Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
182
-
40
-
25
-
@Michael-Archonaeus Its not conflicting instruction if you understand how Ancient Hebrew works, the Bible is not an English book, its a Koine Greek book written by Ancient Hebrews, in that day rabbis would use metaphors and hyperbole to get a point across, Jesus is not saying you must hate yourself, He is saying that your love of God must in comparison to the love of anything else be like hatred, that should it be compared it is so far as to appear as hatred, (or that it is so far away that the closer comparison would be hatred) not to hate yourself, it is a statement on how devoted your love must be for God, that's what it says in the Koine Greek and if you understood how all Ancient Hebrew rabbis taught lessons going back to the 4th century BC. (this same phrasing is taught in the Book of Sirach, a 3rd century BC Ancient Hebrew book of liturgy) Its a culturally specifically and contextual outlook, as Jesus was the epitome of the Ancient Hebrew rabbi, and those He spoke to would understand this outlook, and we know this by the teachings going into the 3rd century AD where this was the received interpretation of the text and the common liturgy teaching, and it is taught by all the Apostles.
24
-
15
-
14
-
@chrishoff402 This is unfortunately the thing I worry most about TIK arguing that Christian altruism is the problem, ignoring clear cases where Christianity argues for both self-sacrifice and self-regard, one cannot love his family if one does not show love to himself, and that foremost requires a love for God. In Christianity morality, it believes nobody is worthy but that out of love for God is desires both of the self and those of others good means and ends, that neither is discounted, and thus righteous would be done. Many focus on one or the other, discounting the material and the self, others become extreme and disregard the spiritual and the other, but it is both the material and spiritual, both the self and the other that must be regarded. One cannot show love to another, to his church, or to himself unless he loves his family, that is why honor thy father and mother is so important and it is the first commandment of promise. (Ephesians 6:2)
13
-
@Michael-Archonaeus
"So let me get this straight, you have just made the editorial decision that Luke 14:26, contrary to all prior tradition, actually says:
"If anyone comes to me and does not love God in such a way, that in comparison, the love of anything else be like hatred, that should it be compared it is so far as to appear as hatred, yet not hate himself, he can not become my disciple"?
Although for nearly 2,000 years it said ""If anyone comes to me and does not hate himself, he can not become my disciple"
Shall I pull up quotes from the early church fathers then?
"XXII. “And Jesus answering said, Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall leave what is his own, parents, and children, and wealth, for My sake and the Gospel’s, shall receive an hundredfold.” But let neither this trouble you, nor the still harder saying delivered in another place in the words, “Whoso hateth not father, and mother, and children, and his own life besides, cannot be My disciple.” For the God of peace, who also exhorts to love enemies, does not introduce hatred and dissolution from those that are dearest. But if we are to love our enemies, it is in accordance with right reason that, ascending from them, we should love also those nearest in kindred. Or if we are to hate our blood-relations, deduction teaches us that much more are we to spurn from us our enemies. So that the reasonings would be shown to destroy one another. But they do not destroy each other, nor are they near doing so. For from the same feeling and disposition, and on the ground of the same rule, one loving his enemy may hate his father, inasmuch as he neither takes vengeance on an enemy, nor reverences a father more than Christ. For by the one word he extirpates hatred and injury, and by the other shamefacedness towards one’s relations, if it is detrimental to salvation. If then one’s father, or son, or brother, be godless, and become a hindrance to faith and an impediment to the higher life, let him not be friends or agree with him, but on account of the spiritual enmity, let him dissolve the fleshly relationship. " - Clement of Alexandria (Salvation of the Rich Man)
"But it is rather that statement which the Lord Himself makes in another passage which is wont to disturb the minds of the little ones, who nevertheless earnestly desire to live now according to the precepts of Christ: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” For it may seem a contradiction to the less intelligent, that here He forbids the putting away of a wife saving for the cause of fornication, but that elsewhere He affirms that no one can be a disciple of His who does not hate his wife. But if He were speaking with reference to sexual intercourse, He would not place father, and mother, and brothers in the same category. But how true it is, that “the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and they that use violence take it by force!” For how great violence is necessary, in order that a man may love his enemies, and hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers! For He commands both things who calls us to the kingdom of heaven. And how these things do not contradict each other, it is easy to show under His guidance; but after they have been understood, it is difficult to carry them out, although this too is very easy when He Himself assists us. For in that eternal kingdom to which He has vouchsafed to call His disciples, to whom He also gives the name of brothers, there are no temporal relationships of this sort. For “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female;” “but Christ is all, and in all.” And the Lord Himself says: “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” Hence it is necessary that whoever wishes here and now to aim after the life of that kingdom, should hate not the persons themselves, but those temporal relationships by which this life of ours, which is transitory and is comprised in being born and dying, is upheld; because he who does not hate them, does not yet love that life where there is no condition of being born and dying, which unites parties in earthly wedlock." - Augustine (Sermon on the Mount, Harmony of the Gospels, Homilies on the Gospels, Chapter 15)
Its clearly known by even the Greek Christian fathers of the 2nd and 3rd century that Jesus was not contradicting anything and was in fact saying as I described. I have actually performed exegetical analysis on the text and not only is it common in the 2nd and 3rd century, but it is also agreed upon by all medieval and modern theologians to this day whether they write expository or exegetical analysis of the text. There is no one preacher who addresses the text in the specifics who does not make a clear point agreeing with what I said, I cannot find commentaries besides that, they may exist but none you could call Orthodox certainly. You are quite literally making up a false argument. Also Luke is written in Koine Greek but the subjects Luke was speaking to were mostly Hebrews, many speaking in Hebrew at the time and when they heard Jesus speak He spoke in Hebrew, so every account would've been from a Hebrew exposition. You clearly have never read any commentaries nor have you read any of the context around the Scripture, nor do you know anything about the historical standards of the time. Why should I argue with someone who is gonna be this disingenuous about his argument?
13
-
12
-
11
-
Love ya TIK and I love every time you talk about this topic because it gives me better understanding and better capability to refute the anti-free-market folks, but I also will say I think your attempt to refute your opponents is rarely going to work, not to say not to try or that you won't break the hold of the evils of socialism, but most of them aren't socialist just because they don't listen to others. Its because they're mentally ill, deranged, or otherwise indoctrinated without any individualism, most socialists are a subject of what Yuri Bezmenov described, where they are so indoctrinated they can't ever possibly think of separation from their obsession where even the boot on their neck would not convince them that they are wrong. This is most especially because of the government's intervention into schooling and the corrupt nature of education systems since the late 1800s where they became "publicly funded". The government wants more power and control, Keynesian economics and socialism gives them more power and control, so they've devised manners to indoctrinate people in such a way that they can't even understand basic language without that indoctrination, it becomes a core part of their identity and thus they are inseparable from the indoctrination. This is why they get violent to opposition and why they refuse to listen. Some people are not susceptible to this like you TIK, who seemed to be more confused by the indoctrination instead of being indoctrinated, or me who was always opposed to listening to the school's indoctrination (I always considered it worthless and thus did not listen) from an early age (which were caused by plenty of other issues and came with its own share of problems) however for those who aren't of such mindsets, that being the majority, this message will at best drive those who see it insane. Some individuals thus cannot be saved from themselves.
10
-
9
-
8
-
@Saskobest I don't care to make an argument, whether you believe me or not is not something I care to convince you of, Scripture is clear, history demonstrates it, curses are laid upon those who dishonor their parents, hatred of the self, wickedness abounds, perversion, sodomy, and self-destructive behaviors all find sources in hatred of one's parents, for to hate's one's parents means to hate the society, the community, tradition, authority, and your very origins. Those who have no king do what is right in their own eyes, and without the honor of parents one cannot have a king for there is no authority before them and so they take nihilism and hedonism, narcissism becomes the only value and so they can only rationally have a disregard for life and morality. Only those who honor one's parents can respect authority, cursed are they who fall away from this, prosperity and flourishing will be robbed from them and God shall abandon he who does these things. And that is the world we have roosted upon now.
7
-
7
-
7
-
@bustercrabbe8447
"1. Syndicates aren't corporations,"
All corporations are made up of syndicates (trade unions) even if they are not officially referred to that way. If people come together to control or manipulate the business, that is a syndicate, another term you can use is cartel. You should've watched TIK's video first.
"2. The only type of capitalism where there is no government interference is 'laissez faire' capitalism, and that has never existed."
Actually this is incorrect, multiple nations throughout the 19th and 20th century were laissez-faire, the States of the United States all mostly started out as laissez-faire, every so often it returned back to that state.
"3. There are several variations of capitalism. Please review Capitalist Theory."
TIK has already addressed how State Capitalism is socialism, so I'm not gonna get into that, he's also addressed everything regarding the state having any influence over the means of productions puts them directly responsible and thus owning the means of productions, for they can halt the means of production. Most claims of "capitalist theory" and capitalist criticism was designed by Marxists and socialist activists and ideologues to institute socialism, the concept of "capitalism" itself is a Marxist term devised to make up criticism but for which Marxism (or any socialism) could never actually fix anyway.
"4. The US government subsidizes municipal projects throughout American history such as the Erie canal,"
Initializing or pushing one-off project through is not the same as funding and managing the means of production. Canals are not the means of production. That aside just making a canal does not a socialist make, maybe it could be socialist if its operated by the state, but as far as being made by the state it is not the same thing.
"or trains & buses, power stations, sewage systems, highway construction,etc.,"
This doesn't refute anything, if anything it proves my point. These can all be private, most of them were or started out as such at one point in time and were (usually quickly) co-opted by government in order to retain power over the society, which only a socialist has reason to do.
"until they can support themselves."
Actually no, none of this was originally the case, this is not how the market actually works, the government does not invest quickly into new technologies via subsidies, they are usually late to the technological development and often the private market devises them before the government takes them over. When it comes to property, say the sewage system, originally it was not handled by the government, the government took it over after the fact and enacted laws to make developing property like that illegal unless you had a permit from the government. The same thing happened with trains, power stations, and even highway construction. (these concepts were not originally ever considered owned by the government and they most certainly were not managed by it originally)
"Select subsidies and bailouts of important companies is not socialism its called Federalism."
You don't know what the definition of federalism is. That's not federalism. Federalism refers to the power of a state being broken up between a central authority and constituent lower authorities, that has nothing to do with subsidies and economics.
"These select subsidies do not control the means of production."
I don't know where you think I said that they were, but the fact is it doesn't matter, the government intervening in business must intrinsically make it socialist, it doesn't matter what else they do, the intervention cannot be disassociated with the necessity to control the means of production, for the production is the market.
"5. The government cannot stop any means of production unless a law is being broken."
First off the government does not have to follow a single law it makes, it already doesn't, the ATF, FBI, and CIA are all clear perfect examples of this out in the open, with public documentation recording it right now. Each of these organizations are government entities that have broken the law and faces no consequences, violating multiple amendments and infringing the rights of individuals and they still have not been corrected, sued, nor sent to prison for it. Operation Fast and Furious, WACO, Ruby Ridge, MKUltra, Operation Mockingbird, these are all examples of the executive branch ignoring or making up their own law to violate the common man and do whatever they want, and nobody was punished for any of them. You're telling me you trust the government not to violate any law it wants whenever it wants? How about all the insider trading that goes on in DC? Are you aware that Hitler didn't break a single law in committing the Holocaust and stealing people's property? Tell me then why our government wouldn't be able to do it right now when it has total control over the economy that it can just pick up the slack of a bank and distribute its printed dollars just to save the banks depositors. The law says that the FDIC is only insured up to $250,000 yet they insured accounts worth millions at minimum in multiple billion dollar banks. How is that following the law?
