Andrew Wilson vs. NotSoErudite HEATED MARATHON DEBATE ｜ Whatever Debates 25
Episode Stats
Length
8 hours and 48 minutes
Words per Minute
203.89447
Hate Speech Sentences
621
Summary
In this episode of the Whatever Podcast, host Brian Atlas is joined by Andrew Wilson, host of The Crucible, a sports debater, and political commentator, and Kyla, a content creator and social commentator. Together, they discuss whether or not Christian nationalism is un-American.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Welcome to a debate edition of the Whatever Podcast, coming to you live from Santa Barbara,
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.
00:00:43.500
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.
00:01:29.200
Well, I'll read the prompts then, so that we're going to cover four prompts, time permitting.
00:01:38.000
Prompt two, Christians should attempt to maintain political power in U.S.
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.
00:01:58.920
Prompt four, moderate liberal values are not compatible with Christianity.
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.
00:02:24.960
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.
00:02:37.780
Because when church and state merge, bias corrupts the state.
00:02:41.220
But more importantly to me, power corrupts the church.
00:03:01.580
That instinct, that relentless pursuit of truth through evidence is not anti-Christian.
00:03:12.840
America is laboratories and shipyards and production lines that outwork empires.
00:03:19.700
Physicists racing equations against tyranny and winning.
00:03:26.660
But engineering superiority screaming across the sky.
00:03:36.540
It built the medical systems, infrastructure, and technology that shaped the modern world.
00:03:44.400
It does not shrink from paleontology, geology, or evolutionary biology.
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.
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.
00:04:41.680
Those are not principles foreign to Christianity.
00:04:44.480
They echo the belief that every person bears dignity.
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.
00:05:18.280
Not by fusing church and state but by unleashing human ingenuity without demanding theological uniformity first.
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.
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.
00:06:28.280
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.
00:06:59.400
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.
00:07:14.340
And there isn't a fucking thing anybody can do about it.
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.
00:07:25.020
And by God, if Bob wants to fap to daughter porn with her former teachers, who the fuck are you?
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,
00:07:42.320
then by God, that's his right as an American and a patriot.
00:07:46.100
Who the fuck are you sick fascists to judge Bob?
00:07:51.780
He pays his taxes and he's following the system, baby.
00:07:55.760
The liberal process of amoral systems rather than immoral.
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,
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.
00:08:29.920
Just a judgmental little fascist trying to legislate morality in an amoral system,
00:08:34.640
which is oriented around a nonsense of a smorgasbord of moral buffets,
00:08:41.140
which boils down to a choose-your-own-degenerate adventure.
00:08:48.480
Here's a bunch of un-American stuff, depending on when you were alive.
00:08:51.520
Universal suffrage, pretty fucking un-American.
00:08:53.820
Abolishing slavery was pretty fucking un-American.
00:09:05.340
Refusal to duel when being called out was un-American.
00:09:11.600
Black people in white schools, so un-American we needed the military involved.
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.
00:09:28.040
Part of that, of course, should be not listening to a person who grew up under a king in a constitutional
00:09:35.540
Bunch of fascist bootlickers over in Maple Land.
00:09:40.860
Christian nationalism is as compatible with Americanism as the liberal order of amoral
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.
00:09:58.640
If people vote for Christian nationalists, what are they doing which is un-American?
00:10:04.160
If they vote in a KKK, Nazi, fascist, Hugo Boss, SS uniform-wearing lunatic who packs the
00:10:10.440
cork, persecutes all non-whites, all within the whim and the confines of the amoral system,
00:10:22.780
Because the progressive liberal system is built on nothing.
00:10:26.200
Just vague appeals to my rights and my freedoms and my own system, which allows you to get
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.
00:10:49.200
To the definition of Christian nationalism would just be the proposition that Christians utilize
00:10:55.200
influence and authority to stay in the moral majority and that they adopt systems towards
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.
00:11:13.280
So you would like to basically see a change of current statecraft to include more Christian
00:11:23.860
To as much of an extent as liberalism allows, which is all extents.
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
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
00:11:51.460
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.
00:12:09.680
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
00:12:21.780
of my preferences and he were like, fuck that, you're not allowed to bastardize my religion
00:12:28.400
by implementing policies, uh, against, you know, what my preferences are.
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
00:12:45.640
what, this is my country now and you're not going to fucking bastardize it with whatever
00:12:52.420
And the other guy's like, I don't give a shit what you want.
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.
00:13:15.900
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
00:13:35.020
If Christian nationalists amend every single constitutional amendment within the confines
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?
00:13:50.660
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,
00:14:09.520
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.
00:14:18.500
It's an, it's what you outlined in your opening.
00:14:28.020
And it's all of these isms, which really are just confined to, I want a system.
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.
00:14:50.880
Liberalism is an adaptation of an amoral system.
00:14:58.540
That you have a system, which is an amoral system.
00:15:03.860
Because that's why, that's why you prefer secularism.
00:15:21.400
There's no ought under a liberal system for you to do anything.
00:15:27.180
Like a liberal system doesn't impose any certain moral.
00:15:32.080
A liberal system doesn't impose any certain morals.
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?
00:15:54.700
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?
00:16:13.760
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.
00:16:21.720
Well, it became liberalism when you destroyed the Republic with universal suffrage in the 14th Amendment.
00:16:27.340
I mean, the Republic was just the language utilized to talk about a specific type of democracy, right?
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.
00:16:52.980
The Establishment and Free Exercise Clause specifically said Congress shall make no law respecting an established individual religion prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
00:17:09.300
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.
00:17:51.700
The 10th Amendment stated that actually states could have their own religions.
00:17:57.120
Almost all the states had their own religion post-constitutional ratification.
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?
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.
00:18:35.680
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.
00:18:48.740
Congress was like, look, we need to have the power to raise armies.
00:18:54.060
If you allow us to have those two powers, then all the other prospective powers will give to the states.
00:19:02.140
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.
00:19:20.820
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.
00:19:34.080
But if they wanted to blend church and state, why wouldn't they write that in?
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.
00:19:54.520
State religions isn't the same thing as America having a federal religion.
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.
00:20:23.880
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?
00:20:40.920
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...
00:20:55.360
America is a coalition of states, which have federalized.
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?
00:21:09.340
Completely amendable makes it sound way looser than it is.
00:21:12.640
Amending and adding amendments is incredibly difficult.
00:21:14.620
Look, what's un-American about amending the First Amendment?
00:21:19.000
So then, inside of your worldview, it's completely constitutional to amend the First Amendment to get rich...
00:21:26.140
To get rid of the Establishment Clause, that would be totally appropriate under your worldview.
00:21:29.440
No, I think that would be a violation of the American ethos.
00:21:39.580
Do I get to finish my thoughts or are you going to interrupt me?
00:21:42.220
I think what's really important here is that, like, the Founding Fathers, I think, are essential
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.
00:22:08.180
Not only is it not what happened, but within the framework that you're talking about, you
00:22:15.040
You just said it's not in any way un-American to amend the First Amendment.
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.
00:22:28.200
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?
00:23:01.820
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.
00:23:11.340
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
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.
00:23:26.080
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...
00:23:52.800
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, doing things at work, ingenuity, discovery.
00:24:08.160
Do you reject these as part of the American ethos?
00:24:10.320
So as long as none of these, life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, or ingenuity is violated,
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.
00:24:26.660
That's what I'm asking you about is what we're talking about.
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.
00:24:46.780
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.
00:25:00.940
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.
00:25:20.180
So I don't think that those things were foundational to the American experience, because the founders didn't allow it.
00:25:26.000
Because they didn't want people to come over here who weren't Western English, basically.
00:25:35.460
The argument for suffrage is very clear from Hamilton.
00:25:43.420
Do you realize there's Federalist Papers, there's the Anti-Federalist Papers?
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?
00:26:19.300
Is modern liberalism looking at any sort of cultural environmentalism in order to say, hey, this is what America is?
00:26:32.700
Liberalism is a system of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and ingenuity, whatever the fuck that means.
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.
00:27:00.980
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?
00:27:11.740
Do you not believe in the First Amendment anymore?
00:27:14.440
What is un-American about amending the First Amendment?
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?
00:27:40.100
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.
00:27:54.660
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.
00:28:06.700
And I'm saying, that's not what's happening here at all.
00:28:13.340
You have your husband and your children on both sides.
00:28:17.120
This other guy has his husband and children, and he doesn't pick both.
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.
00:28:32.080
We absolutely restrict people's behaviors, and we often restrict people's behaviors for the benefit of the state, right?
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.
00:28:58.880
If you start imposing church into state, for example, and the only religion that you can practice is Christianity, that would be violating liberty.
00:29:09.160
So you can amend the process to make us a less free nation, but what I would say is that would be wrong.
00:29:18.000
America is built on the fact that you can amend America.
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.
00:29:33.420
He says specifically an ethos that drives the dream, right?
00:29:36.720
And you're saying, well, this ethos, this dream, it's just silly.
00:29:44.200
It's foundationally on liberalism, on the liberal view, right?
00:29:56.060
Well, but you just said life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
00:30:05.640
What's an example of a cultural value, if not something like life and liberty?
00:30:09.120
A unison of cultural values are usually foundation to ethical systems.
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.
00:30:28.940
So I think that Irish cultural values would, again, revolve around foundationalism, religious
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
00:30:55.800
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.
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.
00:31:18.120
So the only thing that makes British and Irish people different is one's Catholic and one's...
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
00:31:42.440
If you're going to get us on interrupting, it has to be mutual.
00:31:45.780
So I gave you an example of a couple of cultural ethos and you said, what?
00:31:52.240
So then I said, can you give me an example of, let's say, Irish cultural ethos?
00:31:59.280
And I said, what makes them different then from just another group of people that are
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.
00:32:12.120
Not life, not liberty, not pursuit of happiness.
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
00:32:37.360
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.
00:32:44.720
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?
00:32:55.300
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?
00:33:00.580
Like, there's no difference between Irish people and another group that's Catholic as
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.
00:33:17.480
So how is that different than Spanish people who are also Catholic?
00:33:22.060
So what emerges that's different between these two groups?
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.
00:33:50.320
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,
00:34:08.760
That is a unique thing, a unique hallmark of being American.
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,
00:34:23.960
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
00:34:35.680
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.
00:34:46.940
It's the foundation of America is the founding fathers.
00:35:01.300
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, that is not the foundation of America.
00:35:07.640
I suppose they can be foundations in that like they're irreducible.
00:35:15.720
Because it's going to become circular eventually.
00:35:26.780
Isn't that kind of just like, you're just kind of saying the same thing.
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.
00:35:43.700
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.
00:35:54.240
Because when I'm hearing that, and I could be wrong, when I hear foundationalism, I'm assuming
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?
00:36:10.860
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
00:36:22.080
So all you're appealing to in your liberal ethical system is a fuck is just systems.
00:36:42.360
No, but I think it would make the country worse.
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?
00:36:53.420
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.
00:37:03.040
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?
00:37:15.720
No, I believe in that morals are objective, but also that they are relative.
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?
00:37:36.520
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
00:37:49.260
I wrote it down because I, it's when, it's multiple irreducible competing goods in moral
00:37:58.680
Meaning that there's multiple pathways to get to somewhere.
00:38:02.320
That means, for example, that you have two moral systems that are both good.
00:38:07.640
And there's multiple ways to use them to get to the thing we're trying to get to?
00:38:11.980
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
00:38:19.780
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.
00:38:38.060
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?
00:38:49.700
We could also appeal to something else like dignity.
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?
00:39:00.800
And they're both going towards the same goal, which is execution of guy just or execution
00:39:07.100
Well, I guess if the goal, if you want to make this like pluralist, I guess if you're a
00:39:16.180
So you want to basically utilize and Well, I'm a Christian ethicist, but virtue ethics
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.
00:39:38.380
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.
00:39:48.120
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
00:40:00.940
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?
00:40:15.560
They separated in the first amendment, only that the federal government couldn't pass a
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?
00:40:30.580
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
00:40:43.320
I feel like we have a very different understanding of suffrage.
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.
00:41:17.800
He wants you to read it in a way that goes to his argument.
00:41:20.000
I just want him to read the amendment, but I think that that's the case.
00:41:23.680
Besides, even if it wasn't, it's not dunk for you.
00:41:26.360
Or wait, it is, so the idea of remembering isn't what matters in a conversation of like
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.
00:41:56.760
It declares that anyone born or naturalized in the United States is a U.S. citizen, including
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
00:42:13.740
This protects individuals from unfair state government actions.
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.
00:42:35.960
But you said that that was the 14th amendment was saying that states could have their own
00:42:44.480
Because I was telling you that most of the reason, states wanted to move back to the idea
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.
00:43:02.820
What they were saying was, basically, states aren't going to be able to tell anybody who
00:43:10.940
They're not going to be able to do that anymore.
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.
00:43:26.560
Early constitution, remember at this time, your founders are all dead, right?
00:43:34.680
They wanted the states to be able to make those prospective decisions themselves, which they
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
00:43:49.020
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
00:44:02.420
Well, again, so the 14th Amendment didn't, none of that proved that you were right at all.
00:44:15.260
I never said the 14th Amendment had anything to do with religion.
00:44:19.600
I haven't written, I've only said the first amendment.
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?
00:44:41.760
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.
00:44:48.120
He was saying first that, hey, this was about religion, when it wasn't.
00:45:08.440
Oh, that the 14th Amendment prohibits states from infringing on religious freedom by applying.
00:45:16.280
He was saying that the 14th Amendment was about religion.
00:45:20.520
That was about, that was literally about citizenship.
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.
00:45:36.300
Tuesday, February 24th, and Wednesday, February 25th.
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.
00:46:10.960
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.
00:46:22.740
The 14th was how it was reinterpreted to get away from the idea that states could have their own religion.
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.
00:46:56.880
So none of that is states establishing a religion at all.
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?
00:47:08.400
How many states maintained a state religion post-constitutional ratification?
00:47:16.800
My argument is that the states are not America.
00:47:21.320
Well, the founding fathers are probably a lot closer than what Maryland thought.
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.
00:47:52.980
They were not saying what the states were going to do.
00:47:59.040
No, it's also state, which is why we have the 10th Amendment.
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?
00:48:21.380
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.
00:48:36.520
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.
00:49:04.000
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.
00:49:17.200
Yep, that has been in dispute because the question here is what's more American?
00:49:25.460
The question is whether Christian nationalism is un-American.
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.
00:49:41.400
Neither one of them matter more than the other.
00:49:44.700
The system wouldn't work without the validity of both state and federal government.
00:49:48.360
You're saying that the Pennsylvania policies are equally as valid as the federal constitution.
00:49:58.960
Because you're pretending, like what we're talking about is now statecraft, that Pennsylvania
00:50:07.240
I'm saying, I'm asking about the American idea.
00:50:10.500
What matters more to the history and understanding of America as a nation?
00:50:19.360
Pennsylvania matters just as much as the founding fathers.
00:50:25.460
The system doesn't work unless you have the state governments.
