General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

George Albany
MentisWave
comments

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

One of my favorite things was how Queen Victoria called feminism one of the most toxic things that could be done to women.
76
It probably has to do with the fact that they're more independent thinkers and don't fall in line all that well, might also have to do with them having some more of the masculine traits that make them more disagreeable and more critical of stupidity.
65
That would explain why its rules for thee but not for me in both cases.
46
Women in the workforce have also provably driven down wages, so not only have they risen the operating costs of businesses, and even worse is that none of this even fixes the issue of women being abused in the marketplace and dressing themselves up to falsely attract men giving most men they run into the wrong impression of what they're doing. (or at minimum giving them the wrong conscious impression, subconsciously many are almost certainly doing it for a reason) There's also plenty of polygamous hypergamists who are screwed in this system by their inability to control themselves.
43
That doesn't help much, that's kinda throwing yourself under the bus just so they can't do it, kinda just shooting yourself in the foot there.
25
@whitewizard7514 It ain't even all that good, its only slight more right of Trump's agenda.
24
@Cowboycomando54 damn so close...
23
@MentisWave Soft bigotry of low expectations
20
@aerfwefd7334 Don't you mean the Golden Calf, watch your tongue Moses.
19
Funniest thing is that Hitler was a progressive left wing socialist, people just forget that the progressive ideology inherently leads to eugenic solutions, which was completely indistinguishable from what the Soviet Union did, even its economies operated 90% the same. Hitler even started his political life as a radical communist.
18
Honestly I'm not entirely sure on my position of protectionism because the arguments for and against it are pretty much down to two contrasts. I will say that Jefferson demonstrated that tariffs alone can fund a government without taxes, and I would agree with unfair trade deals against nations that don't share our values, China being the biggest case, free trade for those who agree with our ideals, extremely unfair trade deals for those that don't
14
@shreenybeany1751 No that was actually false propaganda, if you're talking about the cop they claim had a seizure, foremost there is no record of him getting hurt and neither did he even die from it.
13
@atomicTurtle000 Actually Lincoln told the South that Fort Sumter would be de-armed and relinquished to them only for him to expand the troops and weaponry of the fort, (numerous politicians, including those on his side, have written letters and make note of him intentionally instigating the fight with this and saying that he'll win by making them fire first and trying to appear as the victim) this is the exact same instigation for military conflict Britain had in the Revolutionary War, so by that claim the United States had no justification to rebel against Great Britain.
12
@dannysummers4591 Blame dimorphism
12
Its because insurance doesn't have to compete, thus the supply being artificially limited ensures it will remain expensive, and that's before we consider all the other government intervention problems with it.
10
@lainiwakura1776 Its not implying, its a statistical and logical fact, the more people in the workforce, the cheaper labor becomes, driving labor value down. Women functionally doubled the workforce labor thus cutting a significant portion of wages.
9
Just like his common DNC platform that he peddles.
9
This is still self-refuting, the only justified position is removal of the self then.
9
@raktimamchiforthe4thtime445 But your personal argument is still inherently illogical unless you wish removal of the self. When you rely on suffering as your justification, that inherently still applies to you, hence you can't use utilitarian arguments.
8
@raktimamchiforthe4thtime445 It being a personal argument doesn't preclude it from being illogical, its simply a poor justification, regardless of where you take it if you don't take an argument to its logical conclusion you can't be logically coherent nor logically consistent. This aside whether something wants to exist or not is a nonsense argumentation because consent and voluntary choice are themselves irrelevant principals for any philosophy, even utilitarian philosophy doesn't care about it, and the only philosophy that does recognize it is true hedonism and that only applies to the self and is a subjective philosophy that ignores everyone else. Unless your argument is that you must only ever do as you wish there is no rational argument that consent and voluntary choice matter. There is no reason to have the presupposition of consent and voluntary choice unless value is determined which requires existent and an objective morality anyway, and even then neither case inherently justifies any position you could take, only that it influences your behavior.
8
Blame the Premillennial Dispensationalism heresy.
7
@rogerkeleshian2215 450 AD was peak.
7
Hopefully he's only being moderate as a facade and he'll be more radical once he's in since he doesn't have to worry about a third term.
7
@atomicTurtle000 "So, they were armed in case the fort or the supply ships were attacked." You do realize this alone is an act of war right? This progression of acts was responsible for both preceding wars with Great Britain. You literally proved exactly what I said. And those provisions were not just foods.
6
And dementia.
5
@atomicTurtle000 "Mr Lincoln told newspapers for three weeks that Sumter was to be abandoned, now Mr Lincoln has found a way to author a civil war without appearing its aggressor" - Providence Daily Post
5
@joger3562 "Your like disregarding ethical concerns especially with what the british let happen with the colonies they had control over especially in india." That was mostly neglect from the home country, Britain was extremely hands off on their colonies so whatever governor you got decided that, like most African governors greatly improved the life, same to the Caribbean governors, but the Asian governors tended to be the least considered. "40 for men and 42 for women." Now that's either bad faith or ignorant, the only reason life expectancy has ever been that low was because of child mortality, and there is literally no way to solve that without antibiotics, that's literally the only thing that changed it, there is literally no ideology that could've fixed that. Once you remove child morality, their life expectancy in the British Isles was higher then what we have in the west today. (only Japan and Korea tend to be higher) "Being "rugged thin" doesnt indicate good health and often victorians were constantly exposed to toxic substances." Only when you refer to the elite, the rest could not tend to afford such things, and we still do that now, radiation and microplastics are actually potentially worse then lead and mercury because both can lead to genetic degeneration, whereas lead and mercury don't. And that aside ingesting mercury isn't actually toxic, smelling mercury is. (because its the fumes of mercury that's toxic, you can't absorb mercury through the stomach because the particles are actually too large to diffuse through your blood system and digestive system.
5
Competition in the market has proven over and over that it can and has already solved healthcare, in the 1920s, we had the lowest healthcare costs and the best healthcare in the world and there was nearly no government regulation involved, then they banned privately run insurances and community/neighborhood/charity fraternity societies that provided household healthcare, instituted legal limitations via the FDA, and legally limited the expansion of the healthcare market federally requiring that the only insurance that can exist has to be state approved. Immediately healthcare access fell and healthcare costs jumped to making it one of the more expensive ones, and then between the 70s and Obamacare, the price of our healthcare jumped again to be literally the most expensive in the world. Now we have a healthcare market that can't be held legally liable for harm and for which is the most expensive in the world without contest. (and you're not even remotely treated well, least you're not as likely to die I guess) I'm pretty sure MentisWave already addressed this issue directly, but even that aside the Mises Institute (and I believe even the Cato Institute) already addressed this and explained exactly how in detail regulations have spiked the prices to unfathomable degrees.
5
The funny part about Vaush is he has previously openly admitted that he doesn't believe in any concept of the objective nor that morality actually exists, he's openly stated he only really uses moral complaints to attack those he wants to consider his enemy. (course he said it in a more subtle way, but he pretty much openly admitted that on stream numerous times) Vaush has said he only really believes in power, and so everything he does is itself only done to pawn people into giving him power or taking power away from others. I have no idea if he even understands the implications of this crap, though I would doubt he does, funny part is that the logic of such a mindset would say you can't engage with reality at all and you don't even have the free will to operate in reality, but very few nihilists will ever get to that endpoint.
