:54.220 Because I assume it.

02:28:55.120 So you just assume it?

02:28:56.140 Yeah.

02:28:56.360 So it's just preference.

02:28:57.260 Yes.

02:28:57.580 So nothing...

02:28:58.220 There's no, like, moral objective fact.

02:29:00.820 Correct.

02:29:01.340 So you don't believe in any moral objectivity.

02:29:03.080 Yeah.

02:29:03.500 Okay.

02:29:03.740 So when other Christians insist that there's moral objectivity, what would you say to those

02:29:06.840 Christians? 0.97

02:29:07.000 I would say that they're wrong.

02:29:08.820 Oh, okay.

02:29:09.400 Is that what you're actually going to say to people going forward?

02:29:11.340 Yeah, of course.

02:29:11.820 Okay.

02:29:12.000 So you're looking at the camera right now and you're telling all of your Christian followers

02:29:14.720 that they believe...

02:29:15.360 Erudite has convinced me that the Christian position is that there are no moral facts.

02:29:19.820 Yes.

02:29:21.180 Okay.

02:29:21.680 Wow.

02:29:22.380 I don't believe that there's no moral facts, but that's fine that you do.

02:29:24.860 You don't?

02:29:25.180 Yeah.

02:29:25.300 I assume that there are.

02:29:26.880 Oh, and you assume that there's moral facts.

02:29:29.720 Yeah.

02:29:30.240 So therefore there are?

02:29:31.480 Or by the word games that you're playing now, sure.

02:29:35.660 So you assume that there's moral facts, so therefore there's moral facts.

02:29:39.500 I believe that God is real.

02:29:40.960 I assume God is real.

02:29:41.760 And I don't think that God lies to us.

02:29:43.020 So you believe that there's moral facts because you believe there's moral facts?

02:29:47.540 And I have evidence for that.

02:29:48.900 What?

02:29:49.840 Math.

02:29:50.900 Math is an evidence of a moral fact?

02:29:53.160 Mm-hmm.

02:29:53.580 How?

02:29:53.960 Because it exists outside of us.

02:29:55.400 How would that be evidence of a moral fact?

02:29:57.060 Because something that's objective has to occur outside of my mind.

02:29:59.700 So regardless of whether I'm observing or engaging in it.

02:30:01.400 So how would that show a moral fact, though?

02:30:02.760 Even if you could demonstrate math occurred outside of the human minds.

02:30:06.920 We were just talking about facts.

02:30:07.860 But sure, in the case of a moral fact, I would point to say, for example, emergent universal values.

02:30:12.520 It seems like over time, universally, what has emerged is people valuing sanctity of life.

02:30:16.880 And I think that that comes from God because I think God is good.

02:30:19.460 Okay.

02:30:19.820 Got it.

02:30:20.500 But that's just an assumption, right?

02:30:23.780 That one.

02:30:24.900 Thank you so much.

02:30:25.700 How would that be a moral fact if the foundation's assumed?

02:30:31.160 Because you can build on top of your axioms.

02:30:34.000 Yeah, sure.

02:30:34.760 But they're just assumed.

02:30:35.920 So how could it be a fact?

02:30:38.100 Because I think that God objectively exists.

02:30:40.480 Yeah, but that's just assumed.

02:30:42.640 Again.

02:30:43.180 How do you solve this?

02:30:43.860 How could that be a moral?

02:30:44.700 I just told you I'm a Christian, now a Christian moral anti-realist. 0.91

02:30:48.060 You convinced me of that through your argumentation.

02:30:50.020 So I think facts exist.

02:30:50.920 And I can point to evidences like math, like tautologies.

02:30:53.260 Yeah, that doesn't prove that there's moral facts.

02:30:56.120 So I think there are also moral facts like kindness is good.

02:31:00.160 How's that a moral fact?

02:31:01.220 Because I think that no matter where you look, kindness is viewed as good.

02:31:03.960 We appreciate kindness.

02:31:05.200 I think that it is something that God decrees.

02:31:07.820 If everywhere you looked, people were like molesting children, would that then be a moral fact that you should do that?

02:31:14.420 No, Andrew.

02:31:15.160 Are you tracking this conversation?

02:31:16.400 I'm trying to.

02:31:17.480 Then why would you ask that question?

02:31:18.780 Because when you just say, I observed that some people reciprocate kindness, that doesn't demonstrate how kindness is a moral fact.

02:31:25.620 I didn't say that some people reciprocate kindness.

02:31:27.640 I said that kindness seems to emerge as a value overall.

02:31:30.140 And I think that God specifically likes things like kindness.

02:31:32.500 So kindness is an emergent property?

02:31:34.960 Of God's will, yeah.

02:31:36.520 Okay.

02:31:37.240 How is kindness a moral fact?

02:31:39.500 You ought to be kind.

02:31:40.380 Because God decrees it.

02:31:42.900 But you just said God's assumed.

02:31:44.760 Yeah, you have to assume God at some point.

02:31:46.140 But I think that he's objective.

02:31:46.960 So then if you assume God.

02:31:48.740 Look, you're the Christian anti-realist.

02:31:50.980 I'm not.

02:31:52.380 Yeah, but you haven't told me why I'm wrong.

02:31:54.580 Yeah, so I believe in God because of a process mostly of like personal experience, right?

02:31:59.020 He's shown himself to me, which is why I assume this preference of God is a fact.

02:32:03.220 You're saying, well, if I can't prove God, I guess, what, do you think he doesn't exist?

02:32:07.680 Well, no, I just don't think that there's any moral facts because we're operating on an assumption.

02:32:13.160 That could be a moral fact, right?

02:32:14.780 No, that wouldn't be a fact.

02:32:15.920 So you don't think God exists.

02:32:17.400 Those would be, when you're talking about universals, like moral facts, right?

02:32:20.860 You're saying that this is indeed universally always true.

02:32:24.260 No, that's an absolute.

02:32:25.020 Because.

02:32:25.460 No, that's not the same thing as a moral fact.

02:32:26.980 Okay, what's a moral fact?

02:32:28.000 So a moral fact would be something like justice exists.

02:32:30.980 And we can.

02:32:31.360 That would be a universal claim.

02:32:32.600 Outside of us, yes.

02:32:33.360 That's a universal claim.

02:32:34.700 No, that's not an absolute claim.

02:32:36.660 That's a objective claim.

02:32:37.020 I didn't say absolute, I said universal.

02:32:38.960 Yeah, universal is the same thing as absolute.

02:32:40.640 Well, hold on.

02:32:42.460 The way that justice looks in different contexts are different, right?

02:32:46.320 Justice in the case of somebody.

02:32:47.660 Different contexts are different?

02:32:49.440 Yeah.

02:32:49.940 Okay.

02:32:50.800 Yeah, I was a little redundant when I said that.

02:32:52.860 But yes, the point still stands.

02:32:55.040 Okay, so I'm confused.

02:32:56.900 Do you need another beard?

02:32:57.580 When you say justice exists, are you saying that justice, you're saying that's not a universal claim?

02:33:03.700 Um, I'm going to put this as far away from my pen as possible.

02:33:06.300 Keep it far away.

02:33:07.440 Keep it far away.

02:33:08.540 Say that again. 0.71

02:33:09.260 Because a moral fact would be universal, wouldn't it?

02:33:11.780 Uh, no.

02:33:12.420 Then how would it be a fact?

02:33:13.500 Because something can be objective and relative.

02:33:16.100 Okay.

02:33:16.380 Welcome to Aristotle.

02:33:17.300 Okay, so help me out here.

02:33:19.240 When you say something's a moral fact, what does that mean?

02:33:21.840 What I mean is that God created it, um, and it exists outside of us.

02:33:26.120 And ought people adhere to what God says?

02:33:28.260 Hmm?

02:33:28.620 And ought people adhere to what God says?

02:33:30.500 Ideally, yeah, I would like that.

02:33:31.560 But they don't all agree with God.

02:33:33.300 Okay.

02:33:33.760 But my preference is God, obviously.

02:33:34.800 Okay, but it is a moral fact that they ought to.

02:33:38.600 Um, yeah.

02:33:40.520 Based on your assumption of God.

02:33:42.700 Mm-hmm.

02:33:43.100 Okay.

02:33:43.920 Mm-hmm.

02:33:44.120 So I still understand how we got to...

02:33:46.720 I know you don't understand.

02:33:47.040 How we get to...

02:33:47.700 You're making that very clear that you don't understand.

02:33:48.660 How do we get to moral realism from this?

02:33:50.540 Okay, because I think God is true.

02:33:53.120 Yeah.

02:33:53.260 Do you think God is true?

02:33:54.300 Sure.

02:33:54.780 Do you think God exists outside of you?

02:33:56.140 Sure.

02:33:56.520 If you didn't exist, God would still exist.

02:33:58.180 I think that, yeah.

02:33:58.860 Yeah, me too.

02:33:59.580 Great.

02:34:00.000 There's your first basis.

02:34:00.980 That doesn't...

02:34:01.360 That's your axiom.

02:34:01.840 I don't understand, though, how we get to moral realism.

02:34:03.780 Well, because if God then says, um, uh, love exists.

02:34:08.940 Yeah.

02:34:09.500 Okay.

02:34:09.780 Then love must exist because God said love exists.

02:34:12.540 Sure.

02:34:12.840 So our axiom is God exists.

02:34:14.160 Uh-huh.

02:34:14.520 And from that, God says love exists.

02:34:15.940 So unless we think God is a deceiver, which would be a different belief system, but you

02:34:19.080 and I don't think that.

02:34:19.760 We think God is telling the truth.

02:34:20.780 Okay.

02:34:21.080 Then love exists.

02:34:22.380 But the way love looks, hard to know.

02:34:24.860 We have to do a little bit more work to figure out what love looks like.

02:34:28.820 Okay.

02:34:29.460 Yeah.

02:34:29.660 Like, what does love in your life look like?

02:34:31.180 How do we get to a...

02:34:31.200 How do we get into moral facts, though?

02:34:33.080 Love is a moral fact.

02:34:34.780 How?

02:34:35.920 Uh, because it's based...

02:34:37.240 Because God says that love is good.

02:34:40.020 Okay.

02:34:40.500 So the thing that you assume becomes a fact because you assume it.

02:34:45.460 Well, it's a fact because God...

02:34:47.160 Part of the assumption is that God exists outside of me.

02:34:49.480 So you assume God, and so therefore, because you assume God, now we have actual moral realism.

02:34:54.960 I assume the existence of God.

02:34:56.500 Correct.

02:34:57.120 Yes.

02:34:57.260 So if somebody assumes not God...

02:35:00.000 Then I would fight with them.

02:35:01.760 Yeah, I get that you would oppose that, but how do you do that with an unjustified axiom?

02:35:07.940 Reason.

02:35:09.080 Yeah.

02:35:09.880 Reason.

02:35:10.660 Yeah.

02:35:10.920 Why...

02:35:11.280 If reason reduces...

02:35:12.580 Do you think reason just stops existing because Akurpa's trilemma exists? 0.93

02:35:15.320 If reason reduces down to cannot be justified, then why do I care if we're...

02:35:20.940 When we get to your pillar, you just say, because I assumed it.

02:35:23.680 I'd say, it's obvious that you care, man.

02:35:25.740 Look in your soul.

02:35:26.460 God put it there.

02:35:27.200 You do care.

02:35:28.100 You do care.

02:35:28.960 Oh, gotcha.

02:35:29.380 That's why we're all here.

02:35:30.140 That's why we're talking about what's right or wrong, is every human has this universal

02:35:33.100 predilection to seek right and wrongness.

02:35:34.820 And in fact, even when moral anti-realists insist that there's no such thing as truly right

02:35:39.860 or wrong, and they insist on these things, the moment that you put them in a pragmatic

02:35:42.480 situation where they have to act as though that's true, they don't.

02:35:45.140 They act as though moral facts exist.

02:35:46.820 And that would be my evidence of saying, see, moral facts do exist.

02:35:49.500 I'm more right than you are.

02:35:50.780 I'm more reasonable than you are.

02:35:52.200 My argument is more compelling than you are.

02:35:53.500 So it just comes down to what most people would do.

02:35:55.720 No.

02:35:56.780 Well, if it's a moral fact and you say most people would just do this thing, and so it

02:36:01.440 seems like an emergent property, aren't we just back to consensus?

02:36:04.700 Do you think that God put his spirit in us?

02:36:06.400 It's your view.

02:36:08.100 I'm asking, do you agree?

02:36:09.240 Why does it have to do with me?

02:36:10.560 Because I'm assuming that we both agree to this.

02:36:12.760 I'm saying there's no moral facts at all.

02:36:14.380 Well, there can't be, because any pillar I have to base them on is completely unjustified.

02:36:20.620 So you don't think God exists?

02:36:22.420 No.

02:36:22.800 If I assume that God exists, right?

02:36:25.920 And then I assume that assumptions cannot be justified.

02:36:30.100 Well, one of your prompts, what is one of your prompts here?

02:36:32.300 Christian ethics is superior. 0.94

02:36:35.380 How is it superior?

02:36:36.460 Oh, I just think it's better because it's better.

02:36:38.320 How, though?

02:36:38.980 Yeah, because it's better.

02:36:39.820 Can you make an argument for it?

02:36:40.600 Sure, because it's better.

02:36:41.900 In what ways?

02:36:42.980 The ways in which it's better.

02:36:44.600 What do you mean by better?

02:36:45.700 The same thing you meant by better.

02:36:47.180 No, not necessarily.

02:36:48.000 Whatever that is.

02:36:48.960 What do you mean by better?

02:36:49.820 I don't know.

02:36:50.220 I think outcomes for people, they like it better.

02:36:52.380 Okay.

02:36:52.700 Well, then why did Christians, like power get shirked off by the people? 1.00

02:36:57.900 It didn't.

02:36:58.440 What do you mean?

02:36:59.000 Well, most of the...

02:37:00.340 Well, now there's a bunch of people who are proposing that Christians retake power.

02:37:03.280 What are you talking about?

02:37:04.060 Yeah, and there's not a lot of political will, thank goodness, behind them.

02:37:06.640 Right?

02:37:06.740 But if there was, I still haven't actually heard an objection for it.

02:37:09.960 Yeah, I would say that people did want to shirk it because of Western liberal democracy.

02:37:14.300 But Western liberal democracy allows the conditionals for Christians to do it. 1.00

02:37:18.940 Yeah.

02:37:19.520 And Christians still shouldn't. 1.00

02:37:20.260 So then I still don't...

02:37:21.320 I've never...

02:37:21.940 It would be more ethical for a Christian to not do it. 1.00

02:37:23.580 I guess back to the heart of it, now that we're tying it all back in, what is the objection

02:37:28.340 to Christians utilizing the framework of the Constitution to take over and amend the 0.82

02:37:34.260 Constitution?

02:37:34.960 It's unchristian. 0.55

02:37:35.580 I've already said this.

02:37:36.420 Oh, why is it unchristian?

02:37:37.780 Because I think that the faith itself, Jesus is not political.

02:37:40.640 I think there is a typological argument for over time we see a complete reduction of statehood

02:37:45.520 and priesthood, and it separates entirely to the point that in the typology of Jesus,

02:37:49.980 we see him rejecting being a king, rejecting statesmanship, and refusing to make

02:37:53.540 a physical kingdom on earth.

02:37:54.700 And we have it through multiple verses, which we can get to if you want.

02:37:57.140 Okay.

02:37:57.640 Well, let's get to him.

02:37:58.860 Okay.

02:37:59.200 So John 18 is a good example.

02:38:00.980 My kingdom is not of this world.

02:38:02.260 If it was, my servants would be fighting.

02:38:03.680 And this is when he's talking to Pontius Pilate.

02:38:05.460 Okay.

02:38:05.820 So that's a good example of him saying, I'm not a politician.

02:38:09.400 I'm not a king.

02:38:11.020 And if I was, there'd be civil war, but I'm not this thing.

02:38:14.640 So Jesus says, I am not a political figure.

02:38:17.320 Is Jesus God?

02:38:18.920 Yeah.

02:38:19.560 Okay.

02:38:20.100 So when God anointed...

02:38:21.740 You just assumed that?

02:38:22.160 When God anointed kings, was he doing something wrong?

02:38:27.360 Nope.

02:38:29.100 I'm super confused.

02:38:30.420 Why would Jesus anoint kings?

02:38:32.040 Jesus didn't.

02:38:33.500 Jesus is God.

02:38:35.180 So why did he...

02:38:36.820 Because I don't think humans were ready for a secular state,

02:38:39.700 a state where Christianity is separated from church and state.

02:38:42.400 I think it took us a long time to get there.

02:38:43.600 So God was anointing kings and putting them in charge of entire kingdoms based on the fact

02:38:50.540 that he thought that humans weren't ready to not have kings.

02:38:53.320 Yeah.

02:38:53.420 For the same reason that like before we get to like certain parts of the Old Testament,

02:38:57.000 men could have many, many wives.

02:38:58.340 And then over time that got reduced because God's like, look, you were blind then.

02:39:02.500 Now you know better.

02:39:03.320 Now you can't do this thing.

02:39:04.320 Right?

02:39:04.540 We've seen this.

02:39:05.100 So why was it permissible for people to have multiple wives for some time?

02:39:08.800 And then at some point in the Old Testament, that got barred.

02:39:10.440 Do you know why?

02:39:10.800 How come post Jesus, we still had kings in Christian lands?

02:39:15.980 If God had changed his mind about, you know, having kings,

02:39:19.260 why did he continue to allow there to be kings?

02:39:22.740 Because humans can sin.

02:39:25.200 So it's sinful to have a king?

02:39:26.620 I would say it's like, it's heretical to engage in politics.

02:39:29.220 Yeah.

02:39:29.540 As a Christian.

02:39:30.260 As a Christian.

02:39:31.140 Well...

02:39:31.700 Do you engage in politics as a Christian?

02:39:33.100 Yeah, let me correct that statement.

02:39:34.740 Not engage in politics.

02:39:35.860 Specifically to rule from a Christian ethics.

02:39:37.680 To say, I am God, or inspired by God,

02:39:42.220 and therefore my rules come from God,

02:39:43.600 and you must listen to my Christian rules.

02:39:44.960 I think that that's wrong for Christians to do. 1.00

02:39:46.340 So when someone's a politician who's a Christian, 0.99

02:39:48.320 they shouldn't make any legislation based on their actual moral purview of Christendom?

02:39:52.160 They can do it on their moral purview,

02:39:53.400 but they shouldn't do things that blend, that like merge church and state together.

02:39:56.880 So saying...

02:39:57.500 Well, hang on, hang on.

02:39:58.160 That's...

02:39:58.840 Now you've just made a different statement.

02:40:00.740 You just before said that it's sinful.

02:40:03.100 It's sinful to rule from Christian ethics.

02:40:06.480 Yeah, in specific ways, yeah.

02:40:08.000 So why would it be sinful for...

02:40:09.940 So it would be sinful for a politician to utilize Christian ethics to promote legislation?

02:40:14.880 No, I said in specific ways.

02:40:16.000 So one specific way would be, for example,

02:40:17.740 forcing non-Christians to observe the Sabbath or Lent, 0.95

02:40:22.300 forcing non-Christians to do that from like a state level. 0.98

02:40:24.940 I think that that would be wrong for Christians.

02:40:26.220 Yeah, but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

02:40:28.660 That's what I'm talking about.

02:40:29.380 Yeah, but what...

02:40:30.160 Okay, so there are...

02:40:31.340 So you can engage with that.

02:40:31.780 So there are forms of Christian ethics, which you can impose on people?

02:40:36.640 Well, you shouldn't impose it because it's specifically Christian ethics,

02:40:39.120 but you might agree.

02:40:39.840 Why not?

02:40:40.380 Because, again, you shouldn't impose Christian ethics on non-Christians.

02:40:43.900 Why not?

02:40:45.820 Jesus doesn't do it.

02:40:48.340 Wait a second.

02:40:49.280 I'm confused.

02:40:49.860 Anyways, you're saying that the apostles, that when they were...

02:40:54.120 Like, let's take Paul, for instance.

02:40:56.360 Sure.

02:40:56.520 Okay.

02:40:57.360 When Timothy...

02:40:59.200 Obviously, you've read Timothy, right?

02:41:01.280 Mm-hmm.

02:41:01.720 Are you familiar with what happened with Timothy in the cult of Artemis?

02:41:05.700 Is this like pop quiz style debating, or is this okay?

02:41:08.120 No, I'm actually asking.

02:41:09.060 Okay.

02:41:09.340 Are you familiar with what happened with the cult of Artemis?

02:41:11.660 Nope.

02:41:12.140 I'm not.

02:41:12.720 No.

02:41:13.220 Okay, so the...

02:41:14.020 Do you want to tell me, though?

02:41:14.780 I'm going to tell...

02:41:15.300 Yeah, I'll tell you.

02:41:15.920 The cult of Artemis...

02:41:17.440 By the way, that's how you react to these types of questions.

02:41:19.080 It's normally, and admitting when you don't know things.

02:41:21.560 So, anyway...

02:41:22.200 Just as a heads up.

02:41:24.740 Okay.

02:41:25.400 Anyway, the cult of Artemis was a fertility cult, and it was essentially really pissed off

02:41:31.880 that Christianity was taking off, and it was because they had a silver trade, and that

02:41:37.460 silver trade, they were making basically mock statues of their religious figures.

02:41:41.980 Okay.

02:41:42.600 And so they were doing everything that they could do to undermine Christianity, and a lot

02:41:47.000 of them, because it was a fertility cult, had priestesses, and they were trying to subvert 0.99

02:41:50.820 Christianity, which is where you get 2 Timothy saying that, I don't like it when women speak 1.00

02:41:57.380 in church, right?

02:41:58.400 The whole idea there was that a lot of these women were fertility cultists, and Timothy was

02:42:04.840 asking for help.

02:42:06.120 But at that time, Timothy had a massive flock, and was definitely, because they were diametrically

02:42:11.700 opposed to the government as persecuting Christians, was definitely ruling the Christians.

02:42:16.660 Definitely ruling them.

02:42:17.980 Are you saying, so they rejected Roman occupation, they were shirking it, and they were only imposing 0.98

02:42:24.100 Christian law, or were they telling Christians how to act?

02:42:26.900 Because telling Christians is totally fine. 1.00

02:42:29.580 A church, like the Pope, telling fellow Christians how they should conduct themselves is exactly 0.99

02:42:34.300 what the church should be doing.

02:42:35.320 But the church should not be going, hey, secular people, you have to do this same stuff too.

02:42:39.420 That's not what the Pope is doing.

02:42:40.420 So when there's a policy, like women cannot speak in this church, they can't do that, okay? 0.98

02:42:50.020 Is that a command?

02:42:52.480 From what?

02:42:53.340 Is that a command from a bishop, or a priest, or something like this?

02:42:57.040 It might be.

02:42:58.240 How are you not ruling?

02:43:00.100 Because it's not, your church is in a state.

02:43:02.380 Like, you can just leave that church, right?

02:43:04.460 You can say, I'm not of the faith anymore, I reject this.

02:43:06.460 Whereas if the Roman occupation says you must pay your taxes, what happens if you don't

02:43:10.640 pay your taxes?

02:43:10.920 What happens if the Roman emperor converts to Christianity?

02:43:13.820 Then he began to impose Christian ethics through fiat, which I think was wrong.

02:43:18.100 Yeah, but what would make it wrong?

02:43:20.460 I don't think that, I think that, like, the whole principle of the faith is regeneration.

02:43:26.280 And I don't think that regeneration and legitimate salvation occurs when fiat imposes Christian 1.00

02:43:30.840 ethics on you, which is why I actually think that blending church and state is so bad for 1.00

02:43:35.240 the faith, because I think what it does is that, A, when you force it upon people, it 0.98

02:43:38.520 makes people hate faith, and B, nobody gets to actually personally know and understand

02:43:42.840 God, by and large, because they're being forced to do it.

02:43:45.280 This is actually what makes Christians very different than, like, Muslims. 1.00

02:43:47.940 Muslims believe, for example, that you can act according to the faith, and you can be

02:43:51.560 saved.

02:43:52.040 Christians would say, you can do every single thing you were told to, to act like a Christian,

02:43:56.420 but if your heart isn't regenerated, if you don't believe in God and have a personal

02:43:59.600 relationship, you are not saved.

02:44:01.060 So let me just talk briefly.

02:44:03.060 Sure.

02:44:03.200 I just want to make sure that I, because I'm not strawmanning your position, I want to

02:44:06.720 make sure I got it right.

02:44:07.560 Appreciate that.

02:44:08.620 Christians are in power. 1.00

02:44:10.580 They should not directly appeal to Christian ethics for the things in which they prescribe

02:44:15.220 in policy.

02:44:16.000 Didn't say that.

02:44:16.560 They can't appeal to Christian ethics.

02:44:17.680 What they can't do is impose specific Christian ethics onto non-Christians.

02:44:22.420 Okay.

02:44:22.860 So they can't, if they had a law, for instance, like, oh, I don't know, no prostitution.

02:44:28.160 And that's purely informed from their Christian ethics, not from empirical data or anything

02:44:33.740 like that.

02:44:34.980 They should not actually impose that in law.

02:44:37.220 They can impose it if they think it would actually be good for the betterment of people,

02:44:39.960 but I don't think that they should impose it if, like, there's a large consensus of the

02:44:42.780 population that vehemently opposes that and would not elect for it.

02:44:47.080 Okay.

02:44:47.400 But let's just assume it's not a democracy.

02:44:49.740 I am assuming it's a democracy.

02:44:51.460 Yeah, but let's assume it's not.

02:44:52.520 Okay, in an authoritarian regime, are Christians acting ill all the time?

02:44:56.500 If a Christian says... 0.86

02:44:58.220 Yeah, I think that would be bad.

02:44:59.120 Yeah.

02:44:59.440 Okay.

02:44:59.720 So a Christian says there's no prostitution allowed. 0.98

02:45:02.280 Yeah, I think theocracies are bad. 0.94

02:45:04.100 Yeah.

02:45:04.360 Okay.

02:45:04.920 But anyway, so if he says...

02:45:06.700 This is answering your question.

02:45:07.340 If he says no prostitution's allowed, right, let's say you agree with everything else that

02:45:12.240 he says, right?

02:45:13.940 What would make you specifically disagree with him appealing to Christian ethics for the imposition

02:45:19.860 of no prostitution?

02:45:20.820 Well, as a Christian, I probably wouldn't disagree with him, right?

02:45:23.100 Because we share the same Christian ethics.

02:45:24.620 The issue is that there may be a non-Christian in that state that does disagree and is now

02:45:29.540 being forced to do it only and exclusively because of Christian ethics.

02:45:32.560 Now, if the Christian found, like, statescraft argumentation for why we shouldn't have prostitution, 0.96

02:45:38.420 like, for example, it leads to high levels of STIs and the abuse of women, then that might

02:45:43.160 be something that could be, in my case, collectivized and worked towards to oust.

02:45:47.880 But again, I don't really believe in authoritarian governments.

02:45:49.800 I think that they're very bad, just generally, yeah.

02:45:52.380 So do you agree that fathers and mothers have rule of their household?

02:45:56.440 Yes.

02:45:57.060 Yeah.

02:45:57.440 Would you advise, then, that a father who had no empirical data to tell his daughter

02:46:01.840 not to be a prostitute but only relied specifically on Christian ethics to say that to her and

02:46:08.320 then impose that as a rule of doing something wrong?

02:46:10.880 What's the difference between a father and a state?

02:46:12.900 Yeah, I'm going to ask...

02:46:14.200 No, I'm asking you.

02:46:14.720 That's my response.

02:46:15.400 Oh, my God.

02:46:16.000 And your response is a question?

02:46:17.280 My response is, this is disanalogous.

02:46:18.860 What's disanalogous between these two things?

02:46:21.500 Well, because I asked you about politicians, you said no.

02:46:23.860 Sure, I'll say fathers aren't statesmen.

02:46:25.640 Uh-huh.

02:46:26.360 So that's okay for them to do it?

02:46:27.800 Potentially.

02:46:28.120 Yeah, within their household, yeah.

02:46:29.140 Within their household.

02:46:29.500 As long as it's not abusive.

02:46:30.200 Yeah, as long as they're not being abusive.

02:46:31.200 But why is it wrong for them to do it at the state level?

02:46:34.700 Because at the state level, that's not what the church is for.

02:46:36.780 Statescraft men is for politicians and church things.

02:46:39.480 The state is also there, or the church is also there to help with moral information.

02:46:43.120 It's funny, the Eastern Orthodox agrees with me, right? 0.98

02:46:44.560 Symphonia.

02:46:45.500 Yeah, symphonia is a blending, actually.

02:46:48.460 It's a blending of church and state.

02:46:50.060 Okay, so you're saying they don't disagree with me, which would probably explain why,

02:46:53.720 like, the Russian Orthodox Church is such a bastardization of the faith.

02:46:56.720 The Russian Orthodox Church?

02:46:58.180 Yeah, I mean, we know, for example, what Kirill is in, like, not excommunication, but he's

02:47:05.120 basically just not talking to the church because they allowed Ukrainians to have their own

02:47:08.980 Orthodox Church, the Ecumenical Patriarch, right?

02:47:11.560 And the reason that they did this is because Kirill, who's just an ex-KGB agent, is insisting

02:47:16.280 that the Russian war is a holy war, right? 0.82

02:47:17.900 So, yeah, if it's the case that Eastern Orthodox actually is for this and they want to go back 0.96

02:47:21.360 to the Byzantine, I'd say, well, it makes sense why Eastern Orthodox is such a, it's such

02:47:25.520 a weak branch of Christianity.

02:47:28.200 Okay, but I don't know what this has to do with the view, exactly.

02:47:32.920 Okay, Russian Orthodox is a great example of why church and state shouldn't be blended, 1.00

02:47:36.540 right?

02:47:36.740 So, what happened to the Russian Orthodox Church?

02:47:38.680 When the czar was there, he was good about respecting the church.

02:47:41.800 And then communists killed them?

02:47:43.300 Not just killed them, replaced 50% of the clergy with KGB members. 0.98

02:47:46.860 Yeah, after they killed them.

02:47:48.060 Yeah, which is awful, right?

02:47:49.620 And were the communists secularists?

02:47:51.140 But then the communists used the Russian Orthodox Church.

02:47:53.140 The communists were secularists.

02:47:54.060 Hold on, he doesn't want to get to the last point.

02:47:55.120 The communists used the Russian Orthodox Church because they actually put in place clergy that

02:47:59.580 are KGB members and they warped the Russian Orthodox Church. 0.84

02:48:02.520 And unfortunately, because the Eastern Orthodox Church is so traumatized by the schism between

02:48:05.900 Catholics and them, they wouldn't even excommunicate the Russian Orthodox Church that had been 0.94

02:48:11.000 completely killed off.

02:48:11.860 Are you saying that there was KGB agents at the time of Tsar Nicholas?

02:48:14.540 No, I didn't say Tsar, I said in communism.

02:48:16.420 Yeah, so then the communists killed Tsar Nicholas and then imposed communism after that.

02:48:22.480 They also killed a bunch of the clergy.

02:48:23.340 They were not infiltrating the church with KGB agents at the time of Tsar Nicholas.

02:48:27.760 I didn't say that they were.

02:48:29.000 Tsar Nicholas wasn't when communism existed.

02:48:33.300 Communism definitely existed.

02:48:35.220 Yes, it did.

02:48:35.940 It was all Marxism.

02:48:37.520 And yes, that ideology existed.

02:48:39.140 I don't know what you're talking about.

02:48:40.780 Yes, it did.

02:48:41.280 Wait, the ideology existed.

02:48:42.660 But Stalin, like when we're talking about communism, we're talking about Lenin-Stalinism, right?

02:48:46.840 Yes.

02:48:47.440 Okay, so Stalin, I believe it was Stalin that killed 50% of...

02:48:50.420 Well, we're also talking about Marxism.

02:48:52.080 Well, when I'm talking about Marxism as like a state, I'm talking about this specific state.

02:48:55.840 Yeah, but we're talking about the ideology of Marxism.

02:48:58.100 No, I'm talking about the Russian state that...

02:49:00.720 Yeah, the Russian state, which was secular, came from communists, killed Tsar Nicholas.

02:49:04.320 Killed 50% of the clergy and then replaced that clergy with their own people because they 0.98

02:49:08.540 recognized that the church... 0.99

02:49:09.420 Or they killed them. 0.99

02:49:10.880 Secularists killed the Christians, not the other way around. 0.98

02:49:13.720 But then they used the church and implanted their own state members into the church to 0.92

02:49:18.140 weapon...

02:49:18.240 Yeah, so what?

02:49:18.560 That's a bad...

02:49:19.320 That's a good example of how the state corrupts churches.

02:49:21.480 The reason that...

02:49:22.120 No, that would be the opposite. 1.00

02:49:23.940 What happened is that the church was doing what it was supposed to do and they fucking killed 0.99

02:49:28.620 them and then replaced the people within that structure. 0.99

02:49:32.240 True.

02:49:32.620 And they're still replaced to this day because Kirill was found to be an ex-KJB agent.

02:49:36.760 Well, first of all, the Eastern Orthodox Church has determined that the Russian church is

02:49:45.000 in communion with them.

02:49:47.060 In communion, but the issue...

02:49:48.420 So they're willing to still talk to them.

02:49:50.480 The issue is that the Patriarch Kirill will not talk to them because what happened is the

02:49:54.760 Patriarch...

02:49:55.660 What is it?

02:49:55.940 Bartholomew I, I think, right now?

02:49:58.020 Bartholomew and the Ecumenical Council or whatever.

02:49:59.960 The Ecumenist Bartholomew?

02:50:00.920 Yeah.

02:50:01.040 They gave autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which means self-governing for those

02:50:05.720 who are not, like, EO words.

02:50:07.600 And this made Kirill so mad because he's so in line with Putin and insisted that the Ukrainian 0.96

02:50:12.680 war is a holy war that he stopped talking to all of them.

02:50:16.580 But all the...

02:50:17.380 The Ecumenical...

02:50:18.180 They oppose what Russia is doing insofar as they allowed Ukrainians to self-govern away 0.98

02:50:24.100 from the Russian Orthodox because they recognized that there was a problem here.

02:50:26.960 Yeah, but this...

02:50:28.040 This is a good example of why church and state should be planned.

02:50:29.980 I don't understand. 0.77

02:50:30.540 Your example of why church and state is bad is because secularists can come in and kill 0.89

02:50:35.460 the members of your church and then replace them with people who aren't real Christians. 0.76

02:50:39.440 My argument...

02:50:40.200 That's your argument.

02:50:41.020 No.

02:50:41.840 Do you want to...

02:50:42.300 Do you want to steel man my argument?

02:50:43.800 Do you want me to...

02:50:44.180 Yeah, here's your steel man argument.

02:50:46.100 No, you're about to straw man.

02:50:46.840 If state...

02:50:47.320 No, stop, stop. 0.99

02:50:47.960 You're a straw man. 0.96

02:50:48.960 How do you know? 0.98

02:50:49.840 I don't even made the argument.

02:50:50.900 Your tone.

02:50:51.380 I can tell.

02:50:51.900 I can tell.

02:50:53.940 Okay.

02:50:55.000 Here's the actual argument that I'm making.

02:50:56.840 Okay.

02:50:57.000 I'm not saying that the state was bad, that the blending of church and state is bad because 0.73

02:51:00.840 the state came and killed.

02:51:01.900 I said what's bad is that they later then used the church as an arm of the state.

02:51:06.460 So they blended church and state.

02:51:08.320 They used Kirill and other people to impose theological law that was just sympathetic to

02:51:15.040 communism because the state utilized this.

02:51:17.440 And what happened is when 50% of the clergy got killed and replaced by statists, which were 0.68

02:51:23.280 not clergymen, the Eastern Orthodox Church wouldn't even excommunicate that church despite the

02:51:27.640 fact that their theology changed dramatically, significantly, and has maintained that to

02:51:32.500 such a way that Eastern Orthodox didn't even send people in to correct the theology.

02:51:36.160 Do you think that the church would remain what it is supposed to be?

02:51:39.720 Yes.

02:51:40.120 I'm moving my hands.

02:51:41.140 Very exciting, Andrew.

02:51:42.780 Do you think that the Russian Orthodox Church would be what it is if the KGB hadn't killed

02:51:46.680 50% of it and removed it?

02:51:48.220 This is why, by the way, the separation of church and state is valuable.

02:51:51.120 It protects the church and it protects the state.

02:51:53.140 How is the separation of church and state protect us from communism?

02:51:56.400 Because it doesn't allow communism to utilize the church as a statecraft.

02:51:59.800 It doesn't need to.

02:52:00.580 It can just take over the state. 1.00

02:52:02.020 Yeah, that would be bad.

02:52:03.320 Yeah, but it can do that within your liberal framework, no problem.

02:52:06.820 No, because liberalism is opposed to...

02:52:08.680 No, liberalism.

02:52:09.260 Yes.

02:52:09.680 Yes, it can, literally.

02:52:10.740 No, liberalism is opposed to tyranny.

02:52:13.500 Okay.

02:52:13.820 Inherently.

02:52:14.280 First of all...

02:52:15.060 Particularly of monarchs and monocrats.

02:52:16.740 The liberal framework has amendments in it, and these amendments can be at any time changed

02:52:22.060 by consensus.

02:52:22.580 Is my liberal framework the Constitution, or is it a framework of...

02:52:25.760 No, it's political philosophy.

02:52:27.660 The Constitution isn't my liberal framework.

02:52:28.960 Now we're to political philosophy.

02:52:30.920 Yeah, if we're talking about liberalism...

02:52:31.740 So you're liberal...

02:52:32.600 Wait, what would we be using if...

02:52:34.920 And I want to make sure that you're...

02:52:36.540 Do you not think political philosophy is kind of important when we're talking about liberalism?

02:52:39.120 Sure, but I thought your political philosophy was just life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

02:52:42.400 No.

02:52:43.500 Oh.

02:52:43.880 That was something I pointed to as, like, a central American ethos.

02:52:46.960 So what is the liberal foundational philosophy, then?

02:52:49.960 Typically, it's going to be maximizing, like, freedoms and rights of people, so giving people

02:52:55.040 both rights, and what's the other one when it's not rights?

02:52:58.380 It's, like, privileges.

02:53:00.260 I forget the word.

02:53:01.060 I'm blanking right now.

02:53:02.620 It gives them access to rights.

02:53:03.860 It has strong institutions, and in more modern forms of liberalism, which I like, by the

02:53:08.840 way, it believes in a social safety net.

02:53:12.380 Entitlements?

02:53:13.380 Entitlements.

02:53:13.980 No.

02:53:14.780 There's, like, a political fill word where it's, like, you have both rights and...

02:53:20.020 Oh, I don't know why I can't think of this word right now.

02:53:21.740 My brain is, like...

02:53:23.000 You could probably look it up.

02:53:24.960 Liberties.

02:53:25.600 Rights and liberties.

02:53:26.620 Okay.

02:53:27.280 Liberties are the things that you get that aren't your right.

02:53:29.400 Yeah.

02:53:29.540 But you have access to it.

02:53:29.800 The problem you have here is that your foundation here is democracy, right?

02:53:35.140 Well, a liberal system, I think, works best with a democracy.

02:53:37.820 I think a liberal democracy is...

02:53:39.180 So within the confines of a democracy, as long as people vote out the liberal system, the

02:53:43.680 liberal system literally lets them do that, right? 0.96

02:53:45.960 Yeah, I agree, but this is why I think that the founding fathers did a really good job of

02:53:49.260 setting up, like, girding principles against this, right?

02:53:51.120 I'm not maximal for democracy.

02:53:53.220 Actually, like, liberalism, more than I like democracy, right?

02:53:55.460 So I want my democracy to stay within the confines of liberal values.

02:53:58.680 That's nice.

02:53:59.800 So let's make sure...

02:54:00.700 It is nice.

02:54:01.520 Yeah.

02:54:01.980 It's made all of this.

02:54:03.820 Let's make...

02:54:04.220 It's made the best countries on the...

02:54:05.460 America, the country you hate, apparently, and don't think stands for anything.

02:54:09.540 You must.

02:54:09.980 You want to go back to a time before America existed.

02:54:13.480 You want to go back to the Byzantine Empire. 0.97

02:54:15.280 When did I say any of that?

02:54:16.200 You said this multiple times.

02:54:17.200 I've listened to you say this.

02:54:17.820 You've just literally made all of that up.

02:54:19.080 I've known you for three years.

02:54:19.740 I've known you since the big pub of fascist days.

02:54:21.360 Would you like to put $1,000 on the fact that I've never said anything like going back

02:54:24.280 to the Byzantine Empire?

02:54:25.180 I'll bet you $1,000.

02:54:25.820 You said that the Byzantine Empire was great.

02:54:27.360 Never even said that?

02:54:28.120 Really?

02:54:28.560 You don't like the Byzantine Empire?

02:54:30.160 Whether I do or don't doesn't mean I ever said that we should go back to it, does it?

02:54:34.520 Wait.

02:54:34.820 Do you believe this is...

02:54:36.000 Wait, wait, wait.

02:54:37.020 Does it mean that or not?

02:54:38.180 No.

02:54:38.460 I'm not doing a bet with you.

02:54:39.680 No, of course not.

02:54:40.720 Yeah.

02:54:41.020 Because I'm having a...

02:54:41.900 Wait.

02:54:42.200 Well, first of all, I'm poor.

02:54:43.520 So if I lose, I literally can't pay you.

02:54:45.320 So there's no point.

02:54:46.060 But second of all...

02:54:46.400 $500?

02:54:47.400 I probably literally don't have $500.

02:54:49.720 $250?

02:54:51.920 I could maybe spend $100, but I'm not interested in making a bet with you.

02:54:54.900 Well, this is the reason why I'm rejecting the bet.

02:54:58.080 It's because you're doing the thing again where you're trying to catch me on a couple

02:55:00.560 of keywords when I'm trying to talk about an idea.

02:55:03.020 And so it's like, if I say a few keywords that you don't like, we can correct them.

02:55:06.780 But I would ask you, do you think the Byzantine Empire was good? 0.97

02:55:10.240 Do you like it?

02:55:10.740 Do you think that there's some level of what that empire was that we should try to adopt

02:55:13.820 I think all systems have things which are valuable.

02:55:15.460 Do you think that we should try to adopt it into the American system?

02:55:17.460 No.

02:55:17.800 Not the Byzantine Empire. 0.90

02:55:18.940 No.

02:55:19.520 Of course not.

02:55:20.440 What empire would you like to see?

02:55:22.180 Well, I don't...

02:55:23.180 See, you see how you just loaded that?

02:55:25.080 Why would I need...

02:55:25.720 Sorry, what...

02:55:26.100 Why would I want to see an empire?

02:55:27.980 I can unload it.

02:55:29.420 What state's craft would you like to see?

02:55:31.120 Yeah.

02:55:31.420 So I'm glad that you asked.

02:55:32.600 Now that we understand...

02:55:34.060 I feel like after letting you talk here for a while, I actually understand a much broader

02:55:38.780 base for your position.

02:55:39.840 Took three hours for you to get there.

02:55:41.220 Congrats.

02:55:41.720 Well, you don't stop talking.

02:55:42.900 I made it...

02:55:43.400 I've stopped talking lots and I've made it pretty simple.

02:55:45.560 You just didn't like it.

02:55:46.280 I've been letting you go and go and go.

02:55:48.100 So now we can get to the...

02:55:49.420 I have.

02:55:50.280 I've been letting you go and go and go.

02:55:51.620 Same.

02:55:51.780 I just asked you a few questions.

02:55:52.880 Ditto.

02:55:53.200 Right?

02:55:54.160 I mean, I've tried to internally critique you, but you don't really want it.

02:55:57.380 Now, Christian...

02:55:57.440 You keep running away from it.

02:55:59.140 Christian... 0.96

02:55:59.460 And then being bad faith in you.

02:56:00.500 Oh, yeah.

02:56:01.140 I actually don't think God exists.

02:56:02.340 It's all assumed.

02:56:03.240 I know.

02:56:03.780 I'm terrible, but...

02:56:04.800 I don't think you're terrible.

02:56:05.820 So now we've gotten to Christian... 0.96

02:56:07.440 Just so it's clear.

02:56:08.080 I don't think I'm clear.

02:56:08.600 I don't think Andrew Wilson's terrible.

02:56:09.340 Can I say a word?

02:56:10.600 Well, I don't want people rocking around thinking that I think you're terrible.

02:56:12.140 Can I say anything in this debate?

02:56:14.720 Do you think that I think you're terrible?

02:56:17.260 Erudite? 0.97

02:56:17.700 Who cares?

02:56:18.360 You said it.

02:56:19.020 Oh, my God.

02:56:20.060 Can we get back to the debate?

02:56:21.100 You said it.

02:56:21.700 Okay.

02:56:22.020 Can we get back to the debate?

02:56:23.180 Well, do you think that I think you're terrible?

02:56:24.580 Oh, my God. 0.81

02:56:25.140 Who cares?

02:56:25.780 You said it.

02:56:26.800 Yeah, I do.

02:56:27.480 I think you think smoky man bad.

02:56:29.000 Yes.

02:56:29.480 Okay.

02:56:29.700 I don't.

02:56:30.220 Okay, great.

02:56:30.780 So anyway, back to the debate.

02:56:32.380 I just want to make sure...

02:56:33.880 Because you haven't actually answered this question.

02:56:35.760 If Christian nationalists change the amendments of the Constitution, they change them.

02:56:41.080 So now Christian nationalists go, First Amendment, that's gone.

02:56:45.440 Right?

02:56:46.060 Gotcha. 0.97

02:56:47.660 What the fuck is wrong with doing that if it's actually in the confines of the American system 0.98

02:56:54.060 to do that? 0.98

02:56:54.740 So as a Christian, I'd say it's unchristian to do.

02:56:56.580 That's nice.

02:56:57.160 I'm asking about the political philosophy, remember?

02:56:58.880 So, sure.

02:57:00.320 Within the political philosophy, I would say, I don't believe in absolute democracy.

02:57:03.620 I believe in democracy that serves liberalism values, because I think liberalism is the

02:57:07.340 best political philosophy we've received.

02:57:08.840 So if a nation-state would vote in an authoritarian, which has actually happened many times, I think

02:57:13.920 that's bad.

02:57:14.560 And I think the nation-state has failed in that case.

02:57:16.100 And I think that we should do our best with democracies to prevent the overtaking of radical

02:57:20.800 extremists.

02:57:20.960 That doesn't actually answer my question.

02:57:22.260 Sure it does.

02:57:23.160 Liberalism provides girds against that.

02:57:24.580 I'm not for absolute democracy.

02:57:25.880 So in my liberal system, I would say...

02:57:27.520 So who shouldn't vote?

02:57:28.680 What?

02:57:29.000 Who shouldn't vote?

02:57:30.080 I haven't said anything about who shouldn't vote.

02:57:31.820 When you say absolute democracy, what does that mean?

02:57:34.280 Oh, so like popular vote.

02:57:35.940 Like I don't want, just because somebody gets the most votes of people, I don't think that

02:57:40.260 that should be the leader, because cities are more popular than rural areas.

02:57:42.580 So again, utilizing the system, which is liberalism, and is the American framework, Christian nationalists 0.98

02:57:48.200 can get amendments passed in order to tailor things to Christianity.

02:57:52.360 They can.

02:57:52.780 I just think that that's wrong for Christians to do. 1.00

02:57:54.420 Yeah, that's nice that you think that, but from a political philosophy, when you're

02:57:57.880 talking about political philosophy, it is just utilizing liberalism.

02:58:00.740 Sure, but I would say that it's also un-American to do, because I think...

02:58:03.460 Yeah, how? 0.99

02:58:04.280 We've had amendments against all of this shit. 0.95

02:58:06.360 Because we can go back to the beginning, because I said the American ethos is built 0.97

02:58:09.300 on things like ingenuity, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

02:58:11.800 And I think when you take over the first A as a Christian nationalist, and you make

02:58:14.580 it so that people don't have free speech, they can only praise God, for example.

02:58:17.780 I think that's un-American, because I think the founding fathers wrote it intentionally

02:58:21.500 to separate these things.

02:58:22.480 They did not want to impose religion on other people.

02:58:24.400 And I think that that's good, and I think it's an American value to hold.

02:58:25.960 Why are they putting in an amendment system? 0.95

02:58:27.620 Because they recognize that over time, technology and development occurs, so there are things

02:58:33.500 that they haven't even thought of that might be relevant.

02:58:35.280 For example, stakeholdership.

02:58:36.620 They recognize that.

02:58:37.340 Or like, for example, people are rejecting the status quo, and they want to move outside

02:58:42.040 of the idea of liberalism.

02:58:43.280 I think the founding fathers probably thought that democracy was good, no matter what, and

02:58:46.580 that we should definitely try to stay with that.

02:58:47.440 That's really funny, because they basically let nobody vote.

02:58:50.500 Well, why?

02:58:51.760 Because they didn't trust the electorate.

02:58:53.940 By their, yes.

02:58:55.080 Oh, yes.

02:58:55.920 No.

02:58:56.380 Oh, yeah, 1,000%.

02:58:57.520 Okay, we can just go to Federalist number two.

02:58:58.980 You're very wrong about this.

02:58:59.720 Oh, no, I'm very right.

02:59:01.200 The Federalist papers even are specific about this.

02:59:03.300 There's a reason that they demanded that there be stakeholders in the nation.

02:59:07.000 They actually did not trust the electorate.

02:59:08.720 Even the stakeholders, they had a large amount of distrust for.

02:59:11.920 Well, the issue, what they actually had is they recognized that different, so when we

02:59:15.760 say stakeholders, we mean like people that have some stakes in the country, right?

02:59:18.800 Yeah.

02:59:19.280 Okay, so the reason that they recognized is that different people would have different

02:59:23.220 stakes in the country, and so they were very concerned about people with very low stakes

02:59:26.960 in the country to tyrannize.

02:59:28.560 Yeah, which was most people.

02:59:29.600 But the stakes, so land-

02:59:30.800 That was most people.

02:59:31.800 So land owning was used as a proxy, because they thought if anyone is going to want to

02:59:36.240 see America continue and America to flourish, irrespective of what they personally want-

02:59:40.840 Then most people couldn't vote.

02:59:41.560 It would be landowners.

02:59:42.540 Yeah.

02:59:42.920 Yeah.

02:59:43.440 Most people couldn't vote.

02:59:44.780 I agree.

02:59:45.500 Yeah.

02:59:46.000 For a reason.

02:59:46.480 Well, I would say the reason was built on bad premises, right?

02:59:50.020 They were concerned, for example, that the landless man would be less invested in the

02:59:54.120 country.

02:59:54.360 And I would say, there's a lot of people that don't own land.

02:59:56.440 They're very patriotic.

02:59:57.340 You've got to interrupt me because I'm cooking, don't you?

02:59:59.260 Yeah.

02:59:59.520 And under the-

03:00:00.020 Well, I've got to be able to talk, too.

03:00:02.540 You have talked lots.

03:00:03.520 I've barely said a word.

03:00:04.920 Do you feel like-

03:00:05.300 For an hour, I've just let you prattle.

03:00:07.040 It's my turn, too.

03:00:07.680 Wait.

03:00:08.140 First of all, for the last hour, you've insisted on internally critiquing only me, and you wouldn't

03:00:12.040 let me internally critique you.

03:00:13.000 No, you can internally critique.

03:00:14.240 Second of all-

03:00:14.700 You can internally critique, but here's my question to you.

03:00:17.600 I'm just curious, because I still don't understand why it would be that if we changed an amendment,

03:00:22.800 that's anti-democratic or anti-liberal.

03:00:25.140 I didn't say it's anti-democratic.

03:00:26.120 I said that it would be un-American. 1.00

03:00:27.640 It's not un-American.

03:00:28.560 Yes, it is, because the first of us-

03:00:29.560 We've changed how many amendments?

03:00:32.060 We've added a number of amendments, yeah.

03:00:33.680 And changed them.

03:00:34.640 Sure.

03:00:34.980 That's fine.

03:00:35.540 Mm-hmm.

03:00:35.840 Like, for instance, we added women's suffrage.

03:00:39.000 We had an amendment for prohibition, and then we got rid of the amendment for prohibition.

03:00:43.140 We've added and taken away many, many amendments.

03:00:45.140 Sure, yeah.

03:00:45.620 And I think that-

03:00:45.940 The American system's actually a hodgepodge, isn't it?

03:00:48.100 Yeah.

03:00:48.380 And I think that's one of the beauties of it.

03:00:49.680 But I think one of the things that are central to the American dream, the thing that makes

03:00:52.500 America stick out, which makes it the unique country that it was, so unique, actually,

03:00:56.480 that when other monarchies fell, they adopted similar structures to us, is things like

03:01:01.640 free speech, like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

03:01:04.820 So that's foundationalism again.

03:01:05.800 That Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers looked at the world and said, we need a government

03:01:10.160 system that's for the common man, and reduces the capacity or possibility of tyranny.

03:01:14.140 But built into liberalism, the idea of the guardrail bumpers, right?

03:01:18.640 Checks and balances.

03:01:20.140 If the population gets the right to vote, which it now has, it has almost totally universal 0.97

03:01:26.200 suffrage, except in very minimal cases, then passing these amendments becomes much easier

03:01:31.320 based on the agenda of the people.

03:01:33.160 That's within the confines.

03:01:34.040 Why would it be much easier?

03:01:35.020 Because at that point, you can consolidate power blocks in parties, which was an emergent

03:01:39.220 property of universal suffrage.

03:01:42.400 So the issue is, when you have these two parties, why would you be more likely to pass

03:01:46.040 an amendment when amendments actually require a large amount of votes, right?

03:01:48.960 It's not just 50-50, right?

03:01:50.500 I don't remember what the exact amount is.

03:01:51.320 Because if you have two parties, you're probably going to have a lot of your politicians under

03:01:55.040 one party flag or the other.

03:01:56.440 Right.

03:01:56.600 You want them to work together.

03:01:58.160 It's a separation of power.

03:01:59.420 No, unless one has overwhelming control, which can easily happen.

03:02:03.140 Yes.

03:02:03.360 But it's actually interesting when you look at the creation of the United States.

03:02:06.960 Yeah, but back to this.

03:02:07.320 They went back and forth.

03:02:08.420 Back to this.

03:02:09.080 I just want to make sure.

03:02:09.860 You don't want to deal with any facts of the reality.

03:02:11.440 If you have an overwhelming amount of a single party who's in charge, right?

03:02:16.380 Then getting things passed is much, much easier.

03:02:19.040 Sure.

03:02:19.220 It absolutely is much easier.

03:02:20.600 But this is why, for example, we've done things like splitting the Senate so that you need like 60

03:02:24.160 votes to try to prevent true partisan voting.

03:02:27.080 They can end the filibuster.

03:02:28.980 They could.

03:02:29.580 They probably won't, which is unfortunate.

03:02:31.420 Yeah, but they could.

03:02:31.920 They may.

03:02:32.620 And the thing is, they can also pack the court.

03:02:34.460 That's all within the confines of liberalism.

03:02:36.160 I agree.

03:02:36.760 And I think that when people-

03:02:37.320 The very idea here that we can't utilize liberalism to remove parts of the liberal framework

03:02:42.900 that we don't like-

03:02:43.380 I'm not rejecting that.

03:02:44.960 Well, then there can be no-

03:02:47.100 I'm saying it's un-American. 1.00

03:02:47.580 It's not un-American.

03:02:48.540 It is un-American. 0.86

03:02:49.160 It's the most American.

03:02:49.620 I would say it's un-American to reduce, get rid of some of the most foundational things,

03:02:53.620 which is like the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

03:02:55.180 No, the most-

03:02:55.540 I think that if we do things like that-

03:02:56.920 It's not getting rid of any of those.

03:02:58.860 Hold on.

03:02:59.280 You can do that.

03:03:00.500 But if, for example, Christian nationalists took power and they wanted to get rid of the

03:03:03.880 First Amendment, I would say that that is a violation of life, liberty.

03:03:06.960 That's a big violation of liberty, which would be un-American. 0.51

03:03:09.460 I would say those Christian nationalists are un-American.

03:03:12.140 They don't believe in the ethos that made the state great, which was the common man gets

03:03:15.920 a say that he has his rights protected.

03:03:17.800 Would you say the same thing about the Second Amendment?

03:03:20.060 Yeah, I actually like the Second Amendment.

03:03:21.500 Great.

03:03:21.880 So, okay, I should be able to own a bazooka?

03:03:25.080 Potentially.

03:03:25.440 I just think, like, all of the, like, natural limits to it are-

03:03:27.660 What are natural limits?

03:03:28.660 Most people can't afford it.

03:03:30.160 Like, storage, for example.

03:03:31.280 I think states would have a right to store it.

03:03:33.180 They're within-

03:03:33.880 Yeah, they're within the confines.

03:03:35.100 Sure, but I think a state would regulate a lot on, like, what you can, like, do with

03:03:37.620 it.

03:03:38.600 Wait a second.

03:03:39.020 Wait a second.

03:03:39.440 I'm confused.

03:03:39.660 Wait, are you against 2A?

03:03:40.820 Are you saying-

03:03:42.040 Are you against 2A?

03:03:43.100 No, no, no.

03:03:43.640 I'm a big Second Amendment supporter.

03:03:44.560 So, should you be able to own a bazooka?

03:03:46.520 Sure.

03:03:47.000 Okay, why?

03:03:47.900 Absolutely.

03:03:48.620 Because it's within the confines of the right.

03:03:50.580 Why does that matter, though?

03:03:51.780 What if we voted to get rid of that?

03:03:52.820 Yeah, I believe in the right of self-defense.

03:03:54.100 Well, what if we voted to get rid of that?

03:03:55.480 Then that would be within the confines of the liberal framework.

03:03:57.460 Would that be okay with you?

03:03:58.780 Okay, no.

03:03:59.580 Oh, okay.

03:03:59.880 I would object on different grounds, though.

03:04:01.260 I'm not a liberal.

03:04:01.820 Sure, yeah, of course.

03:04:02.680 I would object on different grounds.

03:04:03.180 You, the liberal, though, right?

03:04:04.720 That's within the confines of the framework to completely eliminate the Second Amendment.

03:04:09.420 Sure.

03:04:10.080 I've never rejected that.

03:04:11.220 I've said that it would be un-American to do so.

03:04:13.260 How's that un-American? 0.88

03:04:14.340 Because I think, like, 2A, for example, gun culture is extremely American.

03:04:18.320 It's a deeply, deeply American value.

03:04:19.680 Sure, I would agree with that.

03:04:21.040 But what's not un-American is removing amendments that Americans don't like.

03:04:24.620 That's the most American thing.

03:04:27.000 Sure.

03:04:27.620 The most American thing is Americans introducing things and amendments that they like.

03:04:32.060 It's getting rid of amendments that they don't like. 0.76

03:04:34.360 It's doing things that they fucking want based on what it is that they want. 0.90

03:04:38.340 And so if Americans say, we want Christian nationalism, and we'll impose various amendments for Christian nationalism, that is the most American thing I can think of. 0.96

03:04:45.940 I think if America goes back towards, like, a more theocratic state, I think it has fundamentally now have become something that isn't America anymore.

03:04:52.880 I would be the person running around like Trump said.

03:04:54.500 Based on what?

03:04:55.100 We need to make America great again.

03:04:55.640 The last 40 years?

03:04:56.700 The founding fathers and the entire point.

03:04:58.120 The founding fathers gave the states the ability to do it.

03:04:59.540 The entire point of the Revolutionary War, which was to break away from tyranny and to separate power so that the common man had a chance to exist and have a right to speak to those who were to him.

03:05:08.380 That was great sloganeering, but the truth is the Revolutionary War was about money.

03:05:14.020 The very first thing George Washington did was implement a tax.

03:05:17.740 The very first thing he did was institute, and it led to the Whiskey Rebellion.

03:05:21.540 He put a tax on whiskey. 0.95

03:05:23.140 Do you think that, like, our founders who wanted to apportion taxes, directly apportioned taxes, wanted us in any way to have a fucking income tax? 0.94

03:05:32.160 Because that is against life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 0.92

03:05:35.800 We're the most taxed country on planet Earth.

03:05:38.300 We're the most taxed on planet Earth.

03:05:40.140 I don't think that's true.

03:05:40.760 And it's like—

03:05:41.380 Most Western liberal democracies are taxed more.

03:05:42.520 Look, if you went back—

03:05:43.700 Do you want to walk that one back?

03:05:45.280 If you went back to our founders—

03:05:46.780 Can we see if there's anybody that taxes more on income than America?

03:05:49.880 I just want to fact-check you.

03:05:50.740 It's not just income.

03:05:52.120 So we're one of the most taxed countries on planet Earth.

03:05:55.280 So the thing is—

03:05:56.000 There's no more.

03:05:56.460 There's no other Western liberal democracies that taxed.

03:05:57.960 I said one of the most, yes.

03:05:59.800 So anyway—

03:06:01.240 You said the most, but yeah.

03:06:02.300 Okay, whatever.

03:06:03.100 There's my qualifier.

03:06:03.980 Oh, look, we can actually give grace to one another for skip-ups of words.

03:06:05.880 So anyway, back to this before you divert again, because that's all you do is divert.

03:06:09.800 When it is the case—

03:06:10.500 I'm not diverted.

03:06:11.200 I'm answering all your questions.

03:06:12.020 When it is the case that you move back to, I don't know, let's say $1,800, do you think that they would have allowed an income tax?

03:06:20.740 Uh, I'm not sure.

03:06:21.720 I have no idea.

03:06:22.140 No.

03:06:22.220 Probably not.

03:06:22.760 I have no idea, though.

03:06:23.420 Do you think that the way that people are taxed right now, that our founders fought for that?

03:06:28.560 Uh, sort of, yes.

03:06:30.780 Yes.

03:06:31.360 Sort of, yes.

03:06:33.020 Because I think the thing that the founders cared about was that the common man gets a say on the policy.

03:06:37.000 They did not want an income tax at all.

03:06:39.640 Okay.

03:06:40.020 I don't think income tax by itself just breaks this entire American ethos.

03:06:43.680 I don't think, like, pfft, it's just shattered, right?

03:06:45.880 So I imagine—

03:06:47.220 Why not?

03:06:48.440 Because, like I said before—

03:06:49.740 It's a threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

03:06:52.420 How is it a threat to life and liberty?

03:06:53.860 Because they're directly taking an unapportioned tax from people.

03:06:58.080 How is that a—sorry.

03:06:59.040 How is that a threat to life and liberty?

03:07:00.640 I'll just ask you again.

03:07:01.540 Because don't you think that you need to have money in order to have liberty?

03:07:05.260 Sure.

03:07:05.560 But in case of liberties, this is things you get access to.

03:07:08.340 So one of the things that taxes do is they give you access to things like free education.

03:07:12.200 Okay.

03:07:12.600 Wait a second.

03:07:13.560 The income—you can have sales taxes, things like that.

03:07:16.420 That's constitutional.

03:07:17.580 Yeah.

03:07:17.940 Initially, there was no income tax in the Constitution.

03:07:20.160 Sure.

03:07:20.760 Yeah.

03:07:21.080 So why was that passed, do you know?

03:07:23.020 Probably because we needed to have greater government receipts so that we could pay for

03:07:25.940 the things that we wanted that we collectively had decided would be better for the nation-state.

03:07:29.080 No, it's because of the monster of Jekyll Island.

03:07:30.700 It was written by a bunch of bankers, essentially.

03:07:32.620 And Jackson was against it first, and he killed—

03:07:35.460 He was against the centralized bank.

03:07:36.280 He killed the—well, because the bank wanted to create an income tax.

03:07:41.300 That's not actually just—

03:07:42.260 Yes.

03:07:42.280 It is actually true.

03:07:43.060 So I agree that that's true.

03:07:44.720 What you're presuming, though, you're trying to make it seem like Jackson was most opposed

03:07:48.000 because of income tax.

03:07:49.000 Jackson was most opposed to the central bank.

03:07:51.160 To the central bank, specifically, because he was concerned about government statesmen

03:07:55.140 having access and control over economy.

03:07:56.800 He wanted that to be separate.

03:07:57.680 He was concerned—

03:07:58.240 As a separation of power.

03:07:58.580 He was concerned about debt.

03:07:59.720 That's why one of the first things he did was pay ours off.

03:08:02.940 Okay.

03:08:03.580 All of these are—

03:08:04.320 That was it.

03:08:04.380 It was all—it was about debt.

03:08:05.660 So you'd agree that Jackson had multiple reasons for why he was opposed?

03:08:07.740 Well, the prime—

03:08:08.380 Not just income tax. 1.00

03:08:09.340 Yes, but income tax would have made him lose his fucking mind. 0.99

03:08:11.720 So do you think that it is un-American for people to have— 0.98

03:08:13.720 This is like, it's the most—so it's completely American to roll back the income tax.

03:08:18.180 It's completely American to roll back all of these various amendments.

03:08:21.700 So you're equivocating again.

03:08:22.380 So what you're doing is you're saying liberalism and the process of democracy gives us the

03:08:27.520 capacity to change rules.

03:08:29.520 And you're saying, that's America.

03:08:31.200 That's the most American.

03:08:32.520 No.

03:08:32.640 So I'm arguing that the most American thing is the value of life, liberty, the pursuit

03:08:37.260 of happiness.

03:08:37.520 Yeah, but you keep on equivocating.

03:08:38.260 Ingenuity, science, development.

03:08:39.220 Yeah, but you keep equivocating.

03:08:40.460 Because you—

03:08:41.160 I'm not equivocating.

03:08:42.380 That's not foundationalism.

03:08:44.180 Or that's not a foundation for my philosophy is life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

03:08:48.980 And then when I say, wait, the most American thing that we can do is the most—

03:08:53.160 Sorry.

03:08:53.940 How is this equivocating?

03:08:54.480 It's the American thing that we always do.

03:08:56.700 And then you move back and forth between these two ideals as though they're interchangeable.

03:09:01.960 My foundation is actually political ideology.

03:09:04.380 No, my foundation is actually life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

03:09:07.040 Is it most, both, which—

03:09:08.620 Hold on, Andrew.

03:09:09.500 So you're—

03:09:10.500 Kyla.

03:09:11.060 You're being bad faith again. 1.00

03:09:12.020 No, you're being bad faith, Kyla, by saying I'm bad faith.

03:09:14.060 Good job.

03:09:14.640 So I have never said that my moral system is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

03:09:19.680 I didn't say moral system.

03:09:20.620 You did.

03:09:20.980 I'm talking about, you know, foundational system for liberalism.

03:09:25.920 For American—for the American ethos.

03:09:28.360 Yeah.

03:09:28.680 Not for liberalism.

03:09:29.540 Whatever that is.

03:09:30.220 No, I said the foundation for liberalism is something of balance of state power, right?

03:09:35.540 There is strong institutions, protections of human rights and liberties, and in modern liberalism especially, some form of, like, welfare state or caretaking.

03:09:44.420 Got it.

03:09:45.060 Now—

03:09:45.340 Hold on.

03:09:46.260 Can we just acknowledge right now that you are the one equivocating because you slipped between saying—

03:09:49.060 I'm going to make sure that we have it.

03:09:50.680 Hold on.

03:09:51.120 Just let me finish my thoughts.

03:09:52.040 Go ahead.

03:09:52.980 You were saying that my moral system is this life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but

03:09:56.640 I've never said that.

03:09:57.140 Not that.

03:09:57.480 And then you said, no, no, no, no, no, the foundation of America.

03:09:59.940 And I said, yeah, that's the American ethos.

03:10:01.720 And they said, yeah, liberalism.

03:10:02.700 I said, no, liberalism's foundation is these other things.

03:10:06.200 So you're the one equivocating.

03:10:07.680 You're trying to split between all these things.

03:10:08.480 Then let's make sure I'm not equivocating.

03:10:09.620 When we reduce it down, the thing that makes Christian nationalism un-American is that it's a threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 0.85

03:10:16.560 That Christian nationalists, if they had their way, would impose Christian ethics and restrictions on people that they wouldn't accept.

03:10:22.500 And I think, realistically, Christian nationalists, if they had their full way, would usher in a theocracy. 0.94

03:10:27.740 And a theocracy is fundamentally un-American.

03:10:30.440 Got it.

03:10:30.780 Now, let's say Christian nationalists are able to take power, okay, through their, you know, machinations, running for political office, guys like Fuentes, super popular, many people like this.

03:10:42.000 They sway the electorate.

03:10:43.340 The electorate puts them in office under the promise that they're going to change many of these things, right?

03:10:49.280 And say those American people are not American.

03:10:50.840 I get it.

03:10:51.420 They're not. 0.95

03:10:51.740 And bad Christians. 1.00

03:10:52.120 They're very un-American. 1.00

03:10:53.220 And bad Christians. 1.00

03:10:53.660 These Americans are very un-American and bad Christians. 1.00

03:10:55.780 I get it. 0.98

03:10:56.200 These guys get in office, and all they do is this. 0.98

03:11:00.420 They just immediately legislate that you can't be prostitutes, no prostitution, no pimping, no gay marriage, right? 1.00

03:11:09.120 That's all they do. 0.58

03:11:10.080 They keep everything else equal, right?

03:11:12.920 Can you tell me why it would be that you would oppose that?

03:11:17.800 Typically, in the criminalization of prostitution, we typically see that women are disproportionately abused as a result.

03:11:23.260 Well, how would it be un-American, I guess?

03:11:24.700 Um, I didn't say it would be un-American.

03:11:27.280 Okay, but it's definitely in direct violation of this whole liberty thing, right?

03:11:32.640 Not necessarily, right?

03:11:33.860 Like prostitutes specifically are usually women adults. 0.99

03:11:35.360 Yeah, but homosexuals, for instance? 0.98

03:11:37.000 So are you also wanting to impose a law that homosexuals can't get married? 0.92

03:11:40.340 Yeah.

03:11:40.780 Okay, then I would oppose that, yeah.

03:11:41.940 Yeah, because it's a threat to liberty?

03:11:44.020 Yeah.

03:11:44.360 Okay, so how come three people can't get married?

03:11:47.780 Uh, mostly, I think right now it's taxation.

03:11:50.460 Yeah, but I mean, if...

03:11:52.100 If we can make a...

03:11:53.140 If we can make it happen.

03:11:54.200 Legally, sure.

03:11:55.760 Yeah.

03:11:55.900 I don't have a problem with it.

03:11:56.520 Legally.

03:11:57.000 Because legality is not my moral system.

03:11:58.840 Seventeen people?

03:12:00.160 Uh, um, sure.

03:12:01.760 So, if...

03:12:02.340 Hold on.

03:12:02.980 What reasonable world exists where seventeen people are getting legally married? 0.97

03:12:06.960 Well, right now we just recently had three people who got married.

03:12:09.720 I don't see why you couldn't have a fourth or a fifth.

03:12:11.380 I'm saying, do you think it's reasonable to presume that seventeen people are going to get married?

03:12:14.660 Yes.

03:12:15.300 Really?

03:12:15.740 Yes.

03:12:16.240 Okay. 0.94

03:12:16.520 I think you're absurd.

03:12:17.140 I at least think it's reasonable to assume four or five would.

03:12:20.140 So, the thing is...

03:12:21.080 Okay.

03:12:21.600 Well, if it's three, why can't it be four?

03:12:23.720 I've spent time with people, but maybe you haven't.

03:12:25.260 I don't know.

03:12:25.680 If three people just got married, why couldn't it be four?

03:12:27.640 Well, I would argue, for example, in the case of polycules, even, a lot of these relationships tend to fall apart because I don't think that most...

03:12:32.360 Yeah, but they can still get married. 0.55

03:12:33.760 Legally, yeah.

03:12:34.580 Yeah.

03:12:34.960 Okay.

03:12:35.300 So, anyway...

03:12:35.880 So, again, yes.

03:12:36.740 If we could create a taxation system that could manage seventeen people getting married legally, I don't have an issue with it, necessarily.

03:12:42.480 Got it.

03:12:42.980 Now...

03:12:43.380 But that's not more.

03:12:43.980 Now, hang on.

03:12:44.520 Let's say that we allow for...

03:12:46.980 We pass an amendment.

03:12:48.200 Liberals pass an amendment.

03:12:49.660 And it says three people can get married.

03:12:51.700 Okay?

03:12:52.560 And this is now part of a new constitutional amendment.

03:12:56.040 Christian nationalists get power.

03:12:57.940 They remove that constitutional amendment.

03:12:59.940 That is now violating the idea of liberty.

03:13:03.660 I don't think...

03:13:04.080 Now you're violating the idea, the very ideal of liberty, so that would be un-American for those Christian nationalists to get rid of three people getting married if there was an amendment, right?

03:13:11.740 So, this is where pluralism comes in.

03:13:13.360 You're making it seem as though, like, I'm a liberty extremist, right?

03:13:15.780 I think that there are some liberties that can be, like, girded, right?

03:13:17.860 I don't want people running around maximally doing anything they want at any given time, and neither does liberalism, typically.

03:13:23.360 Because liberalism is also pluralist, typically.

03:13:25.160 Well, where do we draw the threshold, then?

03:13:26.400 Because your whole objection to Christian nationalists with gay marriage...

03:13:28.440 At a legal level?

03:13:29.940 Probably three, because I don't think taxation would ever be functional for 17 people. 0.96

03:13:33.820 Okay, so they pass an amendment, three people can get married.

03:13:36.000 That's what I said.

03:13:36.660 Sure.

03:13:37.160 And then Christian nationalists take control, and the only thing that they remove is that amendment.

03:13:42.000 I probably personally wouldn't have an issue with it.

03:13:43.880 But that's a threat to liberty.

03:13:45.320 That's hurting people's liberty.

03:13:46.840 I don't think necessarily.

03:13:48.400 How is it not necessarily hurting their liberty?

03:13:50.560 Because I'm not a liberty maximalist, which is what you're trying to...

03:13:52.480 So what?

03:13:53.960 What do you mean so?

03:13:54.760 It would still be hurting their liberty, whether you're a maximalist or not.

03:13:57.760 So, for example, the reason why we might not allow three people to get married legally is because it may create situations where people, like, divorce situations can't be, like, easily solved.

03:14:06.380 It makes...

03:14:06.760 Divorce is extremely messy, particularly because...

03:14:08.700 Let's say we solved it.

03:14:09.000 ...stay manages the divorce.

03:14:09.860 Yeah.

03:14:10.020 So the issue is now your hypothetical is going, imagine we exist in a world that is fundamentally not in any way like the world that we exist in.

03:14:17.320 No, it's like this world now.

03:14:18.060 Now what you would do?

03:14:18.640 And I'm like, I don't know.

03:14:19.480 In this fundamental world where, like, human beings don't leave oxygen.

03:14:21.520 Three people just got married.

03:14:22.540 I'm not really sure.

03:14:23.220 If three people can get married, then those three people can already get divorced. 0.96

03:14:27.260 And if they have children...

03:14:28.320 How would we resolve that? 0.99

03:14:29.240 Three people can already have some kind of custodial fucking problem with the state. 0.97

03:14:33.680 We already have major custodial issues within divorce court. 0.99

03:14:36.260 Yeah.

03:14:36.540 It is incredibly messy.

03:14:38.120 Alimony is a huge problem.

03:14:38.680 So how would that not be a threat to liberty?

03:14:41.020 Well, we might not allow this liberty because it actually...

03:14:44.240 The divorce courts and the way that the system works, it limits people in such a way that we can't actually function. 0.59

03:14:48.080 So then Christian nationalists going in and limiting liberty is not really a problem.

03:14:52.980 To some extent, yeah.

03:14:54.140 To some extent.

03:14:54.780 So them outlawing gay marriage, that's a problem, but not three people getting married. 0.99

03:14:58.600 Why?

03:14:59.040 Because I would say consensually as a society, we've agreed that gay people can get legally married.

03:15:03.020 No, we never did.

03:15:04.220 There was no vote on that.

03:15:05.800 We voted for the electorate that did this.

03:15:08.140 Okay, and you're voting for the electorate who goes in and undoes it.

03:15:10.800 So what? 0.97

03:15:12.280 I would say that in this case, the only reason that you're doing that is because you think being gay is evil. 0.90

03:15:18.840 So?

03:15:19.200 I think that that's wrong to police.

03:15:20.480 That's nice you think that, but they were elected.

03:15:22.360 It's not nice that I think that.

03:15:23.700 They got into office.

03:15:24.500 It's not nice that I think that.

03:15:25.980 It is nice that you think that.

03:15:27.440 Thank you.

03:15:28.160 I would say that it's fundamentally unchristian for them to do because now at this point, they are not imposing something.

03:15:33.780 Yeah, but your liberalism can't actually stop at one.

03:15:37.480 That doesn't matter to any argument.

03:15:39.220 It is not un-American for them to go in and change amendments.

03:15:42.400 That's the most American.

03:15:43.220 We're just back here again.

03:15:44.420 So what I would say is that there are some things that are central to the American ethos, right?

03:15:47.520 But these things are not maximalist.

03:15:49.640 So what you're trying to do is you're trying to say, well, you're for liberty.

03:15:53.080 You're for maximal liberty.

03:15:53.940 And I'm like, no, I'm for some limitations on liberty.

03:15:55.660 I didn't say maximal liberty.

03:15:56.100 Of course you are because you're going, well, what about 17 people?

03:15:58.660 And I'm like, I don't know.

03:15:59.380 I don't live in a world where that's even like kind of functionally reasonable.

03:16:02.240 I don't know what I think about 17 people getting married at a legal level.

03:16:05.260 Just three.

03:16:06.260 Sure.

03:16:06.960 Even just three.

03:16:07.700 I'm not even sure what I think about three people getting married legally because I think that there's going to be a lot of complications as far as like how we manage these things necessarily because I'm not a liberally absolutist.

03:16:15.940 But I do think that the value of liberty, giving common man access to these choices, is central to the American ethos.

03:16:21.820 So what would be wrong with Christian nationalists going in, right, they pack the court, and then they go ahead and – or you don't even pack the court.

03:16:29.040 Packing the court is bad.

03:16:29.920 They just put two Supreme Court justices, new ones on. 1.00

03:16:33.080 They reinterpret that, well, you know what? 0.92

03:16:35.540 Gays actually can't get married. 1.00

03:16:36.620 They overturn a burglar fell. 0.99

03:16:39.480 One of my issues would be them intentionally packing the court. 0.86

03:16:41.800 I think that's unconstitutional.

03:16:42.160 No, no.

03:16:42.560 I just took that off the table.

03:16:43.900 They just put in two new Supreme Court justices. 0.99

03:16:45.920 That's it.

03:16:46.340 How do they do that?

03:16:47.220 Because two of them die.

03:16:49.360 Okay.

03:16:49.840 So two of them die.

03:16:50.760 They elect two of them with the intention of packing the court.

03:16:53.460 No.

03:16:53.640 So they're specifically selecting –

03:16:54.920 No.

03:16:54.940 Forget packing the court.

03:16:55.640 Wait.

03:16:55.660 Do they select them on the basis that these judges will be Christian as well?

03:16:59.460 Well, they –

03:17:00.120 And make judicial law from Christianity? 0.95

03:17:02.280 They're definitely selecting them because the party –

03:17:05.460 The party in charge wants them there.

03:17:06.900 Yeah.

03:17:07.000 I think that that's the bad point already.

03:17:08.480 Why?

03:17:08.840 Because I do not think that we should be –

03:17:10.360 That's how parties do it now.

03:17:11.620 They put in justices that they want that they think are going to represent their views.

03:17:15.080 Do you think that I like the fact that we try to make the judicial system partisan?

03:17:19.860 That's very un-American. 0.85

03:17:21.720 I think it is un-American. 0.98

03:17:22.780 No.

03:17:23.000 It's very un-American for you to go against that.

03:17:25.200 Why?

03:17:25.600 Because it's the most American thing.

03:17:27.280 That's how we've always done it.

03:17:28.340 What do you mean?

03:17:28.960 I would say that if it's not girding the common man, the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness,

03:17:33.280 packing the courts, for example, I think is bad.

03:17:34.740 I think that this is not a good thing to do.

03:17:36.400 I don't want partisan courts because –

03:17:37.560 The problem –

03:17:37.920 The point –

03:17:38.420 Hold on.

03:17:38.820 The American idea, the zeitgeist of the separation of powers actually really, really, really matters

03:17:43.780 because one of the things that's fundamental to Americanism is the opposition of tyranny.

03:17:48.000 And how you oppose tyranny is you separate power.

03:17:50.460 So if you're packing the court to be biased towards a single side, you're already engaging in some level of tyranny.

03:17:54.680 What about them getting rid of abortion? 0.99

03:17:56.860 What about it?

03:17:57.460 Yeah.

03:17:57.800 Is that hurting life or helping life?

03:18:00.360 It depends on what you think life is.

03:18:01.880 Well, I'm asking you.

03:18:03.880 So I'm for the decriminalization of abortion entirely because I think when you look at the actual – yeah, when you look at the ramifications of abortion policy,

03:18:10.980 it leads to more infant deaths, more mother deaths, more children in foster care, more children in poverty, and more children dying overall.

03:18:15.600 Is it more or less American that abortion is banned?

03:18:18.580 I don't think that this is necessarily an American concept.

03:18:21.320 Not everything is tied to this.