"The government controls through the restrictions of law, licenses, and taxes."
The government controls its own laws and can selectively enforce them on itself whenever it wants, happens all the time in New York and California, that's how states were able to be may issue states.
"Therefore any Mixed Economy contains a blend of socialism, capitalism, syndicalism, corporatism all to various degrees none of which dominate the other. And in the States that Mixed Economy is managed by a Federal government."
Any tiny element of socialism makes it socialist, a free market literally does not work unless you do not artificially regulate the market, else its not a free market, its a socialist market. The free market is self-regulating, any intervention inherently violates this self-regulation and manipulates the results to be markedly unfair and thus creates monopolies and corporations. Without government power in business, corporations could not exist as they couldn't be a body of the state. That's why they're called corporations, corporations are bodies of the state, they are socialist "businesses", if government can intervene in business, businesses can buy government power that gives them power to control how the market works. Its became supply and demand, you supply power over business, demand will be for business to use that power and thus they will buy political power to manipulate business, this what a lobbyist is, and its how a corporation and monopoly are formed.
6
-
Creating Christ is pretty roundly refuted by numerous scholars and Christian theologians alike, even Bart Ehrman refutes it, anyone who knows anything about Christian history would refute it. Maybe it has useful information, but the main point it devises is absolutely false, if necessary I can provide for you references to look into Christological history, Rome did not develop Christianity, that theory has been roundly debunked by literally every scholar on Christian history (secular or not) and the early Christian manuscripts. Also the Hermetics predate Christ, the Corpus Hermeticum had to be written between 100 AD and 300 AD, Constantine only converts in 312 AD and Christian theology isn't on its way to being popularly cemented until the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, the Corpus Hermeticum shares no Christian traits, doctrines, or outlooks and had to have been written is absence of Christian knowledge as it was not legal, populist, nor well understood by the Empire before Constantin's conversion. Even if you want to say "300 AD is still at point where Christian could've been known about" it was being written within a 2 century time frame and was finished before 300 AD, likely being mostly written at least a century earlier if not two. Christianity was a still a tiny minority in the second century aside from the persecution. Also the Ancient Hebrew Faith shared nothing with the Hermetics either.
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@bustercrabbe8447
"1. Corporations and unions are as immiscible as oil and water."
Watch TIK's videos again. They are in fact not. His public vs private and fascism videos actually does get into it a bit.
"2. No, even in the United States laissez faire capitalism never materialized."
First few decades the United States was not even an "interventionist" government, (as they devised everything on the back of John Locke's philosophy which was anti-interventionist) everything the government members wanted was either paid for by tariffs (which generally only resulted in specific government function buildings) or out of pocket by said members. (thus private enterprise) There was no subsidizing nor manipulation of business or the market, even banning things generally wasn't functionally possible.
"3. State Capitalism is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. As much as I like TikHistory it is not infallible. TikHistory is very much biased towards socialist viewpoints towards economics."
State Capitalism is just socialism, TIK has addressed this in immense detail in multiple socialism videos. Not sure how you can call him biased towards socialist viewpoints when he hates socialism (literally calls it evil enough times that you have be deaf to think this) and he called even many "Interventionist" policies socialist.
"Capitalist Theory also includes Marxism not as a major contributor but just as another voice in the choir."
No, capitalism was defined by Marxists, it did not exist before Marxism, before that it was just referred to generally as a free market, where supply and demand balance each other.
"Capitalist Theory views Marxism as erroneous. Capitalist Theory was not created by Karl Marx."
The division of capitalist theory was devised by Marx, before that people merely saw themselves as extending off of the principal figures like John Smyth and John Locke. The principals of Capitalist Theory only came to exist as a response to Marxist, (and honestly it was completely unneeded) but it failed to actually mean much of anything and didn't stop Marxism at all, it handed the Marxists much of their power by redefining words in accordance to Marxist doctrine.
"Capitalism is not a Marxist term, the word capitalism predates Karl Marx by over a hundred years."
Capitalism was never recorded historically as regarding a system before 1848, so the earliest element in the lexicon has to be the 1850s, and it was not recorded historically as being used by people generally to do such until the 1870s, before that only the concept of a capitalist existed, which only goes back the the 1790s, not capitalism, and capitalist referred to someone who has a large business and nothing else.
4
-
@OthorgonalOctroon
Calling me a crackpot apologist is ad hominem.
"Hence Matthew rewriting Mark, and Luke rewriting Matthew."
That's not even remotely true, Matthew, and Luke all have immense amount of unique details, Luke has the most amount of primary sources in any work even going into the Renaissance, all three have more attestation for their recording in the first century as being eyewitness accounts then any work even going into the Medieval period combined. Also if they all shared a common truth, they would share details, if they said different things, then it would demonstrate falsehoods, you're using a point of reinforcing of Scripture to claim its false, there is no other case in historical study where anyone does that. Luke knew of Mark and Matthew as witnesses and thus obviously uses them as primary sources, but that is not the only primary sources he uses, if you actually read it. (even the most bias of arguments still puts over 35% of Luke as being completely unique, again backed by primary sources) All this aside doesn't refute Creating Christ as a literal scam.
"All of the above writing for their own ends and inventing fanciful tales that don't agree with each other."
So they all are rewritings of each other but then also don't agree with each other? Which is it? And how about you give me an example?
"Like in what setting was the alabaster box of ointment broken,"
Matthew and Mark recount the exact same events. John's is not the same one, they are not related, and neither is Luke.The only reason you claim this is because you've never read the accounts, the mere existence of alabaster boxes in Scripture is not unique to one event. Also what do you mean by broken? They don't refer to the same time, places, or even people being there aside from Jesus. So why presume they are the same event just because there was an alabaster box? It was common as well for those who saw someone as their superior to anoint them with the perfume at the time, so if you have multiple people calling Jesus God, what do you think some people might do as a result?
"whether guards were at the tomb,"
The lack of mention of guards in some accounts doesn't disprove their existence.
"how many times and where zombie Jesus met the disciples"
There is no contradiction of this, a lack of mention of some cases (often because said eyewitness either wasn't there or didn't feel the need to account it, or at least account it again) does not demonstrate a lack of happening.
"and whether the crucifixion was succeeded by a thriller night."
I have no idea what you're claiming by this.
4
-
@augustuskeller7214 Honor is not the same as following nor approving, when a parent does morally well, follow their instructions, but when one does poor, it is the righteous to honor them by helping them to stop being poor, not to hate them, and if you cannot help them to understand when they do wrong, then it is best to minimize the harm they do to you and others to the best of your ability without violating morality. It is better to surround yourself with the wise and righteous. (Proverbs 13:20) However you must call them to righteousness, you must, in Christ, forgive them.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Edax_Royeaux
"No, war is not profitable to the participants."
How do you figure? Politicians make fortunes alongside the corporations they fund while justifying tax increases and inflation (the invisible tax) and more public control. (in turn making them and their cronies profit) Does this somehow say its not profitable? I don't see how a nation lacking international threats would have any other reason for war but profit. The US didn't start wars for the sake of helping anyone, and never did so at the behest of threat, nobody could threaten it.
"Nearly all parties ended up nearly bankrupt after WWII and were saddled with massive budget cutbacks including the US."
The private people, being the regular man perhaps, but the government most certainly wasn't, it had more money, more taxes to pull, more economic control, larger corporations, more centralized control over itself, larger government organizations including spy organizations, and all with a more advanced technology that took ages to ever trickle down. (and immediately afterwards it built up a new target to fear) When the war ended they cut the budget, after the war was over, they lost profit, so as you can see the war itself was profitable, and permanently so for the government. Your reference of budget cuts after the war prove my point.
"Also many governments were destabilized by WW2, causing the opposite of "control over the populace"."
Not in the US, the UK, or France and neither in any of the USSR, France was on the verge of a communist takeover before Germany and that fell with the Nazi takeover. The UK was barely holding its empire together before the war as there were talks at that time of India and the rest of the Commonwealth becoming more independent, (India leaving in 1948 was dictated to happen regardless cause they were always constantly fighting with already) and yet they lasted for several more decades without any of those talks, the US became the more powerful nation and overtook the UK afterwards and even further became the hegemony that controls the world and its economy to this day. The USSR was on the verge of collapse when Germany invaded but because of the "Great Patriotic War" push and other propaganda they were able to destroy Germany, take over Eastern Europe, and fund the USSR in supplement to their incompetence over the homeland for many more decades.
"WW2 split Germany into two."
And yet Germany still came to exist and has now become the powerhouse of Europe again. The fall of the Reich was a setback, nothing more. It was a gross incompetent miscalculation by the German leadership to fight the war in the way they did. They were living in a delusion, but take into account everyone that benefited from it, not on the individual level, but on the elite collective level and you start to see that they gained so much through the sacrifice of the three major nations of WWII. They threw not only the leadership of the Axis under the bus, but the people of those nations, yet the politicians, bankers, and many other people in power at the time didn't lose a thing or gained greatly. Had the German leadership not been delusional (not possible under Nazism of course, but the hypothetical stands) they could've gotten away with so much more, if they'd been patient and done it slowly instead of going in all at once. The analogy is bad (as it doesn't actually work, but its part of the consciousness so its relatable) but to a respect its true that a frog boiled slowly never leaves the pot.
"WW2 caused several of France's governments to collapse."
Except the French government didn't collapse after 1949, (even before that, the GPRF never collapsed, it was just established to oversee France until 1949 when the 4th Republic was established from it until 1958, when they modified it peacefully and called it the 5th) the only time it "collapsed" was at the behest of the takeover by the Reich, which isn't a collapse but takeover. After the French government returned, it was stronger then ever, and they only made it stronger. Before the war, the French government was already near collapse, after the war, it never collapsed again.
"WW2 caused the break up of the British Empire and the French Empire."
That was happening before WWII, Australia, Canada, and South Africa were no longer considered British Ruled before the war, (Statute of Westminster 1931, all of them adopted well before the end) India was fighting constantly before and after the war for independence so I don't see it happening in 1948 being significant since they did so constantly, New Zealand was the only dominion which foremost did anything of the such following the war, and the only nation(s) which stayed out of the Commonwealth in all that was the "Raj".
Similar things were happening with France so its unreasonable to attribute that to the war when the war had very little to do with it.
"WW2 left the Soviet Union in ruins and unable to properly feed itself for decades to come."
Not really, it had that problem before the war and it kept that problem until its death, that's just collectivist methodology, if you think starvation was caused by the war instead of being a contributor then you don't understand socialism.
"WW2 led China into Civil War and also left it unable to feed itself for decades to come."
China was still in war afterwards, and that aside the communists took over, so again, its not even remotely fair to say the war starved them when the ideology they were under was already starving them and they were in another war immediately following.
"WW2 lead India to the Bengal famine of 1943 (3 million dead in a single province)."
This feels like you're intentionally trying to trap me here, a war can be profitable without any profit being received to the common man, governments don't give out their profits to the common man. Just because people are starving in relation to it (which even in this case I wouldn't just attribute to WWII as that's pretty reductive and a simplistic view of history in most cases, something that's generally only said by liars and propagandists in my experience) doesn't mean its not profitable.