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
00:50:35.940
To America as an idea, I think what the founding fathers write kind of matters.
00:50:42.060
Because they're founding the federal government.
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?
00:51:06.420
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.
00:51:20.700
And the 10th Amendment said that they could do that shit.
00:51:26.280
Why not just say at a federal level that they can just be the Christian?
00:51:28.860
Because the states demanded that the federal government not step in to tell them what their
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.
00:51:53.800
I don't know why you're interjecting there at all.
00:51:58.840
This is like being like, there's three ways of feminism.
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
00:52:15.700
But they did want the federal government to say that they could have a Catholic state,
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.
00:52:49.660
Because Protestants didn't consider Catholics to be Christians.
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
00:53:20.600
They just weren't going to comment on that because they needed to unify the countries.
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.
00:53:40.500
Well, I'm talking about there was a couple of founders who didn't want states to have
00:53:48.120
But by and large, most of them were fine with the compromise.
00:53:55.620
Because since you have revisionist history, I don't know what you came up with.
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
00:54:12.260
So what they did instead was they said, look, Congress is not going to make an establishment
00:54:28.200
You could easily make religious test clauses...
00:54:35.720
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust
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.
00:54:57.560
Or you're a this, so your oath is no good here.
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...
00:55:09.660
The Apostles' Creed isn't Catholic or Protestant.
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?
00:55:23.080
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,
00:55:29.900
in order to fucking, I don't know, help with some piece of legislation
00:55:33.240
or do something that you were supposed to do at the federal level,
00:55:37.280
the Protestant nations or states might be like, we don't recognize that
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.
00:55:57.940
So you said if a Catholic takes the Apostles' Creed test,
00:56:03.760
It was not within the federal purview to make the determination
00:56:06.940
of getting the states to compromise on the fucking Apostles' Creed.
00:56:10.620
It was under their purview to say, hey, what we're going to do is make it
00:56:15.140
so that you don't have to swear any oaths from the Catholic or Protestant perspective,
00:56:21.240
The states can make it so that you can swear that you're a Protestant
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.
00:56:40.140
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
00:57:00.920
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?
00:57:28.440
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.
00:57:43.420
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.
00:58:03.360
That was the compromise. Federal government can't tell us what our religion's going to be.
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?
00:58:18.900
Some of them were lazy fucking womanizing pieces of shit, but what's the point?
00:58:21.980
They could be womanizing, and also, my point would be that if they wanted a religious test
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.
00:58:37.340
Yes, I believe the Quakers followed the Apostles' Creed.
00:58:39.780
I believe Mormons also follow the Apostles' Creed, yes.
00:58:42.500
Let's find out if Quakers follow the Apostles' Creed.
00:58:59.200
Most Quakers do not formally use or recite the Apostles' Creed.
00:59:06.300
Would you guys like to shift to a new prompt here in a few minutes?
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
00:59:32.040
It says many Quakers, especially in more evangelical branches, would agree with much of the theology
00:59:39.640
However, they generally do not recite it in worship or require members to affirm it.
00:59:52.320
Because even if they theologically think it's sound, they're not going to recite the Apostles'
00:59:59.060
It said that they don't require people to say it, which is not the same thing.
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?
01:00:19.340
They went, we're just not going to legislate any sort of formal religion on your states,
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.
01:00:37.320
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.
01:00:56.140
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.
01:01:05.160
I don't know what you're doing right now, because I feel like we need to talk about
01:01:11.980
I'm going to wait for his tantrum to be over, and then I'll go.
01:01:29.100
And you, like, were throwing in not willing to listen to me and throw your hands in the
01:01:33.460
I'm doing cross-eyes and, like, making fun of me.
01:01:36.120
It's silly to say that you think that the founders should have found some way that every
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
01:01:53.780
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.
01:02:03.800
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?
01:02:14.640
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.
01:02:24.500
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.
01:02:38.320
The founding fathers actually really wanted to write in the merging of church and state.
01:02:46.640
But they couldn't find a way to federally write these things in together.
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.
01:03:11.640
Because you said no personal when we started this.
01:03:16.940
So, the thing is, is like, I am so curious about this.
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.
01:03:34.060
That if we want to have a good engagement back and forth, we, for example, agreed to things
01:03:46.540
Because when you say my intellect is dizzying, it feels like you're saying...
01:03:51.660
I don't know why I wouldn't just own that you're insulting me.
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.
01:04:10.020
Or make more sense that they would agree to some sort of unifying creed, even though
01:04:15.980
They can have, like, a new denomination which pops up that doesn't agree with this.
01:04:22.260
Instead of doing that, what we'll do instead is we'll leave it up to the prospective states
01:04:28.520
Because we secretly want the blending of church and state.
01:04:33.320
The states can blend and always were able to blend church and state.
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...
01:04:57.160
You're saying that actually the founding fathers, they did want the blend of church and state.
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?
01:05:13.500
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.
01:05:20.740
You also said the majority of them were like some...
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
01:05:37.820
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
01:05:51.040
Why would they make a rule, then, that says states must maintain some form of Christian
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
01:06:04.580
Usually, it's going to be the Christian people of that state, right?
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
01:06:28.940
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...
01:06:38.600
Okay, so you're saying the founding fathers, by implication, they actually did want the
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
01:06:55.040
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.
01:07:04.520
The actual position is due to the Articles of Confederation and that not working, we knew
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
01:07:16.420
they had just fought off a massive fucking kingdom were very distrustful.
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
01:07:30.540
And what we'll do is institute the Tenth Amendment, and each of you can put in your own
01:07:37.720
It has nothing to do with the motivation of the founders at the federal level wanting
01:07:43.660
Of course it does, because this is my argument.
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
01:08:03.980
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
01:08:15.280
So they were hoping that the nation broadly would stay Christian within the statecraft,
01:08:20.500
that there would be no separation of church and state.
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
01:08:48.580
I don't know why a founding father would be like, I don't want it at the state level,
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
01:09:04.060
At the national level, that was the compromise, yes.
01:09:08.520
I can describe to you each of their motivations.
01:09:13.420
Do you think most of them did, or most of them didn't?
01:09:16.180
Well, you said a majority of the founding fathers.
01:09:21.000
No, you also said that they were loyal, Protestant, good old Christian boys.
01:09:25.440
So my argument would be that these good old Christian boys all agreed that separation of
01:09:30.240
That's why they wrote it into the Constitution.
01:09:33.580
They didn't even prescribe states having a state religion.
01:09:38.520
They just didn't take the states right away from them doing so.
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.
01:09:52.700
We're arguing about whether or not the founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state
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
01:10:08.860
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
01:10:18.780
The whole framework of the nation would be so different.
01:10:22.820
It would be completely different America if we didn't have separation of church and state
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.
01:10:33.980
It would be a different America because there wouldn't then be states' rights, the Tenth
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
01:11:03.660
Was it the motivation, if it was the case, that there was no states?
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
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.
01:11:48.880
You're eye rolling and like getting upset, which is totally fine.
01:11:52.460
I actually don't understand what the fuck you're even talking about.
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.
01:12:04.880
Andrewism is you're not attempting to understand what I'm saying in any way.
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.
01:12:18.200
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.
01:12:26.940
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.
01:12:50.600
Well, the first part is what you're messing up.
01:12:52.980
It's irrelevant whether or not the signers of the constitution themselves would have ascribed
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.
01:13:20.000
The disconnect is you keep thinking that federal systems are more important than state systems.
01:13:28.420
Not only are they definitely not, but that's where the disconnect is.
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.
01:14:07.680
So why didn't they write it into the federal constitution?
01:14:19.200
How could I ever explain it better than I just did?
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?
01:14:39.920
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.
01:14:50.080
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.
01:15:09.920
So you're saying they actually did do that sneakily through the 10th Amendment.
01:15:15.580
Why wouldn't they just write that in the First Amendment?
01:15:17.260
Why would the First Amendment bar the union of church and state?
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.
01:15:36.280
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.
01:15:49.440
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.
01:16:21.420
What happened, first of all, they had not just done this.
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.
01:16:40.520
And so for like the common defense, they wanted to have some sort of federalism in order to do this.
01:16:48.280
That was one of the primary reasons they wanted unification was because of a currency.
01:16:53.300
Because what she wanted was she wanted to have trade between each state.
01:16:59.520
But when you're talking about their religions, this was pan-Protestant.
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.
01:17:35.280
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.
01:18:00.140
So the thing is, is like, look, when you look at it, because of pan-Protestanism, each
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
01:18:15.800
been like, woo, they get to have their own religion?
01:18:22.420
Well, no, I think that they were banking on white immigrants not being, not being Muslim.
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
01:18:40.680
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
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
01:19:06.360
Because I think that the states would have been like, we're not going to allow a Muslim
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.
01:19:16.200
In fact, the federal government explicitly wrote that out.
01:19:22.040
Because if the federal government wouldn't be okay with a Muslim government, then they
01:19:26.840
probably should have written in that you have to be a Christian government in some
01:19:30.440
They probably could have found something connected amongst all the Christians to
01:19:40.120
Were they importing a bunch of brown people from Muslim countries when I wasn't looking or
01:19:43.660
They were importing a bunch of black people for slaves.
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.
01:19:59.020
Well, whether it worked or not, they still were banking on Christian.
01:20:03.320
And by the way, they didn't even see blacks as being a people at the time.
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
01:20:16.020
were worried about other religions getting in because a lot of the black people held
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
01:20:43.920
Wait, why would you think that that's not relevant?
01:20:47.280
Because the founding fathers at the time obviously would have known that the black slaves had
01:20:53.280
Wouldn't they be worried, for example, that the pagan religion spread?
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
01:21:07.400
And that's why they put in the three-fifths clause.
01:21:18.220
That black people only count as three-fifths of the vote?
01:21:28.900
And they were banking on whites coming in from basically Western European nations.
01:21:33.040
So they actually were a little bit worried about black pagan tyranny.
01:21:37.480
Well, they were worried about Southern states being able to outvote Northern states.
01:21:44.020
If you look, for example, at Hamilton's writing of suffrage, which is really important.
01:21:48.400
I don't know what the fuck this has to do with what we're talking about.
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.
01:22:05.620
It's literally because they wanted to allow the states to put in whatever religious institutions
01:22:10.660
But also, theoretically, no religious institutions, right?
01:22:15.320
They didn't have the purview to tell the states that.
01:22:17.920
So the federal government would have been opposed.
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.
01:22:34.100
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.
01:23:14.500
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.
01:23:31.380
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?
01:23:42.000
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.
01:23:52.620
So by that same logic, does the state have hierarchy over the federal government?
01:23:56.260
Because if the federal government, for example, decided to overimpose on the state, they would
01:24:05.520
The states, prospectively, can override the federal government on all sorts of issues
01:24:12.540
That's the separation of powers you're talking about.
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
01:24:38.700
So if the federal government decides to go to war and draft people, can the states do
01:24:47.700
And if the federal government, for example, decided to send the National Guard into Minnesota,
01:25:00.960
The National Guard has been sent in to just control riots generally across California, I
01:25:06.900
I mean, they go into crowds and disperse crowds, like outside.
01:25:11.760
So the government, the federal government just can actually impose into a state.
01:25:20.240
Can they go in, can the federal government go occupy the state building?
01:25:25.820
Okay, then what the fuck are you talking about?
01:25:34.760
I was saying, the American ethos is life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, ingenuity, creation,
01:25:44.020
And I said, well, in the Declaration of Independence is a start.
01:25:58.520
Well, you still haven't told me what an Irish ethos is.
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.
01:26:26.420
Well, I would be appealing to what the American ethos is.
01:26:33.640
The separation of church and state is the second one of them.
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.
01:26:51.840
Wait, do you think most people would agree with me that free speech is American?
01:26:55.280
Do you think most Americans listening would go, of course free speech is American?
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?
01:27:08.680
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.
01:27:21.020
That was a violation of the Second Amendment, right?
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?
01:27:31.840
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.
01:27:39.200
You're just focusing on what do present people within the liberal system think is American.
01:27:46.220
Do you think in 1800, they thought it was very American to let women vote?
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?
01:28:02.800
From the liberal perspective, it's just a system.
01:28:07.120
I guess from my perspective, too, it is the case that liberalism, that the liberal identity,
01:28:20.920
If you had something—if you had some sort of, like, cultural glue, or you had some foundational
01:28:27.440
There's no distinct American culture that we could point at.
01:28:33.720
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, ingenuity.
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
01:28:56.980
You can go to jail for insulting someone via a text message.
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.
01:29:08.540
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.
01:29:16.000
I mean, the same way that you just said that the Irish ethos—
01:29:24.360
I am going to answer your question, but I'm going to answer the question the way that I
01:29:28.460
Do you just want to have temper tantrum after temper tantrum?
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
01:29:37.480
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?
01:29:48.180
So you're just agreeing that you're being bad-faith with me now?
01:29:55.140
I said specifically that I was concerned about you making personal attacks about my husband,
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
01:30:16.980
No, I'm going to stay at the meta-conversation.
01:30:22.580
No, write it down, and I'll answer it afterwards.
01:30:27.800
Yeah, I said I will answer your question afterwards.
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?
01:30:45.480
I asked you about life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
01:30:49.380
For example, so they wouldn't have the exact language, but liberty is held by most Western
01:30:55.400
Life, for example, is also, in some version of the way that they would describe it, also
01:31:00.820
Because America is so great, we kind of set the tone of what the ethos of a Western liberal
01:31:08.120
In the same way, for example, that you said the ethos between Ireland and Spain is both
01:31:16.580
You're doing this, like, so when, here's the sneaky thing.
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?
01:31:26.700
If you say all countries have, because you give this a contradiction.
01:31:33.200
I said most Western liberal democracies share some version of these values.
01:31:38.140
Okay, Canada has life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
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.
01:31:54.920
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.
01:32:09.820
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.
01:32:20.840
Really quick, let me let the two super TTS come through while we have you.
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.
01:32:53.020
Guys, if you want to get a TTS in, that's streamlabs.com slash.
01:33:10.440
There's a bit of a delay now because the Hale Pope one caught up our system.
01:33:17.000
He's getting, he's raking in all those dollars.
01:33:20.260
But if you guys do want to get a TTS message in, you can do so.
01:33:34.340
God is a social construct with an unverifiable existence.
01:33:42.560
Smoking increases the risk of lung disease and premature death.
01:34:04.920
We can talk a little bit about good faith versus bad faith.
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
01:34:29.220
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.
01:34:37.520
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
01:34:49.360
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
01:35:00.760
So the obvious argument that I'm saying is, wouldn't it make more sense?
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.
01:35:24.320
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?
01:35:57.320
When, there's a reasonable argument here to be made of, what did the founding fathers
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.
01:36:14.960
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
01:36:39.560
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
01:36:52.560
They saw the erasure, not just of the state, but also of the faith in the, in the bonding
01:36:58.860
It's bad for the religion and it's bad for the state.
01:37:05.780
Uh, I just wanted to say, uh, Rachel Wilson, if you're watching, I'm very sorry.