5
The coconut analogy doesn't even make rational sense because coconuts are not even a limited resource, they're a slowly replenishing resource, as well it presumes that there is only one resource on the island that could serve that purpose, its a dumb example because any island that could support coconuts also supports a feasibly infinite variable of other potential resources, some obvious and others less obvious or specialized, and even if the monopolist establishes his coconut monopoly there is still the inherent potential in the hypothetical for you to trade for the coconuts due to how alternative comparable resources can work and exist, monopolies aren't very useful with a small economy where nobody is cooperative, because it destroys long term continuation. Its a high time preference strategy and thus is inherently destructive, especially if you're in a desperate place, before we even consider the danger of violence itself.
5
@justanto Let me give you a simple reason why I don't care, subjective morality means there is no morality, thus your argument is literally worthless, (and I don't care how many appeals to emotions you make, doesn't make it a sound argument) if you think there is such thing as good while arguing against a single objective morality means you don't have one, its personal preference, which means the only thing that matters is your own personal self-centered egotistical narcissistic feelings, which means there is nothing wrong (and neither then is there anything right) because I don't care about your feelings. Perhaps you should actually read Friedrich Nietzsche for once. There is no value to you and thus I don't have to care because the only thing of value is the self which only applies to the self, ergo me and my own experiences. There also is nothing that gives you meaning or value which also means I can flippantly disregard everything about you and you have no argument against it, I have no idea if you're even a real existence, not a single word nor even your life has any worth in such a view. Course I believe in the only objective morality so I have a basis for value that can ignore everything you said, but you literally admitted you have no capacity to even argue for good.
5
That's just democracy in general, there isn't a single European country that doesn't have the same problem.
4
@atomicTurtle000 No, the fort was to be abandoned by the union, it shouldn't have been supplied for the soldiers were supposed to have left, they had no legal right to be there, I never edited my post to change anything, you're just a fool. You're the one moving the goalposts.
4
@atomicTurtle000 "Abstractly, it was enough that the Government was in the right. But to make the issue sure, [Lincoln] determined that in addition, the rebellion should be put in the wrong." - John Nicolay (Aide to President Lincoln)
4
@atomicTurtle000 "You and I both anticipated that the cause of country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result" - Abraham Lincoln (Letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1st 1861)
4
@atomicTurtle000 "Did he even ever say that to the Confederacy?" He told everyone this. "Regarding letter to Fox. Provision the fort = sending food. Like I said." Then why was the "provision" armed? Also what were the "results"? Why would Lincoln care about the "results" if the point was about "provisions"?
4
If you friends can't deal with truth and reasonableness at all with you, they're probably not actually friends, they're gaslighting you that they even care about you then.
4
@justanto What is moral? What defines morality?
4
@justanto You can't have a moral system that's relative, that just means all morality is preference, and thus there is no reason to care about you, logic inherently cannot exist, and neither can value. Sounds like you've never read Friedrich Nietzsche. "If you were born in ancient Rome you would think very different things about morality." No because Rome did believe in objective morality, they just believe their morality was objective, they purged what they perceived and called as atheists (which is why they had a negative disposition towards the Ancient Hebrews and especially the Christians before the 3rd century AD) because they believed you could not have any respect for law without a concept of objective morality, and they recognized that you can't have that without religion and a god of some sort. Numerous Roman writers and even Greek philosophers already addressed this problem. "This is exactly what I was talking about when I said you refuse to question the values society has given you." Except my morality was not determined by society, I already lived as a moral relativist and all it did was cause me pain and hurt the people around me because it made me a narcissist. Because the only person who matters in that view is yourself, its the only logical conclusion, until you reach the conclusion that nothing matters and you become either a hedonist or a nihilist. (which is what Nietzsche concluded too) Also there is no presuming they're objective, the fact you said that proves you don't understand what objective morality even means. Objective means the principals supersede the individual, how that happens is irrelevant, the simple the fact the rules I described apply to everyone and that it does not rely on a stupid individual like yourself, and neither anything within the definition of the material realm to define them makes them objective.
4
Actually its worse then just eating what they can find, its a ritual they've been doing for a long time, possibly even a century, investigating pre-August articles you'll find that it was widely reported that some Haitians did this for ritual reasons, not out of necessity.
3
@atomicTurtle000 That vindicates what I said, the fort was promised to be abandoned, it was not abandoned but was instead being pushed to be a threat, nothing about what you said contradicts what I said and even more it actually proves what I said correct. Unless the intent of your statement was to contradict the first part of what you said, in which case you added nothing to the conversation.
3
The rural education of the 1850s was probably the best we were ever gonna get and we squandered it, we were warned about the terrors of the coming evils of state schooling but nobody listened.
3
@mistersharpe4375 Not to mention anything you say at Vaush which proves a contradiction will never prove to be a contradiction in his mind because he doesn't even believe in the non-contradiction principal because he doesn't even believe in logic. Why the hell would you debate somebody with that mindset?
3
Dumbest part of this is how Jan 6th isn't even remotely the worst thing to happen in DC by "protestors" against government power and election within the past decade, most folks love to disregard the antifa arson that took place before it, where the sitting president and his family had to be rushed into a bunker while antifa attempted to burn down the capital, if any riot was an insurrection, that was it, and people like Cortez then should be kicked out of office for supporting that crap.
3
Its generally fairly evident that there is something beyond the observable in regards to human consciousness, there's always the nurture vs. nature thing, but that kinda misses the point that there is something beyond the predeterminined nature and the sculptable nature, which is what most competent philosophies and religions had already concluded. Calling someone responsible of anything requires some kind of disregard for the nurture vs. nature paradigm entirely, because if that were all anyone boiled down to then they're inherently incapable of taking responsibility for themselves, it requires an application of separate consciousness that chooses a reaction to both.
3
The funny thing is, as a Reformed (Calvinist) Christian that relies on presuppositional apologetics, the refutation basically results in telling them "you don't have any foundation to say what good is and your presuppositions are worthless and refute themselves", it becomes thus trivial to call them out for bullcrap and otherwise completely ignore them, I don't give any credence to them having any valid rationality behind them in such cases. But this only works if you understand what presuppositional apologetics is, you use this argument without understanding your own foundation and while some folks will fold, those with half a brain will actually assault your position and without a decent foundation, they will undermine your claims and make you look like the fool.
3
@a.39886 That's still utilitarian morality, which is invalid by literally all theological principals that aren't themselves nihilist, pleasure and pain do not define morality and you don't define morality by the amount of pain and pleasure you spread, the same applies to eternal punishment, your eternal punishment applies regardless of your attempt to "be moral" by this standard because its not a morality. It also doesn't fix the issue because those who are to be are predestined in the knowledge of God, they will be conceived whether you like them to or not, even if they are not given specifically to you, those who will be are known to God, it is not as if they do not exist before they are conceived, they were known before they were conceived, so even if the utilitarian claim could ignore the moral standard, its invalid by its own principal anyway and doesn't address its own claims, it only works by your own metric of knowledge, not by what God already has given.