03:18:22.880 So if Christian nationalists get in and they completely outlaw abortion, right, via constitutional amendment –

03:18:28.920 I think that they would then be imposing onto non-Christians their view of human life. 1.00

03:18:32.340 That's nice, but that doesn't violate any of the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness that you consider Americanism to be.

03:18:38.660 In fact, it reinforces life.

03:18:40.460 It would be because probably 50 – I think it's like 50% of the population definitely disagrees with the contention of when life is.

03:18:45.700 Who cares?

03:18:46.260 You're not an extremist.

03:18:48.100 What do you mean who cares?

03:18:48.760 The thing is that if it's the case –

03:18:50.620 What do you mean who cares?

03:18:51.520 Well, first of all –

03:18:52.660 Probably the voting electorate cares.

03:18:54.600 Yeah, sure.

03:18:54.980 The ones who elected the Christian nationalists? 0.89

03:18:57.560 Well, more so, in this case, the ones who didn't.

03:19:00.260 Yeah.

03:19:00.460 So now the Christian nationalists –

03:19:01.340 So what?

03:19:01.800 It's the most American thing possible when Christian nationalists get in – 0.94

03:19:06.100 How is that tyranny?

03:19:07.180 By trying to impose only Christian ethics on other people, knowing for a fact that 50% of the population would not want to adhere to these things.

03:19:13.320 50% of the population doesn't want to adhere to abortion.

03:19:16.800 They think that abortion's evil. 1.00

03:19:17.800 They don't have to get abortions. 1.00

03:19:18.940 Isn't that crazy?

03:19:20.320 They think you're murdering people.

03:19:22.460 Sure, but they don't have to get an abortion. 1.00

03:19:24.120 Isn't that crazy?

03:19:24.460 It doesn't matter.

03:19:25.020 You don't have a lot of murder people.

03:19:26.000 Wait, does the state compel anyone to get an abortion? 0.99

03:19:28.520 Why would that matter?

03:19:29.380 Because it kind of matters if you're talking about the Christian ethics of what you're concerned about.

03:19:32.200 Is it the case that if the state said that you could murder random people, that you could object to that in a democracy?

03:19:38.840 Yes.

03:19:39.200 Yeah?

03:19:39.680 Yes. 1.00

03:19:39.900 So you can object to fucking people murdering people in your democracy. 1.00

03:19:43.280 You can, of course, yes. 0.99

03:19:44.280 And you can get an amendment together to say stop murdering people.

03:19:47.120 Well, this is fine as long as the reason that Christians aren't doing it is intentionally to impose Christian ethics on non-Christians. 0.67

03:19:53.020 And yet you have not made an argument for why that's even bad.

03:19:56.440 You've just said within the framework, I don't like it.

03:19:59.100 No, no, no.

03:19:59.580 I said Christians.

03:20:00.000 It's un-American. 0.82

03:20:00.640 No, I said Christians imposing Christian ethics on non-Christians is unbiblical. 0.92

03:20:05.660 It's heretical to do.

03:20:06.560 Yeah, but we're talking about whether or not it's un-American.

03:20:08.700 No, I've said from the beginning. 0.99

03:20:10.900 Now you're going to fucking equivocate. 0.98

03:20:12.100 We're talking about what's un-American five seconds ago. 0.99

03:20:14.280 You trying to slant me into specific types of arguments that I'm not making is not me equivocating.

03:20:19.500 You said that this is the most American thing we could do.

03:20:23.320 What?

03:20:24.440 To outlaw abortion for the purpose of life, erudite. 0.83

03:20:29.440 The purpose of life.

03:20:30.340 I said this.

03:20:31.500 No, no, no.

03:20:32.060 We're talking about what's un-American or American. 0.96

03:20:33.780 I'm postulating that it's the most American thing we can do if the idea is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for Christian nationalists to outlaw abortion. 0.56

03:20:41.340 Do you think it would be also super American to get rid of evolution in class?

03:20:45.480 I don't know if that would be American or not American. 0.54

03:20:49.480 Well, Christian nationalists would probably want to do it. 0.68

03:20:51.020 Is that American or not?

03:20:51.560 I don't think that they would.

03:20:52.860 But they...

03:20:53.560 I'm not sure.

03:20:54.440 They've multiple times advocated the removal of evolution from the Louisiana Act of 2008.

03:20:59.400 I think that that should be left up to the states, like the Tenth Amendment says.

03:21:02.460 Okay, so...

03:21:03.280 That's what Christian nationalists would say.

03:21:04.960 Okay, so you think...

03:21:06.100 That's not true.

03:21:08.000 And you know that you don't believe that.

03:21:09.200 You think that Christian... 1.00

03:21:09.620 Well, at least people advocate for my version of it.

03:21:11.240 So Christian nationalists would violate all parts of the Constitution except for the Tenth Amendment. 0.68

03:21:15.240 For the Tenth, they really like that one.

03:21:17.560 Most Christian nationalists, at least ones who are in the mainstream that I'm aware of,

03:21:22.040 they do advocate that most of this stuff gets pushed back to the state.

03:21:25.480 Like what used to happen with gay marriage, which is why it was, you know, 1.00

03:21:28.940 every time it was voted on, they said no, and you had to use the constitutional route.

03:21:33.020 And do you think Christian nationalists would prefer it's at the state?

03:21:35.080 Or do you think they would actually prefer a federal rule on abortion?

03:21:37.980 Do you think Christian nationalists want a federal badge on abortion?

03:21:39.480 Well, if they had a federal rule on abortion, they would have to pass an amendment, 0.96

03:21:42.780 which would be the will of the people.

03:21:43.960 Do Christians want that? 1.00

03:21:45.340 Yeah, of course.

03:21:45.980 What's wrong with that?

03:21:47.180 So I am outlining right now that you trying to pretend as though Christian nationalists

03:21:50.920 just want state rights is dishonest.

03:21:52.560 I didn't say that.

03:21:53.400 You absolutely did.

03:21:54.500 Because I said, well, do you think that Christian nationalists would try to push through

03:21:57.760 Christian ethics on people?

03:21:59.060 And he said, well, I think they just want it at the state.

03:22:00.940 No.

03:22:01.280 Of course.

03:22:01.520 No, no, no.

03:22:02.120 I said that issue, they would refer it to the state.

03:22:06.100 But within the purview of federal powers...

03:22:06.960 Wait, you don't think that they would prefer a federal ban on this?

03:22:10.160 I don't even think that that would be possible unless you amended it.

03:22:13.360 But even if they did, that would be fine.

03:22:14.600 Wouldn't they want that?

03:22:15.400 Yeah.

03:22:15.580 If they amended it, that's within the confines of... 0.98

03:22:17.600 So I don't know why the fuck you're bringing up states at all. 0.99

03:22:20.020 You're just running away. 0.99

03:22:20.860 Because that's what they would say.

03:22:22.060 They would say defer to the state.

03:22:23.920 Unless...

03:22:24.180 If you could pass an amendment, maybe...

03:22:25.760 Why?

03:22:26.380 Because they don't think that they can do it through federal powers.

03:22:28.600 But if Christian nationalists could do it through federal powers, they would, right? 0.95

03:22:32.060 But that would be totally constitutional and very American.

03:22:34.900 It does...

03:22:35.200 I don't think it would be American. 0.94

03:22:35.880 It would be the most American. 0.86

03:22:36.880 But it would be within their constitutional capacity to do it.

03:22:40.060 Not only their constitutional capacity, they would be following Americana, baby. 0.77

03:22:43.520 No, I would say, for example...

03:22:44.760 100% Americana.

03:22:45.460 No, absolutely not.

03:22:46.760 Absolutely, yes.

03:22:47.540 So America is just a Christian theocracy secretly waiting to be discovered. 1.00

03:22:51.440 America is just a fucking secular fucking nonsense machine. 1.00

03:22:55.980 Do you think America just... 1.00

03:22:57.220 What is America to you?

03:22:58.340 To me, America, at least how you define it, is just a system.

03:23:01.340 Not how I define it.

03:23:02.260 How you define it.

03:23:03.160 Yeah, so for me, I've told you this multiple times.

03:23:05.760 If there was some kind of cultural glue, I would give America a lot more credence on this.

03:23:10.320 But right now, it just looks like a system to me.

03:23:11.900 That's not an answer to what America is.

03:23:13.040 I just answered it at the end if you would have listened.

03:23:15.980 I think right now, America is just a system, yes.

03:23:18.560 So you don't believe in America?

03:23:20.060 You don't have any pride in America?

03:23:21.080 You don't think there's a central American ethos?

03:23:22.680 Like America as a state... 0.65

03:23:23.500 I think there used to be.

03:23:24.820 And mass migration and other things destroyed that.

03:23:26.920 So American doesn't exist anymore?

03:23:28.460 Not how it used to, no.

03:23:29.620 What did it used to be?

03:23:30.920 What was some of the central ethos?

03:23:32.160 What made something American?

03:23:33.480 Yeah, so I would largely agree that if you have a population center or a population group,

03:23:39.180 it would be the people plus the values.

03:23:40.960 So I would say that what was fundamentally American once upon a time was what would be called

03:23:46.080 pan-Protestanism, and that would be combined with the ethno group and then the

03:23:50.820 cultural glue.

03:23:52.480 Okay, so what was American was being Christian, white, what else?

03:23:57.900 Well, I'm just saying if you wanted to have something which was foundational, that's what

03:24:02.420 we had at the time of our founders, yes.

03:24:04.120 Well, I'm asking you what American ethos is to you, because you think it's dead now.

03:24:07.120 So what was it?

03:24:08.340 That's what it was.

03:24:09.580 So Christianity, whiteness. 1.00

03:24:12.380 Well, pan-Protestanism.

03:24:14.120 Sure.

03:24:14.620 Not just Christianity.

03:24:15.840 Sure, but we can probably...

03:24:16.700 Pan-Protestanism was what it was. 0.94

03:24:18.380 Okay, pan-Protestantism.

03:24:19.400 So you think that it is a religious endeavor, and it's an ethno.

03:24:22.800 I think that without the religion, that whole idea of amoral people doesn't exist. 0.83

03:24:26.980 So you believe America is white?

03:24:29.160 I think foundationally it was, yes.

03:24:30.980 No, but is that central to the American identity?

03:24:33.220 I think it was, yes.

03:24:35.060 Okay, and you think that we've lost that?

03:24:36.400 Yeah, of course.

03:24:36.880 And that's a bad thing?

03:24:37.960 Well, I don't think it's an American thing.

03:24:40.860 So it's un-American to have people of color? 0.92

03:24:43.000 I think by this standard, the idea of what America is, when I say it's now just a system,

03:24:49.200 then I'm saying what it used to be were these things.

03:24:51.980 Do you agree it used to be these things?

03:24:53.620 Yeah, an idea.

03:24:55.180 Yeah, an experiment.

03:24:56.260 Yeah.

03:24:56.440 Great.

03:24:56.860 Yeah.

03:24:57.040 And within the confines of this experiment, it's perfectly acceptable for us to change the

03:25:01.940 parameters, right?

03:25:02.760 Would you, so to bring America back to what America was, is that something you would care

03:25:06.440 about doing?

03:25:07.040 Do you love America?

03:25:07.920 Like at least, when I say America, I mean you're a version of America. 0.87

03:25:11.120 Would you like to bring America back there? 0.94

03:25:12.860 No.

03:25:13.520 Why not?

03:25:14.060 Because I think that there's a better way, which is Christian nationalism.

03:25:16.920 Okay, and what's the conclusion of Christian nationalism?

03:25:19.180 The conclusion of Christian nationalism is to move Christian ethics into the mainstream,

03:25:23.640 utilizing legislation within the liberal confines of the machine that you've built.

03:25:27.240 Why didn't the founding fathers do that then?

03:25:30.460 Didn't we just go over this?

03:25:31.760 They left it up to the states.

03:25:33.440 And why didn't they write it into some federal capacity for the states to go over it?

03:25:36.160 We've already been over that twice.

03:25:38.080 So the thing is, it's like, what am I, hang on.

03:25:40.260 Any pan-Christianism?

03:25:40.920 So you want Mormons? 0.99

03:25:42.260 Let's see if we can find some agreement.

03:25:43.520 Yeah, sure.

03:25:44.240 Let's see if we can find some agreement.

03:25:45.560 Do you agree with me that foundationally this was a white nation? 0.63

03:25:49.160 No.

03:25:49.660 I don't think whiteness is central to American ethos.

03:25:52.880 Okay, Western European?

03:25:53.880 I don't think the color of your skin is central to an idea at all.

03:25:59.160 You don't think that foundationally, though, that was a part of the cultural glue that kept

03:26:03.320 things together?

03:26:04.140 No.

03:26:04.980 Not at all?

03:26:06.400 Well, what do you mean by foundationally?

03:26:08.700 Like, they really just wanted white people here?

03:26:11.280 Did that exist at the time?

03:26:12.640 Yeah.

03:26:12.860 But I don't think that that's what makes the American ethos, is a preoccupation with whiteness. 0.92

03:26:16.520 Okay.

03:26:16.800 No, I'm not saying that.

03:26:18.180 I'm just saying that foundationally, definitely was a white nation.

03:26:21.500 When you say foundationally, does it mean there was lots of white people in America?

03:26:24.660 No, that they only wanted white people in America.

03:26:27.580 Well, the issue is they didn't even have a good conception of white at the time that

03:26:30.340 you're talking about, right?

03:26:30.980 Because they didn't...

03:26:31.300 They did Western European.

03:26:32.440 Well, they didn't like Irish that much.

03:26:34.400 True.

03:26:34.820 There was a whole bunch of issues with Irish.

03:26:35.940 But they definitely wanted Western Europeans.

03:26:37.760 I don't know if that's true.

03:26:39.600 They explicitly...

03:26:39.880 Like, they wanted the English.

03:26:41.200 They wanted the French. 1.00

03:26:42.440 They basically only wanted the English.

03:26:43.520 Yeah.

03:26:43.740 They didn't really want the French.

03:26:44.600 True.

03:26:44.700 True.

03:26:44.800 I'm even willing to concede that.

03:26:45.940 Right.

03:26:46.360 So...

03:26:48.180 That wasn't...

03:26:48.580 That was not what we have now, which is like South America pouring in. 0.93

03:26:51.460 Sure, but I don't think the immigration preference is a central thing to the American ethos.

03:26:54.700 Because I think that if it was, the Founding Fathers probably would have written it into

03:26:57.980 like at least the Declaration of Independence.

03:26:59.820 They would have done somewhere to say the white man.

03:27:02.200 Yeah.

03:27:02.400 Early laws, they did say that, actually.

03:27:04.520 I don't know if you knew that or not.

03:27:05.720 The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with white men.

03:27:08.380 No.

03:27:08.740 The Declaration doesn't.

03:27:10.300 Yeah.

03:27:10.580 But early laws is what I said.

03:27:12.340 Early laws did regard people of good character who are white.

03:27:16.680 Yes.

03:27:16.940 Sure, but I don't think that that's central to being an American.

03:27:19.800 Okay.

03:27:20.340 Because I don't think the Founding Fathers is the only thing that makes it something American.

03:27:23.180 Okay.

03:27:23.600 I agree.

03:27:24.320 I'm just saying that when we're talking about a culture, the culture of the time, right,

03:27:28.140 it was white and pan-Protestant.

03:27:29.620 Sure.

03:27:29.860 And I just...

03:27:30.380 Say, if I found out the Founding Fathers sat me down, they're like, and that's really

03:27:33.820 central to being America.

03:27:34.800 I'd be like, I think it goes well.

03:27:35.660 Then if all that is central to being America is this experiment, and the experiment is

03:27:40.280 just the idea of we have checks and balances in a system...

03:27:44.080 No, it's more than that.

03:27:45.080 What is it?

03:27:46.160 Ingenuity.

03:27:48.100 Yes.

03:27:48.680 Christian nationalists...

03:27:49.940 Hang on.

03:27:50.260 I'm almost done.

03:27:51.000 Christian nationalists have ingenuity? 0.83

03:27:53.220 No, they don't.

03:27:54.040 What's...

03:27:54.400 Yeah, of course.

03:27:55.040 They're opposed to science fundamentally.

03:27:56.780 They don't want kids to go to university.

03:27:57.800 Wait a second.

03:27:58.540 They think evolution's not true.

03:27:59.800 They think the Earth is 10,000 years old.

03:28:01.400 They deny vaccines.

03:28:02.120 So what?

03:28:02.500 This is fundamentally opposed to the American ethos of science.

03:28:05.100 What?

03:28:05.760 What are you talking about?

03:28:07.000 What do you think makes America so great?

03:28:08.720 What Christian nationalists are opposed to science?

03:28:11.700 Most.

03:28:12.340 What science?

03:28:13.400 Evolution.

03:28:14.020 That's it?

03:28:14.740 Not just evolution.

03:28:15.440 Are they opposed to, like, rocket ships? 0.99

03:28:17.380 Are they opposed to fucking machinery? 0.99

03:28:19.300 Are they opposed to firearms? 1.00

03:28:20.300 Are they opposed to strong militaries?

03:28:21.820 Are they opposed to any of that?

03:28:22.740 Not all of that is science.

03:28:23.620 A lot of it is engineering, right?

03:28:25.080 But what they're opposed to...

03:28:26.040 Engineering is a science.

03:28:27.520 They're opposed to multiple brackets.

03:28:29.460 In fact, it's the science.

03:28:31.420 Okay.

03:28:31.580 Yes, the science is engineering.

03:28:33.580 How is that the science?

03:28:34.960 Because all...

03:28:35.860 Thank you.

03:28:36.140 What you're talking about, when you're talking about anthropology, or you're talking about...

03:28:39.980 I'm not talking about anthropology.

03:28:40.820 You're talking about even evolution, right?

03:28:43.220 Biology, chemistry, physics.

03:28:44.720 When we're talking about American ingenuity and industrialization, things like this, 0.99

03:28:49.220 we're talking about automobiles, trains, rocket ships, machine guns, bazookas, fucking... 0.92

03:28:53.740 Development of vaccines, development of modern monetary theory. 0.99

03:28:57.460 Christians aren't against medical...

03:28:58.960 Christian nationalists, especially, are not against medical science.

03:29:01.320 They're pretty opposed to vaccines.

03:29:03.300 Well, wait a second.

03:29:05.960 RFK is pretty opposed to vaccines.

03:29:07.940 A lot of Christian... 1.00

03:29:08.700 So, you think that if I pulled Christian nationalists, that most of them would be for vaccines?

03:29:12.360 They love vaccines, actually.

03:29:13.680 Do they think that their kids should go to university and study science?

03:29:16.600 Yeah.

03:29:16.960 I mean, some of them, sure.

03:29:19.140 How many?

03:29:19.740 I don't know.

03:29:20.700 Neither do you.

03:29:21.800 My assumption, because I'm actually familiar with Christian nationalists, and I'm not lying

03:29:25.340 about them...

03:29:25.700 Which ones?

03:29:27.060 Like, the broad movement of Christian nationalists.

03:29:28.140 Which prominent ones?

03:29:29.160 Of Christian nationalists.

03:29:30.140 Yeah.

03:29:31.360 You're a prominent one.

03:29:32.580 Uh-huh.

03:29:32.880 I think that Kirk, before he passed away, was a prominent one.

03:29:36.600 There's two. 0.99

03:29:37.020 And Kirk didn't say that he wanted the government to go in and outlaw fucking vaccines. 0.99

03:29:42.180 He was pretty anti-vaccines and anti-science. 0.99

03:29:43.900 He was anti-vaccines, sure.

03:29:44.900 He didn't think that people should send their kids to university.

03:29:46.500 But even if it was the case...

03:29:47.340 Do you think that he believed...

03:29:48.140 Do you...

03:29:48.520 I guess...

03:29:49.080 Wait.

03:29:49.140 Do you believe in the dinosaurs?

03:29:50.580 You know what?

03:29:50.860 I'll just grant this.

03:29:51.640 He won't engage with that one.

03:29:53.080 Do you believe in dinosaurs?

03:29:53.660 I'm just going to grant it.

03:29:54.440 Yeah.

03:29:54.960 Christian nationalists, they want to get rid of evolution. 0.65

03:29:57.140 They want to get rid of vaccines.

03:29:58.340 They want to get rid of all this stuff.

03:29:59.560 Let's just say.

03:30:00.180 Yep.

03:30:00.600 Though that's not anti-science.

03:30:01.680 It is fundamentally anti-science to get rid of major scientific theories.

03:30:05.820 Yes.

03:30:06.240 Oh, really?

03:30:06.860 Yes.

03:30:07.020 And it would be harmful to America to do so.

03:30:08.500 So what happened to race science?

03:30:10.500 It was proven in science to be invalid.

03:30:14.180 Wait a second.

03:30:15.680 I'm super confused.

03:30:16.940 Who proved that?

03:30:18.000 For example, in the case of IQ, right?

03:30:19.700 We've done multiple studies on IQ to show that the moment that you normalize things like

03:30:23.760 education, access, and nutrition...

03:30:25.040 You're saying there was no politics involved in that?

03:30:27.220 I didn't say that.

03:30:28.300 But I said that what solved it dominantly, what made it a weaker argument...

03:30:32.500 Is eugenics a valid form of science? 0.93

03:30:35.480 What do you mean a valid form of science?

03:30:37.100 What's wrong with eugenics? 0.96

03:30:38.300 Don't be anti-science.

03:30:39.960 What's wrong with eugenics? 0.96

03:30:41.480 What's wrong with eugenics is that it typically violates certain major ethical principles. 0.50

03:30:45.060 Got it.

03:30:45.380 So you're diverting to ethics over science.

03:30:49.080 Not exclusively?

03:30:50.520 Yeah.

03:30:50.800 But if you're going to divert to ethics from science, then Christian nationalists have 0.88

03:30:55.760 every grounds to do the same thing.

03:30:57.000 So the difference between eugenics, the reason why we would be opposed to it, is that it did 0.97

03:31:00.520 things like forced sterilizations and reduced people to breeding stock capability.

03:31:03.640 Not disputing that.

03:31:04.740 What the Christian nationalists... 0.97

03:31:05.560 But you're deferring to ethics.

03:31:06.680 Hold on.

03:31:06.860 What the Christian nationalists... 0.97

03:31:07.860 Diverted to ethics.

03:31:08.360 But the issue is, the reason why we're rejecting eugenics isn't because we're saying, it's

03:31:12.640 not scientific to even possibly do that.

03:31:14.560 We're saying, that's too far.

03:31:16.140 What the Christian nationalists are saying is, evolution's not real.

03:31:19.720 Don't go to university.

03:31:21.200 Vaccines are actually bad.

03:31:22.600 The earth might be flat.

03:31:23.520 So what?

03:31:23.920 The earth is 10,000 years old.

03:31:25.220 If they are inside of a democracy...

03:31:27.220 Hold on.

03:31:27.520 I'm just going to grant it all.

03:31:28.620 If they're inside of a democracy and they can amend all of these things and that's the

03:31:32.180 will of the people, then guess what?

03:31:34.900 The people before were like, no booze.

03:31:37.420 They were like, nope, can't do this.

03:31:38.820 Can't do that.

03:31:39.860 Homosexuality is illegal, right? 1.00

03:31:41.180 Up until the 60s, all 50 states had anti-sodomy laws.

03:31:44.560 Okay?

03:31:44.780 So like, the thing is, it seems like it's the most Christian thing to me, or not the most

03:31:48.880 Christian, most American thing to me to say...

03:31:50.940 To be anti-science?

03:31:52.600 No.

03:31:53.080 To utilize the system in order to implement...

03:31:55.720 I don't know if you remember that.

03:31:56.540 We were talking about the American predilection towards science.

03:31:58.820 And I said, one of the issues I have with Christian nationalism, for example, is its complete 1.00

03:32:02.840 rejection of science, which I think is entanglement to the ingenuity and development of America.

03:32:06.940 It's rejection of some sciences.

03:32:09.060 I would say most major sciences.

03:32:10.980 Some sciences.

03:32:11.760 Because you want some sciences rejected to you.

03:32:13.600 You want racial science rejected.

03:32:15.220 You want probably want...

03:32:15.960 I don't want racial science rejected.

03:32:17.300 I want it properly studied.

03:32:19.100 But wait, you don't want it rejected?

03:32:21.460 Racial science? 0.74

03:32:22.320 Like looking into seeing if there's...

03:32:23.400 No.

03:32:23.640 Because I think, for example, racial science is incredibly important in medicine, right?

03:32:26.660 Understanding how, like, hemoglobin can be different.

03:32:29.640 Yep.

03:32:30.240 So just to...

03:32:31.300 But what I don't want...

03:32:32.380 What I don't want is when we utilize science to abuse other people.

03:32:36.440 Oh, I see.

03:32:36.880 But this isn't being anti-scientific at all.

03:32:39.420 So...

03:32:39.940 Because in this case, I'm not saying eugenics can't work.

03:32:44.320 Yeah.

03:32:44.620 It's untrue.

03:32:46.160 Yeah.

03:32:46.320 I'm saying it's wrong to do.

03:32:48.220 Christian nationalists are saying evolution is false.

03:32:51.520 It's not true.

03:32:52.880 It's not proven.

03:32:53.740 So what?

03:32:54.620 They can.

03:32:55.240 It's anti-science to say that.

03:32:56.360 It's not anti-science.

03:32:57.380 It is anti-science.

03:32:58.140 No, it's not.

03:32:58.640 Yes.

03:32:58.920 If you believe that evolution isn't true...

03:33:00.820 Are you saying that Christian nationalists are going to say you can no longer study evolution?

03:33:04.260 I didn't say that.

03:33:05.120 No.

03:33:05.360 They just say you can't teach it in school.

03:33:07.580 That's not anti-science.

03:33:08.580 That is anti-science.

03:33:09.280 No, it's not.

03:33:09.860 Why would...

03:33:10.320 You don't have a right to learn evolution in school?

03:33:12.480 How is not...

03:33:13.240 The right to learn evolution shall not be infringed.

03:33:15.920 I would say that when we're publicly educating our children, we should teach them on the most empirically

03:33:20.040 supported evidence.

03:33:20.760 That's nice that you say that.

03:33:22.100 Well, that's what public education is for.

03:33:23.620 Public education is to teach you reading, writing, arithmetic, not doing...

03:33:27.300 Math, science.

03:33:28.120 Wait.

03:33:29.200 I'm sorry.

03:33:29.760 We forgot about those two, hey?

03:33:30.640 I'm confused.

03:33:32.120 Reading, writing, and arithmetic.

03:33:33.960 What does arithmetic mean?

03:33:35.560 Math?

03:33:35.880 Math.

03:33:36.820 Why did you say math, science?

03:33:39.040 Because you didn't include science in your list.

03:33:41.220 Oh, my Lord.

03:33:42.240 Do you include science in the list?

03:33:43.500 Sure.

03:33:44.000 Okay, so people should learn science.

03:33:45.340 Sure.

03:33:45.660 Do you think it's important to engineering that...

03:33:47.460 What's wrong with them learning science and learning about God?

03:33:50.520 I don't have a problem with them learning about God necessarily if they're in a private

03:33:53.360 institution that wants to impose it.

03:33:54.600 Well, they can do it in public.

03:33:55.380 But when a state forces you to teach children about God in a public institution, I do have

03:34:01.100 a problem with that.

03:34:01.840 That's nice that you have a problem with that.

03:34:03.320 But within the confines of your moral framework of liberalism...

03:34:07.640 That's not my moral framework.

03:34:08.700 There's nothing...

03:34:09.380 Andrew, stop saying that my moral framework is liberalism.

03:34:12.420 It's foundationalism for liberalism.

03:34:14.260 Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

03:34:16.020 It's not my moral framework.

03:34:17.500 No, I'm sorry.

03:34:18.420 Your foundationalism for liberalism.

03:34:20.900 It's not life, liberty...

03:34:21.920 Oh my God.

03:34:22.700 It's not life, liberty.

03:34:24.360 That's the foundation of the American ethos.

03:34:26.340 Of the...

03:34:26.820 Okay.

03:34:27.340 So what is the foundation of liberalism?

03:34:29.080 I'll go over it again.

03:34:29.760 You should write this one down.

03:34:30.760 I'm going to write it down.

03:34:31.560 Go ahead.

03:34:32.000 Do you need a pen?

03:34:32.720 I'll write it down.

03:34:33.180 Just tell me.

03:34:34.760 Strong institutions, separation of powers, welfare, and protection of rights and liberties

03:34:41.740 of people.

03:34:42.300 And you agree Christian nationalists can do all that? 0.88

03:34:44.460 Yeah, of course they can.

03:34:45.420 But I don't think that they can do so if they are imposing Christian ethics onto people.

03:34:48.900 Okay.

03:34:48.920 So then the only thing that you would say is it's a life, liberty, pursuit,

03:34:51.920 happiness thing.

03:34:53.760 I would say like forcing...

03:34:55.240 That's what makes it an American, I mean.

03:34:56.940 Yeah, forcing people to, for example, learn and like pray to Mary in public schools.

03:35:02.280 Yeah, my counter is that it's the most American thing.

03:35:05.000 The most American thing because, well, we've amended the Constitution I don't know how many

03:35:08.800 times.

03:35:09.160 It's American because the democratic system allows it.

03:35:12.260 That's not what America is. 0.99

03:35:13.100 It's American because even though foundationally we didn't have any of these fucking laws, 0.98

03:35:16.480 we've only had them since like, oh, I don't know, 40 years and you violate any 0.98

03:35:19.740 of them.

03:35:20.180 Now it's the most American thing.

03:35:21.520 Well, you've already granted me that.

03:35:22.660 Americanism is just what's happening now.

03:35:24.540 No, Americanism is like an ethos that emerges over time, right?

03:35:27.240 So when you look at like America over time...

03:35:28.460 You've rejected American identity. 0.99

03:35:30.320 All you say is like it's fucking ingenuity or something. 0.99

03:35:33.180 How have I rejected American... 0.99

03:35:33.720 It's ingenuity and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

03:35:36.400 It's the opposition of tyranny.

03:35:37.860 It's giving people the capacity to speak.

03:35:39.540 It's advocating and...

03:35:40.400 It's not oppositional to tyranny because you...

03:35:42.920 Of course it is.

03:35:43.240 What do you define tyranny as?

03:35:44.900 Tyranny as...

03:35:45.520 Is Donald Trump a tyrant? 0.96

03:35:48.540 In some ways, sure.

03:35:50.420 Yeah.

03:35:50.820 So for you...

03:35:52.580 Wait, I think that that's un-American of him to do. 0.77

03:35:54.160 Yeah, it's un-American. 0.60

03:35:55.460 Yes.

03:35:55.780 I think it's the most American thing.

03:35:57.200 To be a tyrant?

03:35:57.960 Yeah.

03:35:58.260 Was Jackson a tyrant?

03:36:00.740 I don't know all the details of Jackson.

03:36:02.740 I'm not sure.

03:36:03.200 Was the Trail of Tears tyranny?

03:36:06.400 I think it was murder, I think is the word we used for that.

03:36:08.360 Tyranny?

03:36:09.680 Tyranny doesn't equal murder.

03:36:10.820 Do the presidents ignore the courts?

03:36:11.920 Do you think tyranny just equals murder?

03:36:13.520 Well, I mean, I think it leads to it often, but...

03:36:15.600 That's not the same thing.

03:36:16.940 That's not the same thing.

03:36:18.100 Is tyranny murder?

03:36:19.200 No.

03:36:19.740 Oh.

03:36:20.160 Of course, they're different things.

03:36:20.980 Of course, yeah.

03:36:21.860 But one leads to the other usually, right?

03:36:23.840 It often does, yeah, but that doesn't...

03:36:25.400 Wouldn't that be your primary opposition?

03:36:27.700 It's like it's going to lead to murder, this tyranny thing?

03:36:30.540 No, I actually think it reduces the capacity...

03:36:33.280 So one of the most important things to me is humans' agency.

03:36:37.180 I don't know why you're rolling your eyes, but...

03:36:38.720 I'm not.

03:36:39.400 Okay.

03:36:39.700 I wasn't rolling my eyes.

03:36:40.960 What do you mean?

03:36:41.440 Okay.

03:36:42.960 What I care most about is human agency.

03:36:44.660 I think it's extremely important for people to have a capacity to choose so that the noble

03:36:48.220 thing that they do isn't just impressed upon them, but it's actually nobility itself.

03:36:51.840 Because if all you do is you force the right choices on people through law and legislation,

03:36:56.080 then all that means is that goodness is a necessity of survival.

03:36:59.540 And I don't think that that's good.

03:37:01.080 That's nice.

03:37:01.680 You keep saying, I don't think that that's good.

03:37:03.200 You keep saying, that's nice.

03:37:04.200 I'm talking about what's American.

03:37:06.380 We're talking about what's American right now.

03:37:07.960 So...

03:37:08.960 Yes.

03:37:09.160 You like to slip back and forth between all these things.

03:37:10.880 I'm just trying to focus on that.

03:37:11.720 Or are we talking about what's about liberalism?

03:37:12.720 Do you know what my foundations of liberalism are yet?

03:37:14.620 Yeah.

03:37:14.920 You said something about ingenuity and opposition to tyranny.

03:37:18.860 Again, that's the American ethos.

03:37:19.800 Oh, sorry.

03:37:20.180 American ethos.

03:37:20.800 Do you need a pen?

03:37:21.660 No, no.

03:37:21.960 Just tell me one more time with liberalism.

03:37:24.440 What was it again?

03:37:26.100 I'm not going to tell you again unless you actually...

03:37:27.560 You don't remember, do you?

03:37:29.180 Yes, I do.

03:37:29.860 What is it?

03:37:30.380 Like four times.

03:37:30.920 Can I say it one more time?

03:37:31.580 The foundations of liberalism, strong institutions, balance of power, protection of rights and

03:37:35.880 liberties, and a welfare state.

03:37:37.120 And you admitted Christian nationalists can do all of those things.

03:37:40.020 They can, but not because they're ruling from fiat.

03:37:43.380 Sorry, a power of Christian ethics.

03:37:45.120 And what Christian nationalists are proposing that that no longer be the system?

03:37:48.740 But you've already granted to me that Christian nationalists would change central parts of 0.55

03:37:52.900 the American constitution and the American ethos that I have a problem with, like being anti-science.

03:37:56.380 Hang on, it's fine for them to change the constitution.

03:37:59.720 That's part of the liberal system that you just outlined.

03:38:01.840 I don't think the liberal system is necessarily a moral system.

03:38:04.120 I think it's the best, like, philosophy guiding citizenship.

03:38:07.960 And they're just using that system.

03:38:11.140 Okay, and I think it would be wrong for them to do so.

03:38:13.720 Yeah, that's...

03:38:14.320 But it doesn't...

03:38:15.340 That's not nice.

03:38:15.720 It doesn't violate anything.

03:38:17.660 Well, I would argue it violates their Christian moral ethos to do so.

03:38:21.800 Christian nationalists.

03:38:22.780 Yes.

03:38:23.020 Because Christians aren't allowed to rule from their moral position. 1.00

03:38:25.360 They should not be trying to blend church and state power and rule from a state of statesmanship.

03:38:29.680 No, I don't think.

03:38:30.340 I think Jesus is obviously and fundamentally opposed to this.

03:38:32.660 But they're not doing that.

03:38:33.560 What they're doing is changing amendments.

03:38:35.060 You've already granted me that that's the direction that they would go.

03:38:37.740 They're changing amendments.

03:38:39.440 Increasingly so that they can limit people's choice to be aligned with what Christians ought 0.98

03:38:43.020 to do, not what secular people may want to do.

03:38:44.520 They can do that.

03:38:45.580 That's within the confines of the American ethos.

03:38:49.320 It's not within the confines of...

03:38:50.300 It is.

03:38:50.640 It's a violation of the American ethos.

03:38:52.520 No, it isn't.

03:38:52.940 But it is within the confines of liberalism.

03:38:54.460 You're really struggling with this.

03:38:55.640 Both.

03:38:55.840 Did you write down my...

03:38:56.600 It's actually both.

03:38:57.500 Did you write down my values of liberalism yet?

03:38:59.280 Yeah, sure.

03:38:59.840 You're saying separation of power, strong institutions, right?

03:39:03.920 They would impose strong institutions.

03:39:05.460 There would still be a separation of power.

03:39:07.000 Strong institutions doesn't mean rigid institutions.

03:39:08.560 You've admitted that Christian nationalists can take control and all of those institutions 0.65

03:39:13.540 are there.

03:39:14.060 So we're back to just this one position.

03:39:16.440 And the one position is that it's going to violate the ethos.

03:39:18.740 Yeah, because you...

03:39:19.880 But it doesn't violate the ethos, though.

03:39:21.460 Of course it does.

03:39:21.980 No, it doesn't.

03:39:22.660 Yeah, if Christian nationalists... 0.73

03:39:23.620 If they outlaw abortion, that is good for your ethos of life. 0.99

03:39:27.200 No, I would say that what it does is it imposes on non-Christians who don't even believe 1.00

03:39:31.160 in ensoulment a law of Christian policy. 1.00

03:39:33.440 So fuck them. 1.00

03:39:34.660 Why is it that... 1.00

03:39:36.160 What do you mean fuck them? 1.00

03:39:36.580 Why are we supposed to make law towards the minority? 1.00

03:39:39.340 We don't have to do that.

03:39:39.900 It's not about the minority.

03:39:41.020 It's about the fact that Christians should not be imposing onto secular people Christian policy. 0.63

03:39:45.580 I think not only does it just create worse states as evidenced by, you know what states

03:39:50.360 aren't awesome?

03:39:51.560 Theocracies.

03:39:51.960 Oh, secularists, though, can impose that, oh, we can have pornography and we can have... 0.91

03:39:56.920 It's not imposing.

03:39:57.480 You don't have to.

03:39:58.180 That's an imposition.

03:39:59.080 It's not.

03:39:59.880 Imposing means compelling, right?

03:40:01.320 It's super...

03:40:01.740 I'm sorry.

03:40:02.400 Is it the case that right now the town squares X?

03:40:06.720 Would you say that like X is a good representation of like how a lot of people communicate?

03:40:11.700 Uh, X, probably not, but I'll grant you social media.

03:40:14.560 Yeah, it's very difficult to avoid porn, isn't it?

03:40:17.360 Uh, sure.

03:40:18.520 Yeah.

03:40:18.840 So the thing is, it's like...

03:40:19.780 Do you have to be on social media?

03:40:20.840 The idea of the imposition here is like if they go in and they outlawed it, if they outlawed

03:40:25.460 pornography, right?

03:40:26.720 So what?

03:40:27.460 Isn't it difficult to be an OnlyFans model?

03:40:29.860 You have a hard time signing up with banks, all these sort of things.

03:40:32.280 So you have the liberty to do these things.

03:40:33.740 You have the liberty to get rid of all porn on your social media.

03:40:36.360 There's means, right?

03:40:37.540 It's harder.

03:40:38.060 And you can take those things away.

03:40:39.520 That's part of the American...

03:40:40.720 That is part of Americanism.

03:40:42.080 So none of that has to do with states compelling, right?

03:40:44.320 A secular state isn't forcing people to look at porn.

03:40:47.380 But a secular state is allowing for it.

03:40:50.380 It doesn't need to.

03:40:52.060 Yeah, they are allowing for it.

03:40:53.620 Yeah, and we don't need to allow a secular state to do this. 0.98

03:40:56.720 It's not necessary.

03:40:57.900 Sure, you could try to collectivize and convince both Christians and non-Christians to make laws 0.99

03:41:02.740 on porn.

03:41:03.560 And that would be the proposition of Christian nationalism.

03:41:07.520 And then I would go to those people and say, how effective is that?

03:41:10.240 If the goal of the Christian nationalists and of the secular people is to have people consume 0.92

03:41:14.480 porn less, right, overall, because I think it's better than them, I'd say, how well has

03:41:18.760 abolition laws worked for getting rid of a behavior?

03:41:22.220 Well, I mean, by that metric, why do we abolish murder?

03:41:26.420 Why do we have a law against murder?

03:41:28.720 Because I think it's way more possible to use deterrence on murder.

03:41:33.740 And I think the state is worse.

03:41:34.320 It's possible to use deterrence on everything.

03:41:36.440 Porn is going to be significantly more difficult to prove.

03:41:39.380 But also on top of that, I don't think it leads to a better...

03:41:40.700 Consumption necessarily is going to decrease.

03:41:42.740 Well, again, statescraftment is about making what makes for a better society to live in.

03:41:46.100 That would be a better society.

03:41:47.480 No, it would be a more moral society by your standards.

03:41:49.740 It would be empirically better, too. 0.98

03:41:52.140 People having to do black trade porn, which is what would happen. 0.99

03:41:54.960 Oh, I'm sorry. 1.00

03:41:55.900 How are they being forced to do black male porn? 0.99

03:41:59.220 I didn't say that they're being forced. 0.99

03:42:00.340 Right.

03:42:00.800 I'm saying that would be the natural conclusion.

03:42:02.920 They're not being forced.

03:42:03.460 They're being forced to not do porn.

03:42:05.260 That's it.

03:42:05.880 Sure.

03:42:06.380 But what I'm saying is that statescraft isn't about anything that you're talking about.

03:42:10.640 It's about whether or not these policies would lead to a better outcome for society,

03:42:13.840 right?

03:42:14.140 How would these policies not lead to better outcomes?

03:42:16.440 Because having a proliferation of black market porn is probably going to increase human trafficking,

03:42:20.700 which we have actually seen.

03:42:21.860 It's probably going to increase the type of seediness behavior.

03:42:23.760 We see it the opposite way, actually.

03:42:25.900 Places where prostitution is legal, you see more human trafficking.

03:42:29.600 Do you know why?

03:42:30.620 Why? 1.00

03:42:31.020 Because they're prostitutes. 1.00

03:42:32.560 And so they become far easier to exploit because they're in sex work. 0.98

03:42:37.300 You'll find this, by the way, across the board.

03:42:39.400 That's been one of the most comprehensive studies.

03:42:41.680 You could find it on Rachel Substack, in fact.

03:42:43.980 And the truth is, it's like-

03:42:45.760 Science.

03:42:46.160 There's a ton.

03:42:46.860 Well, it's a meta-analysis.

03:42:48.600 It's not like she didn't just make it up.

03:42:50.420 She wasn't like, oh. 1.00

03:42:51.720 She wasn't like, oh. 1.00

03:42:52.520 Is it replicated, though?

03:42:53.420 But anyway, it was replicated.

03:42:54.740 But the thing is, it's like, this is what's interesting, is every time you see that there's

03:43:00.100 prostitution which is legalized, you see human trafficking go up, not down.

03:43:04.020 So my understanding of when you look at longitudinal studies of abolition is that while there is

03:43:08.240 a decrease in consumption, right?

03:43:10.460 In the case of alcohol, there's a decrease in consumption.

03:43:11.780 And a decrease in human trafficking.

03:43:12.900 But there's also an explosion over time, particularly, of money into black market things.

03:43:17.660 So while human trafficking probably acutely goes down, I wouldn't be surprised to find

03:43:20.940 out that all of these groups that are engaging in black market porn are getting more money

03:43:24.980 and can engage in more drug black markets, can engage in more human trafficking.

03:43:27.800 You could just make that case for anything you banned.

03:43:30.720 No, this would be a long-

03:43:31.820 Yes.

03:43:32.380 Like, oh.

03:43:32.780 Yes, I'm making that for anything they can get back.

03:43:34.460 Yeah, you just make the case for, you know, ban murder?

03:43:36.660 Well, I mean, that just increases the chances that people are going to utilize the black 1.00

03:43:40.460 market to hire hitmen.

03:43:41.620 No, I think-

03:43:42.080 It's like, yeah, I'm sure it would.

03:43:43.040 Wait, no, but the issue is why we ban murder is that almost all murders isn't because people

03:43:46.920 are hiring hitmen.

03:43:47.740 It's usually done in, like, an explosion of anger.

03:43:49.980 What's a person, like, planning it out, right?

03:43:51.340 And so if you get, if you don't have murder be banned, then all of the people who just explode

03:43:56.380 out and kill somebody, second-degree murder, what do you do with them?

03:44:00.500 Yeah. 0.97

03:44:01.220 What do you do with them?

03:44:01.680 Well, I mean, obviously you would imprison them.

03:44:04.320 Well, but in the system that you just suggested where murder's not bad and that, you know,

03:44:07.800 if we legalize it, then more murders would happen. 0.96

03:44:10.240 Yes, of course.

03:44:10.920 More murders would happen if you legalize murder. 0.99

03:44:12.700 Yeah, obviously.

03:44:13.580 Obviously.

03:44:14.180 Okay.

03:44:14.500 Just like more porn will happen if you legalize porn. 0.89

03:44:16.620 Yeah, but the issues-

03:44:17.400 I agree.

03:44:18.220 Wait, I've granted that from the beginning.

03:44:19.660 Yeah, so, I mean, I don't understand the outcomes of banning porn.

03:44:23.240 Why were the outcomes in, like, 1930 where porn was bad worse?

03:44:27.700 Mostly because I think it made people engage in black market, and I think that it led to-

03:44:31.180 There was not very much black market porn in 1930.

03:44:33.940 There probably just was.

03:44:35.540 Isn't there like this whole, like, pin-up girl postcard thing?

03:44:37.240 There definitely just wasn't.

03:44:38.620 There just wasn't that much porn in 1930?

03:44:41.380 I'm sure that that's not true.

03:44:42.880 Well, it is true.

03:44:43.840 Isn't porn, like, one of the oldest institutions of trade?

03:44:47.400 So, just, we just got rid of it when we abolished it.

03:44:49.120 I didn't say we got rid of it.

03:44:50.200 Oh.

03:44:50.540 I said there wasn't very much of it.

03:44:52.280 Especially in comparison to now.

03:44:53.980 Don't you think that right now with prostitution legalized, OnlyFans legalized, we have more

03:44:57.360 porn we've ever had in this country?

03:44:58.920 Yeah, I would grant that.

03:44:59.680 Yeah, of course.

03:45:00.360 Yeah, but the issue is that, like, for example- 0.94

03:45:01.860 That's the most ridiculous thing ever, and if Christian nationalists get rid of it, there's 0.96

03:45:04.540 nothing un-American about that. 0.99

03:45:06.240 Most of our history, porn was outlawed.

03:45:08.600 Sure.

03:45:08.780 Most of it.

03:45:09.300 Sure.

03:45:09.480 I don't think porn is inherent to America.

03:45:11.240 It's completely within the confines of Americana to do that.

03:45:14.420 It's completely within the confines of Americana to ban homosexuality. 0.72

03:45:17.860 Again, another thing, which was banned for most of American history, banned transgenderism,

03:45:22.640 banned for most of American history.

03:45:24.200 Why was it banned?

03:45:24.900 Mostly due to religiosity.

03:45:26.180 Yeah, and I think that that was bad.

03:45:27.280 I think it was-

03:45:27.640 Well, that's fine, but it makes my point.

03:45:29.880 You say, wait a second, religiosity, the founders didn't want that, and we can't allow 1.00

03:45:35.820 the states to do any of this type of blending.

03:45:38.400 The founders wanted a separation of church and state.

03:45:40.460 This is self-evident, and it is un-Christian. 1.00

03:45:42.080 At the federal level only.

03:45:44.100 Okay.

03:45:45.160 Federal level only.

03:45:45.720 If you want to cling to that one, you totally can.

03:45:47.820 Because it's true.

03:45:48.680 It's absurd, but true.

03:45:49.500 I mean, the position that they should-

03:45:51.120 The founding fathers definitely wanted Christian nationalism and a blending of church and state,

03:45:54.320 but they wrote it out in the Constitution because they knew states would do it instead.

03:45:58.020 Yippee, yippee. 0.98

03:45:58.500 That was the literal compromise they made with them.

03:46:01.040 Not because they wanted states to have state-level religion.

03:46:03.900 Then why didn't they ban it in the compromise?

03:46:06.140 Why didn't the founders say, states, you can't have any religion?

03:46:09.120 Because they knew that the states wouldn't join, and as you said, it was a very-

03:46:11.320 That's right.

03:46:12.000 It was a compromise.

03:46:13.140 You're right, but that doesn't mean that federal leaders actually wanted church and state

03:46:16.680 to be blended.

03:46:17.040 It doesn't.

03:46:17.440 And if they did, if they did-

03:46:18.500 It wouldn't matter if they did.

03:46:19.840 If they did, they could have written it into the Constitution.

03:46:21.520 In fact, probably the states that are joining would have liked that.

03:46:23.880 If they found some way to compromise and bring religiosity in church and state together.

03:46:28.460 The Anabaptists were like drowning kids. 1.00

03:46:30.500 What are you talking-

03:46:31.120 What were they going to find that was going to unify them under that?

03:46:35.200 What?

03:46:35.600 I'm sure they could find something.

03:46:36.840 They're going to find something.

03:46:37.820 Because Erudite says so.

03:46:39.220 No, because-

03:46:39.600 They did.

03:46:40.260 What they said was, you could do what you want with your states.

03:46:43.600 Again, because they wanted-

03:46:44.000 And we were not going to impose a federal religion on you.

03:46:47.180 Correct.

03:46:47.740 That's it.

03:46:48.320 Yeah, because they wanted a separation of church and state at the federal level.

03:46:50.740 Yeah.

03:46:51.080 Yeah.

03:46:51.380 Federal level.

03:46:51.780 But I've never denied at the federal level.

03:46:54.460 I've just been in my position the whole time.

03:46:56.180 Yeah, you've insisted that because it was happening at the state level, it actually suggests

03:46:59.120 that maybe the federal leaders did want church and state to be blended.

03:47:02.160 They just couldn't write it in because compromised stuff.

03:47:04.520 Compromised stuffs.

03:47:05.220 The states wanted it, and the states are part of the system.

03:47:09.220 Correct.

03:47:10.500 But the federal leaders didn't.

03:47:12.240 The feds don't usurp the states. 1.00

03:47:14.480 Sure.

03:47:15.260 That's fine.

03:47:16.160 But you think that if they wanted- 0.99

03:47:17.560 The foundation was not just about 39 guys signing a fucking document. 0.98

03:47:22.160 The foundation was a contribution of tens of thousands of people. 0.99

03:47:26.060 Yes, of course.

03:47:26.660 And by the way-

03:47:27.820 And yet all of these Christian people- 1.00

03:47:29.060 Governors inside of states-

03:47:29.760 Couldn't find a way to impose church and state together at a federal level.

03:47:31.980 They did.

03:47:32.820 At a federal level.

03:47:33.220 They did find a way to do it.

03:47:34.160 No, they didn't.

03:47:34.760 They didn't want them to at the federal level.

03:47:36.880 Why not?

03:47:37.140 Because they didn't want the federal government to be like, Maryland, you've got to be a Catholic. 0.95

03:47:40.500 You've got to be a Catholic state. 1.00

03:47:41.680 They didn't want that shit. 1.00

03:47:42.900 They could have imposed it in some other way. 1.00

03:47:43.680 They could have written way more godness into things.

03:47:46.180 They could have written, for example, that the federal government institution-

03:47:48.100 They did write godness.

03:47:49.020 They wrote godness into the Declaration of Independence.

03:47:52.480 First of all, they wrote creator.

03:47:53.900 None of the TJ references in any way can be cited to godness in a Christian way at all.

03:47:58.840 What's a creator?

03:48:00.080 A rock?

03:48:01.340 A creator?

03:48:01.760 They think a rock was not god?

03:48:03.740 How many religions have a creator deity?

03:48:05.780 And are those creators god?

03:48:07.280 Why did TJ say creator?

03:48:09.460 Are those creators god?

03:48:10.960 I don't think so.

03:48:12.220 But why did TJ-

03:48:13.060 Hold on.

03:48:14.060 Why didn't TJ-

03:48:14.800 Why didn't TJ just say Christ?

03:48:18.780 What?

03:48:19.380 God?

03:48:20.120 Christ.

03:48:20.840 No, they said god because there were some-

03:48:22.880 They didn't say god.

03:48:23.460 They said creator.

03:48:24.580 Because some of these states, again-

03:48:27.800 Some of the Christians wouldn't have agreed with Christ? 0.97

03:48:30.080 Yeah, well, they- 1.00

03:48:30.960 Come the fuck on. 0.99

03:48:31.680 They rejected the idea of the trinity, yes. 1.00

03:48:34.080 Christ.

03:48:35.040 The idea of the trinity.

03:48:36.500 I didn't say the trinity.

03:48:37.760 I said Christ.

03:48:38.380 You think that if TJ had written in Christ, that some Christians would have been like,

03:48:42.220 How dare he?

03:48:43.920 It's possible, yes.

03:48:45.280 No, come on. 0.85

03:48:45.640 But not only that-

03:48:46.340 That's absurd.

03:48:46.980 Let's just point this out.

03:48:48.000 So, TJ, you can grant me at least.

03:48:49.540 You'll concede.

03:48:50.340 TJ definitely explicitly did not write the Christian god into his deck.

03:48:53.280 Using the non-offensive position in order to make sure that they would compromise, right?

03:48:58.700 When they say creator, they definitely mean a god.

03:49:01.400 The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with compromise.

03:49:04.840 No, no, no.

03:49:05.240 But when they use the language in the Declaration of Independence for creator, what do you think they're referencing?

03:49:11.140 I think TJ is explicitly not referencing Christ because he didn't want to.

03:49:15.380 What is he referencing?

03:49:16.600 He's referencing a general conception of creator.

03:49:19.420 Which is what?

03:49:21.280 To Christians, it would be Christ, but he didn't say Christ.

03:49:24.220 Now did he?

03:49:24.980 Okay, but what would the creator be?

03:49:26.680 To Hindus, it would be like- 0.80

03:49:27.680 Would the creator be God?

03:49:30.060 Yeah, he didn't say God, either did he.

03:49:31.940 Yeah, but creator here meant God, right?

03:49:34.320 Why would you assume that?

03:49:35.460 Because what else is the creator?

03:49:38.020 Why wouldn't they just say Christ if they meant the Christian god?

03:49:40.840 Well, again, you're splitting hairs here.

03:49:43.160 I'm not splitting hairs.

03:49:43.980 It's kind of important.

03:49:44.980 Yeah, the idea here is simple.

03:49:46.940 He just couldn't think of it.

03:49:47.740 He's like, oh, what's that word for the creator that Christian's like?

03:49:50.700 Oh, I can't remember.

03:49:52.020 I'll just throw creator in there. 0.98

03:49:52.960 Pull up the Declaration of Independence and read it.

03:49:55.420 Sure.

03:49:55.820 We find these truths to be self-evident.

03:50:00.400 Yeah.

03:50:01.160 That all men are endowed by who?

03:50:05.160 Creator.

03:50:05.780 Their creator.

03:50:06.880 Yeah.

03:50:07.240 Are you saying it doesn't say God anywhere?

03:50:09.240 I didn't say anywhere.

03:50:10.240 I said that says creator.

03:50:11.200 I think it might say I'd have to look through.

03:50:13.360 Oh, it does?

03:50:13.920 It does say God?

03:50:14.960 I don't know.

03:50:15.560 I'd have to look.

03:50:16.460 What do you think they're referencing by creator there?

03:50:18.780 I think if they wanted to reference Christ, they would have said it.

03:50:21.700 Endowed by a creator who wasn't their God.

03:50:24.020 Well, you can probably understand.

03:50:28.020 Why didn't TJ say Christ?

03:50:29.720 So what?

03:50:30.540 Answer my question, then I'll answer yours.

03:50:31.640 Answer my question.

03:50:32.840 Answer mine.

03:50:33.400 I asked you first.

03:50:34.420 Answer.

03:50:34.920 The creator could refer to any creative deity.

03:50:37.100 How do you endow people as a creator if you're not creating the people?

03:50:42.160 Well, this is what most creation stories think, that the creator is endowing Lulula.

03:50:49.360 And the creator is usually referencing what?

03:50:53.120 For Christians, they would mean Christ.

03:50:56.040 Now, why doesn't...

03:50:56.520 Well, they would also mean God, right?

03:50:58.020 So why doesn't TJ...

03:50:58.600 That's a triune...

03:50:59.440 Why doesn't TJ say Christ?

03:51:00.540 Because of probably the triune concept, yeah.

03:51:03.900 Because Christians would have had an issue with the word Christ?

03:51:05.400 But I actually do think that there's a reference to God.

03:51:08.060 And I do think that there's often references to Jesus Christ as well.

03:51:11.720 Not in those documents, though.

03:51:13.860 Now, the other thing that's interesting here is that you still have an answer to this.

03:51:17.180 Why it is that at the federal level...

03:51:19.160 You still haven't answered my question.

03:51:20.260 What's the question?

03:51:21.020 I said, why didn't TJ use the word Christ?

03:51:22.760 I just told you.

03:51:23.980 I literally did answer that.

03:51:25.900 So he said...

03:51:27.080 Because of the triune nature, yes.

03:51:28.360 So the Christians... 0.97

03:51:29.580 Any form of Christian, pan-Protestantism, I think is what the word you're using.

03:51:33.360 Pan-Protestantism, yeah. 0.81

03:51:34.300 They would be opposed to the word Christ?

03:51:36.540 Yeah, probably deist and others would, yeah.

03:51:39.540 Come on.

03:51:40.040 Yeah, no, that's true.

03:51:42.460 Do deists are Christian? 0.83

03:51:44.600 Deists reject the divinity of Christ.

03:51:46.560 Yeah.

03:51:47.100 Yeah.

03:51:47.780 Yeah, so he's using creator because he doesn't want to use the word Christ?

03:51:50.760 Yeah.

03:51:51.360 Okay.

03:51:52.160 Okay.

03:51:52.920 Literally.

03:51:53.760 But TJ meant Christ.

03:51:55.500 The known...

03:51:55.700 I didn't say he meant Christ.

03:51:57.220 You're basically saying...

03:51:58.220 Yeah, you are.

03:51:58.900 You're saying the implication of this is Christ.

03:52:00.060 This is part of using non-offensive language, which then led to compromise using non-offensive language.

03:52:05.300 The compromise was that the states, the states could have their own religion, couldn't they?

03:52:10.100 That's the point.

03:52:10.880 So we're jumping back to the Constitution.

03:52:11.420 The feds are just not allowed to tell the states what religion they can have.

03:52:15.900 That's it.

03:52:16.320 I feel like if any of the feds really wanted to write Christ into the Constitution, they 0.99

03:52:21.200 did a really shit job. 0.99

03:52:23.280 What? 1.00

03:52:23.980 They're not writing it into the Constitution.

03:52:26.460 They probably should if they want it to be a Christian nation. 0.70

03:52:29.040 Oh, my Lord.

03:52:30.420 Probably should.

03:52:31.560 Was it pan-Protestant at the time?

03:52:33.400 Can we agree on that?

03:52:34.220 Sure.

03:52:34.420 Yeah.

03:52:34.740 Okay.

03:52:35.320 So when they're making this compromise with the states, did the states want their states

03:52:39.280 to be Protestant?

03:52:40.300 No.

03:52:41.100 But they wanted to be Christian.

03:52:42.580 Pan-Protestant. 0.78

03:52:43.480 They didn't want their various states to be some form of Protestantism, usually?

03:52:47.600 It would depend on the people collecting in that state.

03:52:50.820 If they're Protestant.

03:52:51.080 Yeah, most of the states.

03:52:52.460 Were what?

03:52:53.120 Protestant?

03:52:53.660 Yeah, were Protestant.

03:52:54.760 That's funny, because you argued with me on that one before.

03:52:56.700 Yeah, I'd grant that most of them were Protestant.

03:52:58.520 No, I didn't argue with you on that.

03:52:59.880 You did.

03:53:00.260 I said most of the states would have been Protestant, right? 0.65

03:53:01.860 And you said, no.

03:53:02.760 That never happened.

03:53:03.340 It would have been all of them.

03:53:04.980 No, that's not how that conversation went either.

03:53:06.720 Okay, it's fine.

03:53:07.060 If you're granting me it now, I'll take it.

03:53:08.240 But here's the thing that's funny.

03:53:08.480 I'll take it.

03:53:08.900 I'll take it.

03:53:09.320 Yes, it was pan-Protestantism.

03:53:11.140 But most of it was Protestantism, right?

03:53:13.020 Yes, pan-Protestantism, correct.

03:53:15.180 And they disagreed about all sorts of things.

03:53:17.180 The divinity of Christ.

03:53:18.240 They disagreed about their theology of baptism.

03:53:20.280 They disagreed about their theology, about all sorts of different things.

03:53:23.580 They didn't disagree that Christ existed.

03:53:25.480 Yes, but the divinity matters.

03:53:28.320 And so the thing is that's interesting here is like when we're talking about each of these individual states, each one of them was allowed to have a religion.

03:53:37.780 And that was part of the compromise.

03:53:39.860 The entirety of the First Amendment is just saying that the federal government can't establish a religion because those states didn't want them to impose that religion on them.

03:53:49.480 Not that the states could not have religions.

03:53:52.740 That was never the intention.

03:53:53.960 You're right.

03:53:54.180 They didn't want the federal government to impose religion on them.

03:53:57.360 On the states.

03:53:58.080 I feel like a founding piece of the American ethos is not forcing religion and not forcing beliefs onto people.

03:54:04.700 Yeah, unless you're in the states, which is part of the American ethos.

03:54:09.280 Oh, so now we can impose.

03:54:10.780 They did.

03:54:11.740 Like what?

03:54:12.780 Oh, my God.

03:54:13.800 You had to make declarations that you believed in God in order to vote in many of these states?

03:54:18.340 Not federally.

03:54:19.540 I didn't.

03:54:20.180 What states?

03:54:22.300 States.

03:54:22.720 I'm talking about America.

03:54:23.880 You were talking about America.

03:54:24.380 America is a collection of states.

03:54:26.780 America.

03:54:27.080 I said the word state four times.

03:54:30.100 Yep.

03:54:30.480 State.

03:54:31.120 You were talking about how the federal government did not impose on the states a religion.

03:54:35.920 Yes.

03:54:36.460 And states.

03:54:37.960 So I responded.

03:54:38.680 Yes.

03:54:39.040 States.

03:54:39.240 And I said, you're right.

03:54:40.120 It's almost as though the founding fathers did not want to impose a religion on the people.

03:54:44.180 And then my response to you was, of course, but that's been established.

03:54:48.200 But the states did. 0.84

03:54:48.940 The states did.

03:54:49.000 Yes.

03:54:49.520 But the states did. 0.84

03:54:50.260 The states did.

03:54:51.060 Yeah, we're talking about America.

03:54:51.840 The American ethos specifically.

03:54:53.720 The states are part of the American ethos.

03:54:55.760 Sure.

03:54:55.840 But I don't think that like Maryland deciding that they want to be, let's say, Protestant.

03:54:59.780 I don't know what the dominant or.

03:55:01.480 No, it's Maryland's ability to do that.

03:55:03.520 That's part of the American ethos.

03:55:05.000 Sure.

03:55:05.840 And then they got rid of it.

03:55:06.760 All of them.

03:55:07.520 No.

03:55:08.000 The American ethos.

03:55:08.900 It's not that they got rid of it.

03:55:09.580 The American ethos from the founding fathers was we don't impose religion on people.

03:55:13.900 At the federal level.

03:55:14.240 We let the states choose.

03:55:15.160 No.

03:55:15.500 We don't impose religion on people.

03:55:17.160 True.

03:55:17.540 Base.

03:55:17.860 Thanks, Andrew.

03:55:18.360 Oh, except we did.

03:55:19.660 Where did we?

03:55:20.500 At the state level.

03:55:21.700 It was imposed all over the place.

03:55:22.660 I'm talking about federal. 0.99

03:55:23.460 Why didn't the federal government go in there and stop those fucking states from imposing 0.99

03:55:26.420 their religious values? 0.99

03:55:27.160 Because they couldn't.

03:55:29.380 Well, they didn't want to.

03:55:30.300 Yeah.

03:55:30.760 Exactly.

03:55:31.440 They couldn't.

03:55:33.640 They couldn't.

03:55:34.680 They were not allowed to.

03:55:37.120 Sure.

03:55:37.640 Yeah.

03:55:38.240 Yeah.

03:55:38.420 It's almost as though the American founding fathers agreed that we should not impose religion

03:55:41.780 on people, which I would say Christian nationalism wants to violate. 0.67

03:55:45.160 Except they didn't agree with that.

03:55:46.020 They compromised for it.

03:55:47.260 Oh, so they did want it.

03:55:48.940 They just couldn't do it in the federal thing.

03:55:51.080 So that was the compromise.

03:55:52.460 Yes.

03:55:52.860 Yeah.

03:55:53.000 So this is what I'm saying.

03:55:53.720 You're saying actually the founding fathers did want the imposition of religion on America.

03:55:59.720 They just couldn't do it at the time.

03:56:01.960 So they wrote it in in this backhanded way to let the states do it.

03:56:04.540 But the actual intention of the founding fathers was to write.

03:56:06.720 Written in a backhanded way.

03:56:08.160 Was to write in religion into the Constitution.

03:56:09.420 It was written into the Tenth Amendment.

03:56:10.780 Mm-hmm.

03:56:11.480 That's not a backhanded way.

03:56:12.720 It's an upfront way.

03:56:13.620 It's very upfront.

03:56:13.940 It's almost like if they wanted religion to be imposed on the nation, they would have 0.99

03:56:18.600 done so.

03:56:19.220 They didn't want a national religion imposed on the nation.

03:56:22.060 You're right.

03:56:22.500 They didn't.

03:56:22.900 They wanted separation of church and state at the national level, which is central to

03:56:25.540 the American ethos.

03:56:26.020 We've agreed with that 500 times.

03:56:27.900 It's true.

03:56:28.300 But then you keep on trying to fight me and being like, well, Maryland kept it for a while.

03:56:31.800 So that's actually also the American ethos.

03:56:33.880 It's like, no, it's not.

03:56:34.860 Yes, it is.

03:56:35.300 No, actually, they updated to agree with it.

03:56:37.060 In fact, every single state.

03:56:38.680 Yes, every single state no longer has a religious test, correct?

03:56:41.280 Because the 14th Amendment, that's not the states doing that.

03:56:44.820 That was a federal thing.

03:56:45.860 Most of the states updated and got rid of the religious test long before the 14th Amendment.

03:56:49.120 Oh, yeah.

03:56:49.440 When do you think the last one ended?

03:56:50.800 I have no idea.

03:56:52.460 When do you think it comes out?

03:56:54.000 The 60s.

03:56:54.700 I think the last one was in the 60s, where you didn't have to say, you know, like, declare

03:56:59.660 that you worshipped God in order to, you know, swear an oath or something like that.

03:57:04.680 I think it was the 60s.

03:57:05.860 Sure.

03:57:06.000 But the last one happening in the 60s doesn't mean that most of the states hadn't updated

03:57:09.620 before then.

03:57:10.640 Some of them did.

03:57:12.320 Sure.

03:57:12.940 Yeah.

03:57:13.140 Some of them.

03:57:13.700 Yeah, that's all I'm claiming.

03:57:14.340 But the truth is, you're trying to fight me on that, but that's what I'm claiming.

03:57:16.700 Most of that was because of the 14th Amendment.

03:57:19.680 Do you think most of the states got rid of the religious clause when the 14th Amendment

03:57:23.520 came out?

03:57:23.840 Or do you think most states had already adopted the federal landscape, and then some places

03:57:28.240 had to kind of impose on it?

03:57:28.580 No, what was going on was that a lot of the states wanted to return, actually, to the idea

03:57:33.720 of having state religion.

03:57:35.020 A lot of them?

03:57:35.240 And this was challenged in courts.

03:57:36.900 And so what happened is, yeah, actually, yes, this was a national conversation.

03:57:40.640 Challenged in court.

03:57:40.980 And then?

03:57:41.320 And then it was challenged in the court. 0.99

03:57:42.380 They said, well, based on the 14th Amendment, which is about fucking citizenship, states 0.98

03:57:47.000 can't do that anymore because of the fucking uniformity clause or whatever it is. 0.99

03:57:50.600 It's like, what the fuck are you talking about? 0.99

03:57:52.300 Cool. 0.99

03:57:52.420 So the federal government of America, in line with the federal government initially, doesn't

03:57:56.460 want to impose religion. 0.98

03:57:57.200 And then when it became a big question of whether or not states could continue to do

03:57:59.740 so, the same American government over time also agreed that it was un-American to do

03:58:03.780 so.

03:58:04.200 Cool.

03:58:04.380 Well, they didn't agree it's un-American.

03:58:06.300 Well, they definitely felt that it was a violation of the Constitution.

03:58:09.140 Based on the 14th Amendment.

03:58:10.440 That doesn't make it un-American.

03:58:11.820 Sure.

03:58:12.000 What would be un-American about repealing that?

03:58:14.340 Nothing.

03:58:16.340 Nothing.

03:58:17.060 I'd say it would be un-American. 0.99

03:58:18.020 Nothing would be un-American about repealing it.

03:58:19.820 Yeah, I think the federal government initially and throughout all of America's history has

03:58:23.540 moved in a direction of separation of church and state.

03:58:25.540 They think it's very important to not-

03:58:26.760 At the federal level, that's true.

03:58:28.320 Yeah, America.

03:58:29.000 We are talking about America.

03:58:30.040 America's not just the federal government.

03:58:31.900 I didn't say it just is.

03:58:32.780 But when we're talking about the emergent principle of America, we should probably think

03:58:35.680 about what the federal government is.

03:58:36.200 We are thinking about it.

03:58:37.480 We're thinking about the federal and we're thinking about the state.

03:58:40.180 You're being like, I know the federal government said that we can't impose religion, but states

03:58:43.700 said they could.

03:58:44.840 So actually, the American ethos is imposing religion to the American state.

03:58:48.340 I know that the states could definitely impose all of their religious values on everybody.

03:58:55.360 But the feds, all that matters is what the feds want. 0.89

03:58:58.080 I feel like when I do it, it's a little cuter.

03:59:00.400 All that matters is what the feds want, man.

03:59:03.360 Because the states don't even matter, bro.

03:59:05.240 Even though that was who the compromise was with.

03:59:08.640 It's like, what are you talking about?

03:59:10.580 Your wifey. 1.00

03:59:11.200 Yeah, it's almost like since it was founded by Christians, and these same Christians

03:59:18.500 separated church and state.

03:59:20.460 So it's almost like the Christians even then agreed with me that it would be unchristian 0.84

03:59:24.000 to impose a religion at a federal level on the people.

03:59:27.040 A thing which was never in question.

03:59:29.480 It is.

03:59:30.340 You're just trying to be like, but the states, but Maryland kept it for a while, man.

03:59:35.320 Okay.

03:59:35.680 Not just Maryland.

03:59:36.420 Maryland's not America. 0.86

03:59:37.280 Yeah, you're right.

03:59:37.680 Some states.

03:59:38.320 Maryland's not America. 0.86

03:59:39.400 You got it.

03:59:39.940 But 10 states are in America.

03:59:42.300 America is a collected, unified group under the Constitution, particularly the federal

03:59:45.580 Constitution.

03:59:46.600 A unified group of what?

03:59:48.240 People.

03:59:49.380 States?

03:59:51.160 People.

03:59:51.900 States?

03:59:53.260 Sure, as well states, but like the people of the states, yeah.

03:59:56.760 When we're talking about rights and separations of power, do you think that state separation

04:00:02.240 and federal separation matter?

04:00:04.540 Yeah.

04:00:04.980 Yeah, I do too.

04:00:07.160 Cool.

04:00:07.600 That doesn't mean that we were founded on a Christian nation, that Christian nationalism

04:00:10.560 is what the American ethos is, or that it should be.

04:00:13.240 Well, what was in question is whether or not un-American to change the Constitution, because

04:00:18.240 Christian nationalists want to, and you never made a compelling case for that at all.

04:00:21.340 No, it was not about whether it was un-American to change the Constitution.

04:00:23.660 That's literally the prompt.

04:00:24.480 The prompt is if it's un-American to have Christian nationalism, your only argument was, I think

04:00:28.960 that if they went in and restricted things that I don't like, that that's un-American

04:00:33.440 because no reason.

04:00:36.020 No, I...

04:00:36.700 Your reasoning was like, because life, liberty, and some nebulous pursuit of happiness.

04:00:40.880 And even if I grant that Christian nationalists can get in there and they can do things like 0.88

04:00:45.460 go after liberty, that's fine because I'm not a liberty maximist, but they can preserve

04:00:49.100 life.

04:00:49.400 That's fine, I'm not a life maximist.

04:00:51.000 Hold on, no.

04:00:51.520 It's like you just equivocate on everything.

04:00:54.420 I'm not...

04:00:54.820 How am I...

04:00:55.420 How is any of that equivocating?

04:00:56.320 Because you utilize...

04:00:57.360 When I say, wait a second, when you say liberty, if you go against liberty, that's going against

04:01:03.620 some kind of American ethos.

04:01:05.160 I say, okay, that's fair.

04:01:06.840 Then I give you an example of when we would go after liberty and it would be fine.

04:01:10.760 You're like, that's fine because I'm not a liberty maximalist.

04:01:13.220 How is that equivocating?

04:01:14.420 Because you're using the word liberty here in two different ways.

04:01:17.500 You're saying, well, liberty in this case...

04:01:20.180 No, I'm using it the same in both ways.

04:01:21.220 Okay, so where's the threshold for maximalism for liberty?

04:01:24.200 I'm not sure exactly where it is, but there is a threshold.

04:01:26.360 I got to take a leak.

04:01:27.500 There's a threshold somewhere.

04:01:28.900 Of course, yeah.

04:01:29.560 I don't know where.

04:01:30.100 Wait, there's a threshold for most things, but not knowing the precise point of Loki's

04:01:33.560 wager where it falls isn't like incoherent or inconsistent.

04:01:37.080 Yeah, it just doesn't tell us anything.

04:01:40.180 Well, if we work as a collective to find where that line is, it would tell us something meaningful,

04:01:43.960 right?

04:01:45.320 I got to think.

04:01:45.800 Yeah, we have, we got some chats here.

04:01:49.740 I think there's one actually specifically for you, Kyla, that I'm going to have come in

04:01:55.040 here.

04:01:55.340 Maybe I should wait until Andrew returns so he can maybe hear your response, but I'll

04:02:02.740 go ahead.

04:02:03.480 Can you lower it to 90?

04:02:04.040 Gloucdavius donated $100.

04:02:06.860 Kyla, are you a Christian?

04:02:08.800 Yes.

04:02:09.160 What denomination?

04:02:10.580 Are you pro-choice or pro-life?

04:02:12.380 Would you get an abortion under any circumstance? 0.99

04:02:16.140 If so, what?

04:02:17.880 Are you fine with gay marriage? 0.63

04:02:20.060 Can women be clergy? 1.00

04:02:21.180 So what denomination and if you want to...

04:02:24.800 Yeah, so I can answer these.

04:02:25.940 What these are are basically like Christian litmus tests to basically see how pure I am

04:02:30.540 because Christians love to be snowflakes and clutch their pearls as much as anyone else. 0.56

04:02:33.760 Do you want to throw them back on screen so I make sure I respond to them all?

04:02:35.760 Yeah, I will pull it back up right now.

04:02:37.620 So am I Christian?

04:02:38.680 Yes.

04:02:39.160 Which denomination?

04:02:40.060 I'm broadly Protestant, but I appeal to a form of theology called radical orthodoxy.

04:02:46.680 So it's not really like a denomination, but Protestant generally is fine.

04:02:51.080 Are you pro-life or pro-choice?

04:02:52.940 Me personally, I'm pro-life as maximal as possible, but at a policy level, I think decriminalization

04:02:59.620 leads to the most good outcomes.

04:03:01.620 And I think God, as a virtue of this, wants the most good outcomes maximally as much as possible.

04:03:04.960 Would I get an abortion under any circumstances?

04:03:08.180 I have no idea.

04:03:09.080 I would have...

04:03:09.580 I'm probably not, but I'm not sure.

04:03:12.220 I haven't had to confront that in a serious way.

04:03:15.320 If so, what?

04:03:16.380 I'm not sure.

04:03:19.480 Possibly, but probably not.

04:03:21.580 I'm pretty conservative when it comes to like doing sin, so probably not.

04:03:25.000 Are you fine with gay marriage? 0.63

04:03:26.140 Legally, yes.

04:03:27.360 Can women be clergy? 1.00

04:03:28.900 I haven't actually theologically looked at that one.

04:03:31.700 I just don't really care if I'm being honest.

04:03:33.340 I'm not sure.

04:03:34.280 Okay.

04:03:35.280 All right.

04:03:36.400 Those are some TTSs.

04:03:39.760 We have a few more, but I'll wait until Andrew's back.

04:03:42.280 If you guys do want to get a TTS in, that's streamlabs.com slash whatever.

04:03:48.380 We've lowered the TTS.

04:03:49.600 It was previously $200.

04:03:50.580 Now it's $199.

04:03:52.660 And that's if you guys want to get one in.

04:03:54.600 Yeah, they're getting a good deal.

04:03:55.560 Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, like the video.

04:03:58.020 What are we at on the likes?

04:04:00.200 Does anybody know in the chat?

04:04:01.560 What are we on?

04:04:02.080 Nathan, can you check what we're on the likes?

04:04:05.520 Maybe we can hit a threshold here before Andrew returns.

04:04:08.940 How many likes do you want?

04:04:10.200 3,700.

04:04:11.680 Guys, there's 11,000 people watching.

04:04:14.660 Andrew's going to return in just a moment.

04:04:16.360 Let's get to 4,000.

04:04:17.840 We can do it.

04:04:18.640 We need 300 likes.

04:04:20.220 300 likes if you guys can get us to 4,000 likes.

04:04:23.420 Regardless who you like here, Brian was kind enough to host this debate and bring you guys

04:04:28.120 content.

04:04:28.760 Give him the likes.

04:04:29.620 And instead of properly moderating the debate, I spent most of the bulk of it cleaning up the table.

04:04:33.980 Cleaning after women. 1.00

04:04:35.480 Cleaning up the table.

04:04:36.440 Andrew spilled too, by the way.

04:04:37.880 But not as big of a spill as yours.

04:04:39.400 Mine was pretty bad.

04:04:40.320 It was pretty bad.

04:04:41.200 I'm very sorry about that.

04:04:42.300 It was a bad spill.

04:04:42.940 Is this okay?

04:04:43.940 Yeah, it's all good.

04:04:44.400 Okay, we rescued it?

04:04:45.620 Yeah, it's all good.

04:04:46.440 So guys, like the video.

04:04:47.520 Like the video for the spill.

04:04:49.500 Like the video.

04:04:50.300 I'm over here carpet cleaning.

04:04:51.940 Feminist Brian Atlas cleaning up after women. 0.92

04:04:55.100 Whoa.

04:04:55.640 It was good of you to not make me to do it.

04:04:57.460 Clipping and shipping.

04:04:58.480 Well, hey, you know, you guys are in the middle of the debate, so I figure I'm just, I'll do

04:05:03.420 the cleaning, you know.

04:05:04.560 Okay, he's trying to make himself not seem that nice, but he was reminding me of things.

04:05:09.080 He was helping out.

04:05:09.660 You were being very gentlemanly.

04:05:11.280 Well, I try to be fair to both participants in the debate.

04:05:14.400 I think that's fair.

04:05:14.860 Galitarian. 0.57

04:05:15.520 That's fair.

04:05:16.180 Like feminist-like. 1.00

04:05:17.420 Nathan, can you pull up Twitch for us?

04:05:19.060 Guys, if you're watching over there on Twitch, we have, I think,

04:05:21.680 about 1,000 viewers over there on Twitch.

04:05:23.360 If you can pull up, Nathan, the Twitch on Windows, perfect.

04:05:29.060 Guys, 1,300 over there on Twitch.

04:05:32.740 If you have a Prime sub available, I am a starving, broke, college student artist.

04:05:38.720 If you guys can just, you know, if you have Amazon Prime, link it to your Twitch.

04:05:43.600 It's a quick for easy way to support the show every single month.

04:05:46.400 So if you guys could support the show, very much appreciate it.

04:05:48.620 Also drop us a follow if you guys would like to see more debates.

04:05:51.680 Appreciate it, guys.

04:05:52.720 Like the video again.

04:05:53.620 Get us to over 4,000.

04:05:56.280 I'm going to read this super chat here.

04:05:59.220 Texas Red, thank you very much for the super chat.

04:06:01.200 Very kind of you.

04:06:02.380 This is getting annoying.

04:06:03.560 SCOTUS gets to determine what the Constitution says based on the power grab of Marbury v.

04:06:08.960 Madison power grab. 1.00

04:06:09.920 No state agreed to the loss of their ability to determine a state religion.

04:06:14.380 The 14th says that entirely from the bench of SCOTUS.

04:06:17.780 Totally un-American, by the way. 0.75

04:06:19.980 Texas Red, thank you for the super chat.

04:06:22.020 Did you want to respond further or was that kind of...

04:06:24.240 Yeah, he's right.

04:06:24.820 It's totally un-American. 0.82

04:06:26.060 The whole idea here we're asking about whether or not Christian nationalism is American or not.

04:06:30.940 She's appealing to ideals which are not even...

04:06:33.300 Like, for instance, I don't even think the word secularism existed at that time.

04:06:37.560 True.