01:37:12.860
Usually if there's something that's insulting to overly insulting to one of the guests, I will
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.
01:38:05.780
Um, shall we switch prompts or do you guys want to continue?
01:38:12.740
Well, let me read you at least before we, if you do choose to dive in the other prompts
01:38:18.640
Modern liberal values are not compatible with Christianity.
01:38:22.920
Secular states are destined to likely revert back to religiously informed governments because
01:38:28.260
atheists have no, no moral basis for which to govern.
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
01:38:45.600
We've, I think that's what the prompts are a little bit like slidey between them all.
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?
01:39:00.520
Let's do modern liberal values are not compatible with Christianity.
01:39:05.760
Well, I mean, again, if you guys have a reference over something, that one's fine with me.
01:39:10.220
So there are no Christian values in modern liberalism.
01:39:17.040
So my argument basically say, I don't think that Christian, uh, rule should be utilized
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.
01:39:34.540
So your faith tells you that Christians should be liberal?
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?
01:39:46.200
And, um, do you think that Christians who were in charge of states before were wrong?
01:39:54.600
Um, all the ones that came after Jesus and did it.
01:39:58.220
So you think that historically they just got it all wrong?
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.
01:40:34.460
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
01:40:54.240
that he was not the Messiah is because they didn't see a physical political kingdom unifying,
01:41:02.240
So back to the ought claim, Christians ought not, uh, be in charge of governments and government
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?
01:41:16.740
I don't think that Christians should try to push for a blending of church and state.
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
01:41:36.280
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.
01:41:47.460
I don't, haven't thought about tribes, but there's governments, right?
01:41:53.060
I would not say that anyone who's like a political philosopher would look at a tribe
01:41:57.900
Usually when we mean government, we mean post the invention of the nation.
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.
01:42:21.980
Like you have a city that has a hundred thousand people in it and they, they have a government
01:42:28.460
That government should not, uh, mix church and state.
01:42:33.280
They shouldn't rule with Christian ethics as a thing that makes laws.
01:42:42.720
And more importantly, laws have to be what works.
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?
01:42:51.360
It's a nation is not going to work very well if they kill other babies.
01:42:54.520
A nation would work just fine if they kill other people's babies.
01:42:58.620
Cause that nation would be then a target for probably war, not just from that nation, but probably
01:43:02.820
Cause it seems like in general, most people have this emergent value of not killing babies.
01:43:08.460
Let's say that for like 100 years, a nation kills every third baby that comes up in the
01:43:14.940
So they just take a rock and bash its fucking brains in.
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
01:43:28.860
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.
01:43:43.180
So when I say rule by consent, that doesn't mean that states craftmen aren't imposing laws
01:43:52.080
But there's no contradiction in how the state would not work if they killed every third
01:44:02.440
They used to sacrifice children all the time inside of Rome, inside of many states.
01:44:09.680
Well, I would argue a lot of the, where are, where are those nation states?
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
01:44:46.300
But when we look at, for example, a nation that kills every third baby.
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.
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
01:45:10.360
when you can find evidence for it, the mother of that child, for example, or the father of
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?
01:45:27.200
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
01:45:59.640
Do you agree with me that it takes time for you to gather data on a system which is implemented?
01:46:04.880
So for five years, we have a consensus that we kill every third baby, and the people go
01:46:14.360
We don't have the data to show them how wrongheaded they are yet.
01:46:24.120
There's definitely been many nations where they kill their children, including China.
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,
01:47:40.760
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
01:47:49.860
So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian
01:47:56.000
Well, it would probably be multiple things, yeah, that I would appeal to.
01:48:01.560
The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.
01:48:10.180
But if there was a consensus, you said that's the thing that we should run things by is
01:48:17.320
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
01:48:26.320
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?
01:48:41.520
Because you can democratically vote in laws which are oppressive.
01:48:46.180
So, I feel like you're just making something into democracy that doesn't exist.
01:48:52.500
If everybody votes tomorrow in a democracy that Kyla can never say another fucking word
01:48:58.200
or else, I don't know, she gets beat to death with a rock.
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.
01:49:26.740
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
01:49:42.340
Well, I would basically, I would argue that God puts, like, a sense of conscience within
01:49:47.400
And I don't think that almost anyone actually emerges in such a way that they say it's good
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
01:50:01.640
And I also would argue that they were moral at the time.
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.
01:50:16.840
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?
01:50:33.300
Wait, I don't think that all of my moral system should be rule of law.
01:50:37.580
All I'm doing is making sure that I get it right.
01:50:44.140
But before you do, I'm going to interrogate the position that you can interrogate mine.
01:50:53.000
The first conversation we had, the first, like, segment...
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...
01:51:02.460
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.
01:51:26.280
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.
01:51:34.160
Well, because what you're trying to do is to get to some foundational thing of being
01:51:45.740
So you're saying that your position, when it's interrogated, its foundation is going to
01:51:49.640
I would say every single foundation of any worldview, normative, or metaethics is unjustifiable.
01:52:08.020
All justification systems fail at a foundational level because they will fail in one of three
01:52:15.080
Dogmatism, infinite regression, and circular reasoning.
01:52:28.860
You just said that Agrippa's Trilemma is not a justified position.
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,
01:53:02.980
The reduction to axiomatic, are we making a truth claim?
01:53:17.220
Does your moral system not utilize truth claims?
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.
01:53:49.400
Because if you claim that you're making a truth claim that's unjustified, then you're
01:53:59.620
Agrippa's Trilemma, I guess, engages in dogmatism.
01:54:03.540
So Agrippa's Trilemma, I suppose, engages in dogmatism itself.
01:54:09.000
Every single system is self-refuting them by this level.
01:54:12.580
And does that fail because of Agrippa's Trilemma?
01:54:21.600
Give me a single truth claim that doesn't fail Agrippa's Trilemma.
01:54:28.020
Give me a single truth claim that doesn't fail Agrippa's Trilemma.
01:54:40.760
I didn't argue that Agrippa's Trilemma is true.
01:54:45.000
I said it's true in like an assumed way, in the way that all things are assumed.
01:54:50.860
It's true in like a, I suppose, like, yeah, true in the way that we mean true for everything
01:54:59.260
You don't get to interrogate me for your argument.
01:55:01.640
I'm asking you for counterfactual to prove you wrong.
01:55:32.760
And it's a philosophical like equation how you test your own thinking.
01:55:39.240
Give me a truth claim that doesn't solve Agrippa's Trilemma.
01:55:44.400
My argument is all arguments foundationally will fail Agrippa's Trilemma.
01:55:55.700
So you're agreeing with me that no truth claim.
01:56:03.040
I guess you could be a coward and you could run away from.
01:56:10.660
Because all things are at a foundational level are assumed.
01:56:38.440
You have to pay like 10 bucks to force him to answer this question.
01:56:46.700
And I give you the justification for my argument.
01:57:03.300
How do you find me one truth claim that doesn't fail Agrippa's Trilemma?
01:57:14.920
This is like saying Euthyphro's dilemma is true.
01:57:20.720
Why are you asking me questions about your argument?
01:57:26.220
I can't tell if you genuinely don't understand Agrippa's Trilemma maybe.
01:57:31.420
How am I being bad faith when you posit an argument and I ask you about it?
01:57:36.680
You genuinely don't understand or you're being bad faith.
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.
01:57:53.460
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?
01:58:28.080
It's a problem in the same way that Euthyphro's Dilemma is.
01:58:36.100
Agrippa's Trilemma posits that no beliefs are justifiable foundationally because they will
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
01:58:49.180
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
01:58:59.680
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.
01:59:09.500
If it's propositional, this sounds like propositional logic to me.
01:59:13.560
You're actually giving me premises and a conclusion.
01:59:24.760
This is the comparison I'm trying to make because I feel like you're not understanding
01:59:34.420
Well, right now, I just want it written out so I can see if this is a non-propositional
01:59:38.840
Okay, I'm just going to write out what I've said.
01:59:58.180
Private chat, Nathan, if you want to pull it up.
02:00:04.240
Oh, no, I was going to pull up Agrippa's trilemma.
02:00:07.900
Let's make people know what the heck you guys are talking about.
02:00:20.340
I would just look up specific Agrippa's trilemma.
02:00:37.000
It says, so Munchausen trilemma is also known as Agrippa's trilemma.
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
02:01:05.960
The trilemma, then, is having to choose one of the three equally unsatisfying options.
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?
02:01:30.100
Well, objectively, like, they exist outside of me.
02:01:41.960
No, but everything I assume is true, because I'm really good at philosophy.
02:01:55.840
Because if I'm posing you, Euthyphro's dilemma, a philosophical problem, you can't go, is the
02:02:05.000
I'm asking if you believe that this is correct, and you also believe that objective morality
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.
02:02:22.920
Well, there's your circular reasoning, which is just tautology.
02:02:31.320
So, all of these things, all of these things in philosophy are just going down to these
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.
02:03:00.040
I'm just going to every, I'm just going to assume everything's true because I assume
02:03:07.120
Now you're in line with like, so this is one of your issues.
02:03:15.520
The issue is that I wouldn't go to secular people and be like, you don't have a moral
02:03:19.800
Because I already know that mine's unjustifiable.
02:03:22.480
I'm doing dogmatism and they're doing usually infinite regression.
02:03:25.280
So they're being cowards and they're being like, Oh, I don't know.
02:03:27.920
So then you can't make a justification for why I shouldn't like pull out a machine gun
02:03:35.640
So when I'm talking about foundational beliefs.
02:03:41.820
It's going to be the pillar in which the belief stands on.
02:03:44.200
So not all statements or beliefs are foundational.
02:03:51.380
It's not me knowing more information than you is not like some, some, some crazy, like
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,
02:04:19.820
You don't know anything about a gripper's trilemma.
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.
02:04:29.360
And anybody that I decide to impose my will on can't actually say that I'm unjustified.
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
02:04:50.800
What does that have to do with what we're talking about?
02:05:00.440
Well, I'm doing it now because you're just being ridiculous.
02:05:06.640
Can you tell me how it is then that you can create any justifications that anybody's ever
02:05:13.300
You build on top of like tautological axioms that seem reasonable based on kind of assumptions,
02:05:19.340
And you build upon an entire structure of world belief, which is what-
02:05:29.080
When you just told me then that I can't go to secular people and tell them that their beliefs
02:05:44.120
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?
02:05:50.480
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
02:06:09.580
So then if I utilize the assumption that God is real, this would-
02:06:14.020
This would satisfy you because you also use the assumption that God is real?
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.
02:06:32.320
Well, then I don't know what we're arguing about.
02:06:35.260
Well, we were arguing because you wouldn't ask for Griffith's dilemma and saying that it
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
02:06:50.820
But I still want to get back to the interrogation now.
02:06:52.800
But your line of argumentation is going to fall apart because when you go, well, why are
02:06:59.220
But anyway, back to, can we get back to this now?
02:07:03.260
So when we're talking about the issue of secularism-
02:07:12.520
So we'll pull back up on the note since we went down that whole train of nonsense.
02:07:20.960
And you like to weaponize it for your dumb audience against mean people to like innocent
02:07:25.300
only fans girls to be like, see, their belief system is justified.
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.
02:07:45.500
You usually go, your belief system's unjustifiable.
02:07:51.620
I just say, if it's the case that it's just preferences, then you have absolutely no criticism
02:07:58.360
Well, most secular people, if they're good on philosophy, wouldn't say, well, it's not
02:08:02.620
It's some mixture of like, we use, if they're utilitarian, they would use utiles.
02:08:09.260
These are like, there's no more preferences than you preferring God.
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
02:08:31.100
I think it's reasonable to assume that I prefer that people are well, that people experience
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.
02:08:47.180
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,
02:08:56.960
actually, your preferences are icky and bad for the faith.
02:08:59.660
Also, Jesus wasn't political, so you're kind of going against what Jesus taught.
02:09:04.460
Okay, so then back to this, when we're talking about liberalism and the system of liberalism
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.
02:09:29.520
And you could say, actually, killing babies is bad because it makes a worse world.
02:09:33.900
It probably also harms the mother, which would actually decrease the amount of flourishing
02:09:37.460
and increase the amount of harm, which is why I think it would be bad to do.
02:09:44.340
God doesn't like it when you kill babies unless he orders you to do it like in the alkytes.
02:09:49.840
I mean, the issue is like, we have to assume at the end of the level.
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.
02:09:59.700
You try to say, my beliefs are foundationally justified and yours are not, which is why
02:10:06.260
I start at the end of the argument and say, I agree with you.
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.
02:10:18.560
Yeah, you're like, I start at the end and I walk people all the way back to their foundational
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?
02:10:41.380
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?
02:11:05.160
Yeah, so I want to just ask you about consensus.
02:11:08.040
So if they want to kill every third baby, okay?
02:11:15.400
I would, for example, I would, in the case of a pagan, I would probably appeal to their
02:11:19.960
I think that most people, for example, I believe, you probably believe this too, that God gives
02:11:24.520
He like puts a spirit inside of us that God's meta-ethical system emerges naturally out of
02:11:31.200
So like what I would do, for example, is I would probably, first of all, try to examine
02:11:34.960
that pagan's belief system, and I would be like, do you actually think killing babies
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
02:11:52.660
So I would question whether or not they know it's wrong or right, and then I would appeal
02:11:57.380
So like civic ethics, for example, it doesn't work very well in nations to kill every third
02:12:09.280
In fact, most of the reasons why people in the past killed babies was to satisfy some sun
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.
02:12:19.680
So I could appeal to them within their own worldview of secularism or their own worldview of paganism.
02:12:32.460
I'm just asking why they're wrong, why they're doing something wrong.
02:12:39.680
Because I think God doesn't like you to kill babies unless he orders it, like in the Malachi.
02:12:49.460
And so they come to you and say, well, you're just assuming this anyway.
02:12:54.640
And then they would say, good, we're going to go back to killing babies.
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.
02:13:08.600
So if a Christian nationalist does that within a liberal system, they're not doing anything
02:13:14.620
So you guys can try to compel people to Christianity, but my issue isn't.
02:13:17.760
No, we can compel you to, we can compel ourselves to the will of the state.
02:13:27.060
If, if Christians take over the entire state, rewrite the entirety of the constitution
02:13:32.480
They can in the liberal framework, but as a Christian, I think that they're being unchristian
02:13:45.920
Because scripture, do you think that like logic, reason, evidence, scripture doesn't exist
02:13:53.100
How would scripture not matter when I'm talking to fellow Christians?
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.
02:14:10.160
My axiom is that I'm always right about everything.
02:14:21.320
Now I can go, oh, I don't think that's justified.
02:14:28.500
Sorry, are we just doing like nihilism warp tour?
02:14:31.540
Nobody should care about, you granted me that even at Christianity, you granted me that
02:14:43.960
My system is just as unjustifiable and assumed as anyone else's.
02:14:53.460
If it's the case that we're just assuming the worldview at a foundational level and
02:15:01.360
Then there's actually no good reason for me not to assume that I'm just right about
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?