3
@a.39886 "Why would you worship a god that send children to hell to experience eternal torture on hell because they were supposedly born with sin?" This is a completely irrelevant question, this does not impact my justification for worshiping God at all, the problem with this question is you presume I came to faith on the basis of this question or that it held relevance, but the relevance of this question only comes after we define a morality, not before it, and without God there is no morality for which I can define this even as bad, and in faith I then came to understand that foremost we are all born in sin, not because God decided anything, but because we decided to sin, God did not have us sin, He warned us of our sin, and further wrote this warning on our hearts, yet we rejected this and as well we reject Him. It is this choice that has condemned us. The children have been born into the same sin that despises God, but they could be born because God loved them enough to allow some to be born and to live. Those who lose their life will be assessed or judged in accordance with God's perfect judgement, and as He is perfect and defines the morality, that is by its very nature moral. I have no right to say to God "why have you done this thing" for who am I to say I defined morality? There is no universal nor objective morality unless He says unto me what it is. Your question becomes nonsense. "In your logic everything that god commands is moral if he order you to kill children, would you follow god`s order?" If I test the Spirit and it is from God, then I would listen to God, but the problem with this question is that God has expressly told us that any spirit that demands this is not His. There are cases where God has called His people to kill another wicked people, like the Israelites upon the Canaanites. This however is itself a quite specific and explicit command that God had given in a time that is no longer with us, so no longer are we instructed to uphold such a way. God grants us to act in peace since the coming of the Son, for we are not under the same obligation of the rituals and ceremony to be pure the same way that the Israelites were pure, as the Spirit is not set upon our hearts. This peace means He no longer will ever make such a demand, and it already never applied to specifically targeting children. So again this is a faulty question. "1) this God wasn`t forced to created anything he was all perfect didn`t need for one, he was complete by himself" That is not place for which He could give love and demonstrate glory, there was no justice nor peace, it was not that which God wished for, and so it Creation was made. "2) then this God know beforehand by creating he will make something he finds abominable (sin):" He did not create anything abominable, sin was not by His Hands, God had only made good things, but through free will evil entered Creation and by this free will corruption was given in the Fall by Original Sin. God did not make it this way, it was by His love and grace that it had to happen, for God so loved us that He allowed us to sin and yet still offered us salvation. It is our fault that we do not take it. God is just, and justice cannot punish a crime not yet committed, for then it is not a crime, all crimes that God punishes have already been committed. And these crimes were not his responsibility, the knowledge to an act does not make you responsible nor complicit in the act, especially when you know that the act must be done for good to take place. "3) Due to his will of creating something he doesn`t want most of his creation will be doomed to eternal suffering." Well foremost only man and the angels are capable of a will to be condemned, everything else mourns in this time for the Fall and will be restored like new in the New Heavens and New Earth, they have no moral value to say they are condemned and they will not eternally suffer. Now in focusing on man, men that are against God would not choose God and God intended not to choose them. They condemned themselves, God did not make them condemned, He judges them for their sin. "3) At the same time this God don`t want anyone to be in eternal pain, and free to not create and doesn`t need to create anyone." This is completely wrong, God does not take pleasure is the death of a sinner, but He is just and thus those condemned He desires to punish should they not be of the elect, because they refused Him. Again you presume a morality you have no right to hold. This utilitarian morality is irrelevant to God, God takes no regard of pleasure and suffering, in fact He willingly suffered the eternal condemnation for us, there is no morality related to either premise. "4) If this God would be real this God won`t create something in the first place... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" Your premise is faulty, you presume before God there exists a utilitarian morality, which is nonsense which God comes first before morality. There is no morality before God and morality only comes after God. "The existence of this concepts against the supposed nature of this God is evidence that he is not "real or the true god"." No, you constantly presumed a false premise and applied strawman and red herrings, which in this case are actual fallacies. It sounds more to me you haven't actually even bothered to read what I read because you are an anti-theist with an objective of opposing, in this case, all Christological arguments without consideration for their validity because you have a presumed agenda, given you also presume the morality I carry and claim that you have a superior morality based entirely on utilitarian motives, which itself is neither objective nor universal, and by this conversation alone demonstrates its lack of universality. Not to mention that utilitarian morality is inherently self-refuting. "It`s quite unnerving how you write this all with that level of confidence, I suggest you read what you have answer, I think you have been indoctrinated in some form of fear of the of this supposed "god", ask yourself with total honestly about your beliefs, so you can know if you are believing in "The real God and the real religion"." Its neither a confidence nor a knowledge. I have been granted grace, it is irresistible, the Holy Spirit has been set upon me, there are no doubts, no questions that lead me against God because He is that which defines Truth and all natures of Truth and it can only be found pure in Him, those that do no reside with Him are only capable of attaining a limited Truth for they have the Imago Dei in them to know some but they are blind to full Truth because the Spirit is not in them which would grant them the wisdom necessary for Truth, this is not concealed in secret, it is openly spoken and willingly given to you but you cannot receive it. But those who have received grace openly receive these things and conceal nothing. I have no indoctrination for I was not taught by a man but was brought by God, there is no one who brought me before God except God Himself, and it is only by Him that I know these things.
3
Except that misses the point that pleasure and pain being subjective, also completely misses the point that you presume utilitarian morality which is inherently contradictory and no regular person, or even most full nihilists, are capable to actually consistent follow utilitarian morality demonstrating that utilitarian morality isn't even subjective useful, let alone objectively useful. We all recognize when pushed into the logical conclusions of utilitarian morality that it does not work, its entirely a cope to even consider it.
2
It used to be privately and communitarily managed, there were no mandated attendance, you would willingly go to the school house (which may have also been the church) if your parents could afford to send you that day, (or perhaps one of your siblings) you'd learn from a volunteer of your community among other kids of your community who could afford to go, and then when you went home you would then teach all your siblings and potentially your parents. Otherwise it was household tutoring and true homeschooling usually by parents or contracted private tutors. This is what we lost, the government got involved and then they started justifying taking money to "pay for schooling" and then attendance became mandatory and the pastors started to warn that if education were to made a state operation then it would turn the nation into a atheist dystopia where the state becomes god and parent, where everyone is fooled by state propaganda, and would lose their moral foundation and the intelligent inheritance of their parents.
2
@justanto Objective: (American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition) 1. a. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real: objective reality. b. Based on observable phenomena; empirical: objective facts. 2. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair. (Collins English Dictionary 12th Edition) 1. (Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions: are there objective moral values?. Any morality for which is uninfluenced by emotions, personal prejudices, existing independent of or external to the mind, or existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions is objective morality. (it doesn't matter if its a belief or not, the mere capability to disregard thought makes it objective, all non-relativistic religious doctrine is objective by definition, the ability to disagree with it does not make it non-objective) If you can't understand that definition, you're three deviations below the average, there is no reason to bother with you if you can't understand that. If you can't even read what I said correctly then it also means you have reading comprehensions problems, I referred to Nietzsche because he correctly made the point that without an objective morality the only reasonable conclusion is nihilism, which he tried to solve. Every atheist philosopher of the 18th and early 19th century tried to solve this problem because they knew you can't have a relative morality that doesn't devolve into nihilism or hedonism. Also I'm not a libertarian, but its definitely low intelligence behavior to come to a openly libertarian channel and then attack and insult people for being libertarian though. Especially coming to a Paleo-Libertarian channel and then claiming that there is no objective morality, maybe you're actually four deviations below the average instead.
