Comments by "Night Raven" (@GiRR007) on "Whatifalthist" channel.

Christianity is built around the concept of every man being made in the image of god and having worth thus forcefully enslaving him would be wrong by the morals of the bible. Slavery ITSELF isnt the bad part, its forced slavery.
11
Him thrashing because his beliefs are being accurately represented is his problem.
11
@macjaa "Countless falsehoods being presented" ok name one mentioned in this video.
9
@macjaa You took a long and overly complicated way around to say that he does blame capitalism for oppressing poor people. He may not ONLY blamed capitalism for this but that was never the claim anyway, althiest never claimed marx ONLY blamed capitalism. His beliefs WERE founded on the concept of "rich oppressing poor". Aka the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat, owners and works, rich and poor. This is just a game of semantics at this point. Not actually substantial refutation of any such mispresented beliefs. "improvement of life in western europe was not simply because capitalism" althiest never said it was ONLY because of capitalism, however it was MOSTLY because of capitalism that living conditions improved. That is undeniable. Marx may have never OUT RIGHT stated he hated the bourgeoisie but it you actually read into how he depicts them and what he says about them its VERY clear he does and you would have to be giving a DISENGENOUSLY generous interpretation to his states to arrive at the conclusion he didnt hate them when all his writings point to him hating them. You are not extrapolating the logical conclusions of marxes writings and instead interpreting an overly charitable view of his statements because of your own bias towards him. Marx himself wrote it so obviously there is going to be a massive bias within his own writings. Its like reading Mein kaph and believing everything thats written inside is a fact. Communism is Marxism realized and taken to its logical conclusion in the real world so the are for all intents and purposes the same.
7
Uhhh no, jesus was a very real person that did exist in history and was crucified like is stated in the bible.
5
Its mainly because the horrors of communism arent being taught in schools.
4
Democratic socalism still isnt democratic since there is no choice in participating in it. Either you give your money to the government or the government kills you. That is not what democracy is. "quality of life" statistics arent accurate, they are dependent on the subjective views of individuals, not actual measurements of how quality of life has actually improves.
4
@AndyRhodes1 As I said, not slavery itself, forced slavery.
3
@AndyRhodes1 Also war and war criminals are treated differently in the bible and in real life.
3
The school system was never good. It was originally intended to teach a room full of kids how to work on an assembly line when they grew up. Not teach them how to become a functioning adult.
3
I feel like its a bit of a misnomer to view it as Americans turning on "their own people" since "American" isnt a people. More so than ANY other nation an "American" is more so just a person living in the country and ascribing to certain ideals, however currently even the ideals people ascribe to are seemingly polar opposites of each other so really you cant call it Americans turning on each other since there is so little that share besides simple geography.
3
Conservative don't care about taxes if anything they rather taxes be removed, don't care about welfare and see it as a drain on the country, don't care about education since its just basically indoctrination. This is the problem with liberals, they are incapable of realizing people DONT WANT what they are offering.
3
liberty vs safety vs equality.
3
@lyutsin21 You... don't know a lot about history do you. Jesus WAS a real person whether you believe in religion or not, he's not a fiction. This has been proven by historians already. So I you can continue in your blind faith that he never existed if you want but it would be incorrect.
2
@AndyRhodes1 Yes, what do you think prison is?
2
@lucca3113 Yes it is very much the same. Marx says that the rich cannot exist without exploiting the poor. Literally the reason he calls the rich bourgeois.
2
Beucase only those with so sort of relegion can claim to be actually moral.
1
@FirstnameLastname-ju7em As an experiment. Why is theft murder and assult immoral? What do you base your morality on? what makes something good or bad?
1
@FirstnameLastname-ju7em Morality in my view isnt about consentual split of cost, most often ones morals can and do put them at a disadvantage in comparison to not adhering to those morals. Sacrifice almost being a prerequisite for being moral. What your describing still just sounds like a more democratic utilitarianism. This wouldn't make the moral system objectively good, its just a large conglomeration of subjectivity. If anything adding more subjective views WEAKENS the system since any individual would be able to always reject the cost thus breaking the system. It would basically be giving any one individual control of them moral system all by themselves. And if you make it so people can vote out others based on numbers then you are right back to true utilitarianism. As for religions a lot of them share very similar moral foundations. Even when they don't the very concept of your morals coming from something greater than humans puts religious morals at base above any other sort of moral foundation that is totally dependent on humans. Not to mention not all religions have the same validity.
