Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. There is a difference between early and late Lutheran faith by the way, early Lutherans were responsible for the Protestant development of individualism, but after Luther died most Lutherean sects either went off the rails and became violent and angry or opened up to worldly acceptance and adopted worldly outlooks, unlike the Reformed mindset which least until the 1840s completely outright rejected worldly adoptions of any kind.
    2
  2.  @OthorgonalOctroon  There isn't a single scholar of antiquity history that doesn't see Creating Christ as anything but a scam. Also Bart Ehrman isn't a Christian, he also rejects miracles, and so do his associates, but at least with this he is absolutely correct.
    2
  3.  @OthorgonalOctroon  That's not unique to Bart, literally anyone that studies actual history regarding Christianity and antiquity would call you an idiot if you don't. There is literally no other historical accounts in history before at least the mid to late medieval period that are more reliable then the New Testament accounts, we have more historical documentation closer to the events then Homer, Plato, Aristotle, and Caesar combined and none of that would even be a 1/10th of the Biblical history documentation. (and none of them are written even within 200 years of the events, the New Testament is found to be within 70, meaning within the lifetime of the people)
    2
  4.  @chico9805  That's not what Scripture says.
    2
  5. The amount of Catholics who keep trying to accuse Calvinism as a problem over this is disappointing yet unsurprising.
    2
  6.  @ctrlaltdebug  Its an old existing definition that's well understood by the layman, its not like you can't say "coercive state" but when you define a "state" by what the layman would call a "coercive state" you are just poisoning the well for them to understand. There is nothing about this that says you can't communicate well, its not reassigning words, if anything that's what the ancaps are (likely unintentionally) doing.
    2
  7.  @romany8125  Is that what we're targeting as altruism? Cause in that case Christianity would call that narcissism, not altruism.
    2
  8.  @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
  9. Peace doesn't work against socialism.
    2
  10.  @Edax_Royeaux  So is the Military-Industrial Complex not profitable? Why are they doing it then?
    2
  11.  @Edax_Royeaux  But they don't, they aren't reliant on the function of an economy otherwise socialistic systems don't work at all, (not just fail to to what they claim or work for a time, I mean there is no way they could exist) if a government can take control of an economy then its not reliant upon the function of the economy to exist or work. If it can restructure the economy, then the economy is not its dependence, which even the US economy clearly demonstrates.
    2
  12. ​​ @Edax_Royeaux  The way I phrased that is a bit off, but the intent of the message was not to say the economy does not exist, but that the government is not reliant upon the economy to exist, the subject of "to exist or work" is not the economy but the government, I didn't include punctuation so its a bit wonky, however it should be pointed had I meant to say it in the way you interpreted the phrasing, the point of the statement wouldn't have been the existence of the economy, but that regardless of its existence or function, the government would carry out its capability. In either case I did not make a point of a non-existent economy being actively controlled by a government.
    2
  13.  @martiendejong8857  Then they wouldn't die.
    1
  14. "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
  15. 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 Christian, 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.
    1
  16. 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
  17. To be fair many of them could be delusional and those other traits, or even specifically using those traits to be delusion, say a lie long enough and constant enough and you do eventually believe it.
    1
  18.  @Michael-Archonaeus  Jesus taught self-defense in Luke 22 and it is explicitly described in the Levitical Law that Jesus affirmed. Also Paul never thought the world's end was imminent, there were some disciples that had such an idea, but Paul admonishes that thought in Scripture.
    1
  19.  @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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22.  @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
  23.  @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
  24.  @pepedon1924  "the government does not have complete control on the economy" If they can shutdown and startup the means of production, they own the production and are a socialist economy. All mixed economics require control over the start and end of the means of production. "certain regulatory measures and practices on thier law that benefits both the workers, the state and the private businesses." How does one know this? "As a matter of fact, If the nation's economy practices "free market" then it lean towards the spectrum of capitalism" What is a free market?
    1
  25. 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
  26.  @OthorgonalOctroon  That's not unique to Bart, literally anyone that studies actual history regarding Christianity and antiquity would call you an idiot if you don't. There is literally no other historical accounts in history that are more reliable then the New Testament accounts, we have more historical documentation closer to the events then Homer, Plato, Aristotle, and Caesar combined and none of that would even be a 1/10th of the Biblical history documentation we, it doesn't even come close, combined all while being written in a range of less than 70 years of the events. You literally won't be able to find anyone who actually studies Christian history that doesn't affirm an integrity of some sort.