2
@justanto Yeah that proves that your life is worthless. There is no arguing with you because everything you say literally has no value, you're not worth the time, you can't refute us, you can't stop us, and you will never convince any of us with that mindset. There is no reasonable person that does not have an issue with nihilism or hedonism, that is by definition self-destructive behavior, as does anything that permits it as a "valid" outlook, as well it is inherently self-refuting as is your position. I don't care what you think. There is no one you will convince with what you've said, it is narcissistic, self-centered, and completely unrelatable. There is no point to that, we don't have any free will from your view anyway, this was all predetermined from the inception of reality and will degenerate into nothingness that was also predetermined, there is no consciousness to choice. Thus this argument is itself worthless.
2
@justanto You have the definition of objective philosophy given to you, your inability to read is not my responsibility.
2
@latviandragon2718 That's not how Queen Victoria operated at all.
2
In Rome our procedures of education were deliberately referred to as slave education, no one would willingly send their children to it.
1
Mentis still does not understand why some Christians speak in regards to the authority of God in their arguments, we don't intend to convince people with that, its not about being rational in a worldly sense and we know that, those who are not convinced by Christian arguments are intended to be excluded. They are being judged and condemned should they not listen, they will be held to account for it. "Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." - Matthew 13:10-13
1
@elijahjarobi It is one of the most corrupt organizations in the federal government, if you actually worked in it or investigated it, its hard to argue that any department is more corrupt.
1
I kinda would describe my perspective as a Minarchist Christian Monarchist Theocracy, though its not a theocracy in the sense of the clergy themselves being in power (least not directly) but more that true Christian congregations (those who conform to 4th century Christian Orthodoxy, so no progressiveness, no liberalism, no enlightenment) each have a vote, the pastors and elders of the congregations altogether decides who the congregation can select, and through that all congregations (in Orthodox Union) come together to select a king based on those votes given under God (same would apply to barons, counts, and dukes) and then the king remains in power by dynasty until a mass contingent of congregations come together to call him to resign (and if he refuses they must have a threat of force) where the king is himself already limited immensely in what he is allowed to do with the government, but can do whatever he wants with his private property of course. Much of the rest of this basically more or less agrees with libertarian monarchism or anarcho-monarchism to some extent, its just that the emphasis of the monarch and larger authority structures are themselves basically just the Torah Law through a mostly 4th century Christian Orthodoxy lens. (and no I do not mean Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox lens, if you think either of them existed in the 4th century, especially their modern counterparts, you don't know history, you're being a relativist)
1
@MentisWave In Rome our procedures of education were considered slave education.
1
@SolidSiren As someone self-educated better then those educated by college on my field, I can tell you that college is a waste, even many companies in software engineering are ignoring college education entirely (some companies and interviewers will dock priority for it even) because of it, and no self-respecting engineer will consider what you have to say if you openly state you went to college on the subject. I have talked circles around college educated defense contractors because of my specialization in my field, the only reason to get it at best is if you specifically wish to get a government job, because you can get a better paying job otherwise without it and no debt.
1
@pedrofelipefreitas2666 I'm rather confident that it was an accidental criticism cause the writing is too stupid to be any real propaganda, its someone being honest and stupid thinking they can just present the end goal and nobody would question it. Its like what would happen if the Communist propagandists were complete morons and wrote out their plans to gulag and starve everyone that caused them problems, since we don't live in a fully Communist environment yet, (but oh Lord are we heading for it) most of the folks in charge of curbing this are also retards who can't actually operate in a free market.
1
Blame the Premillennial Dispensationalism heresy common among the Christian congregations for that, Darbyism (the teachings of John Nelson Darby) and Scofield are heretical practices that literally believe that Israel should not be questioned.
1
Blame the Premillennial Dispensationalism heresy common among the Christian congregations for that, Darbyism (the teachings of John Nelson Darby) and Scofield are heretical practices that literally believe that (((they))) should not be questioned. (blame youtube, I don't like using that "dogwhistle")
1
Blame the Premillennial Dispensationalism heresy common among the Christians for that, Darbyism (the teachings of John Nelson Darby) and Scofield are heretical practices that literally believe that they should not be questioned.
1
Blame the Premillennial Dispensationalism heresy common among the Christians for that.
1
Darbyism (the teachings of John Nelson Darby) and Scofield are heretical practices that literally believe that they should not be questioned.
1
Darbyism (the teachings of John Nelson Darby) and Scofield are heretical practices.
1
@davidmays8974 You are the definition of a midwit dude.
1
@mayank13489 Lets take a few examples of his positions: Vegetarian: check Pushed animal rights over human rights: check Believed his rule was a democracy: check Environmentalist: check Was part of the Socialist Bavarian Revolution: check Now lets ask, what were other left wing positions at the time: Eugenics: check Racial supremacy: check Socialism: check Don't know anything about economics: check Believes in collection ownership: check Sterilized people: (especially who they considered the "mentally and morally" deficient) check Locked people in labor and death camps: check Catro, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, you can't name a single Marxist dictator (the end goal of Marxism) that didn't do these things. Even many left wing policies in the US, Britain, France, and beyond did these things, the eugenics the Nazi's performed were directly based on American Law down to the translation of the words.
1
Funniest thing about the slavery thing is that even during the Antebellum period the South was naturally moving towards a post-slavery standard anyway, numerous states already had part-time slavery systems for most slaves (as in you worked as a slave for some time and then would have a part-time job that paid you directly, not your owner) resulting in a transition of slaves into functional serfs that were on their way to becoming free men, so even the South from an economic standpoint, despite the government intervention, was on track to abolishing slavery, the estimate by any rational observation was that this would've happened in the Confederacy within 10 years at max. (the ironic thing about the Confederacy too is they weren't setup for Jim Crow era laws with the incremental abolishing of slavery so the South actually would've been less likely to have the discrimination laws that came about after the Union won, which I find hilariously ironic)
1
Just want to point out, Adam Smith's labor theory of value has nothing to do with Marxist LTV, it actually almost operates opposite of it.
1
Personally instead of Marx, I would've gotten rid of Robespierre or Hegel, both of which were necessary for a Marxian ideal to exist.
1
@aerfwefd7334 The reason I used "Golden Calf" is alluding to the idea that Lincoln and those who worship him are in league with Satan (as were those who made and worshiped the Golden Calf) and are putting themselves at odds with the moral standard that is given to Moses, which comes from God, hence why I also make mention of Moses.