"WW2 lead to the dismantling of the Japanese Empire and their God-Emperor striped of power. There was very little to gain from this war."
And yet they voluntarily went to war because they thought there was something to gain, they were either delusional or shortsighted, in either case, the advantages I speak of existed even for them, though the need for them was low already because they weren't threatened internally, there was no threat of the individual man in Japan to the government, whether physically or economically. And that aside the corpoatists and statists in Japan still won in the short-term (that being the next 70 years) and it was pretty profitable at the end to have the US supplement their economy, even at the cost of the nukes. You're looking at the specific instances of loses, individuals who died, as if they're relevant, but I don't care about what individuals lost, I care about who won, that being the people who didn't fight, didn't lose, and gained more power and money as a result. They instigated and promoted the wars and only gained from them. Corporations, bankers, politicians, these types of people made a lot at the cost of the lives of war and they continued to afterwards. Even the occasional dead of the elite (which rarely happened) was a price worth that power and money.
"I already said nations care about winning wars. Militaries choose the superior weapons and tactics to win. If PMCs were superior, every military would primarily rely on them."
Except history disagrees, nations don't win wars just for the sake of it, there are constant cases going back millennia of nations who'd lose wars for a better advantage, only in honor cultures did something like this tend not to happen. (which is because honor wasn't worth the price most of the time) But if you could win more out of a lost or continuing war they took it every time, and the US is no different in this, in fact it tends to take losing or stupid wars on purpose just for an alternative objective. Even humiliating the nation was worth it for some form of advantage here. If the US wanted to win its wars, it would've been very easy to do so, nobody can match the US in terms of military power, Vietnam was an easy war to win if the US desired to win it, but that wasn't the purpose of the fight. Same to Afghanistan, Iraq, or even the contributions in Syria, if it wanted, practically no nation would stand a chance on its own. PMCs are statistically and historically more effective in relation to government soldiers as are mercenaries, you can't argue that, the simple reason is the they don't deign to win cause that's not what its about.
4
-
@Edax_Royeaux
"War isn't profitable and the clearest indicator is when an economy is destroyed."
Governments aren't reliant on economies, otherwise they'd be in competition and would lose. If they were then they'd have incentive to keep out of the economy, which actually would dissuade the existence of the state in the first place. But that clearly doesn't happen because they do exist and they always intervene in the economy, so this logic is fundamentally flawed. How do you argue that the government has to regard the value of its economy when it clearly does not act in the interest of its economy? There'd be no inflation, no national debt, and war would actually be useless.
"War isn't profitable and the clearest indicator is when an economy is destroyed. It's cartoon logic to think people are profiting from war when the economy is in ruins."
Then explain to me why the government never learns its lesson and keeps causing recessions and depressions, keeps them going, and would fight a war in a failing economy? Why do they insist on continuously printing money and accruing debt if its not profitable? I don't recall a time in history when politicians were starving. You keep avoiding the question and never answering the issue, instead insisting that profit somehow doesn't exist in war. You can't use circular reasoning to say the Military-Industrial Complex just came into existence and continues to exist because jingoists, that's not an argument. And doesn't make anymore sense that it won't leave simply because jingoists.
"What do you think the rich are buying when there are no consumer good being produced?"
Why do you believe in me saying politicians, corporations, bankers and bureaucrats being equal to "the rich" which foremost I didn't ever say and even then I actually connotated separation from them when I was speaking of "rich folk" and the lower realms of the upper class. And that aside, they can buy goods over the rest of the market demand because they have more money to spend over any demand of those below them in rank. And production doesn't just stop because the economy is trash, especially when you have the taxation of value in place (inflation) which literally only exists to steal wealth so the point of the matter is that as long as those producing inflation and managing taxation pay them (being through government contracts and such) they can make easy profit in a failing economy. Don't you ever wonder why the government is capable of bailing out banks so easily and does it so often? It be outrageous to claim those who suffer the consequence of a failing bank receive any compensation after the bank is bailed out. (as the bank defaults and cuts its spending down right before it does so, making it a bank reset)
"What is the point of wealth then there's nothing to buy and instability everywhere."
Nothing, its not about having wealth, you don't gain money to have wealth, even for a regular person that's not why you do it, (just having wealth is worthless, its what you aim to do with that wealth that matters) for them it supplements the people who have the wealth so it can help achieve whatever goal they desire, I don't care what they want or why, all I know is that its happening and its off the backs of the common man. If you steal from me at gun point, I couldn't give less of a damn about why or how you're doing, I just want you to stop. If you're scamming me under threat and at gunpoint, again I don't care about the why or how, I just want you dead and gone.
"I don't know why your talking about trickle down economics when the population of Japan was completely on it's knees, I'm not talking about 1%."
The reason I bring up trickle downSym economics is because you're insinuating in that case that government money can somehow trickle down the rest of the economy put into the right sectors. But that's not how it works, government can not create and it can not trickle down, it can only destroy and corrupt, it removes reliance on the market and causes government dependence which you use to profit. The people power, whatever call them, were making money off the backs of the people of Japan, never suffered for it, and have continued to do so to this day. And they encouraged the war that brought that nation down. (and the economic structures that brought it down, and the government that brought it down) The people that suffered were not those in power, they didn't lose family to the fight and lost no money in the process, profit isn't given to the common man, governments don't act in the common man's interest, they usually act against them, government is used to maximize politician and bureaucrat happiness in however the desire to, and they use the bankers and the corporations to help achieve, in return for a similar arrangement for the corporations and bankers.
"It happened because war was profitable in the US when it stayed out of WWI."
It made out with a lot socialistic systems incorporated into the state in WWI and it got lot of money out of it. Not to mention the policies of Wilson who was very vehement about getting in the war and the business of the rest of the world and promoting his very socialistic tendencies. We got a lot of new taxes there as well.
"Britain and France invested very heavily in jump starting the US Arms industry that eventually made the US world power. All that money was lost fighting the war and all that war material destroyed but the war industries remained. America was well situated to setup arms factories because it was out of the line of fire."
And it got to abuse its superior position to the rest of the world there, it did this a lot, like the Spanish-American war, the US was in many ways an intentional opportunist no matter the morality of the specific act and it made lots of money and power in the process.
"Because anyone who runs on "weaken America" platform doesn't get votes anymore. American Culture from the 40s was vastly different than what emerged in the 80's. There was no grand obsession with having the best military in the world before the Cold War."
But you don't explain why it happened nor do you get to the origin, you can't just say the jingoists existed and had power and kept that power. That doesn't say anything, the US was not a very jingoist nation in the 1800s so you can't argue they were just jingoists. But yet in the 1900s you see continuously a case of fighting war for no benefit. There's no argument for having the best military in the world when the US is already in a fortress position where no one can invade. Without the collapse and takeover of the only two nations on its borders (which it kept a vested interest in defending from happening and who happen to also be in brilliant fortress positions) there was no way a nation could threaten the US. So the question then remains why did the jingoists get in power and how do they keep that power? Its not because its bad for the government for them to be there, if it were then they wouldn't be left in the government and they wouldn't have any power. Things don't happen without reason and things don't exist just because, there's a reason and origin to everything, so you can't make the argument that it was "American culture" especially when that behavior of using war for profit is well before the concept of "American strong" culture.
4
-
@bustercrabbe8447 Mixed economies are socialists economics, and here's the simple reason why, the government has full authority to control and regulate business, that means it can start, stop, and subsidize the means of production, which means it in fact owns the means of production, thus it is socialist. A capitalist market is a market for which the government has no control over the economy, thus the government does not have capacity to own the means of production. A economy controlled by government builds syndicates (thus corporations) which do the state's bidding without strictly following the state's regulations, so long as it does what the party/state want, and yet can be punished when it goes against the state whenever the state feels like it. These syndicates also have an advantage in the market where they don't have to compete and thus can monopolize the market as there are no market forces that regulates them for they are paid for by the state, which is not influenced by market forces. Thus a mixed economy is an economy for which certain members need not compete and monopolize the market off the backs of the state, resulting in overtaking all common private business for the sake of public business, leaving only small elements of private business remaining. This is, as can be clearly seen in all modern countries, exactly what has happened to the United States, that is what government interventionism brings to the economy.
3
-
3
-
@Jose-yt3qz First that's a fallacious assumption off the back of what was said, it was said that to dishonor one's father and mother will bring upon curses and destruction, (also as an aside, of all the socialists of the 20th century Mussolini was the least violent and killed the least amount of people, as well as having a fairly stable nation before WWII for a socialist, whether that means much, it is a notable fact) however it is not the only moral element, though even then how could one know how to honor one's father and mother without the moral framework to do so, it is a false reflection of the true. But even then that is irrelevant anyway because morality is not centered first around parental honor, before that Commandment comes 4 previous Commandments, and even in the paraphrased Commandments given by Jesus before loving thy neighbor as yourself, you must love God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength. Before one can love thy neighbor, one must love and honor thy parents, before one can do this one must however love and honor God.
3
-
3
-
@Jose-yt3qz He was the least terrible, Italy was the most stable and least violent socialist country of the 20th century, it was still an authoritarian socialist country ruled by an totalitarian dictator and it had the lowest kill count of all socialist states while lasting twice as long as Nazi Germany and its not even a competition.
Now this fact aside, that whole point was literally in a parenthesis and is completely tangential to my point, it wasn't even a complete statement, its probably the most irrelevant and stupid thing to argue against because even if you did disprove it, it literally wouldn't change anything I said, so much so that in fact its functionally irrelevant, I only made a point of it because the claim was "Mussolini had a honored his father" in which the only relevant detail is that he was also the most peaceful of the "successful" socialists. Still doesn't change the fact that the 5th Commandment is only the 5th Commandment and not the the preceding 4, neither is it even first of the two most important Commandments when Jesus paraphrases the Commandments. So you literally started an argument on an irrelevant tangential thought that literally can't prove my point wrong even if it were incorrect that I only mentioned because it was an interesting fact to add on top. And you argued exclusively over it for 5 paragraphs and 3 responses with obsessive focus. Why? Out of everything I said, why the hell is that the thing that triggered you?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ZARK0_ Except that's a red herring argument, whether Rothbard invented it or not, its not a common nor useful definition to the common man, if your objective is to spread your idea, you should be communicating in the words of men, not by the words of a god, whether someone invented a term or not is irrelevant to the point. TIK's point is that words should service to approach those who disagree with you by common understanding, if I come to you speaking gibberish you won't understand me even if someone else invented the gibberish and could understand me, but if I come to you speaking a standardized principal of language that we both understand and agree to, then we have perfect communication and understanding, the point of language should be to reduce misunderstandings, if it does not accomplish this, you are only servicing your own pride.
3
-
To a degree I agree and disagree with your ideal on war, I agree that from a moral standpoint its wrong to harm civilians, however I also don't believe in a concept of moral warfare. While a morally justified war can exist, (say to defeat a peoples assaulting your nation or obviously any defensive war) I don't believe any acts committed in regards to the war can be measured from a moral standpoint, which is why I don't believe in war crimes. Fact is war itself is, at its core, a violent oppression of the opposition, how we measure the morality of any specific act in regards to that is gonna be relative to our considerations of the time and place we live in. As I see it, its not my (or any other man's) place to judge whether a specific act within a war was justified, especially since there are no governing authorities of war, without an arbiter of justice (specifically one that does not retain a bias over the subjects of the case) there is no justification for arbitrating the circumstances of the war, invalidating the concept of a war crime. If a governing authority's only legitimate role is as representation of moral justice to its people, it has no obligation to do it for others beyond itself (even if they're friendly nations or close allies) and with the defeat of the war neither carries an obligation to hold specific individuals responsible. If we want to argue that should be done, we could leave that to the governing authority of the losing nation, but given it tends to happen under the authority of that nation and those individuals are part of that authority most of the time, you'd be unlikely to see that in which case it is what it is.