04:06:38.120 Okay? 0.96

04:06:38.620 Like, you're appealing to ideals in the presentism form that are silly. 0.86

04:06:42.240 When did I say secular?

04:06:43.240 It was like an ideal of America.

04:06:44.540 Yeah, the ideal of America.

04:06:45.720 When you're talking about pursuit of happiness, how it's ingenuity, it's all about science,

04:06:49.460 it's about these things.

04:06:50.440 It's like...

04:06:50.720 Is it secular?

04:06:51.100 It was also about states' rights.

04:06:52.840 States' rights was fundamentally an American core value.

04:06:56.780 The idea that Christian nationalists would give it back to the states, give gay marriage 0.99

04:06:59.960 back to the states, give abortion back to the states, that is fundamental to that ideal, 0.92

04:07:04.620 and it's very, very much an American ideal.

04:07:06.960 Right.

04:07:07.220 But there's obviously going to be times where federal policy, like, imposes over top of states.

04:07:11.280 Not if Christian nationalists are in power. 0.95

04:07:13.960 Then they can change federal policy.

04:07:15.860 Wait.

04:07:16.200 So if Christian nationalists are in power and they want to cede power, would they accept

04:07:20.460 California allowing the transing of kids and for gay marriage and for all of the 0.99

04:07:25.440 liberal porn, the liberal degeneracy? 0.99

04:07:27.520 Christian nationalists would go, you know what? 0.99

04:07:28.720 If it's the case...

04:07:29.760 That's okay.

04:07:30.300 If it's the case that inside of a democracy, Christian nationalists are elected to these 1.00

04:07:34.040 high offices and can pass legislation, which then stops California from doing that, you

04:07:38.820 could not have a single objection to that.

04:07:42.840 Sure, I could.

04:07:43.700 I would say probably those Californians don't want that, and that would be a pretty major

04:07:47.320 violation of state rights.

04:07:49.780 But under the current framework, you're calling it un-American if we don't adhere to the

04:07:53.880 14th Amendment and SCOTUS ruling of the 14th Amendment is fundamentally un-American because 0.98

04:07:58.440 the founders didn't want states to have religions or some shit. 0.97

04:08:01.460 I said that what's un-American is imposing federal religions onto others, imposing religion 0.99

04:08:07.180 generally onto others.

04:08:07.540 Yeah, but that was never in question, whether or not the feds were supposed to impose a religion.

04:08:11.880 Well, the question is, is it an American ethos to impose religion on others?

04:08:16.100 And I'm saying, no.

04:08:17.520 No, that's not true.

04:08:19.900 It is the American ethos to impose religion. 0.92

04:08:20.960 So there you equivocate again between, you say, the federal government's not allowed to

04:08:26.060 impose religion.

04:08:26.740 I say, yeah, that's true.

04:08:27.660 And you say, well, so then America's not supposed to impose religion.

04:08:31.220 No, that doesn't follow.

04:08:32.520 One thing doesn't follow from the other.

04:08:34.300 America's not just the federal government.

04:08:36.080 America's not just federal amendments.

04:08:37.900 America's not just this.

04:08:39.580 America's also states.

04:08:40.980 States' rights.

04:08:42.240 What the states want.

04:08:43.460 What states are.

04:08:44.220 And by the way, the most key American thing, the states used to be the ones who sent up

04:08:49.280 Congress. 1.00

04:08:49.760 You didn't get to vote on that shit. 1.00

04:08:51.060 The states were the ones who did that. 1.00

04:08:53.180 That was the most American system.

04:08:55.580 So I don't know what you're even talking about with this.

04:08:57.580 You never demonstrate how it's un-American for Christian nationalists to use the system

04:09:01.340 of liberalism in order to change it around for Christianity because, oh, the feds aren't 1.00

04:09:06.440 supposed to impose religion.

04:09:07.960 Christian nationalists aren't proposing one single unified Christianity. 0.99

04:09:11.940 They're saying that the states should be able to impose Christianity if they fucking want 0.99

04:09:16.980 to. 0.99

04:09:17.160 But you already granted me that if Christian nationalists had power, they would probably 0.96

04:09:19.920 prefer a federal religion.

04:09:21.580 They would probably prefer federal policies on abortion and on gay marriage.

04:09:24.940 They would impose these things at a federal level.

04:09:26.960 And the system is set up for them to do that.

04:09:29.420 That doesn't make it good.

04:09:30.700 That doesn't make it bad.

04:09:32.420 For Christians, it makes it bad.

04:09:33.760 No, it doesn't make it bad for Christians because you say so based on this trilemma of your 1.00

04:09:38.600 assumption of God.

04:09:39.780 That doesn't make it bad.

04:09:40.980 God, nothing's bad for you.

04:09:42.280 I know that.

04:09:42.300 I know a gripper's trilemma really stressed you out, but I would say that it's un-Christian. 1.00

04:09:46.540 Yeah, I think it's heretical, right? 0.94

04:09:47.720 Jesus is a typological argument, is the embodiment of Christ himself rejecting kingship, right?

04:09:55.680 John 6, after feeding the 5,000, he perceived they were going to crown him king, so he withdrew

04:10:01.820 to the mountains, right?

04:10:03.000 We see Christ, Jesus, regularly rejecting political office, regularly rejecting political

04:10:08.840 power.

04:10:09.460 He did, yeah.

04:10:09.880 Because he said, my kingdom is not here on earth.

04:10:12.840 It's not a state.

04:10:14.560 It's a heart condition.

04:10:16.380 It is a kingdom of heaven.

04:10:17.600 But you also said on the other side of your mouth that the reason that God anointed kings

04:10:21.160 and Jesus Christ is God is because we just weren't ready for liberal values yet.

04:10:25.200 Yeah, in the same way that I don't think that we...

04:10:26.740 Yeah, where does it say that in the Bible?

04:10:27.680 Hold on, not liberal values, God's values.

04:10:29.320 Yeah, where does it say that?

04:10:31.260 Anywhere in the Bible, that the reason that God anointed kings, he only did that because,

04:10:36.540 well, we didn't have a better system yet.

04:10:38.240 Why?

04:10:38.920 So why do you...

04:10:39.520 Now, answer my question, don't ask me one.

04:10:41.540 Where in the Bible can I find anywhere in the New Testament?

04:10:45.020 I don't care if it's Matthew, I don't care if it's Mark, I don't care if it's Luke,

04:10:47.840 I don't care if it's John, I don't care who you want to reference.

04:10:50.280 Yeah.

04:10:50.580 Show me anywhere in the New Testament where it says that God stopped anointing kings because we

04:10:55.780 just weren't ready yet for democracy.

04:10:58.240 I'm not throwing memory verses at you like I'm some scholar kid.

04:11:00.940 When we actually engage in theology, right, we look at chapters, we look at typos...

04:11:04.720 Can you answer my question?

04:11:05.680 Yeah, I said I'm not throwing memory verses at you like a child.

04:11:07.640 So there's nowhere in the Bible that says that?

04:11:09.200 Yeah, no, I would say that there was a strong theological typological argument.

04:11:12.560 Would you reject typological arguments as a sound form of theology?

04:11:15.520 No.

04:11:15.920 Oh, okay, cool.

04:11:16.600 I'm just saying that here, when we're talking about typology...

04:11:19.780 I didn't say that there's a specific verse that says Jesus went and he said,

04:11:22.980 you guys, democracy is actually the best thing.

04:11:25.080 But you're going to cite a verse where he decides he's not going to be king as proof that he

04:11:28.540 doesn't want any more kings.

04:11:29.740 As evidence that, like, in my typological argument, which looks at the transition over time...

04:11:34.440 Let's look at the transition over time.

04:11:35.760 Sure, yeah.

04:11:36.380 So in the case of Moses, we have, like, extreme statecraft and Christian law. 0.92

04:11:42.220 The judges, right, we have tribes.

04:11:44.040 King David.

04:11:44.140 Let's talk about King David.

04:11:45.240 Yeah, also King David.

04:11:46.520 Let's talk about the kings.

04:11:46.920 Yeah, it was anointed by the prophets, right?

04:11:48.580 So now we have one step of separation between the king and God.

04:11:52.580 So in the case of judges, they were both kind of acting as statesmen and as, like, spiritual

04:11:57.220 leaders-ish.

04:11:58.480 Whereas by the time we get to David, we have Samuel anointing the king.

04:12:01.580 But Samuel is actually the prophet.

04:12:03.020 He's the word of God.

04:12:03.980 And the kings are supposed to honor that.

04:12:05.880 Then by the time we get to the priests, now there's no statecraft at all.

04:12:09.500 The priests are existing under Roman occupation.

04:12:11.740 And then we get to Jesus, the final typological fulfillment of this.

04:12:15.100 And it is a complete and utter rejection on Christ's part of politics.

04:12:18.860 That's what we see over time.

04:12:20.180 Then how come the apostles engage in politics, including Paul?

04:12:24.800 I don't...

04:12:25.780 Paul...

04:12:26.120 When did Paul ever say that we should, like, usurp?

04:12:27.860 Didn't he say render unto Caesar?

04:12:29.580 Paul literally went to Corinth in order to battle for the position of authority because

04:12:33.980 the super apostles came in and usurped his position.

04:12:37.000 Not for state power.

04:12:38.420 Yes, that was part of statecraft in Corinth.

04:12:40.540 Yes, it was.

04:12:41.420 No.

04:12:41.660 Yes, it was.

04:12:42.540 You're incorrect here.

04:12:43.420 No, was Corinth run by Romans or by the Christians?

04:12:47.160 Well, that's not relevant here.

04:12:49.280 It's kind of important to statecraft under the Roman Empire.

04:12:52.180 Do you realize that inside of many of these Roman places, while they were under Roman occupation,

04:12:56.600 there was still a lot of govern within the cities, as long as they didn't violate Roman

04:12:59.820 rules?

04:13:00.820 As long as they didn't violate Roman rules.

04:13:02.140 Sure, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't impose, and they did all the time, their own

04:13:06.600 cultural, spiritual, various things like this.

04:13:09.780 Yeah, they didn't engage in statecraft.

04:13:11.080 That is statecraft.

04:13:12.060 No.

04:13:12.440 So a pope...

04:13:13.420 No.

04:13:13.620 Could you pass laws inside of Corinth as a spiritual leader?

04:13:17.360 Because the answer is yes, you could.

04:13:18.480 But, so if that's the case, as long as they didn't violate Roman law, you could do that.

04:13:22.400 How is that?

04:13:23.240 Fill in with your typographic, whatever it is.

04:13:28.440 How?

04:13:28.860 Show me.

04:13:29.380 Because at no point is Paul going there and saying that we should impose Christian laws

04:13:32.760 and all these things.

04:13:33.320 He's saying this is what good Christians should do.

04:13:35.240 This is how we should must and ought conduct ourselves.

04:13:37.840 When he's asked about statesmen...

04:13:38.280 Then why is he removing these people?

04:13:40.300 What?

04:13:40.660 Why is he removing the super apostles?

04:13:42.160 Why is he there to remove the super apostles?

04:13:44.000 Probably because he found them unbiblical, not because he thought they were bad statesmen.

04:13:46.760 And he said both.

04:13:48.600 He said both.

04:13:49.720 He said the informing...

04:13:51.180 Where's the verse?

04:13:51.780 Give me a verse.

04:13:52.300 Yeah.

04:13:52.520 Let's go into Timothy.

04:13:53.880 First of all, let's go into Timothy and we can go to Ephesus, what was going on in Ephesus,

04:14:00.740 especially when it came to the ideas of the cult of Artemis.

04:14:06.060 This was purely political.

04:14:08.180 The fact of the matter was...

04:14:09.400 Wasn't the thing the cult of Artemis is only political?

04:14:11.320 Yeah, it was.

04:14:11.960 It was economic.

04:14:12.840 It was economic and political.

04:14:13.800 It had no bearing on your spiritual condition if you were engaging with the...

04:14:16.580 It was both.

04:14:18.160 It was both together.

04:14:18.900 What do you think actually mattered here to Paul?

04:14:20.160 Both.

04:14:20.620 No.

04:14:21.040 No, both did.

04:14:21.960 And I'll tell you why.

04:14:22.620 He constantly talks about the heart condition. 0.96

04:14:23.320 What was going on with the cult of Artemis, the reason they were so fucking pissed off is 0.87

04:14:26.300 because the entire economic model of Ephesus revolved around the fact that they were 0.86

04:14:31.220 making these silver statues.

04:14:32.960 Okay?

04:14:33.400 Okay.

04:14:33.600 This was a political battle and it was a spiritual battle.

04:14:36.520 It was both at the same time.

04:14:37.900 So did they say that nobody can now make these silver statues or did they say that Christians

04:14:41.180 should not engage in that, not make it, not buy it?

04:14:42.940 Yeah, Christians were trying to remove that as an economic forum for the cult of Artemis. 0.91

04:14:47.300 Yes.

04:14:47.600 And did Paul go there and say we should get rid of it as an economic forum?

04:14:50.200 He told Timothy just that.

04:14:51.380 Yes.

04:14:51.600 No, he said don't engage with it.

04:14:53.400 Christians aren't supposed to. 1.00

04:14:54.300 No, no, no, no.

04:14:54.540 You need to read the letters to Timothy because you're incorrect here.

04:14:57.740 Okay?

04:14:58.000 The truth is, is that the reason...

04:15:00.680 And I understand why.

04:15:01.960 I understand why you came up with this idea.

04:15:05.020 The anointing of kings happened.

04:15:06.940 God put kings in place, but it was just because they weren't ready for another system that

04:15:10.660 didn't have kings.

04:15:11.500 Does that mean right this second, anywhere that there's a king, that king sinning?

04:15:16.100 No, but it depends on what the king is.

04:15:17.860 What do you mean?

04:15:18.360 Like in your country?

04:15:19.960 Is it sinful to be a king in your country?

04:15:23.160 No, because the way that...

04:15:24.400 I mean, the kings are exclusively performative.

04:15:26.160 Like they have no actual monarchy power.

04:15:27.840 The king can't, for example, tell Canada that they must impose Christian morals.

04:15:32.040 But let's just say that you have like a king, I don't know, in Zimbabwe and this king...

04:15:36.100 Is he Christian?

04:15:36.720 Yeah, he's a Christian. 0.92

04:15:38.260 Zimbabwe's like hell on earth, okay, let's say. 1.00

04:15:41.080 And this king gets into authority and he imposes all these Christian values and it brings in 0.89

04:15:45.440 all sorts of economic prosperity and people are very happy.

04:15:48.080 Is he sinning?

04:15:48.580 That would be a great outcome.

04:15:49.300 Is he sinning?

04:15:49.760 He might be.

04:15:50.220 Yeah.

04:15:50.300 Does he know that it's wrong for him to impose Christian statecraft? 0.98

04:15:53.780 I don't think it is wrong.

04:15:55.160 It depends on what he's imposing.

04:15:56.640 What is he imposing? 0.74

04:15:57.220 He's imposing that you can't murder, no homosexuality, no prostitution.

04:16:01.500 He's imposing no drugs.

04:16:02.960 He's saying all sorts of things like this and imposing them from Christian ethics.

04:16:06.040 Yeah, so I would have an issue with a number of the Christian ethics that is only conducted 1.00

04:16:09.420 around sin and not actually about statecraft.

04:16:11.280 But you can't demonstrate that he's actually sinning.

04:16:13.720 What do you mean you can't demonstrate?

04:16:15.320 Show me how this Christian king is doing anything which is incorrect biblically by being 1.00

04:16:20.780 a Christian king.

04:16:21.440 Yeah, so if he imposed on his people, for example, something that they can't do because

04:16:25.660 he thinks is a sin, not because he thinks that it makes for like a worse statecraft,

04:16:28.600 I would think that that would be wrong.

04:16:29.760 Show me the sin.

04:16:30.540 Show me the wrong.

04:16:31.540 He was robbing people of agency.

04:16:32.920 He's not robbing them of agency by having rule of law based on Christian ethics.

04:16:36.600 You still have agency.

04:16:37.540 If you're forcing it exclusively because it's sin, right? 0.61

04:16:39.780 So if there are secular people in Zimbabwe that are gay and you force them to not be allowed 0.96

04:16:44.040 to engage in it and there's, there's, let's say there's...

04:16:47.340 How is that sinful?

04:16:48.540 Throwing people in jail who are non-Christians would be wrong to do, yeah.

04:16:52.860 Why?

04:16:53.880 Well, it depends on what you mean by sin, right?

04:16:55.700 Like if, when I talk about sin...

04:16:57.220 If the king of Zimbabwe says your homosexuality is not to be engaged in anymore and he can't

04:17:01.860 get married, how is he sinning?

04:17:04.480 Because he's imposing on non-Christians something about sin. 0.91

04:17:09.500 So?

04:17:10.280 So I think the issue would be that that's inherently anti-Christian.

04:17:13.660 No, it's not.

04:17:14.300 You can make impositions of your ethics.

04:17:15.640 Where does Jesus impose himself on non-Christians? 0.88

04:17:18.200 He doesn't have to.

04:17:19.180 Jesus wasn't here specifically to give us the message of how to rule.

04:17:22.560 Should you be more like Jesus or Paul?

04:17:24.240 He was giving us the ethical framework for how we were supposed to live our lives.

04:17:28.260 And if it's the case...

04:17:29.500 Shouldn't we live our lives politically then?

04:17:31.160 If Jesus wanted us to live our...

04:17:32.840 It's both.

04:17:33.260 So why did he reject it?

04:17:35.100 Reject what?

04:17:36.120 Politics.

04:17:37.180 Because that wasn't what Jesus was here to do.

04:17:39.740 So we shouldn't act like Jesus.

04:17:41.360 So Jesus wasn't here to do that.

04:17:42.300 We are acting like Jesus.

04:17:43.400 So theoretically though, if Jesus...

04:17:46.000 If it was actually more Christian to impose Christian policy, shouldn't have Jesus established 0.98

04:17:50.660 the kingdom of Judea and Samaria?

04:17:52.780 Shouldn't he have done that?

04:17:53.480 He established...

04:17:54.520 He established...

04:17:55.400 Shouldn't he have thrown off the Romans? 0.96

04:17:56.180 He established the brand new kingdom, which is Christianity.

04:17:59.480 Which is...

04:18:00.400 Where is it?

04:18:00.620 Which is the body of people who are Christians, yes.

04:18:02.880 Where is it?

04:18:03.520 Like, what state is it?

04:18:04.900 State what?

04:18:05.820 What state did Jesus make?

04:18:07.600 No, he didn't make a state.

04:18:08.860 Oh, you're right.

04:18:09.200 He didn't.

04:18:09.680 That was not what his purpose was.

04:18:11.280 So should we be more like Jesus or like Paul?

04:18:13.160 We're still like Jesus, even if you're a king who imposes Christian ethics.

04:18:16.340 How are you not like Jesus?

04:18:17.340 Because if you impose on other people...

04:18:19.040 Should we all get crucified at 33 to be like Jesus?

04:18:23.440 Does Jesus think that we should all get crucified?

04:18:26.040 You tell me.

04:18:27.240 It's your critique.

04:18:27.820 That's my answer.

04:18:28.840 That's not an answer.

04:18:29.940 That's a question.

04:18:31.240 Should every Christian get crucified at 33 because Jesus did? 0.99

04:18:34.580 No.

04:18:35.140 Why?

04:18:35.680 Because Jesus didn't say that his crucifixion was him.

04:18:38.200 He didn't say that kings couldn't be Christians and impose Christian ethics.

04:18:41.320 Did he say it's sin to not get crucified?

04:18:43.200 Did he say it was sin to be a king and impose Christian ethics?

04:18:45.480 Show me where.

04:18:45.860 He certainly seemed to reject it outright.

04:18:47.760 He certainly didn't.

04:18:48.900 Show me where.

04:18:50.340 Sure.

04:18:50.880 We'll go back to John 6.

04:18:52.400 After feeding the 5,000, he perceived they were going to crown him king, so he withdrew

04:18:55.620 to the mountains.

04:18:56.580 So?

04:18:56.980 Matthew.

04:18:57.700 Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

04:18:59.580 Yeah.

04:19:00.340 Right?

04:19:00.920 Yeah.

04:19:01.280 Matthew 4.

04:19:01.860 Does that say Caesar can't be a Christian?

04:19:03.400 Satan offers Jesus political dominion over the earth and he refuses.

04:19:06.920 Because why?

04:19:08.760 Because he is not here to do political power. 1.00

04:19:11.760 Bullshit. 1.00

04:19:12.160 The reason that that happened was because Satan came to him and he said to him, I'll give you 1.00

04:19:16.880 everything if you'll worship me.

04:19:20.120 Mm-hmm.

04:19:20.980 So then why did he reject the crowds?

04:19:22.500 So he rejects it not because he's saying you can't be a Christian and rule. 0.99

04:19:27.820 He rejects it because he, God, is not going to bow at the feet of Satan for material shit. 0.99

04:19:32.240 Sure. 0.99

04:19:32.480 So then why did he reject the 5,000?

04:19:33.420 So why would you bring that up as an example?

04:19:35.200 That doesn't even make sense.

04:19:36.480 I brought it up in an example in a litany of other things of Jesus regularly rejecting

04:19:40.580 political power.

04:19:41.360 Yeah.

04:19:41.580 He was.

04:19:42.000 Because his mission was not to come here to be a politician, but that doesn't mean that

04:19:46.580 he rejects that politicians can use Christian ethics.

04:19:49.380 Well, a lot of Jews seem to believe that the Messiah's role was specifically to be a politician.

04:19:52.320 Are you a Jew?

04:19:53.280 No, but.

04:19:53.700 Then I don't care.

04:19:54.760 Okay.

04:19:55.040 So Jesus rejects the political position and we should what?

04:19:58.240 Embrace it?

04:19:59.540 Seek it?

04:20:00.040 Seek it?

04:20:00.360 There's no problem within Christian ethics of having a position of political authority.

04:20:05.400 I didn't say that there is.

04:20:06.720 Then if you're going to be informed.

04:20:08.400 From Christians on to non-Christians. 1.00

04:20:10.620 That's fine.

04:20:11.460 Is wrong.

04:20:12.040 No, it's not wrong.

04:20:12.840 Absolutely.

04:20:13.040 And you haven't demonstrated it.

04:20:14.320 Absolutely.

04:20:14.680 All you've done is given me some passages out of context.

04:20:17.120 One of them in which he was supposed to bow at Satan's feet.

04:20:19.560 They're not out of context.

04:20:19.760 Another one where he says, I'm going to reject being the king of the Jews.

04:20:23.380 So what?

04:20:24.000 How are these out of context?

04:20:25.880 Well, the first one we were talking about was Satan.

04:20:28.480 He did not reject it due to political office. 0.98

04:20:30.960 He rejected it because Satan said he got to bow down to me in order to get material shit. 0.98

04:20:35.120 I could grant you that one, yeah. 0.98

04:20:36.000 Yeah.

04:20:36.360 What about the other two?

04:20:37.180 When it comes to the kingdom, that did not serve his mission.

04:20:40.200 His mission was to come here and give us the good news.

04:20:42.500 How would that not serve his mission?

04:20:43.100 He was to give us the good news that his kingdom has come to earth.

04:20:47.640 His kingdom is here.

04:20:48.780 How would reestablishing Israel not help him with showing that the kingdom is here, that

04:20:53.880 we're here to bring the good news?

04:20:55.040 Ask him.

04:20:56.660 Why are you asking me that?

04:20:58.740 Because you're the one who has to theologically establish it.

04:20:59.980 You're asking me about the guise of God.

04:21:02.500 His entire mission here was just give you the good news.

04:21:05.800 That was his mission.

04:21:06.620 So we shouldn't be like Jesus.

04:21:08.920 We, how are you not like Jesus because you rule with Christian ethics?

04:21:12.720 Because he regularly pushed off imposing himself politically on other people.

04:21:15.680 He did not anywhere ever show us where secular governance was supposed to be the order of

04:21:21.220 the day and Christians were supposed to only follow secularism.

04:21:25.440 He never showed us this.

04:21:26.580 So then why does he say render unto Caesar, right?

04:21:29.300 Even Paul, in the case of Paul, you're saying.

04:21:30.820 Because we're talking about taxes.

04:21:32.060 Okay.

04:21:32.240 So Paul, for example.

04:21:33.520 So what was happening is.

04:21:34.680 Existed under Nero, right?

04:21:35.860 Do you want the answer?

04:21:37.840 Do you want the answer to why he said render unto Caesar?

04:21:40.320 Yeah.

04:21:40.680 Okay.

04:21:40.940 So here's what happened.

04:21:42.120 He was dealing all the time with lawyers and lawyers would come up with these.

04:21:46.680 Well, not just Pharisees, but yes, also Pharisees.

04:21:49.360 And they would come over to him and ask him oftentimes hypothetically loaded questions.

04:21:54.240 In this particular case, we're talking about taxes, right?

04:21:57.340 So he gives a parable and he says, render unto Caesar.

04:21:59.480 What is his, right?

04:22:01.280 Yes.

04:22:01.680 You can render unto Caesar.

04:22:02.940 What is Caesar's?

04:22:03.800 Yeah.

04:22:04.040 That in no way says that Caesar shouldn't be a Christian or use Christian ethics.

04:22:08.000 Okay.

04:22:08.420 There's like nothing there for that.

04:22:10.340 Sure.

04:22:10.600 I would argue that alone wouldn't substantiate this.

04:22:12.840 None of that substantiates this.

04:22:13.900 I would say the consistent pattern of Jesus rejecting political power over and over.

04:22:18.500 His mission wasn't to come here to be a politician.

04:22:21.460 You're right.

04:22:21.580 It was to die for mankind.

04:22:22.700 You're right.

04:22:23.100 In fact, not a single Christian's mission is to be a politician.

04:22:24.880 Is your mission to die for mankind or do you have a different mission?

04:22:27.960 Uh, no, my mission is to represent Christ as best as possible.

04:22:31.880 Okay.

04:22:32.220 Got it.

04:22:32.640 So it's not to die for mankind.

04:22:34.040 You have a different mission than Jesus Christ did. 0.57

04:22:36.200 Got it.

04:22:36.880 So where, where am I going to find that Christians must live in only secular countries?

04:22:43.980 I didn't say that that's where you would find.

04:22:46.380 Okay.

04:22:46.860 Then why should I assume that Christians should only be able to rule in a secular way?

04:22:53.900 Uh, I didn't say that they should only be able to rule in a secular way.

04:22:56.560 Well, then what is the problem here?

04:22:57.860 It should not impose onto Christians, Christian moral law, that would be, that it only exists

04:23:02.540 because of the existence of sin.

04:23:02.640 We do it all the time.

04:23:04.160 Most of the common law that you're referencing is imposed from Christian ethics.

04:23:08.760 It's not imposed from it.

04:23:09.880 It's informed by it.

04:23:10.820 Yeah.

04:23:11.140 And it's, by the way.

04:23:12.340 You might notice, I never said I had an issue with being informed by it.

04:23:14.780 I said imposed by it.

04:23:15.840 Yeah.

04:23:16.100 Why is it that Christians can't impose that, but secularists can impose that?

04:23:20.500 Because secular people aren't Christian. 0.90

04:23:22.440 So they can just rule over Christians, but Christians can't rule over them. 0.92

04:23:27.980 Yeah.

04:23:29.060 What?

04:23:29.700 Why not?

04:23:30.640 Because they're not Christian. 1.00

04:23:31.780 So what?

04:23:32.580 So Christians shouldn't be imposing tyranny on other people.

04:23:35.120 That's not tyranny.

04:23:36.360 Yeah.

04:23:36.560 Imposing, imposing your religious predilection onto others when it's against their interests

04:23:41.020 and not their religion is kind of tyrannical.

04:23:42.820 Yeah.

04:23:43.440 No, that's not tyrannical.

04:23:44.740 How not?

04:23:45.380 It's not a tyranny.

04:23:46.140 Then all laws would be tyrannical if it's an imposition on somebody's values that they

04:23:50.900 don't like.

04:23:52.000 It would be if it's compelled.

04:23:53.160 Yeah.

04:23:53.680 Compelled speech, for example, is...

04:23:55.180 Is that so?

04:23:56.760 So when you're talking about compelling a person to do a thing, are you saying that secularists

04:24:02.080 don't compel people to do things?

04:24:03.700 Nope.

04:24:03.840 What about the draft?

04:24:06.200 Yeah.

04:24:06.760 That's not moral necessarily.

04:24:08.800 It's not?

04:24:09.680 States can compel.

04:24:10.840 Christians should not compel.

04:24:12.920 I don't understand.

04:24:14.340 The draft is compelling people to do a thing, right?

04:24:17.820 I don't have a problem with states compelling.

04:24:19.280 I have a problem with Christians compelling. 1.00

04:24:21.320 Yeah, but I don't understand.

04:24:23.000 Well, the difference here would be Christians versus states. 0.80

04:24:24.920 What you said was that secularists should be able to unless it's the case that they're 0.85

04:24:29.840 pushing some value.

04:24:32.700 Yes.

04:24:33.560 So not secularists.

04:24:35.380 States.

04:24:36.300 Yeah.

04:24:37.360 States shouldn't be able to compel people to do things that they would be a violation

04:24:41.260 of some of the fundamental rights and liberties.

04:24:43.340 They shouldn't do that.

04:24:43.980 Those rights and liberties are informed literally by the perspective of the person.

04:24:47.880 So if people are like, hey, we want to be able to watch porn if we want, and you're

04:24:51.520 like, no, you can't.

04:24:52.960 You can't do that.

04:24:54.220 Or, hey, we want to run stop signs.

04:24:55.840 You're like, hey, you can't do that.

04:24:57.080 They're imposing their will.

04:24:58.240 And they're using force.

04:24:59.320 Force of law.

04:25:00.120 I don't have a problem with states compelling or using a force of law.

04:25:02.820 Well, I don't have a problem with Christians doing that.

04:25:04.780 Yeah, that's where we differ.

04:25:06.000 Yeah.

04:25:06.220 And you haven't made a compelling case anywhere from anything.

04:25:09.500 So just because you don't find it compelling doesn't mean that I haven't made a compelling

04:25:11.960 It's just not compelling.

04:25:12.760 You haven't shown me anywhere that Christians can't impose Christian ethics.

04:25:16.220 Nothing.

04:25:16.740 In fact, I have the entire standard of the Bible to show that God anoints kings, that

04:25:20.820 Jesus Christ is God, so he anointed kings.

04:25:23.080 Your whole, the entirety of your argument to that is, it's because we didn't have democracy

04:25:27.020 yet.

04:25:27.860 No, it's not.

04:25:28.220 It's because we weren't ready for not kings yet.

04:25:30.420 No, it's the, yep.

04:25:31.600 So.

04:25:32.020 Yeah, show me where that's the case.

04:25:33.460 Yeah, so under the.

04:25:34.020 Show me where it's the case that God said.

04:25:35.520 Jesus.

04:25:36.020 Jesus did not say we were not ever going to have moral kings again, ever.

04:25:39.680 You're right, but if we look at the type, I never said that he did.

04:25:42.100 What I said is a typological argument.

04:25:43.940 In the same way, for example.

04:25:44.600 The typology makes no sense.

04:25:45.860 Do we just do everything that the Old Testament says?

04:25:48.220 No, of course not.

04:25:48.840 Why not?

04:25:49.300 Because, because of Acts.

04:25:52.400 Go, go through it.

04:25:53.260 Why don't we.

04:25:54.340 Okay, well, it did not a pop quiz.

04:25:55.860 I just want to make sure, though.

04:25:57.160 Are you familiar with Acts?

04:25:58.500 Yeah.

04:25:59.100 Okay, great.

04:25:59.700 So then you should know why we don't do everything the Old Testament says.

04:26:02.360 Okay, so for example, why don't we follow.

04:26:04.400 So, you know, mixing of fibers.

04:26:07.680 Because of Acts.

04:26:09.280 Walk me through it.

04:26:10.260 Okay, so in Acts, this question is asked, especially about the idea of like, well, this was the question.

04:26:17.220 Circumcision.

04:26:17.620 Do you have to get circumcised?

04:26:19.700 What did they say?

04:26:20.760 No.

04:26:21.180 They said no.

04:26:22.220 Why?

04:26:23.060 Because they imposed three new laws.

04:26:24.980 They said no.

04:26:26.620 In order to convert, you no longer have to do circumcision if you're converting over from being a Gentile. 0.94

04:26:33.900 But you have to adhere to these moral laws, which is strangulation of animals.

04:26:38.480 That was one.

04:26:40.260 I think it was strangulation of animals, and then there was two other ones.

04:26:43.340 We can pull them up real quick, though.

04:26:44.580 These weren't laws, right?

04:26:45.620 These were like precepts for Christians to do. 0.96

04:26:48.020 Yes.

04:26:48.580 Which are not laws.

04:26:50.220 Well, wait a second.

04:26:51.280 They're laws within Christianity.

04:26:53.060 That's not the same thing as state laws.

04:26:54.680 Yeah, but I think that's equivocation.

04:26:57.020 We were specifically discussing Acts.

04:26:59.760 Sure.

04:27:00.320 Yeah, and you were asking how it is that you were like, why don't we follow Old Testament law?

04:27:05.120 And it's because in Acts, this was reconciled with what the conversion of the Gentiles needed to be.

04:27:11.340 Right.

04:27:12.100 Yeah.

04:27:12.760 Yeah.

04:27:13.480 That makes my point, not your point.

04:27:15.420 This doesn't make any point.

04:27:16.640 Yes, it does.

04:27:17.340 It answers your question as to why we don't do that anymore.

04:27:20.140 Did you have some reason that you were asking that question?

04:27:22.440 Yeah.

04:27:22.720 Was it just for fun?

04:27:23.800 Yeah, it was for an establishment of a new covenant, right?

04:27:26.840 Old covenant or new covenant?

04:27:27.940 Well, no.

04:27:28.780 Covenant theology, the way that you view it, I don't view it that way.

04:27:31.780 I view things as a continuum.

04:27:33.880 It's not old and new covenant.

04:27:35.380 There's no reconciliation.

04:27:37.280 This is a continuation.

04:27:38.600 We still follow the old commandments.

04:27:39.960 Okay, so we still follow the old commandments.

04:27:42.420 We still follow all 10 of them Jesus Christ told us to and then gave us two additional commandments on top of it to follow.

04:27:47.600 So, no, that's incorrect.

04:27:49.340 We do follow much in the Old Testament.

04:27:51.920 We don't generally follow Levitical law.

04:27:54.000 We don't follow Levitical law because Gentiles converting over. 1.00

04:27:56.860 We were told exactly in Acts how that was supposed to operate.

04:27:59.640 So, if they engaged in Levitical law, would it be sin or why is it not sin for the Gentiles to not participate in Levitical law? 0.93

04:28:06.520 Ask the question again.

04:28:07.640 Why is it not sin for Gentiles to not participate in the Levitical law? 1.00

04:28:10.640 Why is it not sin to not participate?

04:28:12.800 Ask it a different way because I hear two nots. 0.99

04:28:15.100 Why is it not wrong for the Gentiles to not get circumcised? 1.00

04:28:19.120 Why is it not wrong for Gentiles to not get circumcised? 1.00

04:28:22.560 Ask it in positives.

04:28:25.200 Should.

04:28:26.740 Maybe should.

04:28:28.460 Why is it wrong?

04:28:30.620 Why is it okay for Gentiles to remain uncircumcised? 1.00

04:28:35.640 Why is it?

04:28:36.280 Oh, because that's what was laid down in Acts by the apostles.

04:28:39.080 Yeah, but why?

04:28:40.400 Because they were trying to figure out how to convert over people who wanted to convert over to Christianity and whether or not they needed to follow Jewish law.

04:28:50.400 Right.

04:28:50.640 And the answer was no.

04:28:51.740 Right.

04:28:51.920 And they drew on the teachings of Jesus Christ, which they were intimately familiar with, which you're not, that, yeah, no, you don't have to do that.

04:29:00.120 Okay, so they looked at it and they said, these laws, actually, they don't matter anymore.

04:29:05.400 They were valid in the Old Testament.

04:29:06.960 They were sin in the Old Testament, but now they're not sin.

04:29:09.920 We've updated it.

04:29:10.880 No.

04:29:11.540 So was it sin?

04:29:12.680 Those are still sinful things.

04:29:14.340 So being uncircumcised is sinful.

04:29:16.520 No, no, no.

04:29:17.060 Not being uncircumcised is sinful.

04:29:19.440 But even in the Old Testament, this was prescribed for Jews only.

04:29:23.860 Well, was it a sin for Jews to do it? 1.00

04:29:25.200 It wasn't a sin for not Jews to do it. 0.85

04:29:27.220 But it is still sinful, even if you don't follow Christian ethics, you can still sin.

04:29:31.620 This is the thing.

04:29:32.800 There's a distinction in our worldview.

04:29:36.020 Sure.

04:29:36.580 The issue is, like, when we talk about non-Christian sinning, right, it's almost empty, right? 0.94

04:29:43.440 It's not empty.

04:29:44.380 Of course it is.

04:29:44.940 When we talk about sins.

04:29:45.360 Oh, it's not.

04:29:46.080 Yeah, of course we do.

04:29:46.760 Because when we talk about sins, we're talking about the sins of omission, commission, and original sin, right?

04:29:51.300 No, we're talking about, first of all, I don't believe in original sin.

04:29:55.040 Okay.

04:29:55.440 I believe in ancestral sin.

04:29:56.640 That's a Catholic thing that you're referencing for original sin.

04:29:59.540 Okay, so you don't believe, let's say, you don't believe that humans are born into a state of separation from God.

04:30:07.020 No.

04:30:07.360 And that we need salvation to bring us back to Him.

04:30:09.380 Well, wait a second.

04:30:10.440 You do need salvation, that's true, but when you're talking about original sin, this gets into Genesis, the ideas of Genesis.

04:30:18.620 Do you not recognize Genesis?

04:30:20.580 Yes, of course I do, but I'm giving you a distinction in theology.

04:30:23.760 When you say original sin, you just mean Adam and Eve both sinned, and so, okay, what do you mean by original sin?

04:30:30.020 Okay, what I mean is a state of being that we are bent towards sin and need the mercy of salvation, right?

04:30:35.260 The existence that all humans are kind of born into.

04:30:37.220 Well, I would consider this to be ancestral sin, that the curse, basically the curse on the earth.

04:30:44.260 And we need salvation to rectify it.

04:30:45.720 Yes, of course we need salvation.

04:30:47.260 Right, and we're all in that status without salvation, right?

04:30:50.440 Yes.

04:30:51.000 Including non-Christians. 0.99

04:30:52.380 Yes.

04:30:52.920 Whereas in the case of omission and commissions, right, one of the important things about omissive sin is knowing something is right and failing to do it, or commission, which is knowing something is wrong and failing to do it.

04:31:03.800 I just made a big mistake, because remember earlier you said the truth's written on your heart.

04:31:07.800 Yeah, I think that we should know, kind of like broadly know these things.

04:31:10.580 Well, then that would mean that you cannot allow people who are not Christians to give them a pass on sinning, because they know the truth, right?

04:31:19.120 Not in the specific way of like religious precepts, right?

04:31:22.740 In the way of like virtue ethics.

04:31:23.620 What truth do they know?

04:31:24.460 The virtue ethics of orienting towards like less harm and doing it as well.

04:31:27.900 So then they know what's not sinful?

04:31:29.680 Not necessarily.

04:31:31.020 So I don't understand.

04:31:32.400 Why do you—

04:31:33.080 What do they know here exactly?

04:31:35.300 They have an orientation towards the good that God builds into them.

04:31:38.340 Okay.

04:31:38.880 Yeah.

04:31:39.020 So an orientation not to sin, because to not sin is good.

04:31:42.000 Well, it depends on what sins we're talking about.

04:31:43.540 All sins are bad.

04:31:45.000 Sure.

04:31:45.440 Okay, so then they would have an orientation to not do any of those bad things, which is sinning.

04:31:49.080 Okay, so let me ask you this.

04:31:50.280 Why do priests—

04:31:50.540 No, don't ask me.

04:31:51.340 Answer first, then ask.

04:31:52.960 Answer, then ask.

04:31:53.920 No, I'm not going to.

04:31:55.040 Okay, then I'm not going to.

04:31:56.380 Okay.

04:31:57.360 We'll just sit here and stare at each other.

04:31:58.700 Sure.

04:31:59.220 This is such a perfect time to let some chats come through.

04:32:02.920 We have Cha here.

04:32:05.080 Thank you, Cha.

04:32:05.580 Cha XT donated $100.

04:32:07.780 Thank you, Cha.

04:32:08.360 How exactly is opposition to evolution anti-science?

04:32:12.340 Evolution doesn't even satisfy the scientific method.

04:32:16.220 It requires faith-based presuppositions.

04:32:19.500 It's not even science.

04:32:21.440 Opposing it is science.

04:32:22.920 Cha, thank you.

04:32:25.280 I don't know.

04:32:25.620 You just don't know anything about the scientific method.

04:32:27.100 Of course, it's falsifiable.

04:32:28.920 It's testable.

04:32:29.520 You can make hypotheses on it and then test for those hypotheses.

04:32:32.020 Yes.

04:32:32.300 And we have robust, scientific, validated evidence for it.

04:32:36.080 Cha, thank you for your message.

04:32:37.100 If you want, streamlabs.com slash whatever for your own.

04:32:41.880 Kyla, the equality of human beings, regardless of differences or likability, is not even established

04:32:47.620 without Christian beliefs.

04:32:49.860 Endowed with unalienable rights by creator, et cetera, equal rights and democracy.

04:32:54.640 But no, creator doesn't mean God.

04:32:57.520 It means something else that's creator.

04:33:00.040 I just talk to seculars who believe in natural law.

04:33:03.020 Yes, there are secular arguments for all humans having value.

04:33:06.300 I don't know what to tell you.

04:33:07.440 Frost, thank you very much for your message.

04:33:09.060 If you guys want to get your own in.

04:33:10.100 You just don't find them compelling.

04:33:11.140 Streamlabs.com slash whatever.

04:33:11.860 It's not even a matter of compelling.

04:33:14.220 It's a matter of Christian ethics.

04:33:15.500 You're a Christian ethicist, right?

04:33:17.220 Mm-hmm. 0.99

04:33:17.400 Okay, well, then, when you're talking about secular natural rights, what the fuck are 0.98

04:33:21.780 we even talking about? 0.98

04:33:22.500 You don't even believe in them.

04:33:23.480 Well, because we're going back to Agrippa's Trilemma, right?

04:33:26.520 I understand.

04:33:27.720 Okay, back to Agrippa's Trilemma.

04:33:28.780 Yeah, your least favorite thing.

04:33:29.720 So it's not justified.

04:33:30.840 So your beliefs aren't justified, neither are theirs.

04:33:34.020 Well, in the way that he's saying this, right?

04:33:35.660 So he's trying to say, you can't even establish this thing because secular beliefs are unjustified.

04:33:41.260 And it's like, at a foundational axiomatic level, all beliefs are unjustified, right?

04:33:44.760 A natural law theorist, while I don't find it compelling,

04:33:46.860 is the coherent, recognized, philosophical system that does have strong argumentations

04:33:51.500 for how it establishes, like, equal moral value.

04:33:54.100 Yes, of humans.

04:33:54.820 And while I don't find Kyla's, you know, entire worldview compelling, right?

04:33:59.680 All that matters is that because both of us can't establish justification,

04:34:02.420 I can do whatever the fuck I want because I don't find it compelling.

04:34:04.580 That's not what anyone has said? 0.97

04:34:05.720 But it reduces to that.

04:34:07.000 You can strom at me.

04:34:07.300 You can strom at me if you'd like.

04:34:08.840 No, I'm making an argument.

04:34:11.320 It literally would reduce to this that there's no moral facts and moral anti-realism if it's the

04:34:16.040 case, that Kyla just says that she assumes her worldview, therefore it's true.

04:34:19.240 She's building everything up based on the assumption.

04:34:20.160 Didn't you concede Agrippa's Kilema to me?

04:34:22.020 That would be the point, though.

04:34:24.140 If neither of us can justify, we have no moral facts.

04:34:26.380 So you were lying before when you said that you were conceding these things.

04:34:29.100 I didn't lie. I just said I adopted the entire worldview.

04:34:31.020 So you believe that?

04:34:32.000 Well, then, of course, of course you believe.

04:34:33.180 There's no moral facts?

04:34:34.500 I didn't say there's no moral facts.

04:34:36.340 By the way, even when it's the case, when he says secular ethics, if it's the case that

04:34:40.880 you're like, oh, okay, well, the thing is, it's like, I don't find that compelling.

04:34:44.560 The secularist says, oh, okay, that's nice. 1.00

04:34:46.540 I don't find your shit compelling. 1.00

04:34:48.000 Yep. 0.99

04:34:48.360 How do we determine who's right?

04:34:49.740 Reason and logic.

04:34:50.500 We argue it out, right?

04:34:51.520 We grant each other's assumptions.

04:34:52.940 I grant infinite regression.

04:34:54.280 Why should we follow reason and logic?

04:34:56.200 Why?

04:34:56.760 I think it's led to the best outcomes, and I think it's the only sense data that we can

04:35:00.100 possibly utilize to find truth.

04:35:00.500 But when you say best outcomes, right, when you say-

04:35:03.600 I mean in a virtue ethicist way and a pragmatic way.

04:35:05.480 Right.

04:35:05.840 Within the way that you think that they're the best.

04:35:07.960 No, I think the way that God thinks it's the best.

04:35:09.580 Right.

04:35:09.860 The way that you think God thinks it's the best.

04:35:11.960 Yeah, of course.

04:35:12.340 The same as you.

04:35:12.880 Right.

04:35:13.180 So if you think it's the way that God thinks it's the best, and somebody else says,

04:35:16.280 I think that that's the way that God thinks it's the best, how do we draw the delineation

04:35:20.140 between the two to determine you're right?

04:35:22.100 Usually, we use reason and logic to make argumentations both.

04:35:24.380 We use reason and logic, and they disagree with you.

04:35:26.640 Yeah.

04:35:27.200 Now what?

04:35:27.600 Well, the problem is that some reasonable beliefs are fundamentally unresolvable, that

04:35:32.840 there are reasonable conclusions that we can hold that are built on a foundationally unjustifiable

04:35:37.240 system where we have to go, I think that's a reasonable conclusion, but I think you're

04:35:39.700 wrong because I prefer dogmatism.

04:35:41.340 And they go, well, I think what you're saying is kind of reasonable, but I think you're wrong

04:35:44.500 because I prefer infinite regression.

04:35:45.900 And I usually utilize infinite regression in this case to make a natural law.

04:35:48.900 Okay.

04:35:49.220 So then if that's the case, then if all of us are just going off of vibes, bro, because

04:35:53.540 that's what we're doing.

04:35:54.260 It's not just vibes.

04:35:54.660 Don't reduce philosophy to just vibes.

04:35:56.020 Well, in your case, I'm sorry, in this case, in our case, it's just vibes, man.

04:36:02.180 See, if I don't agree with Kyla and we get through logic, it's the most good faith.

04:36:06.820 If we get through logic, we get through reason, we get through all these things, we have fundamental

04:36:09.580 disagreements still.

04:36:10.680 We don't agree on any of this.

04:36:12.240 It's just like, that's fine.

04:36:14.020 Okay.

04:36:14.260 So how do you solve?

04:36:15.140 It's fine.

04:36:16.080 I'm agreeing.

04:36:16.900 It's fine.

04:36:17.320 No, you're not agreeing.

04:36:17.660 So if we agree, I literally just agreed.

04:36:19.840 You just don't want to solve Agrippa's trilemma.

04:36:21.120 It's totally fine.

04:36:22.180 You believe that there's objective moral fact, right?

04:36:24.040 I'm literally, wait, we believe it.

04:36:26.920 Well, you do as well.

04:36:27.760 Don't we believe there's objective moral?

04:36:29.080 Sure, but you do as well, correct?

04:36:29.720 Okay.

04:36:29.980 How do we believe that there's objective moral facts, though?

04:36:32.160 I'm asking you.

04:36:33.240 I don't know because I don't believe in objective moral facts because I'm an Agrippa trilemmist.

04:36:38.380 That's, what are you, a trolleyist?

04:36:40.080 What does this even mean?

04:36:41.100 It just means I don't understand.

04:36:43.140 It's a philosophical problem.

04:36:43.620 So I'm asking you.

04:36:44.520 I don't believe in moral facts.

04:36:46.200 I'm a moral anti-realist and I have to be.

04:36:47.580 Well, this is obviously not true.

04:36:49.000 It's obviously true.

04:36:50.040 So I'm asking you, how do you solve Agrippa's trilemma? 0.99

04:36:52.660 Why would I solve a thing I conceded is true?

04:36:55.700 Because you don't actually believe it's true.

04:36:57.360 Prove it.

04:36:58.280 Based on everything that you've said, hence we talked about Agrippa's trilemma, right?

04:37:02.140 You keep on insisting that I don't believe in moral fact, but you present it in such 0.95

04:37:05.460 a way as saying, this is so absurd and silly. 0.78

04:37:07.380 No, I'm sorry. 0.85

04:37:07.440 We don't believe in moral facts.

04:37:08.980 I believe in moral facts.

04:37:10.100 Maybe you don't.

04:37:10.640 Oh, but you can't figure out how you get there without my justification.

04:37:13.340 I already told you, foundationalist lens, you can use, so moral objectivity can exist in

04:37:18.120 a, in a foundationalist lens, right?

04:37:19.400 So you build some axiom.

04:37:20.860 God is real.

04:37:21.800 Okay.

04:37:22.240 God is my axiom.

04:37:23.260 God's your axiom.

04:37:23.640 My tautology.

04:37:24.440 Yeah.

04:37:24.680 And God can make real moral facts and then you can build off of that.

04:37:28.520 That's how you do it.

04:37:29.060 Okay.

04:37:29.620 That's how you do it too, by the way.

04:37:31.200 But I have an axiom for more powerful God than your God who negates your moral facts.

04:37:37.280 That's not an axiom.

04:37:38.620 Why is that not an axiom?

04:37:40.160 How is, how is my God's more powerful a tautology or an axiom?

04:37:44.860 My God's more powerful because he's more powerful.

04:37:47.020 What do you mean by powerful?

04:37:48.460 Like he can do more stuff than your God.

04:37:50.960 Like, uh, what do you mean by more stuff though?

04:37:52.960 Like, I don't know.

04:37:53.920 He can make gods more powerful than himself.

04:37:56.500 Prove it.

04:37:57.420 Well, wait, I'm sorry.

04:37:59.040 Uh, justify it.

04:37:59.880 We can't justify things.

04:38:02.540 Remember?

04:38:03.060 Okay.

04:38:03.560 Yeah.

04:38:03.960 Yeah.

04:38:04.240 So these aren't axioms.

04:38:05.760 Why is that not an axiom?

04:38:06.860 Because none of this is tautological axiomatic.

04:38:08.740 They're not foundational.

04:38:10.000 Wait, do you think, you think you have to have a tautology to have an axiom?

04:38:14.040 Uh, not always, but most, most axioms reduce into tautologies.

04:38:17.220 Yeah.

04:38:17.680 Well, you're, you're talking about a reduction to a tautology.

04:38:20.240 Does an axiom need to be a tautology?

04:38:22.340 Um, no, no, but basically, no, no, they don't have to be tautologies.

04:38:27.200 So if it's the case, a moral, a moral.

04:38:30.160 So what's the moral case for my God is more powerful.

04:38:32.940 What do you mean?

04:38:33.400 Moral case.

04:38:34.120 Why would that be a moral case?

04:38:35.300 I'm a morality.

04:38:36.560 Why would that be a moral?

04:38:37.840 Why would God be more powerful?

04:38:39.220 Be a moral thing.

04:38:40.300 I'm assuming if you're using it as your axiom for your moral basis, because we're talking

04:38:43.380 about just God, we're talking about, I'm just saying God, are we not talking

04:38:46.320 about moral reality?

04:38:47.880 Krom.

04:38:48.700 Krom is the God, man.

04:38:51.840 Yeah.

04:38:52.100 And, and, and Krom doesn't believe in these moral facts.

04:38:55.140 He just doesn't.

04:38:56.260 Okay.

04:38:56.440 So you would be.

04:38:57.520 So therefore I don't believe in moral facts.

04:38:58.940 A divine command theorist and also a subjectivist, I suppose.

04:39:01.840 What do you mean?

04:39:02.340 That's subjectively true.

04:39:04.280 That, yeah, that's what I said.

04:39:05.580 Subjectivism, right?

04:39:06.640 Wait, subjectivism.

04:39:08.260 I shouldn't say subjectivism.

04:39:09.200 That's the, that's the opposite of objective, of objectivity, right?

04:39:12.260 Yeah.

04:39:12.740 Okay.

04:39:12.980 So you're saying that I can't have objective moral facts?

04:39:15.960 No, I didn't say that.

04:39:16.980 You said, I believe in Krom.

04:39:18.280 And I said, why?

04:39:18.820 And you're like, well, my subjective thing.

04:39:20.060 And I said, you can be, I guess, a subjectivist and a divine command theorist, but I'm a divine

04:39:24.340 command theorist who is also an objectivist.

04:39:26.980 Oh, okay.

04:39:27.760 Then I'm confused.

04:39:28.760 The God that you believe in.

04:39:30.680 Establishes moral law outside of me.

04:39:32.900 Oh, he does.

04:39:33.340 That you're engaged in.

04:39:34.160 He does.

04:39:34.680 Okay.

04:39:35.460 And can you name one of these moral laws?

04:39:37.320 Yeah.

04:39:37.560 You can go through the Bible.

04:39:39.000 Kindness, goodness.

04:39:39.520 I asked you to just name one.

04:39:41.920 Love.

04:39:42.800 Love is a moral law?

04:39:43.740 Yeah.

04:39:44.700 Based on your assumption of God?

04:39:46.320 That would be an objective, like moral fact.

04:39:48.440 Love.

04:39:48.820 Love exists.

04:39:49.300 Is it universal?

04:39:50.720 It depends on when you, when you say universal, I don't know what you mean.

04:39:54.420 Do you mean in an absolutist way?

04:39:56.220 Do you mean in an ontological way?

04:39:57.600 Yeah.

04:39:59.740 No, because you, like how, how, how would it be absolutist?

04:40:02.420 I don't know.

04:40:03.260 I'm asking you.

04:40:03.960 What does love look like?

04:40:04.860 Is there any moral universals from your God?

04:40:09.360 Universals as in like they exist outside of us and they like are, can affect us.

04:40:12.980 But the issue is how do you know them?

04:40:14.000 And you have to know them.

04:40:14.680 I'm not even asking you how you know them.

04:40:16.020 I'm just asking.

04:40:17.220 I'm answering you.

04:40:17.640 If it's the case that there's a universal, a universal moral fact.

04:40:21.640 Yep.

04:40:22.120 What is it?

04:40:23.340 Love.

04:40:23.960 Love is the universal moral fact.

04:40:25.560 It would be one.

04:40:26.740 So everybody ought love.

04:40:28.820 Kindness.

04:40:29.900 Justice.

04:40:30.420 Everyone ought love.

04:40:31.620 Everyone ought be kind.

04:40:32.520 Everyone ought to seek justice.

04:40:34.060 Everyone ought to do mercy.

04:40:34.720 And if those people don't do that, they're sinning.

04:40:38.000 Theoretically, but we would have to look into the context of what's going on to actually

04:40:40.600 know if they're not doing that or if there isn't a pluralistic battle of.

04:40:42.980 Well, let's just say they're not loving and they don't know anything about God.

04:40:47.160 Well, if they don't know anything about God, right?

04:40:49.600 It's hard to do sins.

04:40:51.240 Because when we're talking about sins, we're talking about sins of omission and commission

04:40:53.280 mostly and action.

04:40:55.080 If you don't know something.

04:40:55.820 If they don't know anything about God, are they sinning?

04:41:00.060 No.

04:41:01.000 Wait, if they're not.

04:41:01.800 I don't know.

04:41:02.760 What are we talking about?

04:41:03.600 Wait, no, hold on.

04:41:04.860 You're being like, if they don't act in love, what does that mean?

04:41:07.560 Whatever you mean by it.

04:41:08.920 Well, I believe in relativism as well, right?

04:41:12.140 This is relativistic.

04:41:13.200 So what when you...

04:41:14.520 I thought you just said that it was an objective moral universal.

04:41:17.060 Yeah, you can have objective stuff that is also relativistic.

04:41:20.260 Okay.

04:41:20.540 So in this case, you're...

04:41:22.600 Okay, well, what?

04:41:23.740 What would you have that's moral universal that's relative?

04:41:25.920 Most, like, justice is a moral objective thing that exists outside of us.

04:41:32.080 Sounds like you're saying it's a moral subjective thing.

04:41:34.100 No, I'm saying it's a moral objective thing that exists outside of us.

04:41:37.260 And we have to use, like, the relative context of the situation to figure out how to enact that.

04:41:41.720 Well, let's find out if that's true.

04:41:43.260 What is justice?

04:41:44.080 I'm not sure if I could define it.

04:41:48.640 Seeking, I mean, this is the issue.

04:41:51.900 These are irreducible.

04:41:53.920 Doing things just.

04:41:55.740 Justly.

04:41:58.940 Justice is doing things justly.

04:42:01.100 Yeah, it's circular.

04:42:03.720 Okay.

04:42:05.820 You don't like sotologies?

04:42:07.220 What do you think justice is?

04:42:08.500 Why would that matter?

04:42:09.780 I'm curious your thoughts.

04:42:10.600 If you're so unsatisfied with my answer.

04:42:12.460 Doing things justly.

04:42:14.300 What's your answer?

04:42:15.140 I just gave you my answer.

04:42:16.400 No, that's my answer.

04:42:17.280 What's your answer?

04:42:17.880 Same.

04:42:18.340 It's not.

04:42:18.760 I have the same view.

04:42:19.480 You're being bad faith again. 1.00

04:42:20.420 How is that bad faith?

04:42:21.400 Because you don't believe that because you scoffed at it.

04:42:23.360 Unless you think your own purview is absurd.

04:42:25.320 I didn't scoff.

04:42:26.260 I just repeated it.

04:42:27.700 You said justice is doing things justly.

04:42:30.320 So is that not a scoff?

04:42:31.600 No. 0.76

04:42:32.040 So you don't think that that's a silly answer?

04:42:34.100 No, of course not.

04:42:34.780 Oh, you think it's a good answer?

04:42:35.600 Sure.

04:42:36.020 Okay.

04:42:36.520 I think it's fantastic.

04:42:37.460 Okay, right.

04:42:38.440 My favorite answer of the night.

04:42:39.460 So again, you're being dishonest.

04:42:43.060 How is that dishonest?

04:42:44.460 Your favorite answer of the night is that justice equals...

04:42:47.260 You don't think that there's a better answer.

04:42:49.440 I don't understand.

04:42:50.940 Why do I have to continuously answer your questions for you?

04:42:55.820 I'm asking about your answers.

04:42:58.140 But I literally believe the same thing you do.

04:43:00.840 You obviously don't.

04:43:01.440 You convinced me of a grip of strilemma. 0.99

04:43:03.020 I told you that.

04:43:03.760 Yeah, but you're being bad faith when you say this.

04:43:05.600 How am I being bad faith?

04:43:06.740 Because you don't actually believe in this, because this would require you to just concede

04:43:09.980 that there's...

04:43:11.060 That according to you, you were saying, well, if I agree to grip a trilemma, now there's 1.00

04:43:14.580 no moral object...

04:43:15.820 Sorry, objectivity.

04:43:18.400 But the issue is...

04:43:18.900 Moral facts.

04:43:19.860 Yeah, same thing.

04:43:21.380 Good job.

04:43:21.880 Yeah, I still don't understand how we believe in moral facts, because justice is just.

04:43:27.680 So axioms.

04:43:29.060 So objectivity just means that we believe that something exists outside of our minds, right?

04:43:33.580 Where subjectivity seems, says, it only exists because of my mind.

04:43:37.080 So I think justice exists because God made it.

04:43:40.220 Yeah, objective is something that does not require mind.

04:43:43.380 Yeah.

04:43:43.680 Subjective is thing which requires mind.

04:43:45.680 Correct.

04:43:46.300 Agreed.

04:43:46.720 And relative is context.

04:43:48.500 So when I ask you about objective moral facts, these are going to be moral facts that require

04:43:52.400 no minds.

04:43:53.620 Mm-hmm.

04:43:54.220 And the context to understand how it's being implicated, yeah.

04:43:57.620 So what's a moral fact, an objective moral fact?

04:44:01.940 Justice.

04:44:03.380 Justice exists.

04:44:04.540 And what is it?

04:44:06.180 Acting just.

04:44:07.020 Oh.

04:44:08.180 Do you have a better answer?

04:44:09.380 Nope.

04:44:09.920 So then why are you shrugging and shaking your head at it?

04:44:11.580 What do you mean?

04:44:11.920 I just said, oh.

04:44:13.960 It's pretty obvious what's happening right now.

04:44:16.260 What?

04:44:17.300 That you are saying, I'm accepting this, but you're saying it in such a way to appeal to

04:44:21.400 like absurdism.

04:44:22.080 You're trying to be like, oh my gosh, it's just circular.

04:44:23.980 Yeah, it's, yeah.

04:44:24.800 I don't know.

04:44:25.300 It sounds like you're assuming.

04:44:28.180 Okay.

04:44:28.960 You win caddy girl of the year award. 0.94

04:44:30.920 I don't know what to tell you.

04:44:32.540 I don't know what I'm doing.

04:44:33.240 That's caddy.

04:44:33.760 Okay.

04:44:34.000 If you don't want to keep talking and you just want to be like, oh, I'm a moral nihilist

04:44:37.220 now, which is not true, obviously, then we can do that.

04:44:39.520 But I don't know how to go forward.

04:44:40.920 I don't know what I've done here, except I'm just adopted.

04:44:43.920 You convinced me of the trilemma. 1.00

04:44:45.640 That's all.

04:44:47.080 I don't even know what that means, but okay.

04:44:49.460 You've convinced me of the trolley problem.

04:44:51.360 What?

04:44:52.180 We do have some chats here.

04:44:54.240 Thank you, Joe.

04:44:55.600 Joe DC donated $99.

04:44:58.660 To the pro-choice chick, why do you get upset at the point of the founding fathers deferring

04:45:03.640 religion to the states?

04:45:04.640 I don't understand it either.

04:45:05.520 You can't separate federal from state because the 10th Amendment combines ideas.

04:45:10.520 Man, it's crazy that my audience agrees with me.

04:45:13.000 So strange.

04:45:13.540 That's not my audience.

04:45:14.200 Of course it is.

04:45:14.920 Most of the whatever audiences don't.

04:45:16.220 Most of my audience is on the Crucible watching.

04:45:18.860 And they're not watching here?

04:45:20.160 I don't think most of them are.

04:45:21.620 Oh.

04:45:22.640 But the thing is, is like, that is a good question.

04:45:25.720 We didn't, I don't, I don't understand either.

04:45:28.400 Could we see ones in chat for how many people watching are also Crucible fans that are watching

04:45:32.560 because Andrew Wilson's here?

04:45:34.560 We're currently in members only mode.

04:45:37.680 Well, even with members only mode, we can see how many of the members are Crucible fans.

04:45:41.000 Sure, we can do that.

04:45:41.600 We can do that.

04:45:42.340 Really quick before we let the next one come in.

04:45:44.340 Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, like the video.

04:45:45.820 We're about 300 likes away from 5,000 likes.

04:45:49.120 There's still 10,000 plus people watching.

04:45:51.820 I mean, even if you guys can get it to 6,000 likes, it would be much appreciated.

04:45:56.320 You're in members only mode.

04:45:57.480 There's 10,000 watching?

04:45:58.860 For the chat.

04:46:00.080 Why are you in members only mode?

04:46:00.980 Like the chat.

04:46:02.300 Oh, the chat's in members only.

04:46:03.740 The chat.

04:46:04.160 So they couldn't spam it.

04:46:05.200 Remember, anybody can watch.

04:46:07.380 But just sometimes we put the chat just to members only mode.

04:46:10.920 If you guys want to get a TTS in, $99 and up for TTS, that's via streamlabs.com slash whatever.

04:46:17.340 We have a chat coming in here from Giovanni J.D., a name I recognize.

04:46:22.500 Good to see you.

04:46:24.760 Giovanni J.D. donated $100.

04:46:28.000 You're pro-life personally because you know dismembering your unborn child is evil.

04:46:33.200 And yet you're pro-choice legally so other women can dismember their babies. 1.00

04:46:38.180 What a vile human you are. 0.98

04:46:39.780 We don't want, in our worldview, to impose Christian ethics on women killing their children. 1.00

04:46:48.160 That's...

04:46:48.520 Well, with statecraft, we want to do what works best for society.

04:46:51.300 So when you impose abortion on states, women die more often, children die more often, unborn children die more often, children move into foster care more often at a significant rate, and child poverty overall increases.

04:47:02.340 And if you don't ban it, more children die.

04:47:06.080 Just saying.

04:47:06.920 Well, it depends on what you mean by children.

04:47:09.020 That would be fetuses. 0.99

04:47:10.360 Well, when do we insult?

04:47:11.280 When does a fetus get insult? 0.51

04:47:12.860 At conception.

04:47:13.880 Where is your biblical evidence for that?

04:47:15.280 We can go all the way back to the Old Testament, in fact.

04:47:18.400 And the Old Testament portion that you would use here is the most interesting.

04:47:23.040 Yeah, you prepped for me, hey?

04:47:24.540 Yeah.

04:47:25.160 Well, the thing is, it's funny...

04:47:26.300 I appreciate that.

04:47:27.260 Like, genuinely.

04:47:28.220 Yeah, yeah, yeah.

04:47:28.760 So I just want to make sure, before we get into this, I want to ask a couple of qualifiers so that we make sure that we're on the same page.

04:47:35.220 Is that okay?

04:47:37.120 Possibly.

04:47:37.640 Okay.

04:47:38.380 So under your Christian belief, right, which denomination do you adhere to?

04:47:43.460 Or do you adhere to any?

04:47:44.360 I'm a Protestant, broadly, but I don't think there's a specific Protestant denomination.

04:47:48.120 So you adhere to Protestantism?

04:47:49.600 Sure.

04:47:50.080 Okay.

04:47:51.420 Although Catholics look in... 0.99

04:47:53.480 I don't know, I like their theology a fair bit.

04:47:56.580 Catholic theology.

04:47:57.500 I'm not Catholic, and there are some issues I have, but I like Catholics, too.

04:48:01.700 Got it.

04:48:02.400 Why would you be against abortion legally?

04:48:05.180 Legally, because I think it leads to more harm in all of the things that we care about as Christians.

04:48:09.620 If God is, like, kind of a virtue ethicist, I think it...

04:48:11.860 Makes sense.

04:48:12.280 And then why are you against it personally?

04:48:14.720 Because I don't know at what point a human life confers, and I also don't think that any of the negative outcomes that I'm concerned at a statecraft level is going to happen in my case specifically.

04:48:22.040 So if you don't know when a human life is going to be in Seoul, is the reason you're against it because you assume that it's possible that it could be in Seoul at conception?

04:48:30.200 Yeah.

04:48:30.540 Then I'll just take that position.

04:48:33.040 That's a concession on the position.

04:48:34.400 Sure, but the issue is that I'm not imposing that on non-Christians.

04:48:37.020 Yeah, but I think it's fine to impose it if it's assumed...

04:48:39.400 Yeah, I'll have one more.

04:48:40.440 I think it's fine to say that if it's assumed that it is the case, that we can say with some degree of certainty within both of our worldviews that in Seoul might could potentially happen at conception, then we should err on the side of life.

04:48:52.740 So why didn't God?

04:48:54.440 Well, ask him.

04:48:55.840 Exodus.

04:48:56.940 We can.

04:48:57.920 Exodus 21, 22 from the Septuagint.

04:48:59.380 Why are you unsure?

04:49:00.840 But because in the Bible, which is part of how we figure out what God thinks about things, we have the Septuagint.

04:49:05.500 No, I mean, why are you unsure about insoulment?

04:49:07.720 Because there's nowhere in the Bible where it says God insouls us at age zero.

04:49:12.300 Then why would you assume that it's even possible that we're insouled at conception?

04:49:17.220 I'm not...

04:49:18.140 What do you mean?

04:49:18.980 Why would you even assume that at conception is even a possibility for insoulment?

04:49:23.060 Because I don't know when God insouls a fetus.

04:49:25.820 Okay, so then we can just assume that it's possible he insouls them at conception.

04:49:31.480 Not really.

04:49:32.640 Well, but you do.

04:49:33.600 Well, the issue is how do you...

04:49:35.180 So I'll read Exodus 21, 22 because I don't know how you would deal with this one.

04:49:39.080 Right?

04:49:39.320 So Exodus 21, 22.

04:49:41.840 And I'm going to read from the... 0.63

04:49:42.940 Oh my God, I'm retarded. 0.97

04:49:45.560 I'm actually retarded. 0.98

04:49:46.680 Today is the day of spills.

04:49:48.540 Can we...

04:49:48.860 Okay.

04:49:49.380 Is it...

04:49:49.940 Oh, it's over here.

04:49:50.540 I got it.

04:49:50.920 Throw it to me.

04:49:51.380 Quick.

04:49:51.680 Quick, quick, quick.

04:49:53.040 Throw it. 0.99

04:49:54.560 Okay.

04:49:57.440 Okay.

04:49:59.260 I was trying to do a little bit.

04:50:00.480 Your claw.

04:50:02.980 No good.

04:50:03.520 Sorry, Andrew.

04:50:04.000 I'm sorry.

04:50:04.300 I'm sorry, Andrew.

04:50:05.980 Hang on a second.

04:50:06.760 I got some beer on my leg here.

04:50:08.540 Oh. 1.00

04:50:08.880 Shit. 0.99

04:50:10.400 Thanks, Brian. 0.99

04:50:11.240 Oh, man.

04:50:13.600 One second.

04:50:18.940 All right.

04:50:19.540 So you're wrong about everything.

04:50:22.200 Base.

04:50:22.620 I win the debate.

04:50:24.060 Uh-oh.

04:50:24.700 You sound just like Andrew.

04:50:25.660 Uh-oh.

04:50:28.860 You didn't mean to do that.

04:50:30.940 You're like, wait, book.

04:50:32.000 I should have you to bring this up.

04:50:34.400 I don't know.

04:50:35.500 Sorry, chat.

04:50:38.920 I think it's the man of the house.

04:50:40.880 It's up to you.

04:50:42.220 Very unfortunate.

04:50:43.040 Very unfortunate.

04:50:43.780 What were you trying to do?

04:50:49.140 I was trying to slightly pass it to him with a robot.

04:50:52.820 The claw.

04:50:53.100 Is that like a bit?

04:50:53.920 Is that why you keep using the claw?

04:50:55.080 Well, you know. 1.00

04:50:56.300 Dude, you got that shit everywhere. 1.00

04:50:59.340 Wait, is that worse than my spill now? 1.00

04:51:01.280 Is this the number one spill?

04:51:03.100 Ah, come on.

04:51:04.820 Anyways, continue on.

04:51:05.900 Well, I'm going to have a smoke real quick, and then we'll come back and do this.

04:51:09.000 Can you wait just two minutes?

04:51:10.040 Hey, I'll wait two minutes.

04:51:11.240 Well, I just, uh.

04:51:12.540 Two minutes.

04:51:17.460 Can I have more water?

04:51:18.780 Yeah.

04:51:18.940 Okay.

04:51:20.740 You guys want to.

04:51:22.980 Oh, you guys continue on with the convo.

04:51:25.080 I'll take care of the convo.

04:51:26.200 Yeah, I don't want to get in the convo before I have a smoke.

04:51:28.300 Oh, okay.

04:51:28.780 Because otherwise it'll be like 30 minutes.

04:51:31.600 I got it.

04:51:33.400 Do you think fundamentalism, I'm just curious, this is a broad thing.

04:51:36.120 Are you a fundamentalist?

04:51:37.080 Like, you think that Genesis is a literal story of how God made Earth, and the genealogy is

04:51:43.500 like an actual legitimate timeline.

04:51:44.940 Like, are you a fundamentalist?

04:51:45.900 I don't actually know.

04:51:46.940 I don't think Eastern Orthodox is usually fundamentalist, but I'm not sure.

04:51:50.760 Well, that's not what I would consider fundamentalism to be.

04:51:53.500 It's taking all of the Bible as, like, literal.

04:51:55.600 No.

04:51:56.300 It's, well, it's taking the Bible as being literal, allegorical, and spiritual.

04:52:00.720 So, is the Genesis story allegorical?

04:52:03.320 Like, it didn't literally happen?

04:52:03.980 It's allegorical, spiritual, and literal.

04:52:05.940 So, it literally happened, or it did not happen?

04:52:08.480 All of those things.

04:52:09.460 Okay, so you are a fundamentalist.

04:52:10.780 No, because there's some things there which could be specifically allegorical, but also

04:52:15.820 literal.

04:52:17.320 So, when we use fundamentalist, we're usually meaning, like, the Genesis story is a good

04:52:21.000 case test of fundamentalism.

04:52:22.940 Yeah, I understand what you're saying.

04:52:24.060 But you think Adam and Eve literally existed in...

04:52:25.720 Yeah, I do think Adam and Eve literally existed, but do you understand that you can have something

04:52:32.540 which is a literal and allegorical interpretation?

04:52:36.340 Sort, like, there's a mythologized history, but the issue is that the mythologized part is

04:52:39.840 kind of important, right?

04:52:41.020 Can be.

04:52:41.780 So, like, in the case of the Battle of, like, Troy, we don't even know if it really happened,

04:52:45.840 but battles do happen, obviously.

04:52:47.940 It probably happened, though.

04:52:49.000 It probably happened, but probably not in the way.

04:52:50.380 I don't think Achilles was, like, running around doing Achilles stuff.

04:52:52.740 I think there was an Achilles, likely.

04:52:54.520 Yeah, but he probably wasn't blessed by the gods with a heel.

04:52:56.900 And I think they probably got...

04:52:57.840 I think Agamemnon probably did get pissed off that they...

04:53:01.100 What happened with Owen.

04:53:01.740 Yeah, but for example, the holding of the heel didn't happen, the dipping in the...

04:53:04.800 He might have got shot in the heel.

04:53:06.080 That may have been where Achilles heel came from.

04:53:07.640 Is that what killed him because the gods dipped him in, like, a pool of God water,

04:53:10.160 God juices? 0.69

04:53:10.480 No, that part's probably mythologized, yes.

04:53:11.960 Oh, okay.

04:53:11.980 So, what part of Genesis is mythologized?

04:53:14.480 Well, I think Genesis is literally true and allegorically true.

04:53:17.740 How is it both?

04:53:19.220 Well, because...

04:53:20.380 What part is the allegory?

04:53:21.320 Thank you.

04:53:21.800 Well, some of the parts that are allegorical are also literal, but that doesn't mean it

04:53:25.880 gives us the full picture.

04:53:28.240 So, remember that there's canons outside of Genesis about Genesis, which are still considered

04:53:33.160 inside the Catholic and Orthodox Church to be true.

04:53:37.040 But that doesn't mean that we thought Adam and Eve literally lived in a Garden of Eden

04:53:42.100 and that they're the beginning of human creation and that all of human life descended down from

04:53:45.700 there, right?

04:53:46.080 Yeah, we do believe that.

04:53:47.580 Okay.

04:53:47.960 So, do you think that Samson killed a thousand soldiers with a donkey bone?

04:53:55.980 I actually don't recall that story.

04:53:57.740 Or do you think that that was mythological?

04:53:58.800 Samson, I'm sure you're familiar with the Samson story, but he's killing...

04:54:02.500 It was used to describe how strong he was, right? 0.82

04:54:04.740 He's killing a thousand people with a donkey bone. 0.99

04:54:07.120 Because of his hair. 0.99

04:54:07.760 He takes foxes and ties their tail together and releases them into a field with their

04:54:11.500 tails split on fire.

04:54:13.140 Do you think he literally took two foxes, tied their tail together, and then released

04:54:16.300 them into the wild?

04:54:17.940 Yeah.

04:54:19.040 Okay.

04:54:20.320 How did they run?

04:54:21.380 Do you literally believe that a donkey talked?

04:54:25.820 Probably.

04:54:26.340 I don't really care.

04:54:26.960 Okay.

04:54:27.340 Maybe not.

04:54:28.540 I could be moved either way.

04:54:29.460 Okay.

04:54:30.040 Yeah.

04:54:30.480 How did they run with their tails broken?

04:54:31.920 But do you believe that they could?

04:54:32.620 How did they run with their tails broken?

04:54:33.600 Well, if God could make donkey talk.

04:54:36.060 Okay.

04:54:36.300 So, we just made them run around?

04:54:37.660 If God could make a donkey talk.

04:54:39.440 Okay.

04:54:40.740 I mean...

04:54:41.200 I don't know what else you need from that.

04:54:42.960 I said, I'm not sure.

04:54:43.660 If God could make a donkey talk.

04:54:45.280 Sure.

04:54:45.640 Yeah.

04:54:45.780 But I don't think that Genesis is literal fact.

04:54:48.860 No.

04:54:49.960 You don't think there's anything literal?

04:54:51.420 Or just some things aren't literal?

04:54:52.620 Some things aren't literal.

04:54:53.520 This is pretty classic.

04:54:53.740 Which thing?

04:54:54.100 Do you think that there was an Adam and Eve?

04:54:55.980 I think anything that's, for example, written in pretty prototypical oral

04:54:59.780 orally translated Hebrew poetry is literally true.

04:55:03.440 Right?

04:55:03.760 For example, if we look at Egypt...

04:55:04.820 Do you believe that there was a literal Adam and Eve or not?

04:55:07.340 Not in the way that the Bible describes.

04:55:08.980 No.

04:55:09.460 Okay.

04:55:09.780 So, what do you think happened in Genesis?

04:55:12.340 I think it's an allegory of a creation story.

04:55:14.700 I see.

04:55:15.260 So, how many people do you think God created?

04:55:18.440 All of us.

04:55:19.940 From how many different people, though?

04:55:21.780 I don't know.

04:55:23.280 Thousands?

04:55:23.800 I don't know the evolutionary numbers of, like, when that tradition happened.

04:55:25.660 And where are you getting that information?

04:55:27.560 Both from science and the creation story allegory.

04:55:30.160 What part of the creation story allegorically would lead you to believe that thousands of people?

04:55:34.760 Well, God created mankind, right?

04:55:37.260 Yeah.

04:55:37.700 So, where did the people come from that Adam and Eve meet outside of the Eden?

04:55:41.200 From Adam and Eve.

04:55:42.500 How did they come from Adam and Eve if they were outside of the garden?

04:55:45.620 Because Adam and Eve had multiple children.

04:55:47.700 That they kicked out of the garden?

04:55:48.620 Cain also...

04:55:50.200 Well, wait a second.

04:55:50.940 This is post-garden.

04:55:53.080 Right.

04:55:53.400 So, as soon as they get kicked out of the garden, they meet up with other people.

04:55:56.500 Yeah.

04:55:56.700 So, remember how women have... 1.00

04:55:57.600 So, where do those people come from?

04:55:58.900 Well, wait a second.

04:55:59.760 That's not exactly what happened.

04:56:01.580 No.

04:56:01.880 No.

04:56:02.460 Yeah.

04:56:02.760 No.

04:56:03.360 Pull it up.

04:56:04.760 That's not actually what happened.

04:56:06.140 So, what you're talking about...

04:56:07.940 They did incest. 0.91

04:56:08.860 What you're talking about here...

04:56:09.600 So, they had Cain and Abel and daughters, and then we incestuously turned into all the humans

04:56:12.400 of the planet.

04:56:12.900 Well, no.

04:56:13.800 Hang on.

04:56:14.300 You've got to back up.

04:56:15.480 So, the first thing is, when we're talking about Cain, you know, Cain founds Enoch, the city of Enoch.

04:56:21.640 Sure.

04:56:22.120 Okay.

04:56:22.900 And yes, there was...

04:56:24.320 Yes.

04:56:24.880 Early on, that was how it went.

04:56:26.500 It all came from two people, but the genetic line was much more pure.

04:56:29.220 Because these two people lived thousands of years.

04:56:30.220 Or at least a thousand years, I think it was around it.

04:56:32.080 Yeah.

04:56:32.140 That's correct.

04:56:32.880 Okay.

04:56:33.140 I don't believe in that.

04:56:34.180 Okay.

04:56:34.580 Can you show me the source in the Bible which would negate that?

04:56:37.240 Uh, this...

04:56:38.300 The...

04:56:38.580 It would...

04:56:38.860 Like all of the Old Testament prophets... 0.96

04:56:40.520 I'm not a biblical deconstructionist.

04:56:42.000 All of the Old Testament prophets that you would defer to, who heralded Jesus Christ's

04:56:46.580 coming, pointed to the Genesis, and would literally say that that was true.

04:56:50.980 That these people lived for hundreds and hundreds of years, thousands of years?

04:56:55.920 Sure, but that doesn't mean they were actually that.

04:56:56.620 Why were those prophets who were getting prophecy from God not know that that wasn't true?

04:57:01.380 Uh, because they didn't have the invention of modern science, for example.

04:57:03.740 Why would they need the invention of modern science for God to tell them, hey, we know

04:57:07.000 how long people live, man.