    1
  27. Augustine was a lot more influenced by Paul then he ever was of Plato, and Aquinas had a lot more issues with how he addressed reason and logic, but otherwise pretty alright, Ayn Rand is a big jerk though cause she still held the belief that serving others was inherently immoral.
    1
  28. A lot of people also forget about private charity and private advantage too, you could feasibly make a product or service for which does not intend to receive profit for its own reasons.
    1
  29. The point of Marx was that any "Jewish religion" (as in any religion based on what he saw as Judaism) is heathenry to the Socialist religion, he was advocating the Jews (and those of the "Jewish religions") to abandon their religion and adopt the Marxist religion , and if they did not they should be exterminated. Its quite interesting how often the atheist religions adopt more heavy handed inquisitions then the Catholic church ever did.
    1
  30. Just because it may be decentralized in the sense of being multiple institutions doesn't guarantee that (even as you imply such) and in such cases that voluntary association would still be functionally a common man's state institution, even the patchwork of institutions might still rightly be considered that. This is kind of an issue with using definitions that aren't even from a native English tongue. As well it kinda seems like most "ancaps" don't put much time actually communicating to non-"ancaps" outside of oppositional forces at best, in which they just accept the principal of "they wouldn't understand our definitions anyway", it should not take a common man a decade of reading to understand your arguments, most of them are simple and just full of overcomplication.
    1
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33.  @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
  34.  @augustuskeller7214  God is sovereign over such things, (Genesis 50:20) and all evil itself serves a purpose by God's hand, if the child is elect then the child will receive all that's necessary to overcome in Christ, and He will give wisdom to know these things with our humble submission, but as for the Godless, these things will be made known even in their conscience, but they are condemned for their refusal of God, comfort cannot be received by those who do not desire it.
    1
  35. 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
  36.  @Jeremy-yp8eh  A lot of German philosophy tends to be rife with insanity that makes you think you're the nutcase when its the damn Germans doing weird things again,
    1
  37. While I do say that "anarcho-capitalism" would be preferable to what we have, I'm a libertarian/minarchist monarchist, referring to a leadership whose only authority and thus power is to preserve (not protect) the innocent and punish the wicked, nothing more, nothing less.
    1
  38. 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
  39.  @robertmichel9904  Political theory is useless to the common man.
    1
  40.  @ctrlaltdebug  There is no common dictionary that defines "state" by coercion. (and neither does any common man refer to a state by using the term coercion, it is an insular concept invented out of nowhere by someone who didn't bother to actually read a dictionary) And none of the elements of a state requires it either. People really seem to confuse the average means of a result with the term which is a fallacy problem, you don't define things by its mean.
    1
  41. You know its quote interesting when they say everyone is born equal but upon any actual demonstration of that they must immediately drop it and call both success of efforts and failure by most metrics madness. You don't get to play the double standard unless you're a liar.
    1
  42.  @Yesunfortunately-r1x  What?
    1
  43.  @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
  44.  @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
  45.  @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
  46.  @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
  47.  @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
  48.  @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
  49. TIK, I'm just gonna point out, as someone experienced in the debate over the realm of consciousness and free will as a Reformed (as in Calvinist) Christian (which means I argue from a Double Predestination position) your address against fatalism (the belief in a predetermined reality) is poor, individualism and fatalism are not philosophically at odds themselves, and the capacity for the changing of one's mind does not exclude divergence from a previous belief, proving the capacity for change doesn't really prove anything as you can simply argue that such change itself was also predetermined to happen, that reality itself was fixed in such a way that any change was itself fixed too. It actually is quite difficult to refute fatalism generically as what you're arguing against is presuppositions they hold about reality and not inherently coherent positions. (nor do they have to be in their own mind) In order to disprove fatalism you'd need to demonstrate a violation of the religious precepts that they have to adhere to. Course a more effective measure is to perform an apologetic from a superior moral position, but since you can't do that since you don't have such, the best argument you can make is to prove hypocrisy within their fatalist belief.
    1
  50. 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