We could argue for a justified case for war in regards to the atrocities committed by a nation on another group of people, but the objective in those cases should be to make peace, not to keep peace, and alternative measures of making peace, not keeping peace, should be tried. (not in essence through capitulation of demands for example though, violence and force and its threats are the only power recognized by a state, they must be used for that purpose if the decision is to be made, mortal justice requires real force)
As far as what should've happened internationally, let the losers lose perhaps, though I say an even better case would be to break the constituent losers and winners into smaller nations, at best each nation broken up operating in a confederate manner, but those last bits are personal preference without precedent.
3
-
I find it strange that people are saying they wouldn't do this or they don't like it, foremost the idea be you're in the middle of a war and you don't get a choice, either that or this is the governance practically enlisting a quasi-PMC coalition to do the work, given PMCs actually very much operate under this metric and are more effective then standard militaries with less losses, civilian causalities, and less wasted resources I'd say this is just proven correct. (PMCs could be even better though if they were less beholden to government money, thus requiring even more dependence on efficiency) Its even more strange to hear people say no when most if not all folks that are saying that have no devotion into being a soldier, and those that are either don't understand economics or would be useless on an efficient battlefield anyway, which by the virtue of economics they'd either be dead or gone anyway. So in a basic sense you'd be weeded out for people who could do their jobs, would get the job done, and without extraneous waste. In a manner how it was described would've produced a most effective military, and those that saw it through properly would likely be well off for the rest of their lives, just like in every other industry in libre economics..
3
-
@Edax_Royeaux Not how nations work, in many metrics nations don't desire to win wars because war is foremost profitable to those participating, and even further enables mongering and control of the populations into contributing to the government, claiming it to be for the war. (which it rarely is) Vietnam and Afghanistan were so claimed to be fought for something, but what they achieved and why they were fought had nothing to do with success, as for whether they won or lost, the government had already got what it wanted. Even in the case of wars like Vietnam, where they lost the war and lost public support over the war, they gained authority and control over both the markets and society, the amounts of power gained by the war greatly outweighed the losses they suffered and in many cases they know this. In some cases those state advantages are overestimated or the capability to achieve them are overestimated and in those cases you could consider it a partial success, but never a proper success, in a nation where threats don't exist and the only worry is from internal control, the only effective manner of killing or disarming that threat is by distractions and redirecting it to a "nationally productive" force. If you investigate most wars fought by the US, especially since the Civil War, you will see this holds true, the US did not hold stake in the war itself and felt nearly no threat at all from the powers beyond, but it wanted to better control the masses. FDR introduced sweeping nation changing laws that took over the economy and destroyed the libre nature of most American business, (if it wasn't already destroyed) and the same things happened in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Desert Storm, and the post-9/11 wars. And peace does not sell. There's also a major part of pride involved, mixed with a worry of lack of control, which giving to a PMC creates a worry that they won't do exactly as you desire even if its stupid or inefficient. (which was also one of the biggest reasons all nations hated hiring mercs despite generally better track records)
Before saying what you've said, you really need to ask would the powers at work really care about the outcome being efficient and effective, does ending it quick and easy achieve what they really want? What is more overall effective for them, not just on the battlefield, but across their nation or the world? Also if you look at the track record of PMCs when they are used, they almost always succeed better then their soldier counterparts, with less waste and less causalities on all sides. (if you look at the amount of atrocities committed by soldiers in comparison by relative metrics, even when the PMC is government subsidized, it doesn't even compare, another question standing why are PMCs blackballed when soldiers and official military leadership can get away with so much worse stuff and yet no one ever says anything?)
3
-
@Edax_Royeaux
"The US along with every other allied nation, lost a considerable amount of money fighting the war."
They gained hundreds of new taxes, control of the banks, and control of the markets, this has been debunked, the US government made out with more money after the war then it ever made before it. The New Deal and related acts is a clear demonstration that the war was profitable. The people's finances are irrelevant, the governments made out for the better in every case, government doesn't exist to make the lives of the people better, you don't seem to understand that, as modern governments stand now, they exist to profit off the the common man, regardless of what he does, killing him included, they can justify anything and everything they want to make profits and power in a war that they can't do out of a war. And you demonstrated my point earlier by saying they had to cut budgets after the war, cause even the war itself was profitable, and the cuts only lasted less then a decade even then. War is profit, it is very easy to profit, winning the war hasn't been relevant to that in most cases, if war wasn't profitable, in most cases it wouldn't be fought, the US didn't fight wars for the sake of threat and didn't fight them for resources, its had neither to ever consider, it fights wars because its an effective manner of control and money by its very nature. You don't seem to understand why nations operate as they do in the modern era, or even throughout the post-renaissance era. (where this was often in consideration)
3
-
@Edax_Royeaux
"Gaining taxes in exchange for massive debt isn't a gain in anyway for a state. "
What do you call the modern era? We've been doing this since WWII at least, so I don't know where you're pulling that idea from. Massive debt has been going on in every nation state for near on a century. (if not more, and the older empires have been doing it for much longer)
"Especially when tied together with the massive budget cuts that came after WW2."
Which were barely any I might add, the government never shrunk, the armies for the most part weren't disarmed, (aside from the Axis) and none of the powers at the time removed the economic institutions that were made during or before the war.
And everyone likes to claim that the war ended the Depression but the Depression was on track to end before you consider the war and statistically and historically it only prolonged it, however the government made out with a lot of money and power because of it.
"It reduced control of the populace and reduces prosperity."
Irrelevant, again, you're being foolish in thinking this is who its for, government doesn't make money for them, nor power, it makes it in spite of them, this is your problem, you don't understand government is not an ally or friend, it was suppose to be the lesser of two evils that's now worse then the two. (that being anarchy)
"I don't understand how you say the US made more money than before when it's debt had never been higher in history."
Because the US government and its corporate enterprises (syndicates being the proper word) are making more money then ever, we are in more debt then has ever existed in human history, debt is how you enslave a population without ever telling them. Do you know what serfdom was based on? Debt, yes that's how it worked, and how government almost always ended up functioning, at the behest of those in power. (the only time it didn't was when it collapsed before it made it to that point)
"When you say "made money" are you only counting revenue?"
The people in power aren't in debt, social security, medicare, regulations, taxes, inflation, what do all these things do? They don't target the politicians and they don't hurt the corporations, they damage the common man, they control the lower classes and keep them in debt, who is responsible for the past century of bubbles? Government. Who lost nothing as a result? Government. And who had to pay for it? The common man. Who was left in debt over any of them? Again, the common man. The point is the common man pays the price for the politicians and the politicians never suffer for it, no punishment, no recompense, and they still receive benefits and a lifetime of pay off the back of taxpayers, and that's just the low level politicians, all the high level ones stay perpetually in politicians or corporations. Its pretty clear they made money off the backs of everyone else. What is inflation but thievery of value from the market? That's how they make money, government doesn't create, it can only steal.
3
-
@Edax_Royeaux
"the U.S. government cut spending by $72 billion—a 75-percent reduction."
And what about the inflation and redistribution of wealth they did? And how exactly is that calculated? Does it take into account all the new subsidies it made? Does it take into account all the departments it made? Where are you even sourcing those number from and what exactly contributes to it? Its not fair to say its a 75% reduction by using raw numbers when the government can control the value of those raw numbers either, if you can change the variables, the raw metrics are irrelevant. And that aside given they kept paying into all the industries they did beforehand, I don't see where the budget cuts were outside of they stopped using the mandatory draft. Did they stop paying for the military equipment they made? No. Did stop paying for into the corporations that were building the weapons? No. So where were the budget cuts from?
" It brought federal spending down from a peak of 44 percent of gross national product (GNP) in 1944 to only 8.9 percent in 1948, a drop of over 35 percentage points of GNP."
And yet they kept the taxes. But interestingly GNP was a metric criticized as not very economically representative by economists for a long time, which GDP often shares, since it hides many economically significant factors that should include. But I foremost don't trust those numbers specifically because it doesn't make much economical sense nor historical sense, and beyond that measuring federal spending to a relative metric that doesn't take into account inflation (in most cases inflation will not be shown in those metrics without hyperinflation and economic collapse) and debt all that well is neither reliable. Especially when you should expect an economy to grow immensely afterwards, naturally after a war you expect an economy to grow significantly on its own by the returning of a majority of working and able men. (the ones willing to take risk and boom the economy, the economy is entirely capable of growing on its own to create that metric, whether it has is up for debate, but the fact it can undermines the argument enough)
3
-
3
-
@Edax_Royeaux
"By 1946 the average citizen in Tokyo was rationed to 775 calories a day and the Yakuza Black Market had begun to dominate the economy."
How many times must I repeat that this is irrelevant, trickle down economics doesn't work and especially not through the metric of government. So including it in making profits when profits can be gained in a famine is exceedingly capable and possible, especially by government and by corporations.
"Because it's too politically difficult to get rid of it, it would kill jobs and anger the jingoists."
Doesn't explain why it happened in the first place and doesn't actually explain why it continues to exist, more deflection, how did the jingoists get power and yet never accomplish crap nor does it explain why the majority of the American budget is spent on it and yet its still so incompetent and worthless, Fort Polk does not happen in a free economic system. And neither does the majority of the US Army, Marines, or Navy which are so bloated and noncompetitive they spent fortunes on equipment that doesn't work and gets people killed, the last three combat uniforms for the Army are directly and statistically responsible for soldier deaths that could've been avoided by simply not wearing them. And yet they didn't bother fixing them for decades only to replace each one with something nearly as bad or worse. There are so many horror stories I've heard or took note from which demonstrated some of the worst types of gun training I've ever seen, and I'm not even taking into account the non-gun crap. The ranking system for God's sake is so worthless that it booms and busts on a continuous cycle and every time it surprises the bureaucrats, causing incompetent officers to get into high positions who aren't remotely qualified, the type of paint lickers who take pride in becoming a sergeant because he happened to hit the target once. (or even just happened to fire the gun without flagging everyone at the range)
"But it's costing the US a lot a considerable sum having it around."
But whose paying the price? Cause its not the politicians, corporations, bureaucrats, or bankers, they don't pay in to taxes, majority of the US government is subsidized by the upper middle class and "rich" folk income, (individuals sitting on the lower percentage of the upper class mostly) while putting us continuously in a downward spiral of debt the likes of which we've never seen before. And when it collapses, its not the politicians, corporations, bureaucrats, or bankers that suffer. Its the taxpayers that supplement the function of the government beyond both the public and private markets. And that's before we take into account the tax on savings that is inflation. To rephrase this response "its costing the US (citizens) a lot" which are not the ones I ever said (and I keep having to repeat this) were profiting from war in the first place. Ones who profit are the people who don't suffer nor pay into the problem and have no stake in it, no risk, all reward. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are perfect demonstrations of such.
"You'll note that Japan spent 99% of GDP on military spending in 1944 and it destroyed their economy because it was not profitable."