04:57:08.380 About 86 years in your life.

04:57:10.460 God is specifically, uh, predisposed towards concerns about science within the Bible.

04:57:14.100 Where do you get the information, the extra biblical information, to negate Genesis?

04:57:20.140 From what...

04:57:20.440 I'm not negating Genesis.

04:57:21.500 I'm saying it's allegory.

04:57:22.580 When you say that, though, where are you deriving that information from biblically?

04:57:26.340 You're a Christian.

04:57:27.300 Where are you deriving the information that Genesis is incorrect?

04:57:30.020 I didn't say incorrect.

04:57:31.720 Stop.

04:57:32.180 Stop doing this.

04:57:32.360 Or that it's not literally true.

04:57:34.060 Yeah, it's an allegory, right?

04:57:35.240 But the principles that emerge under Genesis are meaningful.

04:57:36.800 Where are you getting the information that's allegorical from the Bible?

04:57:41.380 Exegetically.

04:57:42.720 You exegeted that it's allegorical?

04:57:44.740 Yeah, part of exegesis is looking into, like, history and, like, how these things came to

04:57:48.920 be written, how the saints understood these things.

04:57:51.000 Show me how you...

04:57:51.660 Give me the process for how you exegeted that Genesis is allegorical and not literal.

04:57:56.640 So, we know at the time that, like, when writing was first coming into the ancient Hebrew

04:58:00.600 people, that the main tradition of conferring stories was through the oral tradition, often

04:58:05.780 through poetry, which is why a lot of the original allegory in Genesis is actually written

04:58:10.220 originally in ancient Hebrew poetic styles.

04:58:11.720 Where's the exegesis come in?

04:58:13.160 So, the exegetical would be the research that we've done into the people groups at the

04:58:17.740 time.

04:58:18.020 Where's the exegesis from the Bible here?

04:58:20.880 Exegesis doesn't just mean only literal...

04:58:22.940 It doesn't just mean Bible verses.

04:58:24.460 But you are going to exegete the Bible here at some point.

04:58:26.600 Do you think that it's exegesis, for example?

04:58:27.820 No, don't ask me what I think.

04:58:29.160 No, no, no, no.

04:58:29.800 I get to ask you.

04:58:30.580 I get to ask you questions, too.

04:58:31.660 You're going to exegete the Bible at some point here?

04:58:34.780 What do you think exegetical means?

04:58:36.800 I think that that means that you're deriving meaning from the things that you're reading.

04:58:40.400 How do you derive meaning if you don't, for example, look into the

04:58:42.840 culture at the time to understand what they thought and felt about these things.

04:58:46.020 I think that is necessary.

04:58:47.060 Yeah, so that's part of how we do it.

04:58:48.560 But as that's the conditional, I'm granting the conditional, I'm asking when we get to

04:58:52.400 the Bible.

04:58:53.280 Yeah, so for example, in the case of Genesis, we know that most of the early fathers didn't

04:58:57.140 think about history in the way that we think about history.

04:58:59.080 They engaged in mythologized history.

04:59:00.520 So it didn't matter that Jews literally weren't probably slaves ever in Egypt.

04:59:05.700 That doesn't matter because Egypt was the largest nation that people had heard of.

04:59:09.540 And when these priests are telling...

04:59:11.240 So you think that's allegory, too?

04:59:12.480 The slavery part, yeah, seems to be mythologized.

04:59:15.500 Do you think that Moses is allegory?

04:59:16.940 There was probably a literal person named Moses who was a tribe leader, or it might have

04:59:20.000 been a collection of tribe leaders.

04:59:21.100 So you think that all of the early parts of Genesis are just total allegory?

04:59:29.120 If we have evidence for being allegorical, yeah.

04:59:31.820 Which there's lots of Genesis that we have evidence for being allegorical.

04:59:33.780 Okay, when does the Bible stop being allegorical?

04:59:35.700 It varies on different books.

04:59:38.220 I'm asking you which when.

04:59:40.260 I don't have it on the top of my head.

04:59:42.200 I don't think there's like this hard...

04:59:43.300 Wait, do you think Job is allegorical?

04:59:45.080 Andrew, you did want to take a little smoke break.

04:59:47.560 Yeah.

04:59:47.740 So we'll do that.

04:59:48.880 The answer is, he does think Job is allegorical.

04:59:51.380 But that one's okay, actually.

04:59:52.260 Let some chats come through.

04:59:53.200 Job is not allegorical.

04:59:53.780 You don't think Job is allegorical?

04:59:55.500 I'll come back and...

04:59:56.140 Yeah.

04:59:56.800 Let the man smoke.

04:59:58.140 Go smoke.

04:59:58.780 Let the man...

04:59:59.460 It's important that you do your sins, Andrew.

05:00:01.900 Go.

05:00:02.440 Hurry.

05:00:03.000 Smoke.

05:00:03.620 It's important.

05:00:05.080 Smoke and drink.

05:00:06.040 Come on, Andrew.

05:00:06.880 That's a sin.

05:00:07.680 Drinking's a sin.

05:00:08.220 Oh, boy.

05:00:08.580 Being drunk is, yeah.

05:00:09.680 Let the man have... 0.51

05:00:10.160 Aren't you hungover from being drunk?

05:00:11.560 Let the man have some peace.

05:00:13.180 Let him have some peace.

05:00:15.180 Let the man smoke.

05:00:16.960 He's welcome to smoke.

05:00:17.980 Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, you want to see more debates, we're going to have Kyla

05:00:21.440 back.

05:00:21.840 We're going to have her...

05:00:23.120 Who do you want to debate?

05:00:24.240 Who do you want to debate?

05:00:25.040 Tell me who you want to debate.

05:00:26.740 Who do you want to debate?

05:00:27.440 You had told me about one of the politicians, a Republican politician who's got the eye patch.

05:00:31.980 Oh, yes, yes, yes.

05:00:33.680 What's his name?

05:00:34.320 I don't know why it's not coming to mind.

05:00:34.920 It's actually blanking on me.

05:00:35.740 I know.

05:00:36.020 Nathan, do you know who...

05:00:36.640 You can look at that.

05:00:37.460 Look up Republican...

05:00:38.460 Oh, Crenshaw.

05:00:38.900 Crenshaw.

05:00:39.380 Den Crenshaw.

05:00:40.120 That'd be great.

05:00:40.880 Yeah.

05:00:41.760 What about Trent Horn?

05:00:43.420 Would you square up with him?

05:00:45.680 Yeah, but we've already got plans to talk.

05:00:47.880 Oh, really?

05:00:48.320 Yeah, yeah, yeah.

05:00:48.720 Okay.

05:00:49.040 Yeah, yeah.

05:00:49.340 He reached out.

05:00:50.040 Well, guys, we have the likes at about 5,100.

05:00:54.260 Guys, if you want to see more debates, get us to 6,000.

05:00:57.660 There's still 10,000 people watching.

05:00:59.280 Get us to 6,000 likes.

05:01:01.720 We have also, if you're enjoying the stream, yeah, like the video, you want to see more debates.

05:01:06.420 Guys, if you want to get a TTS in, $99 an up fee.

05:01:09.140 Prove me wrong. 1.00

05:01:11.120 $100 to destroy this stupid feminist liberal. 1.00

05:01:15.080 We do have some TTS. 1.00

05:01:17.120 Did you do the ones in the chat, by the way?

05:01:18.880 What was the answer?

05:01:20.200 I wasn't paying attention.

05:01:21.940 What do you suspect?

05:01:22.840 You can do it again.

05:01:23.460 What do you suspect?

05:01:23.740 What was the question?

05:01:24.620 What percentage of the people who watch your show are probably also major Crucible fans?

05:01:29.940 Have huge...

05:01:30.900 Wait, what?

05:01:31.380 Have huge dongs and are Crucible fans.

05:01:33.720 Those two things are ontologically tied.

05:01:35.500 Of the current viewers, I want to say it's probably like 60%, I think.

05:01:42.080 50, 60% of the viewers.

05:01:43.980 Yeah.

05:01:44.920 Me too.

05:01:45.560 Yeah, at least.

05:01:46.380 Maybe even more, to be honest.

05:01:48.120 Yeah.

05:01:48.520 Speaking of which, I'm going to let the...

05:01:50.480 As the chat, I don't think they're...

05:01:52.640 I'll let the...

05:01:53.740 They can be fans of both, right? 0.92

05:01:54.900 But when people are sending in clearly religious chats that are shitting on me, it's not overly 0.76

05:01:59.380 surprising that they have to be Andrew fans. 0.74

05:02:01.340 Sure, but I don't think that my fans are sending in dollars.

05:02:03.440 Not at all.

05:02:04.120 Wait, hold on.

05:02:04.680 Don't do Raqqa. 0.96

05:02:05.500 Well, she says she's Christian.

05:02:06.600 Don't do Raqqa. 0.96

05:02:07.320 Don't be...

05:02:07.680 Don't insist that I'm Raqqa. 0.99

05:02:09.120 Raqqa means like fool. 0.97

05:02:10.320 So it's questioning other Christians' faith. 0.99

05:02:12.560 Yeah, I am.

05:02:13.340 You don't think...

05:02:14.040 I would not do that.

05:02:14.840 Well, I don't care.

05:02:15.440 I'm doing it.

05:02:15.920 Okay.

05:02:16.260 You don't think that Job literally happened?

05:02:20.460 No.

05:02:20.920 It's definitely...

05:02:21.480 It's very obviously poetry.

05:02:23.280 Very obviously?

05:02:24.300 Yeah, I don't think that Job...

05:02:25.360 Was Ecclesiastes poetry?

05:02:26.740 I'm not sure.

05:02:27.240 I haven't looked into Ecclesiastes.

05:02:28.240 Proverbs?

05:02:30.940 It's literally just poetry.

05:02:32.260 What do you mean?

05:02:32.600 What do you even mean something literally happened in Proverbs?

05:02:34.500 Proverbs isn't literal.

05:02:36.900 What's literal?

05:02:37.500 None of Proverbs is literal either.

05:02:39.000 I mean, it's mostly like ideas and poems about how to conduct oneself, right?

05:02:44.320 Do you think Songs of Solomon is literally true?

05:02:46.660 Well, some of it, yeah.

05:02:47.960 But the thing is, it's funny.

05:02:49.540 That's not...

05:02:50.040 There is allegory there, yeah.

05:02:51.440 Yeah, true.

05:02:52.000 The thing is, is Job is trying to reconcile two positions.

05:02:55.400 Do you know what the two positions are from the wisdom books?

05:02:58.420 I don't know.

05:02:59.380 No, I'm not sure.

05:03:00.540 No.

05:03:00.940 There's...

05:03:02.060 Ecclesiastes was interesting because...

05:03:04.540 Are we going to talk about Job or...?

05:03:06.080 This is Job.

05:03:06.980 I'm telling you what happened with Job.

05:03:08.800 Can we pause it super quick just to let some of the chats come in?

05:03:12.500 I'm going to write down Job.

05:03:14.940 Yeah.

05:03:15.360 Job.

05:03:15.540 J-O-B. 1.00

05:03:16.460 J-O-B. 1.00

05:03:17.180 Is it Job?

05:03:18.380 Job.

05:03:18.700 It's Job.

05:03:19.480 It's J-O-B, but it's Job. 0.84

05:03:21.440 Okay.

05:03:21.920 We have...

05:03:22.460 I recognize some of these names.

05:03:24.100 Justin Martins.

05:03:24.660 Justin Martins donated $100.

05:03:27.000 Thank you, man.

05:03:27.420 It's always fun to watch Andrew get his opponent to disprove their own argument in real time.

05:03:33.220 That's what you want to think is happening.

05:03:34.680 That's fine.

05:03:35.440 Thank you for your message.

05:03:36.040 Definitely not biased, by the way.

05:03:37.040 Justin.

05:03:37.540 I appreciate it.

05:03:39.020 I recognize your name there, Justin.

05:03:40.840 Good to see you back.

05:03:41.840 Thanks for the message.

05:03:42.800 I wonder where he's from.

05:03:43.880 Do you think he's from the Crucible fan audience?

05:03:45.800 Maybe.

05:03:46.000 I think he's from the Destiny D-D-G-D-G-D-G-G.

05:03:50.860 Do you think that he's more like a Destiny than Andrew?

05:03:52.920 It could be B-G-G. 0.88

05:03:54.180 Durand, you donated $100.

05:03:56.760 Thank you, Durand.

05:03:57.280 Andrew Kamle sighs, are you done having a tantrum?

05:04:00.280 You are truly the arbiter of good faith debate.

05:04:03.600 Please don't come back to Canada. 1.00

05:04:05.700 We don't want you.

05:04:07.020 Durandall's another name I recognize.

05:04:08.840 Thank you for that.

05:04:09.640 Appreciate it.

05:04:09.920 Where do you think he falls between Andrew and I?

05:04:11.760 Do you think he's more of an Andrew fan?

05:04:13.720 He's a fan of yours, to be honest.

05:04:15.320 I've actually never seen Durandall's in my channel.

05:04:17.000 I don't know if somebody's saying,

05:04:18.000 please don't come back, we don't want you,

05:04:19.360 would be a fan of mine.

05:04:20.280 I think he's a fan of you.

05:04:21.540 I would suspect not.

05:04:22.960 I think he's a fan.

05:04:23.720 Possibly.

05:04:24.120 He's probably a fan.

05:04:24.700 What suggests he likes me there?

05:04:26.820 The reference to Canada.

05:04:28.360 Yeah.

05:04:28.820 Okay.

05:04:29.420 Okay.

05:04:30.000 He's a fellow.

05:04:30.160 He's a Canadian.

05:04:30.780 He's a fellow Canadian, so.

05:04:32.560 Okay, interesting.

05:04:33.140 But you're immigrating to the U.S., is that correct?

05:04:35.020 That's true.

05:04:35.440 You're trying to become a citizen.

05:04:36.440 I love America.

05:04:37.120 Do you have to revoke your,

05:04:38.220 no, you keep your Canadian.

05:04:40.740 We've got Desert George, another name I recognize.

05:04:43.120 The judge donated $100.

05:04:45.100 Thank you, man.

05:04:45.520 Appreciate it.

05:04:45.820 Didn't think I could lose more brain cells

05:04:47.800 after last night's debate.

05:04:49.900 Tyler proved otherwise, 0.98

05:04:51.280 as we are dumber for trying, 0.99

05:04:52.760 understand her nonsense, 1.00

05:04:54.480 constant prattle, 0.98

05:04:55.700 filibustering,

05:04:56.800 and goalpost moving.

05:04:58.480 When did I move the goalpost?

05:04:59.700 When did I filibuster?

05:05:02.120 What about the prattle, though?

05:05:03.320 You didn't deny the prattling, so.

05:05:05.360 I'm a woman.

05:05:06.060 I can't help it.

05:05:06.980 You didn't deny the prattling part.

05:05:08.660 All right.

05:05:09.080 Desert.

05:05:10.000 Is it Jorge or Joe?

05:05:11.780 I don't know.

05:05:12.920 We got another name we recognize.

05:05:15.520 Giovanni J.D. donated $100.

05:05:18.220 Where you been, J.D.?

05:05:18.780 The Didache was written in the first century

05:05:20.940 and is still a liturgical document

05:05:22.940 that condemns abortion.

05:05:24.240 It's true.

05:05:24.960 Advocating for mothers tearing off the limbs 1.00

05:05:26.980 and heads of their own children. 1.00

05:05:29.140 Sick vile woman. 1.00

05:05:30.440 I guess God was really bad 1.00

05:05:31.800 when he ordered the Hebrews to kill infants. 1.00

05:05:34.680 Sick vile woman. 1.00

05:05:34.840 That was just allegorical, though. 1.00

05:05:37.180 You got to do it.

05:05:38.020 You believe in it literally, too.

05:05:39.380 So how do you deal with that?

05:05:41.100 Well, the idea here is warfare.

05:05:43.340 What?

05:05:44.960 The idea here is warfare. 0.93

05:05:47.240 So in warfare, it's okay to kill infants?

05:05:50.000 It can be justified, yes.

05:05:51.280 Okay.

05:05:52.980 Yes.

05:05:53.480 Okay.

05:05:53.880 We have...

05:05:55.000 Like if a country attacks your country

05:05:56.900 and you attack them back and you're bombing... 1.00

05:05:58.460 You should kill their infants. 1.00

05:05:59.160 If you're bombing them, 1.00

05:06:00.060 are infants going to die?

05:06:01.140 That's not the same thing as saying it's good.

05:06:03.020 Well, it's justified.

05:06:05.620 It's not the same saying it's good.

05:06:07.800 But God ordered it.

05:06:09.120 And what God orders is good, right?

05:06:11.000 Yes.

05:06:11.360 In fact, the Amalekites, 1.00

05:06:13.320 when they didn't get fully killed

05:06:14.920 in genocide in the way that God ordered,

05:06:16.320 the Hebrews were punished for it.

05:06:17.700 You said that everything God says is good.

05:06:19.860 Mm-hmm. 1.00

05:06:20.340 So then if God says to kill those infants 0.99

05:06:22.880 because these are for reasons that he wants, 0.99

05:06:26.100 this is good, right?

05:06:26.120 So there are times where God can say

05:06:27.420 killing infants is okay. 1.00

05:06:28.640 Sure. 0.99

05:06:29.140 Okay.

05:06:29.580 Based.

05:06:30.020 Thank you.

05:06:30.720 Did he say that with abortions?

05:06:31.960 Well, he definitely didn't make it clear

05:06:33.300 with abortions in Exodus 21-22,

05:06:35.220 which we still haven't gotten to.

05:06:36.740 I'm curious, though.

05:06:37.900 What is your church history

05:06:39.120 that you adhere to, say, about abortion?

05:06:41.780 What do you mean?

05:06:42.820 The church history that you adhere to.

05:06:45.240 There isn't, like, a tradition

05:06:46.460 that I adhere to necessarily.

05:06:47.800 Oh.

05:06:48.380 Yeah.

05:06:48.660 I'm not Eastern Orthodox or Catholic, right?

05:06:50.300 And I don't have to be.

05:06:51.260 Do you just adhere to your own tradition?

05:06:52.720 I use exegesis, eisegesis,

05:06:54.560 and divine revelation

05:06:55.260 to try to figure out what's going on.

05:06:56.560 So I look at beloved scholars.

05:06:58.320 I look at biblical scholarship.

05:06:59.840 I look at Hebrew scholarship, right?

05:07:01.140 And I try to look at all these things

05:07:02.140 including what the saints say

05:07:03.120 to try to figure out what's true.

05:07:04.320 Why do you care what the saints say?

05:07:05.600 Because I respect a lot of what the saints say.

05:07:07.680 Which saints?

05:07:08.420 I love Thomas.

05:07:11.180 I'm a Thomist.

05:07:12.980 You're a Thomist?

05:07:14.060 Yeah.

05:07:14.320 In a lot of ways.

05:07:14.960 Not always, but in a lot of ways.

05:07:16.580 Okay.

05:07:17.040 Yeah.

05:07:17.180 So it's like a mix of Thomism,

05:07:18.760 Protestantism, other isms?

05:07:20.800 Mm-hmm.

05:07:21.160 Yeah.

05:07:21.520 Okay.

05:07:22.160 Yep.

05:07:22.620 And then you use divine revelation.

05:07:23.820 And what's interesting, actually,

05:07:24.860 is on the basis of this Protestantism

05:07:27.400 that you're mocking

05:07:28.060 is how most of America got covered.

05:07:30.480 Well, of course you are

05:07:31.100 because you're being like,

05:07:31.640 oh, there's just no tradition,

05:07:32.680 but that's a Protestant thing, right?

05:07:33.920 I didn't say,

05:07:34.860 ha, there's no tradition.

05:07:36.080 Do you think that it's bad

05:07:37.060 that Protestants don't have... 0.98

05:07:38.180 Well, why did you ask me that

05:07:39.180 if you weren't slightly condemning it?

05:07:40.880 Because I'm just curious

05:07:41.600 about your worldview.

05:07:42.580 Okay.

05:07:42.940 Do you think it's bad

05:07:43.580 that Protestants don't have tradition?

05:07:45.720 Bad?

05:07:46.320 Mm-hmm.

05:07:46.780 Yeah, I think they don't have

05:07:47.640 much to appeal to, no.

05:07:48.620 Okay, so you were saying that.

05:07:50.460 Gotcha.

05:07:50.860 I'm glad we got that.

05:07:51.160 Oh, wait.

05:07:51.520 I'm sorry.

05:07:53.020 Me trying to understand

05:07:54.000 your position's not mocking it.

05:07:55.660 It wasn't you just trying to.

05:07:56.980 I asked you...

05:07:57.580 It was me just trying to.

05:07:58.720 Of course...

05:07:59.200 No.

05:07:59.320 Which is why I just

05:07:59.960 asked you a question.

05:08:01.060 This is, again, bad faith

05:08:02.260 where he's acting as though

05:08:03.240 he's under the predilection

05:08:04.660 of one thing

05:08:05.220 when he's actually

05:08:05.800 engaging in another thing.

05:08:07.260 Everyone can understand tone, Andrew.

05:08:09.920 Everyone understands tone.

05:08:10.740 Is your tone?

05:08:11.460 Well, not just the tone,

05:08:12.660 but then...

05:08:12.760 Do you think that

05:08:13.140 when you're like...

05:08:13.660 Not just the tone.

05:08:14.180 When you're talking down like this,

05:08:15.260 is that tone?

05:08:16.580 Yeah, sometimes.

05:08:17.460 Okay, so then

05:08:18.160 is that you mocking me?

05:08:19.500 No, sometimes.

05:08:20.620 Yeah, sometimes I'm being mean.

05:08:21.740 Oh, sometimes.

05:08:21.940 Okay, gotcha.

05:08:22.760 But the issue is that

05:08:23.480 when I'm being mean,

05:08:24.180 I would probably just own it,

05:08:25.100 whereas you have to lie about it.

05:08:26.100 Have you been mean this whole debate?

05:08:27.760 Not the whole debate,

05:08:28.560 but part of it.

05:08:28.740 Have you been mean a lot of it?

05:08:29.880 Sometimes, yeah. 0.92

05:08:30.560 You big meany head. 0.58

05:08:31.800 Yeah.

05:08:32.200 Okay, but what we're talking about here

05:08:33.840 when I was outlining this,

05:08:35.420 like, the tradition

05:08:36.780 that you were asking me about

05:08:37.700 is the reason why I thought

05:08:38.800 you were talking down to me

05:08:39.620 is I said,

05:08:39.940 do you think it's bad

05:08:40.520 that we don't have tradition?

05:08:41.300 You said, well, yeah.

05:08:42.340 And so it's like, okay,

05:08:42.900 so you're obviously asking

05:08:43.800 about the traditional root

05:08:44.660 because you think it's bad

05:08:45.420 to not have a traditional root.

05:08:46.520 So you want me to answer yes

05:08:47.720 so that you can be like,

05:08:48.620 ugh, see how absurd 1.00

05:08:49.780 and silly she is? 0.99

05:08:50.720 Well, no, you gotta... 1.00

05:08:51.520 Then you're... 0.99

05:08:56.100 So you don't think that I'm stupid 0.99

05:09:24.400 for not appealing to tradition? 1.00

05:09:25.840 Stupid? 1.00

05:09:26.540 I'm not saying it's stupid. 1.00

05:09:28.000 Really? 0.99

05:09:28.900 Yeah, I didn't say it was stupid. 1.00

05:09:30.100 What do you think it is? 1.00

05:09:31.220 Wrong.

05:09:32.120 Okay, just wrong.

05:09:33.340 Yeah, wrong. 0.99

05:09:34.700 I don't think that you're stupid. 1.00

05:09:36.580 Really? 0.99

05:09:37.480 Yeah, I've never thought 1.00

05:09:38.260 you were stupid. 1.00

05:09:38.960 Okay, I appreciate that. 1.00

05:09:41.600 You hear it here, guys.

05:09:42.800 Andrew Wilson actually disagrees

05:09:44.180 with all you fans 1.00

05:09:44.860 writing in that I'm stupid. 1.00

05:09:45.740 He actually thinks I'm not stupid 1.00

05:09:46.720 and I appreciate that.

05:09:47.580 Yeah, I would use, like,

05:09:48.520 the word retarded.

05:09:49.800 Isn't that the same thing?

05:09:50.820 No.

05:09:51.140 What's the meaningful difference?

05:09:52.000 It's, like, more powerful 0.89

05:09:52.620 than retarded. 0.98

05:09:53.320 Oh, so you think I'm more 1.00

05:09:53.780 than just stupid. 1.00

05:09:54.460 Yeah. 1.00

05:09:54.640 Oh, okay.

05:09:56.240 So you are doing the thing.

05:09:58.540 Gotcha.

05:09:59.640 See?

05:10:00.120 Bad faith for it to take this long

05:10:01.500 for him to just admit that. 0.83

05:10:02.480 Crazy. 0.64

05:10:03.680 Keep going. 1.00

05:10:04.300 A grip of the dick lemmer 1.00

05:10:09.760 donated $200. 0.98

05:10:11.900 Can you guys debate

05:10:13.100 force doctrine real quick?

05:10:15.240 Woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo. 0.98

05:10:22.160 Woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo. 0.95

05:10:24.420 He earned, he fully utilized

05:10:26.600 that $200.

05:10:27.600 Oh, yeah.

05:10:27.840 Do you think that's

05:10:28.220 the max characters

05:10:28.880 he could submit?

05:10:29.720 I, no.

05:10:30.620 No.

05:10:30.940 I think so, that was a lot

05:10:33.900 But his question was

05:10:35.260 Can you guys debate force doctrine

05:10:37.560 Yes, but this is the last micro debate

05:10:39.280 Because I'm getting over to In-N-Out

05:10:40.460 I'd prefer not to

05:10:43.560 Unless this guy pays

05:10:44.680 And if this guy pays another $200

05:10:46.720 Then I'll do it

05:10:47.640 At the end here

05:10:50.200 You guys probably both want a closing statement

05:10:52.880 I was going to order pizza for us

05:10:54.860 And we could let some roasts come in

05:10:58.120 Okay

05:10:59.220 We can bring in the roast

05:11:01.380 But if all the roasts are at me

05:11:02.420 Do you like pizza? Are you vegan or anything?

05:11:04.940 I'm not a vegan

05:11:05.660 Pizza often just makes me sit

05:11:08.280 I have health issues

05:11:09.500 I'll stick around for pizza

05:11:11.840 I'm getting In-N-Out though

05:11:14.260 So don't order me any

05:11:15.160 I'm getting In-N-Out tonight

05:11:16.920 Why don't we do In-N-Out

05:11:18.900 There's plenty of time

05:11:19.860 They don't deliver

05:11:22.220 I was going to bring it in here

05:11:23.640 The Uber won't go

05:11:25.160 This is not important

05:11:27.840 So I'll do these two chats

05:11:30.160 I'll read these two chats

05:11:31.120 And then if you guys want to bite

05:11:32.420 Briefly on the forced doctrine

05:11:34.780 Five minutes

05:11:36.120 If somebody donates another $200

05:11:37.740 But I didn't come to talk about forced doctrine today

05:11:39.700 And I think it's not going to be a micro debate

05:11:41.200 I think it's a long, long, long

05:11:42.340 So Abe

05:11:43.580 Thank you for your soup chat

05:11:44.540 Agrippa assumes justify equals derive

05:11:47.100 Yet derivation requires hinge certainties plus norms

05:11:51.280 Those aren't conclusions

05:11:52.740 They're prerequisites

05:11:54.080 So the trilemma attacks a straw epistemology

05:11:57.600 So prerequisites or dogmatism

05:12:00.120 Prerequisites is just dogmatism

05:12:01.640 I don't know why he thinks that this did anything

05:12:03.540 Okay

05:12:04.480 A waste

05:12:05.060 Thank you for your soup chat, Abe

05:12:06.860 And then we have from Canada

05:12:08.580 Your homeland

05:12:09.600 JP Belly

05:12:11.080 Kyla

05:12:11.360 I rooted for you before you met Destiny

05:12:13.300 Please let some of your ego

05:12:15.420 Slash utilitarianism down

05:12:17.100 And listen to Andrew

05:12:18.260 I do no harm to nobody

05:12:19.660 So I can do it

05:12:20.400 But what about the harm

05:12:21.760 I do to society as a whole

05:12:23.820 So JP Belly

05:12:26.400 I am married

05:12:27.340 I appeal to my husband

05:12:28.600 Long before I'm going to appeal to Andrew

05:12:30.720 Most of my theological stuff

05:12:32.500 Because I'm not a preacher

05:12:33.300 I don't think anyone should look to me as a spiritual leader

05:12:35.260 Most of the theology that I have

05:12:36.780 Is somewhat downstream of Nick

05:12:38.400 And I honor my husband

05:12:39.680 And we talk about this and listen to it

05:12:41.220 So unfortunately for you

05:12:42.900 I am married

05:12:43.660 And I honor my husband

05:12:45.240 Okay

05:12:46.480 I don't think he was looking for a date

05:12:47.940 Sure

05:12:48.620 We have two more chats

05:12:49.760 We literally just

05:12:50.520 Okay

05:12:51.960 Whatever

05:12:52.700 We have two more chats here coming in

05:12:55.460 We have

05:12:56.060 Dr. Pierce

05:12:58.280 Dr. underscore Pierce underscore off

05:13:00.580 Donated $100

05:13:01.820 Appreciate that

05:13:02.780 Kyla has a Lincoln view of federal dominance over the states 0.73

05:13:06.380 Where in their writings

05:13:07.580 The founders were statesmen first

05:13:09.640 Virginian, etc.

05:13:11.360 And then American

05:13:12.400 Kentucky resolutions 1878

05:13:15.860 Thomas Jeff

05:13:17.340 Thomas Jeff

05:13:18.620 I'm ordering pizza for everybody

05:13:22.080 Hold on

05:13:22.600 That's

05:13:22.960 Okay

05:13:23.320 Done

05:13:24.660 Dr. Pierce

05:13:26.220 Thank you very much for your TTS

05:13:27.840 I do appreciate it

05:13:28.940 And

05:13:29.840 We have

05:13:30.980 You can do X

05:13:32.560 Coming in here

05:13:33.280 He has two coming in actually

05:13:35.260 I'll do those back to back

05:13:37.460 You can do X

05:13:38.120 Donated $100

05:13:39.420 Great work Brian

05:13:41.340 You can do X

05:13:41.940 I don't know either of these people debating

05:13:44.140 But the guy on the left is winning

05:13:45.900 Because he does not take one step back

05:13:48.240 Sure

05:13:48.860 I'm sure you don't know either of us

05:13:50.560 Very believable

05:13:52.040 That was the joke

05:13:53.000 Change your name to

05:13:54.760 Not so erudite subscriber

05:13:57.560 Please do

05:13:59.380 Just to clarify that you're not a

05:14:01.920 Crucible crew member

05:14:04.640 Thank you

05:14:05.080 You have another one coming in here right now

05:14:07.460 Thank you man

05:14:07.880 You can do X

05:14:08.240 Donated $100

05:14:09.220 Another one

05:14:09.740 Don't know either of these people debating

05:14:12.540 But the guy on the left is winning

05:14:14.220 Because he does not take one step back

05:14:16.780 Also I don't like Canada

05:14:18.920 Fair

05:14:19.560 Cool

05:14:20.580 Okay

05:14:21.140 Alright thank you man

05:14:22.640 Appreciate it

05:14:23.380 So we're going to have a pizza party

05:14:26.180 I'll lower the TTS to 69

05:14:28.220 If they want to send in like a 0.99

05:14:30.380 You know kind of a final

05:14:31.620 Cherry on top message

05:14:33.080 If they send in $200

05:14:34.440 Can they watch you eat a piece of pizza

05:14:36.200 Slowly

05:14:37.040 Well you guys can eat the pizza on stream

05:14:39.460 That's why I'm ordering the pizza

05:14:40.680 Oh we're having the pizza party

05:14:42.440 On stream

05:14:43.280 We're having a post

05:14:43.500 Debate

05:14:44.240 During debate

05:14:45.660 Maybe even

05:14:46.340 Pizza party

05:14:47.420 I feel like Andrew and I

05:14:48.480 Should charge you

05:14:49.420 To give the fans that

05:14:50.660 Pizza eating ASMR

05:14:52.120 Only if we

05:14:53.320 Had pineapple on the pizza

05:14:55.080 For Andrew

05:14:56.040 So

05:14:56.320 Okay

05:14:56.940 Oh right

05:14:57.540 You're not having pizza

05:14:58.280 I don't know if you guys wanted to

05:14:59.280 Close any threads

05:15:00.800 Or if you want to

05:15:01.620 Give your

05:15:02.600 Closing

05:15:04.080 Closing statements

05:15:04.840 Sure

05:15:05.300 Or

05:15:05.320 I'll leave it up

05:15:07.220 To you guys

05:15:08.060 You want an energy drink Andrew

05:15:09.640 I have applesauce

05:15:11.360 Do you want apple

05:15:12.400 I've got applesauce

05:15:13.640 I have more energy drinks

05:15:15.840 I think I'm good

05:15:16.640 You can't spill it though

05:15:17.100 Don't spill it

05:15:17.660 Yeah I want to sleep tonight

05:15:18.920 So no more energy drinks

05:15:19.740 Okay

05:15:20.040 Alright

05:15:21.040 Closing statement

05:15:23.060 From both of you

05:15:24.320 I think he goes first

05:15:25.420 Because I started right

05:15:26.580 Yes go for it

05:15:27.340 So yeah

05:15:27.880 Just incoherent nonsense

05:15:29.500 Kyla's position

05:15:30.500 Is that the

05:15:31.940 Feds

05:15:32.600 If it was the case

05:15:34.540 That they

05:15:35.040 They wanted states

05:15:36.200 To be able to

05:15:36.800 Implement religion 0.99

05:15:37.600 Would have come up

05:15:38.560 With some kind of

05:15:39.260 Bizarre compromise

05:15:40.180 Where the entire

05:15:41.040 Pan-Protestant 1.00

05:15:42.020 Fucking 1.00

05:15:42.320 Who lived inside 1.00

05:15:44.040 Of the United States

05:15:45.040 Would have all

05:15:46.060 Agreed to adhere to

05:15:47.340 It's bizarre

05:15:48.840 Makes no sense

05:15:49.820 It ignores the

05:15:50.580 Historic context

05:15:51.460 Of all forms

05:15:52.260 Of the compromise

05:15:52.920 Which happened

05:15:53.620 Due to the articles

05:15:54.280 Of confederation

05:15:55.160 She didn't know

05:15:56.040 Anything about

05:15:56.540 The very amendments

05:15:57.200 She was talking about

05:15:58.160 She doesn't understand

05:15:58.780 The government structure

05:15:59.540 Whatsoever

05:16:00.120 Anytime we got

05:16:01.460 Into these various

05:16:02.400 Dilemmas

05:16:03.480 When it came to

05:16:04.100 What is un-American 0.95

05:16:04.800 What is not

05:16:05.480 She just appealed 0.97

05:16:06.420 To vagaries 0.98

05:16:07.040 When it came to

05:16:08.180 The various ideas

05:16:09.120 Of what it was

05:16:09.920 That we were even

05:16:10.460 Discussing

05:16:11.120 When it came to

05:16:12.000 Oh this

05:16:12.460 This whole thing

05:16:13.100 Is un-American 1.00

05:16:13.660 This is what's

05:16:14.340 American

05:16:14.600 This is what isn't

05:16:16.120 The entire appeal

05:16:18.000 Even for how

05:16:18.640 It wasn't Christian 1.00

05:16:19.460 Didn't actually

05:16:20.740 Make any sense

05:16:21.460 The idea was just

05:16:22.260 You can't rule

05:16:22.820 With Christian ethics 0.86

05:16:23.620 Because Michaela

05:16:24.460 Says that you can't

05:16:25.360 Because I exegeted it

05:16:26.400 That way

05:16:26.780 Because of Agrippa's 0.82

05:16:27.700 Trilemma

05:16:28.120 It's bizarre

05:16:28.660 Knowing that

05:16:30.000 Yeah that's true

05:16:31.960 The entire thing

05:16:32.740 You claimed was

05:16:33.400 Why are you going

05:16:34.980 Out of your way

05:16:35.520 To interrupt my

05:16:36.100 Closing statement

05:16:36.580 I wouldn't do that

05:16:37.020 To you

05:16:37.320 So anyway

05:16:38.200 Yeah the whole point

05:16:40.040 Here is like

05:16:41.060 She did

05:16:41.560 She said that

05:16:42.140 She just exegeted it

05:16:43.420 To mean that

05:16:44.400 Christians can't 1.00

05:16:45.040 Rule their ethics

05:16:45.580 She literally said

05:16:46.560 She could not

05:16:47.200 Point to anything

05:16:48.020 In the Bible

05:16:48.640 Except that

05:16:50.240 Even the passages

05:16:51.160 She pointed out

05:16:51.960 The one she points out

05:16:54.060 She concedes immediately

05:16:55.740 Yeah you're right

05:16:56.440 That's because

05:16:56.840 He's bowing to Satan

05:16:57.620 The next thing is

05:16:58.820 She couldn't point out

05:16:59.980 The contradiction of kings

05:17:01.140 Except to say

05:17:02.140 Well the entire reason

05:17:03.740 For that is because

05:17:04.540 God wasn't ready to seed

05:17:07.000 That people didn't need

05:17:09.420 A king yet

05:17:10.460 And the second

05:17:11.220 We came up with

05:17:12.480 The new idea

05:17:13.120 Of democracy in America

05:17:14.640 Or western nations

05:17:16.740 Or the nation state

05:17:17.560 Now we're prepared

05:17:19.100 To not have kings anymore

05:17:20.320 And that's what God prefers 1.00

05:17:21.460 It's the most bizarre shit 1.00

05:17:23.100 That I've ever heard 1.00

05:17:23.860 Not only that

05:17:24.740 The entire idea

05:17:26.480 That we could have

05:17:27.260 Moral facts

05:17:28.060 Within the idea

05:17:28.820 Of Agrippa's Trilemma 0.98

05:17:29.940 Is fucking absurd 0.98

05:17:30.800 It literally is a reduction 0.99

05:17:32.560 To that

05:17:33.320 So I like

05:17:35.700 The whole thing to me

05:17:36.700 Was incoherent

05:17:37.600 But I guess the most

05:17:38.480 Incoherent part was

05:17:39.780 I still don't understand

05:17:41.180 How it's un-American 0.99

05:17:42.340 For Christian nationalists

05:17:44.480 To take office

05:17:46.960 Using the confines

05:17:48.260 Of liberalism

05:17:49.160 In order to impose

05:17:50.520 Laws that they want 0.98

05:17:51.540 That's literally

05:17:52.540 What America is

05:17:53.980 It's designed for this

05:17:55.120 It's just a system

05:17:56.020 At this point

05:17:56.680 And it's not even

05:17:58.040 It's not even

05:17:58.740 A coherent position

05:17:59.600 Because she concedes

05:18:01.020 That all the states

05:18:01.840 Were able to make

05:18:02.900 The laws

05:18:03.600 Which regarded

05:18:04.760 The ideas

05:18:05.420 Of the institutions

05:18:06.240 Of religion 0.86

05:18:07.660 Inside of the states

05:18:08.720 She even ceded

05:18:09.560 That it was mostly

05:18:10.280 Due to the 14th amendment

05:18:11.520 States did not

05:18:12.540 Give up this right

05:18:13.520 Rather the feds

05:18:14.440 Took it from them

05:18:15.220 She also continuously

05:18:16.620 Equivocates

05:18:17.340 Or not equivocates

05:18:18.320 But in this case

05:18:19.360 Makes a conflation

05:18:20.080 That federal power

05:18:21.800 Is somehow less important

05:18:22.700 Than state powers

05:18:23.720 Or that was a bizarre

05:18:25.260 Part too

05:18:25.860 Which I still

05:18:26.580 Don't understand

05:18:27.380 The entirety of the system

05:18:29.440 Even if I ceded

05:18:30.360 That the founders

05:18:32.720 Didn't want

05:18:33.620 To have a federal

05:18:34.940 National religion

05:18:35.760 Which I did

05:18:36.340 80,000 times

05:18:37.520 Even though we kept

05:18:38.140 Going back to it

05:18:39.060 They didn't want

05:18:40.460 To impose one

05:18:41.380 On a state

05:18:42.340 Specifically

05:18:43.080 Because the states

05:18:43.880 Didn't want that

05:18:44.420 As part of the compromise

05:18:45.280 So I don't understand

05:18:46.900 Why she thinks

05:18:47.440 That the system

05:18:47.920 Wouldn't drastically

05:18:48.680 Be something

05:18:49.180 Completely different

05:18:50.100 If we didn't have

05:18:50.760 The checks and balances

05:18:51.400 Between states

05:18:52.120 And the feds

05:18:53.080 The rest of it

05:18:54.040 Was me just

05:18:54.660 Pulling out

05:18:55.360 Incoherent worldview

05:18:56.340 After incoherent worldview

05:18:57.460 Which was fun

05:18:58.200 I must admit

05:18:58.880 But ultimately

05:19:00.160 Like the clips

05:19:01.540 From this

05:19:02.160 Are possibly

05:19:03.880 Going to be

05:19:04.220 The most amazing

05:19:04.940 The Crucible

05:19:05.440 Has ever produced

05:19:06.460 I must admit

05:19:07.180 So for that

05:19:07.920 I do thank you

05:19:08.560 Kyla

05:19:08.840 Yeah

05:19:10.160 I guess

05:19:10.840 To start this

05:19:11.860 It's unfortunate

05:19:12.440 That we didn't

05:19:12.920 Have a pickle jar

05:19:13.580 So we could see

05:19:14.220 If you're still

05:19:15.040 Strong enough

05:19:15.580 To insist on

05:19:16.260 The forced doctrine

05:19:16.940 Do you want

05:19:17.560 To arm wrestle

05:19:18.160 Instead?

05:19:19.860 Do I want

05:19:20.940 To arm wrestle

05:19:21.300 You want to

05:19:21.880 Arm wrestle instead?

05:19:22.640 No I didn't say

05:19:23.320 That you were

05:19:24.160 Well I just want

05:19:24.700 To make

05:19:24.980 I just think

05:19:25.560 It's interesting

05:19:25.960 Well hang on

05:19:26.280 I want to make sure

05:19:27.160 Are you interrupting

05:19:28.180 My outro?

05:19:29.280 You interrupted mine

05:19:30.120 For a thousand dollar

05:19:31.820 Did you want

05:19:33.300 To arm wrestle Kyla?

05:19:34.260 No I think

05:19:34.660 That you'll probably

05:19:35.160 Oh okay

05:19:35.640 Although if I did

05:19:36.900 Arm wrestle you

05:19:37.480 What was the point

05:19:38.340 Of that?

05:19:38.800 The point is that

05:19:39.480 The forced doctrine

05:19:40.340 I just wanted 0.93

05:19:40.760 To take a shot at you 0.97

05:19:41.820 That was the point 1.00

05:19:43.480 Do you want me

05:19:44.040 To continue

05:19:44.400 Or do you want

05:19:44.840 To keep interrupting

05:19:45.460 My outro?

05:19:46.060 Go ahead

05:19:46.380 Okay so I think

05:19:47.600 One of the things

05:19:48.160 That's really frustrating

05:19:49.060 When talking to Andrew

05:19:49.780 Is that he's really

05:19:50.400 Really smart

05:19:50.780 And he's actually

05:19:51.260 Really capable

05:19:51.840 Of engaging in good debates

05:19:52.880 In fact my favorite

05:19:53.520 Debate ever

05:19:54.120 Is when we both

05:19:54.980 Agreed to be in good faith

05:19:55.980 The issue is that

05:19:57.120 Andrew knows

05:19:57.640 That in the case

05:19:58.200 Of like philosophy

05:19:59.100 He can't win

05:20:00.280 The argument

05:20:00.940 By being good faith

05:20:02.580 So he has to

05:20:03.460 Insist on straw man's

05:20:05.160 Of my position

05:20:05.660 He has to

05:20:06.380 Be bad faith

05:20:07.300 By pretending

05:20:07.900 That he's granting

05:20:08.720 My world view

05:20:09.240 When he's obviously

05:20:09.960 Not granting it

05:20:10.820 Which is unfortunate

05:20:12.220 It's frustrating

05:20:12.940 Because when we have

05:20:15.740 Good conversations

05:20:16.860 Where we engage

05:20:17.760 With one another

05:20:18.760 Honestly

05:20:19.240 That's what like

05:20:20.520 Furthers truth

05:20:21.100 And I think

05:20:21.480 That that's something

05:20:21.900 That honors God

05:20:22.620 I think it's something

05:20:23.260 That's interesting

05:20:23.940 And Andrew

05:20:25.520 Didn't want to do

05:20:26.440 That today

05:20:26.940 I think one of the

05:20:27.840 Things that's really

05:20:28.320 Important to pull

05:20:28.940 Apart here

05:20:29.340 Is that

05:20:29.720 Insisting that

05:20:31.000 Your partner

05:20:31.820 Is incoherent 1.00

05:20:33.400 That they're stupid 1.00

05:20:34.300 Or retarded 1.00

05:20:35.020 Doesn't mean

05:20:37.480 You're right

05:20:38.020 It just means

05:20:38.860 You're mean

05:20:39.260 It just means

05:20:39.960 You're mean 0.99

05:20:40.300 And nasty 1.00

05:20:40.700 And you can be 0.99

05:20:41.360 Mean and nasty

05:20:41.960 The issue is

05:20:42.540 That your entire

05:20:43.160 Platform is built

05:20:44.140 On this presumption

05:20:44.960 That you're going

05:20:45.800 Around looking

05:20:46.820 At non-Christians 1.00

05:20:47.720 And calling 1.00

05:20:48.360 Dirty degenerate 1.00

05:20:49.400 Whores 1.00

05:20:49.740 While A 0.99

05:20:50.360 You barely tell

05:20:51.360 Most of Brian's

05:20:52.200 Whatever fans

05:20:52.780 That they're also 1.00

05:20:53.380 Degenerate whores 1.00

05:20:54.200 As men 1.00

05:20:54.880 And B

05:20:55.800 You look around

05:20:56.960 And you won't

05:20:57.720 Remove the plank

05:20:58.520 From your own eye

05:20:59.260 You have gluttony

05:21:00.240 Going on

05:21:00.700 Right

05:21:00.900 You're addicted

05:21:01.340 To cigarettes

05:21:02.080 You drink all the

05:21:03.000 Time

05:21:03.260 You're overweight

05:21:04.020 I'm not interested

05:21:05.880 In telling other

05:21:06.900 People all of their

05:21:07.560 Sins 1.00

05:21:07.800 Because I'm mostly

05:21:08.600 Of the predilection

05:21:09.200 Of trying to figure

05:21:09.860 Out my own

05:21:10.360 And trying to be

05:21:11.020 Honest before God

05:21:11.880 I think that

05:21:12.800 For example

05:21:13.620 It's bad

05:21:14.600 For Christians 0.76

05:21:15.320 To impose

05:21:15.960 Our worldview

05:21:16.680 On others

05:21:17.120 I think Romans

05:21:18.100 For example

05:21:18.540 If you go to

05:21:19.020 Romans

05:21:19.340 Right

05:21:19.920 If a person

05:21:20.420 Believes

05:21:20.760 An action

05:21:21.220 Is wrong

05:21:21.700 Then performing

05:21:22.160 That action

05:21:22.600 Is a sin

05:21:22.980 For that person

05:21:23.560 This is something

05:21:24.240 Most priests believe

05:21:25.460 This is actually

05:21:25.980 Why for example

05:21:26.800 Priests won't

05:21:27.680 Tell people

05:21:28.320 What blaspheming

05:21:29.500 The Holy Spirit

05:21:30.180 Is because they

05:21:30.740 Believe that

05:21:31.100 If they can't

05:21:31.700 Know what it is

05:21:32.360 Then they can't

05:21:32.920 Do the sin

05:21:33.600 Right

05:21:34.020 Knowledge of the sin

05:21:35.440 Is essential

05:21:36.040 For doing the sin

05:21:37.320 Which is why

05:21:37.940 When non-Christians 1.00

05:21:39.200 Who reject

05:21:39.980 The idea of Christ

05:21:41.140 In the first place

05:21:41.780 Can't know certain things

05:21:43.080 So we can't hold them

05:21:43.940 To these standards

05:21:44.680 Right

05:21:45.180 In Romans 14 14

05:21:46.720 We have

05:21:47.220 I know and I am

05:21:48.140 Persuaded in the Lord

05:21:49.020 That Jesus is

05:21:49.900 That in the Lord Jesus

05:21:51.500 That nothing is unclean

05:21:52.760 In and of itself

05:21:53.360 But it is unclean

05:21:54.380 For anyone who thinks

05:21:55.440 It is unclean

05:21:56.020 In Romans 14

05:21:57.000 Paul goes through

05:21:57.600 This long litany

05:21:58.280 Of outlining things

05:21:59.280 That might be sin

05:22:00.380 For you

05:22:00.960 But are not sins

05:22:02.180 For others

05:22:02.820 Or vice versa

05:22:03.740 Right

05:22:04.120 This is well established

05:22:05.100 But Andrew wants to pretend

05:22:06.220 Like this is incoherent

05:22:07.360 That this isn't Christian 1.00

05:22:08.400 Because it makes him win

05:22:10.640 I guess

05:22:11.340 And that's fundamentally

05:22:12.500 Like what this discussion

05:22:13.960 Came down to

05:22:14.540 Is Andrew wanted to win

05:22:15.800 Which is why he was being

05:22:17.180 Bad faith incessantly

05:22:18.600 And didn't want to actually

05:22:19.960 Have a meaningful discussion

05:22:20.980 About things that I think

05:22:21.900 We both value

05:22:22.520 In fact he went so far 0.90

05:22:23.600 As to not just call me retarded 0.76

05:22:25.200 But to insist that I am

05:22:26.660 I'm not even saved

05:22:27.660 Right

05:22:28.240 Which is by the way

05:22:30.000 Just a really

05:22:31.120 Just look up how God

05:22:32.700 Feels about people

05:22:33.300 Who engage

05:22:34.180 Who are raka 0.98

05:22:34.760 Right 0.90

05:22:35.060 Who calls me fool 0.97

05:22:35.900 You shouldn't do it 0.88

05:22:37.140 In fact he says

05:22:37.800 To the Pharisees

05:22:38.580 That the blood

05:22:39.620 Of those

05:22:40.500 Who they insist

05:22:41.940 Are unsaved

05:22:42.380 Is on them

05:22:43.180 That their salvation

05:22:44.920 Is dismerged by them

05:22:46.440 And in fact

05:22:47.180 Jesus goes so far

05:22:47.980 As to say

05:22:48.300 You're a Pharisee 1.00

05:22:49.280 And I would crush you 1.00

05:22:50.140 Under my foot 1.00

05:22:50.640 Like a snake

05:22:51.160 I think at the end

05:22:51.960 Of the day

05:22:52.240 There is a risk

05:22:52.880 That my biblical

05:22:53.680 Interpretation is wrong

05:22:54.680 And that's okay

05:22:55.340 Right

05:22:55.780 I'm open to that

05:22:56.700 I'm doing my best

05:22:57.460 To seek truth

05:22:58.140 What Andrew is insisting

05:22:59.480 On doing

05:22:59.860 Is using Russian orthodoxy 0.99

05:23:01.860 Maybe the most garbage 1.00

05:23:03.420 Religious system ever 1.00

05:23:04.620 That has been completely

05:23:05.500 Usurped by the KGB

05:23:06.660 By the way

05:23:07.200 He's not even honoring

05:23:08.400 Eastern orthodoxy

05:23:09.440 He's using it

05:23:10.460 To justify his baby

05:23:11.900 Christianity

05:23:12.560 To instantiate his bigotry

05:23:14.760 That's what he's doing

05:23:15.680 With his faith 0.82

05:23:16.180 And I think it's disgusting

05:23:16.980 I'm not Russian orthodox

05:23:17.400 By the way

05:23:18.400 What are you?

05:23:20.760 Well I'm not going to say

05:23:21.520 But I'm not Russian orthodox

05:23:22.920 Which part of orthodoxy

05:23:23.820 Are you a part of?

05:23:24.100 I'm not going to say

05:23:24.940 The reason I can't

05:23:26.720 If I dox that

05:23:28.100 And people find church

05:23:29.100 They'll actually harass 0.53

05:23:29.960 The church

05:23:30.400 True

05:23:31.480 Okay

05:23:31.840 You don't believe me?

05:23:32.960 I believe you

05:23:33.380 But I don't think

05:23:34.140 That saying

05:23:34.740 Which branch of orthodoxy

05:23:35.880 You're a part of

05:23:36.420 Will lead to like

05:23:37.500 All this thing

05:23:37.980 I imagine that

05:23:38.580 There's more churches

05:23:39.140 Around you

05:23:39.480 You're in Dallas right?

05:23:41.300 There's probably 0.99

05:23:41.760 Why the fuck 0.98

05:23:42.360 Would you say that? 0.99

05:23:44.420 Like why?

05:23:45.380 Wait

05:23:45.720 Why would you say that?

05:23:47.860 Sorry

05:23:48.300 Was that not publicly known?

05:23:49.720 Well

05:23:49.960 You didn't know

05:23:52.100 If it was

05:23:52.760 I assume that

05:23:54.320 It was decently

05:23:54.820 I've never said it

05:23:55.700 No

05:23:55.940 I've never specifically

05:23:56.940 Said that

05:23:57.540 No

05:23:57.720 Gotcha

05:23:58.020 Okay

05:23:58.480 So I just

05:23:59.640 Note to self

05:24:00.440 Don't tell Kyla

05:24:01.060 Anything personal

05:24:01.860 Not a good idea

05:24:02.660 So he's going to

05:24:04.640 Stand on this

05:24:05.180 That I don't know

05:24:05.700 If he even cares

05:24:06.240 That much about

05:24:06.740 To just like

05:24:07.380 Point to me

05:24:08.160 And say 1.00

05:24:08.440 See bad stupid woman 1.00

05:24:09.840 That's not good conversation 1.00

05:24:11.140 If it is

05:24:12.120 That was an actual

05:24:12.960 Bad thing to do

05:24:13.660 If it

05:24:14.320 Well

05:24:14.580 I had no idea

05:24:15.840 That that wasn't

05:24:16.380 Publicly known

05:24:16.880 You know

05:24:17.880 Like just never

05:24:19.100 Say anything

05:24:19.740 About where you live

05:24:21.200 Family members names

05:24:22.640 I don't talk about

05:24:23.500 Any of that stuff

05:24:24.360 It's because

05:24:25.140 I have people

05:24:26.420 Who literally

05:24:26.880 Threaten to kill me 0.92

05:24:27.740 Every day 0.99

05:24:28.300 I've had an assassin

05:24:29.080 Come out to try

05:24:29.720 To kill my wife 1.00

05:24:30.480 And I just really 1.00

05:24:31.560 Prefer you not do that

05:24:32.620 That's fair

05:24:32.980 I apologize

05:24:33.540 For releasing that

05:24:34.120 Information

05:24:34.520 Genuinely

05:24:35.080 Is there a way

05:24:35.660 That it can be

05:24:36.080 Struck from the

05:24:36.640 Final VOD

05:24:37.140 Well it's done now

05:24:38.840 You just saw 0.99

05:24:39.520 Fucking 12,000 0.99

05:24:40.380 People heard it 0.99

05:24:41.160 That's done

05:24:41.660 But from the

05:24:42.180 Final VOD

05:24:42.600 At least

05:24:42.840 Can it be removed

05:24:43.400 Why would it matter

05:24:44.280 12,000 people 1.00

05:24:46.500 Just heard that shit 1.00

05:24:47.520 That's done 1.00

05:24:48.560 That's done

05:24:50.140 Okay

05:24:50.640 I would still

05:24:52.080 Prefer that it's

05:24:52.540 Removed

05:24:52.860 Genuinely offer my

05:24:54.360 Apology if that

05:24:54.900 Wasn't publicly out

05:24:55.620 There

05:24:55.820 Look into

05:24:56.640 I think there's

05:24:57.520 Editing tools

05:24:58.340 Cool

05:24:58.940 I really appreciate

05:24:59.640 That

05:24:59.820 I always just

05:25:00.320 Said Texas

05:25:01.020 That's it

05:25:02.380 I didn't know

05:25:03.360 That genuinely

05:25:04.060 It seemed like

05:25:04.660 You're decently

05:25:05.040 Open about it

05:25:05.540 In the way

05:25:05.760 That I'm open

05:25:06.180 About being in

05:25:07.480 Tampa

05:25:07.700 And moving to

05:25:08.260 Dallas

05:25:08.580 But you just

05:25:10.180 Always should have

05:25:11.220 A rule of thumb

05:25:12.000 Just to not

05:25:12.880 Stay stuff like that

05:25:14.040 When you're

05:25:14.440 Ever on stream

05:25:16.200 About it

05:25:16.640 Just never

05:25:17.280 Sure

05:25:17.620 And I apologize

05:25:18.380 None of this

05:25:19.620 However takes away

05:25:20.400 From the fact

05:25:21.000 That you've engaged

05:25:21.760 In bad faith

05:25:22.360 That you use

05:25:23.400 Other people's sin

05:25:24.700 As a tax

05:25:25.300 While you dismiss

05:25:26.160 Planks

05:25:26.540 And now he's

05:25:29.320 Just walking away

05:25:29.980 To Pearl Clutch

05:25:30.440 So it didn't

05:25:30.920 Matter that you

05:25:31.640 Were insulting

05:25:32.120 Rachel Wilson

05:25:32.660 But apparently

05:25:33.220 That's the big

05:25:33.900 Deal

05:25:34.100 Okay

05:25:34.440 No you're not

05:25:37.540 He's

05:25:38.660 Yeah

05:25:39.100 Having a smoke

05:25:40.720 That

05:25:41.860 In the middle

05:25:42.440 Of my outro

05:25:43.020 The guy

05:25:47.860 The guy

05:25:48.460 Has a

05:25:49.140 You know

05:25:49.760 He smokes cigarettes

05:25:50.540 He's jonesing

05:25:51.660 Yeah would you

05:25:52.220 Allow me to just

05:25:52.820 Walk out in the

05:25:53.240 Middle of somebody's

05:25:53.700 Outro

05:25:53.980 Well I can't

05:25:55.360 What am I gonna

05:25:56.040 Like physically

05:25:56.760 Force somebody

05:25:57.660 Well you'd probably

05:25:58.220 Be like hey

05:25:58.720 Don't do that

05:25:59.360 No I mean

05:26:02.140 We've had

05:26:03.480 Andrew on for

05:26:04.140 Debates and

05:26:04.860 Women will 1.00

05:26:05.980 Have walked

05:26:07.540 Off

05:26:08.060 Is that

05:26:08.920 Of course you

05:26:09.960 Won't force me

05:26:10.520 But you don't

05:26:10.920 Like that right

05:26:11.640 Yeah I mean

05:26:13.260 Of course

05:26:13.560 But I prefer

05:26:14.060 Andrew to stay

05:26:14.740 But I also

05:26:15.300 Acknowledge that

05:26:16.000 The guy smoked

05:26:16.980 Cigarettes and

05:26:17.640 He wanted to

05:26:18.380 He wanted to

05:26:19.600 Have a smoke

05:26:20.140 So but yeah

05:26:21.420 We've

05:26:21.740 Women will walk 1.00

05:26:22.960 Off and

05:26:23.620 In fact

05:26:24.960 When Andrew

05:26:25.360 Wilson was

05:26:25.880 Debating

05:26:26.380 Crash out

05:26:27.680 Kylie as

05:26:28.560 She's called

05:26:29.100 Rage quit

05:26:30.200 Kylie

05:26:30.620 Crash out

05:26:31.160 Kylie

05:26:31.420 She got up

05:26:32.420 Multiple times

05:26:33.400 And of course

05:26:34.920 It's our

05:26:35.260 Preference for

05:26:35.840 To stay there

05:26:36.440 But I'd be

05:26:37.800 Like okay

05:26:38.800 She'd be a

05:26:40.360 Little frustrated

05:26:41.020 Or flustered

05:26:41.720 And I'd be

05:26:42.480 Like okay

05:26:43.300 You need a

05:26:43.880 Few minutes

05:26:44.440 To cool off

05:26:45.120 So yeah

05:26:46.020 I'm not gonna

05:26:46.440 Lose my mind 0.94

05:26:47.160 If a woman 0.99

05:26:48.140 Hey you're

05:26:48.860 Trying to make

05:26:49.280 It like a

05:26:49.680 Sexist thing

05:26:50.340 Here

05:26:50.560 Like a

05:26:51.400 I don't think

05:26:51.900 It's a

05:26:52.080 Sexist 0.85

05:26:52.400 A gendered 1.00

05:26:52.840 Favoritism

05:26:53.520 Did I say

05:26:53.960 Sexist

05:26:54.500 You did say

05:26:55.400 Sexism

05:26:55.960 I think

05:26:56.680 Andrew's your

05:26:57.140 Friend

05:26:57.420 And so you

05:26:57.980 Give him

05:26:58.300 Extra stretches

05:26:59.040 Because you

05:26:59.360 Understand that

05:26:59.860 He's been

05:27:00.180 Good to you

05:27:00.520 And you

05:27:00.660 Want to be

05:27:00.900 Loyal to him

05:27:01.400 But you

05:27:01.780 Wouldn't give

05:27:02.080 To me

05:27:02.400 I agree

05:27:03.520 But you did

05:27:04.180 Allow him to

05:27:04.720 Walk out in the

05:27:05.200 Middle of my

05:27:05.820 Outro and

05:27:06.420 Interrupt my

05:27:06.860 Outro significantly

05:27:07.860 More than I've

05:27:08.440 Interrupted his

05:27:09.040 Well there's some

05:27:10.500 Interruptions both

05:27:11.760 Ways but also

05:27:12.480 In terms of

05:27:13.120 Look

05:27:13.400 Andrew

05:27:15.160 Yeah okay

05:27:15.980 You're doing

05:27:16.420 Your closing but

05:27:17.300 Andrew's pointing

05:27:18.220 Out hey

05:27:20.560 And I'm genuinely

05:27:21.580 In the wrong for

05:27:22.240 That we should

05:27:22.640 Not even draw

05:27:23.260 More attention

05:27:23.880 To that whole

05:27:25.220 Thing I think

05:27:25.720 We can

05:27:26.060 All it's done

05:27:26.680 Now

05:27:26.800 Yeah

05:27:27.260 It's like

05:27:28.640 Nothing you

05:27:29.040 Can do about

05:27:29.460 It now

05:27:29.820 Did you have

05:27:31.980 Did you have

05:27:32.880 More

05:27:33.320 I don't know

05:27:34.560 It seems like

05:27:35.240 He doesn't want

05:27:35.920 To engage with

05:27:36.320 Me

05:27:36.440 Has been bad

05:27:37.120 Faith

05:27:37.360 Well you

05:27:37.880 Walked away

05:27:38.340 In the middle

05:27:38.660 Of me talking

05:27:39.180 Which is totally

05:27:40.420 Fine if you're

05:27:40.840 Upset

05:27:41.180 And like genuinely

05:27:42.140 It's not upset

05:27:42.920 Of course you are

05:27:43.880 You're upset

05:27:44.240 I'm listening to

05:27:44.580 What you're saying

05:27:45.060 Cut the man

05:27:45.600 Some slack

05:27:46.260 He has an

05:27:47.040 Addiction

05:27:47.540 Oh

05:27:48.440 Don't say that

05:27:49.800 That would be a sin

05:27:50.400 What

05:27:51.080 An addiction

05:27:51.880 Look hey

05:27:52.600 You know

05:27:53.000 Go ahead

05:27:53.540 Finish your

05:27:54.180 Closing

05:27:55.120 The man needs

05:27:56.120 His smokes

05:27:56.740 Okay

05:27:57.140 I get up

05:27:57.840 And smoke

05:27:58.320 Every debate

05:27:59.140 Multiple times

05:28:00.040 That's totally fine

05:28:00.740 This is not new

05:28:01.540 I didn't say that

05:28:02.840 That's new

05:28:03.060 Cut him some slack

05:28:04.360 I've cut him slack

05:28:05.040 The whole time

05:28:05.840 The issue is that 0.94

05:28:06.700 He's called me retarded 0.73

05:28:07.520 He's called me

05:28:08.240 Multiple things

05:28:08.780 You did call him

05:28:09.780 A bit overweight

05:28:10.520 At the end

05:28:11.980 Hold on

05:28:12.620 After

05:28:12.980 Which is true 0.99

05:28:13.840 Out of solidarity

05:28:14.980 As an overweight man

05:28:16.220 I took a great offense

05:28:17.660 Sure but it's not a sin

05:28:18.960 To you because you're not a Christian 0.98

05:28:19.920 You body shamed

05:28:21.180 Andrew Wilson

05:28:22.340 No

05:28:22.780 It's not a shame

05:28:23.700 I think you owe the man

05:28:24.380 An apology

05:28:24.940 To be honest

05:28:25.620 If he thinks that glutton

05:28:26.580 Is a sin

05:28:27.160 Then he probably

05:28:28.100 Shouldn't do that thing

05:28:29.860 Look

05:28:30.980 Couldn't you

05:28:31.820 Yeah I got a few pounds

05:28:33.600 But I don't think 0.98

05:28:34.280 I'm a fucking glutton 0.98

05:28:35.560 I mean 0.99

05:28:36.280 There's a difference

05:28:37.060 Like I've seen fat people

05:28:38.720 And I'm not one of them 0.64

05:28:39.920 I mean you're

05:28:40.480 He's got a dad bod 0.61

05:28:41.340 I think you're obese

05:28:41.860 He's got a dad bod

05:28:42.800 Okay

05:28:43.140 That's fine

05:28:43.940 What's my reason

05:28:45.080 The issue is

05:28:46.040 I don't have children

05:28:46.260 The man has multiple children

05:28:47.500 If he's going to obsess

05:28:48.580 If he's going to obsess

05:28:49.760 About other people's sins

05:28:50.880 He should probably

05:28:51.440 Take the planks

05:28:51.940 Out of his own eye first

05:28:52.760 But it's not sinning

05:28:53.660 My understanding

05:28:54.280 It's not sinning to smoke

05:28:55.440 It's not sinning

05:28:56.460 It's a sin to be addicted

05:28:57.160 Is it sinning to get a daughter

05:28:58.340 No it's not

05:28:58.960 Prove it

05:28:59.340 It's not a sin to be addicted

05:29:00.360 Addiction itself

05:29:02.160 Is it a sin

05:29:02.740 What

05:29:03.680 Really

05:29:04.160 Is addiction itself a sin

05:29:05.660 Yeah

05:29:05.940 I'd say so

05:29:06.720 Okay

05:29:06.880 So what if you're addicted

05:29:07.980 To going to church

05:29:08.640 Is that sinful

05:29:09.240 How are you addicted

05:29:10.620 To going to church

05:29:11.160 Because anything can be an addiction

05:29:12.220 Playing your guitar too much

05:29:13.340 Can be an addiction

05:29:14.020 Yes it can

05:29:14.800 No

05:29:15.060 I'm sorry

05:29:16.480 If you go to church

05:29:18.180 Every single day

05:29:19.200 And you're like

05:29:19.800 Man I just

05:29:20.660 Fiend for it

05:29:21.320 I just want to go

05:29:21.820 All the time

05:29:21.980 Part of addiction

05:29:22.480 Is like a functional

05:29:23.360 Disability that happens

05:29:24.940 Right

05:29:25.100 Like doing something a lot

05:29:26.060 Isn't inherently an addiction

05:29:27.360 Addiction has like

05:29:28.080 Specific stances

05:29:28.880 Not inherently

05:29:28.940 I didn't say

05:29:29.540 I just said

05:29:30.000 Could going to church

05:29:30.900 Be an addiction

05:29:31.380 Probably not

05:29:32.880 No

05:29:33.080 No

05:29:33.600 Okay

05:29:34.080 So could playing the guitar

05:29:36.520 Become an addiction

05:29:37.240 Again probably not

05:29:39.020 So what things

05:29:40.620 Can't fit the category

05:29:41.780 Of what is an addiction

05:29:42.880 It needs

05:29:44.000 It requires mood modification

05:29:45.380 It has to have withdrawal symptoms

05:29:46.740 Associated with it

05:29:47.780 It needs to cause like

05:29:49.320 Significant impairment

05:29:50.360 Or dysfunction within your life

05:29:51.680 Why couldn't church fall

05:29:53.460 Under all those things

05:29:54.400 How is church causing

05:29:55.400 Impairment in your life

05:29:56.320 Because without it

05:29:57.540 You've

05:29:58.100 You experience withdrawals

05:29:59.720 And that impairs

05:30:00.380 The way that you view the world

05:30:01.200 Withdrawals is not the impairment

05:30:02.060 That we're talking about

05:30:02.600 We're meaning that like

05:30:03.260 When you use heroin

05:30:04.540 You do drugs

05:30:05.400 You start

05:30:06.060 You might do crimes

05:30:06.980 Or you might end up

05:30:07.620 Damaging your relationships

05:30:08.720 I don't drink coffee

05:30:10.160 If you did

05:30:10.820 Would that be a sin

05:30:12.000 Potentially yeah

05:30:12.880 Because it's a substance

05:30:13.680 Potentially or it is

05:30:14.660 Yeah I'd say it is

05:30:15.300 Because it's a substance

05:30:15.920 So people who drink coffee

05:30:17.880 Every single morning

05:30:18.840 And then they have

05:30:20.380 Caffeine withdrawals

05:30:20.980 Well do they know

05:30:21.540 That they're addicted

05:30:22.960 And that it's wrong

05:30:23.540 They know that they're

05:30:24.240 Addicted to coffee

05:30:24.860 And do they think it's wrong

05:30:25.720 No

05:30:26.200 Oh then no it's fine

05:30:27.160 Oh

05:30:28.020 Yeah

05:30:28.420 Welcome to Romans 14

05:30:29.620 Okay so Christians 0.75

05:30:31.780 Yeah Christians 0.94

05:30:33.120 Yeah Romans 14

05:30:34.280 Yep

05:30:34.660 So as long as Christians 1.00

05:30:35.640 Don't believe it's wrong

05:30:36.680 It's fine

05:30:37.080 To some extent yeah

05:30:38.560 Okay well then I don't

05:30:39.660 Think smoking's wrong

05:30:40.360 So it's fine

05:30:40.820 Or drinking

05:30:42.580 Or gluttony

05:30:43.280 None of it's wrong

05:30:44.520 So it's fine

05:30:45.040 Well that's not the same thing

05:30:46.540 Thinking that it's not wrong

05:30:47.600 Isn't the same thing 0.68

05:30:48.300 As not knowing it's wrong

05:30:49.440 Well

05:30:50.880 What if they just

05:30:51.860 Disagree with you

05:30:52.680 That that wouldn't matter

05:30:53.940 Whether it's

05:30:54.620 Okay so then I'm asking you

05:30:55.960 If a Christian 0.99

05:30:57.400 Is addicted to coffee

05:30:59.180 Is that wrong

05:31:01.080 It depends on if they know

05:31:02.660 That it's wrong

05:31:03.320 To be addicted to coffee

05:31:04.200 Oh

05:31:04.900 And how would they know

05:31:05.780 Like if you told them

05:31:06.820 Now they know

05:31:07.540 I would think that they

05:31:08.160 Would engage in exegetical

05:31:09.320 Eisegesis

05:31:10.140 And divine revelation

05:31:11.220 To figure out like

05:31:11.840 What their sins are

05:31:12.540 I think that like

05:31:13.080 Parishioners and whatnot 1.00

05:31:14.200 Yes this is typically

05:31:15.120 How we go about

05:31:15.580 Figuring out sin

05:31:16.080 Okay

05:31:16.520 Do you deny like prayer

05:31:18.120 As a way of self

05:31:19.840 Self correction of sin

05:31:21.580 No

05:31:22.720 Oh okay great

05:31:23.620 What would that have to do

05:31:24.640 With anything

05:31:24.940 Well typically when you're

05:31:26.040 Trying to figure out

05:31:26.720 Whether or not your behavior

05:31:27.520 Is sin

05:31:28.020 Specifically in sin

05:31:28.940 That's not clear

05:31:29.760 The caffeine didn't exist

05:31:30.920 At the bible days right 1.00

05:31:31.800 So we're trying to figure out

05:31:32.480 When you're doing sin

05:31:33.160 Usually you have to do it

05:31:33.980 Prayerfully

05:31:34.300 This is why for example

05:31:35.080 Things that could be sin for me

05:31:36.160 Might not be sin for you

05:31:37.100 Okay

05:31:37.720 Okay so I just want to

05:31:39.620 Make sure I got this right

05:31:40.420 It's not sinful

05:31:42.400 For a person

05:31:43.380 To be addicted to cigarettes

05:31:44.620 If they do not know

05:31:47.140 That it is sinful

05:31:48.780 Okay well then

05:31:49.600 I guess it's not sinful

05:31:50.380 Well of course you do

05:31:50.960 You know that it's sinful

05:31:51.800 Okay

05:31:52.400 Demonstrate that

05:31:53.280 I would say

05:31:54.140 I would say all the evidence

05:31:54.840 Of like it seems like

05:31:55.580 You're pretty theologically based

05:31:56.640 It seems like you have

05:31:57.300 A pretty good understanding

05:31:58.080 Of the bible

05:31:58.500 And I think you went

05:31:59.420 Through the catechisms

05:32:00.340 Of your faith

05:32:01.620 And according to all of the

05:32:03.020 I know priests who smoke

05:32:04.800 That doesn't make it

05:32:06.300 Not a sin

05:32:06.860 Yeah they don't think

05:32:07.820 It's sinful

05:32:08.300 The orthodox church

05:32:09.620 Does not think smoking

05:32:10.740 Is sinful

05:32:11.320 I didn't say smoking

05:32:12.100 I said addiction

05:32:12.740 Even addiction

05:32:13.860 In and of itself

05:32:14.800 May not be necessarily sinful

05:32:17.060 What are instances

05:32:17.740 Where addiction

05:32:18.220 Isn't a sin

05:32:18.900 Because you can have

05:32:20.160 Things which you would

05:32:21.220 Consider fall under

05:32:22.020 The category of addiction

05:32:23.100 That may not be anything

05:32:25.640 Which is non preferable

05:32:26.800 Like for instance

05:32:27.540 Like I would say guitar

05:32:28.900 You could become

05:32:29.560 So infatuated

05:32:30.480 Or have an addiction

05:32:31.620 To the guitar

05:32:32.720 Perhaps this is part

05:32:34.020 Of your profession

05:32:34.660 Or something like this

05:32:35.780 But you actually

05:32:36.500 Experience withdrawals

05:32:37.240 If you're not playing

05:32:37.880 Or something like that

05:32:38.820 How is it causing

05:32:39.440 Dysfunction in your life

05:32:40.320 Because if you're not

05:32:41.680 Playing or you're not

05:32:42.680 Pursuing that

05:32:43.480 It causes you distress

05:32:44.540 It causes you distress

05:32:45.680 That's not the same thing

05:32:46.660 As well then what

05:32:47.460 What is

05:32:47.860 Dysfunction is usually

05:32:49.040 Within social

05:32:49.760 Economic

05:32:50.760 Or interpersonal

05:32:51.820 That's usually

05:32:52.640 What we're looking for

05:32:53.200 So what is the

05:32:53.760 Dysfunction from heroin

05:32:54.960 It typically has

05:32:56.820 Massive impacts

05:32:57.740 On your relationship

05:32:58.580 Your job

05:32:59.140 And your health

05:32:59.940 So if you were

05:33:00.700 Addicted to the guitar

05:33:01.680 And it was having

05:33:02.940 Some kind of like

05:33:03.920 Negative effect

05:33:04.980 Where your wife

05:33:05.660 Is like hey

05:33:06.480 I really would

05:33:07.720 Prefer that you

05:33:08.780 Didn't play guitar

05:33:09.320 So much

05:33:09.820 I would really

05:33:11.420 Prefer that

05:33:11.860 That's creating

05:33:12.340 Dysfunction now

05:33:13.120 Right

05:33:13.360 Not

05:33:14.060 It depends on if

05:33:15.380 Like you guys

05:33:15.960 Negotiate and talk

05:33:16.920 About it and you're

05:33:17.340 Just absolutely unwilling

05:33:18.140 But you being

05:33:18.980 Absolutely unwilling

05:33:19.560 To stop playing the guitar

05:33:20.400 Isn't evidence of addiction

05:33:21.340 Necessarily

05:33:21.900 Maybe evidence

05:33:22.640 Of you not caring

05:33:23.260 About your wife's preferences

05:33:24.060 Well I'm just asking

05:33:25.140 Why couldn't it fit all these criteria?

05:33:26.080 You haven't established

05:33:27.160 That it does

05:33:27.700 I'm asking why it couldn't

05:33:29.220 You have to establish

05:33:31.220 That it does

05:33:31.660 That's on you

05:33:32.040 I'm asking why it couldn't

05:33:33.540 Because the dysfunction

05:33:34.840 Of causing

05:33:35.520 Interpersonal preference issues

05:33:36.940 Isn't the necessity

05:33:38.000 Of dysfunction

05:33:39.300 We're looking at

05:33:39.880 So then you can like

05:33:40.660 Responsibly use heroin

05:33:42.020 Where it's not causing

05:33:43.060 Dysfunction in your life?

05:33:44.780 No not really

05:33:45.860 Why not?

05:33:46.180 How do you do that?

05:33:47.060 How?

05:33:47.640 Well I mean

05:33:48.320 If you just

05:33:48.960 Are living your life normally

05:33:50.340 And then you also do heroin

05:33:51.520 And then live it normally

05:33:52.700 How do you live it normally

05:33:53.660 When you're doing heroin?

05:33:54.600 Heroin will knock you out

05:33:55.280 For like hours straight

05:33:56.260 Okay well let's say meth

05:33:57.340 But you just take

05:33:58.380 Same thing

05:33:58.700 Wait death

05:33:59.560 Even more so

05:34:00.200 You take like a little

05:34:01.000 Teeny tiny bit

05:34:01.880 And that's it

05:34:02.540 How is that not

05:34:04.060 Related to dysfunction

05:34:04.720 In your life?

05:34:05.620 Because it's not causing

05:34:06.720 Any sort of distress

05:34:07.440 For the people around you

05:34:08.580 At least under the criteria

05:34:09.720 That you gave

05:34:10.300 Well you typically

05:34:10.900 You're gonna

05:34:11.280 It's cause

05:34:11.880 Sleep dysfunctions

05:34:13.220 At minimum

05:34:13.660 Doesn't even cause that

05:34:14.640 Meth is active in your system

05:34:16.020 For about 14 to 24 hours

05:34:17.300 Sure unless it's a little

05:34:17.560 Teeny tiny amount

05:34:18.240 No the duration

05:34:19.200 It's active is the same

05:34:20.160 It would just be

05:34:20.580 The dosing is less

05:34:21.200 That doesn't mean

05:34:21.580 It would affect your sleep

05:34:22.520 It would necessarily

05:34:23.640 When you take a stimulant

05:34:24.460 It does affect your sleep

05:34:25.300 Especially long

05:34:26.000 Long standing stimulants

05:34:26.560 Unless it's the case

05:34:27.500 That you're taking

05:34:28.120 The stimulant all the time

05:34:29.400 And so your sleep

05:34:30.660 Is always on the same pattern

05:34:31.760 And it's not affecting

05:34:33.360 Your sleep at all

05:34:34.120 It typically is

05:34:35.160 And you require

05:34:36.040 The tolerance build up

05:34:37.160 Specifically for

05:34:37.880 Okay so now you have

05:34:38.540 The tolerance build up

05:34:39.520 Tolerance build up

05:34:40.180 Is often part of like

05:34:40.980 Specifically substance

05:34:41.840 Addictions

05:34:42.220 Okay yeah so

05:34:43.300 Do you have all of that

05:34:44.400 The existence of the tolerance

05:34:45.160 Where's the dysfunction though

05:34:46.060 The withdrawals

05:34:47.000 You're not having any withdrawals

05:34:48.720 Because you keep taking it

05:34:49.420 Well if you stop taking it

05:34:50.280 You would have withdrawals

05:34:50.980 And if you stop playing the guitar

05:34:51.880 You have withdrawals

05:34:53.000 Okay so then

05:34:53.740 When it comes to dysfunction

05:34:55.140 If the guitar

05:34:56.360 Stopping the guitar

05:34:57.100 Is affecting your sleep

05:34:58.100 Because you just want to play the guitar

05:34:59.180 We would probably put that

05:35:01.860 In the bracket of OCD

05:35:02.760 Before we would put it

05:35:03.460 In the bracket of

05:35:04.020 Dysfunction

05:35:04.440 Of addiction

05:35:05.220 Why?

05:35:05.900 Because it's not using

05:35:06.700 The same like 0.94

05:35:07.260 Neurocognitive like

05:35:08.180 Underpinnings

05:35:08.940 The neural correlates

05:35:09.640 Are usually going to be

05:35:10.180 Different by that point

05:35:10.800 So you're saying

05:35:10.820 You can't be addicted

05:35:11.620 To behaviors

05:35:13.520 You can be addicted

05:35:14.540 To behaviors

05:35:15.000 But just not the guitar

05:35:16.080 I would need

05:35:17.520 I don't think there's

05:35:18.360 Any evidence of

05:35:19.020 Guitar addiction

05:35:19.700 Really?