02:15:26.300
Because foundationally you're assuming it, right?
02:15:31.340
In fact, everything that you say doesn't matter and none of your systems are justified and
02:15:46.640
You're in the Agrippa's Trilemma acceptance state, okay?
02:15:50.660
So you're just as arbitrary and just as stupid and we can't assume anything.
02:16:00.760
What would the argument, what now is the argument for me to impose Christian nationalism?
02:16:14.680
So why are you saying that it's an ought statement?
02:16:28.800
And there's no reason for Christians not to do it.
02:16:37.960
Yeah, but you assume your foundations can't be justified.
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.
02:16:52.120
In any level of respected philosophy, we assume.
02:16:56.320
Which respected philosophers are you referencing?
02:17:05.840
Socrates assumed that you couldn't justify anything?
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.
02:17:24.620
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.
02:17:47.200
Can you rephrase that in a way that's coherent?
02:17:59.480
And I would say, how do you solve a Grypa's Trilemma?
02:18:04.900
Yeah, and then the anti-realist goes, well, your opinions are just assumed, right?
02:18:14.480
You just destroyed the possibility for objective morality, everybody.
02:18:19.860
No, even subjectivists fail a Grypa's Trilemma.
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.
02:18:38.560
Oh, so a Grypa's Trilemma would say, how do you solve for infinite regression?
02:18:50.920
Okay, but everything's going to reduce to an infinite regress, right?
02:18:55.980
Well, that would be transcendentals would come before thinking.
02:19:00.680
Well, we would make the justification of God, right?
02:19:03.780
So no, secular anti-realists would not 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.
02:19:19.860
I just want to make sure that me, the moral anti-realist, right, that you are telling me
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?
02:19:38.980
And they're like, okay, well, I can't really contend with that.
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,
02:19:56.300
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
02:20:17.440
So then any moral facts that I assume at a foundational level are equivalent to any moral facts you
02:20:28.560
My use of inductive and deductive logic is better.
02:20:35.640
Better means like more coherent, more consistent.
02:20:51.020
So you're just going to endlessly be in a case of infinite regress in tautology?
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
02:21:12.940
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.
02:21:28.360
Because of things like coercive power versus legitimate authority.
02:21:38.360
Do you think all of this around me just doesn't exist because I'm assuming it?
02:21:58.340
You were so sweet to remind me, and then I destroyed your tech.
02:22:15.500
Let's get on your stream deck first, though, so it doesn't get any wins.
02:22:20.200
You guys can continue on with the conversation.
02:22:27.280
When I knocked that over, did that happen materially, or did we just all assume that
02:22:31.700
Well, I would say that that happened in material reality.
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
02:23:03.220
The part that is your brain thinking about things.
02:23:17.600
I don't know why you think that this is a dunk.
02:23:21.060
I said philosophy can engage in the material, of course.
02:23:24.700
And then I said, for example, one of the schools is pragmatism.
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.
02:23:44.340
Especially for the purpose of this conversation.
02:23:49.920
It is bad faith to presume things that you don't actually believe.
02:23:53.840
Do not purport to me that you believe in things that you don't believe.
02:23:58.220
By self-delusion or self-deception or, in this case, explicit deception, saying, yeah, I believe this.
02:24:08.460
Do you believe that Agrippa's Trilemma means that all?
02:24:15.440
I guess falling into snark is your way of solving your bad philosophy.
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.
02:24:42.040
Yeah, but we seem to, like, value these things.
02:24:44.700
Yeah, but you could never say we seem, we seem, we seem.
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.
02:24:57.080
Other men wouldn't like that because men are in a class.
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.
02:25:33.960
Yeah, I'm making a truth claim that God exists.
02:25:36.140
And that he has made a real objective world with real objective moral systems.
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.
02:25:53.660
And since it's unjustified, I can do whatever the fuck I want.
02:25:58.220
And there can be no actual objection to that now.
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
02:26:10.460
Because whether or not, so you and I assume the same things.
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.
02:26:37.620
So give me, other than because Erudite believes it, God is real.
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.
02:26:55.840
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.
02:27:12.080
Yeah, because the Cambrian explosion literally happened.
02:27:15.040
So therefore, it's a stance independent reason?
02:27:20.820
So your stance independent reason is there's an explosion and that proves God.
02:27:32.640
No, I'm just asking for a stance independent reason.
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
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
02:27:57.100
It's like, no, of course reason and logic exists.
02:28:05.560
They exist regardless of whether or not I want to engage with them.
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.
02:28:21.480
It's necessarily a word game, because everything that I am saying is completely reasonable,
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...
02:28:43.380
But you're not letting me internally critique you now.
02:29:03.740
So when other Christians insist that there's moral objectivity, what would you say to those
02:29:09.400
Is that what you're actually going to say to people going forward?
02:29:12.000
So you're looking at the camera right now and you're telling all of your Christian followers
02:29:15.360
Erudite has convinced me that the Christian position is that there are no moral facts.
02:29:22.380
I don't believe that there's no moral facts, but that's fine that you do.
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.
02:29:43.020
So you believe that there's moral facts because you believe there's moral facts?
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.
02:30:02.760
Even if you could demonstrate math occurred outside of the human minds.
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.
02:30:25.700
How would that be a moral fact if the foundation's assumed?
02:30:44.700
I just told you I'm a Christian, now a Christian moral anti-realist.
02:30:48.060
You convinced me of that through your argumentation.
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.
02:31:01.220
Because I think that no matter where you look, kindness is viewed as good.
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?
02:31:18.780
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.
02:31:54.580
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.
02:32:17.400
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.
02:32:28.000
So a moral fact would be something like justice exists.
02:32:42.460
The way that justice looks in different contexts are different, right?
02:32:50.800
Yeah, I was a little redundant when I said that.
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.
02:33:09.260
Because a moral fact would be universal, wouldn't it?
02:33:13.500
Because something can be objective and relative.
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.
02:33:34.800
Okay, but it is a moral fact that they ought to.
02:33:47.700
You're making that very clear that you don't understand.
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.
02:34:09.780
Then love must exist because God said love exists.
02:34:15.940
So unless we think God is a deceiver, which would be a different belief system, but you
02:34:24.860
We have to do a little bit more work to figure out what love looks like.
02:34:40.500
So the thing that you assume becomes a fact because you assume it.
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.
02:35:01.760
Yeah, I get that you would oppose that, but how do you do that with an unjustified axiom?
02:35:12.580
Do you think reason just stops existing because Akurpa's trilemma exists?
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.
02:35:30.140
That's why we're talking about what's right or wrong, is every human has this universal
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.
02:35:46.820
And that would be my evidence of saying, see, moral facts do exist.
02:35:53.500
So it just comes down to what most people would do.
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?
02:36:10.560
Because I'm assuming that we both agree to this.
02:36:14.380
Well, there can't be, because any pillar I have to base them on is completely unjustified.
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?
02:36:36.460
Oh, I just think it's better because it's better.
02:36:50.220
I think outcomes for people, they like it better.
02:36:52.700
Well, then why did Christians, like power get shirked off by the people?
02:37:00.340
Well, now there's a bunch of people who are proposing that Christians retake power.
02:37:04.060
Yeah, and there's not a lot of political will, thank goodness, behind them.
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.
02:37:21.940
It would be more ethical for a Christian to not do it.
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
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
02:37:54.700
And we have it through multiple verses, which we can get to if you want.
02:38:03.680
And this is when he's talking to Pontius Pilate.
02:38:05.820
So that's a good example of him saying, I'm not a politician.
02:38:11.020
And if I was, there'd be civil war, but I'm not this thing.
02:38:22.160
When God anointed kings, was he doing something wrong?
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.
02:38:43.600
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.
02:38:53.420
For the same reason that like before we get to like certain parts of the Old Testament,
02:38:58.340
And then over time that got reduced because God's like, look, you were blind then.
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.
02:39:10.800
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?
02:39:26.620
I would say it's like, it's heretical to engage in politics.
02:39:44.960
I think that that's wrong for Christians to do.
02:39:46.340
So when someone's a politician who's a Christian,
02:39:48.320
they shouldn't make any legislation based on their actual moral purview of Christendom?
02:39:53.400
but they shouldn't do things that blend, that like merge church and state together.
02:40:09.940
So it would be sinful for a politician to utilize Christian ethics to promote legislation?
02:40:17.740
forcing non-Christians to observe the Sabbath or Lent,
02:40:22.300
forcing non-Christians to do that from like a state level.
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.
02:40:31.780
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,
02:40:40.380
Because, again, you shouldn't impose Christian ethics on non-Christians.
02:40:49.860
Anyways, you're saying that the apostles, that when they were...
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?
02:41:09.340
Are you familiar with what happened with 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.
02:41:25.400
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.
02:41:42.600
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
02:41:50.820
Christianity, which is where you get 2 Timothy saying that, I don't like it when women speak
02:41:58.400
The whole idea there was that a lot of these women were fertility cultists, and Timothy was
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.
02:42:17.980
Are you saying, so they rejected Roman occupation, they were shirking it, and they were only imposing
02:42:24.100
Christian law, or were they telling Christians how to act?
02:42:29.580
A church, like the Pope, telling fellow Christians how they should conduct themselves is exactly
02:42:35.320
But the church should not be going, hey, secular people, you have to do this same stuff too.
02:42:40.420
So when there's a policy, like women cannot speak in this church, they can't do that, okay?
02:42:53.340
Is that a command from a bishop, or a priest, or something like this?
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
02:43:10.920
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.
02:43:20.460
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
02:43:30.840
ethics on you, which is why I actually think that blending church and state is so bad for
02:43:35.240
the faith, because I think what it does is that, A, when you force it upon people, it
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.
02:43:47.940
Muslims believe, for example, that you can act according to the faith, and you can be
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
02:44:03.200
I just want to make sure that I, because I'm not strawmanning your position, I want to
02:44:10.580
They should not directly appeal to Christian ethics for the things in which they prescribe
02:44:17.680
What they can't do is impose specific Christian ethics onto non-Christians.
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
02:44:37.220
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.
02:44:52.520
Okay, in an authoritarian regime, are Christians acting ill all the time?
02:44:59.720
So a Christian says there's no prostitution allowed.
02:45:07.340
If he says no prostitution's allowed, right, let's say you agree with everything else that
02:45:13.940
What would make you specifically disagree with him appealing to Christian ethics for the imposition
02:45:20.820
Well, as a Christian, I probably wouldn't disagree with him, right?
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,
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?
02:45:57.440
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?
02:46:21.500
Well, because I asked you about politicians, you said no.
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?
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.
02:46:58.180
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
02:47:17.900
So, yeah, if it's the case that Eastern Orthodox actually is for this and they want to go back
02:47:21.360
to the Byzantine, I'd say, well, it makes sense why Eastern Orthodox is such a, it's such
02:47:28.200
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,
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.
02:47:43.300
Not just killed them, replaced 50% of the clergy with KGB members.
02:47:51.140
But then the communists used the Russian Orthodox Church.
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.
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
02:48:11.860
Are you saying that there was KGB agents at the time of Tsar Nicholas?
02:48:16.420
Yeah, so then the communists killed Tsar Nicholas and then imposed communism after that.
02:48:23.340
They were not infiltrating the church with KGB agents at the time of Tsar Nicholas.
02:48:42.660
But Stalin, like when we're talking about communism, we're talking about Lenin-Stalinism, right?
02:48:47.440
Okay, so Stalin, I believe it was Stalin that killed 50% of...
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
02:49:10.880
Secularists killed the Christians, not the other way around.
02:49:13.720
But then they used the church and implanted their own state members into the church to
02:49:19.320
That's a good example of how the state corrupts churches.
02:49:23.940
What happened is that the church was doing what it was supposed to do and they fucking killed
02:49:28.620
them and then replaced the people within that structure.
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
02:49:50.480
The issue is that the Patriarch Kirill will not talk to them because what happened is the
02:49:58.020
Bartholomew and the Ecumenical Council or whatever.
02:50:01.040
They gave autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which means self-governing for those
02:50:07.600
And this made Kirill so mad because he's so in line with Putin and insisted that the Ukrainian
02:50:12.680
war is a holy war that he stopped talking to all of them.
02:50:18.180
They oppose what Russia is doing insofar as they allowed Ukrainians to self-govern away
02:50:24.100
from the Russian Orthodox because they recognized that there was a problem here.
02:50:28.040
This is a good example of why church and state should be planned.
02:50:30.540
Your example of why church and state is bad is because secularists can come in and kill
02:50:35.460
the members of your church and then replace them with people who aren't real Christians.
02:50:57.000
I'm not saying that the state was bad, that the blending of church and state is bad because
02:51:01.900
I said what's bad is that they later then used the church as an arm of the state.
02:51:08.320
They used Kirill and other people to impose theological law that was just sympathetic to
02:51:17.440
And what happened is when 50% of the clergy got killed and replaced by statists, which were
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?
02:51:42.780
Do you think that the Russian Orthodox Church would be what it is if the KGB hadn't killed
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.
02:52:03.320
Yeah, but it can do that within your liberal framework, no problem.
02:52:16.740
The liberal framework has amendments in it, and these amendments can be at any time changed
02:52:22.580
Is my liberal framework the Constitution, or is it a framework of...
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.
02:52:43.880
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?
02:53:03.860
It has strong institutions, and in more modern forms of liberalism, which I like, by the
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.
02:53:27.280
Liberties are the things that you get that aren't your right.
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.
02:53:39.180
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?
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?
02:53:53.220
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.
02:54:05.460
America, the country you hate, apparently, and don't think stands for anything.
02:54:09.980
You want to go back to a time before America existed.
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
02:54:30.160
Whether I do or don't doesn't mean I ever said that we should go back to it, does it?
02:54:51.920
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?
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?
02:55:34.060
I feel like after letting you talk here for a while, I actually understand a much broader
02:55:43.400
I've stopped talking lots and I've made it pretty simple.
02:55:54.160
I mean, I've tried to internally critique you, but you don't really want it.
02:56:10.600
Well, I don't want people rocking around thinking that I think you're terrible.
02:56:23.180
Well, do you think that I think you're terrible?
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.
02:56:47.660
What the fuck is wrong with doing that if it's actually in the confines of the American system
02:56:54.740
So as a Christian, I'd say it's unchristian to do.
02:56:57.160
I'm asking about the political philosophy, remember?
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
02:57:08.840
So if a nation-state would vote in an authoritarian, which has actually happened many times, I think
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
02:57:30.080
I haven't said anything about who shouldn't vote.
02:57:31.820
When you say absolute democracy, what does that mean?
02:57:35.940
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
02:57:48.200
can get amendments passed in order to tailor things to Christianity.
02:57:52.780
I just think that that's wrong for Christians to do.
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...
02:58:06.360
Because we can go back to the beginning, because I said the American ethos is built
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
02:58:22.480
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.
02:58:27.620
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.
02:58:37.340
Or like, for example, people are rejecting the status quo, and they want to move outside
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.
02:59:01.200
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.
02:59:08.720
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?