That wasn't a relevant point, whether they spent all their income on war or not wasn't the point, they could throw all the money or no money at the problem, it wouldn't have changed anything because the problem wasn't the money thrown into war. The money they got back as a result of war, the kind where those who didn't actually suffer, being the politicians, corporations, bureaucrats, and bankers, all of whom even in Japan at most suffered very little and got away with very little punishment even in losing the war. They were the ones who profited off the war and the collapsing of the Japanese economy, a collapsing economy can be very profitable if done in a calculated manner and/or you run with the profits which has happened a lot in lost wars. Bankers and money changers did it all the time since the Medieval Periods, though back then they weren't usually part of the state like now, at worst usually verified or authorized by the state.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jussim.konttinen4981 I should addendum that I don't believe justice shall nor should be serviced in the temporal realm, it is not within man's capability to decide justice himself and it is not given to him to decide. Justice is a concept derived from the God and all things that represent Justice, being the arbitrators that government is suppose to be, derive their authority, power, and representation from God. (being the Originator of Justice, there are separate discussions for when they fail this job and lose that authority for which they can be overthrown, but I will not diverge further into it) This is also where I say rights devise their power from, hence why justice and rights are so intertwined. Since however there is no mortal arbitrator of justice, the only authority for justice within war is thus God, who dictates the moral outcome of the war mortally as a judgement, but may also not take judgement and justice in the mortal realm at and instead those responsible for immorality shall be held to account in the afterlife. This should be an addition to what I said to clarify justice does not and should not be expected to be served among mortal men. (as a side point, this is where we derive "innocent until proven guilty from", and why it can only exist in nations of Christ's morality)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
"Many who reject materialism are NOT rejecting material reality, they are saying that reality is not ONLY material."
Just to point out that isn't inherently true. Yes there are many non-materialists as in they don't believe purely in the material, like I do as a Christ, believing a higher form of nature that supersedes the material realm, there are many others, most prominently the gnostics and hermetics, who do actually completely reject material reality and do go as far as to say it is all literally fake. In fact many gnostic and hermetic beliefs have infiltrated many religions and caused even some orthodox religions to believe in violations of their own religion, for example modern Christians believe in death releases the soul into Heaven and the suffering of the body, and that their body is torturing them to commit evil because it is material and thus evil. This is a violation of Christian teaching, it is a gnostic belief, but it is one widely believed by modern Christians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Michael-Archonaeus That's because they were of the state and to kill of the state without organization that can rival the state would only result in needless death, Christian methodology for self-defense (which Paul and Peter both emphasize in Scripture and is written in the Levitical Law) has always been the preservation of life, if one is to kill another merely out of revenge only for them to die anyway, it would be useless, if you know you are to die as an attempt of killing another in defense of yourself you're sinning by violating the preservation of human life. Now this aside most Christians escaped persecution, martyrs were less common then those who escaped, for example at the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus prophesized when the armies surrounded the city that His followers should sell their homes and leave, and so when the Roman armies came to Jerusalem and then left, the Christians sold everything and left and immediately following was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD by the Romans where the Jews were destroyed. Those who died in such cases like with Saul and the Romans like Thomas and did not flee were called by God to die, that was not most, martyrs served a purpose by God over their own self-preservation. If you were not called by God, the early church always fled over fight and did not fight if they could not survive the fight.
1
-
Funny part about the reference to the Christian perspective of angels and "God's Chosen people" thing, the Biblical Scripture actually says that humans are higher then the angels and we will judge them, (1 Cor 6:3) our state of being of less glory then the angels is temporary as a result of the corruption we attained from the sin that caused the Fall in Genesis 3, when we receive our resurrected bodies, our body and mind will be resurrected as superiors to the angels, so technically he's describing a denigration of man and especially himself, people also misunderstand the chosen people thing, it be more correct to say "beloved people", as there is no explicitly chosen people, its a bad description in good faith, and a disingenuous description in bad faith.
1
-
Just gonna point out, the Christological view does not validate God being created, God does not need observation of Himself at all nor does He need anything, and the material realm is a part of the real world, both the spiritual and the material realm are reality. While we do agree that the spirit (the soul) and the flesh are against each other, it is not because one is real and the other is false, or that one contains contradiction or they're inherently meant for conflict, but because man sinned against God and so we abandoned God to follow our own path and so were cursed, and thus our flesh was corrupted and tainted alongside corrupting the whole of the material realm, and so our flesh becomes a perversion of its once good and perfect state, that does not make it unreal nor does it inherently make the flesh evil, though it is by itself incapable of good.
1
-
@bustercrabbe8447
"Why? If he got it wrong once, why wouldn't it be wrong again?"
Claims aren't true unless demonstrated and proven. You made up claims but don't demonstrate nor prove them.
"Again you proved you still don't know the difference between economics and politics."
"In the first few decades the fledgling United States came very close to bankruptcy."
This is completely irrelevant.
"England removed all the British currency from her former colonies and America had no money (Remember Capitalist Theory: no money = no capitalism)."
The currency is irrelevant, capitalism has nothing to do with lack of money. Business does not specifically need money to function. Most business in the ancient world was barter and commodity based and some Eastern businesses are returning to that. Money is a convenience, its not necessary for capitalism.
"America relied on 'book barter' for domestic transactions and used land and timber as collateral for her bonds."
Irrelevant point.
"Specie and fiat currency was virtually non-existent and fisheries (including whaling) was the country's main producer of a tradable commodity."
This is neither relevant.
"The USA did not achieve capitalism until ~1876, and laissez faire capitalism never materialized in the States."
Nothing here proves that.
"Wow, a double oxymoron. The state and capitalism are opposed to each other. Perhaps why laissez faire capitalism has never existed."
The state and capitalism are not opposed, that's a false conclusion.
"Addendum: Types of socialism- State Socialism, Christian Socialism, Islamic Socialism, National Socialism, Marxist Socialism [a.k.a. communism], and Fabian Socialism. Market Socialism is an utter oxymoron and a fraud."
You do realize an oxymoron is not the same thing as a contradiction right? By saying that you can't call it a fraud for calling something an oxymoron outright states that the two parts are not contradictory, they just appear contradictory.
"Types of capitalism- Finance Capitalism, Freemarket Capitalism (a tautology), consumer capitalism, industrial capitalism, neo-capitalism, American Capitalism, crony capitalism, and another type of capitalism which eludes me at the moment. State Capitalism is another oxymoron and another bogus claim."
Again, you don't know the definition of an oxymoron.
1
-
@bustercrabbe8447
"1. The definition of oxymoron is a contradiction in terms. The terms cancel each other out."
"oxymoron: two words or phrases used together that have, or seem to have, opposite meanings" - Cambridge Dictionary
They do not cancel out. And no they're not an inherent contradiction, they appear to be a contradiction, that doesn't inherently make them one, whether they are or not is completely separate of an issue. As an aside state capitalism is not an oxymoron, its a contradictory term, but that's separate from being an oxymoron, the state and capitalism themselves are not inherently at odds, they do not inherently oppose each other.
And Laissez-faire in most economic/political standards requires a state to enforce individual rights in order to exist, that's the only legitimate role of the state, anarcho-capitalism is not the same as laissez-faire which you seem to completely confuse, just as libertarianism is not anarcho-capitalism, most libertarians argue for laissez-faire but not for anarcho-capitalist.
"2. You haven't answered any question"
You haven't asked a question so saying that I haven't answered something I haven't been asked is complete nonsense. How can I answer a question if the question for which I need to answer is not known to me? How can I know it?
"or refute any statement without digressing away from the point."
Where have I digressed from "the point"? Show me with specific quotation.
"You seem unable to stay focused."
You made a claim, but you refused to actually back it up.
"3. You haven't explained your contradictions."
What contradictions? You have yet to demonstrate a single case of that. Making claims is no a demonstration of case, you are required to demonstrate a case.
"4. You don't appear to have a strong command of the subject matter."
This is opinion and is completely irrelevant.
"5. You certainly have no understanding of the History of Finances."
You claim this but don't back up your claims, my claims are based on etymological sources and dictionaries when it comes to the reference of capitalism and its existence, and the definitions regarding common terms is a historically fact. Not to mention that you have been deflecting from my points, you haven't addressed a single case of historical accounts that I brought up.
"Your rebuttals are fact free, logic warped, and distortion filled."
You've yet to demonstrate what I've stated as being false, unsound, invalid, warped or distorted, you have deflected and accused me of things but yet to demonstrate a single case of it. You have also attacked my character and gone after me as to undermine my arguments and not even bothered to touch on my arguments here. This is a case of ad hominem fallacy and its why its so easy to disregard what you have said. I am not my argument, my arguments stand on their own without my existence, my knowledge and pride is irrelevant, if I did not exist, my arguments would still be, just as your claim of knowledge is worthless and doesn't mean anything. I never made a claim of my own authority and yet you seem to imply an appeal to your own authority and also imply an insult upon your character to question you, if that's is found to be true, I don't have any reason to regard any of what you say when you can't actually present an argument of refutation. While I have quoted you directly and addressed you point by point in context and in full, you have no once done so and have stated continuously false things of what has been said. I don't care whether you believe me or listen to me, if you will not listen, I don't care about you and nothing about what say is for your sake.
1
-
1
-
Still issues on the fact that Christianity was not made by Rome, Creating Christ is roundly debunked book in all Christological scholarly circles, (whether secular or not) even figures like Bart Ehrman, who claims the divinity of Christ is a later Christian invention, refutes it. Also the Hermetics predate Christianity, their texts and religion go as far back a 300 BC and the most popular writing of them, Corpus Hermeticum, is already well past written and completed before Constantin converts in 312 AD in which he legalizes Christianity, it wasn't even a populist faith at the time and between 100 AD and 300 AD the pagans throughout Rome did not understand anything about it, they still called them atheists and persecuted them for that. (and that work was known to be finished by 300 AD, it very likely was written in 200 AD) The Christians and Ancient Hebrews were still called atheists by 300 AD. And that aside the Hermetics also share nothing with Christian or Ancient Hebrew Faith outlooks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're discounting that Christianity teaches both self-sacrifice and self-regard, you completely ignore the writings of Luther, Calvin, or the Christian Fathers who wrote that one should not disregard the self nor the material, but that one should show love to each other as is needed, to sacrifice when necessary, but to love your house, home, and to take care of yourself independently of your house. The principal of self-sacrifice in Christianity requires foremost an ability to take care of one's self first, its not a hatred of one's self, in fact the whole principal of calling it hatred is a false interpretation, when Jesus says such things as found in Luke 14:26, it should be obvious that it is not meaning to say you are to hate anyone but that in comparison your love of Jesus, God, must be before all other love such that it hyperbolically compares to hatred. That's how Hebrew rabbis of the time would write as well, when they would make a point they would say something extremely hyperbolic to get the point across of the meaning and importance, this was in fact quite a common concept in Ancient Hebrew thought. I would love if at some point or some way I could have a discussion with you on this subject.