1
@atomicTurtle000 "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." - Abraham Lincoln (January 12th 1848)
1
@atomicTurtle000 "What legal right did the South have to seize it?" It was Confederate land, Lincoln claimed to agree, as did Congress and the Senate, (and so too did numerous European observers) however Lincoln, instead of retracting troops as he promised, as had been done of numerous other forts and bases across the south, he expanded the troops with an armed escort, (and then told them to not fire even when fired upon) even when a Confederate peace commission was dispatched to secure a separate peace Lincoln ignored them, Alexis de Tocqueville independently offered to arbitrate a peace and was rebuffed by Lincoln. Lincoln ensured there would be no peace and says much that in his private letters to his compatriots like Gustavus Fox. "I have no idea why you think the North intended to give up the fort nor why you think changing their mind about it would be an act of aggression even if so." Because Lincoln said so and had done so to numerous previous forts and bases in the South, and the whole of the Northern government had at once agreed to the same, as did much of the Northern populations. Also because the American government went to war with Great Britain over this twice. "Mr Lincoln told newspapers for three weeks that Sumter was to be abandoned, now Mr Lincoln has found a way to author a civil war without appearing its aggressor" - Providence Daily Post
1
@atomicTurtle000 "it is an act of war to be prepared to respond if your soldiers (who are only defending their own fort, not attacking at all) or unarmed ships carrying food are attacked?" It is an act of war to keep forts in territory you don't own and have no right to, it is an act of war to say you'll retract troops and then reinforce and provision the troops instead of evacuating them, and it most certainly is an act of war to bring a warship to supply said soldiers in a hostile environment where tensions are high and you reject every offer of peaceful resolution even from external arbitrators. "So you're actually saying it is an act of war to let the other party know about your plans to respond if the ships you plan to send are attacked." When you reject literally every attempt at peaceful resolution, yes. I just named to you numerous times that Lincoln directly disregarded peaceful resolution with the South deliberately so. Fort Sumter doesn't happen if Alexis de Tocqueville or the Confederate peace commission peace attempts are even welcomed by Lincoln, both instead were deliberately and directly rejected despite previous claims to the contrary of de-escalation. "How many steps removed do we need to be before or wouldn't be an act of war for you?" When you accept peaceful dissolution for a legal expectation codified and reserved in the state documents, even in Virginia being part of the very state's very Constitution itself. When you accept you don't own land on a nation that you have no further business with and who has asked peacefully for resolution with you. When you don't send a military force to instigate a violent response only to play off being the victim because instead of seeking peace, you just wanted power and control. When every avenue of peaceful resolution is exhausted, and even the very judges themselves are imprisoned for opposing an unjust declaration from the ruling authority, put in place by God, there is no manner for which you were seeking for peace, you sought death, redemption would quickly be stripped from your heart, it is evident Lincoln never had salvation. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Matthew 5:9 "Why isn't the South's siege of the fort an act of war?" Because it is their land. "Seems much more direct and hostile to be the ones starving them than Lincoln saying we're sending food to the soldiers you guys are starving out." Soldiers who shouldn't have been there and for which Lincoln claimed he would remove from the fort, only to do the opposite. Personally I have no sympathy for the soldiers, it would've been better that they all been executed for intended violation of peace. As so to Lincoln, rest assured he is burning in Hell right now, I dare say mercy was never reserved for such a wicked man, and I share no sympathy for him. The toleration of his wife's wicked practices demonstrates his continuous and intentional hatred of Christ. "Even if you think the North was massing troops and weapons on Sumter (which we've now clarified you lied about) neither of the other wars mentioned started in similar ways." First off no we've not, you make false claims about the provisions on the ship, there is an armed contingent of warships escorting the provisions, (for which are also prepared to attack the Confederates, which is itself an act of war) and peace was routinely rejected by the North despite constant pleas from the South and also from Northern populations. Sounds more like you've never actually read into anything of Fort Sumter or its lead up.
1
@atomicTurtle000 "it is an act of war to be prepared to respond if your soldiers (who are only defending their own fort, not attacking at all) or unarmed ships carrying food are attacked?" It is an act of war to keep forts in territory you don't own and have no right to, it is an act of war to say you'll retract troops and then reinforce and provision the troops instead of evacuating them, and it most certainly is an act of war to bring a warship to supply said soldiers in a hostile environment where tensions are high and you reject every offer of peaceful resolution even from external arbitrators. "So you're actually saying it is an act of war to let the other party know about your plans to respond if the ships you plan to send are attacked." When you reject literally every attempt at peaceful resolution, yes. I just named to you numerous times that Lincoln directly disregarded peaceful resolution with the South deliberately so. Fort Sumter doesn't happen if Alexis de Tocqueville or the Confederate peace commission peace attempts are even welcomed by Lincoln, both instead were deliberately and directly rejected despite previous claims to the contrary of de-escalation. "How many steps removed do we need to be before or wouldn't be an act of war for you?" When you accept peaceful dissolution for a legal expectation codified and reserved in the state documents, even in Virginia being part of the very state's very Constitution itself. When you accept you don't own land on a nation that you have no further business with and who has asked peacefully for resolution with you. When you don't send a military force to instigate a violent response only to play off being the victim because instead of seeking peace, you just wanted power and control. When every avenue of peaceful resolution is exhausted, and even the very judges themselves are imprisoned for opposing an unjust declaration from the ruling authority, put in place by God, there is no manner for which you were seeking for peace, you sought death, redemption would quickly be stripped from your heart, it is evident Lincoln never had salvation. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Matthew 5:9 "Why isn't the South's siege of the fort an act of war?" Because it is their land. "Seems much more direct and hostile to be the ones starving them than Lincoln saying we're sending food to the soldiers you guys are starving out." Soldiers who shouldn't have been there and for which Lincoln claimed he would remove from the fort, only to do the opposite. Personally I have no sympathy for the soldiers, it would've been better that they all been executed for intended violation of peace. As so to Lincoln, rest assured he is burning in Hell right now, I dare say mercy was never reserved for such a wicked man, and I share no sympathy for him. The toleration of his wife's wicked practices demonstrates his continuous and intentional hatred of Christ. "Even if you think the North was massing troops and weapons on Sumter (which we've now clarified you lied about) neither of the other wars mentioned started in similar ways." First off no we've not, you make false claims about the provisions on the ship, there is an armed contingent of warships escorting the provisions, (for which are also prepared to attack the Confederates, which is itself an act of war) and peace was routinely rejected by the North despite constant pleas from the South and also from Northern populations. Sounds more like you've never actually read into anything of Fort Sumter or its lead up.
1
@atomicTurtle000 "it is an act of war to be prepared to respond if your soldiers (who are only defending their own fort, not attacking at all) or unarmed ships carrying food are attacked?" It is an act of war to keep forts in territory you don't own and have no right to, it is an act of war to say you'll retract troops and then reinforce and provision the troops instead of evacuating them, and it most certainly is an act of war to bring a warship to supply said soldiers in a hostile environment where tensions are high and you reject every offer of peaceful resolution even from external arbitrators. "So you're actually saying it is an act of war to let the other party know about your plans to respond if the ships you plan to send are attacked." When you reject literally every attempt at peaceful resolution, yes. I just named to you numerous times that Lincoln directly disregarded peaceful resolution with the South deliberately so. Fort Sumter doesn't happen if Alexis de Tocqueville or the Confederate peace commission peace attempts are even welcomed by Lincoln, both instead were deliberately and directly rejected despite previous claims to the contrary of de-escalation. "How many steps removed do we need to be before or wouldn't be an act of war for you?" When you accept peaceful dissolution for a legal expectation codified and reserved in the state documents, even in Virginia being part of the very state's very Constitution itself. When you accept you don't own land on a nation that you have no further business with and who has asked peacefully for resolution with you. When you don't send a military force to instigate a violent response only to play off being the victim because instead of seeking peace, you just wanted power and control. When every avenue of peaceful resolution is exhausted, and even the very judges themselves are imprisoned for opposing an unjust declaration from the ruling authority, put in place by God, there is no manner for which you were seeking for peace, you sought death, redemption would quickly be stripped from your heart, it is evident Lincoln never had salvation. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Matthew 5:9 "Why isn't the South's siege of the fort an act of war?" Because it is their land. "Seems much more direct and hostile to be the ones starving them than Lincoln saying we're sending food to the soldiers you guys are starving out." Soldiers who shouldn't have been there and for which Lincoln claimed he would remove from the fort, only to do the opposite. Personally I have no sympathy for the soldiers, it would've been better that they all been executed for intended violation of peace, they should've sta. As so to Lincoln, rest assured he is burning in Hell right now, I dare say mercy was never reserved for such a cursed man, and I share no sympathy for him. The toleration of his wife's practices demonstrates his continuous and intentional hatred of Christ. "Even if you think the North was massing troops and weapons on Sumter (which we've now clarified you lied about) neither of the other wars mentioned started in similar ways." First off no we've not, you make false claims about the provisions on the ship, there is an armed contingent of warships escorting the provisions, (for which are also prepared to attack the Confederates, which is itself an act of war) and peace was routinely rejected by the North despite constant pleas from the South and also from Northern populations. Sounds more like you've never actually read into anything of Fort Sumter or its lead up.
