Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "MentisWave"
channel.
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1