1
-
Honestly I still don't get what you exactly mean by altruism and opposition to it, like I get the idea of you using the definition of altruism being about self-sacrifice at risk of one's self, which I would argue is only one, and specifically Comte's, definition of altruism, but the issue I have is that you switch the target of the definition in ways that make it hard to understand what is the positive affirmation your claiming to. Like what exactly do mean by "focusing on the self" and how do you mean for that to play out? Ayn Rand wasn't able to define it either and its one of the reasons anyone who knows any moralist arguments finds her epistemology and moral arguments a joke as her arguments were already addressed by Paul, Augustine, and Calvin. So far what I've seen of your position suggests you simply can't believe in limited selflessness yet you at the same time claim that you do not operate on a hedonist or all encompassing narcissistic outlook, (is that merely based on preference or is there a definition why that isn't your rational conclusion?) which confuses me. And why it seems like you need to completely refute all altruism instead of taking a limited altruism position which would be more balanced. I suppose the lack of Christian foundation is part of the issue, as you demonstrate while you sort of understand what is being said, you don't understand how Christians arrived at the rational conclusions we have, missing elements of interpretation necessary for awareness of the position thus hurts your reception of the context of the text you were referencing. Christian teaching is very context sensitive as our devotion is to truth at the sacrifice of ourselves.
Fundamentally I can't figure out what is the foundation for morality in the view you're expressing, and its likely a big element of what caused the response you got, you pointing to altruism and not separating it from the limited altruism you described makes it sound like just as much an attack especially on the Christian foundation because it sounded like you were equating Christian teaching to disregard for the self which would be faulty. It seems that was unintended, but when you enter into a discussion of moralism without a clear definition of the rightful moral system and merely an advocate against a moral system then it becomes difficult to know how far the criticism actually goes. A good moralist discussion requires very clear and rigid definitions. It doesn't help that you brought up in one of your response comments an example of a Catholic woman who you said practiced rampant self-hatred because of her faith, causing her depression, which only further reinforced the idea that you actually see this issue as a Christian problem else there is no reason to bring her up. I'd argue that it was specifically the lack of Catholic understanding of Scripture that is more the cause as Catholics don't as a religious address original sin and depravity, or it could just as much be a specific problem with her even, either way it presents a case of suggesting its a Christian model of altruism that you also have a problem with, potentially including other faiths.
1
-
@Jose-yt3qz He's probably in hell, but that's irrelevant because that includes anyone who doesn't bow their knee to Christ regardless, even if they were to claim to be Christian and do good things. (Matthew 7:21-23) Those in Hell are not there as a product of their works on Earth, same as to those in Heaven. There are no good people in Heaven, there are murderers, rapists, and likely even genocidal maniacs washed of their sins in Heaven, the difference is they repented and bowed their knee to Christ, I cannot tell you if someone had done that without knowing their last moments personally, and only God knows the heart.
And its not whitewashing, God had preference for him of the many other dictators, his small kill count is demonstrative of that, the lack of having that power that you claim, which I don't even agree as true, but even if it were, that's being shown preference from God too, God gifts to those less evil that he prefers even if you think he was more, I don't believe there is such a thing as more evil regardless, but just as those who do good are shown preference even when they hate Him, that does not save them from Hell. This is proven with Cyrus.
1
-
1
-
First off John the Apostle addresses Gnosticism many times and refuted it, even more they used an even more general term to refer to the religion that you call Gnostic, he called it Dualist, this is the term you're probably more so looking for.
Calling John the Apostle a Gnostic is completely wrong, both Johns, Paul, and Peter all fought Gnostics, and Gnosticism was more then claims of prophesy, if you're gonna claim that the mere act of prophesy is Gnostic, (and John didn't have any other attribute of Gnosticism that you claimed here, he didn't agree with the demiurge, that Eve was corrupted by procreating with the demiurge, or that the Creator created man into a prison, John the Apostle didn't, as far as we know, even write the Gospel of John) then the entire Bible is completely Gnostic, Isaiah was Gnostic, Jesus was Gnostic, Moses was Gnostic, Abraham was Gnostic. There is no Abrahamic religion then, only Gnostic religions, cause even going back to the first books of the Muslims you will find prophesy. The Book of John (as in the Gospel of John, there isn't any other Book of John for which reside in the Biblical text, the next closest is the 1st and 2nd letters of John and Revelation which were from John the Apostle, where as you can suspect at least the Gospel of John to likely be an account of John the Baptist's) is also attested to by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. As for Revelation, nothing about it is a violation of the Old or New Testaments, they don't contradict, in which case you are required to call Abrahamic religions nothing more then Gnostic. Both Johns fought Dualism, they were an enemies of all Gnosticism, all the other Apostles and Disciples of Christ attested to this fact and agreed.
TIK I really have to question if you've ever actually read the Biblical text, you certainly haven't read much of John, or 1 and 2 John if you're gonna claim this. Definitely not read it much the way through at all and certainly nothing of the Old Testament either. First off none of the claims in the Book of John (as in the Gospel) were anything more then the claims made in the other three Gospel books. (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) And Revelation (written by John the Apostle, same as 1st and 2nd John) still doesn't have any contradiction with the rest of the Bible as a whole, in fact the Abomination of Desolation happened in 70 AD, the Roman soldiers surrounded the city, where Jesus had told them to flee, this happens in Luke 21, starting at version 20. It was described by Daniel in Daniel (which made much the same form of prophesies) which was iterated by Jesus in Luke 19 and Matthew 24 as well. By this metric you just iterated that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all must be disregarded for being Gnostic. Also the Book of John (and neither John the Apostle) never once describes Satan having sex with Eve to produce the Fall, maybe that's a Cathar "translation" (which according to the original text in the Koine Greek, Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew, is easily refuted) but that's not what it says in John. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke it also directly addresses that angels don't partake in sex, and the demons were fallen angels, when the fallen angels are said to have children, its suspected that they needed a host but Satan as the serpent could not do this. Also Thomas refutes this idea of the "divine body" of Jesus when He appears to Thomas in John 20. It was refuted in the Gospel of John which John the Apostle not only did not refute but agreed with. (and even off my recollection, pretty sure he was right there when that happened)
Nowhere in the Book of John does it describe Eve having sex with the serpent. If you're referring to John 8:44 (which wasn't written by John the Apostle) then you are completely ignoring what it is saying, nothing about that says that Eve had sex with the serpent, John the Apostle also refers to "Children of God" in 1 John 3:10, are we to then believe John is arguing that God also had sex with Eve and had children? Does that not mean that the children of Satan and the Children of God has always been fixed, how then can John communicate the his writings to anyone? No this is a nonsense interpretation, either its a literal interpretation which would contradict reason for writing the Gospel of John and separately 1st and 2nd John, or we must accept that this is not referring to a physical dynasty but of a spiritual one.
Also good argument against Christians having any Gnosticism, until the Catholic split, Christians never destroyed books, its why we have so many records of the Biblical text, even some contradictory and heretic additions to the books, because they wanted to preserve the truth. Clearly this demonstrates that, with the support of the Book of John, it was not Gnostic. Also the problem with Revelation, the reason it was so regarded in opposition by many people is because of how uninteresting it tended to seem to Christians, they didn't understand what it was exactly saying, even now its hard to get much of a clear picture.. But just because John refers to a thousand year reign of God doesn't make him Gnostic.
I agree with much of the things you say of Gnosticism, though I'd call it Dualist more then just Gnostic, which again as I said, both Johns constantly opposed, I am of Christ, I have dealt with my share of Gnostics, but its in calling John the Apostle a Gnostic where I absolutely cannot agree on the simple basis that he does not share any principal of Gnostics, he doesn't claim to be the Truth but merely attesting, as Matthew, Mark, and Luke did, to the Truth being beyond him and not defined by him. Gnostics love twisting reality to suit their needs. 1st and 2nd John were written by the John the Apostle (the one who wrote Revelation) and he was writing against the Gnostics directly.
Also Christians of any decent theology have listened to Satanists, many theologians have directly addressed Satanism by dealing with and even debating Satanists. Its often the Satanists that back out of such debates. But there have been plenty who have argued against Gnostics by address, (which John the Apostle, or Saint John, had done so) Satanists, Atheists, and Pagans.
I love you TIK, and I love all your talks on the topics that many Keynesians and Communists will never even consider to have, and while I agree with most of this, its that one point on John being a Gnostic that I have to argue as wrong, Augustine was a man as was Luther, both of them had problems (despite Luther also devising Sola Scriptura, or "By Scripture Alone" meaning not to devise anything beyond the Scripture, which the Book of John and the Book of Revelation are both Scripture thus that's a contradictory position) like Luther also having problems with James when James said "Faith without works is dead" (James 2) however this is because Luther, as many Christians have, misinterprets Paul and James to be opposed to one another but in reality what James is saying if you pay attention to the theological context is that those who do not demonstrate their faith in their works is demonstrating the fruits of lacking an element of being in the faith. James and Paul make it quite clear and Paul actually says much the same thing a few times but Luther, as Augustine, had a lot of blind spots. Like Augustine also believed women to be a specially wicked body and looked down on marriage, conflicting with the Old and New Testament, conflicting with what Jesus said. That is because his Gnostic religion ruined his outlook on women, he never had a good encounter with a noble and righteous woman, when he left his Gnostic hedonism, he segregated himself from women entirely, in part blaming them in his perspective for his sin. He was never able to overcome this. This does not mean that Christians thus should be opposed or look down on marriage and it most certainly shouldn't be that Christians approach women from a perspective of being especially wicked. Despite all the good that Augustine did too, he was quite blind in many ways too, all men have blind spots, the best of men is men at best.
1
-
1
-
1
-
We all need times where we should not crunch or push ourselves to absolute brink so continuously, just regular youtube viewer but I agree on not pushing too hard and "lower the quality" for more occasions so you can have a better quality of life, being personal, simpler, or shorter isn't so bad, I am totally on board with slowing down on the higher cost videos, whatever is better for you TIK. I'm interested in what you have to say anyway, not much interested in battlestorm, but I watch almost everything else completely.
I would also bet that the length of your videos was definitely subtracting from your success, they're great, but Youtube is rarely receptive to content that's longer then 30-45 minutes, and even longer then that can be even worse, even though I love these long videos. I do wonder if you could cliffnotes them down and perhaps they'd be well more popular too, even uploading a cliffnotes version would probably get you a lot more success as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Yesunfortunately-r1x That's a strawman, as its not even remotely what was said. Its also not a matter of opinion, the fact of the matter is that socialism is inherently evil and decrepit, it comes from a depraved and envious mind, one that is driven to insanity and has never been reasonable, it has never produced good fruit and inherently cannot in accordance to reason because it violates the natural rights at the claim of "entitled rights" for which no one has. The only rights you are "owed" are those you have alone on an island. Socialism is inherent envy given as a political and economic principal to control others. Nobody owes you anything and you don't have the right to demand of anyone anything, to say otherwise is also irrational and foolish. If I owe someone something, it be because I volunteered that which I owe to another, if they owe me, it should only be because they volunteered it, regardless of why or how, in such what is owed is all that matters.
Your standard of good does not define another's standard of good, your standard of needs does not define another's standard of needs, what you have is what you shall have, what I have is what I shall have. Socialism inherently rejects this understanding and thus so too is it rationally invalid. TIK has presented arguments against socialism many times before, it is in these arguments that they have refused to refute (for those opposed have had no rational argument) I also state such things on.
1
-
@Yesunfortunately-r1x
""as it's not even remotely what I said"
"they're mentally ill, deranged""
Perhaps you should stop reading what you want out of things and quoting things out of context and perhaps you'd actually be able to devise an at least seemingly reasonable refutation. But this is not a refutation when you take things out of context.