1
@atomicTurtle000 "it is an act of war to be prepared to respond if your soldiers (who are only defending their own fort, not attacking at all) or unarmed ships carrying food are attacked?" When you have no right nor ownership to the land and reject every peace offer and every peaceful resolution attempted by even third-parties, yes. It would be better that the soldiers be dead, they should've been starved, they were performing a military occupation on foreign soil in direct contradiction of the US Constitution itself. The fort was illegal, the mere keeping of the fort alone is an act of war. "And again they ATTACKED BEFORE THE SHIPS WERE THERE." Irrelevant. Keeping the fort alone is an act of war. "So you're actually saying it is an act of war to let the other party know about your plans to respond if the ships you plan to send are attacked." Now you're just being deliberate, if you can't read and instead continue to argue completely and intentionally in bad faith, there is no point considering you even intelligent, I've explained it to you multiple times now, I've given you numerous chances, you're simply indoctrinated, you don't refute a single point I make, you just keep insisting you're right without a substantiation of your claims. I don't have to make you believe, I don't care about you. "How many steps removed do we need to be before or wouldn't be an act of war for you?" Those who won't seek peace deserved to die, if you are an obstacle in way of peace, you should be crucified upside down. There is no compromise. "Why isn't the South's siege of the fort an act of war? Seems much more direct and hostile to be the ones starving them than Lincoln saying we're sending food to the soldiers you guys are starving out." Its their land idiot. You can't perform an act of war on your own land when foreign soldiers are occupying, attacking, and raiding your land.
1
I've always found it silly that nihilists would even argue for anything given the whole point of their position is that nothing matters, taken to its logical conclusion they should either be apathetic to everything or hedonistic, because whether they do anything or not, it doesn't actually matter and nothing will change, especially if they're also fatalists which any consistent nihilist should be.
1
@pumpyronaldrump_4417 Abolishing the FDA is the only way to build competition in the drug market.
1
That's still inherently high time preference behavior.
1
@MikeHunt-zy3cn No it doesn't, shared values does not mean exact same implementation.
1
@GodOfOrphans Righteousness does not materially appear reasonable, but it is the only manner for good outcomes to actually happen, everything else is degeneration and leads to destruction.
1
@SeanMendicino-n3d As a Christian apologist, you are correct, without a manner to theologically refute bad, the claim that suffering and death itself is bad becomes questionable, its a presupposition that life is good, that's already an argument from faith, but yet one does not understand the position of why life is good, it simply just is. Go any deeper and the only answers you can find must be theological in nature, because any nature for which you can resolve the question must push for a higher power that defines a value to life, that which exist as a limited life cannot define this value because it can't resolve a question in any manner objectively, it can only arrive to a subjective answer, that doesn't make it a universal truth. Common materialist logic simply cannot resolve a value to life, all it can say is the value of life itself is subjective, in which case there is no reason that anyone should agree to any value of life, this is why the nihilists and anti-natalists arrive to the answers they do, they remove the presupposition because they abandoned that foundation which presumes a meaning to life. A logically consistent position once you abandon all capacity for a true theological position.
1
Antifa had a similar thing, except in that case they literally tried to burn down the capital and the president and his family had to be rushed into a bunker, this happened before Jan6 and nobody covered it.
1
Queen Victoria lived during the "first wave" and she openly called it out as toxic and degenerate. And none of them were ever able to criticize her for it.
1
@valentinfeusi63 Ancoms empower the tankies by pushing for dumb ideas that were specifically designed to give the tankies power through deception, coercion, and manipulation. Ancoms are the useful idiots, and that's the point, often unwittingly openly handing all the power over to the tankies and yet they'll not even be intelligent enough to see this when those people get power and come to kill them off.
1
@arcioko2142 There has never been a single organization without hierarchy, neither principal nor ideals, nor even existence itself can itself reside without them, for the very nature of reality itself requires discrimination between itself, and this itself inherently makes hierarchies a requirement for reality, just as lions, bears, insects, lobsters, trees, and even bacteria retain conceptual hierarchy, so too does man, and he can never get rid of such. Man is not God, he has no authority over reality, merely that he resides in it. All moral systems, even the corrupt ones, are built on hierarchy, reason is hierarchy. If you can't even understand these basic facts then you don't even have enough intelligence to consider reasoning with because your delusions make everything you say worthless.
1
@arcioko2142 There has never been a single organization without hierarchy, neither principal nor ideals, nor even existence itself can itself reside without them, for the very nature of reality itself requires distinguishing between itself, and this itself inherently makes hierarchies a requirement for reality, just as lions, bears, insects, lobsters, trees, and even bacteria retain conceptual hierarchy, so too does man, and he can never get rid of such. Man is not God, he has no authority over reality, merely that he resides in it. All ethical systems, even the corrupt ones, are built on hierarchy, reason is hierarchy. If you can't even understand these basic facts then you don't even have enough intelligence to consider reasoning with because your delusions make everything you say worthless.
1
@arcioko2142 .
1
 @raktimamchiforthe4thtime445 This is still self-refuting, either life isn't worth the suffering and thus you must cease yourself or life is worth it and thus you can't be anti-natalist.
1
Also means that without a complete breakdown in the society, there is probably nothing that will otherwise prevent a Kamala-like presidency, Trump will simply be a stop gap for later collapse.
1
Democracy: The God That Failed
1
Still makes it high time preference behavior, also your perspective on kids is still dumb.