02:59:19.280
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
02:59:31.800
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-
02:59:46.480
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
02:59:54.360
And I would say, there's a lot of people that don't own land.
02:59:57.340
You've got to interrupt me because I'm cooking, don't you?
03:00:08.140
First of all, for the last hour, you've insisted on internally critiquing only me, and you wouldn't
03:00:14.700
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,
03:00:39.000
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.
03:00:45.940
The American system's actually a hodgepodge, isn't 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.
03:01:05.800
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?
03:01:20.140
If the population gets the right to vote, which it now has, it has almost totally universal
03:01:26.200
suffrage, except in very minimal cases, then passing these amendments becomes much easier
03:01:35.020
Because at that point, you can consolidate power blocks in parties, which was an emergent
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?
03:01:51.320
Because if you have two parties, you're probably going to have a lot of your politicians under
03:01:59.420
No, unless one has overwhelming control, which can easily happen.
03:02:03.360
But it's actually interesting when you look at the creation of the United States.
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.
03:02:20.600
But this is why, for example, we've done things like splitting the Senate so that you need like 60
03:02:32.620
And the thing is, they can also pack the court.
03:02:37.320
The very idea here that we can't utilize liberalism to remove parts of the liberal framework
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.
03:03:00.500
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.
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
03:03:17.800
Would you say the same thing about the Second Amendment?
03:03:25.440
I just think, like, all of the, like, natural limits to it are-
03:03:35.100
Sure, but I think a state would regulate a lot on, like, what you can, like, do with
03:03:55.480
Then that would be within the confines of the liberal framework.
03:04:04.720
That's within the confines of the framework to completely eliminate the Second Amendment.
03:04:11.220
I've said that it would be un-American to do so.
03:04:14.340
Because I think, like, 2A, for example, gun culture is extremely American.
03:04:21.040
But what's not un-American is removing amendments that Americans don't like.
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.
03:04:34.360
It's doing things that they fucking want based on what it is that they want.
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.
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.
03:04:58.120
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.
03:05:23.140
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?
03:05:32.160
Because that is against life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
03:05:41.380
Most Western liberal democracies are taxed more.
03:05:46.780
Can we see if there's anybody that taxes more on income than America?
03:05:52.120
So we're one of the most taxed countries on planet Earth.
03:05:56.460
There's no other Western liberal democracies that taxed.
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.
03:06:12.020
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?
03:06:23.420
Do you think that the way that people are taxed right now, that our founders fought for that?
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.
03:06:40.020
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?
03:06:49.740
It's a threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
03:06:53.860
Because they're directly taking an unapportioned tax from people.
03:07:01.540
Because don't you think that you need to have money in order to have liberty?
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.
03:07:13.560
The income—you can have sales taxes, things like that.
03:07:17.940
Initially, there was no income tax in the Constitution.
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—
03:07:36.280
He killed the—well, because the bank wanted to create an income tax.
03:07:44.720
What you're presuming, though, you're trying to make it seem like Jackson was most opposed
03:07:51.160
To the central bank, specifically, because he was concerned about government statesmen
03:07:59.720
That's why one of the first things he did was pay ours off.
03:08:05.660
So you'd agree that Jackson had multiple reasons for why he was opposed?
03:08:09.340
Yes, but income tax would have made him lose his fucking mind.
03:08:11.720
So do you think that it is un-American for people to have—
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.
03:08:22.380
So what you're doing is you're saying liberalism and the process of democracy gives us the
03:08:32.640
So I'm arguing that the most American thing is the value of life, liberty, the pursuit
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—
03:08:56.700
And then you move back and forth between these two ideals as though they're interchangeable.
03:09:04.380
No, my foundation is actually life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
03:09:12.020
No, you're being bad faith, Kyla, by saying I'm bad faith.
03:09:14.640
So I have never said that my moral system is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
03:09:20.980
I'm talking about, you know, foundational system for liberalism.
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.
03:09:46.260
Can we just acknowledge right now that you are the one equivocating because you slipped between saying—
03:09:52.980
You were saying that my moral system is this life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but
03:09:57.480
And then you said, no, no, no, no, no, the foundation of America.
03:10:02.700
I said, no, liberalism's foundation is these other things.
03:10:07.680
You're trying to split between all these things.
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.
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.
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.
03:10:43.340
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.
03:10:53.660
These Americans are very un-American and bad Christians.
03:10:56.200
These guys get in office, and all they do is this.
03:11:00.420
They just immediately legislate that you can't be prostitutes, no prostitution, no pimping, no gay marriage, 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.
03:11:27.280
Okay, but it's definitely in direct violation of this whole liberty thing, right?
03:11:33.860
Like prostitutes specifically are usually women adults.
03:11:37.000
So are you also wanting to impose a law that homosexuals can't get married?
03:11:44.360
Okay, so how come three people can't get married?
03:12:02.980
What reasonable world exists where seventeen people are getting legally married?
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?
03:12:17.140
I at least think it's reasonable to assume four or five would.
03:12:23.720
I've spent time with people, but maybe you haven't.
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...
03:12:36.740
If we could create a taxation system that could manage seventeen people getting married legally, I don't have an issue with it, necessarily.
03:12:52.560
And this is now part of a new constitutional amendment.
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?
03:13:13.360
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.
03:13:26.400
Because your whole objection to Christian nationalists with gay marriage...
03:13:29.940
Probably three, because I don't think taxation would ever be functional for 17 people.
03:13:33.820
Okay, so they pass an amendment, three people can get married.
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.
03:13:48.400
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...
03:13:54.760
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.
03:14:06.760
Divorce is extremely messy, particularly because...
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.
03:14:19.480
In this fundamental world where, like, human beings don't leave oxygen.
03:14:23.220
If three people can get married, then those three people can already get divorced.
03:14:29.240
Three people can already have some kind of custodial fucking problem with the state.
03:14:33.680
We already have major custodial issues within divorce court.
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.
03:14:48.080
So then Christian nationalists going in and limiting liberty is not really a problem.
03:14:54.780
So them outlawing gay marriage, that's a problem, but not three people getting married.
03:14:59.040
Because I would say consensually as a society, we've agreed that gay people can get legally married.
03:15:08.140
Okay, and you're voting for the electorate who goes in and undoes it.
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.
03:15:20.480
That's nice you think that, but they were elected.
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.
03:15:39.220
It is not un-American for them to go in and change amendments.
03:15:44.420
So what I would say is that there are some things that are central to the American ethos, right?
03:15:49.640
So what you're trying to do is you're trying to say, well, you're for liberty.
03:15:53.940
And I'm like, no, I'm for some limitations on liberty.
03:15:56.100
Of course you are because you're going, well, what about 17 people?
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.
03:16:07.700
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.
03:16:29.920
They just put two Supreme Court justices, new ones on.
03:16:39.480
One of my issues would be them intentionally packing the court.
03:16:43.900
They just put in two new Supreme Court justices.
03:16:50.760
They elect two of them with the intention of packing the court.
03:16:55.660
Do they select them on the basis that these judges will be Christian as well?
03:17:02.280
They're definitely selecting them because the party –
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?
03:17:23.000
It's very un-American for you to go against that.
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.
03:17:38.820
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.
03:18:03.880
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.
03:18:22.880
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.
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.
03:18:40.460
It would be because probably 50 – I think it's like 50% of the population definitely disagrees with the contention of when life is.
03:18:54.980
The ones who elected the Christian nationalists?
03:18:57.560
Well, more so, in this case, the ones who didn't.
03:19:01.800
It's the most American thing possible when Christian nationalists get in –
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.
03:19:26.000
Wait, does the state compel anyone to get an abortion?
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?
03:19:39.900
So you can object to fucking people murdering people in your democracy.
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.
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.
03:20:00.640
No, I said Christians imposing Christian ethics on non-Christians is unbiblical.
03:20:06.560
Yeah, but we're talking about whether or not it's un-American.
03:20:12.100
We're talking about what's un-American five seconds ago.
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.
03:20:24.440
To outlaw abortion for the purpose of life, erudite.
03:20:32.060
We're talking about what's un-American or American.
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.
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.
03:20:49.480
Well, Christian nationalists would probably want to do it.
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.
03:21:09.620
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.
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,
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,
03:21:47.180
So I am outlining right now that you trying to pretend as though Christian nationalists
03:21:54.500
Because I said, well, do you think that Christian nationalists would try to push through
03:21:59.060
And he said, well, I think they just want it at the state.
03:22:02.120
I said that issue, they would refer it to the state.
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.
03:22:15.580
If they amended it, that's within the confines of...
03:22:17.600
So I don't know why the fuck you're bringing up states at all.
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?
03:22:32.060
But that would be totally constitutional and very American.
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.
03:22:47.540
So America is just a Christian theocracy secretly waiting to be discovered.
03:22:51.440
America is just a fucking secular fucking nonsense machine.
03:22:58.340
To me, America, at least how you define it, is just a system.
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.
03:23:13.040
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.
03:23:21.080
You don't think there's a central American ethos?
03:23:24.820
And mass migration and other things destroyed that.
03:23:33.480
Yeah, so I would largely agree that if you have a population center or a population group,
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
03:23:52.480
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
03:24:04.120
Well, I'm asking you what American ethos is to you, because you think it's dead now.
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.
03:24:30.980
No, but is that central to the American identity?
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.
03:24:57.040
And within the confines of this experiment, it's perfectly acceptable for us to change the
03:25:02.760
Would you, so to bring America back to what America was, is that something you would care
03:25:07.920
Like at least, when I say America, I mean you're a version of America.
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.
03:25:33.440
And why didn't they write it into some federal capacity for the states to go over it?
03:25:38.080
So the thing is, it's like, what am I, hang on.
03:25:45.560
Do you agree with me that foundationally this was a white nation?
03:25:49.660
I don't think whiteness is central to American ethos.
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
03:26:08.700
Like, they really just wanted white people here?
03:26:12.860
But I don't think that that's what makes the American ethos, is a preoccupation with whiteness.
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
03:26:48.580
That was not what we have now, which is like South America pouring in.
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
03:26:59.820
They would have done somewhere to say the white man.
03:27:05.720
The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with white men.
03:27:12.340
Early laws did regard people of good character who are white.
03:27:16.940
Sure, but I don't think that that's central to being an American.
03:27:20.340
Because I don't think the Founding Fathers is the only thing that makes it something American.
03:27:24.320
I'm just saying that when we're talking about a culture, the culture of the time, right,
03:27:30.380
Say, if I found out the Founding Fathers sat me down, they're like, and that's really
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...
03:28:02.500
This is fundamentally opposed to the American ethos of science.
03:28:08.720
What Christian nationalists are opposed to science?
03:28:36.140
What you're talking about, when you're talking about anthropology, or you're talking about...
03:28:44.720
When we're talking about American ingenuity and industrialization, things like this,
03:28:49.220
we're talking about automobiles, trains, rocket ships, machine guns, bazookas, fucking...
03:28:53.740
Development of vaccines, development of modern monetary theory.
03:28:58.960
Christian nationalists, especially, are not against medical science.
03:29:08.700
So, you think that if I pulled Christian nationalists, that most of them would be for vaccines?
03:29:13.680
Do they think that their kids should go to university and study science?
03:29:21.800
My assumption, because I'm actually familiar with Christian nationalists, and I'm not lying
03:29:27.060
Like, the broad movement of Christian nationalists.
03:29:32.880
I think that Kirk, before he passed away, was a prominent one.
03:29:37.020
And Kirk didn't say that he wanted the government to go in and outlaw fucking vaccines.
03:29:44.900
He didn't think that people should send their kids to university.
03:29:54.960
Christian nationalists, they want to get rid of evolution.
03:30:01.680
It is fundamentally anti-science to get rid of major scientific theories.
03:30:19.700
We've done multiple studies on IQ to show that the moment that you normalize things like
03:30:25.040
You're saying there was no politics involved in that?
03:30:28.300
But I said that what solved it dominantly, what made it a weaker argument...
03:30:41.480
What's wrong with eugenics is that it typically violates certain major ethical principles.
03:30:50.800
But if you're going to divert to ethics from science, then Christian nationalists have
03:30:57.000
So the difference between eugenics, the reason why we would be opposed to it, is that it did
03:31:00.520
things like forced sterilizations and reduced people to breeding stock capability.
03:31:08.360
But the issue is, the reason why we're rejecting eugenics isn't because we're saying, it's
03:31:16.140
What the Christian nationalists are saying is, evolution's not real.
03:31:28.620
If they're inside of a democracy and they can amend all of these things and that's the
03:31:41.180
Up until the 60s, all 50 states had anti-sodomy laws.
03:31:44.780
So like, the thing is, it seems like it's the most Christian thing to me, or not the most
03:31:56.540
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
03:32:02.840
rejection of science, which I think is entanglement to the ingenuity and development of America.
03:32:11.760
Because you want some sciences rejected to you.
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.
03:32:32.380
What I don't want is when we utilize science to abuse other people.
03:32:39.940
Because in this case, I'm not saying eugenics can't work.
03:32:48.220
Christian nationalists are saying evolution is false.
03:33:00.820
Are you saying that Christian nationalists are going to say you can no longer study evolution?
03:33:10.320
You don't have a right to learn evolution in school?
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
03:33:23.620
Public education is to teach you reading, writing, arithmetic, not doing...
03:33:39.040
Because you didn't include science in your list.
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
03:33:55.380
But when a state forces you to teach children about God in a public institution, I do have
03:34:03.320
But within the confines of your moral framework of liberalism...
03:34:09.380
Andrew, stop saying that my moral framework is liberalism.
03:34:34.760
Strong institutions, separation of powers, welfare, and protection of rights and liberties
03:34:42.300
And you agree Christian nationalists can do all that?
03:34:45.420
But I don't think that they can do so if they are imposing Christian ethics onto people.
03:34:48.920
So then the only thing that you would say is it's a life, liberty, pursuit,
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
03:35:09.160
It's American because the democratic system allows it.
03:35:13.100
It's American because even though foundationally we didn't have any of these fucking laws,
03:35:16.480
we've only had them since like, oh, I don't know, 40 years and you violate any
03:35:24.540
No, Americanism is like an ethos that emerges over time, right?
03:35:30.320
All you say is like it's fucking ingenuity or something.
03:35:33.720
It's ingenuity and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
03:35:40.400
It's not oppositional to tyranny because you...
03:35:52.580
Wait, I think that that's un-American of him to do.
03:36:06.400
I think it was murder, I think is the word we used for that.
03:36:13.520
Well, I mean, I think it leads to it often, but...
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...
03:36:44.660
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.
03:37:01.680
You keep saying, I don't think that that's good.
03:37:09.160
You like to slip back and forth between all these things.
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?
03:37:14.920
You said something about ingenuity and opposition to tyranny.
03:37:26.100
I'm not going to tell you again unless you actually...
03:37:31.580
The foundations of liberalism, strong institutions, balance of power, protection of rights and
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.
03:37:45.120
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
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.
03:38:11.140
Okay, and I think it would be wrong for them to do so.