"and if Socialism is so evil and cruel, then so is democracy."
Who said it was a moral good? Not I, this is an assumptive position foremost, one that is also trying to perform false associations. And my position on democracy doesn't matter because it had no relevance to topic, this is a fallacy of irrelevance and guilt by association.
"Because Socialism doesn't encourage labor camps or genocide,"
Actually it does because it robs individualism from the individual to suit the needs of the collective which inherently means it must violate the rights of the individual to justify its authority over the collective. This includes genocide and enslavement of the innocent for they will suit the needs of the collective at the cost of their individual rights, thus individuals pay the price in accordance to what the leaders of the collective deem is necessary.
"yet there were men like Stalin and Pol Pot,"
Socialism is founded in the principal of the abolishment of private property and the development of public property for the sake of the collective, private property is a right of the individual, all other rights are also forfeit for the sake of the collective for nothing is more important then the needs of the collective, which is at the cost of the individual. This is not determined by the individual whose rights are being robbed, thus even his life shall be forfeit for even his life is worth less then the needs of the collective. Hence why socialism always kills individuals to suit its collective needs and goals.
"just like democracy doesn't encourage hate and rigging elections,"
Hatred is part of the nature of the human design, that's an incomparable fallacy. Rigging elections is a product of the human condition for the seeking of absolute power via corruption which by itself may not even be a moral quandary. Genocide and labor camps are not a natural result of human condition and require a condition of power, humans cannot perform genocide nor labor camps without immense power, most especially political, which socialism inherently requires absolutely alongside its destruction of individuals. As well genocide and labor camps (as in enslavement of the innocent) are violations of moral standards, hatred and election rigging are not inherent violations of morality.
"yet there was hitler who almost became president with democracy"
I don't really care either way, I don't care about democracy and neither do I believe in it anyway, so I wouldn't defend it if your claims even held any water in the first place. (but because it relies on incomparables it is inherently invalid either way)
"in the first election he and the NAZI party ran in and the U.S that rigged Latin American elections for decades and smashed those who went against their Conservative view"
I don't know why you assume we don't know this stuff, like you don't need to explain it, we know about it, the simple fact is that its irrelevant to the point, its intentional deflections to prevent actually answering the arguments and presenting even more faulty logic, its a form of bait and switch, funniest thing is I don't even care because I don't care about democracy in the first place and would never defend it anyhow.
1
-
@Yesunfortunately-r1x
"to say that the anti-private property stance of socialism calls for genocide and human rights violations"
That is not what was said. Getting rid of property rights is a violation of individual rights which a collective system must always do, how they do this is not specifically called but it will always happen and shall eventually lead to violations of the rights of men. You cannot recognize rights as an individual principal if you collectivize a society for rights then are not individual and thus any individual must be sacrificed for the needs of the collective. Whether you can actually understand this basic fact doesn't matter to me.
"is completely preposterous because in no way does that link together nor did Karl Marx say that's how it should go down."
Men are liars and thieves, what a man says is not what reality is, what happens and what is rational is what is true and for this we know that what a man may say may be true. The fruits of a man's philosophy describe the truth of the man's heart and thus demonstrates who he really is. If a man speaks not by his own authority but the authority beyond him then it is true, but he who speaks on his authority seeks his own glory and does not speak by truth. Marx was not a moral figure to observe and the fruits of his labor were naught but evil, there is no value in what he has said, for reason was opposed to him.
"Also you can't insult someone for their views"
I can for I do not care for immoral and illogical views and an insult is not a violation of truth and reason. I am not obligated to change your mind and neither am I capable to save you from yourself, you have been given the warning, you shall suffer the consequences of your heart yourself, I can only demonstrate what is in your heart and the fruits of your labors.
"and then say "Oh YoU tOoK iT oUt Of CoNtExT" but then continue to flame them for their views."
Call it flaming all you want but you don't bother to refute, you decide instead to deflect. You did take my words out of context because had you actually used the context, it would have made your claims unsustainable.
"Basically, you don't have an actual argument to call Socialism evil,"
I have many and I've presented some already to you, you have seen a lot more but you're indoctrinated and ignorant of truth for you have enslaved yourself to your ideology. Instead of seeking truth, you worship a god of your own making who declares to you what is right and wrong, what is true and false. You have made your own god to suit your evil heart. But I do not care for your idol of foolishness, for it does naught but delude and destroy. I do not seek to worship a man, nor do I seek to worship a fool, only truth is worthy of worship, and truth is reflected in only what is good, righteous, and brings about light. The fruits of the labor speak the truth, and thus shall our works present a light.
"and everything else you said in your response does not back your argument up either"
You didn't refute what I said and you declared many fallacies, your arguments were entirely invalid.
1
-
@Yesunfortunately-r1x
"saying that it would always lead to breaking human rights is like saying "I knew someone who was Macedonian, he got hit by a bus" as if it was because he was Macedonian."
This demonstrates your blindness and ignorance. Its a requirement that rights be violated for the sake of a collective, you cannot collectivize a society without violating rights because you are inherently violating even the very concept of an individual for which all rights are a part of, you inherently despise the concept of the individual in order to collectivize, socialism is a collectivization of a society, it requires the taking of rights in order to exist.
"If Karl Marx didn't say or hint towards violating human rights it is not his or Socialism's fault what happens."
Marx is not and never was a god. He was never omniscient. Stop worshiping him. His name is worthless, truth is all that matters. If you only care about the names and philosophies of the ideologies you worship, your ideas are worthless, for there is nothing in you, no idea you have will be reflective of the truth.
"Again, you're an idiot,"
I never cared what a fool thinks of me. Especially when who I am has nothing to do with my arguments so I feel nothing for this either way. In fact I would be quite happy to be despised by those who subscribe to evil for it shows that in the least I am not well liked by evil, that a light is being shown upon the wicked, and thus what I say must be speaking some element of truth.
"and just because you say you provided many arguments as to why Socialism is bad doesn't make them any less idiotic"
Calling said arguments idiotic is not a refutation, you intentionally avoid even addressing them, that instead suggests that you fear a wrongful conclusion according to your ideology. If they were truly poor arguments, they would've been easy to refute, you would've be delighted to hear them for they make light of truth and demonstrate a better argument. But you have gotten angry and called me names in order to undermine the arguments made, not in presentation of arguments made or in supplement to arguments made, but in order to undermine arguments made, that is also an ad hominem.
1
-
@Yesunfortunately-r1x
"a collective society isn't a human rights violation, because surprise surprise, just because you finally see something different that doesn't mean it's a sin"
This is irrelevant.
"just because everyone works for the greater good of their society rather than fuck over everyone else."
How do you define greater good? Who defines this? What makes up the greater good? By what authority does anyone have the right to say this? And how does it "fuck over everyone else"? You are required to demonstrate these claims by logic, not by anecdote, and for which you didn't even have.
"I don't think Karl Marx is a God nor have I ever said this,"
You treat his words as gospel and as if they are truth and right without question. If you do not question the words of any philosophy and names you subscribe to, if you do not contain any deviations in argumentation, or understanding in defense in argumentation, (which is called apologetics) you make yourself a liar to say you do not worship a man when you trust his words without question, he who just as worthless a man as we are.
"which shows how you think other people's opinions are wrong all just because they're different"
Assumptive position, I don't care what you label me as, its completely irrelevant, my character was never on the line, it does not change what I say nor the truth I speak. Truth is evident without man. Its foolish to attribute one's arguments in accordance to one's character. (in fact its fallacious, as in logically invalid)
1
-
@Yesunfortunately-r1x
"it kind of is"
No it is not.
"the greater good is a society where people work together rather than work for some corporation that takes water or oil out of Africa (hence fucking over others)"
This is not a definition nor an argument, this is an emotional plea. You are just begging for sympathy points, but this is a fallacy so its logically invalid. You still cannot define it because it does not exist.
"there you go again with the whole "my opinion right, you wrong" bs where you turn someone's argument into something else,"
I'm quoting you directly and fully and directly addressing each point you make. How can I be turning any argument into something else?
"also I never quoted Karl Marx"
"nor did Karl Marx say that's how it should go down."
The requirement for this to be a valid argument is Karl Marx being omniscient, he must be a god, the only reason you'd assume this so is if you worshiped Karl Marx, else-wise its incapable to even be a decent fallacy because there is no way Marx as person has any value to any argument, what he said is worthless unless he is such. The only way for you to think that is if you think such.
"or mentioned anything he has ever said"
Well that's a lie because you directly exclaimed that socialism must be defined only by what Karl Marx would've defined as socialism, not that you can even define specifically what he would've defined it by, its what you think he would've defined it by, which is both irrelevant and your opinion, not objective fact.
"so sorry not sorry"
Arrogance and pride, they are not good things.
"if the mere mention of the creator of a different viewpoint is too much for you to handle"
He who makes a philosophy is irrelevant to validity of the philosophy. The outcomes of a philosophy speak to the heart of the philosophy and those who follow it, regardless of what those who follow it say, the fruits it bears is the only thing that matters to reason, for they are a result of the principals of the philosophy running according to its axioms. What one says about either of these is irrelevant, what happens is all that matters. What someone sought to achieve is irrelevant except to convict them of worse crime then those they have already committed.
1
-
1
-
My issue with Objectivism is a moralistic one, its great that it appears to help you (and I can't really say whether its a cult in the fanatic sense , mayhaps just be those are the internet weirdos) but I find, aside from Ayn Rand's permitance of government interventionism and her opposition to Noblesse Oblige, that her moral framework fails to address ego and accosts the Christian foundation that it is in part built upon. There is no Objectivism except for what has been first founded in a Christian moral framework. A Christian has a hierarchy of responsibility that is completely voluntary, the self then the nuclear family then the larger family then the friends then the neighborhood then the community then the region then the nation, so on and so forth. One should not be expected to sacrifice beyond their means and especially not put themselves in the dirt for little gain. Anyone who sees their acts of altruism as an obligation will be condemned just the same, if you do not wish to perform such acts, don't. That should just as well apply to those who aren't Christians but it is advice from a Christian. Do righteousness as desired, oppose your own wickedness regardless of desire, that's all I'd advise of you. Rest and heal so that you may fulfill your purpose. It is part Torah for man to do "no work" one a week, man is given his time to work and his time to rest, being of a healthy mind is knowing when the right time for either is. Prayer also services well this time of rest, but that's because its deepening the relationship with God. Anyway hope for the best, I disagree with you a lot more often as of late and I find you make categorical mistakes regularly now but I definitely got profit out of what you said and have been grateful to the things you've discovered. I hope the best for you and that when you do return to videos you'll be excited and temper yourself from pushing too much.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@romany8125
"I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil." - Romans 16:17-19
"But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men." - 2 Timothy 3:1-9
"Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." - Philippians 2:4
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@benholroyd5221
"That's my point. You are always going to get unexpected shocks, no matter how resilient or perfect the economy is, eventually one of those will tip the economy over the edge."
This is an erroneous argument tho, a bust isn't just an downturn on the economy. You can't just apply terms that have similar enough meaning if they don't apply semantically, especially in scope. Also it doesn't tip the economy, the economy succeeds on its own despite the intervention in it, its self-correcting, "shocks" don't change that, instead they reveal the lies and holes that propped up the systems that don't work. It shines light on the infection of the system, not damages it, now that its visible it would be easier to clean if everyone wasn't so lazy and cowardly.