1
@justanto "i have no problem with nihilism or hedonism. You can not like it, but i don't care and it's absolutely not a negative." Yeah that proves that your life is worthless. There is no arguing with you because everything you say literally has no value, you're an idiot who isn't worth the time, you don't understand anything about rationality nor definitions, so dealing with an NPC moron like you isn't worth the time, you can't refute us, you can't stop us, and you will never convince any of us with that mindset. There is no reasonable person that does not have an issue with nihilism or hedonism, that is by definition self-destructive behavior, as does anything that permits it as a "valid" outlook, as well it is inherently self-refuting as is your position. I don't care what you think because as far as I'm concerned you don't exist then, and if you can't be convinced I don't care to try further. There is no one you will convince with what you've said, it is narcissistic, self-centered, and completely unrelatable. People do not think like that, not that it even makes any sense to convince anyone anyway because there is no point, we don't have any free will from your view anyway, this was all predetermined from the inception of reality and will degenerate into nothingness that was also predetermined, there is no consciousness to choice, just predetermined outcomes, and there is no end point to our death or continuation, just a hole in the ground we will lay that eventually ceases to also be as a result of the degeneration of the universe into a chaos that itself ceases to be. Thus this argument is itself worthless, everyone who sees this conversation wasn't convinced by it, they were predetermined to every choice they made regardless of its existence, this entire conversation itself was predetermined and was predetermined to move us further into a void of empty and void chaos.
1
@justanto Yeah that proves that your life is worthless. There is no arguing with you because everything you say literally has no value, you're an idiot who isn't worth the time, you don't understand anything about rationality nor definitions, so dealing with an NPC moron like you isn't worth the time, you can't refute us, you can't stop us, and you will never convince any of us with that mindset. There is no reasonable person that does not have an issue with nihilism or hedonism, that is by definition self-destructive behavior, as does anything that permits it as a "valid" outlook, as well it is inherently self-refuting as is your position. I don't care what you think because as far as I'm concerned you don't exist then, and if you can't be convinced I don't care to try further. There is no one you will convince with what you've said, it is narcissistic, self-centered, and completely unrelatable. People do not think like that, not that it even makes any sense to convince anyone anyway because there is no point, we don't have any free will from your view anyway, this was all predetermined from the inception of reality and will degenerate into nothingness that was also predetermined, there is no consciousness to choice, just predetermined outcomes, and there is no end point to our death or continuation, just a hole in the ground we will lay that eventually ceases to also be as a result of the degeneration of the universe into a chaos that itself ceases to be. Thus this argument is itself worthless, everyone who sees this conversation wasn't convinced by it, they were predetermined to every choice they made regardless of its existence, this entire conversation itself was predetermined and was predetermined to move us further into a void of empty and void chaos. Also almost every 19th and early 20th century atheist philosopher saw nihilism and hedonism as a bad thing.
1
@justanto Yeah that proves that your life is worthless. There is no arguing with you because everything you say literally has no value, you're an idiot who isn't worth the time, you don't understand anything about rationality nor definitions, so dealing with an NPC moron like you isn't worth the time, you can't refute us, you can't stop us, and you will never convince any of us with that mindset. There is no reasonable person that does not have an issue with nihilism or hedonism, that is by definition self-destructive behavior, as does anything that permits it as a "valid" outlook, as well it is inherently self-refuting as is your position. I don't care what you think because as far as I'm concerned you don't exist then, and if you can't be convinced I don't care to try further. There is no one you will convince with what you've said, it is narcissistic, self-centered, and completely unrelatable. People do not think like that, not that it even makes any sense to convince anyone anyway because there is no point, we don't have any free will from your view anyway, this was all predetermined from the inception of reality and will degenerate into nothingness that was also predetermined, there is no consciousness to choice, just predetermined outcomes, and there is no end point to our death or continuation, just a hole in the ground we will lay that eventually ceases to also be as a result of the degeneration of the universe into a chaos that itself ceases to be. Thus this argument is itself worthless, everyone who sees this conversation wasn't convinced by it, they were predetermined to every choice they made regardless of its existence, this entire conversation itself was predetermined and was predetermined to move us further into a void of empty and void chaos.
1
@justanto Also every 19th and early 20th century atheist philosopher saw nihilism and hedonism as a bad thing, if you don't have a problem with them, then you're an idiot. Such outlooks conclude a desire for the destruction of reality itself. That's why most mass shooters are in some way related to either nihilism or hedonism, all nihilists will eventually see the only goal of existence is its own destruction, a hedonist satisfies their pleasures to the complete disregard of any other element of reality which itself is also destructive to reality.
1
@justanto Also every 19th and early 20th century atheist philosopher saw nihilism and hedonism as a bad thing, if you don't have a problem with them, then you're an idiot.
1
@justanto Also every early atheist philosopher saw nihilism/hedonism as a bad thing.
1
@justanto Yeah that proves that your life is worthless. There is no arguing with you because everything you say literally has no value, you're an idiot who isn't worth the time, you don't understand anything about rationality nor definitions, so dealing with an NPC moron like you isn't worth the time, you can't refute us, you can't stop us, and you will never convince any of us with that mindset. There is no reasonable person that does not have an issue with nihilism or hedonism, that is by definition self-destructive behavior, as does anything that permits it as a "valid" outlook, as well it is inherently self-refuting as is your position. I don't care what you think because as far as I'm concerned you don't exist then, and if you can't be convinced I don't care to try further. There is no one you will convince with what you've said, it is narcissistic, self-centered, and completely unrelatable. People do not think like that, not that it even makes any sense to convince anyone anyway because there is no point, we don't have any free will from your view anyway, this was all predetermined from the inception of reality and will degenerate into nothingness that was also predetermined, there is no consciousness to choice, just predetermined outcomes, and there is no end point to our death or continuation, just a hole in the ground we will lay that eventually ceases to also be as a result of the degeneration of the universe into a chaos that itself ceases to be. Thus this argument is itself worthless, everyone who sees this conversation wasn't convinced by it, they were predetermined to every choice they made regardless of its existence, this entire conversation itself was predetermined and was predetermined to move us further into a void of empty and void chaos.
1
@justanto Yeah that proves that your life is worthless. There is no arguing with you because everything you say literally has no value, you're an idiot who isn't worth the time, you can't refute us, you can't stop us, and you will never convince any of us with that mindset. There is no reasonable person that does not have an issue with nihilism or hedonism, that is by definition self-destructive behavior, as does anything that permits it as a "valid" outlook, as well it is inherently self-refuting as is your position. I don't care what you think because as far as I'm concerned you don't exist then. There is no one you will convince with what you've said, it is narcissistic, self-centered, and completely unrelatable. People do not think like that, there is no point, we don't have any free will from your view anyway, this was all predetermined from the inception of reality and will degenerate into nothingness that was also predetermined, there is no consciousness to choice, just predetermined outcomes, and there is no end point to our death or continuation, just a hole in the ground we will lay that eventually ceases to also be as a result of the degeneration of the universe into a chaos that itself ceases to be. Thus this argument is itself worthless.
1
Don't forget Antifa tried to burn the capital as well, nobody opposed them when this happened, the president was instead rushed into a bunker with his family for it.
1
Just gonna point out, reason I won't ever argue from a secular perspective as a Christian has to do with theological foundations, I honestly don't care about practical outcomes when the subject will still lead his way into hell, (I'll prefer a more aligned leadership that respects God even if they don't believe, but I'm not aiming to make a society that does that for it is theologically worthless to achieve) a nation which adopts the Christian model is what I'm concerned of and that's a movement given only from God who directs us to proselytize in such a way that if its meant to shall be effective to change the society. And any society that won't adopt Christ is in time to be condemned by its opposition to God, God brings them in, but it was they who rejected God.