03:38:17.660
Well, I would argue it violates their Christian moral ethos to do so.
03:38:23.020
Because Christians aren't allowed to rule from their moral position.
03:38:25.360
They should not be trying to blend church and state power and rule from a state of statesmanship.
03:38:30.340
I think Jesus is obviously and fundamentally opposed to this.
03:38:35.060
You've already granted me that that's the direction that they would go.
03:38:39.440
Increasingly so that they can limit people's choice to be aligned with what Christians ought
03:38:45.580
That's within the confines of the American ethos.
03:38:57.500
Did you write down my values of liberalism yet?
03:38:59.840
You're saying separation of power, strong institutions, right?
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
03:39:16.440
And the one position is that it's going to violate the ethos.
03:39:23.620
If they outlaw abortion, that is good for your ethos of life.
03:39:27.200
No, I would say that what it does is it imposes on non-Christians who don't even believe
03:39:36.580
Why are we supposed to make law towards the minority?
03:39:41.020
It's about the fact that Christians should not be imposing onto secular people Christian policy.
03:39:45.580
I think not only does it just create worse states as evidenced by, you know what states
03:39:51.960
Oh, secularists, though, can impose that, oh, we can have pornography and we can have...
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?
03:40:20.840
The idea of the imposition here is like if they go in and they outlawed it, if they outlawed
03:40:29.860
You have a hard time signing up with banks, all these sort of things.
03:40:33.740
You have the liberty to get rid of all porn on your social media.
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.
03:40:53.620
Yeah, and we don't need to allow a secular state to do this.
03:40:57.900
Sure, you could try to collectivize and convince both Christians and non-Christians to make laws
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
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?
03:41:28.720
Because I think it's way more possible to use deterrence on murder.
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...
03:41:42.740
Well, again, statescraftment is about making what makes for a better society to live in.
03:41:47.480
No, it would be a more moral society by your standards.
03:41:52.140
People having to do black trade porn, which is what would happen.
03:41:55.900
How are they being forced to do black male porn?
03:42:00.800
I'm saying that would be the natural conclusion.
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,
03:42:14.140
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,
03:42:21.860
It's probably going to increase the type of seediness behavior.
03:42:25.900
Places where prostitution is legal, you see more human trafficking.
03:42:32.560
And so they become far easier to exploit because they're in sex work.
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.
03:42:54.740
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
03:43:10.460
In the case of alcohol, there's a decrease in consumption.
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.
03:43:32.780
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
03:43:43.040
Wait, no, but the issue is why we ban murder is that almost all murders isn't because people
03:43:47.740
It's usually done in, like, an explosion of anger.
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?
03:44:01.680
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.
03:44:10.920
More murders would happen if you legalize murder.
03:44:14.500
Just like more porn will happen if you legalize porn.
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.
03:44:35.540
Isn't there like this whole, like, pin-up girl postcard thing?
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.
03:44:53.980
Don't you think that right now with prostitution legalized, OnlyFans legalized, we have more
03:45:00.360
Yeah, but the issue is that, like, for example-
03:45:01.860
That's the most ridiculous thing ever, and if Christian nationalists get rid of it, there's
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.
03:45:17.860
Again, another thing, which was banned for most of American history, banned transgenderism,
03:45:29.880
You say, wait a second, religiosity, the founders didn't want that, and we can't allow
03:45:38.400
The founders wanted a separation of church and state.
03:45:45.720
If you want to cling to that one, you totally can.
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.
03:45:58.500
That was the literal compromise they made with them.
03:46:01.040
Not because they wanted states to have state-level religion.
03:46:06.140
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-
03:46:13.140
You're right, but that doesn't mean that federal leaders actually wanted church and state
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.
03:46:31.120
What were they going to find that was going to unify them under that?
03:46:40.260
What they said was, you could do what you want with your states.
03:46:44.000
And we were not going to impose a federal religion on you.
03:46:48.320
Yeah, because they wanted a separation of church and state at the federal level.
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.
03:47:05.220
The states wanted it, and the states are part of the system.
03:47:17.560
The foundation was not just about 39 guys signing a fucking document.
03:47:22.160
The foundation was a contribution of tens of thousands of people.
03:47:29.760
Couldn't find a way to impose church and state together at a federal level.
03:47:37.140
Because they didn't want the federal government to be like, Maryland, you've got to be a Catholic.
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-
03:47:49.020
They wrote godness into the Declaration of Independence.
03:47:53.900
None of the TJ references in any way can be cited to godness in a Christian way at all.
03:48:27.800
Some of the Christians wouldn't have agreed with Christ?
03:48:38.380
You think that if TJ had written in Christ, that some Christians would have been like,
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.
03:49:05.240
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.
03:49:16.600
He's referencing a general conception of creator.
03:49:21.280
To Christians, it would be Christ, but he didn't say Christ.
03:49:38.020
Why wouldn't they just say Christ if they meant the Christian god?
03:49:47.740
He's like, oh, what's that word for the creator that Christian's like?
03:49:52.960
Pull up the Declaration of Independence and read it.
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.
03:50:37.100
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.
03:51:03.900
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.
03:51:13.860
Now, the other thing that's interesting here is that you still have an answer to this.
03:51:29.580
Any form of Christian, pan-Protestantism, I think is what the word you're using.
03:51:47.780
Yeah, so he's using creator because he doesn't want to use the word Christ?
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?
03:52:11.420
The feds are just not allowed to tell the states what religion they can have.
03:52:16.320
I feel like if any of the feds really wanted to write Christ into the Constitution, they
03:52:26.460
They probably should if they want it to be a Christian nation.
03:52:35.320
So when they're making this compromise with the states, did the states want their states
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.
03:52:54.760
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.
03:53:00.260
I said most of the states would have been Protestant, right?
03:53:04.980
No, that's not how that conversation went either.
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.
03:53:28.320
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.
03:53:39.860
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.
03:53:54.180
They didn't want the federal government to impose religion on them.
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.
03:54:13.800
You had to make declarations that you believed in God in order to vote in many of these states?
03:54:31.120
You were talking about how the federal government did not impose on the states a religion.
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.
03:54:55.840
But I don't think that like Maryland deciding that they want to be, let's say, Protestant.
03:55:09.580
The American ethos from the founding fathers was we don't impose religion on people.
03:55:23.460
Why didn't the federal government go in there and stop those fucking states from imposing
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.
03:55:53.720
You're saying actually the founding fathers did want the imposition of religion on America.
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.
03:56:08.160
Was to write in religion into the Constitution.
03:56:13.940
It's almost like if they wanted religion to be imposed on the nation, they would have
03:56:19.220
They didn't want a national religion imposed on the nation.
03:56:22.900
They wanted separation of church and state at the national level, which is central to
03:56:28.300
But then you keep on trying to fight me and being like, well, Maryland kept it for a while.
03:56:38.680
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.
03:56:45.860
Most of the states updated and got rid of the religious test long before the 14th Amendment.
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.
03:57:06.000
But the last one happening in the 60s doesn't mean that most of the states hadn't updated
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
03:57:23.840
Or do you think most states had already adopted the federal landscape, and then some places
03:57:28.580
No, what was going on was that a lot of the states wanted to return, actually, to the idea
03:57:36.900
And so what happened is, yeah, actually, yes, this was a national conversation.
03:57:42.380
They said, well, based on the 14th Amendment, which is about fucking citizenship, states
03:57:47.000
can't do that anymore because of the fucking uniformity clause or whatever it is.
03:57:50.600
It's like, what the fuck are you talking about?
03:57:52.420
So the federal government of America, in line with the federal government initially, doesn't
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
03:58:06.300
Well, they definitely felt that it was a violation of the Constitution.
03:58:12.000
What would be un-American about repealing that?
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.
03:58:32.780
But when we're talking about the emergent principle of America, we should probably think
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
03:58:44.840
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.
03:59:05.240
Even though that was who the compromise was with.
03:59:11.200
Yeah, it's almost like since it was founded by Christians, and these same Christians
03:59:20.460
So it's almost like the Christians even then agreed with me that it would be unchristian
03:59:24.000
to impose a religion at a federal level on the people.
03:59:30.340
You're just trying to be like, but the states, but Maryland kept it for a while, man.
03:59:42.300
America is a collected, unified group under the Constitution, particularly the federal
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
04:00:07.600
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.
04:00:24.480
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
04:00:36.700
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
04:00:45.460
go after liberty, that's fine because I'm not a liberty maximist, but they can preserve
04:00:57.360
When I say, wait a second, when you say liberty, if you go against liberty, that's going against
04:01:06.840
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.
04:01:14.420
Because you're using the word liberty here in two different 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.
04:01:30.100
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.
04:01:40.180
Well, if we work as a collective to find where that line is, it would tell us something meaningful,
04:01:49.740
I think there's one actually specifically for you, Kyla, that I'm going to have come in
04:01:55.340
Maybe I should wait until Andrew returns so he can maybe hear your response, but I'll
04:02:12.380
Would you get an abortion under any circumstance?
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.
04:02:33.760
Do you want to throw them back on screen so I make sure I respond to them all?
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.
04:02:52.940
Me personally, I'm pro-life as maximal as possible, but at a policy level, I think decriminalization
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?
04:03:12.220
I haven't had to confront that in a serious way.
04:03:21.580
I'm pretty conservative when it comes to like doing sin, so probably not.
04:03:28.900
I haven't actually theologically looked at that one.
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.
04:03:55.560
Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, like the video.
04:04:05.520
Maybe we can hit a threshold here before Andrew returns.
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
04:04:29.620
And instead of properly moderating the debate, I spent most of the bulk of it cleaning up the table.
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
04:05:04.560
Okay, he's trying to make himself not seem that nice, but he was reminding me of things.
04:05:11.280
Well, I try to be fair to both participants in the debate.
04:05:19.060
Guys, if you're watching over there on Twitch, we have, I think,
04:05:23.360
If you can pull up, Nathan, the Twitch on Windows, perfect.
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.
04:05:59.220
Texas Red, thank you very much for the super chat.
04:06:03.560
SCOTUS gets to determine what the Constitution says based on the power grab of Marbury v.
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.
04:06:22.020
Did you want to respond further or was that kind of...
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.
04:06:38.620
Like, you're appealing to ideals in the presentism form that are silly.
04:06:45.720
When you're talking about pursuit of happiness, how it's ingenuity, it's all about science,
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
04:06:59.960
back to the states, give abortion back to the states, that is fundamental to that ideal,
04:07:07.220
But there's obviously going to be times where federal policy, like, imposes over top of states.
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
04:07:27.520
Christian nationalists would go, you know what?
04:07:30.300
If it's the case that inside of a democracy, Christian nationalists are elected to these
04:07:34.040
high offices and can pass legislation, which then stops California from doing that, you
04:07:43.700
I would say probably those Californians don't want that, and that would be a pretty major
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
04:07:58.440
the founders didn't want states to have religions or some shit.
04:08:01.460
I said that what's un-American is imposing federal religions onto others, imposing religion
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?
04:08:20.960
So there you equivocate again between, you say, the federal government's not allowed to
04:08:27.660
And you say, well, so then America's not supposed to impose religion.
04:08:44.220
And by the way, the most key American thing, the states used to be the ones who sent up
04:08:55.580
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
04:09:07.960
Christian nationalists aren't proposing one single unified Christianity.
04:09:11.940
They're saying that the states should be able to impose Christianity if they fucking want
04:09:17.160
But you already granted me that if Christian nationalists had power, they would probably
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.
04:09:33.760
No, it doesn't make it bad for Christians because you say so based on this trilemma of your
04:09:42.300
I know a gripper's trilemma really stressed you out, but I would say that it's un-Christian.
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
04:10:03.000
We see Christ, Jesus, regularly rejecting political office, regularly rejecting political
04:10:09.880
Because he said, my kingdom is not here on earth.
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...
04:10:31.260
Anywhere in the Bible, that the reason that God anointed kings, he only did that because,
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.
04:10:50.580
Show me anywhere in the New Testament where it says that God stopped anointing kings because we
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...
04:11:05.680
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?
04:11:16.600
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
04:11:29.740
As evidence that, like, in my typological argument, which looks at the transition over time...
04:11:36.380
So in the case of Moses, we have, like, extreme statecraft and Christian law.
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
04:11:58.480
Whereas by the time we get to David, we have Samuel anointing the king.
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.
04:12:20.180
Then how come the apostles engage in politics, including Paul?
04:12:26.120
When did Paul ever say that we should, like, usurp?
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.
04:12:43.420
No, was Corinth run by Romans or by the Christians?
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
04:13:02.140
Sure, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't impose, and they did all the time, their own
04:13:13.620
Could you pass laws inside of Corinth as a spiritual leader?
04:13:18.480
But, so if that's the case, as long as they didn't violate Roman law, you could do that.
04:13:29.380
Because at no point is Paul going there and saying that we should impose Christian laws
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.
04:13:44.000
Probably because he found them unbiblical, not because he thought they were bad statesmen.
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.
04:14:09.400
Wasn't the thing the cult of Artemis is only political?
04:14:13.800
It had no bearing on your spiritual condition if you were engaging with the...
04:14:18.900
What do you think actually mattered here to Paul?
04:14:23.320
What was going on with the cult of Artemis, the reason they were so fucking pissed off is
04:14:26.300
because the entire economic model of Ephesus revolved around the fact that they were
04:14:33.600
This was a political battle and it was a spiritual battle.
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.
04:14:47.600
And did Paul go there and say we should get rid of it as an economic forum?
04:14:54.540
You need to read the letters to Timothy because you're incorrect here.
04:15:06.940
God put kings in place, but it was just because they weren't ready for another system that
04:15:11.500
Does that mean right this second, anywhere that there's a king, that king sinning?
04:15:24.400
I mean, the kings are exclusively performative.
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...
04:15:38.260
Zimbabwe's like hell on earth, okay, let's say.
04:15:41.080
And this king gets into authority and he imposes all these Christian values and it brings in
04:15:45.440
all sorts of economic prosperity and people are very happy.
04:15:50.300
Does he know that it's wrong for him to impose Christian statecraft?
04:15:57.220
He's imposing that you can't murder, no homosexuality, no prostitution.
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
04:16:11.280
But you can't demonstrate that he's actually sinning.
04:16:15.320
Show me how this Christian king is doing anything which is incorrect biblically by being
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,
04:16:32.920
He's not robbing them of agency by having rule of law based on Christian ethics.
04:16:37.540
If you're forcing it exclusively because it's sin, right?
04:16:39.780
So if there are secular people in Zimbabwe that are gay and you force them to not be allowed
04:16:44.040
to engage in it and there's, there's, let's say there's...
04:16:48.540
Throwing people in jail who are non-Christians would be wrong to do, yeah.
04:16:53.880
Well, it depends on what you mean by sin, right?
04:16:57.220
If the king of Zimbabwe says your homosexuality is not to be engaged in anymore and he can't
04:17:04.480
Because he's imposing on non-Christians something about sin.
04:17:10.280
So I think the issue would be that that's inherently anti-Christian.
