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

  1. One of my favorite things was how Queen Victoria called feminism one of the most toxic things that could be done to women.
    76
  2. 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
  3. That would explain why its rules for thee but not for me in both cases.
    46
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6.  @whitewizard7514  It ain't even all that good, its only slight more right of Trump's agenda.
    24
  7.  @Cowboycomando54 damn so close...
    23
  8.  @MentisWave  Soft bigotry of low expectations
    20
  9.  @aerfwefd7334  Don't you mean the Golden Calf, watch your tongue Moses.
    19
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12.  @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
  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
  14.  @dannysummers4591  Blame dimorphism
    12
  15. 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
  16.  @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
  17. Just like his common DNC platform that he peddles.
    9
  18. ​This is still self-refuting, the only justified position is removal of the self then.
    9
  19.  @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
  20.  @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
  21. Blame the Premillennial Dispensationalism heresy.
    7
  22.  @rogerkeleshian2215  450 AD was peak.
    7
  23. 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
  24.  @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
  25. And dementia.
    5
  26.  @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
  27.  @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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. ​ @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
  32. That's just democracy in general, there isn't a single European country that doesn't have the same problem.
    4
  33.  @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
  34.  @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
  35.  @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
  36.  @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
  37. 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
  38.  @justanto  What is moral? What defines morality?
    4
  39.  @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
  40. 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
  41.  @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
  42. 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
  43.  @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
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47.  @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
  48.  @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
  49. 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
  50. 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