1
I used to be an anarcho-capitalist but as a Christian I've since shifted to a free market Christian theocracy Monarchy view after reading through Scripture, I still however sympathize with the libertarian and anarcho-capitalist views and find them massively preferable to anything that the other side does, I don't even really all that much disagree with libertarians in most things, I just don't respect the concept of the NAP because the Levitical Law as moderated by the New Testament inherently can't recognize it, I'd still fight for a hyper laissez-faire economic system though, like I'm constantly arguing against trash like IP Law.
1
@Aneko_Tomo The issue is that God's Law establishes a system of a feudal monarchy that is to be a free market, God's Law needs to always supersede any other perspective, and God doesn't establish a voluntary leadership in His Law, and I don't find anarcho-capitalist perspectives were inherently built with the Christological framework in mind, you need a hierarchical monarchy that Gods gives that was established in full accordance to God's Law foremost, only then can justice and righteous flourish from the Law, and in time there will be good kings and bad kings, but those who are faithful will always be blessed and the righteous land will flourish in prosperity.
1
@Aneko_Tomo The problem is that God does not support any concept of voluntary government, in fact He constantly emphasizes that government is not voluntary and is only given from Him, and that wicked governments are given in judgement, King Saul is a perfect example of violating any anarcho-capitalist position on government, even in the New Testament he would still be righteously given by a Theonomist which is what I am pointing to, he was God's anointed, God's Law only permits resistance in purely the maximizing the preservation of human life and a fair authoritative standard of justice, the judges and kings are not decided by the people, they are raised up by God alone. Violence against the state for the sake of resistance is only done in preservation of all human life so that the wicked will be punished and the righteous will be commended, nothing more, nothing less.
1
This video is absolutely fire, hits every necessary point from black rock and vanguard to wikipedia to journos to the state and all with simply clear proof.
1
@goatskin4487 Perhaps, but that's a recent phenomenon, and in fact inverse to post-Roman (as in Christian) Western history entirely. (reason I speak of post-Roman is because pre-Rome men and women in the pagan realm were often treated as sexually unequal, women were often expected to be pristine virgins while men were not)
1
@dannysummers4591 Patriarchy is the inherent natural result of human dimorphism. Its not even unique to humans, most mammals also do it naturally, in fact the natural behavior of the male in almost every single species that is dimorphic (and even some that aren't) is sacrificial for and/or protective of the female(s). That aside its just rational and inherently low time preference to be of such a state as women are actually biologically more valuable then men.
1
@dannysummers4591 Patriarchy is the inherent natural result of human dimorphism.
1
@dannysummers4591 Its not even unique to humans, most mammals also do it naturally, in fact the natural behavior of the male in almost every single species that is dimorphic (and even some that aren't) is sacrificial for and/or protective of the female(s).
1
@dannysummers4591 That aside its just rational and inherently low time preference to be of such a state as women are actually biologically more valuable then men.
1
 @dannysummers4591 .
1
@dannysummers4591 Patriarchy of some kind is the natural result of dimorphism found through most sex divided creatures, especially pertaining to biological and psychological dimorphism.
1
@dannysummers4591 Blame nature and biology
1
@a.39886 We are entirely capable of choosing salvation in God, but we by nature can never do this for our nature is completely depraved and corrupted, its not that we can't choose God but that by nature we never will. God's knowledge also does not preclude any element of volition or free will on our part, He knowing and having a Will over our choice (not that He has tempted us to choose it but we of our free will which exists by the love of God we choose to be apart from God, and thus simultaneously God declares us apart from Him, not by our choice) does not violate our capacity to choose Him, but that our nature can never do this, only by God reigning back our nature does He bring us to Him and thus He brings us to Him. This is where irresistible grace is found. Is it to say God has decided? Well in some form yes, God has decided whose nature He will restrain and who will be elected among His grace, however those separate from His grace are condemned specifically because they would not, not that they could not by capacity, the free will they have specifically will never choose God. As for the purpose of our life? All our lives are to live for the love and praise of God, those condemned demonstrate His glory and justice, those who live with God while demonstrating and praising His glory also demonstrate His love and mercy, His grace, that there may be anyone who is saved is itself a miracle against justice. The purpose of every life is in the end to service the glory and majesty of God, and we are thus granted a love beyond all measure, for He loved us and we then are to love Him. As for what is moral, it is simply by that which is declared by He who defined good what is itself good, it is defined for our sake, but by itself it need not be resolved as simply being for our sake though it is, but that it is God who is the authority of justice and righteousness, and thus the author of morality, which had foremost defined it. God is the perfect judge and is perfectly just and so all that He decides is perfect in all ways.
1
@a.39886 "No amount of pleasure outweighs eternal suffering." This is a red herring, this is utilitarian morality which is completely irrelevant. You don't define morality so there is no reason to consider this, I don't exist to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering, both of them are completely irrelevant to morality. Christians are actually even called to willingly step into suffering just to demonstrate that point. "If you wish that your loved ones never experience eternal suffering. ( this will be in agreed and if not I guess you are fine with the idea that your children could end up experiencing eternal torture because you decided to bring them to the world)," Again, this is completely irrelevant, its just a red herring of the issue. I would desire everyone to come to God but I understand most will never do so, I was granted a grace I did not deserve, they too were allowed this but they rejected it, so they get what they deserve, they already deserved condemnation, as did I, but because they rejected God, they do not get to be with God. I do not desire anyone who would reject God to be with God, I rather see justice done if that must be the case. "if you insist that heaven is the maximum good and outweighs even a eternal torture on hell, then yoi should be happy for every children that dies as they are assure the maximum good, " Heaven is not "maximum good", God is the author of all good things, by Him all good things were made and nothing could be good. Heaven itself was given because God had made it so, as He made the Earth just the same, perfectly good, as so too was man, but man in his rebellion against God committed the Original Sin and it is by his hands that death entered the world and suffering was placed upon his back, and the Earth was thus corrupted. It is for this reason man is born condemned, because he had sinned against God, he deserved the death sentence but God's great mercy and love for us preserved us, His justice required our death, but His love and mercy did not immediately demand it, so we instead have a life that suffers and in time ends. Am I happy for the death of children? No, for God does not take pleasure in the death of a sinner and so too do I agree with God, but a sinner who dies has taken their path and God being the perfect judge and is the perfect justice will do what is right regardless. It is by this I have peace that what need be done shall be done, whatever is ultimately right shall be done by Him. What I would wish should always conform to God. "if you know your children will be rejecting the religion should you kill him as a child so he wins the maximum good on heaven?" I don't know anything about my children. If the implication you say is for God, that is not loving nor is it just, God knows what is right and He will do what is perfectly just, He gave life and so He is justified in taking it for it is borrowed from Him, no one has a right to life, and any who loves His life will lose it, but He who hates His life shall have eternal life, whoever lays down His life shall reside in eternity. I am not God, I can not make a choice based on knowledge I don't have, and I will not presume to understand the nature of God's choice of the elect. As well killing any children does not preserve them any more for righteousness because they were born in sin, they are born an enemy of God, they would not be preserved on the simple basis of being killed as such a time, they'd still be condemned.
1
@ What belief has evidence that is not inherently self-refuting without further belief? Even evidence itself requires a belief, it does not sustain its rational to itself but must be believed. And why do you presume I have no evidence? I have much evidence, but you are unwilling to see for you suppress the Truth in unrighteousness, for there is no neutral man, why then should one presume himself to be above belief?
1