05:35:21.120 I don't think so

05:35:21.720 Pull it up

05:35:22.380 Can you become addicted

05:35:23.700 To guitar?

05:35:30.220 Is there guitar addiction?

05:35:33.060 Yes guitar addiction

05:35:34.000 Can absolutely be a real thing

05:35:35.620 Though it's not a formal

05:35:36.900 Medical diagnosis

05:35:37.920 Like substance addiction

05:35:39.600 What people usually mean

05:35:41.520 By guitar addiction

05:35:42.240 Is a behavioral addiction

05:35:43.420 Similar in pattern

05:35:44.860 Though usually not

05:35:45.700 Severity to things like

05:35:47.080 Gaming

05:35:47.560 Or social media addiction

05:35:49.560 So you can become addicted

05:35:50.620 But not in any medical way

05:35:51.940 That we mean

05:35:52.340 Gotcha

05:35:52.840 You didn't qualify

05:35:53.920 That it needed to be

05:35:54.740 A medical diagnosis

05:35:55.800 Wait what are we talking

05:35:57.320 About with addiction

05:35:57.880 If we're not talking

05:35:58.400 About some level

05:35:58.880 Of medical diagnosis

05:35:59.680 Why does that need

05:36:00.700 To be medically diagnosed?

05:36:02.580 Well when we say

05:36:03.440 It doesn't

05:36:04.020 Hold on

05:36:04.660 No one stop

05:36:05.240 Stop

05:36:05.880 Stop

05:36:06.080 No

05:36:06.400 It doesn't have to

05:36:06.960 I have no medical diagnosis

05:36:07.500 For addiction

05:36:08.100 Not

05:36:09.180 I didn't say that

05:36:10.360 It has to be medically diagnosed

05:36:11.540 Okay great

05:36:12.020 The medical standards

05:36:12.820 Of diagnostics

05:36:13.480 Is what we're referring to

05:36:14.300 When we're talking

05:36:14.860 About functionality

05:36:15.480 Withdrawal tolerance

05:36:16.400 These are like medical

05:36:17.120 Diagnosis

05:36:17.400 Apparently this all

05:36:18.160 Falls under that

05:36:18.540 Somebody can obviously

05:36:19.060 Be addicted

05:36:19.600 Even if they haven't

05:36:20.360 Seen a doctor

05:36:20.820 That says

05:36:21.100 Can you be addicted

05:36:21.700 To the guitar?

05:36:22.900 I think very rarely

05:36:24.120 And most of the time

05:36:25.140 Anyone

05:36:25.380 So yes

05:36:26.200 Sure

05:36:27.760 Okay thank you

05:36:29.080 But the issue is

05:36:29.920 Find me a single example

05:36:31.140 Of somebody actually

05:36:31.720 Addicted to the guitar

05:36:32.380 That's like pulling teeth

05:36:32.940 To get the answers

05:36:33.720 Out of you

05:36:34.220 What do you mean

05:36:35.340 That's been your side as well

05:36:36.520 No it's the opposite

05:36:37.560 Really

05:36:37.900 So the Agrippa's 0.96

05:36:38.740 Trilemma thing 0.99

05:36:39.280 Wasn't pulling teeth

05:36:40.100 Getting you to admit

05:36:40.840 That you were being

05:36:41.580 Like judgmental

05:36:42.600 About my lack of traditionalism

05:36:43.820 Wasn't pulling teeth

05:36:44.680 No I don't think it was

05:36:46.940 You're just a perpetual victim

05:36:48.040 Only you are suffering

05:36:49.080 No one suffers

05:36:49.760 Like Andrew suffers

05:36:50.520 That's true

05:36:51.420 At least not on this show

05:36:53.360 Nobody suffers

05:36:54.220 Like I do on this show

05:36:55.100 That's true

05:36:55.440 Well you make a lot of money

05:36:56.380 From it

05:36:56.760 So it's pretty good for you

05:36:57.640 Well not on this show

05:36:59.580 But this show like

05:37:00.580 Dominantly led to

05:37:02.040 A large portion

05:37:02.780 Of your success

05:37:03.260 So sort of

05:37:04.380 I would have still had

05:37:05.280 I think the same amount

05:37:06.340 Of success

05:37:06.700 Without the show

05:37:07.560 Honestly

05:37:08.080 Really?

05:37:08.220 Without Brian?

05:37:08.900 Yes

05:37:09.140 Crazy

05:37:10.260 You know who told me that?

05:37:11.680 Brian

05:37:12.000 I'm sure he did

05:37:13.140 Because he's your friend

05:37:13.700 Wait did I?

05:37:14.400 Well you know

05:37:17.780 I like to think

05:37:19.800 I you know

05:37:20.320 Had a bit of a guiding hand

05:37:22.140 I don't disagree 0.95

05:37:23.240 That was my position

05:37:24.580 You're extremely large platform

05:37:27.140 I think what I said Andrew

05:37:27.980 Is you're so talented

05:37:29.880 The cream rises to the top

05:37:32.400 The cream rises to the top

05:37:34.220 Very talented guy Andrew

05:37:35.720 And yeah

05:37:37.580 And you gave him a platform

05:37:38.580 For many months

05:37:39.500 Which helped go

05:37:39.960 His platform

05:37:40.720 You know what

05:37:41.120 I'm not saying it's only Brian

05:37:42.520 I'm just kidding

05:37:43.280 I'm not saying it's only Brian

05:37:44.140 Of course you're talented

05:37:44.920 Right?

05:37:45.820 Of course he's important

05:37:46.940 For your rise up

05:37:47.580 I thought so

05:37:49.900 Okay

05:37:51.520 Then I don't know

05:37:52.260 Why you were fighting me

05:37:53.040 Because I told you

05:37:54.520 What Brian said

05:37:55.280 Which didn't seem

05:37:56.860 To disagree with me

05:37:57.960 Andrew has the sauce

05:38:00.120 What he said to me

05:38:00.900 Andrew has the sauce

05:38:02.440 You think he would have

05:38:03.120 Made it completely

05:38:03.740 Without you

05:38:04.120 Had no contribution

05:38:04.820 To his career

05:38:05.240 Well you know

05:38:05.740 I like to think

05:38:06.520 That I

05:38:07.040 I played a helping hand

05:38:08.840 Me too

05:38:09.460 I agree

05:38:10.480 You got an opportunity

05:38:11.760 Through Brian

05:38:12.240 And you're talented

05:38:13.140 So you've maximized

05:38:14.040 The opportunity

05:38:14.320 That's great

05:38:14.800 Okay

05:38:15.480 I could just take

05:38:16.540 Maybe I should just

05:38:17.220 Take more

05:38:17.820 More credit

05:38:20.300 You know

05:38:20.720 I don't know

05:38:20.980 I think you could

05:38:21.960 More credit

05:38:22.680 You know

05:38:23.120 Who in the

05:38:24.000 Just curious

05:38:24.560 Like for the crucible

05:38:25.420 Like did you

05:38:26.140 You know

05:38:27.180 Some of you

05:38:27.780 Discover Andrew

05:38:29.040 From whatever

05:38:29.520 You know

05:38:29.940 Anyways

05:38:30.360 We have some super chats

05:38:31.340 Why don't we read

05:38:32.000 The super chats

05:38:32.800 A portion

05:38:33.300 Of course

05:38:34.060 You know

05:38:34.300 Maybe a good amount

05:38:34.920 Good amount

05:38:35.520 And you know

05:38:37.860 But I do want to say

05:38:38.780 Though you know

05:38:39.320 Look

05:38:39.700 Andrew's trajectory

05:38:43.060 Has been stellar

05:38:44.900 I agree

05:38:46.180 Within two years

05:38:47.860 Of his

05:38:48.400 Essentially two years

05:38:49.800 Basically two years

05:38:50.600 Of his first appearance

05:38:51.380 On the whatever podcast

05:38:52.420 The man

05:38:53.440 Was

05:38:54.340 He went on Joe Rogan

05:38:55.920 I know

05:38:56.300 He's been on a bunch

05:38:57.360 Of other

05:38:57.680 Stephen Crowder

05:38:58.840 Absolutely

05:38:59.340 Patrick Bet-David

05:39:00.300 He's got his own

05:39:02.340 Huge audience

05:39:03.980 Of course

05:39:04.560 And the thing

05:39:06.220 You don't know

05:39:06.720 About Andrew

05:39:07.260 Is he

05:39:08.120 He likes to do skits

05:39:09.760 His skits

05:39:11.120 Are very good

05:39:11.960 I actually

05:39:12.640 So I actually

05:39:13.300 Do know this

05:39:13.800 Because I've known

05:39:14.440 Andrew for three years

05:39:15.600 Oh yeah

05:39:16.240 Yeah

05:39:16.620 I knew him

05:39:17.160 In the big

05:39:17.480 Papa fascist days

05:39:18.520 Oh boy

05:39:19.060 So I remember

05:39:19.660 He wrote me a song

05:39:21.100 He wrote me a song

05:39:22.320 It was a really

05:39:23.100 Actually for those

05:39:24.060 Who don't know

05:39:24.360 Andrew is a good

05:39:25.320 Guitar player

05:39:25.900 And a pretty

05:39:26.400 Decent singer

05:39:27.040 Did you know that

05:39:27.700 He is

05:39:28.660 Sometimes after the shows

05:39:30.300 He serenades me

05:39:31.240 In a

05:39:32.420 Is that when you

05:39:33.020 Is that when you

05:39:33.920 Let roll him

05:39:34.500 In a platonic

05:39:34.920 Kind of way

05:39:35.960 You just

05:39:37.680 Metallica

05:39:38.760 Is his

05:39:39.280 Go-to

05:39:40.260 When you

05:39:40.740 Do something

05:39:42.380 I've been listening

05:39:42.600 To oldies a lot now 0.95

05:39:43.700 Yeah

05:39:44.180 Anyways

05:39:44.720 I don't know

05:39:45.200 Guys

05:39:45.700 Get us to 7,000 likes

05:39:47.120 Like the video

05:39:47.820 We have some super chats

05:39:48.700 We're going to let through 0.97

05:39:49.380 I

05:39:50.280 Hold on one second

05:39:52.420 That's an obese man

05:39:53.200 The pizza is

05:39:55.500 Which is fine

05:39:56.240 I just

05:39:57.200 The pizza is almost here

05:39:58.380 By the way

05:39:58.600 Okay we have

05:39:59.260 J.P. Belly

05:40:01.360 Thank you for the

05:40:01.960 Canadian 100

05:40:02.780 How much is that

05:40:03.580 What's the conversion

05:40:04.560 I think it's like

05:40:05.540 Two bucks

05:40:06.100 I'm so sorry

05:40:06.700 It's two dollars

05:40:07.160 This guy is scamming

05:40:08.480 He is

05:40:09.140 He's getting

05:40:09.740 J.P.

05:40:10.580 J.P.