1
@FirstnameLastname-ju7em No matter what the action is any single person can completely stifling this type of moral system by simply not accepting the cost and none of the other people can do anything about it. There's never a guarantee someone is participating in good faith, more often times actually people only abide by things like laws because they get punished for breaking them. Why would someone who doesn't want the cost and not immoral ? Their morals are not worse or better than the other people participating are they? Since everyone's morals are subjective. Manipulation is the default here. In this moral system if someone dos something "immoral" they can simply say its not immoral and no one else could do anything about it. Trade is what allows for cooperation not morality. Mutual benefit, both parties gaining something independent of morality. Humans didnt develop morality. Secularly speaking the concept of morality isnt a thing in nature. Humans aren't naturally moral, so at minimum morality is a social construct and must be taught. I may not be able to prove religion but you also cant disprove it. Mean while you also cannot prove that your moral system is objective however I CAN prove that its not objective since you have nothing that can make it so. The moral decisions made by people based on their religion is from the religion, not their subjective viewpoint. If all people have a say in the moral system that's by definition subjectivity. What makes it immoral if not all stake holders all receive consideration? Doesnt that sound like circuler logic? Your morality is objective, because it requires consideration of all stake holders, and to not consider all stake holders is immoral, beucase its moral to consider all stake holders, because the morality is objective, because it requires consideration of all stake holders, ect ect.
1
@FirstnameLastname-ju7em Why should those things be included? Lying, distortion, ect? Why are they bad? Simply because the system wouldn't work with them? Again that's circular logic. Arguments based on axioms or circular logic aren't sound arguments. A sound argument requires evidence and logic. Familial cooperation isnt moral either, even within family structures there is trade as different parts of said family are responsible for different things and they benefit from the effort everyone puts in. Even down to the children. With children the parents are making an investment in taking care of the children when their young so the children take care of them when their old. Infants aren't raised in isolation. From birth they are in constant contact with their parents and this are constantly observing and learning from their parents via things like social cues. They don't need language for that, alot of communication at that age is non verbal. They are raised on their parents morality, look up experiments done when kids are raised in isolation or the Stanford prison experiment. Morality is not inherent to any creature. Humans alone have a concept of morality because of religion. If my religion is real then it is objectively true since it would be the morality of an okni potent creator. You may not have to BELIEVE in my religion, but regardless of if you believe or not if it's true it is objectively moral. You can make no such claim with your moralities foundation since it's entirely based around you. So yes mine would be closer to being objective because it has infinitely more doubt than yours. Any moral system you come up with CAN NEVER be objective while mine can.
1
@FirstnameLastname-ju7em like I said, it being bad simply because it makes your morality system break doesn't work. Thus your idea of morality isn't any more moral or immoral than anyone else's. Gods existence isn't an axiom. It's either you believe it or you don't. There is no self evidence. Where as with yours faith cannot be the basis for a non religious morality because there's nothing to put your faith in. You can't put it in people since no individual's subjective morality is any more moral or immoral than anyone else's from a secular pov. I use the example of the Stanford prison experiment as a point about morality not being inherent. Systems for determining distribution of resources aren't morality that's an economy your describing. Morality doesn't measure resource distribution it measures how right or wrong something is. Good and evil are beyond simple material gains and losses. Morality is built on something greater than just how much someone benefits or suffers from an action. And its been religion thats given societies throughout history the concept of good and evil.
1
@lyutsin21 No I wouldn't , literally just look it up and so the research yourself instead of being lazy.
1
@lyutsin21 There are very few surviving writings of that time for literally everyone that lived in that period... Do none of those people exist now either? Do you not know how history works? its not an exact science, people weren't just documenting everyone perfectly and storing that information We have very little proof ALOT of historical figures.
1