04:17:15.640
Where does Jesus impose himself on non-Christians?
04:17:19.180
Jesus wasn't here specifically to give us the message of how to rule.
04:17:24.240
He was giving us the ethical framework for how we were supposed to live our lives.
04:17:46.000
If it was actually more Christian to impose Christian policy, shouldn't have Jesus established
04:17:56.180
He established the brand new kingdom, which is Christianity.
04:18:00.620
Which is the body of people who are Christians, yes.
04:18:13.160
We're still like Jesus, even if you're a king who imposes Christian ethics.
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?
04:18:31.240
Should every Christian get crucified at 33 because Jesus did?
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.
04:18:43.200
Did he say it was sin to be a king and impose Christian ethics?
04:18:52.400
After feeding the 5,000, he perceived they were going to crown him king, so he withdrew
04:19:03.400
Satan offers Jesus political dominion over the earth and he refuses.
04:19:12.160
The reason that that happened was because Satan came to him and he said to him, I'll give you
04:19:22.500
So he rejects it not because he's saying you can't be a Christian and rule.
04:19:27.820
He rejects it because he, God, is not going to bow at the feet of Satan for material shit.
04:19:36.480
I brought it up in an example in a litany of other things of Jesus regularly rejecting
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.
04:19:55.040
So Jesus rejects the political position and we should what?
04:20:00.360
There's no problem within Christian ethics of having a position of political authority.
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.
04:20:19.760
Another one where he says, I'm going to reject being the king of the Jews.
04:20:25.880
Well, the first one we were talking about was Satan.
04:20:30.960
He rejected it because Satan said he got to bow down to me in order to get material shit.
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.
04:20:43.100
He was to give us the good news that his kingdom has come to earth.
04:20:48.780
How would reestablishing Israel not help him with showing that the kingdom is here, that
04:20:58.740
Because you're the one who has to theologically establish it.
04:21:02.500
His entire mission here was just give you the good news.
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.
04:21:26.580
So then why does he say render unto Caesar, right?
04:21:37.840
Do you want the answer to why he said render unto Caesar?
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.
04:22:04.040
That in no way says that Caesar shouldn't be a Christian or use Christian ethics.
04:22:10.600
I would argue that alone wouldn't substantiate 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.
04:22:23.100
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.
04:22:34.040
You have a different mission than Jesus Christ did.
04:22:36.880
So where, where am I going to find that Christians must live in only secular countries?
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.
04:22:57.860
It should not impose onto Christians, Christian moral law, that would be, that it only exists
04:23:04.160
Most of the common law that you're referencing is imposed from Christian ethics.
04:23:12.340
You might notice, I never said I had an issue with being informed by it.
04:23:16.100
Why is it that Christians can't impose that, but secularists can impose that?
04:23:22.440
So they can just rule over Christians, but Christians can't rule over them.
04:23:32.580
So Christians shouldn't be imposing tyranny on other people.
04:23:36.560
Imposing, imposing your religious predilection onto others when it's against their interests
04:23:46.140
Then all laws would be tyrannical if it's an imposition on somebody's values that they
04:23:56.760
So when you're talking about compelling a person to do a thing, are you saying that secularists
04:24:14.340
The draft is compelling people to do a thing, right?
04:24:23.000
Well, the difference here would be Christians versus states.
04:24:24.920
What you said was that secularists should be able to unless it's the case that they're
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.
04:24:43.980
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
04:25:00.120
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.
04:25:06.220
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
04:25:12.760
You haven't shown me anywhere that Christians can't impose Christian ethics.
04:25:16.740
In fact, I have the entire standard of the Bible to show that God anoints kings, that
04:25:23.080
Your whole, the entirety of your argument to that is, it's because we didn't have democracy
04:25:28.220
It's because we weren't ready for not kings yet.
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.
04:25:45.860
Do we just do everything that the Old Testament says?
04:25:59.700
So then you should know why we don't do everything the Old Testament says.
04:26:10.260
Okay, so in Acts, this question is asked, especially about the idea of like, well, this was the question.
04:26:26.620
In order to convert, you no longer have to do circumcision if you're converting over from being a Gentile.
04:26:33.900
But you have to adhere to these moral laws, which is strangulation of animals.
04:26:40.260
I think it was strangulation of animals, and then there was two other ones.
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.
04:27:17.340
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?
04:27:23.800
Yeah, it was for an establishment of a new covenant, right?
04:27:28.780
Covenant theology, the way that you view it, I don't view it that way.
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.
04:27:54.000
We don't follow Levitical law because Gentiles converting over.
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?
04:28:07.640
Why is it not sin for Gentiles to not participate in the Levitical law?
04:28:12.800
Ask it a different way because I hear two nots.
04:28:15.100
Why is it not wrong for the Gentiles to not get circumcised?
04:28:19.120
Why is it not wrong for Gentiles to not get circumcised?
04:28:30.620
Why is it okay for Gentiles to remain uncircumcised?
04:28:36.280
Oh, because that's what was laid down in Acts by the apostles.
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.
04:28:51.920
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.
04:29:06.960
They were sin in the Old Testament, but now they're not sin.
04:29:19.440
But even in the Old Testament, this was prescribed for Jews only.
04:29:27.220
But it is still sinful, even if you don't follow Christian ethics, you can still sin.
04:29:36.580
The issue is, like, when we talk about non-Christian sinning, right, it's almost empty, right?
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.
04:29:56.640
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.
04:30:07.360
And that we need salvation to bring us back to Him.
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.
04:30:20.580
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.
04:30:47.260
Right, and we're all in that status without salvation, right?
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?
04:31:24.460
The virtue ethics of orienting towards like less harm and doing it as well.
04:31:35.300
They have an orientation towards the good that God builds into them.
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.
04:31:45.440
Okay, so then they would have an orientation to not do any of those bad things, which is sinning.
04:31:59.220
This is such a perfect time to let some chats come through.
04:32:08.360
How exactly is opposition to evolution anti-science?
04:32:12.340
Evolution doesn't even satisfy the scientific method.
04:32:25.620
You just don't know anything about the scientific method.
04:32:29.520
You can make hypotheses on it and then test for those hypotheses.
04:32:32.300
And we have robust, scientific, validated evidence for it.
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
04:32:49.860
Endowed with unalienable rights by creator, et cetera, equal rights and democracy.
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.
04:33:17.400
Okay, well, then, when you're talking about secular natural rights, what the fuck are
04:33:23.480
Well, because we're going back to Agrippa's Trilemma, right?
04:33:30.840
So your beliefs aren't justified, neither are theirs.
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.
04:33:54.820
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.
04:34:11.320
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.
04:34:24.140
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.
04:34:36.340
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.
04:34:56.760
I think it's led to the best outcomes, and I think it's the only sense data that we can
04:35:00.500
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.
04:35:05.840
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.
04:35:09.860
The way that you think God thinks it's the best.
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
04:35:22.100
Usually, we use reason and logic to make argumentations both.
04:35:24.380
We use reason and logic, and they disagree with you.
04:35:27.600
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
04:35:41.340
And they go, well, I think what you're saying is kind of reasonable, but I think you're wrong
04:35:45.900
And I usually utilize infinite regression in this case to make a natural law.
04:35:49.220
So then if that's the case, then if all of us are just going off of vibes, bro, because
04:35:56.020
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
04:36:19.840
You just don't want to solve Agrippa's trilemma.
04:36:22.180
You believe that there's objective moral fact, right?
04:36:29.980
How do we believe that there's objective moral facts, though?
04:36:33.240
I don't know because I don't believe in objective moral facts because I'm an Agrippa trilemmist.
04:36:50.040
So I'm asking you, how do you solve Agrippa's trilemma?
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
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
04:37:24.680
And God can make real moral facts and then you can build off of that.
04:37:31.200
But I have an axiom for more powerful God than your God who negates your moral facts.
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.
04:37:50.960
Like, uh, what do you mean by more stuff though?
04:38:06.860
Because none of this is tautological axiomatic.
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.
04:38:17.680
Well, you're, you're talking about a reduction to a tautology.
04:38:22.340
Um, no, no, but basically, no, no, they don't have to be tautologies.
04:38:30.160
So what's the moral case for my God is more powerful.
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
04:38:52.100
And, and, and Krom doesn't believe in these moral facts.
04:38:58.940
A divine command theorist and also a subjectivist, I suppose.
04:39:09.200
That's the, that's the opposite of objective, of objectivity, right?
04:39:12.980
So you're saying that I can't have objective moral facts?
04:39:20.060
And I said, you can be, I guess, a subjectivist and a divine command theorist, but I'm a divine
04:39:50.720
It depends on when you, when you say universal, I don't know what you mean.
04:39:59.740
No, because you, like how, how, how would it be absolutist?
04:40:09.360
Universals as in like they exist outside of us and they like are, can affect us.
04:40:17.640
If it's the case that there's a universal, a universal moral fact.
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?
04:40:51.240
Because when we're talking about sins, we're talking about sins of omission and commission
04:40:55.820
If they don't know anything about God, are they sinning?
04:41:04.860
You're being like, if they don't act in love, what does that mean?
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.
04:41:23.740
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.
04:42:21.400
Because you don't believe that because you scoffed at it.
04:42:44.460
Your favorite answer of the night is that justice equals...
04:42:50.940
Why do I have to continuously answer your questions for you?
04:43:03.760
Yeah, but you're being bad faith when you say this.
04:43:06.740
Because you don't actually believe in this, because this would require you to just concede
04:43:11.060
That according to you, you were saying, well, if I agree to grip a trilemma, now there's
04:43:21.880
Yeah, I still don't understand how we believe in moral facts, because justice is just.
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.
04:43:40.220
Yeah, objective is something that does not require mind.
04:43:48.500
So when I ask you about objective moral facts, these are going to be moral facts that require
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?
04:44:09.920
So then why are you shrugging and shaking your head at it?
04:44:13.960
It's pretty obvious what's happening right now.
04:44:17.300
That you are saying, I'm accepting this, but you're saying it in such a way to appeal to
04:44:22.080
You're trying to be like, oh my gosh, it's just circular.
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.
04:44:40.920
I don't know what I've done here, except I'm just adopted.
04:44:58.660
To the pro-choice chick, why do you get upset at the point of the founding fathers deferring
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.
04:45:16.220
Most of my audience is on the Crucible watching.
04:45:22.640
But the thing is, is like, that is a good question.
04:45:28.400
Could we see ones in chat for how many people watching are also Crucible fans that are watching
04:45:37.680
Well, even with members only mode, we can see how many of the members are Crucible fans.
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.
04:45:51.820
I mean, even if you guys can get it to 6,000 likes, it would be much appreciated.
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.
04:46:28.000
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.
04:46:39.780
We don't want, in our worldview, to impose Christian ethics on women killing their children.
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.
04:47:15.280
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.
04:47:28.760
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.
04:47:38.380
So under your Christian belief, right, which denomination do you adhere to?
04:47:44.360
I'm a Protestant, broadly, but I don't think there's a specific Protestant denomination.
04:47:53.480
I don't know, I like their theology a fair bit.
04:47:57.500
I'm not Catholic, and there are some issues I have, but I like Catholics, too.
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...
04:48:14.720
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?
04:48:34.400
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...
04:48:40.440
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.
04:49:00.840
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?
04:49:18.980
Why would you even assume that at conception is even a possibility for insoulment?
04:49:25.820
Okay, so then we can just assume that it's possible he insouls them at conception.
04:49:35.180
So I'll read Exodus 21, 22 because I don't know how you would deal with this one.
04:50:49.140
I was trying to slightly pass it to him with a robot.
04:51:05.900
Well, I'm going to have a smoke real quick, and then we'll come back and do this.
04:51:26.200
Yeah, I don't want to get in the convo before I have a smoke.
04:51:33.400
Do you think fundamentalism, I'm just curious, this is a broad thing.
04:51:37.080
Like, you think that Genesis is a literal story of how God made Earth, and the genealogy is
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.
04:51:56.300
It's, well, it's taking the Bible as being literal, allegorical, and spiritual.
04:52:05.940
So, it literally happened, or it did not happen?
04:52:10.780
No, because there's some things there which could be specifically allegorical, but also
04:52:17.320
So, when we use fundamentalist, we're usually meaning, like, the Genesis story is a good
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
04:52:41.780
So, like, in the case of the Battle of, like, Troy, we don't even know if it really happened,
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.
04:52:54.520
Yeah, but he probably wasn't blessed by the gods with a heel.
04:52:57.840
I think Agamemnon probably did get pissed off that they...
04:53:01.740
Yeah, but for example, the holding of the heel didn't happen, the dipping in the...
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,
04:53:14.480
Well, I think Genesis is literally true and allegorically true.
04:53:21.800
Well, some of the parts that are allegorical are also literal, but that doesn't mean it
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
04:53:47.960
So, do you think that Samson killed a thousand soldiers with a donkey bone?
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?
04:54:04.740
He's killing a thousand people with a donkey bone.
04:54:07.760
He takes foxes and ties their tail together and releases them into a field with their
04:54:13.140
Do you think he literally took two foxes, tied their tail together, and then released
04:54:45.780
But I don't think that Genesis is literal fact.
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.
04:55:04.820
Do you believe that there was a literal Adam and Eve or not?
04:55:23.800
I don't know the evolutionary numbers of, like, when that tradition happened.
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?
04:55:37.700
So, where did the people come from that Adam and Eve meet outside of the Eden?
04:55:42.500
How did they come from Adam and Eve if they were outside of the garden?
04:55:53.400
So, as soon as they get kicked out of the garden, they meet up with other people.
04:56:09.600
So, they had Cain and Abel and daughters, and then we incestuously turned into all the humans
04:56:15.480
So, the first thing is, when we're talking about Cain, you know, Cain founds Enoch, the city of Enoch.
04:56:26.500
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.
04:56:34.580
Can you show me the source in the Bible which would negate that?
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
04:57:10.460
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?
04:57:22.580
When you say that, though, where are you deriving that information from biblically?
04:57:27.300
Where are you deriving the information that Genesis is incorrect?
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?
04:57:44.740
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.
04:57:51.660
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
04:58:13.160
So, the exegetical would be the research that we've done into the people groups at the
04:58:24.460
But you are going to exegete the Bible here at some point.
04:58:31.660
You're going to exegete the Bible at some point here?
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.
04:58:48.560
But as that's the conditional, I'm granting the conditional, I'm asking when we get to
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.
04:59:00.520
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.
04:59:12.480
The slavery part, yeah, seems to be mythologized.
04:59:16.940
There was probably a literal person named Moses who was a tribe leader, or it might have
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?
04:59:45.080
Andrew, you did want to take a little smoke break.
04:59:48.880
The answer is, he does think Job is allegorical.
05:00:17.980
Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, you want to see more debates, we're going to have Kyla
05:00:27.440
You had told me about one of the politicians, a Republican politician who's got the eye patch.
05:00:54.260
Guys, if you want to see more debates, get us to 6,000.
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.
05:01:24.620
What percentage of the people who watch your show are probably also major Crucible fans?