05:40:11.120 You gotta

05:40:11.440 Step it up

05:40:12.520 Yeah

05:40:12.840 To Andrew

05:40:13.520 Give this to her

05:40:14.380 Utilitarianism

05:40:15.520 Is if I do no harm

05:40:16.900 I can do it

05:40:17.680 But what if

05:40:19.060 Is 0.88

05:40:19.580 What if

05:40:20.300 Is 0.88

05:40:20.680 Wow the Canadian

05:40:21.480 Education system

05:40:22.460 Is 0.88

05:40:22.740 What if

05:40:23.640 Is hurting society

05:40:24.740 As a whole

05:40:25.180 Utilitarianism

05:40:26.660 Fails

05:40:27.560 Thank you for the

05:40:28.980 Soup chat

05:40:29.720 Appreciate it

05:40:30.200 Brother

05:40:30.300 She's gonna

05:40:30.640 Station out

05:40:31.100 A utilitarian

05:40:31.760 Thank you for that

05:40:34.260 Mr. Canada

05:40:35.640 Abe

05:40:36.260 Not dogma

05:40:37.360 Preconditions

05:40:38.080 Even skepticism

05:40:38.980 Presupposes logic

05:40:40.300 Language and meaning

05:40:41.380 Without those

05:40:42.700 You couldn't argue

05:40:44.120 Skepticism at all

05:40:45.800 You can argue

05:40:46.540 You can argue

05:40:46.560 All sorts of things

05:40:47.520 And recognize

05:40:48.600 That axioms

05:40:49.380 At a foundational

05:40:49.980 Level are often

05:40:50.720 Unjustifiable

05:40:51.440 Are unjustifiable

05:40:52.520 Always unjustifiable

05:40:54.240 Unless you can solve

05:40:55.640 A gripper's trilemma 0.97

05:40:56.520 From our view

05:40:57.360 Being bad faith again 0.97

05:40:59.760 How's that bad faith

05:41:01.080 Because you don't

05:41:01.760 Believe that

05:41:02.160 I just corrected

05:41:03.260 The guy

05:41:03.780 I was like

05:41:04.100 It's always unjustifiable

05:41:05.400 I'm not

05:41:05.700 I'm not doing

05:41:06.220 This song and dance

05:41:06.800 By the way

05:41:07.160 Anymore

05:41:07.600 Okay

05:41:07.840 Okay

05:41:08.400 By the way

05:41:09.260 We're 200 likes

05:41:10.280 Away from 6,000

05:41:11.140 If you guys can

05:41:11.680 Help us break the threshold

05:41:12.980 Okay we have a bunch of chats

05:41:14.680 Coming in here

05:41:15.340 One moment here

05:41:18.160 While I get these pulled up

05:41:20.080 If it will finally load

05:41:21.600 We have King Ryan

05:41:23.400 With a message

05:41:24.280 Thank you King

05:41:25.440 King Ryan donated $69

05:41:28.380 We do what works

05:41:30.600 Until a Christian majority 1.00

05:41:32.520 Does what they think works

05:41:34.080 Then suddenly the method is bad

05:41:36.300 Basically

05:41:36.800 Works isn't moral

05:41:38.000 Right

05:41:38.460 Works is pragmatic

05:41:39.260 And if you'll notice

05:41:40.500 Almost all Christian

05:41:42.000 Almost all theocracies

05:41:43.580 Got crushed under

05:41:44.700 Western liberal democracies

05:41:45.920 Because they're better systems

05:41:47.240 They work better

05:41:48.060 Theocracies lasted longer

05:41:50.080 Than any Western democracy

05:41:51.180 Doesn't matter

05:41:51.580 They're still falling

05:41:52.240 Haven't they

05:41:52.680 All you're saying

05:41:54.900 That's the most fallacious

05:41:56.540 Argument you've made

05:41:57.580 No it's not

05:41:58.100 Yes the idea that

05:41:59.360 Because this thing

05:42:00.900 Failed after

05:42:02.080 Existing for a thousand years

05:42:04.000 And thing hasn't failed

05:42:05.180 Which has existed

05:42:05.900 For a couple hundred years

05:42:07.440 Thing which has existed

05:42:08.620 For a couple hundred years

05:42:09.600 Is better than thing

05:42:10.580 Which existed for a thousand years

05:42:11.920 It's better in a lot of ways

05:42:12.580 It's better in for example

05:42:13.600 Life expectancy

05:42:14.360 I believe under most theocracies

05:42:16.380 The average age was

05:42:17.460 I think like 35

05:42:18.380 Whereas now we've jumped

05:42:19.460 All the way up to like

05:42:20.180 85 to 90 1.00

05:42:20.940 Because it was fucking 0.98

05:42:22.040 900 years ago 0.98

05:42:23.500 You're right

05:42:23.980 Technology changes

05:42:25.200 Which makes certain systems

05:42:26.540 Obsolete and better systems

05:42:27.920 That work alongside

05:42:28.460 That technology come around

05:42:29.360 And in fact

05:42:29.800 I'm sure you would agree with me

05:42:31.000 Our society now

05:42:32.520 Is flourishing

05:42:34.240 Not necessarily morally

05:42:35.780 But is flourishing more

05:42:36.740 Than any theocracy

05:42:37.740 That exists now

05:42:38.700 Or in the past

05:42:39.420 Right

05:42:39.920 Because I think that

05:42:41.100 If the United States

05:42:41.960 Was a theocracy

05:42:43.180 It would flourish

05:42:44.500 Just as much

05:42:45.280 Absolutely

05:42:46.260 Yeah

05:42:47.080 Absolutely

05:42:47.620 We would still have

05:42:48.960 Be locked away

05:42:50.340 From any of the enemies

05:42:51.200 That could ever

05:42:51.800 Possibly harm us

05:42:52.880 How

05:42:53.080 We would have an ocean

05:42:53.720 Between us and them

05:42:54.640 Like we do right this second

05:42:56.120 An ocean

05:42:56.960 Yes

05:42:57.360 Which like ICBMs

05:42:58.340 Can cross

05:42:58.820 An ocean

05:42:59.060 Yes

05:42:59.600 You know

05:42:59.960 Planes can cross

05:43:00.820 We have the largest

05:43:02.740 Most resource rich 0.96

05:43:04.000 Fucking area on planet earth 0.98

05:43:05.380 How 0.99

05:43:05.480 And how do we utilize

05:43:07.180 Well I don't know

05:43:07.860 I think Russia has a larger 0.94

05:43:09.040 We utilize it for oil

05:43:10.280 We utilize it for all sorts

05:43:11.500 Of resources

05:43:11.880 Is Russia larger 0.92

05:43:12.540 And more resource rich

05:43:13.580 Well I think it's larger

05:43:15.460 By land mass

05:43:16.380 But that's because

05:43:16.980 You add Siberia to it 0.90

05:43:18.420 Sure

05:43:19.280 But isn't it more

05:43:19.880 Resource rich as well

05:43:20.740 No

05:43:21.380 I don't think it's more

05:43:22.820 Resource rich

05:43:23.480 No

05:43:23.680 Okay

05:43:24.120 Than the United States

05:43:25.220 The United States

05:43:25.840 Was completely untapped

05:43:27.320 Of resources in fact

05:43:28.480 So what the American project is

05:43:30.520 It's not flourishing

05:43:31.400 And successful and amazing

05:43:32.360 Because of western liberal democracy

05:43:33.740 It's just like an inevitability

05:43:35.180 Of the resources

05:43:35.860 It was

05:43:36.340 It was flourishing

05:43:37.320 Under the 13 colonies

05:43:38.500 In a monarchy too

05:43:39.400 Actually it wasn't flourishing

05:43:40.780 It was flourishing

05:43:41.600 Nope

05:43:41.800 When did it become

05:43:43.000 Based on the technology

05:43:43.680 When did it become the superpower

05:43:44.740 Based on the technology

05:43:46.200 That was available at the time

05:43:47.940 The 13 colonies

05:43:49.120 Especially as an emergent

05:43:51.420 Young

05:43:52.360 Only just 0.99

05:43:53.180 Yeah they fucking were flourishing 0.99

05:43:54.860 Hell 1.00

05:43:55.800 Fuck yes 1.00

05:43:56.640 They were 1.00

05:43:57.100 Yes

05:43:57.520 They were flourishing

05:43:58.660 Are we flourishing now

05:43:59.560 Under a monarchy

05:44:00.520 And by the way

05:44:01.100 England was the most powerful

05:44:02.620 Military of the time

05:44:03.760 And it was under a monarch

05:44:04.860 And it was flourishing

05:44:06.540 And it

05:44:06.840 Yes

05:44:07.340 It still has a monarch

05:44:08.880 And it's still flourishing

05:44:10.280 I mean nobody would look at England

05:44:11.560 And actually say that it's a monarchy

05:44:12.800 It's obviously not a monarchy anymore

05:44:14.200 It's obviously a democracy

05:44:14.760 No

05:44:15.420 In England

05:44:16.260 The monarchs actually

05:44:17.600 Leased the land to the state

05:44:19.000 That's true

05:44:19.760 Okay

05:44:20.040 And they

05:44:20.680 That doesn't make it a monarch

05:44:21.620 They actually do have more authority

05:44:23.240 They're not just figureheads

05:44:24.760 In England

05:44:25.240 Does a democracy exist in the UK

05:44:26.380 Of course

05:44:26.960 That was part of the

05:44:28.300 But that was part of the way

05:44:29.600 That they did the land structure

05:44:31.380 But the point is

05:44:32.660 Is that for the time

05:44:33.720 The technology of the time

05:44:34.960 The monarchies

05:44:35.960 Were the most powerful technologically

05:44:37.880 And monarchy

05:44:38.600 Did not in any way

05:44:40.300 Shape or form

05:44:40.880 Stymie technology 0.98

05:44:42.460 In fact

05:44:42.940 It assisted with it

05:44:44.200 Due to all the mass warfare

05:44:45.500 Which was going on between nations

05:44:46.780 Sure

05:44:47.020 And then western liberal nations

05:44:48.660 And democracies

05:44:49.360 Came along within America

05:44:50.480 And it was even better

05:44:51.600 At innovation

05:44:52.420 And science

05:44:52.860 And technology

05:44:53.420 Because it just allowed it

05:44:54.540 It was not any better

05:44:55.580 At innovation

05:44:56.200 You don't think that America

05:44:57.040 Is leading in science

05:44:58.280 Right

05:44:59.000 Right this second

05:45:00.120 Yes

05:45:00.960 But it's the hegemon

05:45:02.320 Since like at least the 50s

05:45:03.040 It's the hegemon of planet earth

05:45:04.640 And when England

05:45:05.820 Was the hegemon of planet earth

05:45:07.620 When England

05:45:08.860 Was the hegemon of planet earth

05:45:10.260 That was still the hegemon 1.00

05:45:11.860 Also thanks to science 1.00

05:45:13.540 And it was a fucking monarchy 0.99

05:45:15.160 Sure 1.00

05:45:16.580 But do you think that

05:45:17.220 The monarchy

05:45:17.840 Supported science

05:45:18.940 More or less

05:45:19.640 Than the founding fathers

05:45:21.000 They loved it

05:45:21.760 It was critical

05:45:22.480 To military technology

05:45:23.760 Yeah and then America

05:45:24.840 Still somehow did it better

05:45:26.040 Did what better

05:45:27.200 American technology

05:45:28.300 Yeah

05:45:29.360 Sorry military technology

05:45:30.620 When we got to

05:45:31.320 Mass industrialization

05:45:32.980 And we have a massive

05:45:34.380 Land mass

05:45:35.000 Of untapped resources

05:45:36.400 Yeah

05:45:36.820 But if America

05:45:37.800 Was a monarchy

05:45:38.620 I have no reason

05:45:39.900 To believe

05:45:40.480 That it wouldn't be

05:45:41.540 Every bit as successful

05:45:42.760 As it is right now

05:45:43.640 So then why aren't

05:45:44.660 All of these

05:45:45.220 Successful theocracies

05:45:46.820 And monarchies out there

05:45:47.760 Just dominating

05:45:48.800 Compared to the western

05:45:49.560 Western liberal democracies

05:45:50.500 Well it depends

05:45:51.460 Some of them

05:45:52.160 Are doing quite well

05:45:53.200 For instance

05:45:54.060 The United Arab Emirates

05:45:55.260 Is doing quite well

05:45:56.180 They're on par

05:45:57.640 In any way with America

05:45:58.640 Or any western liberal democracy

05:45:59.120 Of course not

05:45:59.640 But they're different nations

05:46:00.920 You're talking about

05:46:01.540 Different nations

05:46:02.200 That's true

05:46:02.820 I'm talking about

05:46:03.480 Different nations

05:46:04.020 What I'm asking you

05:46:04.960 Specifically here

05:46:06.020 Isn't whether or not

05:46:07.540 We transitioned

05:46:08.280 To western democracies

05:46:09.880 Inside of the west

05:46:10.900 Due to philosophy

05:46:12.100 And what was going on

05:46:12.920 At the time

05:46:13.380 We did

05:46:14.300 That does not answer

05:46:15.840 The question as to

05:46:16.480 Whether or not

05:46:16.920 If we had remained

05:46:18.000 Monarchies

05:46:18.960 If we would be

05:46:19.720 As successful

05:46:20.460 Or not as successful

05:46:21.540 Yeah so find me a monarchy

05:46:22.680 That's just so successful

05:46:23.720 That would not

05:46:24.200 Have any bearing

05:46:25.040 On that argument

05:46:25.820 Whether or not

05:46:26.360 A monarchy exists

05:46:27.260 Right this second

05:46:28.200 That's more successful

05:46:29.040 Than the United States

05:46:30.560 Or a western nation

05:46:31.580 Would have no bearing

05:46:32.740 At all

05:46:33.080 On whether or not

05:46:33.880 If western nations

05:46:34.720 Remade monarchies

05:46:35.720 They would be just

05:46:36.560 As successful

05:46:37.180 It does not answer

05:46:38.000 That question

05:46:38.580 It does because

05:46:39.220 Most of the western

05:46:40.060 Liberal democracies

05:46:40.780 I don't want any

05:46:42.160 I'm getting in and out

05:46:44.880 I told you

05:46:45.500 Because I'm obese

05:46:48.480 And I'm trying

05:46:49.480 To lose some weight

05:46:50.320 I'm getting in and out

05:46:53.880 Brian

05:46:54.320 Yeah anyway

05:46:56.560 That doesn't answer

05:46:58.640 That does not answer

05:46:59.600 The question

05:47:00.060 That's a liberal

05:47:00.940 Red herring

05:47:01.640 That doesn't actually

05:47:02.680 Answer the question

05:47:03.300 As to whether or not

05:47:03.860 Monarchies would be

05:47:05.360 Just as successful

05:47:06.220 As western democracies

05:47:07.640 What evidence

05:47:08.640 Could we supply

05:47:09.180 What we would want to do

05:47:10.040 Is we'd want to make

05:47:10.720 Comparisons to scientific

05:47:12.180 And technological advancements

05:47:13.820 Based on the technology

05:47:15.100 Of the time

05:47:15.720 And it's the case

05:47:16.960 That in the time

05:47:17.780 Of monarchs

05:47:18.640 There was massive

05:47:20.040 Advancements in technology

05:47:21.260 Due to the fact

05:47:22.040 That there was

05:47:22.500 Lots and lots of warfare

05:47:23.960 In fact

05:47:24.360 I would argue

05:47:25.340 That most of the

05:47:26.120 United States

05:47:26.760 Technologies

05:47:27.820 Were not

05:47:29.160 Pre-20th century

05:47:30.520 These happened

05:47:31.480 Post-20th century

05:47:32.960 Most of these technologies

05:47:34.300 And that was due

05:47:35.040 To mass warfare

05:47:36.040 This includes

05:47:36.760 Nuclear energy

05:47:37.620 Nuclear bombs

05:47:38.660 Things like this

05:47:39.440 Those were all things

05:47:40.640 Which were products of war

05:47:41.920 Thank you

05:47:43.760 All of them were

05:47:44.700 Products of war

05:47:45.380 In fact

05:47:45.600 Products of war

05:47:46.260 Products of science

05:47:47.320 And technology

05:47:47.980 Because of the push

05:47:49.320 Of war

05:47:49.900 What's sufficient evidence

05:47:50.300 So is there any evidence

05:47:51.500 That could be supplied

05:47:52.300 That make you go

05:47:52.900 Actually maybe

05:47:54.020 Western liberal democracies

05:47:55.060 Are more effective

05:47:55.680 With science

05:47:56.160 And utilize them better

05:47:57.000 Which is why

05:47:57.500 They're the preferred

05:47:58.160 Form of governance

05:47:59.080 That's not why

05:48:00.300 They have a preferred

05:48:01.060 Form of government

05:48:01.600 I didn't say that's why

05:48:01.620 I said is there any evidence

05:48:02.780 That I could supply

05:48:03.700 That would convince you

05:48:04.240 Yes you could look at

05:48:05.700 Scientific advancement

05:48:07.480 Under warfare conditions

05:48:09.120 Of countries that

05:48:10.760 And based on their

05:48:11.540 Technology of the time

05:48:12.480 In comparison to other nations

05:48:13.720 So do you think

05:48:14.300 America jumped forward

05:48:15.680 In military innovations

05:48:17.260 During World War I or II

05:48:18.680 More or less than

05:48:19.940 The innovations in

05:48:20.960 For say example

05:48:21.520 The Hundred Years War

05:48:22.460 That Britain and France 0.98

05:48:23.420 I think that the Germans 1.00

05:48:24.380 Who were under a 1.00

05:48:25.340 Fucking fascistic leader 1.00

05:48:26.560 And it wasn't a democracy 1.00

05:48:27.480 At all

05:48:27.860 Had way more technological innovations

05:48:29.640 Via warfare than we did

05:48:30.800 Really

05:48:31.540 Really

05:48:32.360 Okay that's crazy

05:48:33.680 But sure

05:48:34.200 Why

05:48:34.520 Why is that crazy

05:48:35.340 We solved

05:48:35.680 We solved

05:48:36.220 Manhattan Proctor

05:48:37.020 And we solved

05:48:37.560 Nukes

05:48:38.360 And nuclear power

05:48:39.920 The atomic bomb 0.88

05:48:40.220 Yeah they were working

05:48:41.220 On heavy water

05:48:41.800 Atomic bomb 0.59

05:48:42.360 Boeing

05:48:42.940 The P-51 Mustang

05:48:44.200 Fighter jet

05:48:44.820 Right like almost

05:48:45.600 All of our technology

05:48:46.240 Yeah the MP-44

05:48:47.140 The Tiger tank

05:48:48.180 I could

05:48:48.460 The list of

05:48:49.360 Engineering 0.98

05:48:50.140 Fucking marvels 1.00

05:48:51.480 From Germany 1.00

05:48:52.760 Was endless

05:48:53.840 Why do you think

05:48:54.540 We got their scientists

05:48:55.380 Why do you think

05:48:56.480 We brought all their scientists

05:48:57.420 Here

05:48:57.720 Because they were 0.99

05:48:58.620 Fucking better 0.98

05:48:59.220 Than our scientists 0.99

05:48:59.880 Especially at rocket

05:49:00.960 Especially at rocket

05:49:01.920 Did they come here

05:49:03.000 Because maybe

05:49:03.920 Western liberal democracies

05:49:05.180 Give more capacity

05:49:05.960 They came here

05:49:06.600 Because we told them

05:49:07.380 If they don't 1.00

05:49:07.840 We would kill them 1.00

05:49:08.700 And we called it 1.00

05:49:09.260 Operation Paperclip

05:49:10.480 Nope a lot of them

05:49:11.160 Left long before that

05:49:12.060 The ones who came here 1.00

05:49:13.580 On Operation Paperclip

05:49:14.680 it was that

05:49:15.720 Or you faced the wall

05:49:16.700 Like all the Germans did 1.00

05:49:17.800 After the war

05:49:18.580 If you were part of

05:49:19.480 The German hierarchy 0.99

05:49:20.340 What the fuck happened 0.99

05:49:21.160 To you in the Nuremberg trials 0.99

05:49:22.420 What happened

05:49:23.020 A lot of them

05:49:24.620 Were trying to 0.99

05:49:25.420 You got fucking hung 1.00

05:49:26.420 You got hung 1.00

05:49:27.240 For war crimes

05:49:28.060 By the way

05:49:28.500 Yeah and what do you

05:49:28.980 Think would have happened

05:49:29.740 What do you think

05:49:30.320 Would have happened

05:49:30.780 To the people

05:49:31.240 Who were making 1.00

05:49:31.900 The fucking weapons 1.00

05:49:33.120 They would have 1.00

05:49:34.120 Fucking 1.00

05:49:34.360 The same shit 1.00

05:49:35.140 Would have happened 1.00

05:49:35.600 To them

05:49:36.000 Do you think

05:49:36.460 Most of the

05:49:37.200 Wait so you think

05:49:38.100 That we

05:49:38.480 That most of the

05:49:39.700 German scientists

05:49:40.320 Came over here

05:49:41.160 After

05:49:41.940 After World War II

05:49:43.520 Was ended

05:49:44.020 But also

05:49:45.040 That the American

05:49:46.420 Engineering

05:49:47.400 Was exploding

05:49:48.600 In World War II

05:49:49.160 Because we took

05:49:49.800 All of their scientists

05:49:50.600 I didn't say

05:49:51.380 During World

05:49:51.960 No the opposite

05:49:52.840 Well World War II 0.58

05:49:53.980 The opposite

05:49:54.380 Major advancements

05:49:55.320 In technology

05:49:55.840 Is that Germans 1.00

05:49:57.060 During World War II

05:49:58.400 The only thing

05:49:59.000 You could give

05:49:59.400 To the United States

05:50:00.240 Which wasn't even

05:50:01.360 Just the United States

05:50:02.220 It was a co-opt

05:50:03.100 Including with

05:50:04.140 German scientists

05:50:04.940 For the Manhattan Project

05:50:06.080 That's one

05:50:06.980 And two

05:50:07.560 Yeah they came here

05:50:08.340 Yes 1.00

05:50:08.540 The fucking 1.00

05:50:09.200 Western liberal democracies 1.00

05:50:10.500 Are a little bit better

05:50:11.260 Because they didn't want to die

05:50:12.400 The Germans 0.91

05:50:13.260 Einstein came here

05:50:14.140 Because they didn't want to die

05:50:14.920 Tons of innovations

05:50:16.220 Yes

05:50:17.120 Especially Einstein

05:50:18.560 Probably

05:50:19.060 Yeah

05:50:19.400 But the thing is

05:50:20.200 Is like yes

05:50:20.760 The Germans had mass 0.59

05:50:21.720 The authoritarian regimes

05:50:22.100 Are really bad

05:50:22.760 For science development 0.51

05:50:23.620 Because they want to kill

05:50:24.360 How is it bad for

05:50:24.860 What

05:50:25.260 What about

05:50:26.220 Nazi Germany

05:50:26.880 Was bad for

05:50:27.660 Scientific development

05:50:28.800 Chasing away

05:50:29.460 Every one of their 0.98

05:50:30.280 Jewish scientists 0.98

05:50:30.900 Was pretty bad

05:50:31.540 For their scientific development

05:50:32.420 Okay having

05:50:32.960 Massive

05:50:33.800 Like they

05:50:34.920 They developed

05:50:35.560 Interstate highway systems

05:50:36.780 They were the very first

05:50:37.500 Ones who did that

05:50:38.300 I didn't say that

05:50:38.320 They developed

05:50:39.280 The very first automobile

05:50:40.840 Which was available

05:50:41.780 To the common man

05:50:42.840 Like these people

05:50:44.120 Wait no

05:50:44.900 Yes the Volkswagen

05:50:45.740 The Mercedes Benz

05:50:45.940 Was developed in like 0.87

05:50:46.700 No

05:50:47.180 The first vehicle

05:50:48.420 That existed

05:50:48.920 Was the Mercedes Benz

05:50:49.800 I didn't say the first vehicle

05:50:50.720 You said the first automobile

05:50:51.740 The first inexpensive automobile

05:50:53.780 Which was available

05:50:54.720 To the common man

05:50:55.580 Was the Volkswagen

05:50:56.240 Yes

05:50:56.720 That's what it was made for

05:50:58.360 I believe Henry Ford

05:50:59.300 Is the one that

05:50:59.720 Revolutionized automobiles

05:51:00.780 To be affordable

05:51:01.220 They weren't very affordable

05:51:02.220 Not in comparison

05:51:03.120 To the Volkswagen

05:51:03.620 And the Volkswagen

05:51:04.400 Was designed specifically

05:51:05.580 For this

05:51:06.260 Wait do you think

05:51:06.900 The assembly line

05:51:07.760 Was more contributory

05:51:08.920 To the automobile

05:51:09.960 Being cheaper

05:51:10.540 Or Volkswagen

05:51:11.500 What do you mean

05:51:12.460 I don't even know

05:51:13.300 What you think

05:51:13.620 Volkswagen did uniquely

05:51:14.560 That reduced the cost

05:51:15.600 Henry Ford

05:51:16.280 Is the one that

05:51:16.600 Proliferated vehicles

05:51:17.680 Because he developed

05:51:18.800 The assembly line

05:51:19.480 What happened with Volkswagen

05:51:20.600 And Mercedes Benz

05:51:21.420 Were developed in Germany

05:51:22.420 But in 1890

05:51:23.400 Wait a second

05:51:23.420 The Volkswagen

05:51:24.320 The Volkswagen itself

05:51:25.540 First of all

05:51:26.120 Germans had auto engineering

05:51:27.600 Before World War II

05:51:28.740 I didn't say that they didn't

05:51:29.720 And they had

05:51:30.180 Granted that Mercedes Benz

05:51:31.280 Was built in Germany

05:51:31.740 They also had innovations

05:51:32.500 On assembly lines

05:51:33.440 That the United States

05:51:34.260 Didn't have

05:51:35.000 And the thing that's

05:51:35.800 Interesting about

05:51:36.540 About Germans

05:51:37.620 Right

05:51:38.040 Is again

05:51:38.680 Their technology

05:51:39.880 Especially in the battlefield

05:51:41.420 Was leaps ahead of ours

05:51:43.260 Leaps ahead

05:51:44.640 With rocketry

05:51:45.680 It was leaps ahead

05:51:46.660 Even including

05:51:47.540 With their fighter aircraft

05:51:48.740 With their tanks

05:51:49.420 With everything

05:51:50.160 It was only near

05:51:51.100 The end of the war

05:51:51.860 That we ended up

05:51:52.460 With any jet plane at all

05:51:53.760 But the Germans 1.00

05:51:54.600 Were kicking the fucking shit 1.00

05:51:56.040 The only reason 1.00

05:51:57.100 We had such a hard time

05:51:58.400 With them

05:51:58.740 Is because they were

05:51:59.620 Fighting with the 1.00

05:52:00.380 Fucking all of Europe 1.00

05:52:01.780 Otherwise we would have 1.00

05:52:02.980 Been dealing with

05:52:03.440 Three and a half million

05:52:04.300 Of them

05:52:04.700 And it would have 1.00

05:52:05.060 Been a fucking nightmare 0.99

05:52:05.980 Would have been 1.00

05:52:07.040 A nightmare

05:52:07.580 So you think

05:52:07.780 Germany is just 0.99

05:52:08.900 Better at science

05:52:09.540 And innovation

05:52:09.980 It's not really

05:52:10.480 A uniquely American thing

05:52:11.500 You think that

05:52:11.860 Western liberal democracies

05:52:13.000 Have nothing to do

05:52:13.040 I don't think it's unique

05:52:13.740 To liberal democracy

05:52:14.800 No 0.99

05:52:15.620 No fucking chance 0.99

05:52:16.680 I didn't say 0.99

05:52:17.280 I said

05:52:17.560 Western liberal democracies

05:52:18.660 Are the best at it

05:52:19.480 No they're not

05:52:20.420 They weren't the best at it then

05:52:22.020 It seems

05:52:23.240 It seems like

05:52:23.860 We developed the

05:52:24.760 Atomic

05:52:25.140 You know

05:52:26.120 The Manhattan Project

05:52:26.900 With help of

05:52:27.680 German scientists

05:52:28.520 Well

05:52:29.340 Jewish German scientists

05:52:30.620 Yeah German scientists

05:52:31.520 Well did Germany 0.96

05:52:32.540 And the lack of

05:52:33.960 Western liberal democracy

05:52:35.000 Maybe facilitate

05:52:36.080 Why those scientists

05:52:37.400 Were here

05:52:37.960 Nobody's disputing that

05:52:39.980 Okay thanks

05:52:40.480 That has no bearing

05:52:41.700 On whether or not

05:52:42.400 How does that

05:52:42.840 Not have any bearing

05:52:43.680 Germany

05:52:44.100 Germany under

05:52:45.460 Their fascist rule

05:52:46.960 How does the

05:52:47.480 Fascistic rule

05:52:48.340 That was aiming 1.00

05:52:48.900 To kill Jews 1.00

05:52:50.060 Not significantly contribute 0.99

05:52:51.600 To the scientific

05:52:52.200 Development

05:52:52.820 Development in which

05:52:53.340 Jews had to flee 1.00

05:52:54.240 Germany for fear 0.98

05:52:55.440 Of genocide

05:52:55.960 How is that

05:52:56.640 How is the statecraft

05:52:57.840 Which made the

05:52:58.720 Genocide happen

05:52:59.220 Not contributing

05:52:59.760 To the scientific

05:53:00.280 So you're saying

05:53:01.160 That under fascism

05:53:03.100 That even though

05:53:04.500 One group of people

05:53:06.920 Who had scientists

05:53:07.740 In it had to flee

05:53:08.780 Not under fascism

05:53:09.520 Germany

05:53:09.920 Germany was still 0.89

05:53:11.580 Doing so well

05:53:12.800 That they had

05:53:13.580 More technological

05:53:14.620 Innovations

05:53:16.120 Than the United States

05:53:17.300 During the war

05:53:17.840 I don't believe

05:53:18.520 That they had more

05:53:19.060 They definitely did

05:53:20.100 I just don't

05:53:21.280 Think that that's

05:53:21.760 True

05:53:21.920 I think that

05:53:22.340 The United States

05:53:23.200 Developed the

05:53:23.600 Sherman

05:53:23.840 Right part of

05:53:24.540 Why the

05:53:24.860 Sherman was

05:53:25.540 Nothing

05:53:25.980 The tiger

05:53:26.520 Destroyed it

05:53:27.200 Like it was

05:53:27.540 Nothing

05:53:28.060 They had to

05:53:29.080 In fact they

05:53:29.960 Had to produce

05:53:30.500 Them five to

05:53:31.140 One

05:53:31.380 That was what

05:53:32.140 Our literal war

05:53:33.180 Model was

05:53:33.760 We cannot beat

05:53:34.840 This thing

05:53:35.260 Unless it's

05:53:35.680 Five to one

05:53:36.360 Okay

05:53:37.360 Here pull up

05:53:38.420 How did the

05:53:39.440 Sherman match up

05:53:40.160 Against the tiger

05:53:40.840 True

05:53:41.980 It's not even

05:53:42.720 In the same 0.98

05:53:43.120 Fucking 0.98

05:53:43.400 The only reason 0.99

05:53:44.180 In fact

05:53:44.700 It was only

05:53:45.760 Because they

05:53:46.640 Could not

05:53:47.080 Mass produce

05:53:48.040 Them

05:53:48.440 That was it

05:53:49.540 You're right

05:53:50.080 And what

05:53:50.700 System did we

05:53:51.880 Utilize to

05:53:52.400 Figure out a

05:53:52.900 Cheaper more

05:53:53.420 Cost effective

05:53:54.000 Way to make

05:53:54.440 Tanks

05:53:54.900 No that had

05:53:55.860 Nothing to do

05:53:56.520 With anything

05:53:56.900 That is a

05:53:57.260 Large part of

05:53:57.800 It one of

05:53:58.140 So German 0.73

05:53:58.700 Engineering

05:53:59.100 Is like

05:53:59.580 State of the

05:54:00.180 Art

05:54:00.340 There is

05:54:01.840 Nothing that

05:54:02.320 Competes with

05:54:02.780 German

05:54:03.000 Engineering

05:54:03.340 It had to

05:54:04.040 Do with

05:54:04.280 The fact of

05:54:04.880 Preparation

05:54:05.520 Are you going

05:54:06.240 To let me

05:54:06.460 Speak

05:54:06.720 One of the

05:54:07.260 Problems with

05:54:07.680 German

05:54:07.900 Engineering

05:54:08.240 Is that it's

05:54:08.680 So complicated

05:54:09.240 That typically

05:54:09.980 The training

05:54:10.460 Required to

05:54:11.420 Fix the

05:54:12.420 Tigers

05:54:12.800 Are you going

05:54:13.600 To let me

05:54:13.880 Talk

05:54:14.020 Yeah but

05:54:14.260 Even the

05:54:14.540 Non-tigers

05:54:15.080 Were better

05:54:15.580 It's so bad

05:54:17.500 The cancers

05:54:18.280 Were better

05:54:18.800 All of them

05:54:19.280 Were better

05:54:19.640 Sure but

05:54:20.120 The issue

05:54:20.500 Was that

05:54:20.760 They were

05:54:20.960 Harder to

05:54:21.340 Build

05:54:21.540 They were

05:54:21.820 Harder to

05:54:22.260 Maintain

05:54:22.940 And they

05:54:23.200 Required a

05:54:23.600 Higher level

05:54:23.940 Of expertise

05:54:24.440 Which is why

05:54:25.100 Despite the

05:54:25.840 Fact that

05:54:26.400 Maybe only

05:54:27.180 It was one

05:54:27.740 To five

05:54:28.240 We could

05:54:28.820 Build five

05:54:29.660 And they

05:54:30.340 Could only

05:54:30.640 Build one

05:54:31.200 With the

05:54:31.500 Time and

05:54:32.000 Expertise

05:54:32.440 That was

05:54:33.080 That's actually

05:54:33.900 Part of

05:54:34.280 Science

05:54:34.540 It's making

05:54:34.940 Things more

05:54:35.460 Efficient

05:54:35.740 And easier

05:54:36.580 To do

05:54:36.840 Like Henry

05:54:37.340 Ford

05:54:37.600 Did

05:54:37.800 That's

05:54:38.060 Part of

05:54:38.400 Science

05:54:38.600 Source of

05:54:39.040 Not having

05:54:39.460 Our nation 1.00

05:54:39.860 Being fucking 1.00

05:54:40.680 Attacked 0.99

05:54:42.100 True

05:54:42.360 That's it

05:54:43.020 So you

05:54:43.660 Don't think

05:54:43.940 America

05:54:44.280 Ingenuity

05:54:45.240 At all

05:54:45.820 Had anything

05:54:46.240 To do

05:54:46.500 With it

05:54:46.780 Well no

05:54:47.840 Of course

05:54:48.200 That had

05:54:48.680 Something to

05:54:49.120 Do with

05:54:49.560 The innovations

05:54:50.580 That we

05:54:50.940 Had of course

05:54:51.420 Warfare

05:54:52.220 I don't

05:54:52.580 Understand why

05:54:53.120 You dislike

05:54:53.640 America so

05:54:54.360 Much

05:54:54.660 Oh okay

05:54:55.620 I dislike 0.98

05:54:56.420 America

05:54:56.800 Because I'm

05:54:57.120 Not a

05:54:57.320 Revisionist 0.99

05:54:57.880 About history

05:54:58.500 I'm not

05:54:59.360 Revising

05:54:59.800 History at

05:55:00.260 All right

05:55:00.600 So was

05:55:01.680 It the

05:55:01.840 Case that

05:55:02.160 The tiger

05:55:02.520 Was like

05:55:02.900 One of the

05:55:03.580 Most effective

05:55:04.120 Tanks

05:55:04.380 For an

05:55:05.160 Individual

05:55:05.680 And the

05:55:06.080 Panzer

05:55:06.380 Sure

05:55:06.560 Yes

05:55:07.300 Because German

05:55:08.600 Study of the

05:55:08.920 Art

05:55:09.000 The issues

05:55:09.420 That part

05:55:09.880 Of engineering

05:55:10.440 And part

05:55:10.780 Of science

05:55:11.220 Isn't just

05:55:11.740 Making things

05:55:12.340 At the

05:55:12.660 Study of the

05:55:12.920 Art

05:55:12.980 It's also

05:55:13.420 Making them

05:55:13.820 Cost effective

05:55:14.700 And easy

05:55:15.480 To utilize

05:55:15.980 Right

05:55:16.180 So if you

05:55:16.620 Can have

05:55:17.020 One five

05:55:18.200 Tanks

05:55:18.680 That you can

05:55:19.280 Build more

05:55:19.760 Quickly

05:55:20.060 You can

05:55:20.480 Man more

05:55:21.360 Quickly

05:55:21.580 Because less

05:55:22.100 Expertise is

05:55:22.720 Required

05:55:23.180 So you can

05:55:23.820 Use those

05:55:24.200 Five tanks

05:55:24.660 To take out

05:55:25.080 The one

05:55:25.380 The five

05:55:25.980 Tanks is

05:55:26.380 Better in

05:55:26.740 This situation

05:55:27.140 The problem

05:55:27.460 You have

05:55:27.820 With this

05:55:28.120 Logic

05:55:28.480 Is that if

05:55:29.360 Germany

05:55:29.880 Was only

05:55:30.580 Going head

05:55:31.160 To head

05:55:31.480 With the

05:55:31.760 United States

05:55:32.480 That would

05:55:32.940 Not have

05:55:33.280 Been an

05:55:33.560 Issue

05:55:34.440 I'm not

05:55:36.060 Sure if

05:55:36.320 That's true

05:55:36.700 It is

05:55:37.040 True

05:55:37.260 Not only

05:55:38.480 Can you

05:55:38.780 Not say

05:55:39.180 That that's

05:55:39.520 True

05:55:39.700 Actually we

05:55:41.800 Can we

05:55:42.220 Can do

05:55:42.540 A military

05:55:43.080 Matchup

05:55:43.760 Between what

05:55:44.400 Would happen

05:55:44.840 If every

05:55:45.460 Single panzer

05:55:46.100 And tiger

05:55:46.540 Was only

05:55:47.420 Fighting with

05:55:48.020 The cross

05:55:48.460 Continental

05:55:48.980 United States

05:55:49.860 Only

05:55:50.260 No britain

05:55:51.140 No russian 1.00

05:55:51.800 Front

05:55:52.180 None of

05:55:52.760 That and

05:55:53.240 We can

05:55:53.480 Match it

05:55:53.900 Up

05:55:54.080 And yes 1.00

05:55:54.720 The fucking 1.00

05:55:55.560 German 1.00

05:55:55.960 Tanks

05:55:56.340 Would have

05:55:56.720 Blown 1.00

05:55:57.140 Our shit 0.99

05:55:57.680 Out of 1.00

05:55:58.040 The fucking 1.00

05:55:58.600 Water 0.99

05:55:59.100 But the

05:55:59.480 Issue

05:55:59.780 Is that

05:56:00.040 We could

05:56:00.340 Build

05:56:00.700 Five times

05:56:01.520 So

05:56:01.840 Could they

05:56:02.240 If they

05:56:02.480 Weren't

05:56:02.640 Fighting the

05:56:03.560 No the

05:56:03.840 Reason why

05:56:04.480 They can't

05:56:04.860 Build five

05:56:05.220 Times more

05:56:05.700 Is because

05:56:06.080 Part of

05:56:06.560 Science is

05:56:07.040 Making things

05:56:07.580 More efficient

05:56:08.360 And easier

05:56:09.020 To utilize

05:56:09.500 Right

05:56:09.740 One of

05:56:10.220 The like

05:56:10.460 Most important

05:56:11.080 Things in

05:56:11.460 That case

05:56:12.000 That wasn't

05:56:12.500 The problem

05:56:13.000 Though the

05:56:13.380 Problem was

05:56:14.020 They were 1.00

05:56:14.440 Getting fucking 1.00

05:56:15.160 Destroyed 1.00

05:56:15.720 Because they

05:56:15.960 Were fighting

05:56:16.400 The world

05:56:16.860 That's a

05:56:17.160 Really big

05:56:17.480 Part of it

05:56:17.940 Right

05:56:18.120 Part of

05:56:18.500 Science and

05:56:19.000 Engineering

05:56:19.440 Part of

05:56:19.780 The importance

05:56:20.260 Of science and

05:56:20.740 Engineering

05:56:21.020 Is making

05:56:21.460 Things more

05:56:21.920 Easily

05:56:22.280 Acceptable

05:56:23.400 Right

05:56:23.600 So in

05:56:24.120 The case

05:56:24.420 Of

05:56:24.540 Internet

05:56:24.860 It used

05:56:25.340 To be

05:56:25.640 The case

05:56:26.160 That we

05:56:26.360 Needed

05:56:26.520 Huge

05:56:26.840 Buildings

05:56:27.240 To

05:56:27.400 House

05:56:27.620 Everything

05:56:27.900 And now

05:56:28.480 We have

05:56:28.740 It in

05:56:28.920 Our

05:56:29.060 Phones

05:56:29.420 That's

05:56:29.980 Science and

05:56:30.360 Technology

05:56:30.780 Science and

05:56:31.480 Technology

05:56:31.840 Doesn't just

05:56:32.340 Mean big

05:56:33.020 And strong

05:56:33.480 And fast

05:56:33.980 It means

05:56:34.380 Efficient

05:56:34.960 It means

05:56:35.300 All of

05:56:35.820 These things

05:56:36.240 And while

05:56:36.740 German

05:56:37.020 Engineering

05:56:37.400 Was state

05:56:37.760 Of the art

05:56:38.000 The machines

05:56:38.820 Themselves

05:56:39.280 Operated

05:56:39.940 Fantastically

05:56:40.520 There was a

05:56:41.060 High level

05:56:41.380 Of expertise

05:56:41.780 Required to

05:56:42.360 Operate them

05:56:42.920 And it was

05:56:43.480 Significantly more

05:56:44.280 Complicated to

05:56:44.900 Build

05:56:45.100 Whereas most

05:56:45.820 American

05:56:46.120 Tanks are

05:56:46.520 Easier to

05:56:46.880 Build

05:56:47.000 This is

05:56:47.260 Why the

05:56:47.500 Abrams

05:56:47.920 Is now

05:56:48.560 The dominant

05:56:49.780 Tank

05:56:50.120 That people

05:56:50.480 Use

05:56:50.760 Because it's

05:56:51.360 Both

05:56:51.620 Fantastic

05:56:53.000 At basically

05:56:57.400 That's why

05:56:57.880 Okay

05:56:58.520 Yeah so

05:56:59.300 The thing is

05:56:59.920 Smart of

05:57:00.260 Americans

05:57:00.540 To make

05:57:00.820 That contract

05:57:01.280 This doesn't

05:57:02.080 Do anything

05:57:02.380 For your

05:57:02.680 Position

05:57:03.080 Of course

05:57:03.560 It does

05:57:03.880 Is it not

05:57:04.340 The Americans

05:57:04.860 That built

05:57:05.340 The position

05:57:06.280 Is whether

05:57:06.800 Or not

05:57:07.200 I can name

05:57:07.760 A nation

05:57:08.280 That wasn't

05:57:09.080 A western

05:57:09.380 Democracy

05:57:10.060 Germany

05:57:11.300 World War

05:57:12.020 II

05:57:12.320 That had

05:57:13.420 As many

05:57:13.800 Technological

05:57:14.420 Innovations

05:57:14.980 As the

05:57:15.260 United States

05:57:15.640 The answer

05:57:15.860 Is definitely

05:57:16.200 Yes

05:57:16.600 I would say

05:57:17.060 That you

05:57:17.540 Have not

05:57:17.860 Proven

05:57:18.220 Definitely

05:57:18.700 Yes

05:57:19.000 And by

05:57:19.320 The way

05:57:19.620 Saying

05:57:20.320 Their tank

05:57:20.960 Was better

05:57:21.420 Is not

05:57:22.140 The same

05:57:22.500 Thing

05:57:22.740 As saying

05:57:23.060 That they

05:57:23.300 Had more

05:57:23.600 Advancements

05:57:23.880 It's my

05:57:24.540 Turn

05:57:24.720 I just

05:57:24.980 Let you

05:57:25.240 Prattle

05:57:25.460 Forever

05:57:25.840 So here's

05:57:26.760 The thing

05:57:27.020 That's funny

05:57:27.440 Is like

05:57:28.300 You can't

05:57:28.740 Actually equalize

05:57:29.420 For these

05:57:29.680 Things

05:57:29.880 If we took

05:57:30.280 The entire

05:57:30.720 Soviet front

05:57:31.420 Out

05:57:31.620 We took

05:57:31.900 The entire

05:57:32.340 European front

05:57:33.100 Out from

05:57:33.440 The Germans 0.91

05:57:33.920 And we were

05:57:34.500 Able to

05:57:34.820 Just match

05:57:35.300 Up tank

05:57:35.820 For tank

05:57:36.320 Man

05:57:36.900 For man

05:57:37.460 Yes

05:57:38.100 They were

05:57:38.500 Much more

05:57:38.960 Technologically

05:57:39.520 Advanced

05:57:39.860 Army

05:57:40.240 And that

05:57:41.560 Would have

05:57:41.780 Been a

05:57:42.420 Much more

05:57:43.420 Likely

05:57:43.760 Unwinnable

05:57:44.320 War

05:57:44.620 At that

05:57:44.920 Point

05:57:45.220 It would

05:57:45.620 Have

05:57:45.660 Been

05:57:45.740 Very

05:57:45.900 Difficult

05:57:46.240 Right

05:57:46.480 By no

05:57:47.060 Means

05:57:47.300 Am I

05:57:47.480 Interested

05:57:47.800 In

05:57:47.980 Dismissing

05:57:48.460 Germany

05:57:48.800 But what I

05:57:49.280 Am saying

05:57:49.600 Is that

05:57:49.900 It seems

05:57:50.240 To be

05:57:50.400 The case

05:57:50.800 That under

05:57:51.460 Seems to

05:57:51.960 Be the case 0.90

05:57:52.360 That western

05:57:52.760 Democracy

05:57:53.380 Under

05:57:54.060 Under democracy

05:57:55.240 Does not 0.92

05:57:55.880 Just make

05:57:56.720 The most

05:57:57.400 Innovative 1.00

05:57:58.020 Shit 1.00

05:57:58.420 And that fascists 1.00

05:57:59.380 Do to

05:57:59.820 So I just

05:58:00.400 Let you

05:58:00.640 Prattle on

05:58:01.080 For a while

05:58:01.500 It's my

05:58:02.120 Turn to

05:58:02.440 Talk now

05:58:02.880 Okay

05:58:03.220 Right

05:58:03.660 So in

05:58:04.260 This case

05:58:04.620 You're saying

05:58:04.920 Well one

05:58:05.460 For one

05:58:05.960 Their tanks

05:58:06.420 Were better

05:58:06.720 Sure

05:58:07.000 The issue

05:58:07.460 Is that

05:58:07.680 That's not

05:58:08.080 Necessarily

05:58:08.620 Innovation

05:58:09.040 And engineering

05:58:09.600 Part of

05:58:09.960 Engineering

05:58:10.340 And science

05:58:10.760 And technology

05:58:11.240 Is making

05:58:11.640 Things more

05:58:12.080 Efficient

05:58:12.380 Oh I see

05:58:13.060 Do you

05:58:14.000 Disagree

05:58:14.220 France

05:58:14.400 A western

05:58:14.800 Democracy

05:58:15.340 Yes

05:58:17.040 Then why 0.99

05:58:17.320 The fuck 0.99

05:58:17.700 Did the Germans 1.00

05:58:18.260 Just roll over

05:58:19.040 Them like

05:58:19.280 They were 0.99

05:58:19.520 Bitches 1.00

05:58:20.220 A whole 1.00

05:58:20.580 Bunch of

05:58:20.860 Things

05:58:21.080 No no no

05:58:22.580 The part

05:58:23.080 Of science

05:58:23.760 Kyla

05:58:24.200 Is making

05:58:24.660 Sure that

05:58:25.260 Your army

05:58:25.760 Is super

05:58:26.460 Sophisticated

05:58:27.140 And that

05:58:27.460 You can

05:58:27.820 Make assembly

05:58:28.520 Line

05:58:28.800 Products

05:58:29.500 So that

05:58:30.320 You can

05:58:30.640 Attack 1.00

05:58:30.960 These people 0.98

05:58:31.800 And that's

05:58:32.660 What we

05:58:32.920 Can do

05:58:33.300 Why were

05:58:34.180 The Germans 0.91

05:58:34.600 Able to

05:58:35.140 Literally

05:58:35.460 Walk in

05:58:35.880 And make

05:58:36.100 France

05:58:36.400 Surrender

05:58:36.660 Two weeks

05:58:37.140 I believe

05:58:37.160 That there

05:58:37.320 Was a

05:58:37.600 Significant

05:58:38.100 Amount

05:58:38.300 Of surprise

05:58:38.780 They did

05:58:39.200 They invented

05:58:39.740 A new

05:58:40.020 Technology

05:58:40.400 Called

05:58:40.660 Blitzkrieg 0.52

05:58:41.320 How could

05:58:43.040 They be

05:58:43.360 Surpassing

05:58:43.940 These western

05:58:44.420 Democracies

05:58:45.180 How

05:58:46.880 Multiple

05:58:47.340 Ways

05:58:47.740 I thought

05:58:49.360 You couldn't

05:58:50.220 Surpass a 0.97

05:58:51.060 Western

05:58:51.300 Democracy

05:58:51.860 In science

05:58:52.520 And technology

05:58:53.080 When did I

05:58:53.440 Say that

05:58:53.880 You said

05:58:55.520 Western

05:58:56.200 Democracies

05:58:56.920 Are by far

05:58:57.780 The best

05:58:58.460 At science

05:58:59.720 And innovation

05:59:00.420 And this and that

05:59:00.960 How come

05:59:01.800 All these

05:59:02.080 Western

05:59:02.400 Democracies

05:59:03.060 Were getting

05:59:03.420 Blown to bits 0.96

05:59:04.060 By the fascists 0.99

05:59:04.860 Because there

05:59:05.560 Are going to be

05:59:06.120 Western democracies

05:59:06.840 That are worse

05:59:07.260 Than fascism

05:59:07.860 That doesn't

05:59:08.260 Wait that

05:59:09.220 Doesn't change

05:59:09.900 No wait

05:59:11.000 This doesn't

05:59:11.800 Change what

05:59:12.180 I'm saying

05:59:12.600 Which is that

05:59:12.980 Broadly

05:59:13.480 Western democracies

05:59:14.420 Are better

05:59:15.120 At allowing

05:59:15.500 Science and

05:59:17.200 Technology to

05:59:17.760 Flourish

05:59:18.100 Because of

05:59:18.740 Well I guess

05:59:18.960 France should

05:59:19.640 Have done

05:59:19.920 That better

05:59:20.480 I guess

05:59:21.900 France and

05:59:22.600 England

05:59:22.940 Should have

05:59:23.380 Done that

05:59:23.640 Better

05:59:24.020 I'm not

05:59:24.860 Sure how

05:59:25.160 To engage

05:59:25.560 If you're

05:59:25.820 Only going

05:59:26.220 To strawman

05:59:26.740 Me

05:59:26.900 That's

05:59:27.180 My argument

05:59:28.280 To you

05:59:29.920 Is it

05:59:30.160 Makes

05:59:30.400 No

05:59:30.620 It can't

05:59:31.060 Strawman

05:59:31.580 You

05:59:31.760 With my

05:59:32.240 Argument

05:59:32.780 It's

05:59:33.320 Incoherent

05:59:34.040 I didn't

05:59:34.740 Say incoherent

05:59:35.460 I said

05:59:35.840 I'm making

05:59:36.880 An argument

05:59:37.520 Why would

05:59:38.080 What are you

05:59:38.960 Even talking

05:59:39.280 About

05:59:39.520 My argument

05:59:40.200 Is simple

05:59:40.680 If you have

05:59:41.460 A western

05:59:41.780 Democracy

05:59:42.240 You're saying

05:59:42.500 Western democracies

05:59:43.300 Are the only

05:59:43.700 Ones

05:59:43.940 I can make

05:59:44.340 The

05:59:44.780 I didn't

05:59:45.220 Say only

05:59:45.580 Ones

05:59:45.700 They're the

05:59:46.100 Ones

05:59:46.260 They make

05:59:46.560 The most

05:59:46.860 Innovative

05:59:47.360 They make

05:59:48.060 The most

05:59:48.340 Innovative

05:59:48.720 Technology

05:59:49.220 That's based

05:59:49.640 On the fact

05:59:50.020 That they

05:59:50.240 Have various

05:59:50.720 Assembly lines

05:59:51.360 When you have

05:59:51.700 Those assembly

05:59:52.160 Lines

05:59:52.480 Part of

05:59:52.820 Science

05:59:53.120 Is making

05:59:53.680 Sure that

05:59:54.060 You can

05:59:54.260 Assemble

05:59:54.480 These things

05:59:54.820 As quickly

05:59:55.140 As possible

05:59:55.580 Grot it

05:59:56.040 The nazis 0.99

05:59:57.840 Were fascist 0.99

05:59:58.920 And they

05:59:59.280 Took these

05:59:59.820 Western democracies

06:00:00.880 And took a 1.00

06:00:01.420 Giant shit 1.00

06:00:02.340 On them 1.00

06:00:02.780 And they

06:00:03.360 Didn't give 0.98

06:00:03.680 A fuck 0.97

06:00:04.080 About them 1.00

06:00:04.660 They made

06:00:05.220 Them surrender

06:00:05.740 In carriages

06:00:06.420 Within two 0.98

06:00:06.980 Fucking weeks 0.99

06:00:07.740 They occupied 1.00

06:00:08.720 Their entire

06:00:09.260 Nation

06:00:09.800 No western

06:00:11.220 Democracies

06:00:11.840 Do not

06:00:12.580 Because they're

06:00:13.260 Western democracies

06:00:14.140 Inherently

06:00:14.680 Have better

06:00:15.560 Scientific methodology

06:00:16.720 Than other

06:00:17.320 Forms of

06:00:17.740 Government

06:00:18.080 No it

06:00:18.580 Allows for

06:00:19.060 More scientific

06:00:19.580 Innovation

06:00:20.180 Development

06:00:20.620 Because it

06:00:21.060 Doesn't do

06:00:21.460 Things like

06:00:21.920 Genocide a

06:00:22.800 Large portion

06:00:23.300 Of the population

06:00:23.880 And chase

06:00:24.340 Them out

06:00:24.560 Because of

06:00:24.860 Their authoritarian

06:00:25.400 Yeah but

06:00:25.920 Some of the

06:00:26.300 Things that it

06:00:26.720 Does is like

06:00:27.380 It brings in

06:00:28.320 A huge amount

06:00:29.520 Of people who

06:00:30.080 Are low skilled

06:00:30.880 Oftentimes

06:00:31.600 Pricing people

06:00:32.640 Out who

06:00:33.160 May have been

06:00:33.580 Able to go

06:00:33.960 To like

06:00:34.260 These higher

06:00:34.660 End colleges

06:00:35.280 Not based

06:00:36.000 On DEI

06:00:36.660 Things like

06:00:37.200 This

06:00:37.600 Yeah western

06:00:38.540 Democracy also

06:00:39.660 Western democracy

06:00:40.800 Can also provide

06:00:41.820 Barriers in which

06:00:43.460 People don't

06:00:44.440 Have the access

06:00:45.300 To the scientific

06:00:45.980 Pursuits

06:00:46.460 Because they're

06:00:47.160 Not going to

06:00:47.620 Them based

06:00:47.980 On merit

06:00:48.460 They're going

06:00:48.940 To them based

06:00:49.380 On skin

06:00:49.800 Color

06:00:50.120 So that's

06:00:50.840 A big

06:00:51.060 Problem one

06:00:51.900 And the

06:00:52.240 Second problem

06:00:52.760 That you

06:00:53.040 Have with

06:00:53.440 This is

06:00:54.040 Western democracy

06:00:54.960 Itself

06:00:55.380 Because your

06:00:56.100 Democracy

06:00:56.660 Does not 0.92

06:00:57.760 Mean that

06:00:58.760 You in

06:00:59.340 Some way

06:00:59.920 Are more

06:01:00.200 Innovative

06:01:00.720 Have better

06:01:01.320 Technology

06:01:01.920 That you're

06:01:02.740 To make

06:01:02.940 Better

06:01:03.240 Technology

06:01:03.740 Does

06:01:04.060 It doesn't

06:01:04.560 Seems to

06:01:04.900 Emerge

06:01:05.240 Consistently

06:01:05.860 Over time

06:01:06.360 That's not

06:01:06.700 What you said

06:01:07.280 You said

06:01:07.720 Name

06:01:07.980 Any nation

06:01:09.920 That's not

06:01:10.460 A western

06:01:10.900 Democracy

06:01:11.280 Doing that

06:01:11.820 Was doing

06:01:12.140 Better than

06:01:12.460 Western

06:01:12.720 Well

06:01:13.160 Germany under

06:01:13.960 Fascist

06:01:14.500 Did a lot

06:01:15.320 Better and

06:01:15.740 They had

06:01:16.040 Way better

06:01:16.540 Technology

06:01:17.140 Than most

06:01:17.720 Of these

06:01:17.940 Western

06:01:18.260 Democracies

06:01:18.920 No

06:01:19.920 Even America

06:01:20.680 They did

06:01:21.140 I don't

06:01:21.620 Think

06:01:21.820 The difference

06:01:22.320 Is that

06:01:23.020 They were

06:01:23.600 Fighting in

06:01:24.680 A European 0.99

06:01:25.080 Theater

06:01:25.480 We could

06:01:25.920 Endlessly

06:01:26.380 Send troops

06:01:27.120 Because our

06:01:27.800 Shores couldn't 0.99

06:01:28.520 Get attacked

06:01:29.020 They were

06:01:29.320 Bogged down

06:01:29.840 With other

06:01:30.320 People

06:01:30.720 If that was

06:01:31.920 Not the

06:01:32.320 Case

06:01:32.600 And it was

06:01:32.920 Head to

06:01:33.240 Head with

06:01:33.540 Germany

06:01:33.860 America

06:01:33.880 Would have 0.62

06:01:34.100 Been dumpstered

06:01:35.220 I'm not

06:01:35.540 Sure

06:01:35.820 That no

06:01:36.260 They wouldn't

06:01:36.600 Have been

06:01:36.800 Invaded

06:01:37.240 Say they

06:01:38.380 Could evade

06:01:38.720 Them

06:01:38.880 I think

06:01:39.420 That Germany 0.78

06:01:39.920 May have

06:01:40.580 Been able

06:01:40.860 To hold

06:01:41.200 Out

06:01:41.380 I'm not

06:01:41.820 Sure

06:01:42.120 That's a

06:01:42.560 Hard

06:01:42.740 One

06:01:42.880 To call

06:01:43.220 Okay

06:01:43.900 It is

06:01:45.240 It's a

06:01:45.480 Hard

06:01:45.620 One

06:01:45.740 To call

06:01:46.080 The problem

06:01:46.580 Is that

06:01:46.840 We have

06:01:47.060 Such vast

06:01:47.620 Manpower

06:01:48.160 Here

06:01:48.500 So

06:01:49.200 That has

06:01:49.880 Nothing to

06:01:50.280 Do with

06:01:50.500 Being a

06:01:50.780 Western

06:01:51.060 Democracy

06:01:51.680 That has

06:01:52.040 To do

06:01:52.160 With land

06:01:52.540 Mass

06:01:52.860 Well in

06:01:54.400 This specific

06:01:55.240 Military tactic

06:01:56.080 Yes the

06:01:56.640 Issue is that

06:01:57.200 It's tough

06:01:58.340 You don't want

06:01:59.460 To actually

06:01:59.980 Engage in

06:02:00.800 My argument

06:02:01.280 You're not

06:02:01.980 You're straw

06:02:02.380 Manning my

06:02:02.720 Argument

06:02:03.060 And then

06:02:03.360 Attacking it

06:02:03.920 And being

06:02:04.140 Like see

06:02:05.000 This is an

06:02:05.880 Example

06:02:06.360 France got 0.81

06:02:07.300 Beaten

06:02:07.760 Therefore

06:02:08.400 Eridite 0.98

06:02:09.000 Dumb 0.61

06:02:09.360 Actually 0.99

06:02:09.760 In western

06:02:10.240 Liberal

06:02:10.600 Democracies

06:02:11.260 Don't

06:02:11.700 Create

06:02:12.060 The

06:02:12.240 Conditions

06:02:12.700 Whether

06:02:14.060 You believe

06:02:14.360 Or not

06:02:14.700 It's that

06:02:15.160 The

06:02:15.860 Western

06:02:17.080 Liberal

06:02:17.280 Democracies

06:02:17.780 Seem to

06:02:18.160 Have

06:02:18.300 Over time

06:02:18.720 Created the

06:02:19.100 Conditions

06:02:19.480 In which

06:02:19.780 Science

06:02:20.120 Does the

06:02:20.480 Best

06:02:20.700 Right

06:02:20.840 This is

06:02:21.320 Why in

06:02:21.660 Western

06:02:21.940 Liberal

06:02:22.140 Democracies

06:02:22.560 Except in

06:02:22.960 Places that

06:02:23.540 They didn't

06:02:25.140 Except in

06:02:25.820 Places where

06:02:26.420 Other things

06:02:27.180 That were

06:02:27.460 Not western

06:02:28.040 Democracies

06:02:28.640 Did better

06:02:29.180 And

06:02:30.760 Until they

06:02:31.600 Didn't

06:02:31.980 Right

06:02:32.200 Until they

06:02:32.520 Got crushed

06:02:32.980 For example

06:02:33.480 One of the

06:02:33.860 Benefits of

06:02:34.280 Western

06:02:34.560 Liberal

06:02:34.740 Democracies

06:02:35.280 Is 0.88

06:02:35.480 Allyship

06:02:36.060 It's a

06:02:36.300 Lot easier

06:02:36.580 To be

06:02:36.800 Allies

06:02:37.080 With

06:02:37.260 People

06:02:37.480 That

06:02:37.660 Recognize

06:02:38.060 Each

06:02:38.220 Other's

06:02:38.460 Sovereignty

06:02:38.820 Being a

06:02:40.100 Western

06:02:40.280 Democracy

06:02:40.700 Didn't

06:02:40.940 Stop

06:02:41.140 France

06:02:41.400 From

06:02:41.520 Getting

06:02:41.660 Crushed

06:02:42.480 That

06:02:42.740 That's

06:02:43.740 Not

06:02:44.000 How

06:02:44.340 Why do

06:02:44.960 You

06:02:45.140 Think

06:02:45.340 How do

06:02:47.280 You think

06:02:47.500 That's a

06:02:47.880 Counter to

06:02:48.300 Anything I

06:02:48.720 Just said

06:02:49.020 Because you

06:02:49.400 Just got

06:02:49.740 Done saying

06:02:50.260 Well until

06:02:51.100 They got

06:02:51.440 Crushed

06:02:52.000 As though

06:02:52.320 Getting

06:02:52.540 Crushed

06:02:53.040 Means

06:02:53.200 Somehow

06:02:53.540 They were

06:02:53.940 Not

06:02:54.140 Innovative

06:02:54.620 Technologically

06:02:55.360 Yeah I

06:02:55.960 Would

06:02:56.080 Say

06:02:56.260 That

06:02:56.440 Like

06:02:56.640 The

06:02:56.800 Innovations

06:02:57.340 Of

06:02:57.720 Respecting

06:02:59.080 Sovereignship

06:02:59.560 Of

06:02:59.880 The

06:03:00.600 Nuclear

06:03:01.240 Bomb

06:03:02.380 Right

06:03:02.880 Of

06:03:03.280 The

06:03:03.400 P-51

06:03:03.900 Mustang

06:03:04.340 That

06:03:04.580 Had

06:03:04.780 Massive

06:03:05.240 Air

06:03:05.460 Superiority

06:03:06.160 Right

06:03:06.580 Of

06:03:07.120 Having

06:03:07.680 Efficient

06:03:08.160 Easy

06:03:08.480 To

06:03:08.600 Make

06:03:08.740 Tanks

06:03:09.120 That

06:03:09.260 Are

06:03:09.360 Still

06:03:09.520 High

06:03:09.760 Quality

06:03:10.220 And

06:03:10.480 Good

06:03:10.760 Like

06:03:11.180 The

06:03:11.520 Like

06:03:12.240 The

06:03:12.360 Sherman

06:03:12.600 And

06:03:12.800 Then

06:03:12.920 Later

06:03:13.120 The

06:03:13.380 Sherman

06:03:13.840 And

06:03:14.020 Then

06:03:14.120 The

06:03:14.220 Abrams

06:03:14.260 And

06:03:14.840 That

06:03:14.940 They

06:03:15.060 Didn't

06:03:15.660 Make

06:03:15.800 Some

06:03:15.960 Good

06:03:16.100 Equipment

06:03:16.400 They

06:03:16.580 Did

06:03:16.820 And

06:03:16.980 They

06:03:17.180 Didn't

06:03:17.340 Have

06:03:17.480 Innovations

06:03:25.360 What

06:03:25.540 The

06:03:25.700 Like

06:03:25.920 Government

06:03:26.480 Was

06:03:26.720 Organizing

06:03:27.140 And

06:03:27.360 What

06:03:27.560 Germany

06:03:27.880 Had

06:03:28.180 Was

06:03:28.360 Mass

06:03:28.620 National

06:03:29.020 Patriotism

06:03:29.800 And

06:03:30.100 People

06:03:30.300 Moving

06:03:30.640 In

06:03:31.020 Lockstep

06:03:31.800 Towards

06:03:32.100 The

06:03:32.220 War

06:03:32.380 Effort

06:03:32.740 They

06:03:32.940 Had

06:03:33.100 Massive

06:03:33.540 Technological

06:03:34.160 Gains

06:03:34.600 They

06:03:34.980 Crushed

06:03:36.460 Tons

06:03:37.020 Of

06:03:37.320 Western

06:03:37.680 Democracies

06:03:38.400 Under

06:03:38.600 Their

06:03:38.760 Boot

06:03:39.000 If

06:03:39.340 The

06:03:39.440 United

06:03:39.640 States

06:03:39.840 Hadn't

06:03:40.020 Gotten

06:03:40.240 Involved

06:03:40.740 England

06:03:41.720 Would

06:03:41.940 Have

06:03:42.040 Fallen

06:03:42.280 In

06:03:42.400 Fact

06:03:42.720 They

06:03:43.160 Could

06:03:43.300 Have

06:03:43.400 Defeated

06:03:43.720 England

06:03:44.000 In

06:03:44.180 A

06:03:44.220 Single

06:03:44.420 Battle

06:03:44.860 And

06:03:46.060 Hitler 0.78

06:03:46.820 Let

06:03:47.020 Them

06:03:47.100 Go

06:03:47.420 So

06:03:48.360 It's

06:03:48.500 Like

06:03:48.720 Look

06:03:49.140 Unfortunately

06:03:50.060 For

06:03:50.360 You

06:03:50.660 History

06:03:51.500 Does

06:03:51.760 Not

06:03:52.020 Show

06:03:52.280 That

06:03:52.460 Western

06:03:52.760 Democracies

06:03:53.400 Are

06:03:53.560 The

06:03:53.660 Most

06:03:53.820 Cutting

06:03:54.200 Edge

06:03:54.480 And

06:03:54.640 Most

06:03:54.820 Innovative

06:03:55.400 That

06:03:55.600 Is 0.88

06:03:55.720 Not

06:03:55.920 Actually

06:03:56.240 The

06:03:56.660 Case

06:03:56.780 They

06:03:58.020 Create

06:03:58.340 The

06:03:58.500 Conditions

06:03:58.920 In

06:03:59.100 Which

06:03:59.280 Science

06:03:59.740 Can

06:03:59.960 Flourish

06:04:00.240 The

06:04:00.380 Most

06:04:00.560 Which

06:04:00.740 Is 0.88

06:04:00.860 Why

06:04:01.020 For

06:04:01.160 example

06:04:01.480 While

06:04:01.960 You're

06:04:02.140 Right

06:04:02.320 A 0.80

06:04:02.660 Fascist

06:04:03.100 Government 0.93

06:04:03.340 That's

06:04:03.640 Oriented

06:04:04.040 Let

06:04:04.360 Let

06:04:04.380 Talk

06:04:04.740 Towards

06:04:05.320 War

06:04:05.720 Is 0.88

06:04:05.980 Going

06:04:06.080 To

06:04:06.120 Have

06:04:06.260 Lots

06:04:06.500 Of

06:04:06.600 Military

06:04:06.940 Advancements

06:04:07.440 But

06:04:07.560 Things

06:04:07.780 That

06:04:07.920 They

06:04:08.040 Didn't

06:04:08.360 Have

06:04:08.580 During

06:04:08.780 That

06:04:08.920 Time

06:04:09.160 Would

06:04:09.280 Be

06:04:09.380 Advancements

06:04:09.820 In

06:04:09.940 Other

06:04:10.120 Are

06:04:10.360 Other

06:04:10.980 Than

06:04:11.140 The

06:04:11.300 Eugenics 0.99

06:04:11.740 And

06:04:11.860 Like

06:04:12.000 Crazy 1.00

06:04:12.320 Shit 1.00

06:04:12.520 That 1.00

06:04:12.660 They

06:04:12.760 Did

06:04:12.920 On

06:04:13.040 Hypothermia

06:04:13.780 Whereas

06:04:14.180 In

06:04:14.320 The

06:04:14.420 Cases

06:04:14.640 Of

06:04:14.800 America

06:04:15.140 Not

06:04:15.440 Only

06:04:15.700 Were

06:04:15.820 They

06:04:15.940 Innovating

06:04:16.300 In

06:04:16.440 Military

06:04:16.760 They

06:04:17.120 Were

06:04:17.200 Still

06:04:17.340 Innovating

06:04:17.740 In

06:04:17.860 Other

06:04:18.040 Don't

06:04:18.280 You

06:04:18.360 Think

06:04:18.520 Science

06:04:18.880 Progresses

06:04:19.380 Better

06:04:19.680 When

06:04:19.920 You

06:04:20.000 Eliminate

06:04:20.440 Ethics

06:04:20.960 Sure

06:04:22.620 But

06:04:22.740 I

06:04:22.820 Don't

06:04:22.920 Think

06:04:23.040 We

06:04:23.220 Should

06:04:23.360 Do

06:04:23.480 That

06:04:23.640 But

06:04:23.940 They

06:04:24.200 Did

06:04:24.560 And

06:04:25.240 So

06:04:25.400 How

06:04:25.560 Could

06:04:25.740 You

06:04:25.840 Say

06:04:26.100 That

06:04:26.360 Like

06:04:26.600 That

06:04:26.900 Was

06:04:27.080 Somehow

06:04:27.400 Curtailing

06:04:28.020 Science

06:04:28.400 They

06:04:28.880 Literally

06:04:29.200 Eliminated

06:04:29.960 Ethics

06:04:30.580 In

06:04:30.780 Science

06:04:31.220 So

06:04:32.140 Like

06:04:32.420 How

06:04:32.720 Did

06:04:33.240 That

06:04:33.400 Not

06:04:33.760 Assist

06:04:34.180 Them

06:04:34.400 With

06:04:34.580 Scientific

06:04:35.020 Pursuits

06:04:35.500 As

06:04:35.660 One

06:04:35.840 Of

06:04:35.960 Your 1.00

06:04:36.060 Fucking 1.00

06:04:36.360 Like 0.99

06:04:36.560 Key

06:04:36.800 Barriers

06:04:37.320 Here

06:04:37.680 Because

06:04:38.760 A lot

06:04:39.100 So

06:04:39.280 One

06:04:39.460 Of

06:04:39.540 The

06:04:39.620 Things

06:04:39.840 That

06:04:40.020 Happened

06:04:40.580 Is 0.88

06:04:40.680 That

06:04:40.800 Because

06:04:41.200 Of

06:04:41.360 The

06:04:41.420 Reduction

06:04:41.740 Of

06:04:41.900 Ethics

06:04:42.240 There

06:04:42.400 Was

06:04:42.500 Constant

06:04:42.880 Confounding

06:04:43.280 Factors

06:04:43.660 Of

06:04:43.800 Torture

06:04:44.360 That

06:04:44.880 That

06:04:45.040 Created

06:04:45.580 Like

06:04:45.760 Issues

06:04:46.080 Like

06:04:46.240 A lot

06:04:46.720 Of

06:04:46.840 The

06:04:46.960 Like

06:04:47.160 There's

06:04:47.560 A lot

06:04:47.760 Of

06:04:47.840 Not

06:04:48.480 Average

06:04:48.940 German

06:04:49.340 In fact

06:04:49.800 The

06:04:49.940 Average

06:04:50.160 German

06:04:50.500 Supported

06:04:51.060 The

06:04:51.260 Average

06:04:51.520 German

06:04:51.860 Yeah

06:04:52.080 The

06:04:52.220 Average

06:04:52.460 German

06:04:52.760 Actually

06:04:53.100 Supported

06:04:53.640 For

06:04:53.860 Instance

06:04:54.360 When

06:04:54.580 Hitler 0.78

06:04:54.800 Went

06:04:55.000 In

06:04:55.120 And

06:04:55.320 He

06:04:55.780 Literally

06:04:56.280 Did

06:04:56.560 This

06:04:56.780 Is 0.88

06:04:56.900 Most

06:04:57.100 Monstrous

06:04:57.460 Saying

06:04:57.620 Ever

06:04:57.780 But

06:04:57.980 He

06:04:58.440 Killed

06:04:59.040 Basically

06:05:00.140 Everybody

06:05:00.440 Who's

06:05:00.600 Mentally

06:05:00.860 Handicapped

06:05:01.320 In

06:05:01.440 The

06:05:01.520 Nation

06:05:01.840 He

06:05:02.640 Actually

06:05:02.860 Did

06:05:03.020 That

06:05:03.300 And

06:05:04.180 They

06:05:04.560 Did

06:05:04.780 Do

06:05:04.960 All

06:05:05.220 Sorts

06:05:05.640 If

06:05:06.500 You're

06:05:06.640 In

06:05:06.740 A

06:05:06.820 Nation

06:05:07.060 Like

06:05:07.260 This

06:05:07.440 You

06:05:07.520 Eliminate

06:05:07.900 Scientific

06:05:08.260 Ethics

06:05:08.740 That's

06:05:09.160 Going

06:05:09.420 To

06:05:09.600 Lead

06:05:10.000 To

06:05:10.540 More

06:05:11.080 Advanced

06:05:11.420 Scientific

06:05:11.820 Methodologies

06:05:12.580 It's

06:05:12.860 Going

06:05:13.080 To

06:05:13.300 Because

06:05:13.580 Ethics

06:05:13.940 Are

06:05:14.060 Gone

06:05:14.340 One

06:05:15.660 That's

06:05:15.900 One

06:05:16.000 Of

06:05:16.060 The

06:05:16.160 Big

06:05:16.360 Confounding

06:05:16.840 Confines

06:05:17.420 Right

06:05:17.700 Is 0.88

06:05:17.980 Scientific

06:05:18.780 Ethics

06:05:19.320 So

06:05:19.460 You're

06:05:19.600 Just

06:05:19.720 Saying

06:05:19.940 Like

06:05:20.100 Western

06:05:20.380 Democracy

06:05:20.900 Lead

06:05:21.220 To

06:05:21.340 The

06:05:21.460 Best

06:05:21.660 Conditions

06:05:22.020 For

06:05:22.220 Science

06:05:22.620 It's

06:05:23.000 Like

06:05:23.140 No

06:05:23.440 I

06:05:23.960 Would

06:05:24.120 Say

06:05:24.360 That

06:05:24.580 Actually

06:05:25.120 The

06:05:25.380 Best

06:05:25.580 Conditions

06:05:25.920 For

06:05:26.100 Science

06:05:26.360 Would

06:05:26.500 Be

06:05:26.580 If

06:05:26.700 You

06:05:26.780 Eliminate

06:05:27.260 Ethics

06:05:27.760 One

06:05:28.100 Of

06:05:28.220 The

06:05:28.340 Issues

06:05:28.640 With

06:05:28.760 Authoritarian

06:05:29.280 States

06:05:29.780 Consistently

06:05:30.440 Over

06:05:30.640 Time

06:05:30.860 Is 0.88

06:05:30.960 That

06:05:31.040 They

06:05:31.160 Also

06:05:31.440 Impose

06:05:32.000 Arbitrary

06:05:32.800 Often

06:05:33.200 Rules

06:05:33.700 On

06:05:34.020 Things

06:05:34.260 Like

06:05:34.420 Science

06:05:34.660 Because

06:05:34.900 Authoritarian

06:05:35.820 Regimes

06:05:36.240 Aren't

06:05:36.540 For

06:05:36.680 Free

06:05:36.940 Speech

06:05:37.220 So

06:05:37.360 There

06:05:37.480 Are

06:05:37.580 Always

06:05:37.800 Necessarily

06:05:38.220 Going

06:05:38.440 To

06:05:38.500 Things

06:05:38.920 They

06:05:39.140 Oppose

06:05:39.440 To

06:05:39.640 Arbitration

06:05:40.440 All

06:05:40.720 The

06:05:40.860 Time

06:05:41.160 Especially

06:05:41.500 Not

06:05:41.800 On

06:05:41.960 Things

06:05:42.120 Like

06:05:42.280 Free

06:05:42.500 Speech

06:05:42.760 And

06:05:42.900 Open

06:05:43.140 Science

06:05:43.540 Free

06:05:44.180 Speech

06:05:44.420 Itself

06:05:44.760 Is 0.88

06:05:44.900 Arbitrary

06:05:45.460 What

06:05:46.280 Does

06:05:46.520 That

06:05:46.620 Even

06:05:46.760 Mean

06:05:47.080 It

06:05:47.280 Means

06:05:47.480 That

06:05:47.600 There's

06:05:47.800 No

06:05:48.040 Particular

06:05:48.620 System

06:05:49.140 That

06:05:49.380 We're

06:05:49.540 Appealing

06:05:49.940 To

06:05:50.100 For

06:05:50.280 Free

06:05:50.480 Speech

06:05:50.820 Okay

06:05:51.780 That's

06:05:52.940 What

06:05:53.060 Arbitrary

06:05:53.560 Is 0.88

06:05:53.820 Without

06:05:54.060 System

06:05:54.500 No

06:05:55.080 Arbitrary

06:05:55.580 Means

06:05:55.820 Meaningless

06:05:56.700 And

06:05:56.840 Random

06:05:57.100 Usually

06:05:57.480 Pull

06:05:58.120 Up

06:05:58.260 The

06:05:58.360 Meaning

06:05:58.520 Of

06:05:58.660 Arbitrary

06:05:59.080 The

06:05:59.240 Definition

06:05:59.660 Please

06:06:00.000 Sure

06:06:00.240 The

06:06:02.760 Definition

06:06:03.460 Of

06:06:03.860 Arbitrary

06:06:04.620 Based

06:06:06.380 On

06:06:07.040 Random

06:06:07.640 Choice

06:06:07.980 Or

06:06:08.160 Personal

06:06:08.500 Whim 0.57

06:06:08.820 Rather

06:06:09.100 Than

06:06:09.340 Any

06:06:09.540 Reason

06:06:09.800 Or

06:06:09.960 System

06:06:10.280 You're

06:06:12.980 Like

06:06:13.080 The

06:06:13.200 End

06:06:13.360 Of

06:06:13.460 It

06:06:13.580 Is 0.88

06:06:13.720 Mine

06:06:13.960 Wait

06:06:14.240 But

06:06:14.360 The

06:06:14.460 Beginning

06:06:14.780 Of

06:06:14.940 That

06:06:15.080 Was

06:06:15.280 To

06:06:15.400 My

06:06:15.560 Point

06:06:15.820 It

06:06:16.360 Wasn't

06:06:16.680 Arbitrary

06:06:17.180 Arbitrary

06:06:18.180 And

06:06:18.300 Random

06:06:18.580 Well

06:06:20.540 Arbitrary

06:06:21.000 Doesn't

06:06:21.240 Mean

06:06:21.360 Random

06:06:21.800 True

06:06:23.280 Yeah

06:06:23.860 So

06:06:24.240 No

06:06:24.580 Arbitrary

06:06:25.380 Arbitrary

06:06:26.080 Arbitrary

06:06:26.780 Is 0.88

06:06:26.920 Literally

06:06:27.180 Pointing

06:06:27.580 To

06:06:27.800 A

06:06:28.320 Lack

06:06:28.560 Of

06:06:28.660 A

06:06:28.800 System

06:06:29.160 Because

06:06:30.120 It's

06:06:30.280 Random

06:06:30.620 No

06:06:31.600 It

06:06:31.960 Doesn't

06:06:32.160 Have

06:06:32.280 To

06:06:32.360 Be

06:06:32.460 Random

06:06:32.800 To

06:06:33.320 Have

06:06:33.500 A

06:06:33.580 Lack

06:06:33.780 Of

06:06:33.920 In

06:06:34.260 Fact

06:06:34.500 You

06:06:34.660 Can

06:06:34.780 Have

06:06:35.040 Random

06:06:35.580 Randomness

06:06:35.960 And

06:06:36.680 You

06:06:36.800 Can

06:06:36.920 Even

06:06:37.100 Implement

06:06:37.480 A

06:06:37.660 System

06:06:37.920 For

06:06:38.140 Randomness

06:06:38.700 I

06:06:38.840 Think

06:06:39.100 So

06:06:39.340 Here's

06:06:39.660 One

06:06:39.760 Of

06:06:39.840 The

06:06:39.940 Things

06:06:40.220 When

06:06:40.660 We

06:06:40.780 Read

06:06:40.940 This

06:06:41.080 Definition

06:06:41.660 The

06:06:42.300 Beginning

06:06:42.580 Half

06:06:42.860 Supports

06:06:43.220 My

06:06:43.440 Definition

06:06:43.880 And

06:06:44.180 The

06:06:44.260 Second

06:06:44.500 And

06:06:44.820 The

06:06:44.940 Second

06:06:45.160 Half

06:06:45.380 Supports

06:06:45.740 Yours

06:06:45.980 Which

06:06:46.220 Part

06:06:46.440 Does

06:06:46.640 Read

06:06:47.920 It

06:06:48.040 Again

06:06:48.360 Read

06:06:48.660 It

06:06:48.760 Again

06:06:49.080 Arbitrary

06:06:51.160 Based

06:06:51.540 On

06:06:51.840 Random

06:06:52.280 Choice

06:06:52.720 Or

06:06:53.040 Personal

06:06:53.580 Whim 0.57

06:06:54.000 Rather

06:06:54.320 Than

06:06:54.580 Any

06:06:54.860 Random

06:06:55.240 Nothing

06:06:56.500 You

06:06:56.760 Said

06:06:57.060 Yeah

06:06:57.360 I

06:06:57.540 Said

06:06:57.700 Random

06:06:58.060 No

06:06:58.520 It's

06:06:58.740 Not

06:06:58.960 It's

06:06:59.320 Not

06:06:59.460 About

06:06:59.600 Random

06:07:00.160 Though

06:07:00.580 Random

06:07:00.960 Choice

06:07:01.380 It's

06:07:01.660 About

06:07:01.960 A

06:07:02.220 Lack

06:07:02.520 Of

06:07:02.640 System

06:07:03.220 That's

06:07:03.760 What

06:07:03.880 Arbitrary

06:07:04.340 Especially

06:07:04.600 When

06:07:04.720 You

06:07:04.780 Tell

06:07:04.900 You

06:07:04.960 Morality

06:07:05.640 So

06:07:06.000 If

06:07:06.080 This

06:07:06.200 Was

06:07:06.320 Good

06:07:06.480 Faith

06:07:06.800 And

06:07:07.200 To

06:07:07.300 Be

06:07:07.400 I

06:07:07.660 Should

06:07:07.800 Grant

06:07:08.040 You

06:07:08.180 This

06:07:08.400 What

06:07:08.680 We

06:07:08.780 Could

06:07:08.900 Go

06:07:09.120 Is 0.88

06:07:09.260 Oh

06:07:09.500 Actually

06:07:09.860 When

06:07:10.040 We

06:07:10.160 Synthesize

06:07:10.620 Our

06:07:10.740 Ideas

06:07:10.920 Together

06:07:11.160 That

06:07:11.380 Makes

06:07:11.520 For

06:07:11.640 The

06:07:11.760 Best

06:07:11.960 Definition

06:07:12.320 Arbitrary

06:07:12.920 At

06:07:13.080 This

06:07:13.240 Point

06:07:13.500 You

06:07:14.620 Can

06:07:14.820 Stop

06:07:15.020 talking

06:07:15.400 Do

06:07:17.680 You

06:07:17.700 Want

06:07:17.800 A

06:07:17.900 Slice

06:07:18.120 Pizza

06:07:18.460 Andrew

06:07:18.780 No

06:07:19.100 Okay

06:07:19.580 Well

06:07:20.300 Shall

06:07:20.800 We

06:07:20.960 Let

06:07:21.120 Some

06:07:21.260 Chats 0.99

06:07:21.500 Come

06:07:21.680 Through

06:07:21.840 We've

06:07:22.020 Got

06:07:22.160 Quite

06:07:22.380 A

06:07:22.500 Few

06:07:22.600 Chats 0.99

06:07:22.880 I'm

06:07:23.000 Going

06:07:23.060 To

06:07:23.100 Have

06:07:23.300 A

06:07:23.360 Smoke

06:07:23.580 Real

06:07:23.760 Quick

06:07:23.880 Of

06:07:24.020 Of

06:07:24.400 Of

06:07:24.420 Of

06:07:24.440 Of

06:07:24.940 Do

06:07:26.120 You

06:07:26.160 Want

06:07:26.300 To

06:07:26.420 Enjoy

06:07:27.120 Your

06:07:27.300 Pizza

06:07:27.560 There

06:07:27.840 While

06:07:28.180 We

06:07:28.680 Let

06:07:28.840 Some

06:07:28.980 Chats 0.99

06:07:29.260 Come

06:07:29.480 Through

06:07:29.780 How much

06:07:30.040 Are

06:07:30.080 You

06:07:30.100 Going to

06:07:30.260 Pay

06:07:30.380 Me

06:07:30.500 To

06:07:30.620 Eat

06:07:30.760 This

06:07:30.900 Pizza

06:07:31.160 On

06:07:31.320 Camera

06:07:31.680 I

06:07:33.540 Have

06:07:33.680 To

06:07:33.780 Set

06:07:33.960 A

06:07:34.080 TTS

06:07:34.440 For

06:07:34.620 Pay

06:07:35.080 You

06:07:35.560 They

06:07:36.060 Should

06:07:36.200 At

06:07:36.280 Pay

06:07:36.620 You

06:07:36.780 They

06:07:36.980 Should

06:07:37.160 Pay

06:07:37.460 Me

06:07:37.740 Are

06:07:38.520 You

06:07:38.860 Saying

06:07:39.060 It's

06:07:39.240 Like

06:07:39.400 A

06:07:39.540 Weird

06:07:39.820 Like

06:07:40.180 A 0.96

06:07:40.340 Fetish

06:07:40.780 Kind

06:07:41.100 Of

06:07:41.220 Thing

06:07:41.460 Why

06:07:42.340 Do

06:07:42.460 You

06:07:42.520 Want

06:07:42.640 Me

06:07:42.720 To

06:07:42.800 Eat

06:07:42.920 On

06:07:43.060 Stream

06:07:43.360 You

06:07:46.100 Don't

06:07:46.240 Have

06:07:46.420 To

06:07:46.500 I'm

06:07:46.720 Trying

06:07:46.980 To

06:07:47.100 Feed

06:07:47.300 You

06:07:47.420 I

06:07:47.540 Okay

06:07:49.440 Skrull

06:07:50.020 Is 0.88

06:07:50.120 Making

06:07:50.520 Me

06:07:50.660 Out

06:07:50.780 To

06:07:50.880 Be

06:07:50.960 A

06:07:51.060 Monster

06:07:51.400 I

06:07:51.560 Don't

06:07:51.880 Think

06:07:52.000 You're

06:07:52.160 A 1.00

06:07:52.260 Monster

06:07:52.540 I

06:07:53.340 Think

06:07:53.600 You

06:07:53.840 Understand

06:07:54.400 You're

06:07:54.840 A

06:07:54.960 Businessman

06:07:55.740 You're

06:07:56.120 An

06:07:56.200 Excellent

06:07:56.560 Businessman

06:07:57.220 You

06:07:58.980 Think

06:07:59.400 I'm

06:07:59.560 Oh

06:07:59.840 It's

06:08:06.620 I

06:08:08.140 Think

06:08:08.620 You're

06:08:08.780 Overthinking

06:08:09.280 It

06:08:09.580 You

06:08:11.140 Human

06:08:11.880 Need

06:08:12.500 Food

06:08:12.940 Food

06:08:13.580 In

06:08:14.140 Front

06:08:14.480 Eat

06:08:15.080 Food

06:08:15.660 Gotcha

06:08:16.040 I

06:08:16.220 Don't

06:08:16.360 Usually

06:08:16.680 Eat

06:08:16.860 On

06:08:17.020 On

06:08:17.300 On

06:08:17.880 Stream

06:08:18.240 Yeah

06:08:18.660 Alright

06:08:20.040 Well

06:08:20.340 I

06:08:20.520 Mean

06:08:20.740 Okay

06:08:21.680 Let

06:08:21.880 Let

06:08:22.100 Some

06:08:22.220 Chats 0.99

06:08:22.520 I

06:08:22.620 Said

06:08:22.760 You

06:08:22.920 Should

06:08:23.040 Make

06:08:23.200 Yeah

06:08:23.580 Yeah

06:08:23.680 I

06:08:23.880 Know

06:08:24.660 Okay

06:08:26.120 Guys

06:08:26.420 If

06:08:26.580 You're

06:08:26.680 Enjoying

06:08:26.920 The

06:08:27.020 Stream

06:08:27.280 Like

06:08:27.660 The

06:08:27.800 Video

06:08:28.020 Get

06:08:28.220 Us

06:08:28.340 To

06:08:28.500 7000

06:08:29.180 Likes

06:08:29.600 I

06:08:30.080 Think

06:08:30.260 We're

06:08:30.460 Sitting

06:08:30.740 At

06:08:30.940 Like

06:08:31.220 About

06:08:32.100 6200

06:08:32.840 There's

06:08:33.620 Still

06:08:33.760 10,000

06:08:34.240 People

06:08:34.480 Watching

06:08:34.820 And

06:08:35.100 Just

06:08:35.280 Having

06:08:35.720 A

06:08:35.920 Quick

06:08:36.140 Smoke

06:08:36.480 He's

06:08:36.940 Going

06:08:37.040 To

06:08:37.080 Be

06:08:37.180 Right

06:08:37.360 Back

06:08:37.620 Get

06:08:38.060 Us

06:08:38.220 To

06:08:38.380 7000

06:08:39.300 Likes

06:08:39.660 We're

06:08:40.040 At

06:08:40.160 6200

06:08:41.120 If

06:08:41.640 You're

06:08:41.760 Enjoying

06:08:41.960 The

06:08:42.060 Stream

06:08:42.220 Like

06:08:42.380 The

06:08:42.500 Video

06:08:42.680 Like

06:08:42.860 The

06:08:42.980 Video

06:08:43.120 If

06:08:43.220 You

06:08:43.280 Want

06:08:43.400 To

06:08:43.460 See

06:08:43.560 More

06:08:43.720 Debates

06:08:44.140 Guys

06:08:44.420 If

06:09:04.480 The

06:09:05.620 Woman 0.99

06:09:05.840 Is 0.88

06:09:06.080 Dishonoring

06:09:06.820 Her

06:09:07.080 Husband

06:09:07.520 By

06:09:07.740 Dressing

06:09:08.400 Like

06:09:08.680 A

06:09:08.920 Bath

06:09:09.780 House

06:09:10.180 Worker

06:09:10.780 From

06:09:11.400 Kingdom

06:09:11.980 Come

06:09:12.620 Deliverance

06:09:13.800 Let

06:09:14.780 Alone

06:09:15.060 Her

06:09:15.340 Heresies

06:09:16.180 Where

06:09:16.640 She's

06:09:16.940 Inverting

06:09:17.460 Scripture

06:09:18.340 Quick

06:09:18.740 Response

06:09:19.220 My

06:09:19.900 Husband

06:09:20.160 Bought

06:09:20.360 Me

06:09:20.460 This

06:09:20.660 Dress

06:09:20.920 And

06:09:21.180 He

06:09:21.440 Told

06:09:22.160 Me

06:09:22.280 That

06:09:22.380 I

06:09:22.460 Should

06:09:22.620 Wear

06:09:22.780 It

06:09:22.860 You'll

06:09:25.280 Have

06:09:25.400 To

06:09:25.500 Take

06:09:25.660 It

06:09:25.760 Up

06:09:25.860 With

06:09:25.960 My

06:09:26.080 Husband

06:09:26.500 Okay

06:09:29.900 Thank

06:09:30.280 You

06:09:30.480 El

06:09:30.740 Guapo

06:09:31.220 I

06:09:31.480 Like

06:09:31.660 Your

06:09:31.820 Avatar

06:09:32.380 There

06:09:32.680 That

06:09:32.880 Looks

06:09:33.100 Cool

06:09:33.420 Abe

06:09:34.760 Biscotti

06:09:35.380 If

06:09:36.360 Unjustifiable

06:09:37.140 Means

06:09:37.460 Cannot

06:09:37.800 Be

06:09:37.920 Derived

06:09:38.460 Sure

06:09:39.040 But

06:09:39.220 That

06:09:39.380 Is 0.88

06:09:39.500 The

06:09:39.620 Point

06:09:39.940 Derivation

06:09:40.880 Presupposes

06:09:41.580 Hinge

06:09:42.380 Norms

06:09:43.060 Calling

06:09:43.700 Hinges

06:09:44.340 Unjustified

06:09:45.060 Is 0.88

06:09:45.200 A

06:09:45.300 Category

06:09:45.660 Error

06:09:46.140 They

06:09:46.640 Are

06:09:46.760 Conditions

06:09:47.320 For

06:09:47.520 Justification

06:09:48.360 Not

06:09:48.980 Items

06:09:49.620 Awaiting

06:09:50.480 It

06:09:50.900 This

06:09:51.500 Is 0.88

06:09:51.660 Just

06:09:51.860 Like

06:09:52.160 Philosophy

06:09:52.880 Psychobabble

06:09:53.580 Basically

06:09:54.000 He

06:09:55.240 Can

06:09:55.420 Try

06:09:55.700 To

06:09:55.880 Attempt

06:09:56.220 To

06:09:56.440 Tell

06:09:56.640 Me

06:09:56.800 How

06:09:57.220 Presupposition

06:09:58.860 Doesn't

06:09:59.420 Fail

06:10:00.060 At

06:10:00.280 Dogmatism

06:10:00.820 How

06:10:00.960 It's

06:10:01.100 Not

06:10:01.240 Dogmatism

06:10:01.820 Presupposing

06:10:03.040 Is 0.88

06:10:03.260 Assuming

06:10:03.620 Which

06:10:04.140 Is 0.88

06:10:04.340 Dogmatism

06:10:05.040 Abe

06:10:05.780 Thank

06:10:06.100 You

06:10:06.180 Very

06:10:06.340 Much

06:10:06.620 For

06:10:06.920 Your

06:10:07.120 Super

06:10:07.480 Chat

06:10:07.820 There

06:10:08.040 We

06:10:08.180 Have

06:10:08.380 Onyxion

06:10:09.220 X

06:10:09.720 Onyxion

06:10:10.840 That's

06:10:11.060 Like

06:10:11.240 World of

06:10:11.600 Warcraft

06:10:11.920 Player

06:10:12.220 USA

06:10:12.940 Has

06:10:13.280 45

06:10:13.680 Trillion

06:10:14.320 In

06:10:14.500 Natural

06:10:14.780 Resources

06:10:15.320 Russia

06:10:16.200 Has

06:10:16.520 75

06:10:17.060 Trillion

06:10:17.840 So

06:10:18.100 I

06:10:18.180 Was

06:10:18.280 Right

06:10:18.460 On

06:10:18.600 That

06:10:18.760 One

06:10:19.000 He

06:10:19.740 Said

06:10:19.920 That

06:10:20.060 America

06:10:20.360 Has

06:10:20.640 More

06:10:20.860 Resources

06:10:21.360 And

06:10:21.980 I

06:10:22.100 Said

06:10:22.220 Probably

06:10:22.640 Russia

06:10:22.980 Has

06:10:23.440 Like

06:10:23.600 More

06:10:23.860 Like

06:10:24.060 Total

06:10:24.240 Resources

06:10:24.680 It

06:10:26.620 Was

06:10:26.760 About

06:10:26.960 Natural

06:10:27.360 Resources

06:10:27.900 Yeah

06:10:28.360 Yeah

06:10:28.660 Okay

06:10:28.980 Gotcha

06:10:29.340 Thank

06:10:30.460 You

06:10:30.580 Nixion

06:10:31.120 El

06:10:31.560 Guapo

06:10:31.960 Again

06:10:32.420 With

06:10:32.620 A

06:10:32.720 Very

06:10:32.920 Cool

06:10:33.160 Avatar

06:10:33.540 There

06:10:33.860 It

06:10:34.260 Was

06:10:34.360 A

06:10:34.500 Quote

06:10:34.760 From

06:10:35.000 Rommel

06:10:35.500 I

06:10:35.720 Believe

06:10:36.040 A

06:10:36.520 German

06:10:36.800 Tiger

06:10:37.220 Tank

06:10:37.600 Was

06:10:37.820 As

06:10:38.000 Good

06:10:38.160 As

06:10:38.320 Four

06:10:38.620 Sherman

06:10:38.980 Tanks

06:10:39.400 But

06:10:39.960 They

06:10:40.120 Always

06:10:40.440 Had

06:10:40.720 Five

06:10:41.260 True

06:10:42.140 Because

06:10:42.960 They

06:10:43.160 Were

06:10:43.280 Easier

06:10:43.600 To

06:10:43.740 Build

06:10:44.000 And

06:10:44.240 Man

06:10:44.560 A

06:10:46.240 Member

06:10:46.740 There

06:10:47.320 It

06:10:47.440 Is 0.88

06:10:47.700 Good

06:10:47.880 Job

06:10:48.220 Guys

06:10:49.000 I'm

06:10:49.500 Going

06:10:49.580 To

06:10:49.620 Get

06:10:49.740 Into

06:10:49.920 The

06:10:50.080 TTS

06:10:50.520 Is 0.88

06:10:50.680 Now

06:10:50.820 $69

06:10:51.240 TTS

06:10:51.820 That's

06:10:52.040 Streamlabs.com

06:10:52.740 Slash

06:10:53.040 Whatever

06:10:53.580 Reminder

06:10:54.040 Guys

06:10:54.280 Like

06:10:54.440 The

06:10:54.560 Video

06:10:54.720 Really

06:10:54.920 Quick

06:10:55.120 Nathan

06:10:55.520 Can

06:10:55.700 You

06:10:55.780 Pull up

06:10:56.000 Twitch

06:10:56.240 Let

06:10:56.400 Me

06:10:56.460 Do

06:10:56.580 A

06:10:56.680 Quick

06:10:56.860 Twitch

06:10:57.140 Announcement

06:10:57.540 When

06:10:57.840 He

06:10:57.940 Is 0.88

06:10:58.120 Back

06:10:58.380 Can

06:10:58.580 I

06:10:58.680 Go

06:10:58.780 Do

06:10:59.020 You

06:10:59.080 Want

06:10:59.180 Us

06:10:59.300 To

06:10:59.340 Leave

06:10:59.820 Right

06:11:09.960 I'm

06:11:10.520 A

06:11:10.620 Broke

06:11:10.880 Starving

06:11:11.240 College

06:11:11.600 Student

06:11:12.040 Artist

06:11:12.900 So

06:11:13.300 If

06:11:13.420 You

06:11:13.520 Want

06:11:13.700 To

06:11:13.840 Show

06:11:14.080 Some

06:11:14.300 Support

06:11:14.760 Twitch

06:11:15.400 TV

06:11:16.140 Slash

06:11:16.400 Whatever

06:11:16.640 Drop

06:11:16.860 Follow

06:11:17.140 Drop

06:11:17.360 The

06:11:17.500 Prime

06:11:17.660 Sub

06:11:17.820 Like

06:11:18.400 The

06:11:18.540 Video

06:11:18.820 $69

06:11:19.420 TTS

06:11:20.040 Andrew

06:11:20.360 Is 0.88

06:11:20.700 Returning

06:11:21.020 From

06:11:21.240 A

06:11:21.360 Smoke

06:11:21.620 Break

06:11:21.840 We're

06:11:22.240 Going

06:11:22.300 To

06:11:22.360 Let

06:11:22.460 The

06:11:22.580 TTS

06:11:23.000 Roll

06:11:23.400 Through

06:11:23.860 Kyla

06:11:26.040 Is 0.88

06:11:26.280 Going

06:11:26.500 To

06:11:26.800 Also

06:11:27.320 Take

06:11:27.580 A

06:11:27.700 Bit

06:11:27.820 Of

06:11:27.940 Oh

06:11:28.160 No

06:11:28.320 Andrew

06:11:28.780 Is 0.88

06:11:29.320 Not

06:11:29.780 Quite

06:11:29.980 Yet

06:11:30.140 Returning

06:11:30.540 But

06:11:31.000 I'm

06:11:31.120 Going

06:11:31.200 To

06:11:31.220 Let

06:11:31.320 Some

06:11:31.500 TTS

06:11:32.180 Come

06:11:32.560 Through

06:11:32.780 Here

06:11:33.000 We

06:11:33.140 Have

06:11:33.320 This

06:11:34.080 From

06:11:34.300 Giovanni

06:11:35.320 Sorry

06:11:38.240 For

06:11:38.340 The

06:11:38.440 Delay

06:11:38.680 Erudite

06:11:39.200 Your

06:11:39.540 Only

06:11:39.860 Resolve

06:11:40.380 In

06:11:40.560 The

06:11:40.700 J

06:11:40.900 Dyer

06:11:41.220 Debate

06:11:41.680 Were

06:11:42.000 My

06:11:42.300 Super

06:11:42.620 Chats 0.99

06:11:43.180 So

06:11:43.980 Much

06:11:44.260 So

06:11:44.540 You

06:11:44.740 Only

06:11:45.020 Clipped

06:11:45.360 All

06:11:45.620 Of

06:11:45.760 My

06:11:45.960 Super

06:11:46.300 Chats 0.99

06:11:46.660 On

06:11:46.860 Your

06:11:47.020 Tick

06:11:47.280 Tock

06:11:47.460 And

06:11:47.660 Nothing

06:11:47.960 Else

06:11:48.420 No

06:11:49.140 Mercy

06:11:49.540 For

06:11:49.800 Baby

06:11:50.080 Murder 0.98

06:11:50.520 Apologists

06:11:51.400 W

06:11:52.280 Andrew

06:11:52.880 I

06:11:54.400 I'm

06:11:55.440 Very

06:11:55.780 Sorry

06:11:56.140 Giovanni

06:11:56.640 JD

06:11:56.880 That

06:11:57.160 You

06:11:57.320 Personally

06:11:57.840 Were

06:11:58.760 Bothered

06:11:59.240 By

06:11:59.460 My

06:11:59.920 Tick

06:12:00.240 Tock

06:12:00.540 I

06:12:00.700 Suppose

06:12:01.060 The

06:12:01.440 Reason

06:12:01.640 Why

06:12:01.780 I

06:12:01.860 Didn't

06:12:01.980 Clip

06:12:02.140 Up

06:12:02.260 The

06:12:02.360 Jay

06:12:02.520 Dyer

06:12:02.840 Thing

06:12:04.320 More

06:12:04.640 Was

06:12:05.220 Frankly

06:12:05.500 I

06:12:05.640 Just

06:12:05.740 Didn't

06:12:05.880 Have

06:12:06.060 The

06:12:06.160 Logistic

06:12:06.480 Back

06:12:06.720 Ends

06:12:06.940 I

06:12:07.000 Now

06:12:07.160 Have

06:12:07.360 Like

06:12:07.480 A

06:12:07.580 Much

06:12:07.760 Faster

06:12:08.080 Turnaround

06:12:08.480 Of

06:12:08.600 Clips

06:12:08.900 That's

06:12:11.720 True

06:12:11.940 It

06:12:12.280 Always

06:12:12.440 Feels

06:12:12.600 Weird

06:12:12.820 Posting

06:12:13.220 Year

06:12:14.000 And

06:12:14.120 A

06:12:14.200 Half

06:12:14.420 Old

06:12:14.800 Clips

06:12:15.460 It's

06:12:15.780 Evergreen

06:12:16.380 I

06:12:16.680 Feel

06:12:16.840 Like

06:12:16.960 It's

06:12:17.140 Evergreen

06:12:17.620 Maybe

06:12:18.380 I

06:12:18.820 Should

06:12:19.060 Go

06:12:19.180 Back

06:12:19.340 And

06:12:19.460 Clip

06:12:19.660 It

06:12:20.420 Let

06:12:20.680 Amio

06:12:21.020 Donated

06:12:21.640 69

06:12:22.500 Is 0.88

06:12:23.780 She

06:12:23.980 Evil

06:12:30.700 We

06:12:31.060 Get

06:12:31.300 It

06:12:31.520 But

06:12:32.160 She

06:12:32.340 Needs

06:12:32.700 To

06:12:32.900 Learn

06:12:33.080 Culture

06:12:33.660 Not

06:12:34.160 Data

06:12:34.560 To

06:12:35.080 Understand

06:12:35.680 Andrew

06:12:36.160 Properly

06:12:36.780 Take

06:12:37.400 A

06:12:37.540 Shot

06:12:37.900 Skull

06:12:38.780 It's

06:12:39.200 Why

06:12:39.320 She

06:12:39.460 Never

06:12:39.620 Got

06:12:39.800 Popular

06:12:40.280 Meridite

06:12:40.860 Never

06:12:41.020 Got

06:12:41.180 Popular

06:12:41.560 Because

06:12:41.880 Of

06:12:42.040 This

06:12:42.280 That

06:12:43.200 Was

06:12:43.320 Always

06:12:43.640 The

06:12:43.860 Reason

06:12:44.160 She

06:12:44.560 Always

06:12:44.780 She

06:12:45.120 Like

06:12:46.120 I

06:12:46.280 Know

06:12:46.400 You're

06:12:46.540 Sitting

06:12:46.720 Here

06:12:47.000 But

06:12:47.160 I'm

06:12:47.260 Just

06:12:47.420 She

06:12:48.580 Always

06:12:49.040 Could

06:12:49.400 She

06:12:49.600 Always

06:12:49.820 Had

06:12:49.980 The

06:12:50.080 Potential

06:12:50.440 To

06:12:50.580 Be

06:12:50.660 Very

06:12:50.880 Popular

06:12:51.260 On

06:12:51.540 Twitch

06:12:51.880 Like

06:12:52.580 She

06:12:52.840 Could

06:12:52.960 Have

06:12:53.060 Dominated

06:12:53.460 That

06:12:53.640 Whole

06:12:53.820 Space

06:12:54.240 It

06:12:55.000 Was

06:12:55.200 The

06:12:55.400 Fact

06:12:55.700 That

06:12:55.880 She

06:12:56.000 Was

06:12:56.200 Supremely

06:12:56.760 Unlikable

06:12:57.320 That's

06:12:57.820 What

06:12:57.920 Always

06:12:58.160 Did

06:12:58.340 It

06:12:58.440 To

06:12:58.620 You

06:12:58.760 Know

06:12:58.880 What

06:12:58.980 I

06:12:59.080 Think

06:12:59.280 It

06:12:59.380 Is 0.88

06:12:59.540 Andrew

06:12:59.900 It's

06:13:00.620 The

06:13:00.740 Whatever

06:13:01.080 To

06:13:02.520 The

06:13:02.680 Whatever

06:13:03.600 Podcast

06:13:04.180 To

06:13:04.320 The

06:13:04.420 Joe

06:13:04.600 Rogan

06:13:04.960 Pipeline

06:13:05.520 She

06:13:06.040 Just

06:13:06.200 Didn't

06:13:06.400 Come

06:13:06.580 On

06:13:07.680 The

06:13:07.800 Whatever

06:13:08.040 Podcast

06:13:08.620 That's

06:13:08.940 True

06:13:09.120 You

06:13:09.280 Did

06:13:09.420 Offer

06:13:09.700 Me

06:13:09.800 A

06:13:09.920 Host

06:13:10.140 Position

06:13:10.560 At

06:13:11.060 The

06:13:11.220 Same

06:13:11.400 Time

06:13:11.600 Actually

06:13:11.820 That

06:13:11.940 You

06:13:23.820 It's

06:13:24.100 Not

06:13:24.200 A

06:13:24.320 Flex

06:13:24.640 You

06:13:25.340 Definitely

06:13:25.660 Offered

06:13:25.940 Me

06:13:26.080 That

06:13:26.260 You

06:13:26.820 Did

06:13:27.080 You

06:13:27.920 Were

06:13:28.020 Like

06:13:28.180 Think

06:13:28.760 About

06:13:29.160 It

06:13:29.360 And

06:13:29.520 I

06:13:29.600 Was

06:13:29.680 Like

06:13:29.800 I

06:13:29.980 Don't

06:13:30.120 Want

06:13:30.220 To

06:13:30.300 Fly

06:13:30.440 To

06:13:30.580 Santa

06:13:30.760 Barbara

06:13:31.060 All

06:13:31.240 The

06:13:31.360 Time

06:13:31.940 Fake

06:13:32.560 News

06:13:33.000 This

06:13:33.280 Is 0.88

06:13:33.460 Not

06:13:33.820 Fake

06:13:34.180 News

06:13:34.560 Misinformation

06:13:36.680 That's

06:13:37.280 Not

06:13:37.460 True

06:13:38.060 Fake

06:13:38.540 News

06:13:38.960 CNN

06:13:39.840 I

06:13:40.120 Won't

06:13:40.500 Say

06:13:40.640 Names

06:13:40.860 You

06:13:40.980 You

06:13:41.000 Were

06:13:41.060 Looking

06:13:41.260 At

06:13:41.440 One

06:13:41.880 Person

06:13:42.320 You

06:13:42.920 Were

06:13:43.040 Talking

06:13:43.240 A

06:13:43.380 A

06:13:43.400 Little

06:13:43.500 To

06:13:43.700 Andrew

06:13:43.860 You

06:13:43.940 You

06:13:43.960 Were

06:13:44.000 Talking

06:13:44.140 To

06:13:44.260 Me

06:13:53.820 Talking

06:13:53.940 To

06:13:54.060 Girls 0.98

06:13:54.240 And

06:13:54.360 Trying

06:13:54.520 To

06:13:54.720 Maybe

06:13:55.020 Get

06:13:55.220 Them

06:13:55.340 On

06:13:55.440 The

06:13:55.560 Show

06:13:55.740 And

06:13:55.880 Stuff

06:13:56.020 And

06:13:56.120 You

06:13:56.180 Should

06:13:56.780 Yeah

06:13:57.300 No

06:13:57.680 No

06:13:57.820 After

06:13:58.220 The

06:13:58.440 Show

06:13:58.720 I

06:13:58.980 Think

06:13:59.160 We

06:13:59.280 Went

06:13:59.480 To

06:13:59.620 Get

06:13:59.820 Like

06:14:00.320 A

06:14:00.820 Group

06:14:01.080 Of

06:14:01.260 Us

06:14:01.440 All

06:14:01.640 Went

06:14:01.820 To

06:14:01.940 Get

06:14:02.080 Food

06:14:02.420 And

06:14:03.080 We

06:14:03.200 Were

06:14:03.260 Just

06:14:03.460 Talking

06:14:04.120 After

06:14:04.400 The

06:14:04.560 Show

06:14:04.880 You

06:14:05.500 Did

06:14:05.660 Offer

06:14:05.840 Me

06:14:05.940 A

06:14:06.400 Post

06:14:06.760 Position

06:14:07.100 But

06:14:07.380 I

06:14:07.540 Said

06:14:07.640 I'm

06:14:07.960 Sorry

06:14:08.080 I

06:14:08.200 Can

06:14:08.460 What's

06:14:09.340 That

06:14:09.500 Do

06:14:09.640 You

06:14:09.660 Have

06:14:09.800 Anything

06:14:10.080 We

06:14:10.260 Can

06:14:10.380 Take

06:14:10.520 A

06:14:10.640 More

06:14:11.160 Beer

06:14:23.820 I

06:14:24.420 Think

06:14:24.600 I

06:14:24.760 Just

06:14:25.140 Have

06:14:25.340 Like

06:14:25.520 Wine

06:14:26.020 And

06:14:26.240 Champagne

06:14:26.820 I

06:14:27.700 Don't

06:14:27.940 Yeah

06:14:28.160 Can

06:14:28.400 You

06:14:28.500 Could

06:14:28.720 Chug

06:14:29.060 A

06:14:29.240 Beer

06:14:29.440 I'll

06:14:29.880 Just

06:14:30.020 Have

06:14:30.180 Another

06:14:30.340 Beer

06:14:30.600 Forget

06:14:31.320 Can

06:14:31.820 You

06:14:31.960 Tequila

06:14:33.540 Yes

06:14:34.040 Tequila

06:14:34.520 Do

06:14:35.520 We

06:14:35.700 Actually

06:14:35.960 Have

06:14:36.140 Tequila

06:14:36.500 Oh

06:14:38.940 Rip 0.82

06:14:39.680 Brian

06:14:40.240 Yeah

06:14:40.900 Big

06:14:41.980 Big L's 0.93

06:14:42.580 On

06:14:42.680 The

06:14:42.780 Alcohol

06:14:43.180 Tequila

06:14:44.540 Do

06:14:45.760 You

06:14:45.800 Want

06:14:45.900 Tequila

06:14:46.200 Yeah

06:14:46.920 Andrew

06:14:47.400 Yeah

06:14:48.460 Do

06:14:48.620 You

06:14:48.660 No

06:14:48.860 That

06:14:49.000 Was

06:14:49.140 Really

06:14:49.340 It

06:14:49.560 It

06:14:50.080 Was

06:14:50.200 Always

06:14:50.400 That

06:14:50.680 It

06:14:52.180 Was

06:14:52.300 Always

06:14:52.580 That

06:14:52.880 It

06:14:53.340 Was

06:14:53.480 Always

06:14:53.780 The

06:14:53.980 Supreme

06:14:54.260 Unlike

06:14:54.580 Ability

06:14:55.340 No

06:14:55.580 I

06:14:55.860 Don't

06:14:56.880 Know

06:14:57.020 Why

06:14:57.160 You're

06:14:57.300 Like

06:14:57.460 Making

06:14:57.760 These

06:14:57.980 Weird

06:14:58.200 Digs

06:14:58.580 So

06:14:58.720 Part

06:14:59.020 Of

06:14:59.100 The

06:14:59.180 Reason

06:14:59.360 Why

06:14:59.480 It

06:14:59.620 Is 0.88

06:14:59.720 Not

06:14:59.760 Even

06:14:59.960 A

06:15:00.100 Dig

06:15:00.360 Of

06:15:00.900 Of

06:15:00.940 It

06:15:01.240 Is 0.88

06:15:01.420 No

06:15:01.620 It

06:15:01.760 Really

06:15:01.960 Isn't

06:15:02.360 How

06:15:02.560 Saying

06:15:02.940 I'm

06:15:03.260 Unlikable

06:15:03.840 And

06:15:03.980 That's

06:15:04.180 Why

06:15:04.300 I'm

06:15:04.440 Not

06:15:04.600 Famous

06:15:05.060 Is 0.88

06:15:05.360 Not

06:15:05.680 A

06:15:05.840 No

06:15:05.980 It's

06:15:06.460 Why

06:15:06.620 You

06:15:06.760 Never

06:15:07.040 Did

06:15:07.360 As well

06:15:07.780 In

06:15:07.980 Twitch

06:15:08.340 And

06:15:08.520 YouTube

06:15:08.780 As

06:15:09.040 You

06:15:09.120 Could

06:15:09.260 Have

06:15:09.360 Done

06:15:09.580 Sorry

06:15:09.900 What's

06:15:10.180 The

06:15:10.260 The

06:15:10.280 Difference

06:15:10.520 Between

06:15:10.780 These

06:15:10.960 Statements

06:15:11.320 I'm

06:15:12.120 Unlikable

06:15:12.640 Which

06:15:12.880 Is 0.88

06:15:13.000 Why

06:15:13.120 I'm

06:15:13.240 Not

06:15:13.340 More

06:15:13.500 Popular

06:15:13.860 Yeah

06:15:14.500 Well

06:15:14.800 How

06:15:15.280 Is 0.88

06:15:15.380 That

06:15:15.480 Not

06:15:15.600 A

06:15:15.720 Dig

06:15:15.900 That's

06:15:16.180 Not

06:15:16.340 A

06:15:16.460 Dig

06:15:16.640 That's

06:15:17.020 Just

06:15:17.420 A

06:15:17.600 Statement

06:15:17.880 Of

06:15:18.040 Fact

06:15:18.340 There's

06:15:18.560 More

06:15:18.720 TTS

06:15:19.400 So

06:15:20.060 Okay

06:15:20.940 A

06:15:21.180 Statement

06:15:21.600 Of

06:15:21.720 Fact

06:15:21.880 Cannot

06:15:22.240 Be

06:15:22.380 A

06:15:22.500 Dig

06:15:22.640 If

06:15:22.840 You

06:15:22.960 Said

06:15:23.240 If

06:15:23.560 You

06:15:23.680 Said

06:15:23.880 Andrew

06:15:24.240 The

06:15:24.480 Reason

06:15:24.720 Nobody

06:15:24.960 Bought

06:15:25.160 Your

06:15:25.300 Book

06:15:25.540 Is 0.88

06:15:25.700 Because

06:15:25.900 You're

06:15:26.120 A 1.00

06:15:26.220 Bad

06:15:26.420 Writer

06:15:26.720 I

06:15:26.960 Don't

06:15:27.100 Think

06:15:27.260 That's

06:15:27.460 A

06:15:40.280 That's

06:15:40.580 A

06:15:40.660 Really

06:15:40.840 Big

06:15:41.040 Contributor

06:15:41.380 In

06:15:41.480 Fact

06:15:41.620 When

06:15:41.740 I

06:15:41.820 Started

06:15:42.000 Picking

06:15:42.260 It

06:15:42.380 Back

06:15:42.540 Up

06:15:42.680 In

06:15:42.780 September

06:15:43.100 I

06:15:43.280 Have

06:15:43.360 Grown

06:15:43.680 You

06:15:44.000 Had

06:15:44.180 Every

06:15:44.560 Advantage

06:15:45.200 You

06:15:45.400 Were

06:15:45.520 There

06:15:45.700 With

06:15:45.900 Destiny

06:15:46.320 You

06:15:46.520 Had

06:15:46.620 A

06:15:46.720 Complete

06:15:47.000 Access

06:15:47.320 To

06:15:47.540 DGG

06:15:47.920 At

06:15:48.240 First

06:15:48.480 They

06:15:48.640 Loved

06:15:48.960 You

06:15:49.220 At

06:15:49.780 First

06:15:50.000 Everything

06:15:50.300 Was

06:15:50.500 Going

06:15:50.680 Really

06:15:50.940 Good

06:15:51.160 With

06:15:51.360 That

06:15:51.540 What

06:15:51.720 Ended

06:15:52.020 Up

06:15:52.200 Happening

06:15:52.540 Ultimately

06:15:53.100 Was

06:15:53.900 The

06:15:54.040 Unlikeability

06:15:54.880 You

06:15:55.340 Had

06:15:55.500 Bridges

06:15:56.080 Bridges

06:15:56.560 Was

06:15:56.720 Tuned

06:15:56.960 Into

06:15:57.180 By

06:15:57.360 Tons

06:15:57.600 Of

06:15:57.720 DGG

06:15:58.100 They

06:15:59.180 Ultimately

06:15:59.820 Just

06:16:00.100 Ended

06:16:00.580 Up

06:16:00.720 Not

06:16:01.080 Liking

06:16:01.460 You

06:16:01.720 That

06:16:02.420 Was

06:16:02.560 The

06:16:02.720 Problem

06:16:03.060 It

06:16:03.380 Was

06:16:03.480 That

06:16:03.680 Particular

06:16:04.160 Audience

06:16:04.600 Just

06:16:04.840 Did

06:16:05.220 Not

06:16:05.440 Like

06:16:05.720 You

06:16:05.900 That

06:16:06.080 Was

06:16:06.240 Not

06:16:06.520 The

06:16:06.680 Problem

06:16:06.940 Okay

06:16:08.220 If

06:16:10.280 You

06:16:10.420 Want

06:16:10.580 To

06:16:10.660 Make

06:16:10.800 There's

06:16:11.360 Nothing

06:16:11.580 I

06:16:11.700 Can

06:16:11.820 Say

06:16:11.920 To

06:16:12.020 This

06:16:12.160 Look

06:16:12.380 I've

06:16:12.520 Been

06:16:12.620 In

06:16:12.740 This

06:16:12.940 For

06:16:13.400 Years

06:16:13.820 Is 0.88

06:16:14.580 Not

06:16:14.900 True

06:16:15.240 You

06:16:15.500 Can

06:16:15.660 Tell

06:16:15.820 You

06:16:16.000 Can

06:16:16.120 Ask

06:16:16.320 Me

06:16:16.460 The

06:16:16.620 Lore

06:16:16.900 On

06:16:17.160 Basically

06:16:17.600 Any

06:16:17.960 Content

06:16:18.400 Creator

06:16:18.820 From

06:16:19.080 Twitch

06:16:19.360 Poll

06:16:19.620 To

06:16:19.800 YouTube

06:16:20.180 And

06:16:20.560 I

06:16:20.680 Can

06:16:20.820 Tell

06:16:21.260 You

06:16:21.380 The

06:16:21.540 Entire

06:16:22.000 Transition

06:16:23.680 That

06:16:23.840 They

06:16:23.960 Made

06:16:24.260 The

06:16:24.500 Entire

06:16:24.980 Lore

06:16:25.260 Behind

06:16:25.620 Them

06:16:25.820 Because

06:16:26.440 I

06:16:26.600 Study

06:16:26.900 My

06:16:27.120 Opposition

06:16:27.640 Like

06:16:27.920 No

06:16:28.100 Other

06:16:28.420 Did

06:16:28.720 You

06:16:28.940 Know

06:16:29.220 That

06:16:29.360 I

06:16:29.460 Took

06:16:29.640 Basically

06:16:30.040 Two

06:16:30.260 Years

06:16:30.460 Of

06:16:30.600 Content

06:16:30.960 Creation

06:16:31.280 Well

06:16:31.580 It

06:16:31.680 Wasn't

06:16:31.860 Two

06:16:32.040 Years

06:16:32.360 About

06:16:33.080 Two

06:16:33.340 Years

06:16:33.580 Yeah

06:16:33.800 No

06:16:34.260 It

06:16:34.480 Wasn't

06:16:34.760 You

06:16:34.880 Still

06:16:35.100 Did

06:16:35.280 Content

06:16:35.580 Creation

06:16:36.000 Even

06:16:36.300 In

06:16:36.440 That

06:16:36.560 Two

06:16:36.720 Year

06:16:36.840 I

06:16:37.000 Didn't

06:16:37.180 Grow

06:16:37.340 Any

06:16:37.560 Of

06:16:37.680 My

06:16:37.780 Own

06:16:37.940 Personal

06:16:38.220 Platform

06:16:38.580 Or

06:16:38.840 Promote

06:16:39.120 But

06:16:39.380 You

06:16:50.820 Inconsistent

06:16:51.820 By

06:16:52.040 The

06:16:52.140 Way

06:16:52.400 Well

06:16:52.760 Here's

06:16:53.100 One

06:16:53.200 Of

06:16:53.260 The

06:16:53.360 Issues

06:16:53.660 I

06:16:55.280 Care

06:16:55.540 Because

06:16:57.180 You're

06:16:57.560 More

06:16:58.160 Famous

06:16:58.700 No

06:16:59.220 No

06:16:59.360 I'm

06:16:59.600 Just

06:16:59.740 Saying

06:17:00.000 That

06:17:00.300 I

06:17:00.600 Shirked

06:17:01.200 All

06:17:01.320 Conventional

06:17:01.840 Wisdom

06:17:02.180 It's

06:17:02.420 Not

06:17:02.580 About

06:17:02.780 Consistency

06:17:03.360 It

06:17:03.480 Never

06:17:03.620 Has

06:17:03.860 Been

06:17:04.060 It's

06:17:05.160 Never

06:17:05.380 Been

06:17:05.560 About

06:17:05.760 Consistency

06:17:06.240 That's

06:17:06.700 An

06:17:06.840 Old

06:17:07.140 Trope

06:17:07.540 For

06:17:07.680 Content

06:17:08.040 Creators

06:17:08.480 But

06:17:08.720 The

06:17:09.240 Ones

06:17:09.440 Who

06:17:09.560 Follow

06:17:09.880 The

06:17:10.140 Consistency

06:17:10.720 Model

06:17:11.000 Are

06:17:11.160 Always

06:17:11.360 The

06:17:11.520 Smallest

06:17:11.860 Ones

06:17:13.040 Yeah

06:17:13.320 Asmund

06:17:13.920 Gold

06:17:14.140 Is 0.88

06:17:14.300 Popular

06:17:14.640 Not

06:17:15.040 Because

06:17:15.320 He's

06:17:15.640 Consistent

06:17:16.120 But

06:17:16.360 Because

06:17:16.680 It's

06:17:16.920 Not

06:17:17.080 Because

06:17:17.320 He's

06:17:17.520 Consistent

06:17:17.900 It's

06:17:18.360 For

06:17:18.640 Sure

06:17:18.840 Consistency

06:17:19.920 Is 0.88

06:17:20.020 A

06:17:20.080 Large

06:17:20.240 Part

06:17:20.400 Of

06:17:20.480 It's

06:17:20.600 Not

06:17:20.700 The

06:17:20.840 Only

06:17:21.100 Part

06:17:21.360 Of

06:17:21.460 It

06:17:21.620 It's

06:17:22.280 Not

06:17:22.440 Even

06:17:22.620 A

06:17:22.940 Particularly

06:17:23.340 Large

06:17:23.720 Part

06:17:24.020 The

06:17:44.640 Andrew

06:17:44.920 You

06:17:45.260 You

06:17:45.280 Do

06:17:45.540 Have

06:17:45.660 A

06:17:45.760 Bigger

06:17:45.940 Platform

06:17:46.380 Than

06:17:46.580 Me

06:17:46.760 I'm

06:17:47.020 Not

06:17:47.240 It's

06:17:47.740 Not

06:17:48.000 A

06:17:48.160 Matter

06:17:48.480 Amazing

06:17:48.860 For

06:17:49.080 You

06:17:49.380 It's

06:17:49.800 Why

06:17:50.140 Do

06:17:50.280 I

06:17:50.360 Think

06:17:50.560 It's

06:17:50.700 A

06:17:50.800 Dialectic

06:17:51.380 Of

06:17:51.540 Like

06:17:51.860 There's

06:17:52.820 There's

06:17:53.180 Content

06:17:53.480 Creators

06:17:53.900 Who

06:17:54.040 Are

06:17:54.160 Much

06:17:54.460 Larger

06:17:54.880 Than

06:17:55.060 Me

06:17:55.200 That's

06:17:55.480 All

06:17:55.600 Relative

06:17:56.020 I've

06:17:56.480 Never

06:17:56.640 Been

06:17:56.800 A 0.99

06:17:56.960 Fucking 1.00

06:17:57.180 Egoist 1.00

06:17:57.760 About

06:17:58.000 That

06:17:58.280 And

06:17:58.800 The

06:17:58.900 Thing

06:17:59.060 That's

06:17:59.240 Funny

06:17:59.500 Is 0.88

06:17:59.700 Like

06:18:00.020 Never

06:18:01.220 Why

06:18:01.420 Did

06:18:01.540 You

06:18:01.620 Bring

06:18:01.800 Up

06:18:01.920 My

06:18:02.040 Size

06:18:02.260 Never

06:18:02.600 Well

06:18:03.180 No

06:18:03.380 I'm

06:18:03.600 Saying

06:18:03.900 That

06:18:04.100 The

06:18:04.240 Reason

06:18:04.620 That

06:18:04.840 This

06:18:04.980 Happened

06:18:05.580 In

06:18:05.900 Content

06:18:06.380 Creation

06:18:06.820 Was

06:18:07.180 Because

06:18:07.460 Of

06:18:07.740 The

06:18:07.860 Likeability

06:18:08.360 Issue

06:18:08.760 Why

06:18:08.920 Does

06:18:09.080 That

06:18:09.180 Matter

06:18:09.480 Necessarily

06:18:10.520 Well

06:18:11.020 Because

06:18:11.260 That

06:18:11.520 Was

06:18:11.660 What

06:18:11.820 The

06:18:11.940 Question

06:18:12.260 Was

06:18:12.660 No

06:18:13.220 Yeah

06:18:13.660 They

06:18:13.880 Were

06:18:14.000 I've

06:18:14.420 Said

06:18:14.640 The

06:18:14.920 Reason

06:18:15.220 For

06:18:15.520 This

06:18:15.820 Has

06:18:16.020 Always

06:18:16.320 Been

06:18:16.480 The

06:18:16.600 Case

06:18:16.780 With

06:18:16.960 With

06:18:16.980 Kyla

06:18:17.660 She

06:18:18.200 Was

06:18:18.420 Speaking

06:18:18.860 To

06:18:19.100 The

06:18:19.260 Unlikability

06:18:19.900 And

06:18:20.160 It

06:18:20.220 Was

06:18:20.600 Always

06:18:20.840 The

06:18:21.060 Case

06:18:21.440 It

06:18:22.060 Was

06:18:22.180 The

06:18:22.300 Reason

06:18:22.520 She

06:18:22.680 Never

06:18:22.860 Got

06:18:23.040 Big

06:18:23.320 On

06:18:23.460 Any

06:18:23.600 Of

06:18:23.680 Those

06:18:23.780 Platforms

06:18:24.340 Your

06:18:24.720 Audience

06:18:25.140 Doesn't

06:18:25.580 Like

06:18:25.840 Me

06:18:25.980 But

06:18:26.140 That

06:18:26.240 Doesn't

06:18:26.480 Change

06:18:26.660 The

06:18:26.760 Fact

06:18:26.880 That

06:18:27.020 There

06:18:27.120 Are

06:18:27.200 Significant

06:18:27.560 Other

06:18:27.820 Audiences

06:18:28.180 That

06:18:28.420 Do

06:18:28.620 Like

06:18:28.840 Me

06:18:28.980 There

06:18:29.160 Are

06:18:29.260 No

06:18:29.440 Significant

06:18:29.960 Audiences

06:18:30.420 That

06:18:30.680 Like

06:18:30.900 You

06:18:31.060 None

06:18:31.540 Name

06:18:32.420 One

06:18:33.300 My

06:18:33.620 Own

06:18:33.980 DGG

06:18:34.720 Likes

06:18:35.120 Me

06:18:35.260 No

06:18:35.740 They

06:18:35.940 Don't

06:18:36.260 And

06:18:36.920 You

06:18:37.040 Don't

06:18:37.240 Have

06:18:37.400 A

06:18:37.500 Significant

06:18:37.940 Audience

06:18:38.400 And

06:18:38.560 DGG

06:18:38.880 Does

06:18:39.140 Not

06:18:39.320 Like

06:18:39.480 I

06:18:39.520 Don't

06:18:39.700 Think

06:18:39.840 I

06:18:39.940 Have

06:18:40.060 A

06:18:40.140 Significant

06:18:40.540 Audience

06:18:52.520 Against

06:18:52.760 Conservatives

06:18:53.240 But

06:18:53.400 None

06:18:53.620 Of

06:18:53.720 Them

06:18:53.820 There

06:18:54.160 Was

06:18:54.260 Multiple

06:18:54.560 People

06:18:54.900 On

06:18:55.080 My

06:18:55.220 Jubilee

06:18:55.580 Platform

06:18:55.960 That

06:18:56.320 Were

06:18:56.540 Against

06:18:56.840 Conservatives

06:18:57.340 And

06:18:57.500 Yet

06:18:57.660 I

06:18:57.860 Was

06:18:58.040 The

06:18:58.160 One

06:18:58.320 That

06:18:58.540 Got

06:18:58.740 All

06:18:58.940 The

06:18:59.040 Promotion

06:18:59.420 I

06:18:59.620 Gained

06:18:59.780 Like

06:18:59.960 Almost

06:19:00.260 10k

06:19:00.660 Subs

06:19:00.980 From

06:19:01.100 It

06:19:01.140 Didn't

06:19:01.360 Do

06:19:01.540 Anything

06:19:02.000 For

06:19:02.660 You

06:19:02.820 Your

06:19:02.980 Live

06:19:03.240 Streams

06:19:03.500 Are

06:19:03.600 About

06:19:03.860 The

06:19:04.040 Same

06:19:04.260 Size

06:19:04.660 Because

06:19:06.180 It's

06:19:06.440 A

06:19:06.540 Like

06:19:06.700 They're

06:19:06.780 Larger

06:19:07.380 My

06:19:08.460 CCV

06:19:08.820 Is 0.88

06:19:08.920 Bigger

06:19:09.400 Despite

06:19:09.680 30

06:19:10.980 Live

06:19:11.320 Viewers

06:19:11.800 It's

06:19:15.360 Like

06:19:15.560 It's

06:19:16.420 Always

06:19:16.700 Been

06:19:16.920 A

06:19:17.040 Likability

06:19:17.520 Problem

06:19:17.980 I

06:19:18.300 Just

06:19:18.860 Disagree

06:19:19.380 And

06:19:19.520 I'm

06:19:19.640 Not

06:19:19.820 As

06:19:20.060 I

06:19:20.300 Know

06:19:20.540 But

06:19:20.720 You

06:19:21.000 Should

06:19:21.420 You

06:19:21.720 Would

06:19:22.040 Though

06:19:22.260 Right

06:19:22.580 An

06:19:22.980 Unlikable

06:19:23.580 Person

06:19:24.020 Would

06:19:24.380 Disagree

06:19:24.760 With

06:19:24.880 A

06:19:24.980 Person

06:19:25.180 Who

06:19:25.340 Tells

06:19:25.620 Them

06:19:25.740 The

06:19:25.880 Reason

06:19:26.100 You're

06:19:26.420 Not

06:19:26.680 Getting

06:19:26.920 Anywhere

06:19:27.260 In

06:19:27.380 This

06:19:27.560 Is 0.88

06:19:27.780 Because

06:19:28.020 You're 0.93

06:19:28.200 Unlikable 0.99

06:19:28.680 You

06:19:29.060 Would

06:19:29.300 Disagree

06:19:29.740 With

06:19:29.940 That

06:19:30.120 That's

06:19:30.260 The

06:19:30.380 Point

06:19:30.700 It's

06:19:31.440 Like

06:19:31.580 The

06:19:31.700 Most

06:19:31.920 Unlikable

06:19:32.580 Part

06:19:32.980 Disagree

06:19:34.260 No

06:19:34.680 It's

06:19:34.880 Just

06:19:35.000 That

06:19:35.220 It's

06:19:35.580 The

06:19:35.740 Argumentative

06:19:36.380 Nature

06:19:36.760 Of

06:19:37.280 Every

06:19:37.860 Single

06:19:38.320 Individual

06:19:38.880 Thing

06:19:39.380 Aren't

06:19:39.800 You

06:19:39.920 Argumentative

06:19:40.480 I

06:19:40.660 Concede

06:19:41.020 Most

06:19:41.360 Points

06:19:41.640 Actually

06:19:42.100 Which

06:19:42.480 Did

06:19:42.880 You

06:19:42.980 Concede

06:19:43.400 Oh

06:19:43.580 I

06:19:43.720 Conceded

06:19:44.060 Tons

06:19:44.300 Of

06:19:44.420 Points

06:19:44.700 Which

06:19:44.900 Which

06:19:45.340 Ones

06:19:45.700 I

06:19:46.060 Also

06:19:46.260 Conceded

06:19:46.620 Multiple

06:19:46.840 Points

06:19:47.160 Not

06:19:47.400 Really

06:19:48.000 Sure

06:19:48.420 Okay

06:19:49.400 All right

06:19:50.620 You're

06:19:51.340 Super

06:19:51.520 Likeable

06:19:51.840 By

06:19:52.020 The

06:19:52.080 That's

06:19:52.980 True

06:19:53.200 That's

06:19:53.640 One

06:19:53.760 Of

06:19:53.840 The

06:19:53.940 Things

06:19:54.200 The

06:19:54.580 Kind

06:19:55.180 Of

06:19:55.260 The

06:19:55.500 The

06:19:56.240 Feedback

06:19:56.660 That

06:19:56.840 I

06:19:56.980 Get

06:19:57.160 The

06:19:57.320 Most

06:20:04.260 With

06:20:04.760 You

06:20:04.920 I'm

06:20:05.220 Definitely

06:20:05.560 Not

06:20:05.780 Saying

06:20:06.040 Names

06:20:06.360 Yeah

06:20:06.800 Because

06:20:07.060 There

06:20:07.280 Aren't

06:20:07.420 Any

06:20:07.600 There

06:20:07.840 Absolutely

06:20:08.500 Are

06:20:08.900 I

06:20:09.080 Just

06:20:09.240 Want

06:20:09.360 To

06:20:09.380 Be

06:20:09.480 Very

06:20:09.780 Clear

06:20:10.080 There

06:20:10.360 Absolutely

06:20:10.900 Are

06:20:11.160 But

06:20:11.320 I'm

06:20:11.440 Not

06:20:11.540 Gonna

06:20:11.660 I

06:20:11.840 Guarantee

06:20:12.220 You

06:20:12.420 That

06:20:12.560 All

06:20:12.740 Those

06:20:12.940 Conservatives

06:20:13.440 Are

06:20:13.580 Probably

06:20:14.040 Not

06:20:15.140 As

06:20:15.300 Popular

06:20:15.580 As

06:20:15.820 Me

06:20:16.000 Probably

06:20:17.440 I

06:20:17.740 Guarantee

06:20:18.020 You

06:20:18.180 That

06:20:18.320 Almost

06:20:18.560 All

06:20:18.820 Of

06:20:18.920 Them

06:20:19.120 Are

06:20:19.400 Not

06:20:19.840 As

06:20:20.000 Popular

06:20:20.340 As

06:20:20.560 I

06:20:20.720 Am

06:20:20.940 But

06:20:21.120 He

06:20:21.200 Doesn't

06:20:21.380 Care

06:20:21.560 About

06:20:21.720 How

06:20:21.840 Popular

06:20:22.140 It's

06:20:22.400 Guys

06:20:22.600 Don't

06:20:22.740 Well

06:20:34.260 Popular

06:20:34.800 Ones

06:20:35.220 Interestingly

06:20:35.760 Enough

06:20:36.180 Just

06:20:36.980 Saying

06:20:37.180 None

06:20:37.380 Of

06:20:37.460 The

06:20:37.560 Unpopular

06:20:38.040 Ones

06:20:38.360 Yep

06:20:38.580 Yeah

06:20:39.680 I

06:20:39.840 Don't

06:20:39.980 I

06:20:40.160 Don't

06:20:40.280 Even

06:20:40.440 Know

06:20:40.600 Who

06:20:40.760 These

06:20:40.920 People

06:20:41.200 Are

06:20:41.440 Cause

06:20:41.620 You

06:20:41.720 Ain't

06:20:41.840 Gonna

06:20:41.960 Name

06:20:42.220 Them

06:20:42.380 You

06:20:42.600 Do

06:20:42.760 Know

06:20:42.880 Who

06:20:43.020 They

06:20:43.140 I'm

06:20:43.260 Just

06:20:43.380 Not

06:20:43.500 Going to

06:20:44.720 Tell

06:20:44.880 Me

06:20:45.020 Who

06:20:45.180 They

06:20:45.300 Are

06:20:45.540 Yeah

06:20:45.920 Here

06:20:46.280 Of

06:20:46.440 Of

06:20:47.320 Likeability

06:20:48.740 Issue

06:20:49.800 Yeah

06:20:50.220 Cause

06:20:50.480 Being

06:20:50.800 Argumentative

06:20:51.360 Is 0.88

06:20:51.500 The

06:20:51.600 Likeability

06:20:52.040 Issue

06:20:52.420 It's

06:20:52.720 Not

06:20:52.880 Just

06:20:53.400 Being

06:20:54.140 Argumentative

06:20:54.920 It's

06:20:55.380 The

06:20:55.640 Mostly

06:20:56.300 It's

06:20:56.540 In

06:20:56.700 Your

06:20:56.940 Streams

06:20:57.460 The

06:20:57.640 Entire

06:20:57.940 Stream

06:20:58.380 Is 0.88

06:20:58.560 Just

06:20:58.700 Condescension

06:20:59.420 That's

06:21:00.360 The

06:21:00.480 Tone

06:21:00.760 That

06:21:00.920 People

06:21:01.140 Hear

06:21:01.380 Is 0.88

06:21:01.500 Just

06:21:01.680 Pure

06:21:02.120 Condescension

06:21:02.760 I

06:21:02.880 Wouldn't

06:21:03.060 Say

06:21:03.160 That's

06:21:03.420 True

06:21:03.580 I

06:21:03.740 Mean

06:21:03.840 Most

06:21:04.020 People

06:21:04.220 So

06:21:04.540 For

06:21:04.700 Example

06:21:05.040 Condescension

06:21:05.660 Would

06:21:05.820 Be me

06:21:06.120 Feigning

06:21:06.720 Kindness

06:21:07.400 And

06:21:07.540 Niceness

06:21:08.000 While

06:21:08.480 Like

06:21:08.660 Discerning

06:21:09.060 Down

06:21:09.280 Like

06:21:09.460 In

06:21:09.560 A

06:21:09.660 Patronizing

06:21:10.100 Way

06:21:10.320 But

06:21:10.600 That's

06:21:10.760 Not

06:21:10.880 Typically

06:21:11.180 What

06:21:11.340 I

06:21:11.380 Do

06:21:11.480 In

06:21:11.600 Fact

06:21:11.740 When

06:21:12.000 I

06:21:12.120 Mean

06:21:12.520 I

06:21:12.720 Belittle

06:21:13.000 People

06:21:13.320 And

06:21:13.740 I

06:21:13.800 Say

06:21:13.900 That

06:21:14.000 Yeah

06:21:15.160 But

06:21:15.360 I

06:21:15.720 Just

06:21:15.920 Said

06:21:16.100 The

06:21:16.260 Whole

06:21:16.420 Tone

06:21:16.700 Of

06:21:16.800 Your

06:21:16.920 Stream

06:21:17.220 Sounds

06:21:17.500 Like

06:21:17.680 Condescension

06:21:18.220 To

06:21:18.420 People

06:21:18.680 That

06:21:19.240 Might

06:21:19.360 Be

06:21:19.480 Your

06:21:19.720 Issue

06:21:20.060 But

06:21:20.380 That

06:21:20.460 Speaks

06:21:21.020 More

06:21:21.220 To

06:21:21.320 You

06:21:21.520 If

06:21:22.300 You

06:21:22.680 Change

06:21:23.020 That

06:21:23.340 If

06:21:23.600 You

06:21:23.700 Change

06:21:23.940 The

06:21:24.080 Condescension

06:21:24.720 And

06:21:25.120 You

06:21:25.240 Change

06:21:25.620 The

06:21:25.940 Likeability

06:21:26.520 Problem

06:21:26.920 You

06:21:27.300 Would

06:21:27.440 Be

06:21:27.600 A

06:21:27.780 Megalist 0.99

06:21:28.760 Star

06:21:29.000 On

06:21:29.160 Those

06:21:29.320 Platforms

06:21:29.920 So

06:21:30.180 In

06:21:30.580 The

06:21:30.660 Case

06:21:30.820 Of

06:21:30.940 Jubilee

06:21:31.360 For

06:21:31.520 Example

06:21:31.860 I

06:21:32.540 Spoke

06:21:32.860 Mostly

06:21:33.180 The

06:21:33.340 Same

06:21:33.460 Way

06:21:33.580 That

06:21:33.680 I

06:21:33.760 Speak

06:21:34.520 Most

06:21:34.740 Of

06:21:34.860 The

06:21:34.900 Time

06:21:35.080 People

06:21:35.340 Didn't

06:21:35.540 Find

06:21:35.700 Me

06:21:35.820 Condescending

06:21:36.320 They

06:21:36.480 Find

06:21:36.640 Me

06:21:36.740 Like

06:21:37.080 Well

06:21:37.240 In

06:21:37.340 Fact

06:21:37.480 One

06:21:37.980 Of

06:21:38.120 The

06:21:38.140 Things

06:21:38.320 They

06:21:38.440 Specifically

06:21:38.820 Like

06:21:39.140 20

06:21:39.280 More

06:21:40.360 Live

06:21:40.600 Yeah

06:21:41.040 Live

06:21:41.400 Streams

06:21:42.000 Typically

06:21:42.280 Are

06:21:42.640 Going

06:21:42.760 To

06:21:42.860 Grow

06:21:43.120 Slower

06:21:43.940 And

06:21:44.660 I

06:21:44.940 Think

06:21:45.260 I

06:21:45.380 Gained

06:21:45.660 Six

06:21:46.460 To

06:21:46.600 Seven

06:21:46.840 K

06:21:47.080 Subs

06:21:47.500 From

06:21:48.000 That

06:21:48.180 Single

06:21:48.600 Jubilee

06:21:48.940 Performance

06:21:49.340 Which

06:21:49.620 Is 0.88

06:21:49.760 Awesome

06:21:50.160 Okay

06:21:51.100 You

06:21:51.300 Know

06:21:51.400 What

06:21:51.520 I

06:21:51.600 Think

06:21:51.780 Your

06:21:51.920 Issue

06:21:52.180 Is 0.88

06:21:52.400 Kyla

06:21:52.760 You

06:21:53.800 You

06:22:03.180 Go

06:22:03.340 A

06:22:03.500 Long

06:22:03.680 Way

06:22:04.060 To

06:22:06.160 Bolster

06:22:06.900 You

06:22:07.140 If

06:22:07.480 You

06:22:07.580 Want

06:22:07.700 To

06:22:07.780 Hire

06:22:07.940 Me

06:22:08.080 As

06:22:08.180 A

06:22:08.280 Consultant

06:22:08.820 Cheers

06:22:09.500 I

06:22:09.640 Have

06:22:09.800 Very

06:22:10.060 Affordable

06:22:10.580 Rates

06:22:12.320 You

06:22:12.700 Know

06:22:12.960 Image

06:22:13.460 Consultant

06:22:14.020 Why

06:22:15.280 Isn't

06:22:15.460 Andrew

06:22:15.680 More

06:22:15.840 Popular

06:22:16.160 What's

06:22:16.620 His

06:22:16.740 Issue

06:22:17.040 You

06:22:18.460 Know

06:22:18.600 What

06:22:18.960 He

06:22:21.500 Doesn't

06:22:21.780 Come

06:22:21.940 On

06:22:22.100 The

06:22:22.160 Whatever

06:22:22.460 Podcast

06:22:23.220 Enough

06:22:25.160 He

06:22:26.060 Needs

06:22:26.220 To

06:22:26.320 Come

06:22:26.480 On

06:22:26.660 More

06:22:26.920 Just

06:22:27.160 Like

06:22:27.420 True

06:22:27.800 To

06:22:27.920 Grow

06:22:28.040 His

06:22:28.160 Platform

06:22:28.480 From

06:22:28.700 Andrew

06:22:29.400 Needs

06:22:29.600 To

06:22:29.700 Come

06:22:29.840 On

06:22:29.960 The

06:22:30.040 Whatever

06:22:30.280 Podcast

06:22:30.920 More

06:22:31.300 And

06:22:32.300 You

06:22:32.500 Know

06:22:32.600 What

06:22:32.700 I

06:22:32.820 Think

06:22:33.060 His

06:22:33.640 Big

06:22:34.020 Thing

06:22:34.320 Is 0.88

06:22:34.600 As

06:22:35.060 A

06:22:35.180 I'm

06:22:35.620 Going

06:22:35.700 To

06:22:35.800 Diagnose

06:22:36.240 You

06:22:36.380 Andrew

06:22:36.640 Okay

06:22:37.300 He

06:22:39.520 Doesn't

06:22:39.740 Smoke

06:22:40.000 Cigars

06:22:40.440 On

06:22:40.900 Stream

06:22:41.240 The

06:22:41.780 Guy

06:22:41.960 Only

06:22:42.240 Smokes

06:22:42.580 Cigarettes

06:22:43.140 I

06:22:43.640 Think

06:22:43.880 That's

06:22:44.200 If

06:22:44.420 He

06:22:44.560 Started

06:22:44.900 Just

06:22:45.220 Like

06:22:45.880 Tony

06:22:46.960 Soprano

06:22:47.800 Big

06:22:48.180 Phallic 0.98

06:22:48.800 Shape

06:22:49.080 Thing

06:22:49.320 Whoa

06:22:49.900 Hold

06:22:50.160 On

06:22:50.280 Let's

06:22:50.500 Not

06:22:50.720 Let's

06:22:52.160 Not

06:22:52.360 Project

06:22:52.940 Like

06:22:53.480 That

06:22:53.660 That's

06:22:53.960 Crazy

06:22:54.500 Kyla

06:22:54.880 That

06:22:55.020 You

06:22:55.100 Say

06:22:55.320 That

06:22:55.480 I

06:22:55.840 Just

06:22:56.000 Think

06:22:56.160 It's

06:22:56.340 That

06:22:56.460 Maybe

06:22:56.660 If

06:22:56.820 He

06:22:56.900 Smoked

06:22:57.240 Cigars

06:22:57.700 He

06:22:57.900 Would

06:22:58.140 Get

06:22:58.860 You

06:22:59.540 Know

06:22:59.680 I

06:22:59.840 Think

06:23:00.000 That

06:23:00.120 Would

06:23:00.220 Be

06:23:00.340 Big

06:23:00.600 I

06:23:01.340 Think

06:23:01.500 It

06:23:01.580 Would

06:23:01.640 Be

06:23:01.740 Big

06:23:02.100 And

06:23:02.780 I

06:23:04.820 Would

06:23:04.940 Like

06:23:05.100 To

06:23:05.220 See

06:23:05.360 Him

06:23:05.480 Sing

06:23:05.840 More

06:23:06.120 On

06:23:06.380 His

06:23:06.560 Streams

06:23:06.900 I

06:23:07.040 Think

06:23:07.260 Singing

06:23:07.660 Would

06:23:07.920 Do

06:23:08.080 Well

06:23:08.400 And

06:23:09.080 I

06:23:09.200 Think

06:23:09.660 I

06:23:10.080 Agree

06:23:10.420 The

06:23:11.220 Women 1.00

06:23:11.480 Love

06:23:12.200 The

06:23:12.400 Singing

06:23:12.680 Andrew

06:23:13.300 Actually

06:23:14.320 Like

06:23:14.600 I

06:23:14.800 Know

06:23:15.000 We're

06:23:15.140 Kind

06:23:15.300 Of

06:23:15.340 Like

06:23:15.480 Having

06:23:15.660 A

06:23:15.780 Bit

06:23:15.860 Of

06:23:15.940 A

06:23:16.040 Joke

06:23:16.220 Here

06:23:16.400 If

06:23:17.320 Andrew

06:23:17.800 Did

06:23:18.120 IRL

06:23:18.960 Like

06:23:19.800 Table

06:23:20.560 Stuff

06:23:21.100 In

06:23:21.460 Public

06:23:21.880 Either

06:23:22.660 Men

06:23:22.980 On

06:23:23.140 The

06:23:23.300 Street

06:23:23.720 Or

06:23:24.660 Change

06:23:25.560 My

06:23:25.780 Mind

06:23:26.260 Andrew

06:23:28.360 Would

06:23:28.540 Be

06:23:28.640 The

06:23:28.820 Biggest 1.00

06:23:29.140 Fucking 1.00

06:23:29.480 Streamer 1.00

06:23:30.100 Bigger

06:23:31.760 Than

06:23:31.920 All

06:23:32.100 The

06:23:32.220 Even

06:23:32.540 Like

06:23:32.800 The

06:23:33.000 Young

06:23:33.460 Guns

06:23:33.960 That

06:23:34.140 Do

06:23:34.380 The

06:23:34.580 Probably

06:23:35.860 Not

06:23:36.240 Right

06:23:36.520 Like

06:23:36.780 You

06:23:39.360 Guys

06:23:39.640 Have

06:23:39.860 Always

06:23:40.200 Doubted

06:23:41.500 Me

06:23:41.660 And

06:23:41.760 I'm

06:23:41.860 One

06:23:41.940 Of

06:23:42.020 The

06:23:42.120 Largest

06:23:42.440 Conservative

06:23:42.860 Streamers

06:23:43.400 Also

06:23:46.640 He

06:23:46.820 Doesn't

06:23:47.020 Care

06:23:47.180 About

06:23:47.360 It

06:23:47.480 Though

06:23:47.700 When

06:23:48.000 Did

06:23:48.140 I

06:23:48.240 Ever

06:23:48.400 Doubt

06:23:48.600 You

06:23:48.780 I'm

06:23:49.060 Telling

06:23:49.420 You

06:23:49.600 Oh

06:23:49.920 My

06:23:50.120 God

06:23:50.520 We

06:23:50.680 Can

06:23:50.780 Go

06:23:50.920 Back

06:23:51.160 To

06:23:51.280 The

06:23:51.360 Old

06:23:51.600 Streams

06:23:52.140 This

06:23:52.340 Is 0.88

06:23:52.440 Why

06:23:52.560 Nobody

06:23:52.820 Likes

06:23:53.140 Andrew

06:23:53.580 Nobody

06:23:53.860 Will

06:23:54.000 Debate

06:23:54.260 With

06:23:54.380 Andrew

06:23:54.720 Everyone

06:23:55.020 Hates

06:23:55.340 Andrew

06:23:55.740 Andrew

06:23:56.040 Is 0.88

06:23:56.140 Bad

06:23:56.560 They

06:23:57.060 Had

06:23:57.220 Tons

06:23:57.620 Of

06:23:57.740 Streams

06:23:58.100 Like

06:23:58.300 That

06:23:58.680 Destiny

06:23:59.620 Had

06:23:59.900 Cope

06:24:00.140 Streams

06:24:00.460 About

06:24:00.680 That

06:24:01.060 I

06:24:01.380 I

06:24:01.680 Remember

06:24:01.980 You

06:24:02.600 Having

06:24:05.420 Roast

06:24:06.460 Streams

06:24:07.020 Where

06:24:07.120 You

06:24:07.240 Would

06:24:07.380 Spend

06:24:07.700 Three

06:24:08.020 To

06:24:08.200 Four

06:24:08.380 Hours

06:24:08.900 Insulting

06:24:09.620 Me

06:24:09.820 Calling

06:24:10.260 Me

06:24:10.460 A 0.99

06:24:10.620 Whore 0.99

06:24:10.980 I

06:24:11.540 Never

06:24:11.860 I

06:24:12.660 You

06:24:12.760 Had

06:24:13.400 You

06:24:13.660 Never

06:24:14.000 Used

06:24:14.240 The

06:24:14.380 Word 0.97

06:24:14.520 Whore 0.99

06:24:14.740 That's 0.97

06:24:15.400 Incorrect

06:24:15.880 I

06:24:16.280 Don't

06:24:16.720 Even

06:24:16.860 Nope

06:24:17.160 I

06:24:17.620 Don't

06:24:17.880 I

06:24:18.280 Don't

06:24:18.600 Even

06:24:18.740 The

06:24:19.300 Only

06:24:19.480 Time

06:24:19.820 I

06:24:19.960 Call

06:24:20.180 Women 1.00

06:24:20.440 Whores 1.00

06:24:20.900 Is 0.88

06:24:21.240 If

06:24:21.400 They're

06:24:21.540 Actual 1.00

06:24:21.940 Prostitutes 1.00

06:24:22.640 I've

06:24:23.420 Always

06:24:23.720 Made

06:24:23.920 That

06:24:24.100 Now 0.99

06:24:24.400 Slut 1.00

06:24:24.860 i don't usually use that language either i get conflated a lot with red pillars who say that 1.00