"Things tended to move slower in ye olden days"
They really don't, economies don't move slower as you go back in time, they decrease in scope, an economy in Rome for example wasn't consolidated and outside of the Roman government and infrastructure, (which mostly relied on specific massive cohesive economies to transfer its finances through) all economic systems were local. This applies to all economies regarding logistics beyond capable interactions, economies are fast and capable, they act independently. The same applies to market crashes, first off stock market crashes don't actually expand that far into the economy, everyone makes a bigger deal about them then they actually are, they most specifically don't even tend to effect small and intermediate businesses, especially when we talk about recessions, as explained in the video many private non-industrial businesses tend to make out better in a recession. The people who pay are the industrial businesses and employees and those who pay into the fear. (who are already partway stealing money via the government anyway)
"so I have no problem believing that a recession could last 50?"
I do because that never happened before and the first time it happened was only when the government stuck its hand into the businesses and destroyed the market, (keeping it down for decades) it took less then 2 years for the economy to recover from the 1921 economy, and the government wasn't even going full laissez-faire. Two years from the worst economy ever seen to the best. The next time it happened the government went full in and it lasted just over 15 years, and even then multiple other economies with less regulation made out better in a shorter time. And every time a recession hits its the same thing.
"Fall of Rome?"
The fall of Rome wasn't an economic failure, it was a socio-political one, it was corrupted and even then for near two centuries most people outside of the city didn't even notice, the economy most certainly didn't take a hit, it operated how it always had, they just had less regulative measures and less taxes going towards a large central government. (instead you had small dukes, kings, and counts which required way less money and couldn't enforce economic policy at all, least not before Charlemagne, and even then it was still less regulated then Rome) The economies didn't even really shrink since they were always local in the first place, as a result the only change was taxation and rules. (which in the end was better for the peasant folk anyway, even the merchants had it pretty good during the Medieval Era most of the time) I wouldn't even really call the Fall a downturn economically, let alone anything beyond that.
"I picked the example out of my arse, I have no reason to believe the trajectory was straight down though. Its going to be bumpy, some good decades, with a sudden Visigoth invasion undoing all that and some."
Yeah it really doesn't apply, historically the Fall of Rome is a retroactive thing, barely anybody noticed it at the time and it wasn't until centuries later when kingdoms started doing things even more independently did anyone consider that they were no longer part of the empire. This is why the Pope and Charlemagne formed the Carolingian Empire. (called the first Holy Roman Empire after the Roman Empire, despite the fact Byzantium called itself the Roman Empire, which it was generally treated as for another century or so outside of the HRE)
But no it didn't undo most economic progress because it was majorly local and they didn't actually raid most of the Empire, only its capital and part of Lombardy. (which they took as the Kings of Lombardy funny enough)
1
-
@benholroyd5221
First off nobody refers to boom and bust as just general periods of economic growth and decline, (that's fundamentally wrong because its so nonspecific it might as well describe nothing) when you are using those terms you are referring to a period of economic growth and reduction found mostly in the 1900s, its not centuries long, and generally doesn't apply to nations without a central bank. (or some other centralized economic authority, which in most cases before 1830 never really existed) It does not apply to a period of economic growth over a period of half centuries or longer and or collapse or reduction afterwards, (which isn't really how it worked anyway) in fact that rarely ever happened in a noticeable form, economies weren't nearly that volatile and they did not generally collapse or go into recession. (least how we think of it, plenty of locals in a economic region would starve from crop harm and livestock death or such, that's about the worst economic situation and it was always localized outside of a pandemic, there was no such thing as an economic collapse or bust period without the massive logistics we carried from the 1800s on)
"What would you describe as an economic system in Roman times v today?"
All economic systems are just a collaboration of smaller economic systems going down to the bottom, like feudal Lords reaching down onto the household of each individual. (generally the economic factors breakdown a good bit when you try to apply them directly to individuals, this is where psychology is required and it changes how we perceive the environment) The less logistically capable a society is the more limited this stays, so instead of getting a Mediterranean sized economy during the eras of Rome, you got town/city localized economies mostly (with very few cases of any higher integrated interactions) which practically completely ignorant of all other economies surrounding them. As logistic capability rises, so too does the ability to integrate small economic systems into a larger one, so far we recognize that an economic system can be as big as the EU, (most nations however keep it to nation, not pan-national or international) so we currently don't know the limits of current logistics, however what can be said is that there is one, I would suggest with current globalization we probably aren't capable of a hypothesized pan-planetary economy, so planets are the current logistical limit. That is to say if we could reach other planets.
"My example still works. Londonium was one day part of the Roman empire, the Romans withdrew and Londonium experienced a contraction because of that. And is was quicker than the Fall of Rome."
It really doesn't, the Romans living there did not withdrawal, for the most part they assimilated, by that point the Romans that weren't living there were already gone, the Fall of Rome itself did not effect London and for the most part they did not know about the Fall of Rome nor did they really care. And that aside most of London's economy was still local, even more so then most of the continent actually, being so independent they barely had regard for the Empire. In most ways the area the Empire covered was more projection then control.
"When I said move slower I mean thing like spices and silk on the silk road might take years to reach us, and technological advances might take centuries."
This is wrong, those trades aren't part of a local economy and are nowhere near as economically significant as nor to local economies. It also wasn't the a representative of economic strength nor as an aspect of the majority of economic systems. (or really most of them, it was a select group of people, usually already wealthy and powerful people, who were involved in that economic system at all) The silk road is comparable more to the stock market, which is a completely separate economic system and generally operates in a complete disregard to most other economic systems. (not all mind you but tanking most economies would barely see a dent in the silk road and tanking the silk road would see no effect in most economies, you need to tank very specific, practically monopoly sized, powers to have seen massive impact, same as the stock market today) Using the silk road as an example of an economy is honestly a faulty starting point, you need to understand the bottom of the economic connections and where they go up to, trade at the size of nations and larger did not represent an economy regarding the size of the trade routes. (trade at that size generally had minimal impact on local economies tbh, even now they don't make up even a large segment of the economy in most cases)
"Today we can transport anything anywhere in a matter of weeks, money and communication travel at the speed of light."
However we don't have pan-national economies outside the EU, and no global economy because of logistic difficulty dealing with national interests. Trade may contribute a large part to more localized economic functions, it does not in itself represent an aspect of the economy, instead its at best an attachment to it. (excepting the cases where some aspect of an economy becomes reliant on that trade, but that's industry specific, not economy wide, so its debatable if that's really the case)
"In 70 years we've gone from room sized computers, to networked super computers in our pocket, able to instantly access the worlds knowledge. Able to instantly communicate our ideas to the world. This message could potentially be read by billions of people! 50 years ago that was something only world leaders could expect, 100 years ago no one could."
This is kinda pointless to point out, the basics of economics and logistics don't change from this, especially when a computer is still incapable of things like reading and understanding general law. (which it can't do on its own thus one of the reasons nations are localized economies still) When you intentionally limit economic integration, you're gonna keep the economies disjointed and disconnected, our economies haven't grown into each other still, (in a sense we've been logistically sitting at the Victorian Era for a while now because we're still partly running on Victorian political economics) they're probably not gonna change for a while. (least without a one world government or dissolution of nations, which btw I oppose)
"Re 1929 and 1921 crashes. In 29 private parties attempted to step in, it didn't work. Whitney with some bankers attempted it, and the Rockefeller's also tried stepping in. The government had to step in because of the size. The 29 crash led to the Glass steagall act. Note how there weren't any of these massive banking crashes until after Glass Steagall was neutered. The regulation worked!"
So the government just took over the failure of the banks and failed for another 12 years. You do realize that proves my point right? The banks failed to fix the economy for 4 years, then the government decided to step in and ended up failing for 12. They kept the economy broken until 1945 when it finally recovered. Compare to 1921 where it recovered in from the same problems in 18 months with practically no government intervention. Given how often government intervention in the economy doesn't work because politicians and bureaucrats don't understand basic economics, (especially when politics operates in the exact opposite manner of economics) it makes me even question why anyone would think giving economic control to a government would make any sense, they don't have obligations to the economy, they barely suffer if it goes bad. (if they even suffer that is)
1
-
I agree with the conception that race doesn't really exist in a sense, though I disagree that there aren't clear lines of ethnicity to a certain respect. Obviously there is no case of pure ethnicity, all men are spawned from the same man and woman, there is no separation between men of different societies in the sense of being differently human, however the genetics of different non-pure ethnicities do come into play in some cases, most especially in the medical field and to a certain respect sociological and perhaps even possibly the psychological field. Human genetics does, to a certain extent, determine individuals to such a degree that it does effect social and psychological interactions and health consequences, to what degree is that true we don't know and probably never will, but this is the classic nurture vs. nature debate. Like for example, African-origin folks (who are usually black, but granted such genetics may not be reflected in skin tone) do have genetic advantages in building better muscle and being more physically capable while having some intelligent disadvantages compared to some of the other non-African ethnicities. I would probably argue the layman shouldn't bother to recognize this most of the time because of the division issue, people try to find issues to divide themselves on naturally, its human nature, but at least recognizing some genetics do have strict or clear advantages over others in specific tasks that are reflected on a general scale that appears in correlation with things like physical appearance is not something delusion or socially constructed. While conceptions of race that we have now are beyond any truth for they were devised principally as the best known genetic indicator in the late 1800s and early 1900s when nobody had any knowledge or education, it is best to be cautious with such things as this else the same problem will repeat itself again and stick around for generations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JoaoVitor-wp9zg The appeal to tradition is a fallacy, God is not fallacious and does not agree with fallacy. What does the Scriptures say? Or are they not the Word of God? Well in that case you cannot believe in Jesus because He said that all of the Scriptures are God breathed as His Disciples also said, in which you'd make Him a liar and thus not God, for God cannot lie.
So is John the Baptist a Gnostic? How about James? How about Paul? What about John the Apostle? Or what about Isaiah and Daniel? Was Moses? Tell me, what is a Gnostic then? And how is Augustine and Origen then not a Gnostic according to your claims? Have you not read Colossians? What about Romans? What about 1 and 2 Corinthians? What about 1 John or 1 Timothy? The practices of the Catholic Church are addressed directly by Paul and John constantly and so does Acts, yet to ignore when it forbids asceticism and monastery behavior, we are not to become monks and we are called to partake in marriage for our own sakes, and any religion which forbids this to be considered holy is blaspheming God and refuses the Scriptures. Read Colossians 2:18-19 again. He who worships saints and angels so till will be disqualified for refusing God. If you cannot trust the Scriptures before any church, you cannot receive the Scriptures. For when a church describes foremost what God says, it is not by the Holy Spirit and is instead by man's wisdom, and you are thus deceived. For God brought us faith by the Holy Spirit and He gave us wisdom by the Holy Spirit, but those who trust in men to give it to them, they do not receive the Holy Spirit. Peter was but a man, no more distinct to the truth that God gave Him then even a Gentile, for even he called himself another man like a Gentile and nothing more. But all who live in pride and arrogance, who make themselves an authority, they are condemned by God. No man is an authority over God, there is no intercession between God and man that is not Himself God, only Jesus as the Christ, there is no other. One who calls themselves Alter Christus themselves cannot be in Christ, for there is no other to Christ, man cannot be Christ and Christ does not share His glory with man and neither shall you represent man to Christ nor Christ to man, it is Christ or Chaos.
1
-
1
-
1