05:01:35.500
Of the current viewers, I want to say it's probably like 60%, I think.
05:01:54.900
But when people are sending in clearly religious chats that are shitting on me, it's not overly
05:02:01.340
Sure, but I don't think that my fans are sending in dollars.
05:02:32.600
What do you even mean something literally happened in Proverbs?
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?
05:02:52.000
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?
05:03:08.800
Can we pause it super quick just to let some of the chats come in?
05:03:27.420
It's always fun to watch Andrew get his opponent to disprove their own argument in real time.
05:03:43.880
Do you think he's from the Crucible fan audience?
05:03:50.860
Do you think that he's more like a Destiny than Andrew?
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.
05:04:09.920
Where do you think he falls between Andrew and I?
05:04:15.320
I've actually never seen Durandall's in my channel.
05:04:33.140
But you're immigrating to the U.S., is that correct?
05:04:40.740
We've got Desert George, another name I recognize.
05:07:05.600
Because I respect a lot of what the saints say.
05:10:15.240
Woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo.
05:10:50.200
You guys probably both want a closing statement
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
05:11:47.100
Yet derivation requires hinge certainties plus norms
05:12:01.640
I don't know why he thinks that this did anything
05:12:33.300
I don't think anyone should look to me as a spiritual leader
05:13:02.780
Kyla has a Lincoln view of federal dominance over the states
06:24:24.860
i don't usually use that language either i get conflated a lot with red pillars who say that
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
06:24:35.180
yeah so one of the issues is like you're saying like oh we were just sitting about talking about
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
06:25:05.040
your audience to go and harass them and the way that your audience harasses most of the people that
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
06:25:13.640
point spending three to four dedicated hours just talking shit about you your life your choices i
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
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
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
06:26:43.860
don't know anything about evolution you fucking puppy demonstrate to us how random mutation leads
06:26:50.260
to purpose-driven biological mechanism go ahead and show us biologists sure can't quick answer if you
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
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
06:29:13.780
want to know naima argued against her own position for hours they just argue against their own shit
06:29:19.340
for fucking hours andrew can i have you ask the viewers to like the video like the video guys like
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
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
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
06:31:14.640
good thing you only submit to your husband he let you date and flirt with other men
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
06:32:50.360
that's all okay we have airborne animal airborne animal donated 69 dollars this stupid btch she thinks
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
06:33:09.520
just a wannabe degen destiny trying to fast talk her way to a win
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
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
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
06:34:40.520
anywhere but here right now this is annoying this sucks i just they just want to fucking go eat a
06:34:45.700
cheeseburger that goes something like that it's pretty good good one it's pretty good
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
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
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
06:36:47.000
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
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
06:38:20.960
i'm sure leftists will be destroyed as a really unbiased source of my career
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
06:38:48.680
just being a snarky condescending bitch is is actual condescension which is fine i'm not accepting
06:38:55.680
your advice sorry it's funny she always did she always did actually have potential for this it's
06:39:00.800
just that she just always came across the audience as being condescending and unlikable
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
06:39:45.200
his stream yes it is no it's nobody tuned into fucking bridges for you erudite they give a fuck
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
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
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
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
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
06:41:20.700
hypocrite who doesn't live out any of his values because he like purports to be some like trad
06:41:24.860
conservative man you know what i mean all of that like two years ago you have like a sordid history
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
06:41:49.180
you know what's is that you're dishonest bad faith and a hypocrite sure from who uh multiple people
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
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
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
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
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
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
06:44:05.080
chats idiot 80 uh el guapo hundred dollars super chat thank you i just want to say again since the
06:44:11.640
man is back the woman is dishonoring her husband by dressing like a bathhouse worker let alone her
06:44:18.420
heresies where she's inverting scripture did i okay is there any way to like minimize how many
06:44:24.480
people are paying money to just call me a dirty whore and like insulting my husband could we minimize
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
06:45:05.080
two two million of anybody chat what currency is that she's trying to submit christians
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
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
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
06:48:11.160
won't name names you preach kindness then make false accusations feign outrage and play victim
06:48:18.840
calling you joyful is an insult to whores whores are likable you're a ct yikes good one good christian
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
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
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
06:49:16.400
is because you call every fucking person bad faith i don't rob nor bad faith uh sometimes i said
06:49:22.560
everyone's bad faith they're all bad faith wait i said from the very beginning is rob nor mostly
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
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
06:56:31.060
this fucking thousand year old because you're pretending as though it's not a like strong argument
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
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
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
07:01:50.360
entire morality of the thing falls apart that me implementing whatever the fuck i want
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
07:02:02.820
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
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
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
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
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
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
07:04:22.620
have a hundred dollars you're more popular because you weren't so fucking unlikable just saying
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
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
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
07:04:41.240
that's definitely true oh what's the hypocrisy uh your entire worldview versus like the way that
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
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
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
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
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
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
07:08:17.940
ways that i engage around talking about feminists it's clear that i i say feminism is just about the
07:08:22.120
equality of sexist but the only way that i engage around feminism is talking poorly of men being
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
07:08:45.100
i'm for the worldview that feminists are evil and yourself be a feminist there's no fucking
07:08:50.700
contradiction there okay there's none okay what's the contradiction where's p and not p i would say
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
07:31:41.180
law of non-contradiction can be violated where superman can be you where fucking the earth can be
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
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
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
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
07:38:22.680
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
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
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
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
07:46:58.740
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
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
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
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
07:53:35.760
with nonsense question question is is it a justified true belief that agrippa's trilemma exists if all
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
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
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
07:54:37.900
little gotchas go obviously i mean i'm the one with silly gotchas yes you demanded the entire night
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
07:58:08.320
some weird shit too it goes both ways yeah it really does uh we got bronco here thank you man
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
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
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
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
08:03:31.540
idiot over complicating everything for no reason will make you right does the world see math true does
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
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
08:04:22.660
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
08:06:48.560
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
08:17:26.820
So we would know from inductive inference that if I was dead, the rock would still exist.
08:17:34.040
Oh, so you require the mind to even engage in observing objectivity.
08:17:44.100
So how do you use inductive reasoning without a mind?
08:17:54.440
Are you referring to the professional wrestler or the, like, the...
08:18:08.600
So how do you know that moral laws exist objectively?
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...
08:18:37.900
Because any application to change the thing would appeal to the thing to change it.
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.
08:19:14.640
They're discoverable as a thing which would exist absent the mind because nothing which
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.
08:19:41.320
Without observing them through logic and reason.
08:19:55.360
It's discoverable through a mind, but it would exist absent that.
08:20:00.140
To assume that it is discoverable outside of the mind is the dogmatism.
08:20:04.980
It would be unjustified because we're assuming that it is discoverable outside of the mind.
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.
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...
08:20:37.020
To say and state as a fact that it is justified that the laws of logic cannot be changed even absent human minds.
08:20:46.060
Well, because I would have to appeal to the thing to change the thing.
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?
08:21:03.940
Sorry, I feel like I'm not understanding this question.
08:21:06.060
How would something be discoverable absent minds?
08:21:23.140
So then when you make the appeal to a thing, you're saying the laws of logic are discoverable.
08:21:40.120
Because these are things which, in order to change, you would have to appeal to the thing
08:21:59.960
So your subjectivity is required for objectivity to exist?
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.
08:22:12.360
I know this, because if you die, the rock is still there.
08:22:16.920
So then if that's the case, then a social construction can be changed.
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.
08:22:36.180
In the case of the laws of logic, I cannot change them.
08:22:40.260
And would even need to appeal to them in order to change them.
08:22:52.120
But they would actually have to absent an assumption.
08:22:56.960
The assumption is that anything exists, that God exists.
08:23:06.780
We could, you can make no assumptions and still make the inference that the laws of logic
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
08:23:36.140
But you assuming your mind, are you assuming that logic exists?
08:23:52.660
So we're going to assume nobody's here to fucking believe anything.
08:23:58.380
So you think the laws of logic don't exist if we're not here.
08:24:03.260
You already established belief requires a mind that assumptions require belief.
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
08:24:34.020
I'm assuming that this would exist outside of us.
08:24:54.660
I would say no because I think they're objective.
08:24:58.200
I don't need to because I agree that they're objective.
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.
08:25:09.900
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.
08:25:26.560
Is it the case that it's subjectively true that we would need to use Agrippa's trilemma?
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.
08:26:00.020
But is it still in existence even if you're not here?
08:26:09.500
Well, then you're making the assumption that this thing is true even absent you here.
08:26:18.460
I don't know how much longer you want to circle on this.
08:26:22.540
We, Andrew, so for all of his audience, Andrew and I think the same way about this.
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.
08:26:38.580
We assume A equals A because we can't think of anything else where A would not equal A.
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.
08:27:01.960
Can you show me how to violate the law of non-contradiction?
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.
08:27:28.140
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.
08:27:55.060
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.
08:28:03.120
Okay, so if it was the case that we would take this assumption away, would that still be true?
08:28:19.460
You just said that if we remove assumptions, then it would still be true.
08:28:26.120
But dogmatism, me assuming that it would just be true is the dogmatism.
08:28:34.540
Me asserting that it would exist outside of me and it would be true outside of me is the dogmatism.
08:28:45.180
Then if the assumption did not exist, this would not exist.
08:29:00.580
I'm not bypassing dogmatism, but I still think objectivity is true.
08:29:07.640
I said, do you think laws of logic are true irrespective of mind?
08:29:12.140
And you said, well, I can use laws of logic and reason.
08:29:31.620
The question is, are these things true absent you think?
08:29:43.600
So then you don't believe that or you believe it's dogmatism?
08:29:57.760
Can I cap this circling of the drain for like two more minutes?
08:30:05.800
Does the law of logic exist outside of the mind?
08:30:13.580
From a subjectivist perspective, how can you appeal to the laws of logic without using them?
08:30:24.420
Subjectivist is an entire branch of philosophy.
08:30:31.440
You mean the entire branch of philosophy that I don't appeal to.
08:31:06.280
Because I would appeal to an unchanging standard.
08:31:24.900
Everywhere you look when a person dies, does the stuff that they leave behind remain?
08:31:30.880
If it's the case that you're dead tomorrow, and I walk over and like pluck the cross from
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?
08:31:57.160
So then I could come over and take all that shit, right?
08:32:09.320
Regardless of whether or not your mind is here?
08:32:12.900
Just like the laws of logic exist outside of my mind.
08:32:17.540
So you're just assuming, so you're just like moving into simulation theory?
08:32:26.880
Yes, but yes, simulation theory can't be proved.
08:32:32.280
Okay, but how can you make a truth claim by appealing?
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.
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,
08:32:45.640
of believing that existence is true, is saying we could all just be in a simulation.
08:32:51.360
I don't think it's even useful to think like that.
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.
08:33:26.060
Are you assuming it's true that you're making an assumption?
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.
08:33:37.340
But you're also using your mind to use inference and logic.
08:33:40.720
But the thing is, is are you assuming that it's true.
08:33:54.240
Are you assuming that it's true that you're making assumptions?
08:34:01.520
But is it also objectively true without assumption?
08:34:08.940
It's the exact same thing that you do, which is that, do you think that laws exist outside
08:34:14.840
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
08:34:25.080
They must objectively be real because you can't appeal to anything else.
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
08:34:43.300
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.
08:34:52.400
It's hard to imagine for us because we're stuck in this simulation.
08:34:56.780
But that doesn't mean that it's not logically true.
08:34:59.660
You just literally said that you can envision a world where contradictions can exist.
08:35:10.700
But theoretically, if this simulation created all of these laws.
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?
08:35:22.220
That there is like some other alternate universe with the laws of logic.
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?
08:35:35.940
How would I tell you anything about that world?
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.
08:35:45.980
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.
08:36:00.620
But outside of your assumption, is it still true?
08:36:12.800
Let's just blast through them while I still have you guys here at the table.
08:36:19.680
Get it to, we're, I don't know, 500 likes away from 8,000 likes.
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.
08:36:53.720
I think eat the pizza doesn't need to be in quotations.
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.
08:37:40.280
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.
08:37:55.920
Like, I can know lots of objective truths and there's more truth to know that I don't actually know.
08:38:06.240
You're just saying that it is the case that there 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.
08:38:29.060
At this point, I'm genuinely rooting for Kyla to understand what Andrew is saying.
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.
08:39:12.460
In Brian's defense, let the guy raise some cash, right?
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.
08:39:28.380
So if he's got to run some ads, watch the fucking ads.
08:39:34.660
And if you have YouTube premium, he makes good money from that.
08:39:37.760
So I guess channel memberships, that doesn't do anything for ads.
08:39:45.300
If you have like a, if you have a tier one or what do they call it?
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.
08:40:11.540
All the people who are like, I'm too fucking broke to send in a super chat, but would love to support the channel.
08:40:23.060
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.
08:41:27.080
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.
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?
08:42:06.980
We have, yeah, we're, Andrew's getting, Andrew will be getting hamburgers.
08:42:20.560
Actually, I'm definitely getting cheeseburgers, remember?
08:42:23.220
Obese people like me gotta get the cheeseburger?
08:42:25.720
Me and Andrew are actually going to get Mexican food.
08:42:31.800
No, we're actually, we're actually getting Mexican food.
08:42:36.440
No, no, no, don't worry, don't worry, Andrew, don't worry.
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.
08:42:46.460
Don't worry, don't worry, I got you, I got you, Andrew.
08:42:53.980
Did Einstein's predictions demonstrate anything of substance here?
08:43:13.240
If you want to support the show, Venmo, Cash App, whatever pod.
08:43:19.720
Drop us a follow and a prime sub on your way out, guys.
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
08:43:39.940
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.
08:43:52.900
Are there truths that are, in principle, unknowable?
08:43:58.320
And if not, why think Agrippa's trilemma shows justification, if possible?
08:44:10.080
Because all justifications of knowledge fail in three unsatisfying ways.
08:44:13.840
Infinite regression, circular reasoning, or adoptive.
08:44:24.960
That's just a way for her to duck the question.
08:44:30.300
According to Agrippa's trilemma, would there be knowledge which is unknowable?
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.
08:44:46.840
Universal has nothing to do with Agrippa's trilemma.
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?
08:45:05.220
Could it show that Agrippa's trilemma is falsifiable and you can solve Agrippa's trilemma?
08:45:12.920
He's asking, is it true that there's knowledge which is unknowable?
08:45:23.560
Can you justify that there's knowledge which is unknowable?
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?
08:46:09.060
Immaterial energy cannot be created or destroyed.
08:46:12.600
The mind is eternal as the almighty God Jesus Christ is eternal.
08:46:33.200
Oh, I'm just going to wrap it now if you want to set the table.
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.
08:46:46.800
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.
08:47:01.480
You guys are – I want to thank both of you for coming.
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.
08:47:26.080
But still, I'm fucking entertaining and hilarious and a fantastic –
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.
08:47:43.680
Yeah, you can find me at NotSoEaridite everywhere.
08:47:54.160
I hope you guys have a great night, great weekend, and we'll see you guys on Sunday.