06:24:29.900 shit i don't i will say stupid bitch but i don't call women whores unless they're actual whores 1.00

06:24:35.180 yeah so one of the issues is like you're saying like oh we were just sitting about talking about 1.00

06:24:38.400 how negative andrew is yeah lots of people didn't like you in the twitch poll space obviously because

06:24:41.800 they're all leftists yeah and you're kind of because they were all leftists that's why well

06:24:45.760 i like plenty of conservatives i wanted all of the the like the leftist hating me is good

06:24:50.480 that is my favorite part of the job what about the conservatives just like who the ones who shall

06:24:55.860 not be named yes i'm not going to like drop people that dislike you right exactly because for all i

06:25:01.080 know they don't even exist how the fuck do i know uh they do exist i'm not going to drop them for 0.77

06:25:05.040 your audience to go and harass them and the way that your audience harasses most of the people that 0.94

06:25:08.100 you talk about when you made multiple three to four hour roast sessions on me i don't remember at any 0.95

06:25:13.640 point spending three to four dedicated hours just talking shit about you your life your choices i 0.80

06:25:19.320 don't remember doing any of this this was your style of content uh-huh yeah and that so i don't 0.97

06:25:24.780 know why you would begin to even point at me and say you really dislike me it's like i didn't like

06:25:28.920 that you talked nasty no you were if this was long before i ever did a trash talk extravaganza

06:25:33.160 that you were talking basically we had one interaction we said i'm going to interview you 0.96

06:25:36.820 and then it was a really obnoxious debate and then after that you just trash talk me basically all

06:25:42.200 the time yes that wasn't how that went absolutely why did you delete all those roast sessions put

06:25:46.600 them back up i didn't they're all behind a paywall right this second you go watch them

06:25:50.680 gotcha okay and what you'll notice behind my paywall is there isn't a single time where i

06:25:54.700 spend three to four hours or anybody behind it not just not talking about you but not talking

06:26:00.480 about anyone i don't spend like three to four hours yes did i do i like you that much no i don't like

06:26:04.540 you right the idea but that's not the same thing as like holding me to some standard that i talk

06:26:08.960 negative and that i didn't think you were going to go for likability that's it i you said that i didn't

06:26:13.360 ever think you're going to go for and i was questioning you i had i've completely agnostic

06:26:16.600 on that especially at the time i didn't know anything about social media i had no opinion

06:26:19.600 on who was going to be famous or not okay okay we have more chats coming through we have chats coming

06:26:26.940 through tts chats okay very important very important tts uh 69 tts streamlives.com slash whatever i'm

06:26:34.020 waiting for it to load one moment we have chau xd uh chau xd listen to this one 69 hey kyla you 0.95

06:26:43.860 don't know anything about evolution you fucking puppy demonstrate to us how random mutation leads 0.96

06:26:50.260 to purpose-driven biological mechanism go ahead and show us biologists sure can't quick answer if you 0.99

06:26:57.700 can i don't know how to quick answer evolution uh typically because random mutation leads to things

06:27:02.400 that are functional for the environment that they are in so that will lead to functionality in the

06:27:05.740 environment over time which leads to the situations that we have right if a if a angled beak was more

06:27:10.240 effective for getting worms out of a specific type of soil then that would be uh successful until that

06:27:15.340 soil changed for example and then that would be out competed by other things that didn't answer

06:27:18.540 the question of course it did and put up the question i'll show you i'll show you what he actually

06:27:22.760 asked okay i'm gonna go to the bathroom of course yeah yeah it's

06:27:27.100 yeah the question is demonstrate to us how a random mutation leads to purpose-driven biological

06:27:34.820 mechanism the purpose-driven biological mechanism is the point

06:27:39.500 did i already pull did i pull the the super chat is that the one is this the one that started the

06:27:47.700 did i pull this up nathan andrew did i know i didn't see that one isn't this the one that

06:27:53.640 i'm not saying that it wasn't there i'm just saying i didn't see it okay uh well while she's

06:28:00.780 on break uh let's take this opportunity debate university uh guys debate if you want to become

06:28:07.020 a master debater like andrew you want to watch people argue against their own position for hours

06:28:13.160 and not get it end up having to take a shot so you can maintain your sanity if you want to watch a

06:28:19.400 person argue against their own position for hours they don't even know that they're doing it

06:28:22.600 and then you just show it in clip after clip afterwards and you have to end it with a shot

06:28:26.940 go to debate university because it's really going to help you do that do you want more tequila andrew

06:28:35.520 we have you want some more one more uh can you give him another shot please uh guys debate

06:28:41.960 university.com to become a master debater if you want to you there's video tutorials hours and hours

06:28:48.860 a video uh andrew is uh and a few others are giving you a video tutorial on for hours you can make them

06:28:59.000 argue against their own position for fucking hours and they do it they they'll do it for hours they'll 0.97

06:29:07.720 argue against their own position how the fuck does that even work how does it even work that's what i 1.00

06:29:13.780 want to know naima argued against her own position for hours they just argue against their own shit 1.00

06:29:19.340 for fucking hours andrew can i have you ask the viewers to like the video like the video guys like 0.99

06:29:26.460 the video like the video let's have let's have a shot everybody and god i can't wait for the dating 0.98

06:29:32.200 talk to my boy that sounds awesome we have a little break day oh yeah we got a break day maybe i'll do a

06:29:37.200 stream tomorrow i haven't been very consistent yet and that's the key to popularity is consistency

06:29:42.000 consistency consistency consistency uh or wait no that here i'll pull that one up in a bit uh we have

06:29:51.300 mike davis here mike davis coming in just one moment i'm waiting for it to load kyla is rejoining us

06:29:59.840 mike davis oh uh i don't know why it didn't play audio i'll just read it all jittery won't stop yapping

06:30:07.460 trying too hard and cringy what kind of autism is she are you um the same kind this guy is i don't

06:30:15.060 know what it is mike davis yeah we have the same type okay they're the thing is is like they're all

06:30:20.100 trained in twitch poll there used to be trained yeah they're all trained well they're trained by each

06:30:25.420 other they don't uh they don't like you don't go to formal training sessions but they were all

06:30:29.720 trained by each other in the twitch poll era which is largely dead by the way now it's largely doesn't

06:30:35.540 even exist but essentially what they would do is they would use these long prattling word salads

06:30:40.860 and the second you could actually decode those i always found that the method to decode them was

06:30:45.920 you let them prattle prattle prattle ask two questions watch them contradict they would switch

06:30:49.920 the position the way that they got away with it for so long is people didn't clip them doing it they

06:30:55.140 didn't clip it if they had clipped it they would have put an end to twitch poll way earlier but

06:30:59.580 took a long time for that fucking whole thing to finally fall apart all right we have a message 0.92

06:31:06.200 here from let me make sure it's okay i think it's all right oh erudite sneaky link donated 69 dollars 0.99

06:31:14.640 good thing you only submit to your husband he let you date and flirt with other men 1.00

06:31:19.640 your christian ethics are on point why don't you dox brian next you're a joke of christian and decent

06:31:27.120 human look i don't think that she intended like to be charitable i don't think that she intended to

06:31:34.620 dox i'm not going to put that on her i i do think that it's just genuinely or generally for streamers

06:31:41.680 it's just a good idea to never say a location never say it's just a generally a good idea okay we have

06:31:50.320 dr peace raft thank you yeah part of the reason just i apologize again wait let's let's look this

06:31:57.260 one come through donated 69 dollars i'm glad the bunnies fathers of popular new guinea are showing

06:32:03.860 love kindness guidance charity and patristic love to members of their society truly they shine with the

06:32:11.600 light of god true the seminal warriors of papa new guinea yeah so i was going to say again i do apologize

06:32:17.920 so that wasn't public part of the reason why i presume that it was is that i believe that both

06:32:21.500 of us have always been aggressively and openly doxed i assume that you already had been and i

06:32:25.440 knew that uh in the past you were very open about being from the i'll say vaguely the previous state

06:32:30.080 that you were in i had seen multiple mentions of you publicly online acknowledging which state you

06:32:34.340 were from and in fact not just which state but which kind of area did you ever notice i never told

06:32:38.040 anybody where i was at in that state ever for a reason but the thing is is like uh look i don't i don't

06:32:45.780 hold it against you i get it it's just it's just bad etiquette for streamers generally to do that 0.99

06:32:50.360 that's all okay we have airborne animal airborne animal donated 69 dollars this stupid btch she thinks 1.00

06:33:02.660 she dictates what is and is not true moral and god's will to her smoking is bad but abortion is good 1.00

06:33:09.520 just a wannabe degen destiny trying to fast talk her way to a win 1.00

06:33:14.100 uh thank you for the insult i don't think i dictate what is and is not true

06:33:21.100 stuster donated 69 dollars asio i struggle with smoking andrew can you name a non-martyr that enjoyed

06:33:28.880 such a hobby or dismissed its use a non-martyr like um a non well let's see

06:33:39.040 i want to make sure i get the question right maybe you can rephrase it a non-martyr

06:33:43.740 when you say a non-martyr gotta send in more money you can't answer the question

06:33:48.200 well i want to make sure i get the question right because i want to lean i want to lean

06:33:52.940 towards like father seraphim rose but i'm not sure if that would be a non-martyr

06:33:56.960 so i'm just trying to make sure i got it right if you want to call i've got big mike thank you big

06:34:02.300 mike big mike donated 69 dollars i'm protestant my father's a baptist preacher this is my primary

06:34:10.280 concern with our faith women can derive heresies arbitrarily utilizing their own interpretation 0.98

06:34:17.000 what oldies do you listen to andrew i've been listening to this one lately it's it's called um

06:34:23.700 uh well what is what's that oldies called oh yeah yeah yeah it goes something it's like um 0.94

06:34:33.960 it's it this guy has this old school voice and he's like please kill yourself you'd rather be 0.99

06:34:40.520 anywhere but here right now this is annoying this sucks i just they just want to fucking go eat a 0.99

06:34:45.700 cheeseburger that goes something like that it's pretty good good one it's pretty good 0.99

06:34:52.920 saint isaiah donated 69 dollars nse if intelligence were measured by tone you'd be a genius unfortunately

06:35:04.280 it's measured by substance too much equivocation obfuscating and gaslighting for us to see any

06:35:11.320 substance cue the code uh iq is not measured by substance iq is measured by five uh primary factors

06:35:19.140 i'm sure you don't need me to go through them but okay nice try aj bombastic donated 69 dollars

06:35:27.720 natural selection must have been on break while this woman's mother was pregnant with her 1.00

06:35:32.880 i don't even know what they think that that means good one got him we have desert jorge coming in here

06:35:40.560 in just a sec aj bombastic thank you for your tts thank you jorge jorge jorge how do you say

06:35:47.700 in spanish desert judge donated 69 dollars thank you operation paperclip secret u.s program that

06:35:56.100 brought over 1 600 german scientists engineers and technicians to america after world war ii to

06:36:03.980 utilize their expertise for military and technological advancements they got us to the moon after yeah good

06:36:10.540 job well they were doing it during too okay not to anyone's point josh donated 70 dollars

06:36:16.680 the docs was likely on purpose don't do that as a christian you say you respect and honor your husband

06:36:22.500 yet you sit there in a low-cup dress displaying your breasts for every man in the world why uh was not 0.83

06:36:30.620 on purpose and uh this is the dress that my husband picked out and told me that i should wear to this

06:36:35.240 show so take it up with him i don't think i don't think that she would try to dox on purpose

06:36:41.380 i don't think that okay what the heck

06:36:47.000 onus donated 69 dollars i think you should just eat your pizza before it grows mold on it

06:36:56.100 i don't think that's uh i don't think your timeline is good here for mold development it'll be okay

06:37:00.760 don't worry don't worry about my food eating okay thank you onus we have xj law coming in and then

06:37:06.640 onus again and then it looks like we have currently two more after that thank you onus appreciate it

06:37:12.660 guys uh xj laudo last call if you want to get a tts in here guys so desperate to be right she'll 1.00

06:37:19.360 quibble about any minute detail until the audience forgets what they were originally debating then

06:37:24.440 she literally asked sandro for evidence to support her argument lol good reframing good

06:37:30.700 revision of the entire conversation and she's like did what he said i did i didn't

06:37:37.320 yeah the only one quibbling is me donated 69 just eat the pizza already it's growing mold man that guy

06:37:46.740 really wants me to eat this pizza i wonder why you did say if somebody sends in i said 200 oh 200

06:37:51.780 collectively onus if you she said 200 that's her fee that's her her well i'm not making any of this

06:38:00.200 so that's her ask for her to eat the pizza leftists will destroy donated 69 dollars erudite andrew said

06:38:09.580 what we were all thinking you come across as a smug condescending bunnies ps andrew thank you for

06:38:15.900 graping matt dillahunty that guy robbed me of a relationship with god as a kid you're welcome 0.61

06:38:20.960 i'm sure leftists will be destroyed as a really unbiased source of my career

06:38:25.560 thanks for telling me about it

06:38:28.000 king ryan donated 69 dollars appreciate it kyla you think you're being cute and snarky but it

06:38:35.940 actually comes across as condescending andrew was kind to point it out i feel the same you have real

06:38:43.520 potential you always did this is patronizing right by saying come on kid you have real potential 0.98

06:38:48.680 just being a snarky condescending bitch is is actual condescension which is fine i'm not accepting 1.00

06:38:55.680 your advice sorry it's funny she always did she always did actually have potential for this it's 0.99

06:39:00.800 just that she just always came across the audience as being condescending and unlikable 1.00

06:39:05.720 unlike you the most likable man on the planet i mean again the feedback i remember going into the

06:39:12.260 dgg servers years ago and talking to those guys and that was all of their complaints like they hated

06:39:17.600 a lot of the orbiters that's true they hated some less than others a lot of them liked max for a long

06:39:21.940 time for instance but the thing is it's like max i understand that they steered away because he was

06:39:27.500 weird destiny actually kept erudite on for a long time like she had a long time to develop that

06:39:32.920 relationship with that audience and they just never warmed up they just always thought she was

06:39:38.280 unlikable how many times did i go on his stream destiny's oh between bridges not bridges that's not 1.00

06:39:45.200 his stream yes it is no it's nobody tuned into fucking bridges for you erudite they give a fuck 0.98

06:39:50.600 about you when did i say that they that's destiny stream too no it's it's not yeah it's destiny 0.97

06:39:57.080 a large portion of his audience didn't transfer over to bridges most of it all of the audience that did

06:40:01.300 was his i agree yeah so then what are you arguing about i'm saying what bridges was destiny show you

06:40:07.380 were on a show all the time including bridges i was not on his stream most of the time because i am a

06:40:12.240 baby bitch yeah most of the time on both of those are his streams bridges is not his bridges was his 1.00

06:40:19.000 stream okay you were not the appeal for bridges i didn't say i was but i mean i'm just good then it 0.96

06:40:25.980 was destiny stream right no i would say it was dominantly his audience that pulled in why wasn't

06:40:31.120 it dominantly your audience that left with you i think he's like because you never converted you never

06:40:36.220 converted dggers you just didn't do it not you could never get them to really warm up to you i mean 0.99

06:40:42.000 like day one of me attempting to stream i had three viewers like most people and then i talked to

06:40:46.860 destiny and i jumped immediately like 200 so yeah they were checking you out i agree the problem

06:40:52.000 only sexuality well they stayed i maintained 200 for like ever in fact it's like most of my baseline

06:40:56.960 yeah you don't have the same 200 you had originally i didn't maybe you have some of them but the thing

06:41:01.960 is it's interesting is it's like i don't even know i don't even know why is that a rebuttal what is

06:41:06.360 there even to argue here the truth is is that that was the most common complaint from dgg was that

06:41:11.700 you're unlikable it was the most it's the most common complaint about your stream is that you're

06:41:15.900 a very unlikable person i mean the most common they all say she's really hot is that you're a 1.00

06:41:20.700 hypocrite who doesn't live out any of his values because he like purports to be some like trad 0.99

06:41:24.860 conservative man you know what i mean all of that like two years ago you have like a sordid history 1.00

06:41:28.960 of the past right why are you well i don't even know why you're attacking me right now what do you

06:41:33.440 mean i don't know i'm not this isn't even you said if you get personal i get personal if you get

06:41:38.000 this isn't even personal i'm just telling you it's the most common complaint it was i'm telling

06:41:42.580 you the most these guys are asking what they're wondering wait i'm just telling you the most common

06:41:46.080 complaint it's not personal i'm just saying this is the most common complaint of your channel 0.98

06:41:49.180 you know what's is that you're dishonest bad faith and a hypocrite sure from who uh multiple people 0.96

06:41:55.140 that i can name anyone who's not a leftist can you name a specific individual that you've talked to 0.99

06:41:59.800 about this about you oh yeah sure absolutely let's talk about doobie he's right there in the chat

06:42:04.880 yeah he doesn't like me well it's not that he doesn't like you he just knows that the problem

06:42:09.200 with your stream is that you're unlikable that's what he said yeah of course i don't believe you

06:42:14.220 i don't care what you believe ask him i will and you know what he'll say he'll be like well yeah

06:42:20.160 andrew's right i look erudite you're a nice person i like you you're great blah blah blah but yeah the

06:42:25.240 reason that your streams really probably never took off is because you're just kind of supremely

06:42:28.900 unlikable i mean going from it's not just 200 viewers and then maintaining that uh despite

06:42:34.380 basically never really streaming that already puts me in like the top oh one percent and here's

06:42:38.820 the issue i don't think i'm a big streamer i don't really care about any of these things i'm you're

06:42:42.840 just saying i'm not making it personal these are just all the reasons why you uh it's just there's

06:42:46.880 only one reason unlike me the famous conservative this is the reason why you won't make it silly 0.95

06:42:52.220 woman and this is why you know you're kind of bad i'm just it's not bad okay i'm not being 0.91

06:42:57.200 personal i'm just saying you're bad the reason that people don't like you that you don't get

06:43:00.540 badges to certain cons that you would like to go to the reason why you're rejected uh you know

06:43:04.900 the cons no i don't yes you do name one tp usa is a good i never wanted to go okay never i was

06:43:11.760 it was requested that i go no yes it was no you asked for a badge you want the proof uh sure okay

06:43:19.260 here's the proof did they ask you and then not give you why didn't they give you a bad tp usa who asked

06:43:23.920 me i was asked by a third party oh the party so was that me asking i didn't say it was you i said

06:43:30.520 they don't want you there they didn't want you to give you a media pass first of all i don't think

06:43:34.340 that tp usa thinks i have any interest of wanting to go there but if they let myron gains in yeah i

06:43:40.800 don't think i don't think that they rejected you because of status they can't reject the person who

06:43:45.720 doesn't apply you wanted to go and you i never wanted to go i was requested of me by uncensored 0.92

06:43:51.400 america to go that was it when i found out that it was some like fucking bar across the street they 0.98

06:43:57.260 wanted me to debate in i was like yeah fucking right i'm doing that shit uh we have some super 0.99

06:44:05.080 chats idiot 80 uh el guapo hundred dollars super chat thank you i just want to say again since the 1.00

06:44:11.640 man is back the woman is dishonoring her husband by dressing like a bathhouse worker let alone her 1.00

06:44:18.420 heresies where she's inverting scripture did i okay is there any way to like minimize how many 0.99

06:44:24.480 people are paying money to just call me a dirty whore and like insulting my husband could we minimize 1.00

06:44:29.300 that a little bit you do that well you could skip like the rachel wilson one in the same way that 0.99

06:44:32.900 you could probably skip he didn't skip it though he should have accidentally but he didn't i did i 0.97

06:44:36.840 texted rachel so now he didn't i'm sorry rachel i fucked up but he didn't by the way i fucked up a lot 0.99

06:44:42.220 i do think it's fine to skip those i did i did spill i did spill andrew's beer that's true that is 0.78

06:44:49.400 the biggest fuck up uh doobie i feel lucky to have met you both when you started this journey happy to 0.76

06:44:54.060 see you both grow and hope you're doing well i'm doing nice thank you for the nice message doobie 0.96

06:44:59.040 appreciate it we have uh she's trying to submit i don't know what currency that is what is that 0.89

06:45:05.080 two two million of anybody chat what currency is that she's trying to submit christians 0.77

06:45:10.960 nathan can you figure out what currency that is tell me what the chat is saying

06:45:14.620 uh she's trying to submit christians why would it be okay to rule christians but not for christians to 0.99

06:45:19.180 rule submit to your man not only pretend to honor him let the christians rule america got degenerated

06:45:24.800 she might be narcissistic no long-term plan how about truth and honesty for once

06:45:29.200 okay what okay what is it i'm not nathan are they saying they probably aren't sure it's very

06:45:38.340 obscure maybe he can send in another two million whatever that is to probably like three dollars

06:45:42.400 it's probably like two dollars i was gonna say it's probably like they'll send like i'll actually

06:45:46.240 stop the chat and i'll look up the denomination and if it's if it's only like 350 i just kick the

06:45:51.820 person from the channel i'll get that from argentina they'll send like 5 000 but it's like three

06:45:56.120 yeah three dollars and 50 cents it's don vietnamese dong oh that's the same one again uh i just

06:46:03.500 want to say again since the man is back he sent it again oh he sent it just multiple times this is

06:46:08.240 a subsequent one uh dishonoring her husband by dressing like let alone her heresies where she's 0.99

06:46:14.420 inverting scripture from again husband bought me the dress likes when i wear it encourage me to

06:46:18.580 wear it here and i'll have to take that off with my husband thousand vietnamese dong

06:46:23.300 77 dollars okay that's pretty good hey we shouldn't by the way uh respect shout out vietnam

06:46:32.080 w vietnam w vietnam love that place w vietnam uh okay some tts has come through

06:46:40.060 mikey mike donated 69 dollars kyla the more you talk the harder you make it to underestimate you

06:46:49.540 wait that would be a compliment no it's the opposite the heart the more you talk it's harder

06:46:54.760 to underestimate you yeah okay that means that if you're not talking it would be easy to

06:47:00.940 underestimate you but since you're not talking right it's harder to underestimate you yeah so i

06:47:06.620 prove that i'm more worth esteem or more worth respecting when i talk versus i'm sure that's not

06:47:11.580 what he meant he probably meant to say the opposite but he's definitely saying uh you know no he definitely

06:47:16.360 wasn't he was definitely saying that the more because you talk so much i find it hard to

06:47:21.520 underestimate you that's what he's saying okay we have doobie here oh he sent it doobie donated 69

06:47:29.920 he sent it as a tts i feel lucky to have met you both when you started this journey happy to see you

06:47:35.920 both grow and hope you're doing well yeah nice to see you doobie well doobie thank you for doobie has a

06:47:41.100 rough gig over there he runs the politics discord and it's the largest political discord i think in

06:47:48.260 the world and it's like he has so many people there it's like a small city and so we have old man talks

06:47:55.020 literally old man talks they're great talks i like doobie me too all right we have christian

06:48:02.800 imperialist and then xj law christian imperialist donated 69 dollars kayla docks is andrew but 0.87

06:48:11.160 won't name names you preach kindness then make false accusations feign outrage and play victim 0.99

06:48:18.840 calling you joyful is an insult to whores whores are likable you're a ct yikes good one good christian 1.00

06:48:29.540 values by the way right there amazing i feel like you guys 69 i feel like i've haven't i wonder 0.99

06:48:34.320 whose audience she can claw while taking offense to any valid criticism have an inkling of self

06:48:41.100 awareness and disappear with dignity back into obscurity i'm not respect you for it uh i'm not

06:48:47.600 interested in dunks i'm interested in good conversation which is why i'm disappointed by

06:48:50.800 the conversation with andrew because i know he's fully capable of it but he wasn't willing to engage

06:48:54.140 in it which is too bad from her perspective what she means by by bad faith is when i actually make

06:49:00.400 arguments and i make arguments based on the worldview that she has and show that hers is

06:49:05.200 fucking insane it makes no sense bad faith by what i mean by it i've been very clear yeah and i'm going 0.88

06:49:10.680 to define that by what you here's what you say bad faith is versus what you actually think bad faith 0.99

06:49:16.400 is because you call every fucking person bad faith i don't rob nor bad faith uh sometimes i said 0.98

06:49:22.560 everyone's bad faith they're all bad faith wait i said from the very beginning is rob nor mostly 0.98

06:49:26.640 bad faith i don't think so no i've had really good debates with rob nor okay so he's mostly good

06:49:30.760 faith uh a lot of the time yeah okay gotcha so when you're on destiny stream and you say

06:49:34.860 rob nor is extremely bad faith what did you mean by that uh that in many instances rob nor is i

06:49:42.000 don't know if i actually said that in many instances wait didn't i also recommend rob nor to

06:49:46.040 lex friedman show because they were looking for good conservatives that are good faith and i said you

06:49:49.440 should have rob nor are you were on the lex friedman show i wasn't on it lex was looking

06:49:54.120 for conservatives to come on a debate and i suggested rob nor specifically yeah who else

06:49:58.280 were you going to suggest who's a good debater that what i could have suggested tons of other

06:50:03.420 conservatives who uh uh counterpoints terrible debater jeb tan well jeb tan is actually a good

06:50:10.140 debater but jeb tan jeb tan's very obscure as a problem uh lactoid very obscure rob nor at the

06:50:18.320 time i was recommending it was also obscure he's still bigger than those guys uh so i mean he's

06:50:24.080 the most logical so you're saying i didn't know what i'm saying is that you have bad faith many

06:50:29.520 many times yeah i've called most people bad faith exactly well hold on the issue is oh no your whole

06:50:35.040 point is i'm saying everyone's just bad faith all the time but everyone bad no i said most people are

06:50:39.800 bad faith some of the time including me which is what i said to you i don't know if you remember that

06:50:43.200 and i said people are also good faith many of the time and in our previous exchange andrew and i had a

06:50:47.080 good faith conversation which was why it's an interesting debate and in this conversation you

06:50:50.040 mostly referred to bad faith tactics which sucks but it is what it is yeah i feel like it's the

06:50:54.520 opposite okay what that's just how you feel though man well yeah well objectively it's the opposite

06:50:59.340 what do you mean aren't we just assuming everything how is it objective for instance when i said no

06:51:03.860 objectivity can exist though because we're assuming for instance when i said hey kyla why don't we just

06:51:08.280 do i'll do a cross exam and then you can do a cross exam we can just do it that way and you're

06:51:13.180 like no no no no no i need i must break up the monotony of getting to the thing that i want to

06:51:19.140 get to and let me bring up agrippa's trilemma which i wasn't moving towards at all you were

06:51:23.980 incapable of allowing a cross exam and it's because you're bad faith wait i allowed you to cross exam

06:51:29.800 me multiple times in fact multiple points we said you're not going to answer this question i said

06:51:32.760 write it down i'll answer the question to answer most of the questions i refuse to answer almost every

06:51:37.580 question that i asked you you respond with a question give me one then that i oh sure i asked you i was

06:51:43.020 like well let's talk about how this interjects with uh consensus i said when it comes to consensus

06:51:50.200 how do we get to the point where if the consensus is that we have christianity you know take up the

06:51:56.480 mantle uh why would that be in some way a bad thing do you think that christianity taking taking that up

06:52:02.000 would be a bad thing literally stuff it was it was like that what did i say debate i said i don't think

06:52:06.560 christian christianity taking up the mantle necessarily but i think it is bad though if they

06:52:09.760 impose what you did was you answered most of your questions with questions that's bad that's not

06:52:14.520 true i answered most of your questions with answers and some of them with questions and you can also

06:52:19.300 answer questions with questions okay i'll tell you what you're allowed how about how about five dollars

06:52:23.420 you can afford five how about five dollars most of the questions no yes most most of the questions i

06:52:29.700 asked you you responded with a question first but and i had to literally beat the answer out of you

06:52:36.400 i like 80 when you say most over 50 that's okay okay no i do not believe that most of the questions i

06:52:44.620 answered pull it pull it wait what did you want me to no no later yeah i'll have the clippers pull it

06:52:53.260 i want my five dollars i'll mount it next to the west watson five dollars sure but i'll bet i'll bet

06:52:58.660 it's over 50 percent of the time that when i asked her a question she would respond with a question

06:53:03.480 first and then it would have to wait out of her the answer when you say a question do you mean a

06:53:07.060 clarifying question of what you mean by your question just any question is that bad faith to

06:53:12.360 if you say you pose me a question and you use a bunch of loaded words let's just say debate questions

06:53:16.440 still the same i would say clarifying your questions is not bad yeah not we can even take clarifying

06:53:22.240 questions out and i still think that over 50 percent of the time you answered with a question

06:53:27.780 and i had to beat the actual answer out of you okay whereas i think the opposite's true with me

06:53:34.440 in fact i'll clip it both ways when you ask me a question i bet you most of the time i said yes

06:53:39.560 or no yes or no yes i bet you anything yeah i'll bet you i'll literally give you another you'll grant

06:53:45.820 that that you answer that i answer questions but you don't no no no i well no i said that you answered

06:53:50.780 my questions but i've never know you're just bad you but you accused me the whole debate of being

06:53:55.240 bad faith but i answered all your questions bad faith can mean more than oh what does it mean

06:53:59.300 what does it mean it typically means that you are acting as though you were under the like

06:54:03.580 guise or interest of one thing but you're actually under the guise or interest of something else

06:54:07.280 with this can include an internal criticism how what you can utilize an internal critique by adopting

06:54:13.920 the worldview of the opposition that's not bad faith that would be exactly but that what is bad

06:54:19.680 faith what is bad faith is pretending as though you actually granted me a gripper's trilemma

06:54:23.640 to appeal to absurdism that's adopting the position no because you weren't actually adopting the

06:54:28.300 position because you refuse to actually adopt the position you just have to adopt the position for

06:54:33.840 the purpose of the debate no you have to adopt it genuinely if you're saying no you don't that's

06:54:38.280 not an internal critique you have to grant i can't internally critique brian on being a degenerate

06:54:42.600 unless i in fact adopt that i'm now a degenerate that's not what i said yeah then what are you saying

06:54:47.380 well with a gripper's trilemma you didn't actually adopt it because you just used it to insist that

06:54:51.360 moral objectivity can't exist but of course moral objectivity can and does exist despite the fact

06:54:56.240 that a gripper's trilemma is unsolved by all philosophical systems that's a contradiction

06:55:00.060 as you'll find out that's literally be and not be it's not no claims could be justified but also

06:55:07.040 objective truth and objective morality is real can you justify that no so were you lying like what so

06:55:13.560 were you lying when you pretended that you were granting me it and that you were working for my

06:55:17.080 how was that pretending if i grant it to you because you were saying i believe this now too

06:55:21.200 was that that's adopting the position wait no you said no i literally believe this and i said no that's

06:55:26.320 adopting the position it can't hurt me ever if you make the the bold claim that all adoptations of any

06:55:35.820 worldview reduce to a supposition which is unjustified you can't even tell me why it would be

06:55:42.160 unjustified for me to be bad fucking faith what i don't know which which part of that was confusing 0.78

06:55:49.180 all of it do you want me to repeat it sure oh yeah sure so if all axioms are unjustified right if

06:55:56.260 there is no justification for any of the various things that we're doing period because it all just

06:56:01.140 reduces to whatever our arbitrary preferences are then and that's what it would reduce to and it would

06:56:06.420 be a moral anti-realism nope then me even being bad faith you couldn't even critique that you could

06:56:11.520 just say oh you're bad faith but as long as it reduces to an axiom where i'm bad faith because

06:56:16.240 it's a tautology a bad faith because i'm bad faith then it's fine to be bad so then i asked you okay so

06:56:20.980 since you're rejecting what i'm proposing how do you i never have to answer that how do you solve a

06:56:26.340 gripper's trilemma you don't have to of course you do if i present you i have to because if i present 0.59

06:56:31.060 this fucking thousand year old because you're pretending as though it's not a like strong argument 0.92

06:56:35.660 against what you're saying so i'm presenting like i don't even need to i can just adopt the view 0.98

06:56:39.980 and you're refusing to makes my point no the issue is what i'm saying is here's like comparatively

06:56:44.420 the youth of pro dilemma how do you solve it and you're going a circle youth of pro dilemma itself

06:56:49.040 is circular so it doesn't matter and nothing's real it's never said anything about the trolley

06:56:52.460 problem isn't true those are two things you continuously brought up never mentioned them

06:56:56.200 once you're right i'm using them analogously i can adopt correct i can adopt the entirety

06:57:00.560 of the view of i'm asking you to solve a trolley problem or a gripper's trilemma and you won't

06:57:06.800 solve it you can't well the the troll you want me to solve the trolley problem no i want you to solve

06:57:11.120 a gripper's trilemma okay but again it's unnecessary to do so if it's granted and we've destroyed all

06:57:16.920 moral realism the christian nationalism itself you would could have no objection to because

06:57:21.900 there's no moral there's no moral facts you obviously object to this there's no reason to

06:57:25.820 object to it but you do no literally i'm going to explain this in really small words there's no reason

06:57:31.180 for me to ever object to a worldview which affirms that if i institute christian nationalism you can't

06:57:37.700 object to it morally there's never a reason for me to go against that ever it's not my worldview or

06:57:44.080 anything it is your worldview you don't know it it's going to get pointed out to you a million times

06:57:48.140 i'm sure your audience is going to be super super happy to clip up dishonest people pick the whole

06:57:53.040 thing up you'll see okay so the issue is can you solve a gripper's trilemma if you think that a

06:57:58.280 gripper's trilemma necessarily means that there's no moral objectivity you obviously believe that

06:58:01.540 there is something that is moral objectivity so how do you solve a gripper's trilemma why do i need to

06:58:05.480 engage in that in a debate about christian nationalism because if i provide you a philosophical test of

06:58:09.820 thinking it's the same thing if i present like a pro-lifer the trolley problem you need to engage in

06:58:14.280 it because it's a test of logic listen if it's an honest interlocutor you know to be an honest

06:58:19.420 interlocutor all you ever have to do ever if a person gives you the view and the argument for their view

06:58:25.220 in this case your argument for your view was that all moral claims reductions to axioms those

06:58:30.740 reductions in axiom are suppositions therefore there's no moral facts therefore everything is

06:58:37.020 positions they're often yeah they're all there you're you're literally saying this is not

06:58:42.500 objectively true you're destroying the possibility i never said that i said that they're unjustifiable

06:58:47.820 and so if you reject this i say that's fine how do you ask you how do they how do they exist

06:58:53.160 outside of the mind you have to say because i suppose they do it's a subjective how do you

06:58:57.840 think it's contradictory i don't need to ever answer so you never have to engage in a gripper's

06:59:02.580 trilemma because you know that it's defeating and you don't want to engage because that's fine to my 1.00

06:59:06.040 worldview it supports it doesn't hurt it it it's actually you getting out of my way for christian

06:59:12.660 nationalism is good and great none of this does this it does you refusing to engage with a

06:59:18.760 philosophical test of logic just proves that you're afraid of this test of logic oh i can

06:59:23.600 just answer it honestly and you won't all right okay okay we've got some chats coming

06:59:29.720 i am kangles donated 69 thank you iron he said popular not famous correct he isn't nice but he's

06:59:38.680 honest equals likable you want likable be real enough to take a bite of that nothing authentic about

06:59:46.060 you arguing over his opinion equals low status okay uh kangles thank you very much we have oh wait

06:59:55.180 did i just miss one uh oh no desert judge donated 69 or hey thank you oh andrew a few of us showed up

07:00:04.920 to that on ck america destiny chick show in phoenix before we got the word you and myron got dissed by

07:00:11.820 them we have a bottle of as bourbon with your name on it fair sorry you guys showed up there it's too

07:00:18.300 bad thank you desert jorge thank you george we got king ryan here king ryan donated 69 she answered

07:00:28.120 questions with a question 34 times up until hour three i have already downloaded transcribed it and put

07:00:35.960 it through grok check my work sounds right can you give us the opposition of how many times can

07:00:42.080 you give us the opposition of how many times i answered a question with a question wait first

07:00:46.380 of all the questions have to be non-clarifying questions oh lord that's what you agreed to and

07:00:50.580 i've never said that you didn't that you wouldn't answer uh that you uh i never accused you of this

07:00:56.120 thing yeah no i'm accusing you of it i'm saying that that's bad faith then why do we care about

07:01:00.680 whether because it's bad faith it's not bad it is bad faith to answer questions with questions no it

07:01:05.680 is not can i ask you a question yeah okay um which way is up okay you see how easy that was

07:01:14.680 why would it why would there be a requirement that you ask me a question about that well sometimes if

07:01:20.020 were you using terms that could be loaded and ambiguous i need to clarify what you mean by

07:01:24.320 bad or good or better do you think most of those questions were clarifications or do you think most

07:01:29.200 those questions was you saying what would you do then what would you do a lot of them were

07:01:32.980 clarifying questions and then there was multiple times where i tried to turn your question on

07:01:36.200 yourself to internally critique you to highlight that your internal critique of me and being like

07:01:40.860 look how absurd and unjustifiable it is falls apart for you too that's typically what i was doing

07:01:44.620 but that helps my position it doesn't help your position it doesn't it doesn't matter if the 0.96

07:01:50.360 entire morality of the thing falls apart that me implementing whatever the fuck i want 0.90

07:01:54.540 is fine like i don't know why you don't get that because j dyer tried to show you that too but

07:02:00.340 yeah j dyer the king of philosophy truly

07:02:02.820 hxctx are donated 69 dollars oh boy i'll happily oblige brian new belly rubbing burrito loving

07:02:13.500 beer dropping brown turd shirt wearing f slur also arrogance and ignorance are never a good look and

07:02:20.360 always a bad combo uridite probably learned to spell thank you why would i ever need to respond to

07:02:28.720 this in a serious way okay cool it's just christian imperialist donated 69 dollars christian values like

07:02:37.800 god's commandment thou shalt not suffer a witch to live or in hox signo vincis tell me how women w 1.00

07:02:44.180 slash three or more abortions don't meet the clinical criteria of a serial killer

07:02:49.320 what is in hox signo vincis what is that do you guys know i do not know i'm not familiar with it

07:02:57.780 i also don't know if it's god's commandment that well thank you christian imperialist donated 69

07:03:03.160 thank you xj bad faith is her crutch and her biggest projection deadly combination of ignorance and

07:03:09.520 dishonesty because she can't bear to accept her fragile ego being destroyed nathan can you lower 0.79

07:03:15.400 the volume to 80 for us uh thank you xj appreciate it i don't know if you wanted to respond to that

07:03:20.580 uh volume i don't know what i would respond with

07:03:23.420 okay uh we have body iq body ik donated 69 dollars great performance kyla props on engaging for hours with

07:03:35.440 painfully bad faith andrew who can't open an olive jar and personally insults you while acting as

07:03:41.000 though he said nothing offensive i don't really think i said much offensive no okay did i yeah well 0.96

07:03:49.820 i mean you went like you always go nuclear you're like you're fat and you're this you said i'm unsaved 0.88

07:03:57.100 well no i didn't say that that's a you did no i never said that not a christian nope never said 0.90

07:04:02.480 that either i said i was you asked me are you questioning my faith i said yes i said do you

07:04:08.320 think i'm not a christian you said well actually came and said yeah she's not a christian she's not

07:04:11.380 a christian that never happened okay look do you want to bet on that one too uh sure okay i'm not

07:04:17.980 100 100 i don't have a hundred dollars you don't have a hundred dollars no not for this you might 0.93

07:04:22.620 have a hundred dollars you're more popular because you weren't so fucking unlikable just saying 0.88

07:04:27.160 is it was that personal or is that not personal i'm not sure well it's just a true statement it's 0.90

07:04:32.060 just uh it's true but it can't be an insult it's true so it can't be an insult got it maybe that 0.99

07:04:37.180 well it's true that you're overweight it's true that you're a hypocrite well that's not true 0.99

07:04:41.240 that's definitely true oh what's the hypocrisy uh your entire worldview versus like the way that 0.99

07:04:45.720 you live you offer like so much grace to yourself and almost no grace to others who do i not offer

07:04:50.000 grace to uh me most other people what grace have not offered you uh you uh sit here and tell me 0.98

07:04:55.500 that i'm not saved i didn't tell you i never said that that never fucking happened yes it did no it 0.95

07:05:01.560 didn't i made it up why then did i go on a long conversation about raka because what happened was 0.62

07:05:07.020 you said are you going to question my faith and i said yes that's not saying no no my salvation

07:05:12.700 yes even quite even if i said that are you i have a question yes i'm questioning this that's not

07:05:18.360 saying you aren't the thing you were not saying it in this like i'm just not sure doesn't matter

07:05:21.880 yeah i'm questioning whether or not you're ever said you were unsaved it never happened you made

07:05:26.320 it up you have no opinion on whether or not i have salvation i i'm not going to make a salvific claim

07:05:30.240 but i can definitely question a salvific claim so do you think i'm a christian

07:05:34.420 well based on what you've said here um i would question the veracity of the christianity yes okay so

07:05:43.420 then why would i clarified before when you came and said yeah she's not a christian i said wait are you

07:05:46.580 saying that i'm not saved i'm not well that's different than making a salvific yeah i am saying

07:05:50.340 that and i said well i would be very cautious i wouldn't engage in a salvific claim which i did

07:05:54.760 not make sure you weren't commenting on my salvation i would say i would say i wouldn't even say christian

07:05:59.620 i would say heresy i think you're a heretic sure that's fine that you think that but when you say

07:06:03.620 i'm not a christian you were obviously commenting on my status of salvation no that's not commenting

07:06:07.720 on your salvation i think that there's non-christians who can be saved okay like one like like what 0.99

07:06:14.760 like how well i don't know what the methodologies of gods are the orthodox church be saved the

07:06:19.080 orthodox church would never make a salvific claim so how can a non-christian be saved well because 0.99

07:06:24.000 we don't know the dominion of god and there could be instances where there could be instances of

07:06:29.260 people who we would consider to be heretics or something like this who could potentially be saved

07:06:34.120 we would not think that that's likely but it's possible so you think i'm not a christian but maybe

07:06:40.260 i'm still saved i would not make a salvific claim just saying it's it's see it if we're looking at

07:06:45.540 likelihoods if you're not a christian the likelihood of your salvation is much lower than your likelihood

07:06:50.780 if you had salvation i don't know why you're running from this so there's no running i that's

07:06:54.880 literally a coherent answer i am not a christian you don't think i'm a christian that's not the same

07:06:59.260 as saying you're unsaved uh for by and large it does no by and large is not the same as saying it

07:07:05.620 though uh you're right it's it's implying it no it's not even implying it it's just saying that

07:07:10.280 your chances if you were a christian of being saved are much higher than if they're not that's

07:07:15.480 all it's so i'm asking for an example of a non-christian who's saved again i don't how would

07:07:19.920 i have access to that information so you think that i might be one of those it's possible i just

07:07:25.000 think that the chances and likelihood of non-christians being saved are very low gotcha so

07:07:29.360 then when i said you probably shouldn't comment on my salvation you shouldn't call me like you

07:07:32.620 shouldn't say like raca why did you fight against me on that what do you mean i didn't i didn't say

07:07:37.340 you're unsaved well it was pretty clear that i was taking it to suggest that i'm not a christian

07:07:40.780 you're taking it i didn't say that uh you did say that i'm not a christian say it well i didn't

07:07:45.640 say you were unsaved though okay what's what where's p and not p where's the contradiction

07:07:52.200 the contradiction here is that there are obvious implications when people that are sending in are

07:07:56.480 saying that i'm not christians are contradictions you agree with the tts that comes through

07:08:00.060 and then when i clarify and i say are you saying that i'm not saved that i'm not christian you said

07:08:04.340 yes are implications contradictions um they can be no they can't of course how can an implication be a

07:08:11.440 contradiction because if i say for example like i think feminists are just uh x right but by all the 1.00

07:08:17.940 ways that i engage around talking about feminists it's clear that i i say feminism is just about the 1.00

07:08:22.120 equality of sexist but the only way that i engage around feminism is talking poorly of men being 0.86

07:08:26.580 misandrist yeah and trying to take away men's rights well just because i say all these things

07:08:31.080 doesn't mean that we would imply that that might make an inference of hypocrisy or something like

07:08:35.700 this but it's not a propositional contradiction sure it's not a propositional contradiction it's

07:08:40.380 not a contradiction of my worldview no it's not even contradicting your worldview sure if i say that 0.99

07:08:45.100 i'm for the worldview that feminists are evil and yourself be a feminist there's no fucking 1.00

07:08:50.700 contradiction there okay there's none okay what's the contradiction where's p and not p i would say 0.99

07:08:58.800 that if you say i believe in x and then all of your actions the way that you talk about it suggest

07:09:03.460 that you believe in y then yeah we would go maybe you don't actually believe implications aren't

07:09:07.980 contradictions propositions have contradictions you're pointing to like maybe hypocrisy maybe yeah

07:09:15.820 maybe that's not a contradiction though it could be well could hypocrisy contradictory of your worldview

07:09:22.300 is it possible that hypocrisy can propositionally be a contradiction maybe but hypocrisy is not

07:09:28.360 contradiction contradictions are propositional so there are things that exist outside of deductive

07:09:34.240 logic right inductive logic yeah and so one of the things that we can utilize with inductive logic

07:09:38.580 is like what it implies that's well that's inductive reasoning yeah that's not inductive logic

07:09:43.520 will we use inductive logic for inductive reasoning no you don't need to use inductive logic for

07:09:48.040 inductive reasoning either okay there's well you can smirk but what's the difference between do you

07:09:55.380 know that there's a difference between reason and logic right yeah okay so then when i say inductive

07:09:59.860 reason does that require inductive logic typically yeah okay typically or does yeah kind of does i don't

07:10:05.900 know what okay so inductive reasoning we're doing if we're not utilizing yeah so what is reason then

07:10:09.560 huh what is reason i'm not sure you did is reason logic they're not one-to-one so what is reason

07:10:16.720 what are we doing right now asking you what reason is how did we get here from because i'm trying to

07:10:21.740 figure out if inductive logic and inductive reason are the same things that's not what you're trying 0.98

07:10:25.500 to do see what i mean it's obfuscation again oh it was bad faith i just never answer any fucking 0.98

07:10:31.720 questions that when you said that i wasn't a christian i said are you saying that i'm not saved that i'm not 0.65

07:10:36.180 a christian never said you were you never said i said it and you agreed to it never happened okay

07:10:40.940 i mean just making it up i didn't say you were unsaved okay a heretic yes unsaved didn't make

07:10:49.700 that claim okay you want more tequila i didn't literally say the words i'll have one more shot

07:10:55.420 yeah uh one more shot please garçon garçon one more shot what's the difference between reason

07:11:01.280 and logic what are we doing right now that's the difference what are we doing i don't really drink

07:11:05.000 anymore yeah thanks so what are we doing right now what are we doing right now two chats based justin

07:11:11.420 donated 69 the woman is dishonoring the debate dot by dressing like a bathhouse worker and not eating 1.00

07:11:18.960 the pizza very bad faith just eat the pizza i think it's increasingly weird that all these tts

07:11:26.160 really want me to eat the pizza it might suggest what i was going to before around why they want

07:11:31.400 me to eat the pizza justice is justice do you disagree and donated justice is what's just

07:11:39.240 questions responded to with a question up until hour three kyla 34 total 13 clarifying andrew

07:11:47.820 18 total five clarifying insults andrew to kyla 12 kyla to andrew eight that's not what we're

07:11:55.580 trying to test here we're trying to ask so kyla insulted me more than her or has insulted me more

07:12:00.360 than i've insulted her and has answered questions including clarifying what depends on what he's

07:12:05.820 defining as asking he's been she's yeah so she no he put the clarifying questions he said clarifying

07:12:11.780 questions this many i agree the issue is that the the issue wasn't whether or not i asked clarifying

07:12:16.080 questions or answered with questions it was whether or not 80 percent of my responses to your questions

07:12:20.760 was questions faith it's not bad faith it was bad it is bad faith there's nothing definitially bad

07:12:26.620 what you just did when i asked you about reason versus logic when you made the claim and you're

07:12:30.920 like what are we even doing right now total bad faith it's all bad faith because you won't respond

07:12:35.560 to what i'm asking you not responding isn't bad faith oh okay okay then

07:12:40.920 uh we have our he doesn't look vietnamese though is the thing but it maybe he's it's i don't know

07:12:49.780 uh if you're interested in good conversations lady why the hell are you not acknowledging andrew's top 0.61

07:12:54.140 tier game here he was maybe five percent bad faith and yours was magnitudes higher watch the conversation

07:13:01.580 again multiple times you won't try to change your style you do have the equipment but it's corrupt i think

07:13:08.460 i've acknowledged multiple times that andrew's talented i think on my stream i regularly get mad

07:13:13.280 at my stream when they try to be like andrew's just stupid and he's bad at debating i'm like that's not 0.77

07:13:17.420 true at all andrew's good at debating and he's not stupid he's often bad faith which frustrates like 0.95

07:13:21.740 phil bro uh autist but how are you good at debating if you're just bad faith uh because debating that be

07:13:27.760 the opposite of being a good debater i mean i would argue on like debate purist but a lot of people get

07:13:31.780 uh like sucked in like your audience based on like rhetoric and like um reframing of conversations and

07:13:38.340 um i didn't reframe shit in fact that was you ask ask chat gpt the same question how many times 0.94

07:13:44.600 did kyla reframe versus andrew what that's what he's using i think is well i don't think chat gpt but

07:13:51.980 youtube actually has a built-in ai that it's just you can yeah just ask about reframing it's like it's

07:13:59.220 not even close it's literally all projection the idea is like andrew's bad faith how do you know that

07:14:04.980 because i was bad faith the entire time it's just like okay you know i answer questions with

07:14:10.900 questions i reframe i do all the shit but andrew's the way he's the bad guy andrew's bad i didn't say 0.92

07:14:16.080 you're a bad guy i don't think it's immoral to be bad faith uh super chat here from abe thank you abe 0.60

07:14:20.540 if every non-inferential commitment is dogma then logic itself is dogma but if logic is dogma

07:14:26.980 argument collapses so either presuppositions are legitimate or skepticism self-destructs

07:14:32.980 uh presuppositions you can engage in dogmatism to build a foundational axiom system this is what

07:14:38.260 people do all the time you can also engage in infinite regression to be like we just do this

07:14:42.440 all the time and that's okay look you're never you're never going to convince her on this dude

07:14:47.220 ever you're never going to engage with a gripper's trilemma are you you're never going to solve it 1.00

07:14:51.020 this guy's engaging with you don't even understand what he's saying i do understand he's trying to say

07:14:55.580 that presuppositions basically are not no back it up do you want me to actually explain what he's saying

07:15:00.200 because i will sure okay back up the super chat real quick uh i might have i unstarted so i don't

07:15:09.740 know if i'm gonna because what you focused on was presupposition what he gave you was this was

07:15:13.700 actually an informal syllogism he was trying to show you something important but if you back it up i'll

07:15:18.400 show you give me a moment here will you solve for gripper's trilemia or are you going to continue

07:15:25.740 what is it well i said you this is like the one thing i'm going to keep asking you to do you can

07:15:29.600 ask me a million times and you're not but if your worldview just allows for me to do what i want

07:15:33.760 then i'm just going to do that but my worldview doesn't allow you but it does you just don't know

07:15:37.540 it nope okay solve a gripper's trilemma then if a gripper's trilemma is true the moral facts are

07:15:43.580 destroyed nope yep no yep nope yep yes they are and solve for a gripper's trilemma how do you don't need to

07:15:54.500 it's moral facts are destroyed how do you not engage in dogmatism as a as a presuppositionalist

07:15:59.180 do you how how would it ever in a million years hurt my position to adopt that all moral facts are

07:16:05.080 destroyed therefore i can do what i want when we're arguing about christian nationalism that you can do

07:16:09.620 whatever you want yeah it was the debate on a gripper's trilemma or christian nationalism christian

07:16:14.560 nationalism so if you adopt a gripper's trilemma and it helps me with christian nationalism

07:16:19.380 why would i ever engage in gripper's trilemma okay so here's what he says why would you not engage with

07:16:24.140 he says every non-inferential commitment is dogma meaning every commitment you make that's not

07:16:30.880 inferred then logic itself is dogma this this is the start for what his argument is so is logic itself

07:16:38.560 dogma uh the the structure of logic is dogma no it's just okay so what is logic itself if it's

07:16:47.060 not a dogma it's a system by which we uh try to analyze moral claims and it and then he says but

07:16:53.180 if logic is dogma the argument has to collapse because presuppositions are legitimate and you

07:16:59.140 just presupposed that dogma that logic's not dogma uh logic like the system of logic isn't dogma but

07:17:07.560 presupposing is dogma is is logic a social construction which can be changed uh no i would

07:17:12.800 say it objectively exists outside of us and is that dogma uh to assume like a equals a tautologically

07:17:19.240 as it would be dogma yeah then you just he's right you just refuted your own argument i didn't refute

07:17:23.900 my own argument okay all all i don't know how you can say logic is dogma but not dogma how how do you

07:17:30.680 engage in how do you have a belief system that doesn't fail a gripper's trilemma by either dogma

07:17:35.160 infinite regression or circular reasoning yeah but his his question i'm going to ask you again when

07:17:39.360 you're finished talking his question okay good his question is referring to is logic dogma answer no

07:17:45.240 then when asked about presupposition answer yes it's p and not p no it's presuppositionalism logic

07:17:51.900 no he's he's asking about you presupposing whether or not logic is dogma or not you say logic is dogma

07:17:58.560 and then when i don't say logic is dogma i say that logic is a system i presuppose god i assume god

07:18:04.120 so logic is is logic as a system dogmatic uh so it's unchanging it's unchanged it's not what dogmatic

07:18:12.960 means it's a fact dogmatic assumes okay wait a second let's let's make sure we got this right

07:18:19.160 logic itself is it a social construction which can be changed uh is it a social construction that logic

07:18:28.260 exists uh no and yes what does that mean i i don't really know what you're meaning here when you ask

07:18:33.980 can i can you can you change the laws of logic um sometimes like for example some things that we

07:18:40.420 would argue logically are fallacious like uh through like inductive logic be like later go

07:18:44.640 actually it's not fallacious i'm not asking about fallacies i'm asking about the laws of logic

07:18:49.040 fallacies are like evidences of like logic i'm just asking about the laws of logic though how are

07:18:54.180 fallacies not relevant let's start with this laws of logic do you and i agree on what those are

07:18:59.880 like the three laws yeah yeah okay and so you agree with me it's the law of identity

07:19:06.200 excluded middle and then what's the last one uh fuck i would need to look it up i don't have it on 0.82

07:19:11.720 the top of my head don't i look it up yeah well it's it's non-contradiction yes law of non-contradiction 0.81

07:19:18.100 yeah are those dogmatic or changeable um law of identity i'm sorry are they are they social

07:19:24.220 constructs are changeable uh well some people for like some people argue against law of non-contradiction

07:19:31.580 right okay so that one might be changeable but i think like taught a lot like a equals a law of

07:19:37.260 identity i think that that one's like pretty irreducible right it's like a tautology is is the

07:19:42.080 law of identity a thing which is a social construct or is the thing which is is changeable that would be

07:19:49.560 the same thing right no how is social construct because you can change all social constructs that's

07:19:55.380 what i'm saying yeah so is the law of identity a social construction or not i think it exists

07:20:00.460 exists objectively outside of us okay so it's not a social construction uh the law of identity no but

07:20:07.820 like the way that we talk about and describe it might be okay so but the law itself is not a social

07:20:11.820 construction no okay you so when you say that you agree that you're making a claim that this

07:20:19.500 is now objective truth yeah okay so you're not assuming that then well you are assuming a you

07:20:25.940 because that's what do you think a tautology is but now you've created a contradiction how are you

07:20:31.540 not assuming tautologies because what he's saying to you is that if it's the case that you say this

07:20:38.620 thing is true absent the mind but then you say no it's assumed that requires a mind that's p and not p

07:20:44.780 well it's assumed for us because we have to but like then that requires outside of us it can't we

07:20:49.420 can't be both that's a contradiction it's p and not p it's not a contradiction it is how can you say

07:20:55.260 that a thing requires a mind but doesn't require a mind so the existence of the tautologies doesn't

07:21:01.240 require a mind they exist outside of us right axioms can exist outside of us okay so the law of

07:21:05.460 identity exists outside of us so it's not assumed well of course it's assumed then it's now in the

07:21:12.560 category of requires how is it not assumed because well this is the whole problem that he's pointing

07:21:17.180 out to you if it's the case that you say it exists outside of a mind you're not assuming it anymore the

07:21:22.720 second you say no i am assuming it that requires a mind otherwise can't be assumed what can assume a

07:21:27.600 thing that's not a mind uh something can exist outside of us observing it obviously yeah sure but

07:21:33.260 what could assume a thing without a mind uh nothing but i don't know how you sell for a grip

07:21:38.240 so that again this is how do you sell for a grip but hang on before we get to that dogmatism

07:21:43.340 how can you possibly claim that you're not now in contradiction when you say this thing

07:21:49.400 exists objectively outside of assumption but must be assumed that's p and not p oh because i'm

07:21:55.940 granting that essentially all things are unjustified at the fundamental level right so that's it's all

07:22:00.400 subjective required mind metric not subjective so how do you solve if you if you're saying do you

07:22:06.000 think a equals a you ask me a question doesn't help you here how is it the case solve it this

07:22:10.900 guy is saying to you over and over again even if i couldn't that wouldn't make your position here

07:22:15.740 tenable the idea here is just this he's asking how can this thing exist absent a mind and with a

07:22:22.120 mind and you're saying it does but no it doesn't but it does but it doesn't but it does well i'm

07:22:28.220 assuming it exists outside of the mind you're and does that require a mind uh sort of but it's

07:22:34.600 this isn't like the pertinent question what do you mean sort of how does something sort of require

07:22:38.980 a mind how does that even work oh it's sort of it sort of requires my mind no it requires a mind

07:22:44.660 or it doesn't because i would say a equals a is true regardless of whether or not i assume it but

07:22:49.020 once i'm engaging in philosophy as the individual i must assume it because i can't reduce a equals a

07:22:53.360 any further right how do you reduce then you're now in contradiction again how is that in contradiction

07:22:57.520 because when you say that this thing exists outside of minds you're making a claim an objective claim

07:23:02.660 the second you say but it must be assumed you're making a subjective claim so how are you not

07:23:07.020 engaging in dogmatism it has nothing to do with me i'm asking has nothing yes it does with me so if

07:23:13.300 i'm completely wrong and everything i'm about to say from here on out for the rest of the night

07:23:17.980 how does that help this position of yours how how by by outlining you're in the same position who cares

07:23:25.980 answer my question i care i can you just can you just say finally yes this is a contradiction

07:23:32.200 no okay can you answer the question how you solve a grippa trilemma you must you brought it up yes i

07:23:38.620 brought it up for you to solve you want me to solve your argument no you are a moral objectivist

07:23:44.000 correct uh well no i'm an agrippa trilemma no you're not oh yes i am you can't that's not a thing

07:23:50.500 it is now are you assuming that okay so is that objective see how he won't answer this question

07:23:57.180 don't need but you don't understand the position you're in moral objectivist the position that you're

07:24:01.840 in is that you destroyed all conformity to reality the second you allow the contradiction say the

07:24:07.240 contradiction must ride and then also further you you take it one step further and say this thing

07:24:12.740 requires a mind but doesn't require a mind you don't understand you destroyed all moral facts

07:24:16.680 all foundational arguments i don't ever need to contend with anything couldn't even tell me why

07:24:21.820 i was wrong to not do that so again ever how do you are you a moral objectivist yes or no who cares

07:24:27.220 me you know what i would like to internally critique you now yes you are yes okay so how is something

07:24:33.980 objective how do you know that a equals a uh you mean transcendentals sure yeah how do i know that

07:24:40.280 there's transcendentals because they're unchanging they're unchanging yeah they can't be changed by the

07:24:44.820 mind okay sure yeah and so how do you but you're using the mind right to interpret not to change

07:24:51.800 because they can't be changed i agree yeah okay great so they're objective but the mind is but

07:24:56.500 the mind to some degree is assumed here no so you're assuming that they're unchanging there's not

07:25:01.460 no they they they are unchanging by your own admission okay so what what now so now we're

07:25:07.480 assuming them right no yes how could they be assumed if we both agree that they're unchanging

07:25:11.960 uh because uh assuming infinity of something solves dogma we're not assuming it you're agreeing that it is

07:25:18.760 in fact objectively true that these things are unchanging there's no longer an assumption

07:25:23.640 you're assuming that they exist no there's no assumption yeah you're assuming that we're not

07:25:28.660 like a pot of of brain cells okay let's ask okay i'll show you again this thing unchanging

07:25:35.660 therefore whether my mind exists or not that still exists true i can guide you that there's no

07:25:42.800 assumption there well you have to presuppose we don't even we're not even presupposing we just

07:25:47.460 agreed what's the presupposition we literally just agreed to this that the law of identity even

07:25:52.140 exists that any of this exists we don't need to even presuppose this you already agreed that this

07:25:56.440 is an unchanging fact because it's objective but that doesn't mean that you're not that's the end of

07:26:01.260 that argument that that's dogmatism you're just presupposing that it is eternal you keep on making

07:26:06.700 the claim it's dogmatism but how's it dogmatism if it's an unchanging thing which does not require

07:26:12.120 it doesn't make an assumption is a rock dogmatism what is a rock dogmatism no why i don't know i

07:26:21.680 literally don't even know what your question means my question just means this rock is material it

07:26:26.260 exists absent the mind therefore requires no dogmatism the laws of logic by your entire

07:26:32.880 estimation require no mind therefore they require no dogmatism just like the rock do you understand

07:26:38.660 that now i do but which part am i wrong about you're assuming that the rock exists or that any

07:26:43.080 of this world i assume that the rock exists yeah you're assuming that none of this is like a

07:26:47.460 fabrication that we're not in like oh so now we're in simulation theory no i'm assuming that we're

07:26:52.360 assuming that we're not oh we're well we have to take it for granted we have to make sure i got this

07:26:57.520 right the rock exists whether you die tomorrow right if all human life is expunged tomorrow is the rock

07:27:04.180 still there okay got it theoretically i mean it depends on what happens i mean it would be there

07:27:08.760 right wraps in all of our minds and would this law of logic change apps in all of our minds no that's

07:27:15.560 the end of that that's the end of that nope you're still you're still assuming that this logic is like

07:27:22.220 uh eternal in any there's no assumption we just agreed that it's an objective fact that regardless of

07:27:27.120 our minds this thing would not change where's the assumption that its existence if we were not

07:27:31.860 assuming its existence we already agreed that it's an unchanging fact well theoretically none of

07:27:38.620 this could exist we could all be like an event then you're not agreeing that that's an unchanging fact

07:27:42.920 i agree that i'm not i'm not saying that now you're not agreeing you can't figure out your own position

07:27:48.620 on this that i am agreeing that it exists and it is objective but you're still assuming wait you agree

07:27:53.660 that it exists and it's objective so it exists outside of minds yeah okay then there's no assumption

07:27:58.320 there is still an assumption where uh the eternal existence of it why is that assumed you have to

07:28:05.680 did you just agree that it's true yeah then there's no assumption there is an assumption what's the

07:28:11.220 assumption that anything exists oh so now we're back to anything exists okay do the laws of logic exist

07:28:17.940 absent minds does god exist absent i asked you a question does the laws of logic exist absent minds

07:28:23.540 yeah does god there's no there's no nothing else to argue about does god exist absent minds yes

07:28:28.460 okay but we assume that god exists no there's no assumption we just agreed god just exists well

07:28:33.180 how do we assume that's the dogmatism how do we assume if you say god just exists there's no

07:28:37.980 assumption so you're saying that god god perhaps may not exist uh i'm i'm saying i believe that he

07:28:44.580 does believe or he does well i would say objectively he does but it is still fundamentally so is god an

07:28:51.000 unchanging fact in yeah within my worldview yeah so then i'm engaging in dogmatism how's that

07:28:58.280 dogmatism assuming his existence but then that would be changeable no it wouldn't if you make an

07:29:04.020 assumption why couldn't you change the assumption well you could but that went like yes i could engage

07:29:10.080 in a different assumption but then i would have a different worldview my my worldview makes this

07:29:14.780 assumption if the laws of you might make a different if the laws of logic in your worldview are

07:29:18.560 unchanging then they're not assumed i don't know what to tell you if you think that god exists

07:29:24.660 outside of the mind you are assuming god wait i'm sorry does god exist absent the mind i believe

07:29:30.980 that what's the assumption the assumption is that he does exist then that's that's changeable

07:29:36.000 just because it's changeable doesn't mean that you're not assuming it's a lot of logic changeable

07:29:40.340 i don't think that it is okay somebody could assume is it i don't think it is because i'm an

07:29:46.260 show me how it could be no because i'm not i'm yeah because it can't be so you're just admitting

07:29:51.460 that the laws of logic are unchangeable and not dogmatic and not a tautology assuming that it exists

07:29:59.620 is the dogma assuming that god exists oh i see i see okay so i'm gonna assume that the law of

07:30:05.760 non-contradiction doesn't exist how is it possible for like i don't know the planet earth to be the

07:30:13.100 planet mars i i don't know how to engage with you anymore if you don't want to like do this stuff

07:30:20.260 i'm doing this i use so i i'm doing i'm literally doing the stuff so how do you solve a grip of

07:30:26.320 i just solved it for you i just explained you assume you're still assuming the infinity of it

07:30:30.160 i just showed you which is either infinite regression or dogma there's no infinity here

07:30:34.240 what's behind the logic if it's the case what makes a equal i'm going to tell you

07:30:38.220 if it's the case that it's not a social construction that the laws of logic are changeable

07:30:43.920 okay they're changeable they're not social constructs then that's not assumed that's

07:30:50.420 stating that this thing exists absent minds objectively so so all you have to do all you

07:30:57.560 have to do to defeat that position is show me a single law of logic which can be interpreted

07:31:03.980 as subjective and therefore social construct and changeable i don't have to do that i just have

07:31:09.160 to say there is theoretically a world where we exist in a vat of soup where none of this is real

07:31:12.920 and it's all being created that's not a contradiction it would be no it wouldn't be how how would us

07:31:19.720 existing in a bowl of soup and able to breathe in the soup a contradiction that's not p and not

07:31:23.940 because theoretically then something is just imposing and the a equals a that we're assuming isn't

07:31:28.020 actually true we just assume that it's true because it's being being manifest that's not a 0.56

07:31:31.540 fucking contradiction it has to be p and not p if we could all breathe in a bowl of soup in some

07:31:36.360 other world some other place where's the contradiction you have to show me where the 0.99

07:31:41.180 law of non-contradiction can be violated where superman can be you where fucking the earth can be 0.96

07:31:48.380 mars where things can be what they're not go ahead in a vat of soup where we're all actually the same

07:31:54.760 being being projected into a million and infinite like in a hypothetical world that can exist so i have

07:31:59.320 to assume the hypothetical world like that is true and real just like you have to you can give me a

07:32:03.800 hypothetical world that has contradictions i i can't right now but that's because because it can't be

07:32:07.860 done right of course you can theoretically do it be done do it you can't i'm assuming yeah the assumption

07:32:14.780 so are you no there's no assumption here okay this is not even an assumption now we've gotten to the

07:32:19.180 crux of it right i just told you that you cannot give me a world you cannot give me a law you cannot

07:32:24.160 give me any logic which is unchangeable the law of contract non-contradiction is unchangeable you

07:32:29.260 agree you say it's an objective fact then you say we assume it that's not an objective fact you're in

07:32:34.240 contradiction i'm not so there actually is an entire school of philosophy that basically argues that the

07:32:40.500 law of non-contradiction can be contradicted that a can show me how i'm not i don't know i don't know

07:32:46.880 what are you doing show me the law of non-contradiction being contradicted i don't know it off the top of

07:32:53.920 my head okay so that doesn't mean that you're not assuming no argument you're still assuming logic

07:32:58.200 no argument how is there an assumption of logic if we agree that it's objective without because

07:33:03.220 you're assuming that tautology is true that's not an assumption it is how could okay so you're

07:33:07.400 assuming an assumption on a thing that you say is objectively true i'm not saying it's objectively

07:33:12.760 true i'm saying you're saying objectively true it's unchanging uh it exists outside of our is a

07:33:18.640 rock an assumption no that's the end of that no it's not yes it is if the rock is the existing

07:33:27.620 objective reality would exist even without your minds and so there's a lot of logic it's objective

07:33:31.820 reality it would exist without the mind yeah the assumption would be that your own argument badly

07:33:36.600 the second you said the rock exists what you should have said is no absent the mind the rock doesn't

07:33:41.600 exist that would at least made you consistent what you said instead is that thing objectively

07:33:44.780 exists even if i'm not here that's not an assumption anymore nor dogma same thing with

07:33:49.120 the law of logic dogma it's assuming that it exists even if i'm not here is the dogma yeah oh that's

07:33:53.820 dogma yeah okay so that's changeable that dogma doesn't mean unchangeable dogma means assuming can

07:33:59.440 you change dogma uh like i don't know what that means can i change dogma from one dogma to another

07:34:05.720 but can i change a rock to not a rock i don't i literally don't understand what this is asking

07:34:11.900 i'm asking you this if i came up with dogma right now like oh it's the case that uh me drinking this

07:34:17.520 cup of water means i'm going to hell how is that dog is that is that how would that not be dogma 0.90

07:34:23.400 how is that dogma because it's making a religious inference about a thing that doesn't mean it's dogma

07:34:28.960 okay well what is dogma dogma is just when you presuppose something okay you just assume so i'm

07:34:33.320 presupposing that i'm going to go to hell if i drink this uh potentially you might be if i say 0.77

07:34:38.460 i'm going to go to hell if i drink this is that now dogma uh sure then i was right okay so anyway 0.86

07:34:45.440 so back to this now that i'm right you've conceded i'm right again for the 18th time it can i then say

07:34:51.560 oh wait hey you know i changed my mind yes you can change the fundamental axioms got you can i do that

07:34:58.900 with the law of logic uh can i be like oh the law of non-contradiction doesn't exist oh wait no it

07:35:05.420 does exist or is it the case that's going to be a constant regardless of how i view it yeah that's

07:35:09.840 why i would for example go to a subjectivist and say if this is if this is constant this is why

07:35:14.300 object that's not subjective it's objective like the rock i know which is why i said if i went and

07:35:19.660 debated a subjectivist and they insisted that objectivity doesn't exist i would say well the law of

07:35:24.300 uh you know the law of identity is a good example of objectivity it's not dogma it is dogma because

07:35:29.120 i'm still assuming the existence of a there's no assumption now there is an assumption that it's

07:35:33.440 not objective it's circular reasoning it's not objective is it circular reasoning what's worse

07:35:38.540 than if circular reasoning now we're in contradiction tautologies are worse than circular reasoning yeah

07:35:43.320 contradictions are the worst yes this isn't a contradiction to say it is a contradiction how is

07:35:47.740 because you're saying it's objectively subjective i'm not so you are i'm not you are no you're not

07:35:53.540 tracking no you're not tracking about the law of identity yeah and i said can you change it

07:35:57.860 what do you mean can i'm an objective is the law of identity gonna beat the law of identity even if

07:36:05.660 not so airtight and all of the minds die i'm an objectivist go great so i would an objectivist

07:36:10.680 yeah or do you mean you believe in objective like objective morality or objective truth or something

07:36:16.640 like that yeah yeah objectivism is its own branch philosophy you know sure you're right i i should have

07:36:21.460 been really really when we're talking about objective objectivity sure yeah we're talking about

07:36:25.820 objective but you can just grab objective you agree is something which does not require a mind

07:36:31.600 yep okay subjective is the thing which does require a mind yep the rock then by this logic

07:36:38.040 it requires no minds if all minds are gone the rock is still there is the law of logic still there

07:36:42.920 i would say yes well no why would you say yes with the rock

07:36:46.800 because i i'm an i i believe in objectivity so things exist you believe it or it is in fact the

07:36:54.020 case that the rock would be there well i would say that it is in fact the case but fundamentally i'm

07:36:57.860 still assuming that existence you're assuming existence yeah sort of the thing you live in well

07:37:03.500 i'm assuming god and you're assuming oh you're assuming god yeah do you think that a subjectivist

07:37:08.120 would say that the rock would still be there uh that that's a that it would be objectively true

07:37:14.540 uh they may or without minds the rock materially would still be there i think some would i don't

07:37:21.360 know i'm not i'm not a subjective i don't need to answer this for them oh you don't need to answer

07:37:26.260 not for them no that's not my belief system gotcha so p and not p p and not p p and not p why would i

07:37:31.440 have to answer for you don't have to look you don't have to answer any more questions i'm just showing

07:37:36.300 you i demonstrated you a hundred times now that you're pointing to a thing which you claim is

07:37:40.860 objectively true and then at the same time saying that you're assuming it which means it can't be

07:37:44.800 objectively true because it's changeable yes you assume tautologies okay but that's not what i'm

07:37:50.100 saying i'm saying law of identity is a tautology you assume tautologies how's the law of identity

07:37:54.300 a tautology a equals a is a tautology uh i'm sorry how does how is a equals a the law of identity

07:38:01.480 law of identity is a thing is identical with itself a equals a that's not what so wait a second i just

07:38:08.320 want to make sure i got this right when you say the law of identity um and the law of identity is

07:38:14.280 just saying that a thing must be itself how is that tautological because it's saying a must equal a no

07:38:20.580 it no no no no no what is it this is

07:38:22.680 a tautology would be to be saying the same thing over and over again right you agree with that x equals x

07:38:31.620 yeah yeah yeah yeah so if you say that um x is x is that a tautology uh i think so i need to think

07:38:41.880 about it no why not because because if you're saying that x is x because x that's a tautology

07:38:49.660 if you say x is x all you're doing is stating that x is the thing it is oh yeah it would be that

07:38:57.280 is not tautological yes it is x equals x pull up my and pull up a tautology she doesn't know what it 0.94

07:39:03.180 is here i'll just pull it up this is the most fucking crazy shit oh i love that that we save 0.96

07:39:10.220 this engagement for the for the end it just puts the icing on the cake so uh you don't know what a 0.97

07:39:15.900 tautology is but i'm going to help you out here tautology is a statement that is true in every

07:39:21.920 possible interpretation essentially a representation a logical necessity unavoidable truth

07:39:27.000 in logic it is a formula that always yields true while in rhetoric it is redundant repetitive

07:39:32.460 phrase so x equals x help me out here the thing is the thing right x equals x okay so all you're

07:39:40.300 saying is that it's tautologically true the law of identity x is always itself i didn't say it's

07:39:45.960 tautologically true i said the law of identity is a tautology okay so so what makes that true

07:39:50.540 uh in my worldview i think that tautologies are good examples of objective things

07:39:56.460 what if a equals a i think that a equals a regardless of whether i'm observing it

07:40:03.020 wait wait hang on i just want to make sure i got this right so it is when you're talking about a

07:40:09.440 tautology here the thing that makes it true is that it's true well it's assumed you have to assume

07:40:15.980 you have to assume it so is there there's no so there's no way for you to assume that the law of

07:40:21.260 identity is untrue uh they're uh in in based on what in my worldview period is there any way to

07:40:31.200 assume that a tautology is untrue um i would argue no this is why it's objective so then you don't need

07:40:38.480 to assume anything with a tautology you're assuming existence you're assuming something that i asked you

07:40:45.360 about a tautology not existence do you have to assume do you have to assume a tautology yes you

07:40:52.240 have to okay you just assume that it is true that a equals a so how do we assume a tautology is not

07:40:57.300 tautological we we don't we just assume we can't yeah we say a wait we can't we just grant that wait

07:41:04.300 we can't and that's not an assumption we just grant that a equals a we just grant yes okay that's what

07:41:11.180 is it is it now an assumption these are the same thing when you say we just granted a

07:41:15.740 we grant axioms is it object is it objectively true i would argue it is yeah okay but it's not

07:41:22.420 objectively true that a tautology of x is x is true uh no i think x a equals x is true can i assume it's

07:41:30.640 not a tautology uh you could but i think it would be very hard for you to do so why i think that logic

07:41:36.140 and reason why why can't i just assume it i'm explaining if you pause because if you assume

07:41:40.880 that tautologies are not true it's going to be really hard for you to build with reason and

07:41:44.080 logic any sort of like um uh philosophical system are you assuming that which are you assuming that

07:41:51.040 i just can't assume things is that an assumption no i said you can't assume things so help me i'm

07:41:56.920 i'm super confused here i know yeah i really am yeah and you i really just need an answer to one

07:42:03.420 question yeah the laws of logic are they changeable i don't believe they are no i think they're

07:42:10.720 believe can you give me an example of where they're changeable no because i think they're

07:42:15.260 objective you think or they are well i'm assuming yeah you're just assuming that yeah i am then you

07:42:22.320 should be able to if it's a social construction assumption change i didn't say it's a social

07:42:26.260 construction i said a equals a and i'm assuming that that is true if you assume it if you're

07:42:31.040 assuming that this thing is true can you make an assumption that it is not true uh theoretically

07:42:36.860 yeah i'm not doing that though so how can i assume that the law of non-contradiction is not

07:42:41.240 true uh it would be some like weird anti-realist moral nihilist person who thinks like nothing is

07:42:46.520 true anyway then do it i don't believe moral and anti-realist believe in the law of non-contradiction

07:42:51.300 uh sure but they agree it's objectively true even i would say that and this is why i go to moral

07:42:56.320 anti-realist and be like come on you're an objectivist too you have to be because you grant me that

07:43:00.260 a equals a this hurts your position though it doesn't hurt my position it does because now we're

07:43:04.540 outside of the the second you say a thing is objectively true this objectively is real

07:43:10.740 period we grant that it is true yeah no you're not granting it you're saying it is that's the same

07:43:16.440 thing no no it's not the same thing yeah i am i'm engaging in dogmatism to say a equals a

07:43:21.460 it okay a will equal a no matter what okay i believe in absent does dogmatism require a mind

07:43:28.540 uh like does no i guess like fallacies okay great does law of logic require a mind uh no

07:43:36.920 no but so dogmatism requires mind the law of logic i said i guess technically no so the law of logic

07:43:43.280 does not require a mind dogmatism does require that's another contradiction it's not a contradiction

07:43:49.080 okay does dogmatism require a mind no i think like dogmatism like the actual existence of dogmatism

07:43:54.020 the fallacy that is the logical fallacy that is dogmatism would exist whether or not we observe

07:43:58.860 is dogmatism in and of itself a fallacy yes okay can you show me the fallacy of dogmatism because you

07:44:04.660 have to assume things can you show me the fallacy of dogmatism that's the fallacy is that you are

07:44:08.760 yes show me the formal fallacy of dogmatism that would be like circular reasoning usually well that's

07:44:13.260 not the same word as dogmatism you're right dogmatism would assume a dogmatism require a mind or not

07:44:20.040 no it doesn't i would say the the like actual concept of dogmatism exists outside of us the

07:44:27.700 the concept sure yeah the concepts exist without minds yes i like the problem is that you're trying

07:44:34.700 to make me concepts exist without minds yeah in the same way that like the law of identity exists

07:44:40.020 outside of minds that's a concept sort of yeah what would you call it objectively true or is it a

07:44:45.740 concept but both both yeah like it's a when i'm saying a concept i just mean like an idea

07:44:51.760 right and i just want to make sure i got the idea is true and objective i want to make sure i got this

07:44:55.960 right okay this is a concept concepts don't require minds it's a dogma dogmas don't require minds some

07:45:04.520 concepts it depends like again it depends on what we're meaning here like the law of identity is

07:45:10.300 something we would call a concept exist absent of mind can you show it to me as an objective

07:45:15.320 form of fallacy yeah where where's that but in the ether it exists in the ether wait where is law

07:45:24.000 of identity great question now we're getting into transcendentals so but the thing is interesting

07:45:29.080 here is like where is before we can even move into that we have to start with with foundationalism

07:45:34.980 so the idea here for foundationalism is we assume some dogma requires no minds

07:45:42.000 sure can you show me how because i would say that like uh the three laws of logic exist outside of

07:45:50.620 minds and dogmatism is like to some way connected to the three laws of lives it's a it's a fallacy

07:45:56.900 that's been pointed out using logic and reason so if the three laws exist outside of the mind then

07:46:03.600 fallacies also exist outside the mind yeah i think something would be fallacious like circular

07:46:09.860 reasoning is circular reasoning whether or not we've titled it that label it that or observed it

07:46:14.180 is dogma always a fallacy yes yes yeah because you're assuming can you pull out your phone right now

07:46:21.860 and ask i don't care where whatever philosophical source if dogma itself is a fallacy true

07:46:28.980 um slow i'll wait yes

07:46:52.520 yes dogmatism is considered a logical fallacy

07:46:58.740 dogmatism is considered a logical fallacy let me see when it presents personal opinions or rigid

07:47:06.060 unproven beliefs as undeniable facts oops refusing to consider oops counter argument that's why you

07:47:12.260 didn't hand me the phone read it again dogmatism is considered a logical fallacy when it presents

07:47:16.560 personal opinions origin or rigid unproven beliefs as undeniable facts how do you prove a

07:47:21.960 oh boy oh boy so how do you prove a equals a now we'll try it the right way

07:47:26.300 is dogmatism in and of itself which is what i asked you is dogmatism in and of itself a fallacy

07:47:36.940 uh dogmatism in and of itself is not fallacious so here's the question that i have for you

07:47:48.240 why would it be the case do you want to keep reading or oh sure sure we can keep you we can

07:47:53.880 keep reading it is only considered a form if a priority thinking where one starts with a preset

07:47:59.540 conclusion and forces the evidence to fit it that's it okay so it's not always a fallacy is it so

07:48:05.140 assuming a equals hang on is it always a fallacy uh i could be wrong about that is it always a fallacy

07:48:10.980 or not i don't know i could be wrong i need to look into it i'm not trusting your word because

07:48:14.580 then look ask if it's always a foul is dogma itself always fallacious dogma it's considered a

07:48:22.160 logical fallacy is in and of itself without any qualifiers maybe it's not but it dogmatism is

07:48:30.020 certainly assuming okay there are assumptions i agree i agree i'm just saying that those those

07:48:36.820 assumptions can be changed right what does this mean that you can change assumptions but you can't

07:48:43.040 change things which you agree exist in objective reality sure yes okay so then you agree that the

07:48:48.820 laws of logic exist objectively outside of assumption never denied that they exist objectively

07:48:53.680 outside of assumption no the a equals a is the assumption that's what dogmatism is so then change

07:48:59.800 you just said assumptions can be changed right sure but i'm not going to change it because i believe

07:49:05.160 because you can't change it no i believe that this tautology is a good tautology can you change

07:49:09.020 can you change it or not can you can you change any assumption yes yes you can assume different

07:49:15.940 things then can you change a law of logic um i don't think so i think that they're objective

07:49:21.240 show me show me how whether i don't need to i'm granting you that they're objective i'm just saying

07:49:26.520 that you're assuming it a equals a is an assumption okay this is an axiom that you just grant so we'll

07:49:30.800 just uh we'll just make sure we got this right it's objective and subjective no i've never said that

07:49:35.260 that's how you're trying to frame it okay is is uh the trilemma subjective

07:49:39.460 um no it's objective uh yeah in the way that logic is objective would the trilemma exist out absent

07:49:48.600 minds uh theoretically yeah show me how uh that the laws of logic exist outside of minds and agrippa's

07:49:56.720 trilemma utilizes laws of logic to come up with the uh dilemma itself who cares if it utilizes it

07:50:02.000 if it's built on the back all you're saying the objective observable things and logic and reason

07:50:06.460 itself is observable and agrippa's trilemma utilizes logic and reason to say all all axioms all beliefs

07:50:12.320 fundamentally fail agrippa's trilemma in one of three ways yeah then yeah it's objective so it's not an

07:50:18.180 assumption you have to assume something at some point why are you assuming it you just said

07:50:23.940 we don't have to absent all minds agrippa's trilemma exists right where's the assumption

07:50:33.040 in the case that a lot that uh tautologies are true would be the dogmatism or you could just do

07:50:39.040 infinite regression but you just said those require minds okay this does not require a mind

07:50:46.280 true so this exists agrippa's trilemma exists absent minds does circular reasoning exist absent minds

07:50:53.580 yeah but my question i've already granted that i think that agrippa's trilemma is objective

07:50:57.580 yeah i think that so why do you keep harping on logic reductionism will become circular circularity

07:51:03.840 itself is not a problem it fails agrippa's trilemma well but circularity itself isn't problematic what

07:51:09.280 becomes problematic justified no you can make justifications even if it's circular in fact you

07:51:14.600 want the circle to point back to the justification well the point of circularity is saying that a equals a

07:51:20.420 it goes a it goes a it's circular right yeah but you can have a circularity which has an infinite

07:51:25.080 presupposition that presupposition will move back to a source so the source in this case that you're

07:51:30.400 claiming would be the dogmatism but if you just keep circling for logical circularity itself is not

07:51:37.380 what the problem is the problem here comes in the problem for agrippa's the problem here comes in

07:51:41.660 when you say unjustified but it is justified how is circularity justified because it exists

07:51:46.980 according to you absent minds that doesn't mean that it's not it means it's always true if it's

07:51:52.640 always true then it has to be a justified true belief so you think circular reasoning no i think

07:51:59.580 that if you say grippa's trilemma exists absent all minds then you're saying that that's a justified 0.99

07:52:05.300 true belief it cannot be a justified true belief if it exists even absent your mind so agrippa's

07:52:14.640 trilemma again says any justification of knowledge must fail as all arguments lead to three equally

07:52:19.240 unsatisfying answers so if you don't assume dogmatism you can engage in circular reasoning

07:52:25.100 okay if you don't want to do circular all human beings you can engage in infinite regression all

07:52:29.180 human beings are dead is agrippa's trilemma still true i would say yes 1.00

07:52:33.940 is that an assumption

07:52:37.360 uh i'm assuming it but i've already embraced that i'm doing dogmatism which is fine you're assuming it

07:52:45.120 yeah but it is in fact also objectively true well that i think dogmatism leans to uh objectivity the

07:52:53.300 best which is why i engage in dog so it's objectively true and not true but somebody else for example the

07:52:58.640 so it's like schrodinger's it's like schrodinger's agrippa trilemma the way that this is like schrodinger's

07:53:03.760 agrippa trilemma way that the subjectivist would try to get around assumptions is engage in infinite

07:53:07.920 regression which still fails agrippa's trilemma but they wouldn't say it's objectively true outside

07:53:13.840 of minds correct they wouldn't they would engage in infinite regression the second you say it's true

07:53:17.420 outside of minds you're making the statement that it's a justified i'm doing dogmatism is it a

07:53:22.380 justified true belief that agrippa's trilemma exists whether all human beings are dead or not 0.99

07:53:28.720 is it a jesus christ don't hit me with fucking a bunch of nonsense prattle i'm not answering you 1.00

07:53:35.760 with nonsense question question is is it a justified true belief that agrippa's trilemma exists if all 0.99

07:53:41.040 human beings are dead uh yeah because the laws of logic are objective okay so then how that i'm

07:53:48.040 engaging in what you're creating i'm assuming that you're just refuted your own point i didn't refute

07:53:52.260 my point i said that they're objective which is an assumption what somebody could do if they didn't

07:53:56.340 want to assume anything is engage in infinite regression okay so you're engaging in dogmatism

07:54:01.280 no you just refuted your point in the worst way possible by the way no i don't yeah i did not

07:54:07.620 me saying that i'm an objectivist has been sorry you're not an objectivist objective that's a

07:54:13.120 libertarian philosophy you're right andrew relax that's a libertarian philosophy it's called

07:54:17.860 objectivism that i was meaning objectivity and that it's just been eight hours and i'm tired

07:54:21.940 or do you think that i've been here for the same fucking eight hours cool that's fine so anyway 0.92

07:54:26.020 the point is is like yes you did part of the issue i'm not trying to trip you up on like which specific 0.62

07:54:30.700 word because i'm granting you what i think is reasonable that you're trying to mean right when

07:54:34.140 i say objectivist you're right i should be more precise with my language so you don't do your silly 0.94

07:54:37.900 little gotchas go obviously i mean i'm the one with silly gotchas yes you demanded the entire night 0.69

07:54:45.260 that i engage with this even though i didn't need to i still did and the spirit of charitability

07:54:49.260 still blew you out on it and then you can still destroyed you on it you just said yeah i'm doing 0.63

07:54:54.520 dogmatism and i said cool no i'm showing you that if we have an objective standard we say that this is

07:54:59.520 an objective standard that this is true absent minds and you say grip is trilemma exist absent minds

07:55:04.280 then you're refuting grip is trilemma there's no more assumption there's no more assumption that

07:55:08.480 it's objective then it's not then it's subjective no that's this is dogmatism it's that's subjective

07:55:13.880 too no it's not infinite regression is more subjective all right fine i don't know what

07:55:18.040 else to say about it okay like arguing with i don't i don't even know yeah it's like arguing

07:55:24.840 with a bully okay all right well we got some chats you know got some chats came in jordan's donated

07:55:33.620 69 we want you to eat the pizza so you are tequila you andrew or are you i'm gonna have a smoke

07:55:40.660 in one more shot all right but then we're gonna wrap it up it's been eight hours hey look i've

07:55:44.820 been trying to wrap it this whole time you guys just keep brian keep it going i've been trying to

07:55:48.580 wrap i don't know too uh thank thank you jordan though for the for the tts we have selena

07:55:54.040 gournez coming in here with the selena gournez donated 69 dollars and 67 cents kyla still has a lot of

07:56:03.520 potential but is preaching to the wrong choir she's smart but also biased and doesn't know it or 1.00

07:56:09.280 understand how she is call to action kyla join the right in good faith you know behind the scenes

07:56:17.300 kyla's actually very based and red-pilled she's she she told me she voted for trump i can't vote 0.67

07:56:26.780 if if trump would you be in favor annexation of canada uh no not under trump definitely not but

07:56:38.860 think about it it would kind of ease the immigration process for you if we were like it would be

07:56:43.240 personally beneficial but i don't think canadians would like that you know we annex canada and i

07:56:47.140 think you'd get rid of our universal health care which i'm super not for it could happen

07:56:50.640 yeah i like universal health care yeah you know uh think about it all right we have uh xj law here

07:56:58.380 xj law donated 69 dollars her ability to weasel and evade to avoid being revealed as an incompetent 0.59

07:57:05.880 cloud demon is honestly impressive must be exhausting though the patience required for

07:57:12.080 andrew to engage with this drivel no one suffers like andrew suffers except maybe you i feel like you've

07:57:20.500 suffered the most i had a front row seat i had a front row seat so we have intel wild here thank 0.59

07:57:28.920 you thank you law intel wild donated 69 dollars not so bright as a soulless degenerate demon vampire

07:57:36.800 is that like his most common only fan searches or i wonder intel wild yeah he probably loves

07:57:44.100 degenerate demon vampire isn't that a woman thing the women like the sort of men do too there's like a 1.00

07:57:49.780 whole thing sort of uh the the werewolves and the what was that book you're friends with shoe on

07:57:56.220 head right didn't she do a video on this a couple months ago yeah where all the women were what the 1.00

07:58:01.200 milking the the milk mate yeah yeah the minotaur milking or i don't know y'all true but men are into 0.97

07:58:08.320 some weird shit too it goes both ways yeah it really does uh we got bronco here thank you man 0.98

07:58:14.980 sprung coxton eighty six nine dollars i will give toward on no more if she takes a bite of her pizza 0.99

07:58:21.880 i hate wasted food uh she did say 200 if you do 300 she will uh i'm actually thinking about

07:58:32.360 student starting a food channel she will actually speed eat uh you know those those uh speed eaters 0.91

07:58:39.760 she'll speed eat the entire pizza uh if you do 300 are you paying me for it though i'll i'll give 0.98

07:58:45.460 you a cut okay we'll talk after i'll give you a cut we got king ryan here king ryan donated 69

07:58:52.560 dollars in the first three hours when andrew pressed her on her question kyle didn't give a direct answer

07:58:59.800 nine times while andrew only did it twice numbers can shift by parameters doing my best can you can

07:59:06.940 you pour andrew a shot i think this is an eight hour conversation uh one more shot for andrew there

07:59:12.000 did you no you didn't want one that's right uh i'm curious has anybody been keeping track of how

07:59:17.260 many times agrippa's dilemma has been said i owe you big me and andrew on the drive over i bet him

07:59:25.080 he didn't take the bet but i said andrew 20 bucks if she brings up agrippa's trilemma

07:59:31.320 i didn't bet i wish he took the bad but why didn't i take the bet because i said that she

07:59:38.620 would bring up a self-refuting axiom which then i would pincer her in to watch her refute herself

07:59:43.700 80 000 times how did i bring up a self-refuting axiom well is there any point to debate yeah

07:59:50.320 how is that self-refuting that's fine i agree there's no point wait no point i said there is a

07:59:56.740 point oh what is it uh to test logic and reason ideally in good to test assumptions

08:00:02.480 uh not usually sometimes but all logic and reasons built on assumption

08:00:08.600 uh not all some of it's built on an infinite regression and but none of it's built on an

08:00:14.300 objective truth i didn't say that either i believe in an objective is any i assume i'm not asking about

08:00:20.740 your assumption is there objective truth absent assumption uh sure yeah i would say so are you

08:00:27.140 assuming that well yes to some degree okay that's not self-defeating this is just dogmatism i don't

08:00:33.280 know what to tell you literally you saying that it's subjective and objective at the same time

08:00:37.660 it's not it's not me saying that it's just not me saying just is you saying that how is this not

08:00:43.000 69 a gripper shows justification must terminate the issue exactly it's not circularity but whether

08:00:51.580 your stopping point can non-arbitrarily ground rational normativity what does yours terminate in

08:00:57.780 good question a gripper's trilemnity trilemma include includes circular reasoning circularity is

08:01:02.600 a part of it yeah but he's saying circularity is not the issue it could be all all these cups

08:01:08.480 he's got a he's got a he's got an army of cups i need them for this debate it's actually

08:01:14.220 protecting it fortifies no one suffers like andrew suffers this is my fortification

08:01:19.640 create like a a triangle you know just to well i can just do this a bunch that's like yeah

08:01:27.860 circular reasoning part of destiny trying circular reasoning is also uh on uh any justification

08:01:33.560 all it fails because it's unsatisfying circular reasoning unsatisfying it doesn't what is what

08:01:38.220 does that mean it means that it it is unsatisfying that it is irreducible um and it doesn't mean

08:01:43.920 irreducible it just means unsatisfying right unsatisfying and irreducible what does unsatisfying

08:01:48.620 mean though uh that it's like not uh it doesn't like solve perfectly logical coherence in such a way

08:01:55.480 that like it's built always on something so you have to assume something or you have to do circular

08:02:01.040 reasoning none of your beliefs are built on anything i think that they are but you're assuming my

08:02:05.440 axioms are are fundamentally dogmatism just like yours are assumed well that's what dogmatism so

08:02:11.700 there's just no nothing that exists objectively absent minds no that's again dogmatism doesn't

08:02:16.600 mean anything about subjectivity why i just want to make sure i keep insisting this well i i know you

08:02:22.680 like it but it's yeah that's that's true i'm just i'm just trying to figure out what would the

08:02:26.500 circularity be if a thing did exist absent a mind like a rock where's the circularity that's not

08:02:33.340 circular okay i've never claimed that it was circular i said all justifications of knowledge

08:02:39.640 must fail as all arguments lead to three equally unsatisfying answers your knowledge of the rock

08:02:46.120 fails what do you mean fails you just said all claims of knowledge fail right must fail yeah okay

08:02:52.340 so but why do you keep claiming that rocks exist in objective morale or objectively absent minds

08:02:58.240 because i assume objectivity okay so well i assume god and i think that god that actually fails right

08:03:03.800 yeah in the same way that all all so a rock doesn't actually exist absent the mind no it does

08:03:10.260 but you just said that's a knowledge claim you just said all of them fail yep

08:03:16.180 okay okay okay we have zubjat here from downdrift not a fan on his channel but he says it's night out and

08:03:25.320 she says not in aussie using big words talking fast makes her think she is smart but she's an 0.98

08:03:31.540 idiot over complicating everything for no reason will make you right does the world see math true does 0.99

08:03:37.220 two plus two equal four yeah that's a tautology but these are the things that we assume in math that 1.00

08:03:42.740 two plus two equals four why why does two plus two equal four we assume it it seems i would argue

08:03:48.840 because it's objectively true we're just assuming this we're assuming that two plus two equals four

08:03:52.760 because we must rocks exist without minds that's true but i also assumed it and all knowledge claims

08:04:00.460 fail yeah all justifications of knowledge no knowledge claims fail no all justifications read

08:04:08.500 it again uh just uh any justification of a knowledge of knowledge must fail as all arguments lead to three

08:04:15.480 equally unsatisfying so then you're so then you saying that the rock exists objectively

08:04:19.820 is unjustified and fails

08:04:22.660 in the way that all arguments fail so then it well not in the same way mine would be dogmatism so then

08:04:29.760 is it true absent your personal belief yes that the rock exists if you die yeah okay yeah objectivity

08:04:40.080 still exists okay yeah we have warm storm thank you for the canadian 100 merge physics with philosophy

08:04:47.300 nothing exists as we know it without a conscious observer therefore nothing is truly objective

08:04:52.560 you're both potentially right and wrong at the same time how long is a piece of string the answer is an

08:04:58.680 infant is as infinite as the two of you arguing i would be willing infinite regression here yeah i would

08:05:05.180 be willing to grant that except that you said something there which was very important you said that

08:05:12.000 uh this thing you said uh the the answer is infinite like let's say we took an arrow you should fire the

08:05:19.060 arrow you did the old greek philosophy thing right it's always potentially in flight due to the fact that

08:05:25.700 you can reduce time by an infinite amount but the second you say that that claim is objectively true

08:05:31.340 you have now destroyed the idea that there's that you you have to make the claim that this thing is

08:05:37.240 unjustified you can't say it's unjustified and objectively true or you end up with p and not p

08:05:42.920 no that's not true okay is truth can you justify truth

08:05:49.300 uh you can attempt to but all justifications can you do you believe that you can justify truth

08:05:58.180 uh sort of but i'll fail eventually okay because of is that true is what true is it true that you

08:06:06.340 can't justify truth uh it seems to be okay but maybe not maybe the infinite regression is so it's true

08:06:16.380 that you can't justify truth got it okay got it i understand now okay we have i was confused before

08:06:25.080 but now it's clarified rose 89 donated 69 dollars kyle you bear bad faith you are more interested

08:06:32.320 in winning or performing for an audience than in seeking truth finding common ground or being open

08:06:38.440 to changing their mind i feel like i've changed my mind and granted you multiple things but okay

08:06:42.720 ashes rose thank you for tts we have kyla

08:06:48.560 kyla bunny hugs donated 69 dollars imagine her husband is married to her and it's objective on

08:06:57.660 both parties that her husband hasn't cheated on her because he's been home all day kyla still

08:07:03.340 will assume he still cheated we still love you well look it's not listen to be fair

08:07:08.920 it wouldn't she can say that it's i'm sorry respectfully please don't engage with people

08:07:16.020 like making claims about me or my husband cheating on well i'm just i'm just arguing the

08:07:19.920 philosophy it would be the case that that is not objectively true postulating whether or not me and

08:07:25.760 my husband have cheated on each other in the same way that i'm not engaged in some sort of philosophy

08:07:28.720 about like rachel wilson like having multiple baby daddies and blah blah all that bullshit i'm not 0.97

08:07:33.340 interested in engaging in that sort of thing it's not interesting yeah i i really wasn't going to

08:07:37.960 engage with whether or not there's any truth to this i don't believe for a second that there's any

08:07:43.320 truth that nick has ever cheated on kyla or vice versa i have no idea i'm just saying that there's no

08:07:50.100 way for her to justify the belief that he hasn't that's all that's all right no no you can't justify

08:07:59.300 that i i'm so over engaging with you on this okay yeah all right guys uh well even though it's your

08:08:07.160 argument if you look you're stride man and there's no stride man and i'm willing to engage with me

08:08:12.740 saying oh if you're assuming totally willing to engage on this subjective no assuming means taking

08:08:18.600 for granted does assumption require a mind in this case no not technically okay then how how is

08:08:27.180 something assumed absent of mind uh because uh a equals a must be like uh just assumed to be infinite

08:08:33.160 and true forever how who's assuming it um nothing

08:08:37.020 i just want to i just want to make sure that you understand what you just said

08:08:43.480 i just want you to understand what you're i just want you to understand that it's occurring within

08:08:48.320 a mind by the way clip that i just want to i just want you to understand what you just said

08:08:52.560 i just said isn't it does assumption require a mind you said no and i said well then who assumes

08:09:00.000 assumes the thing and you said nothing all right i'm good okay all right

08:09:09.680 do you guys do you guys need to do another closing no i'm good no okay um so the debate's done

08:09:27.540 there's no further closing i was going to continue the stream just on my own for a little bit

08:09:32.720 what just i wanted to talk to the audience okay cool um i was going to lower the threshold a little

08:09:38.780 bit but i know you have another hour and a half by the way to get in and out i'll hang out with you

08:09:45.700 for a little bit okay will you stay for a little bit maybe we could just have a little pleasant convo

08:09:50.320 for a little bit towards the end of the stream only if you want to though because 0.92

08:09:53.320 i gave you 30 minutes oh and then i'm going to fucking in and out that's perfect that's that's 0.99

08:09:59.760 all i need you fucker but i'm gonna have a smoke real quick you're a fucking legend andrew guys w's 1.00

08:10:03.480 in chat for andrew wilson w's in the chat for kyla you guys were fantastic it was a fantastic debate 0.99

08:10:09.020 we'll do a uh an after after what would be the after hours the aftercare after not exactly but uh

08:10:21.920 we'll do uh it assumes what's the without you know like the after show the late night show the

08:10:29.300 after show after show uh so guys if you want to stick around a little bit i'm going to lower the

08:10:33.340 tts threshold if you want to get uh a little message in here at the end we'll do 49 tts

08:10:39.400 uh if any of you guys want to ask a question uh and uh yeah we'll do that we'll do that you're

08:10:45.800 welcome to uh a really quick um debate university guys guys debate university.com if you want to

08:10:52.780 learn how to become a master debater like andrew uh you can assume things without a mind

08:11:01.080 we've just abandoned philosophy at this point and are just doing you're unironically just doing

08:11:08.140 wordplay now which is fine you can do that unironically not we just we decided that what

08:11:15.780 is subjective is uh requires mind what is objective does not require a mind when i ask you how you make

08:11:24.100 an assumption absent of mind you said you said yes that is objective and then i said how can that be

08:11:31.220 processed absent of mind and he and he's well what process is it absent of mind you said nothing

08:11:37.560 nothing it can be processed absent of mind what process is it yeah but i would say it exists

08:11:42.940 outside of the mind right so even though the mind isn't processing it it doesn't mean that it doesn't

08:11:47.400 exist does a mind process it uh it it could but i would say it's subjective it exists outside of us

08:11:55.440 that would be objective yeah that's what i just said you said subjective i said objective you said

08:12:00.700 subjective i definitely said objective and if i didn't say objective then i absolutely meant that's fine

08:12:06.360 objective so objectively it exists outside of the mind how how can you assume how does something

08:12:14.480 get assumed absent of mind uh it's like taken for granted by who by what mind uh by by no one but a mind

08:12:24.340 engaging in a group there's no mind you just said does not require mind yeah i think the laws of logic

08:12:31.420 exist outside of my mind yeah i know but but then when we're getting to like tautological arguments

08:12:35.800 or axioms what can make it i'm here and you're yeah but what can make an assumption absent of mind

08:12:41.120 nothing oh but this doesn't mean that objectivity doesn't exist so but how can can you said that you

08:12:51.160 can make assumptions absent of mind do you think that the laws of logic exist outside of mind yeah do you

08:12:57.820 think that assumption can exist how do you know that logic exists because they're unchangeable

08:13:01.680 they're not social constructions they're not changing they're unchanging okay yeah so can

08:13:06.860 you make an assumption that it's unchanging without a mind how do you know that wait because you know

08:13:12.520 it's unchanging wait it's funny with a mind i understand that even absent the mind this thing

08:13:18.220 would be unchanging like the rock correct you have an assumption what can be assumed absent of mind

08:13:26.660 uh these things exist outside of mind yeah what can be assumed absent of mind well these things

08:13:34.880 exist outside of mind but what can be well the mind has to assume it to engage in philosophy okay so

08:13:39.820 this is what the dogmatism is absent the mind these things there aren't any assumptions no no these

08:13:45.360 things still exist no i'm asking the mind observing the laws of logic what's the word assumption mean

08:13:51.340 i don't i don't i don't have it on the top of my head can you have assumptions absent mind uh in

08:13:57.080 the like rules it depends on what we're meaning here right that's why i just asked you what

08:14:01.200 assumption means yeah what does it mean uh it's the mind observing it so this will go to the same

08:14:06.840 question of you so how do you know the logic laws of logic exist can you infinitely can you can you 0.70

08:14:13.640 how do you know laws of logic you're just diverting again i'm not how does the fucking assumption exist 0.96

08:14:18.940 absent of mind how because i think it's objective outside of the mind okay that's great how is it 0.90

08:14:25.920 objective an assumption out well first i guess just tell me what an assumption is i don't have a

08:14:32.900 definition you don't know what an assumption is i can google one for you google it i'm actually fine

08:14:37.040 with that google it i got it what's an assumption assumption is a belief statement or proposition taken

08:14:41.700 for granted is true without proof or concrete evidence what's the first word without proof what's

08:14:46.640 the first word belief belief yes can you show me a belief absent a mind uh no i think belief is

08:14:54.840 fundamental to a mind but beliefs are not the same thing as like axioms right is there a requirement of

08:14:59.580 belief is there a requirement of mind for tautology is there a requirement of belief for what an

08:15:06.680 assumption yes i think that's what then how do we have a belief can a tautology

08:15:11.460 how do we have beliefs absent a mind can a tautology exist outside of mind uh a tautology

08:15:18.480 a equals a oh yeah i'll answer this i promise but i want to answer my question first belief

08:15:24.520 how does belief exist absent a mind in the case of this it doesn't okay so then when you say an

08:15:32.260 assumption can exist outside of a mind if assumptions require belief can assumptions exist outside of a mind

08:15:38.440 uh the assumptions don't but the uh the the objective truth of the law does okay my question is

08:15:45.540 this is dogmatism my question is if beliefs are the requirement of an assumption can assumptions

08:15:52.180 exist outside of a mind i have answered this multiple then answer it again can if a belief

08:15:58.000 exist exist if it exists it does do beliefs which are requirement of an assumption can they exist absent a

08:16:07.680 mind or not beliefs beliefs no and our beliefs are requirement of our beliefs requirements of

08:16:15.740 assumptions uh sure but again yes that you contradicted your whole yes you did my question

08:16:22.920 are you gonna answer my question sure okay what is it but but i just want to make sure we're clear

08:16:26.940 a belief is a requirement of an assumption assumptions can exist outside the mind but

08:16:32.280 beliefs cannot exist outside the mind okay so hang on i just want to make sure we're clear can

08:16:36.220 beliefs can exist beliefs a equal a cannot exist outside of the mind assumptions can exist outside the

08:16:41.900 mind beliefs require assumptions but assumptions can exist outside the mind is that correct no that

08:16:47.400 objective reality exists outside of the mind yeah that's not my question my question is this

08:16:51.640 You're not answering it until you do.

08:16:54.000 We're not moving on until we do.

08:16:55.360 I have answered.

08:16:56.280 You have not.

08:16:58.060 You have not.

08:16:58.760 I have.

08:16:59.340 Does a belief require a mind?

08:17:02.040 A belief does, typically.

08:17:03.340 Does an assumption require a mind?

08:17:05.640 Yes.

08:17:06.800 But the laws.

08:17:07.500 Yes.

08:17:08.040 Wait, but the laws.

08:17:08.860 Yes.

08:17:09.420 Yes.

08:17:09.920 No, the laws.

08:17:10.940 Yes.

08:17:11.340 No.

08:17:12.040 Do laws exist?

08:17:13.100 Yes.

08:17:13.240 Does the law of logic exist?

08:17:16.180 Yes.

08:17:17.060 Objectively.

08:17:17.680 Yes.

08:17:17.940 What's that?

08:17:18.440 Does laws of logic exist objectively?

08:17:20.460 Yes.

08:17:20.780 So they're true, absent of the mind.

08:17:22.340 Absent of the mind, they exist, yes.

08:17:23.560 How do we know that that's true?

08:17:25.320 We can use inductive inference.

08:17:26.820 So we would know from inductive inference that if I was dead, the rock would still exist.

08:17:30.880 How do you use inductive inference?

08:17:32.080 Doesn't that require a mind?

08:17:33.240 Of course.

08:17:34.040 Oh, so you require the mind to even engage in observing objectivity.

08:17:37.260 To engage in the idea of inductive inference.

08:17:39.040 So objectivity requires subjectivity?

08:17:41.160 No.

08:17:41.680 Oh.

08:17:42.200 It seems like that's just what you said.

08:17:43.540 No, no, no.

08:17:43.560 We're saying that something...

08:17:44.100 So how do you use inductive reasoning without a mind?

08:17:46.180 I'm explaining.

08:17:47.260 Okay.

08:17:48.220 The rock.

08:17:48.760 Is the rock material or is it immaterial?

08:17:52.220 It's material.

08:17:52.960 Can I ask one clarifying question?

08:17:54.440 Are you referring to the professional wrestler or the, like, the...

08:17:57.900 The thing.

08:17:58.280 The geological object?

08:17:59.760 Okay, fine. 1.00

08:18:00.360 We'll get to the fucking chats, Brian. 1.00

08:18:01.960 No, hey, whoa, whoa, whoa. 0.99

08:18:02.700 Sorry, just, just, just, no, no.

08:18:03.480 No, no, no.

08:18:03.820 Keep going.

08:18:04.200 Sorry, I was just curious.

08:18:04.940 No, no, no. 0.99

08:18:05.320 We'll get to your fucking chats. 1.00

08:18:06.400 No, no, no. 1.00

08:18:06.920 So does moral...

08:18:07.540 Okay.

08:18:07.980 No, no, no.

08:18:08.120 Keep going.

08:18:08.520 Keep going.

08:18:08.600 So how do you know that moral laws exist objectively?

08:18:11.380 Well, we're not talking about moral laws here.

08:18:13.300 Here we're just...

08:18:14.160 Laws of logic.

08:18:15.320 Yeah.

08:18:15.460 Here we're just talking about laws of logic.

08:18:17.420 Moral facts.

08:18:18.280 If a thing is a social construction, it's changeable.

08:18:20.740 If a thing is not a social construction, it would be unchangeable, almost definitionally.

08:18:24.940 Well, theoretically, some things that are non-social construction can be changed, of course.

08:18:26.920 If it is the case that I could change here in material reality a law of logic, it would

08:18:32.800 stand to reason that I could not change the same...

08:18:35.220 How could you know that it can't be changed?

08:18:37.900 Because any application to change the thing would appeal to the thing to change it.

08:18:42.220 So how do you change it without...

08:18:45.520 You can't.

08:18:47.620 Wait.

08:18:48.120 How do you observe this, though?

08:18:49.620 We don't need to.

08:18:50.500 The observation is in the rationalization.

08:18:53.540 So the idea...

08:18:54.180 How is rationalization not requiring a mind?

08:18:55.360 Because the idea...

08:18:56.560 Well, hang on.

08:18:57.580 I'm explaining to you.

08:18:58.660 I'm waiting.

08:18:59.180 And I've...

08:18:59.820 I just did, but I'll do it again.

08:19:02.340 The laws of logic are unchanging, and I know that they're unchanging because I have

08:19:06.180 to appeal to the laws of logic in order to change the laws of logic.

08:19:09.440 And how do you know the laws of logic?

08:19:10.680 Isn't it your mind?

08:19:11.400 No, these are discoverable.

08:19:13.100 They're discoverable through what?

08:19:14.640 They're discoverable as a thing which would exist absent the mind because nothing which

08:19:19.200 is material...

08:19:20.240 How do you discover them?

08:19:21.040 Because anything which is material, anything which is material, if we agree, would exist

08:19:27.420 absent us, then it would be the case that they cannot exist inside of contradiction.

08:19:32.320 Are the laws of logic material?

08:19:34.360 Well, no, they're transcendental.

08:19:37.180 Right.

08:19:37.660 They're not material.

08:19:38.740 So how do you know that those are objective?

08:19:40.400 Well, hang on.

08:19:41.320 Without observing them through logic and reason.

08:19:43.340 They're transcendental.

08:19:44.220 I didn't say material or immaterial.

08:19:45.680 They're transcendental.

08:19:46.980 They're discoverable.

08:19:48.440 I agree.

08:19:48.840 Through what?

08:19:49.440 Through what?

08:19:49.460 A mind?

08:19:50.140 It's possible.

08:19:51.160 It could be possible that...

08:19:52.360 Is it discoverable through a mind?

08:19:53.700 Well, it would...

08:19:54.760 Yes.

08:19:55.360 It's discoverable through a mind, but it would exist absent that.

08:19:58.120 I agree.

08:19:59.020 Okay, but...

08:19:59.620 But this is...

08:20:00.140 To assume that it is discoverable outside of the mind is the dogmatism.

08:20:03.100 Is that a justified true belief?

08:20:04.980 It would be unjustified because we're assuming that it is discoverable outside of the mind.

08:20:08.500 Then change it.

08:20:10.460 That isn't a refutation of this.

08:20:12.660 You can't.

08:20:13.440 That isn't a refutation of this.

08:20:15.060 You can't change it because the very thing you're appealing to is the very thing you're trying to change, which is hilarious to me. 0.96

08:20:23.100 Your whole dilemma here is fucking hilarious. 0.90

08:20:26.480 You're like, hey, Andrew, wait a second. 0.99

08:20:29.220 So you agree that to observe objectivity, you need a mind.

08:20:32.300 It's not a justified true belief to believe that the laws...

08:20:35.620 Not even to believe.

08:20:37.020 To say and state as a fact that it is justified that the laws of logic cannot be changed even absent human minds.

08:20:43.360 How do you know that?

08:20:43.960 You say to me...

08:20:45.060 How do you know that?

08:20:46.060 Well, because I would have to appeal to the thing to change the thing.

08:20:48.580 You'd have to appeal with the mind.

08:20:50.340 What's appealing?

08:20:51.040 But absent the mind...

08:20:51.680 What's doing the appealing?

08:20:52.860 How can a thing be discoverable if it doesn't exist absent minds?

08:20:57.320 How can something be discoverable if it exists absent minds?

08:21:00.280 If it doesn't exist absent minds.

08:21:03.940 Sorry, I feel like I'm not understanding this question.

08:21:06.060 How would something be discoverable absent minds?

08:21:09.000 No, no, no, no, no.

08:21:09.960 I'm asking you this question.

08:21:13.240 Mathematics.

08:21:13.960 Mm-hmm.

08:21:14.460 Right?

08:21:14.700 The laws of mathematics.

08:21:16.020 Yeah.

08:21:16.360 Do those exist absent minds?

08:21:17.920 Yes.

08:21:18.420 So they're discovered.

08:21:19.720 Mm-hmm.

08:21:20.220 Which means they exist absent minds.

08:21:22.180 Correct.

08:21:22.780 Okay.

08:21:23.140 So then when you make the appeal to a thing, you're saying the laws of logic are discoverable.

08:21:29.340 They are discoverable, which means...

08:21:31.280 What's discovering them?

08:21:31.980 Sure.

08:21:32.340 A mind.

08:21:33.100 There's no dispute there.

08:21:34.520 How is it discovering it?

08:21:36.020 Oh, through the laws of rationality.

08:21:38.140 How do you know laws of rationality exist?

08:21:40.120 Because these are things which, in order to change, you would have to appeal to the thing

08:21:45.300 to change them.

08:21:46.080 You have to assume that they exist.

08:21:46.840 There's no assumption.

08:21:47.780 Of course you do.

08:21:48.240 It is in fact the case...

08:21:48.820 How do you know that they exist?

08:21:51.360 Wait, what?

08:21:52.080 How do you know that they exist?

08:21:53.780 Oh, I would know that they exist through me.

08:21:56.980 Through your mind?

08:21:57.800 That's the only way I could know.

08:21:59.960 So your subjectivity is required for objectivity to exist?

08:22:02.760 No.

08:22:02.960 How does...

08:22:04.080 How is...

08:22:04.480 Because the rock exists...

08:22:05.560 If you are necessary for observing the objectivity...

08:22:08.660 Because the rock still exists, even if I'm dead.

08:22:11.100 True.

08:22:11.260 And I know this.

08:22:11.840 Which I've said.

08:22:12.360 I know this, because if you die, the rock is still there.

08:22:16.200 I agree.

08:22:16.840 Yeah.

08:22:16.900 This is objectivity.

08:22:16.920 So then if that's the case, then a social construction can be changed.

08:22:20.960 But how do you know this?

08:22:22.840 Well, the grounding of my epistemology?

08:22:25.500 Well, I mean, in this case, it's very simplistic.

08:22:27.560 If I can change the laws of logic, because they're a social construction, then I would

08:22:33.160 not need to appeal to the social construction to change it.

08:22:35.800 Sure.

08:22:36.180 In the case of the laws of logic, I cannot change them.

08:22:39.520 Which is why you think they're objective.

08:22:40.260 And would even need to appeal to them in order to change them.

08:22:43.420 But how do you know them?

08:22:45.160 Well, for me, I know them to the mind.

08:22:47.940 The mind, yeah.

08:22:48.580 But they would exist absent the mind.

08:22:50.700 I agree.

08:22:50.820 And would have to.

08:22:51.580 I agree.

08:22:52.120 But they would actually have to absent an assumption.

08:22:55.140 There's no assumption necessary here.

08:22:56.960 The assumption is that anything exists, that God exists.

08:23:00.780 That's the assumption.

08:23:01.800 Yeah, but we're not even assuming God.

08:23:04.200 We're not assuming any of this.

08:23:05.620 Well, we're assuming something.

08:23:06.780 We could, you can make no assumptions and still make the inference that the laws of logic

08:23:13.420 exist absent you.

08:23:14.880 Sure.

08:23:15.200 I agree.

08:23:16.000 This would be objectivity.

08:23:17.320 There's nothing there to fight about.

08:23:19.140 You're actually.

08:23:20.280 So you agree with me.

08:23:20.860 You're doing doctitism too. 0.61

08:23:21.160 No, you're agreeing with me.

08:23:22.460 No, you're just saying.

08:23:23.560 What I would say is I can observe through my mind that logics are unchangeable objectivity.

08:23:28.960 And you're saying my mind can use reason and logic, my mind to observe that these things

08:23:34.100 are objective.

08:23:34.800 That's incorrect.

08:23:35.480 That's true.

08:23:36.140 But you assuming your mind, are you assuming that logic exists?

08:23:38.960 That's incorrect.

08:23:39.680 Is still the mind.

08:23:40.740 Let's say all minds are gone.

08:23:43.620 Do the laws of logic still exist?

08:23:46.440 Yep.

08:23:46.840 Because I believe they're objective.

08:23:48.980 No.

08:23:49.380 No. 0.99

08:23:49.520 Well, you're not here to fucking believe it. 0.98

08:23:52.660 So we're going to assume nobody's here to fucking believe anything. 0.98

08:23:56.680 We already established belief. 0.95

08:23:58.380 So you think the laws of logic don't exist if we're not here.

08:23:59.960 It's my turn.

08:24:00.740 I just answered five of your questions.

08:24:02.980 Yeah.

08:24:03.260 You already established belief requires a mind that assumptions require belief. 1.00

08:24:08.180 You're fucking dead. 1.00

08:24:09.580 And so is everybody else. 1.00

08:24:11.000 Yeah.

08:24:11.360 Are the laws of logic still here?

08:24:13.160 Yes.

08:24:14.660 Objectivity.

08:24:15.700 Then there's nothing here to argue about.

08:24:18.260 You're right.

08:24:18.800 You and I are engaging in dogmatism.

08:24:23.420 So are you assuming that they're going to be here or are they going to be here?

08:24:28.180 I'm using my mind of logic and reason to argue that it would exist outside of us, irrespective

08:24:33.660 of us.

08:24:34.020 I'm assuming that this would exist outside of us.

08:24:37.080 That's what I'm granting.

08:24:38.060 So it's an assumption still?

08:24:39.960 Yes.

08:24:40.240 There's an assumption there somewhere.

08:24:41.360 Okay.

08:24:41.640 Can you change that assumption?

08:24:44.240 That doesn't, again.

08:24:46.180 Can you change that assumption?

08:24:47.740 Yeah.

08:24:47.940 Okay.

08:24:48.480 Can you change the laws of logic?

08:24:49.840 I would say no.

08:24:51.220 No, no.

08:24:52.000 Can anybody change them?

08:24:54.660 I would say no because I think they're objective.

08:24:56.140 Show me anybody changing them.

08:24:58.200 I don't need to because I agree that they're objective.

08:24:59.500 Because they can't be changed.

08:25:00.780 Yes.

08:25:01.220 They are objective, Andrew.

08:25:02.380 Good job.

08:25:03.260 But again, how do you know that they're objective?

08:25:05.920 I know that they're objective because I would have to appeal to them.

08:25:08.680 Your mind.

08:25:09.580 Yes.

08:25:09.900 Well, I would have to appeal to them to change them.

08:25:12.660 Epistemically, you use logic and reason to ascertain that morality is objective.

08:25:17.680 But at some point, you're assuming something.

08:25:19.980 You must just grant an assumption.

08:25:21.580 You must grant that A equals A.

08:25:23.300 So, let me ask you this.

08:25:26.560 Is it the case that it's subjectively true that we would need to use Agrippa's trilemma?

08:25:33.680 I don't know what this means.

08:25:35.740 Is it subject?

08:25:36.320 That it requires minds for us to use Agrippa's trilemma?

08:25:39.020 In the same way that it requires minds to engage in logic.

08:25:44.880 But I think that logic would be true.

08:25:46.920 The laws of logic would be true outside of us.

08:25:48.880 Great.

08:25:50.640 Would it be true?

08:25:51.440 Same answers as you, by the way.

08:25:52.540 But would it be true?

08:25:53.920 I would say so, yeah.

08:25:55.060 Yeah, and not you.

08:25:56.320 You're not here.

08:25:58.220 That doesn't change the rocks that exist.

08:26:00.000 Yeah, I know.

08:26:00.020 But is it still in existence even if you're not here?

08:26:03.940 Yep.

08:26:04.480 Okay.

08:26:06.020 Thank you.

08:26:06.820 True.

08:26:07.880 But I'm assuming that I am here.

08:26:09.500 Well, then you're making the assumption that this thing is true even absent you here.

08:26:16.760 I don't know.

08:26:18.460 I don't know how much longer you want to circle on this.

08:26:20.080 But is it true?

08:26:21.420 Absent assumption.

08:26:22.540 We, Andrew, so for all of his audience, Andrew and I think the same way about this.

08:26:26.740 No, we don't.

08:26:27.180 Yes, we do.

08:26:27.680 No, we don't.

08:26:28.080 Yes, we're both engaging in dogmatism.

08:26:29.640 We think that objectivity, moral objectivity exists outside of us.

08:26:33.040 And we assume some sort of tautological fact like law of identity.

08:26:37.800 We assume it.

08:26:38.580 We assume A equals A because we can't think of anything else where A would not equal A.

08:26:42.940 I'll say you what, then.

08:26:43.560 That's reasonable.

08:26:44.320 That's reasonable.

08:26:44.480 If that's the case, then from a subjectivist view, you should be able to internally critique this.

08:26:51.240 Show me how you can violate the law of non-contradiction from a subjectivist perspective.

08:26:56.740 I don't need to do that.

08:26:58.320 Yeah, but that's not what I asked you.

08:26:59.820 Can you show me how?

08:27:01.120 Why would I need to do this?

08:27:01.960 Can you show me how to violate the law of non-contradiction?

08:27:04.640 I'm not a subjectivist.

08:27:05.240 Can you show me from a subjectivist?

08:27:07.360 I don't believe in subjectivity.

08:27:08.120 Can you show it to me?

08:27:09.180 I don't believe in subjectivity.

08:27:10.040 You can't, right?

08:27:11.700 I don't need to.

08:27:12.660 Yeah, but you can't.

08:27:14.040 What do you mean I can't?

08:27:14.880 I don't need to.

08:27:15.040 You can't actually show me from a subjectivist position how you could violate the law of non-contradiction?

08:27:20.540 Well, a subjectivist would say that none of these laws even exist if the minds don't exist

08:27:24.180 because nothing is in existence without the minds observing them.

08:27:27.180 Gotcha.

08:27:28.140 But I would say they do exist outside of the mind.

08:27:30.360 From the subjectivist perspective, can you show me how you could violate the law of non-contradiction?

08:27:37.760 If none of our minds exist at all, then laws and logic and all this stuff, none of it exists now.

08:27:43.120 So it doesn't matter because nothing exists.

08:27:45.780 So everything's mind-dependent or not?

08:27:47.500 I don't hold this view.

08:27:50.540 What view do you hold?

08:27:51.560 I'm an objectivist.

08:27:52.660 So then nothing's mind-dependent.

08:27:54.660 Correct.

08:27:55.060 I do not think the laws of logic require a mind to be true.

08:27:57.920 I think they are true irrespective of the mind.

08:28:00.420 Okay, but you're assuming that.

08:28:02.220 Yep.

08:28:03.120 Okay, so if it was the case that we would take this assumption away, would that still be true?

08:28:08.480 Yep.

08:28:09.520 Okay.

08:28:11.800 Yes.

08:28:12.900 Objectivity.

08:28:13.480 Dogmatism.

08:28:14.140 Gotcha.

08:28:14.740 Yes.

08:28:15.420 So then we can bypass the trilemma. 1.00

08:28:17.860 No, this is just dogmatism.

08:28:19.460 You just said that if we remove assumptions, then it would still be true.

08:28:24.180 Yep.

08:28:25.020 Because I think it's objectively true.

08:28:26.120 But dogmatism, me assuming that it would just be true is the dogmatism.

08:28:31.540 You just assuming that it would be true.

08:28:34.320 Yeah.

08:28:34.540 Me asserting that it would exist outside of me and it would be true outside of me is the dogmatism.

08:28:39.620 So then you're not bypassing the assumption.

08:28:42.300 Correct.

08:28:42.780 Nobody can bypass a gripper's trilemma. 1.00

08:28:44.280 That I've seen thus far.

08:28:45.180 Then if the assumption did not exist, this would not exist.

08:28:50.760 I think it would exist.

08:28:52.540 Then you're now bypassing the assumption.

08:28:55.180 Huh?

08:28:55.560 Then you're not bypassing the assumption.

08:28:57.340 Correct.

08:28:58.740 Correct.

08:29:00.580 I'm not bypassing dogmatism, but I still think objectivity is true.

08:29:03.960 All right.

08:29:04.560 Yeah.

08:29:04.820 In the same way you do.

08:29:06.560 Not in the same way.

08:29:07.420 Yeah.

08:29:07.640 I said, do you think laws of logic are true irrespective of mind?

08:29:10.580 You said, yes.

08:29:11.020 And I said, how do you know this?

08:29:12.140 And you said, well, I can use laws of logic and reason.

08:29:14.340 I said, things like your mind.

08:29:15.620 Yeah.

08:29:15.820 But I'm appealing to an unchanging faucet.

08:29:17.820 You're not.

08:29:18.260 You're appealing to a changing faucet.

08:29:19.080 I am appealing to an unchanging thing.

08:29:20.400 I think the laws of logic are true forever.

08:29:23.240 You see how you say you think?

08:29:24.720 Objectively true.

08:29:25.380 You think?

08:29:26.640 Yes.

08:29:27.160 I think.

08:29:27.760 So you're making an assumption.

08:29:28.620 My perspective.

08:29:29.000 Just like you think.

08:29:30.120 Yeah.

08:29:30.560 Yes.

08:29:31.160 Dogmatism true.

08:29:31.620 The question is, are these things true absent you think?

08:29:34.400 I believe so.

08:29:35.140 Yes.

08:29:35.760 Yeah.

08:29:36.200 But you see how you said, I believe.

08:29:38.100 My question suspends belief.

08:29:40.380 Yes.

08:29:41.160 Right.

08:29:41.380 But it's dogmatism to assume that.

08:29:43.100 Okay.

08:29:43.600 So then you don't believe that or you believe it's dogmatism?

08:29:45.340 No, I do believe that.

08:29:46.620 It is dog.

08:29:47.280 It is both.

08:29:47.840 I believe that.

08:29:48.600 And it is dogmatism to assume that.

08:29:50.520 Yeah.

08:29:50.860 Okay.

08:29:51.200 So it's subjectively true only.

08:29:54.840 So this requires a mind.

08:29:57.760 Can I cap this circling of the drain for like two more minutes?

08:30:01.580 Because like we're not moving anywhere.

08:30:03.080 You're saying the same thing I am.

08:30:04.380 No, I'm not.

08:30:04.620 You just don't.

08:30:05.120 Yep.

08:30:05.500 No.

08:30:05.800 Does the law of logic exist outside of the mind?

08:30:09.000 How do you know that?

08:30:10.500 Oh, wait a second.

08:30:11.540 I'm confused.

08:30:13.580 From a subjectivist perspective, how can you appeal to the laws of logic without using them?

08:30:18.080 What do you mean subjectivist?

08:30:19.120 Isn't that like a specific branch of belief?

08:30:21.480 It's not like objectivism.

08:30:23.280 It's not.

08:30:24.420 Subjectivist is an entire branch of philosophy.

08:30:26.420 You mean subjectivity, right?

08:30:28.660 Well, no.

08:30:29.320 In this case, I actually mean subjectivist.

08:30:31.440 You mean the entire branch of philosophy that I don't appeal to.

08:30:34.900 Well, I'm sorry.

08:30:36.620 You are appealing to it.

08:30:37.760 No, I'm not.

08:30:38.440 I believe in objectivity.

08:30:40.300 You believe.

08:30:41.500 Yeah.

08:30:41.780 Is that subjective?

08:30:42.940 No.

08:30:43.560 No.

08:30:44.580 What makes it true objectively?

08:30:47.240 That you believe it?

08:30:48.480 It exists outside of me.

08:30:50.280 Oh.

08:30:51.060 Is that true?

08:30:52.120 Yeah.

08:30:52.660 Objectively?

08:30:53.740 Yeah.

08:30:54.060 There's no assumption?

08:30:55.220 There is an assumption.

08:30:56.160 Then is that true?

08:30:58.540 Yep.

08:30:59.260 Objectively?

08:30:59.980 Yep.

08:31:00.300 Without assumption?

08:31:01.080 How do you do this?

08:31:02.020 Is it true objectively?

08:31:03.360 Is it true objectively?

08:31:04.600 Yes.

08:31:05.060 How do you know it?

08:31:06.280 Because I would appeal to an unchanging standard.

08:31:08.800 And how do you know it's unchanging?

08:31:10.600 Because absent my mind, it would still exist.

08:31:12.920 And how do you know that?

08:31:14.140 I know that through inference.

08:31:15.880 Inference like using the mind?

08:31:17.280 There's no assumption there.

08:31:18.500 Of course there is.

08:31:19.660 What's the assumption?

08:31:20.640 The existence of laws of logic.

08:31:22.300 The existence that your mind is here.

08:31:23.920 Those are all assumptions.

08:31:24.900 Everywhere you look when a person dies, does the stuff that they leave behind remain?

08:31:30.480 What?

08:31:30.880 If it's the case that you're dead tomorrow, and I walk over and like pluck the cross from 0.99

08:31:37.720 your chest, right?

08:31:39.760 Do you agree with me that that would be the case that if you were dead, the things that

08:31:45.180 you leave behind are still going to be here materially?

08:31:48.320 Yeah.

08:31:48.640 I believe in objectivity.

08:31:50.120 No, that's not objective.

08:31:52.960 Yes.

08:31:53.340 I think it would be here materially.

08:31:54.460 Okay.

08:31:54.740 It'd be here materially.

08:31:55.840 For some amount of time.

08:31:57.140 Got it. 1.00

08:31:57.160 So then I could come over and take all that shit, right? 1.00

08:31:59.340 No, I would say when I'm dead. 1.00

08:32:02.680 Yeah, you're dead. 0.92

08:32:03.220 Probably got my next of kin. 0.97

08:32:04.580 Okay.

08:32:04.920 Yeah, sure. 1.00

08:32:05.440 They could take all that shit. 1.00

08:32:06.520 Sure. 1.00

08:32:06.880 But all that shit's going to be here? 1.00

08:32:08.160 Mm-hmm. 1.00

08:32:09.320 Regardless of whether or not your mind is here?

08:32:12.320 Correct.

08:32:12.900 Just like the laws of logic exist outside of my mind.

08:32:14.980 Is that just an assumption?

08:32:16.680 Yeah.

08:32:17.540 So you're just assuming, so you're just like moving into simulation theory?

08:32:22.300 That's what, well, I'm not.

08:32:24.900 You are.

08:32:25.800 I'm granting existence.

08:32:26.880 Yes, but yes, simulation theory can't be proved.

08:32:29.600 Hang on.

08:32:29.840 You're granting or is true?

08:32:31.400 Both.

08:32:32.280 Okay, but how can you make a truth claim by appealing?

08:32:35.480 Just so you know, one minute left.

08:32:36.600 I'm not circling the drain with him forever on this.

08:32:38.400 Well, okay, but this is not circling the drain. 0.98

08:32:40.140 This is just fucking bizarre. 0.83

08:32:40.440 Yes, I've already granted, for example, that one of the ways that you could try to refute the dogmatism of existence, 0.98

08:32:45.640 of believing that existence is true, is saying we could all just be in a simulation.

08:32:50.120 And I said, I don't think that.

08:32:51.360 I don't think it's even useful to think like that.

08:32:53.360 But you could.

08:32:53.880 And then laws of logic don't actually exist.

08:32:56.300 They were just things imposed by the simulation onto us.

08:32:58.560 And we don't actually know what's actually true.

08:33:00.300 There actually, maybe is nothing truly true.

08:33:02.600 Maybe nothing's truly true?

08:33:04.240 Well, I think that something is truly true.

08:33:05.860 Okay.

08:33:06.220 Are you assuming that?

08:33:07.800 Yeah.

08:33:08.140 Is that true?

08:33:09.120 I'm assuming objectivity.

08:33:10.700 Yep.

08:33:11.420 So it's true that you're making an assumption?

08:33:14.880 Yes.

08:33:17.100 Are you assuming that?

08:33:19.380 Bro?

08:33:20.600 I'm asking.

08:33:21.360 Asked and answered.

08:33:22.680 Asked and answered.

08:33:23.300 Are you assuming that you're.

08:33:24.480 I'm not doing this anymore.

08:33:24.920 Are you assuming.

08:33:25.440 Asked and answered.

08:33:26.060 Are you assuming it's true that you're making an assumption?

08:33:28.200 Aren't you using logic and reason?

08:33:29.860 It doesn't have anything to do with me.

08:33:31.560 Yes, it does.

08:33:31.700 Are you assuming.

08:33:33.100 What?

08:33:33.540 What would it have to do with me if you're assuming.

08:33:35.060 Because assuming is your buzzword for the mind.

08:33:36.920 Yeah.

08:33:37.180 No, no.

08:33:37.340 But you're also using your mind to use inference and logic.

08:33:39.560 My buzzword for the mind is mind.

08:33:40.720 But the thing is, is are you assuming that it's true.

08:33:45.280 Yes.

08:33:45.880 That you're assuming.

08:33:48.320 Am I assuming it's true that I am.

08:33:50.300 Am I assuming that my existence is true?

08:33:53.580 Yes.

08:33:53.980 No.

08:33:54.240 Are you assuming that it's true that you're making assumptions?

08:33:58.720 Uh, I suppose so.

08:34:01.100 Yes.

08:34:01.520 But is it also objectively true without assumption?

08:34:04.220 Yeah.

08:34:05.200 Okay.

08:34:05.720 That exists outside of the mind.

08:34:06.760 That's P and not P. 0.95

08:34:07.180 But I use my mind.

08:34:08.140 But that's P and not P.

08:34:08.940 It's the exact same thing that you do, which is that, do you think that laws exist outside

08:34:13.560 of the mind?

08:34:14.260 Yes.

08:34:14.840 Do you think, what do you use to determine that?

08:34:17.120 I would, I would use the fact that nothing can be appealed to, to those laws, except those

08:34:21.540 laws.

08:34:22.540 Okay.

08:34:22.860 Therefore, they must objectively be real.

08:34:25.080 They must objectively be real because you can't appeal to anything else.

08:34:27.960 Yes.

08:34:28.380 You must assume that A equals A.

08:34:29.500 There's no assumption there.

08:34:30.560 There's just nothing else.

08:34:32.440 It's, it's impossibility to the contrary.

08:34:35.480 There's an impossibility to the contrary.

08:34:37.020 There's a theoretical world where it infinitely remains.

08:34:38.860 The regresses where A doesn't equal A and it goes down and it goes down and it goes down

08:34:42.520 and there's turtles all the way through.

08:34:43.300 Show me what a theoretical world looks like where contradictions can exist.

08:34:46.880 Where contradictions can exist in a simulation where contradictions are allowed to exist.

08:34:50.520 Okay.

08:34:50.940 What does that look like?

08:34:52.400 It's hard to imagine for us because we're stuck in this simulation.

08:34:54.960 So you can't actually.

08:34:56.780 But that doesn't mean that it's not logically true.

08:34:58.260 You just said that.

08:34:58.760 That A could equal B and C and D and E.

08:34:59.660 You just literally said that you can envision a world where contradictions can exist.

08:35:04.600 When I ask you.

08:35:05.400 In a simulation.

08:35:05.980 What that vision looks like.

08:35:07.340 You say, I don't know.

08:35:08.860 So.

08:35:09.120 Yeah.

08:35:09.240 I don't live in that simulation.

08:35:10.640 So.

08:35:10.700 But theoretically, if this simulation created all of these laws.

08:35:13.420 So then you can't envision.

08:35:13.920 Is it that you can't envision a world where that's the case?

08:35:16.300 Or is it the case that you just can't explain the world you're envisioning?

08:35:19.120 I would argue that it's objectively not true.

08:35:21.240 What?

08:35:22.220 That there is like some other alternate universe with the laws of logic.

08:35:25.320 Yeah.

08:35:25.460 That's great.

08:35:25.920 But my question is, is like, if it's the case that you can envision a world where contradictions

08:35:30.120 can exist, can you tell me anything about that world?

08:35:32.860 Nope.

08:35:33.240 Because I'm not in that world.

08:35:33.860 Nope.

08:35:34.720 Okay.

08:35:35.700 All right.

08:35:35.940 How would I tell you anything about that world?

08:35:37.260 Yeah.

08:35:37.460 Of course you can't.

08:35:38.440 You can't tell me anything about that.

08:35:39.700 Because you would have to appeal to the very thing that you say is subjective in order

08:35:43.080 to appeal to the thing that you're claiming is subjective.

08:35:45.080 Don't say it's subjective.

08:35:45.980 I would appeal to the object reality that we are in this reality.

08:35:48.360 I think that this reality is true, that it does exist.

08:35:50.760 And I am assuming that.

08:35:52.360 But if that's an assumption, is that true?

08:35:56.280 I think it's true.

08:35:57.060 Yeah.

08:35:57.500 But is it?

08:35:58.820 I would say objectively, yes.

08:36:00.220 Okay.

08:36:00.620 But outside of your assumption, is it still true?

08:36:03.040 Yep.

08:36:03.800 Are you assuming that?

08:36:05.660 No, Andrew.

08:36:07.000 I'm not assuming.

08:36:07.120 You're not assuming.

08:36:07.940 Now you're not assuming.

08:36:08.780 No, I'm not assuming it.

08:36:09.760 All right.

08:36:10.180 Now it's existing outside of my mind.

08:36:11.600 We have a few chats.

08:36:12.800 Let's just blast through them while I still have you guys here at the table.

08:36:15.240 And then we're going to get this wrapped.

08:36:16.980 Really quick, guys.

08:36:17.780 If you can, like the video.

08:36:19.680 Get it to, we're, I don't know, 500 likes away from 8,000 likes.

08:36:24.000 Just get us to 8,000 likes, please.

08:36:26.500 It helps with the algorithm.

08:36:27.980 Warm Storm.

08:36:29.200 Thank you for the Canadian 100.

08:36:30.600 Conspiracy theory.

08:36:31.300 Some bulk of confrontation in the convo was why she hasn't gotten popular or famous, has all the hallmarks to make it, and handed a piece of pizza and expected to eat it to gain popularity with the audience. 1.00

08:36:45.180 She refused to, quote, unquote, eat the pizza.

08:36:50.080 Wait, I don't understand.

08:36:50.900 Why is there a quote?

08:36:52.540 I don't know why.

08:36:53.720 I think eat the pizza doesn't need to be in quotations.

08:36:56.500 That's what I was wondering.

08:36:57.540 I know.

08:36:58.500 You should at least take one bite.

08:37:00.580 Just.

08:37:00.640 I will for you right at the end, I promise.

08:37:02.980 Okay.

08:37:03.400 Pinky swear. 1.00

08:37:05.040 Pound? 0.72

08:37:05.880 Sure, pound it.

08:37:06.560 Pound it.

08:37:07.580 All right.

08:37:08.120 Thank you, Mr. Northumberland, for that.

08:37:12.100 We have the TTS coming through here.

08:37:14.240 We have Revolutionistic.

08:37:15.740 Thank you.

08:37:16.160 Appreciate it.

08:37:17.220 Get them in.

08:37:17.640 This is Final Call.

08:37:18.600 We're wrapping in five.

08:37:19.340 Revolutionistic donated $69.

08:37:21.100 Truth can be simplified or expanded upon infinitely beyond our understanding.

08:37:26.060 Stating this is true can be true but may not be the full explanation of that truth.

08:37:32.740 Thank you for your message.

08:37:34.240 You want to engage with that?

08:37:35.060 Because that's to you.

08:37:35.980 I don't think it is to me.

08:37:38.660 Yeah, this is about assumptions, right?

08:37:40.280 What he's basically saying is that, like, you must assume that it's true, even though

08:37:43.160 there is a theoretical possibility that truth is beyond what you even understand to be true.

08:37:46.860 Yeah, but that's beyond you.

08:37:48.440 You're saying objective.

08:37:49.820 So you're taking that out of the equation.

08:37:52.740 Nope, I'm not.

08:37:53.500 Yep, you are.

08:37:54.540 Nope, because truth can exist.

08:37:55.920 Like, I can know lots of objective truths and there's more truth to know that I don't actually know.

08:37:59.360 I'm not asking what you know.

08:38:00.520 I'm asking what there is.

08:38:02.440 Is there objective truth?

08:38:03.980 Yes.

08:38:04.420 Then it doesn't matter if you know it.

08:38:06.040 Of course it does.

08:38:06.240 You're just saying that it is the case that there is.

08:38:08.760 Of course it is.

08:38:09.340 I have to assume the truth that I have is true, that the existence of truth is true, and that

08:38:12.880 the truth that I know isn't going to be held in contradiction to the truth that I don't know.

08:38:16.520 So you're assuming there's objective truth.

08:38:18.240 Yeah, okay, bro.

08:38:19.980 Yeah, okay, girl. 1.00

08:38:24.000 Type shit. 1.00

08:38:26.140 Justin Martin's donated $50. 0.99

08:38:28.360 Thank you, Justin.

08:38:29.060 At this point, I'm genuinely rooting for Kyla to understand what Andrew is saying.

08:38:34.180 She'll get there eventually, maybe.

08:38:36.440 Nope, because Agrippa's trilemma. 0.96

08:38:38.200 Nope, we're saying the same thing.

08:38:39.880 Andrew and I are saying the same thing.

08:38:41.240 Nope, we're definitely not.

08:38:42.140 Pope donated $50.

08:38:42.920 Thank you, Pope.

08:38:43.420 She said subjective.

08:38:44.540 I love you, Andrew.

08:38:45.520 You tell her.

08:38:48.440 Pope, thank you very much for that.

08:38:50.700 We have Cha coming in here.

08:38:52.740 Comment.

08:38:54.500 Thank you, Cha.

08:38:55.940 Cha XD donated $50.

08:38:58.940 Brian, I love you and love the channel and debates.

08:39:02.160 But when I have to skip through an ad every 10 minutes during a live debate as a channel member, it makes me want to drive to SB and throttle you.

08:39:10.760 Hang on, hang on.

08:39:11.300 I'm going to answer this.

08:39:12.460 In Brian's defense, let the guy raise some cash, right?

08:39:17.080 He has to pay people's fees to come out here.

08:39:19.540 He puts on the great entertainment.

08:39:21.760 You know, most people don't send in super chats.

08:39:24.300 It's always the threshold of people who do that make channels like this possible. 0.99

08:39:28.380 So if he's got to run some ads, watch the fucking ads. 0.99

08:39:31.040 It costs you nothing to watch an ad. 0.99

08:39:34.660 And if you have YouTube premium, he makes good money from that.

08:39:37.040 That is, yeah.

08:39:37.760 So I guess channel memberships, that doesn't do anything for ads.

08:39:43.720 It does on Twitch.

08:39:44.520 On Twitch, yes.

08:39:45.300 If you have like a, if you have a tier one or what do they call it?

08:39:49.140 They're not memberships on Twitch.

08:39:50.360 They're subs.

08:39:51.260 Yeah, on Twitch subs, it'll stop the ads.

08:39:53.780 Not the case on YouTube.

08:39:55.160 YouTube, you just need to have premium.

08:39:56.660 But, yeah, you know, look, this is, we're not exactly getting athletic green sponsorships every single episode here.

08:40:05.020 We're viewer supported, ad supported to a degree.

08:40:09.100 So, you know.

08:40:10.580 Just think about this.

08:40:11.540 All the people who are like, I'm too fucking broke to send in a super chat, but would love to support the channel.

08:40:18.320 Here's a good way you can support the channel. 0.59

08:40:20.720 Watch the ads.

08:40:21.400 Watch the ads.

08:40:22.020 It costs you nothing.

08:40:23.060 It literally costs you nothing, and that's a great way where you don't have to spend any money, but can still support the channel.

08:40:30.560 Yeah, and, you know, the thing with our operation, it's, I'm not exactly sitting in front of my desktop computer playing Fortnite, where, you know, it's a very, you know, low production cost to do something like that.

08:40:45.300 So, you know, renting the studio space, I've got a big team, I've got an apparatus around me, you know, paying for appearances, et cetera, et cetera.

08:40:55.120 So, you know, there are definitely expenses related to putting on a show, a production like this.

08:41:00.580 I'm not just, you know, streaming from my bedroom, playing video games.

08:41:04.540 It's not that there's anything wrong with that, but the production cost for doing something like this is substantial.

08:41:10.880 The yearly costs are in the six figures to do a show like this.

08:41:14.960 So, that was, I'm not going to get too far into the details on my expenses, but yeah.

08:41:20.320 But it's a lot.

08:41:21.000 It, it's, it is in the six figures.

08:41:23.680 I am intricately familiar.

08:41:25.880 It's in the six figures.

08:41:25.980 It's a lot.

08:41:27.080 I'm spending the past, every single year, not, not just total, like every year for the past, since 2023.

08:41:34.660 Well, even since 2022, when I, when I was in the red, I was a hundred thousand in the red.

08:41:39.540 It's six figures a year in expenses to put on the show.

08:41:42.700 So, we have Christian Imperialist with, looking like the final. 0.68

08:41:46.440 Christian Imperialist donated $50.

08:41:48.700 If I use your logic to assume your husband's fidelity, which means it's only subjectively true, because it requires our mind to pretend it's true, does your marriage survive a gripper's trilemma? 0.62

08:42:01.920 Good one.

08:42:05.320 Oh, no answer.

08:42:06.380 Okay.

08:42:06.980 We have, yeah, we're, Andrew's getting, Andrew will be getting hamburgers.

08:42:15.520 Devin, thank you for the Gifted Five podcast.

08:42:17.540 Hamburgers or cheeseburgers?

08:42:19.580 Are you a cheese denier?

08:42:20.560 Actually, I'm definitely getting cheeseburgers, remember?

08:42:23.220 Obese people like me gotta get the cheeseburger? 0.97

08:42:25.720 Me and Andrew are actually going to get Mexican food.

08:42:29.100 Does he know that?

08:42:30.000 He knows that. 1.00

08:42:30.660 You're out of your fucking mind. 1.00

08:42:31.800 No, we're actually, we're actually getting Mexican food. 1.00

08:42:34.400 What time is it?

08:42:34.700 I promised you 30 minutes.

08:42:36.440 No, no, no, don't worry, don't worry, Andrew, don't worry. 1.00

08:42:38.480 Fuck off, I'm going, bro. 1.00

08:42:40.400 No, we're going, I'm taking you, but to get, we're going to get a different, we're going somewhere else. 1.00

08:42:45.860 Okay, whatever.

08:42:46.460 Don't worry, don't worry, I got you, I got you, Andrew. 1.00

08:42:48.700 You fucker. 1.00

08:42:50.180 Okay, I think this is the final one. 1.00

08:42:52.080 This is the final one.

08:42:52.500 This is the final one.

08:42:52.560 $49.

08:42:53.980 Did Einstein's predictions demonstrate anything of substance here?

08:42:58.120 And who has the bigger ego here, you'll think?

08:43:01.340 Kyla.

08:43:01.780 Definitely Brian.

08:43:03.400 Kyla has the biggest ego, for sure. 1.00

08:43:05.120 I do not have a large ego at all.

08:43:07.780 All right, final shout outs here.

08:43:09.520 If you want to support the show.

08:43:11.160 Like, giant ego.

08:43:12.960 Huge.

08:43:13.240 If you want to support the show, Venmo, Cash App, whatever pod.

08:43:16.560 Nathan, if you can, twitch.tv slash whatever.

08:43:19.720 Drop us a follow and a prime sub on your way out, guys.

08:43:23.380 Pull it up, Nathan.

08:43:25.200 There it is.

08:43:25.820 Yep.

08:43:26.500 Drop us a follow, drop us a prime sub.

08:43:28.140 Thank you for the support over there on Twitch.

08:43:30.100 You can join our Discord, discord.gg slash whatever.

08:43:32.700 I post my hate mail, stream schedule, post a bunch of cool stuff on there that's exclusive

08:43:37.680 to the Discord.

08:43:38.640 Guys, like the video, please.

08:43:39.940 I don't know if we've hit 800 or not 800, 8,000 likes, but if you can, do so, please.

08:43:46.860 DebateUniversity.com if you want to learn how to become a master debater.

08:43:51.120 And then here, I'll just read this real quick.

08:43:52.900 Are there truths that are, in principle, unknowable?

08:43:55.460 If so, how is that claim itself justified?

08:43:58.320 And if not, why think Agrippa's trilemma shows justification, if possible?

08:44:03.740 It is impossible.

08:44:04.820 Excuse me.

08:44:05.320 My bad.

08:44:07.780 We've been through this a million times.

08:44:09.400 No, no, no.

08:44:10.080 Because all justifications of knowledge fail in three unsatisfying ways.

08:44:13.840 Infinite regression, circular reasoning, or adoptive.

08:44:15.600 Is there knowledge which is unknowable?

08:44:17.880 Thank you, Chop.

08:44:19.300 Possibly.

08:44:19.800 I'm not sure.

08:44:20.420 No, is there?

08:44:21.060 I said possibly.

08:44:21.960 I'm not sure.

08:44:22.380 I haven't thought about it.

08:44:23.320 It's this one.

08:44:23.660 Oh, you haven't thought about it.

08:44:24.960 That's just a way for her to duck the question.

08:44:26.980 It's literally not.

08:44:28.100 I'm not sure I haven't thought about it.

08:44:28.760 We're playing it to Agrippa's trilemma.

08:44:30.300 According to Agrippa's trilemma, would there be knowledge which is unknowable?

08:44:34.700 It has nothing to do with Agrippa's trilemma.

08:44:36.660 I don't even know why you would connect these two things.

08:44:37.580 Because that would be a claim, which would be a universal.

08:44:42.320 Dogma to...

08:44:42.920 It would be a universal, actually.

08:44:44.340 Universal has nothing to do.

08:44:45.180 That there's knowledge which is unknowable.

08:44:46.840 Universal has nothing to do with Agrippa's trilemma.

08:44:48.840 How does this have to be Agrippa's trilemma?

08:44:48.860 How does this have to be Agrippa's trilemma?

08:44:50.580 How does this have to be Agrippa's trilemma?

08:44:51.140 Wait.

08:44:52.320 I'm asking you this question.

08:44:54.460 If we apply the idea that there's some knowledge which is unknowable to Agrippa's trilemma, there is some knowledge which is unknowable?

08:45:03.800 Generally, yeah.

08:45:05.080 Okay.

08:45:05.220 Could it show that Agrippa's trilemma is falsifiable and you can solve Agrippa's trilemma?

08:45:09.780 Theoretically, yeah.

08:45:11.600 No, that's not what he's asking.

08:45:12.920 He's asking, is it true that there's knowledge which is unknowable?

08:45:17.960 And if so, is that justified?

08:45:23.560 Can you justify that there's knowledge which is unknowable?

08:45:28.940 Theoretically, yeah.

08:45:29.800 Can you, though?

08:45:30.980 I don't know.

08:45:31.660 I haven't thought about unknowable truths.

08:45:33.940 But Agrippa's trilemma would say no, right?

08:45:36.520 Agrippa's trilemma wouldn't comment on this.

08:45:38.540 Yes, it would.

08:45:39.300 How?

08:45:39.820 Because the idea here is if you make a claim that says there's knowledge which is unknowable,

08:45:46.540 and then your claim from Agrippa's trilemma is that everything reduces to something which is non-justifiable,

08:45:53.380 then that claim that there's some knowledge which is unknowable would be an unjustified claim, right?

08:45:59.840 Sure, but I'm not sure.

08:46:01.340 Then yes.

08:46:02.380 Okay.

08:46:03.220 That's his question. 0.96

08:46:04.480 Left-handed assassin.

08:46:05.760 Thank you for the 50-man.

08:46:06.580 The mind is inherently energetic in nature.

08:46:09.060 Immaterial energy cannot be created or destroyed.

08:46:12.600 The mind is eternal as the almighty God Jesus Christ is eternal.

08:46:17.180 Wait a second.

08:46:20.040 That's not justified.

08:46:24.120 Cody, thank you for the soup chat.

08:46:25.520 It's assumed.

08:46:26.280 All right.

08:46:26.740 It's assumed.

08:46:27.660 Yeah.

08:46:27.780 Guys, like the video.

08:46:30.180 We're going to wrap this up here.

08:46:32.060 I'm going to have a smoke real quick.

08:46:33.200 Oh, I'm just going to wrap it now if you want to set the table.

08:46:36.100 Guys, thank you for joining the stream.

08:46:38.580 We're going to be live again Sunday, 5 p.m. Pacific.

08:46:42.140 Andrew will be joining us for our Dating Talk panel show.

08:46:45.680 That's going to be a very good one.

08:46:46.800 We have some really fantastic panelists joining Andrew, so be sure to tune in.

08:46:51.560 That's Sunday, 5 p.m. Pacific here on the Whatever Podcast Dating Talk panel.

08:46:57.700 That was a marathon debate there.

08:47:01.480 You guys are – I want to thank both of you for coming.

08:47:04.780 Sure.

08:47:04.960 That was a really good debate.

08:47:07.140 I enjoyed it.

08:47:08.100 It was fun.

08:47:08.600 You guys were fantastic.

08:47:10.600 So thank you guys both so much.

08:47:13.560 I think it's always fair at the end if you guys want to do a little plug or shout out if you want.

08:47:19.880 My name is Andrew Wilson, host of The Crucible.

08:47:22.660 You can find me over on The Crucible.

08:47:24.840 A little bit obese. 0.97

08:47:26.080 But still, I'm fucking entertaining and hilarious and a fantastic – 0.99

08:47:30.740 You're cuddly, Andrew. 0.98

08:47:31.440 You're cuddly.

08:47:31.920 Fantastic debater.

08:47:33.120 So make sure you go over there and you like, share, subscribe, all that stuff, and send me all of your money.

08:47:41.640 Not some of it.

08:47:42.340 All of it.

08:47:42.820 Anything for you?

08:47:43.680 Yeah, you can find me at NotSoEaridite everywhere.

08:47:45.980 Okay, perfect.

08:47:47.140 All right, guys.

08:47:48.080 07's in the chat.

08:47:49.280 07's in the chat.

08:47:50.140 Thank you guys so much for watching tonight.

08:47:51.680 It was an epic debate, epic stream.

08:47:54.160 I hope you guys have a great night, great weekend, and we'll see you guys on Sunday.

08:47:58.180 Good night, guys.

08:47:58.900 Good night.

08:48:03.120 Good night.

08:48:04.920 Good night.

08:48:09.740 Good night.

08:48:12.200 Good night.

08:48:13.240 Good night.

08:48:14.340 Good night.

08:48:22.840 Good night.

08:48:24.520 Good night.

Whatever Podcast - February 21, 2026

Andrew Wilson vs. NotSoErudite HEATED MARATHON DEBATE ｜ Whatever Debates 25

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript