Andrew Wilson vs. NotSoErudite HEATED MARATHON DEBATE | Whatever Debates 25
Andrew Wilson and Kyla (NotSoErudite) clash in a marathon debate on Christian nationalism’s compatibility with American secularism, dissecting the Founders’ intent—Wilson cites Federalist No. 2 and Protestant dominance, while Kyla counters with Jefferson’s "Creator" language and states’ rights to avoid federal religious tests. They grapple with Agrippa’s trilemma, where Wilson argues all truth claims (including logic) are unjustifiable but still reasonable, while Kyla insists objective morality and separation of church/state remain defensible despite unprovable foundations. Ultimately, the debate reveals deep divides: whether America’s ethos is rooted in Christian cultural assumptions or secular ideals, and if moral objectivity can survive without absolute justification. [Automatically generated summary]
Welcome to a debate edition of the Whatever podcast coming to you live from Santa Barbara, California.
I'm your host and moderator, Brian Atlas.
A few quick announcements before the show begins.
This podcast is viewer supported, so please consider donating through Streamlabs.
That's streamlabs.com/slash whatever.
TTS is going to be $199 and up.
There will be no instant TTS.
TTS will come in batches at various breaks throughout the debate.
You can see the description for all triggers and full details.
Without further ado, I'm joined today by Andrew Wilson, host of the Crucible.
He is a blood sports debater and political commentator.
Also joining us today is Kyla, or as she goes online, not so erudite.
She has an undergraduate in psychology and a graduate diploma in psychometrics.
She's a content creator, streamer, and is a political and social commentator.
You each have a about three-minute opening statement each, and then straight into open conversation.
I believe you're going first, Kyla.
Sure.
Do we have any prompts we want to read first?
Do you want me to just jump into it?
Oh, yeah, sure.
Well, I'll read the prompts then.
So we're going to cover four prompts, time permitting.
There's Christian nationalism is un-American.
That's prompt one.
Prompt two, Christians should attempt to maintain political power in the U.S. and rule through Christian ethics as it is the superior system.
Prompt three, secular states are destined to likely revert back to religiously informed governments because atheists have no moral basis for which to govern.
Excuse me.
Prompt four, moderate liberal values are not compatible with Christianity.
Modern.
Oh, excuse me, modern liberal values.
My mistake.
Go ahead.
America is not a church, and that is not a weakness.
It is one of the greatest strengths of America.
The American experiment was built on a bold idea.
Faith must be freely chosen.
Conscience must be protected.
Political power must be limited.
The founders, men of inquiry, men of science, men who built universities and ran experiments, drafted a constitution that banned religious tests for office.
That was not hostility to Christianity, that was confidence in its integrity.
Because when church and state merge, bias corrupts the state.
But more importantly, to me, power corrupts the church.
Separation does not weaken the church.
It protects it.
America's ethos is simple.
We do what works.
And how do we know what works?
Science.
We test, we measure, we build, we refine.
If it fails, we discard it.
If it succeeds, we scale it.
That instinct, that relentless pursuit of truth through evidence, is not anti-Christian.
It is a reflection of intellectual humility.
America is industry.
America is laboratories and shipyards and production lines that outwork empires.
America is a Manhattan Project.
Physicists racing equations against tyranny and winning.
America is a P51 Mustang, not sacred tradition, but engineering superiority screaming across the sky.
That spirit defeated fascism.
It destroyed communism.
It mapped the atom.
It put satellites in orbit.
It built the medical systems, infrastructure, and technology that shape the modern world.
Maya America fears no truth.
It preserves through discovery.
It does not shrink from paleontology, geology, or evolutionary biology.
Truth is not an enemy of faith.
If God is sovereign, then no discovery threatens him.
Evolution and belief have coexisted for generations.
Scientific advancement need not displace theological conviction.
America did not fight a revolution to resurrect sacred hierarchy.
It did not cast off empire to create another throne draped in religious conformity.
It created a republic confident enough to protect the liberty of conscience for all people.
Religious principles need no safeguarding anyway.
Christianity survived the Roman Empire.
It persisted despite Nero trying to kill them.
It grew to prominence and converted the known word not by sword, but by the quill.
I wish my Christian brothers and sisters today still had the same confidence in the gospel that they had then.
My America is equal protection.
My America is equal protection under the law, freedom of speech, limits on state power.
Those are not principles foreign to Christianity.
They echo the belief that every person bears dignity, that coercion cannot produce genuine faith, and that moral transformation begins in the heart, not in legislation.
Christianity has flourished for many of the same reasons that America has.
They have thrived without subrogation, and they have spread without war.
And when they did either of these two things, people came to hate it.
The American dream and the Holy Word persuade because people believe their truth, not because it is enforced.
America moves forward, America builds, America competes, America leads, not by fusing church and state, but by unleashing human ingenuity without demanding theological uniformity first.
America is doing what works, and that is why it leads the world.
Are you just taking the water break?
I'm done?
Okay, perfect.
Andrew, go ahead with your opening statement.
And Who The Fuck Are You?00:03:38
I'm way too hungover for this shit, but I got a beer.
So that'll help me hear the dog a little bit.
So, just to be blunt, some of the reasons that I don't particularly enjoy debating with Erudite is because there's a specific style she has, which is called the pop quiz style.
When Kyla gets in trouble around arguments and worldviews, she drops a pop quiz.
Do you know what X is?
X usually being a random obscure fact, which has little to nothing to do with the conversation.
And your inability to answer, it's met with smug delight and upspeak as she explains some random fact.
The reason I bring this up is because I want the audience to be aware that I'm really just hate pop quid, the pop quiz debate stuff.
It's an old Twitch takes, and it's just, to me, it's cringe.
It's not the Socratic method.
It's just, I'm going to introduce a pop quiz about some fact away that is completely irrelevant to the debate.
But anyway, when leftists say anything is un-American, I'm forced to laugh about it.
Progressives and liberals like Erudite here only have one single value structure ultimately, and it's loyalty to an amoral liberal system.
To progressive liberals, and I kid you not, let's give an example.
The example of Bob.
Bob can go buy a brand new deluxe PC for his 18-year-old daughter, put a camera on top of it, and manage her career as a porn star and OnlyFans while he's upstairs with her former teachers fapping to it on his Oculus porn helmet, and there isn't a fucking thing anybody can do about it because Bob pays taxes.
Bobby gets up every stinking day and he goes to work and he rolls up his sleeves and he gets the job done.
And by God, if Bob wants to fap to daughter porn with her former teachers, who the fuck are you to tell him he can't?
If Bob wants to loan his wife out to his friends for an all-night blitzed up legal drug-fueled gangbang and then finish it off by snorting prescription painkillers so he doesn't come too early, then by God, that's his right as an American and a patriot.
Who the fuck are you, sick fascist, to judge Bob?
He ain't breaking any laws.
He pays his taxes and he's following the system, baby.
And that's what matters.
The liberal process of amoral systems rather than immoral.
Everything's permitted.
If the global hegemon of the world needs to put machine guns to the back of little Africans' heads so they can dig out the special Sudanese cell phone crystals, then so fucking be it.
Bob needs his perfect reception for his satellite-driven cell phone in order to get the perfect nude image of his wife being split down the middle like a piece of meat in an all-white bread sandwich.
And who the fuck are you to tell Bob shit?
Nobody.
That's who.
Just a judgmental little fascist trying to legislate morality in an amoral system, which is oriented around a nonsense of a smorgasbord of moral buffets, which boils down to a choose your own degenerate adventure.
Nothing short of that is un-American.
Here's a bunch of un-American stuff, depending on when you were alive.
Universal suffrage, pretty fucking un-American.
Abolishing slavery was pretty fucking un-American.
Homosexuality was definitely un-American.
Age of consent laws were un-American.
Incest laws were un-American.
Income taxes were un-American.
Sex outside of wedlock was un-American.
Refusal to duel when being called out was un-American.
Not being white was un-American.
Co-ed schools were un-American.
Black people in white schools so un-American.
We needed the military involved.
The list goes on and on.
Un-American Values00:15:26
But according to Erudite, Christian nationalism is un-American because America basically begins in the early 20th century based on Lincoln models of federalism.
That's what's American.
Part of that, of course, should be not listening to a person who grew up under a king in a constitutional monarchy like she did.
Gross.
Bunch of fascist bootlickers over in Maple Land.
That's pretty fucking un-American, too.
Christian nationalism is as compatible with Americanism as the liberal order of amoral systems allows, which means perfectly compatible because there isn't any ought to tell it no.
The entire proposition from the liberal angle itself is self-refuting.
It just goes like this: if people vote for Christian nationalists, what are they doing which is un-American?
The answer, fucking nothing.
If they vote in a KKK Nazi fascist Hugo boss SS uniform wearing lunatic who packs the court, persecutes all non-whites, all within the whim and the confines of the amoral system, then what's un-American about that?
And the answer: fucking nothing.
Because the progressive liberal system is built on nothing, just vague appeals to my rights and my freedoms and my own system, which allows you to get rid of the system.
It's absurd and self-refuting.
That's my opening.
Cool.
So I guess to clarify, maybe we should clarify Christian nationalism, because I feel like that's going to be a bit of the crux of the conversation.
So how do you want to define it?
The definition of Christian nationalism would just be the proposition that Christians utilize influence and authority to stay in the moral majority and that they adopt systems towards Christian ethics.
When you say moral majority, what does that mean to you?
It means that most laws and social systems confine around Christian ethics.
Okay.
So you would like to basically see a change of current statecraft to include more Christian policies.
All Christian policies.
Can I ask to what extent?
Like, does this of an extent as liberalism allows, which is all extents.
Okay, so would you, when you advocate for Christian nationalism, though, I'm sure you and I would probably agree, probably if, say, the more of the moral majority becomes Christian, particularly in the way that maybe you're advocating for, we would probably move in the direction of reducing constitutional policy and increasing Christian policy specifically, probably all the way up to including theocracy.
They're not incompatible.
So you don't think that constitutional policies.
So, under liberalism, this is a great thing about liberalism.
So, do you remember, like, you had this conversation with a guy the other day?
I don't know how long ago it was, but he was like a fan of mine.
He called in.
It was about Christian nationalism.
I think you got the clip on your channel.
There was a point there where I started laughing because he said basically what I did, he was like, my proposal is that I want all the systems and this and that to kind of reflect the image of my preferences.
And you were like, fuck that.
You're not allowed to bastardize my religion by implementing policies against what my preferences are.
And I thought, that's like the most American thing I can think of.
The most American thing I can think of is that a Canadian immigrant is like, you know what?
This is my country now.
And you're not going to fucking bastardize it with whatever your shit is because I don't want you to.
And the other guy's like, I don't give a shit what you want.
We're going to do it anyway.
And then it goes vice versa.
And it's like, that is liberalism.
Ultimately, if we want to get rid of alcohol via an amendment, we can.
If we want to bring it back via an amendment, we can and have.
If we want to get rid of guns, we can and have.
We want to bring them back.
We can and have.
It's like everything is permitted.
So, yeah.
So by your logic, then Christian nationalists not only are trying to win the culture, they're trying to win the state, to impose Christian policy on the state.
Well, via, well, not in their imposing liberalism on the state, actually.
Well, in this case, I'm not.
I'm not going to equivocate.
If Christian nationalists amend every single constitutional amendment within the confines of liberalism to reflect only Christian policy, by your metric, that's liberalism.
So the issue is that I'm not like a democratic absolutist, right?
I don't believe in democracy in the state.
I believe in like some level of limited democracy.
In fact, even now we have what we have, like electoral democracy.
We don't have elected representatives.
We don't have direct popular vote, which I think is good.
I think that that's a better democratic system than, for example, pure absolute democracy, like popular vote.
So there's always limits on democracy, right?
So when you say liberalism, I think the issue is like, liberalism to you just mean, it seems like what it means to you is we can vote for stuff.
Is that what it means?
What does it mean to you?
It's what you outlined in your opening.
Liberalism is just a sequence of systems.
It's science, man, and it's building shit and it's industry and it's all of these isms, which really are just confined to, I want a system.
So liberalism is an amoral system.
Do you think science is liberalism?
No, but I think that liberals adopt science as part of their system.
Well, yeah, they allow it.
Do you think capitalism is liberalism?
I think they adopt capitalism as part of their system.
Could they adopt other things?
Sure.
Okay, so then what's liberalism?
Liberalism is an adaptation of an amoral system.
What is this?
Sorry, at a statecraft level, what does this mean?
That you have a system which is an amoral system.
Why is the amoral piece essential to liberalism?
Because that's why you prefer secularism.
You want a system which is amoral.
So it's based on individualism.
It's based on.
Is individualism amoral?
Yeah.
Well, from the liberal view, it is, yeah.
How is individualism amoral?
Because there's no ought.
There's no ought under a liberal system for you to do anything.
Sure, there is.
There's oftentimes, right?
Like a liberal system doesn't impose any certain moral.
Well, the most common consensual.
What would you say?
A liberal system doesn't impose any certain morals.
That doesn't make it.
So when you say amoral.
It means amoral.
Oh, so like they're agnostic.
No, they're amoral.
It's worse than agnostic.
How is that?
Because what's the difference between amoral and agnostic on morality?
Yeah, so you can be agnostic about something which is moral or immoral, right?
That's true.
But that doesn't mean you're amoral.
But what you're looking for is a system which is amoral.
So you're saying, like, look, we're not going to make any moral prescriptions because that's not what the function of the state is.
So do you think what the Founding Fathers did was amoral?
Like, it's not something to respect.
It's not something valuable.
What do you think about the Founding Fathers?
What does that have to do with anything?
The Founding Fathers created the American world.
It seems like you're saying America is liberalism and this liberalism is weak.
Or do you think America is something that we're talking about?
Because it became liberalism when you destroyed the Republic with universal suffrage and the 14th Amendment.
That's, I mean, the Republic was just the language utilized to talk about a specific type of democracy.
No, it had foundationalism.
You're talking about 39 out of 50 signers, only three of them were deists.
And foundationally, the states under the 10th Amendment were allowed to adopt their own religions and did.
It was only until we got to the 14th Amendment, way later, that this was no longer the case.
And in your opening, you got that wrong.
The Establishment and Free Exercise Clause specifically said Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion, prohibiting the free exercise of the government.
At the federal level, that's true.
The federal level implied to the states.
No, that happened later under the 14th Amendment.
In fact.
Under the Constitution.
I'll show you.
Brian, pull up.
The 14th Amendment stops states from adopting religion.
I'll show you so that you understand how the process worked.
So do you think that the Founding Fathers established a religion for the established the 10th Amendment, which says that all rights which are not given to the federal government are given to the prospective states?
Because the First Amendment covered that federally, this was part of a compromise.
That compromise happened because of the Articles of Confederation.
So the Articles of Confederation initially were the libertarian wet dream, but they didn't work because states couldn't have uniform commerce or uniform dollars or a uniform military.
So they adopted a form of federalism and compromised.
The compromise was the 10th Amendment.
The 10th Amendment stated that actually states could have their own religions, and they did.
Almost all the states had their own religion post-constitutional ratification.
But most people don't know that.
By own religion, what do you mean?
Do you just mean the test clause?
No.
They had state religions.
The test clause.
You had to be the same.
No, not a test clause.
They had actual state religions.
Inside each independent state, they had their own religions, minus, I think, two or three.
So why did the federal United States not have a religion?
Why did it allow the states to make those choices?
Because of the 10th Amendment.
But what was the principle?
What were the Founding Fathers trying to do?
What do you think?
They were trying to separate the power of Federalists between anti-Federalist and Federalists.
So they compromised on two major amendments.
The Second Amendment, which initially was way looser in language, and then they compromised on the Tenth Amendment as well because states wanted to have their own militias, they wanted to have their own militaries, they wanted to have their own currencies.
Congress was like, look, we need to have the power to raise armies.
We need to have the power to coin money.
If you allow us to have those two powers, then all the other prospective powers will give to the states, which they did.
That included religion.
So if the Founding Fathers intended for it to be a Christian nation to have some level of they intended for each state to be able to govern as they saw fit in order to implement religions if they chose to.
To the exclusion at a federal level specifically of any religion, right?
But that's not in what's in contest here.
That is in what's contest, right?
If we're talking about America, we're talking about the nation.
We're talking about the founding fathers, the minds behind the founding of the French.
The founding fathers put in amendment processes for us to amend things, including the First Amendment, right?
Sure, yeah, but why if they wanted to blend church and state, why wouldn't they write?
They did blend church and state because under the 10th Amendment, they allowed states to adopt state religions.
It was only when the Supreme Court looked at the 14th Amendment way later in our history that they decided, and by the way, that amendment had nothing to even do with this.
That was about citizenship.
State religions isn't the same thing as America having a federal religion.
We realize this, right?
Who ever postulated that we needed to have a federalized religion?
Well, I'm talking about separation of church and state for America.
If states can have their own religion inside the state and it becomes the state religion, does that, in your opinion, violate that separation of church and religion?
Well, if there's a test clause, yeah, it probably potentially would violate that.
So if the state imposes a test clause for federal power, that would be an issue.
Do you know when the last time it was super common at the time that most states had clauses?
In fact, the founding fathers were so intense about ensuring separation of power that despite most colonies at the time having a test clause for holding power of being religious, they explicitly barred it in, what was it, Article 6.
Oh, yeah?
Then how come in Maryland you had to declare until 1960 something, I believe, that you believed in God in order to hold office?
Because in Maryland they made that decision, but at a federal level, well, we're talking about, we're not talking about Maryland, we're talking about America.
Yeah, America.
Is Maryland America?
America is a coalition of states which have federalized.
That's what's going on.
But don't you think that the Constitution of America maybe matters from talking about the ethos of America?
Sure.
Okay, so when you do that, you mean that completely amendable thing?
Completely amendable, makes it sound way looser than it is.
Amending and adding amendments.
It is way looser.
Look, what's un-American about amending the First Amendment?
Nothing.
Okay.
So then, inside of your worldview, it's completely constitutional to amend the First Amendment to get rid of the American.
Hang on, hang on.
Hang on, hang on.
To get rid of the establishment clause, that would be totally appropriate.
I think that would be a violation of the American ethos.
I think it's bad.
Well, here.
How?
Because America believes, America is built on these things.
I think that the Founding Fathers.
You don't believe America.
Do I get to finish my thoughts or are you going to interrupt?
Go ahead, go ahead.
Okay.
Right.
I think what's really important here is that the founding fathers, I think, are essential to understanding the ethos of America.
I don't think they're the only piece.
But if we want to look at a litany of America over time, what we have, for example, is the founding fathers, despite the nation being dominantly Christian, despite the states having test religious clauses, the founding fathers looking at that going, no, we need a separation of church and state.
That's not what happened.
That is absolutely what happened.
Not only is it not what happened, but within the framework that you're talking about, you just said it's not un-American to amend.
How did it not happen?
Hang on.
You just said it's not it's not in any way un-American to amend the First Amendment.
The First Amendment is I should I should have clarified that because when we say American, I'm meaning the ethos.
What I should have said is it's not anti-constitutional.
The Constitution would allow you to say that.
Okay, then let's follow that line of logic and see if that's true.
Does American have any sort of like ethnic ethos?
Yeah.
What is it?
Dominantly white culture, hegemonically.
So that's part of the American ethos?
Yeah, to some degree.
Yeah, significantly, right?
Like, why?
Should it stay that way?
I like it, yeah.
So it should, America should stay a white Protestant nation?
But that's not the central piece of the ethos.
You said, does it have a cultural ethos?
And I said no.
I'm asking if it stay white.
No, I don't care about the white.
And that's not part of American ethos.
How is that the case?
Absolutely something that can be a part of the ethos and also change.
Because the ethos here that's central isn't the whiteness that I was pointing to.
It's some of the cultural values that come in.
For example, Protestant work ethic, right?
Taking value in the product produce that you, in the product that you make as a city.
And if America no longer had any of that and became completely atheistic but still followed these constitutional amendments, that's still plenty American, right?
As long as I hold to central ethos of what I think the American dream and vision is.
That's what you outlined, for example, with the founding fathers at the Declaration of Independence.
Well, then if it's not whiteness and it's not cult anything and it's not anything cultural $69.
Oh my God.
It means that according to no idea what happened there, I think that's okay.
If it's not, so here's what I'm asking.
If it's not ethnic.
What do you think American ethos is?
Do you have any American ethos?
And it's not cultural.
I said it is cultural.
It's cultural.
Yeah.
Okay.
So what are the cultural things?
What is American culture?
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, doing things at work, ingenuity, discovery.
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
Wait.
What do you think American ethos is?
And hang on.
What was the other thing you said?
I think ingenuity.
Ingenuity.
Those are some of them.
So as long as none of them.
Do you reject these as part of the American ethos?
I do.
So as long as none of these, life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, or ingenuity is violated, then it's in the spirit of America.
Potentially, we would have to look at it in a relativistic, right?
Like these ethos-like things, we have to understand what we're talking about.
You'd have to give me the idea.
That's what I'm asking you about is what we're talking about.
So if any of these things— So what do you think is American?
I— Well, so I think that what's core at the central kind of product of Americanism is this idea of systemic liberalism, the system itself is what American is.
Cultural Values and American Ethos00:14:43
What's that?
What is systemic liberalism?
Yeah, so it's just the idea that like, there's a secular separation, there's systems in place within the constitutional confines, there's things which we're appealing to in law.
I don't think that liberals, I don't think that liberalism and modernity is doing anything other than looking at those systems.
I think that originally founders, our founders wanted to have something which was much more akin to ethno-nationalism, for sure.
I think that they wanted to have something that was much more akin to nobody voting in universal suffrage at all because it didn't give anybody the right to vote.
So I don't think that those things were foundational to the American experience because the founders didn't allow it.
Why didn't they?
Because they didn't want people to come over here who weren't Western English, basically.
That's not why.
Yeah, it is why.
No, you can read it in Federalist No. 2.
The argument for suffrage is very clear from Hamilton.
Okay, wait.
Have you read the anti-Federalist papers?
No.
Do you realize there's Federalist papers, there's the Anti-Federalist papers?
Yes.
These were compromises which were made from the original Articles of Confederation.
What did suffrage mean to them?
Originally, the 39, the 39, I believe it's 39 out of 50 delegates who signed the Constitution, only three were deists.
Most of them were Protestants, loyalist Protestants, by the way.
And on top of all of that, most of them wanted only white states and made it very clear they only wanted white states.
They put that into the very ethos of what they considered Americana.
Do I think that modern liberalism is looking at any sort of people group?
No.
Is modern liberalism looking at any sort of like cultural environmentalism in order to like say, hey, this is what America is?
No.
All you can appeal to is systems.
That's it.
That's all you have, is a system.
Liberalism is a system of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and ingenuity, whatever the fuck that means.
It doesn't even mean anything.
Of course it is.
What do you mean?
What is life, liberty, and my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?
I could completely amend the First Amendment and still do all of those things.
I think the issue is that most of the country would oppose you amending the First Amendment because the First Amendment is foundational to what makes America good.
So what?
So what if most of the country opposes it?
It's built into liberalism if all it is is that the whole country opposes it is because America is this consensual emergence of a bunch of people that believe in something.
And what if we decide that we don't believe in the First Amendment anymore and amend it?
What's un-American?
Do you not believe in the First Amendment anymore?
That has nothing to do with the argument.
What is un-American about amending the First Amendment?
Well, again, the American is this ethos.
It would be technically constitutional, but I would argue that it would be a bad constitutional move, and I think it would violate the Founding Fathers.
And I think the Founding Fathers were onto something when they made that first separation of free speech and separation of church and state.
Should we adhere to everything the founders said or no?
Nope, nothing.
Well, then who cares if we violate it?
Who cares?
What do you mean, who cares?
Yeah, if you're like, look, if you violate the things that the founders wanted, that's not un-American.
But this is un-American because it might violate what the founders wanted.
You're in contradictions.
These are not contradictions.
Like, pluralism allows for competing values, right?
Obviously.
Right?
And so what you're kind of doing right now is you're sitting here and you're being like, well, there's two children.
They're your children one side and your husband's on the other side.
Who are you picking?
And let's say I pick the two children.
You're going, why do you hate your husband?
And I'm saying, that's not what's happening here.
I don't even know.
First of all, that's not the analogy.
The analogy would actually be this.
You have your husband and your children on both sides.
You pick both.
This other guy has his husband and children, and he doesn't pick both.
That's not how pluralism and monism work.
Wait a second.
As long as you're saying that both of these sets are both moral behaviors because you have an amoral system, meaning you wouldn't restrict either of these things.
That's not necessary.
We absolutely restrict people's behaviors, and we often restrict people's behaviors for the benefit of the state, right?
Laws exist.
And who makes them?
The people that we vote elect.
I see.
So if we elect people who vote in different laws, how's that un-American?
So it would be against the American ethos if a whole bunch of Christian nationalists, for example, convince people that we should actually reduce things like liberty.
I think that we would be moving away from the people.
You wouldn't be reducing liberty.
Absolutely.
It would just be a different kind of liberty.
If you start imposing church into state, for example, and the only religion that you can practice is Christianity, that would be violating liberty.
If we amend the process, how?
Even if you amend the process.
So you can amend the process to make us a less free nation.
But what I would say is that would be wrong.
That would be un-American, yes.
How?
Because America is built on life and liberty.
America is built on the fact that you can amend America.
No, America is built on.
Why do we have an amendment process?
Why wouldn't TJ, when he's writing the Declaration of Independence, why wouldn't he, for example, say, America is just what we vote for?
It's just like consensus stuff, man.
It's just like loosey-goosey.
He says specifically an ethos that drives the dream, right?
And you're saying, well, this ethos, this dream, it's just silly.
It's nothing.
I mean, it's just not nothing, right?
It makes me go to the house on liberalism, on the liberal view, right?
So you think America is nothing?
Let each other finish.
It's not built on any sort of ethnicity.
It's not built on any sort of cultural union.
Well, I did say culture.
Well, but you just said life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Can that not be cultural values?
No.
Why not?
Because what does it mean?
What's an example of a cultural value?
Well, what the fuck does it mean?
What's an example of a cultural value if not something like life and liberty?
The unison of cultural values are usually foundation to ethical systems.
No, they're not.
So what's a cultural value that you would say that's a cultural value?
I just told you I would utilize for culture, some kind of glue.
That would be a unison.
Otherwise, it's not cultural.
Okay, what's a Scottish cultural value?
Irish.
Sorry, you're Irish.
That's an Irish cultural value.
Yeah, so I think that Irish cultural values would, again, revolve around foundationalism of religious ethical systems.
Like what?
Well, for Ireland, I think what, the Protestant, Catholic.
So the cultural value of being Irish is being Catholic.
I think that there's a union between the people group and the ethical foundations.
So how are Irish people different than British people who are also on the back of Anglican or Catholic?
Well, because they're not, right?
So England has a completely different set of people groups, which come from Britannians.
The Britannians, who came in, settled all of England.
When the church came in and then they separate into Anglican, they have now a completely different set of value structures than other places do, including Western European.
Anglican?
What?
The British cultural value.
So the only thing that makes British and Irish people different is one's Catholic people.
I said different people group.
Let's okay, steelman my position.
What's the cultural value of Irish?
Steelman my position real quick.
I'm asking you actually to steel man mine because you're insisting that when I list these ethos.
How can I steel man your position when you're asking me questions?
I'm asking you questions because you seem to be unsatisfied with the answers that I have supplied.
People groups.
People group plus ethical systems.
If you're going to get us on interrupting, it has to be mutual.
Okay.
Yeah.
So I gave you an example of a couple of cultural ethos.
And you said, what?
This is nothing.
It doesn't mean anything.
Well, these are the things that you're saying.
And then I said, hold on.
So then I said, can you give me an example of, let's say, Irish cultural virtues.
Okay, sure.
Hold on.
And you said, Catholic.
And I said, what makes them different then from just another group of people that are also Catholic?
They have different set values.
Like what?
Like, for instance, they have different religious foundationalism.
They have different values in their society that they honor.
Irish cultural value can be one.
Not life, not liberty, not pursuit of happiness.
How am I wrong?
I don't know.
I'm not Irish.
Oh, I don't know.
So Irish just values.
If it's just isms of like, a cultural value is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then it's like, okay, then cultural values are also just not life, not liberty, and not pursuit of happiness then.
Does that make any sense to you?
That's not what anyone's saying.
I'm literally saying, let each other finish, please.
I'm just asking you for a single example of an Irish cultural value.
Yeah, when you're talking, let each other finish.
And you're just saying Catholic.
So what's an example of an Irish cultural value?
So do you agree that Catholic would be an example of an Irish cultural value?
I wouldn't say it's unique to Ireland, no.
So?
Why would it need to be unique?
We're talking about Irish people.
Is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness unique to America?
So are you just saying that cultures don't really exist?
They're just the religions?
Like, there's no difference between Irish people and another group that's Catholic as well.
Like Spanish people?
So what a culture is, is going to be the grouping of the people, the consideration of the value group of those people, and then the foundations of those people.
So what's an example of an Irish cultural Catholicism.
So how is that different than Spanish people who are also Catholic?
Because they have a different people group.
So what emerges that's different between these two groups?
Language, customs, orders.
Yeah, values.
Not just values.
No, of course not just values.
They can have, actually, they have a lot of shared values.
Sure, of course.
But again, you have to take the people group, then you have to take the social orders, then you have to take the foundationalism in order to create culture.
For you, you're saying life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
Now, I gave you concrete examples of cultural values.
Can you tell me what this means?
What does that mean?
So if we're talking about the culture of people, I think one of the relevant things for the American culture might be, not excluded to, the founding fathers and what they thought, you know, the founding of the entire nation kind of matters.
So in the Declaration of Independence, for example, Thomas Jefferson outlines life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That is a unique thing, a unique hallmark of people.
Jefferson didn't sign the Constitution.
That doesn't mean that he didn't write the Declaration of Independence.
We're talking about the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence was a propaganda piece built on an axiom which said under God, right?
So as an American, you just don't care about the Declaration of Independence.
I'm saying that when we're talking about foundationalism, the reason I bring up that Jefferson didn't sign the Constitution, we are.
We're talking about value structures.
You're saying that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
You're saying life, liberty, pursuit of happiness is the foundation of Americanism.
Nope.
Then what is?
What is the foundation?
It's the foundation of America is the founding fathers.
It's the Constitution.
It's the Declaration of Independence.
It's the entire idea.
It's systems.
Well, it's systems and it's ethos.
You see what I mean, though?
That's circular.
You say life, liberty.
It's not circular.
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, that is not the foundation of America.
Right?
I suppose they can be foundations in that they're irreducible.
Life, liberty are kind of irreducible.
Why couldn't they be reduced?
Because it's going to become circular eventually.
Like most things will become circular.
So you have a culture that values work ethic.
How do you reduce that?
What does that mean?
But that people work really, really hard.
Yeah, isn't that kind of just like, you're just kind of saying something.
It's a heuristic.
So it's circular.
I'm not sure that it's circular, but it's a heuristic.
How is saying work ethic is people work hard, not circular?
Well, you could give qualifiers for what hard work is.
What you didn't, you just said hard work is you just asked me how and I explained okay, so this is one of the key points.
When you're talking about foundationalism, you said life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but then said that that's not a foundation and then only pointed to systems.
No, no, no, I didn't say it's not foundation.
I said it's not foundationalism.
Because when I'm hearing that, and I could be wrong, when I hear foundationalism, I'm assuming that you mean the like the philosophical framework.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So when I'm saying foundational, I think it's a very important thing.
What's the philosophical framework of the United States other than a system?
I'm not, I'm not, so when I'm saying the cultural ethos, I'm not talking about the philosophical framework now.
I'm asking you, what is the philosophical framework of the United States other than a system?
What?
Well, it is a system.
Yeah, exactly.
So all you're appealing to in your liberal ethical system is a fuck is just systems.
It's an amoral system.
That's it.
So statecrafter systems.
Yes.
Yeah.
So me, so we can make this super easy.
We can make this super easy then.
Is changing the First Amendment immoral?
No, but I think it would make the country worse.
So it's an amoral system.
I would argue, like, it's probably immoral because probably the people doing it, right?
Like, which people want to change free speech?
Who cares?
What would make it immoral?
Well, the context and the individual who's doing it might make it immoral or not.
Yeah, but in and of itself, it's not.
It might be, right?
Things are relative.
Okay, so in and of itself is not relative anymore because it's just in and of itself.
So I am a moral objectivist and a relativist, right?
What?
European and not pee?
No, I believe that morals are objective, but also that they are relative.
This is standard.
This is like Aristotle stuff.
What the fuck?
What?
Okay, so stealing is wrong.
However, the guy whose family is going to die if he doesn't steal, relatively, contextually, might be okay for him to steal in that situation, right?
You're just talking about pluralism.
I'm not just, I'm not talking, what's the competing values here?
Because under pluralism, what you're saying is that there's many pathways to get to what the spirit of the thing is.
That's not what pluralism is.
It is.
Nope.
Okay, what is it?
Okay, I wrote it down because it's when it's multiple of the future.
It's multiple irreducible competing goods in moral pluralism.
Multiple what?
Irreducible competing goods.
Meaning that there's multiple pathways to get to somewhere.
Nope.
That means, for example, that you have two moral systems that are both good.
So justice and mercy.
And there's multiple ways to use them to get to the thing we're trying to get to.
Nope.
In this case, they're competing against one another.
So in the case, for example, of somebody who's cheated on his wife, there's morals of justice that we would want to uphold, but there's also maybe morals of mercy or union of family.
And so to make a decision, there isn't an obvious correct answer between justice or mercy.
Usually we have to do some type of balance between the two.
Or we could do no type of balance and utilize one in order to get to the same objective as the other.
What's the objective?
So for instance, if we wanted to prosecute a guy for a crime, we could say we're only going to prosecute him on this crime based on justice.
That could be one value set which we adhere to, right?
Yeah, sure.
We could also appeal to something else like dignity.
I don't know.
Let's just say we put that up and say that's what we're going to use instead.
Well, the justice people and the dignity people, right, neither one of them are wrong, and they're both going towards the same goal, which is execution of guy just or execution of guy good or execution of guy fine.
Well, I guess if the goal, if you want to make this like pluralist, I guess if you're a virtualistic person.
Because it is.
It's pluralist.
Yes, of course.
You're a virtue ethicist.
Okay.
So you want to basically utilize and a Christian ethicist, but virtue ethics is involved, yes.
Okay, gotcha.
So in the case of why are we here?
Yes.
Because we're talking about systems.
States vs. Federal Power00:15:38
How is the United States something other than just a system?
You said in and of itself, if we changed the First Amendment, that would not be immoral.
You don't think American So you don't think America is anything but its system.
There's nothing else that makes America unique that you can point to and say that's a matter of fact.
Under the liberal view, no.
Under your view, I'm asking your view.
Well, under my view, I think that there was once upon a time a powerful idealism which was founded around Christian ethics that was foundational to America, which is now basically destroyed by founding fathers or foundational in what way?
It was foundational to the moral character of the people who lived here.
So then why did they write it out in the federal papers?
Write what out?
The church from state government.
But they didn't.
No, they didn't.
No, they didn't.
They separated in the First Amendment only that the federal government couldn't pass a religion on the people.
But under the 10th Amendment, states could still maintain their religions.
And then most states came to agree that actually the federal precept was better, right?
No.
Yeah.
No.
What happened actually was a lot of states were looking at moving back towards that, which is why this whole idea of the 14th Amendment being reinterpreted the way that it was to say that states couldn't do that happened.
I feel like we have a very different understanding of suffrage.
That's not suffrage.
That's the 19th Amendment.
14th Amendment?
Yeah, 14th Amendment, I think, is citizenship.
It's about birthright citizenship.
It's about birthright citizenship.
So the 14th Amendment?
Yeah.
The 14th Amendment prohibits states from infringing on religious freedom by applying the First Amendment to them through the due process of the law.
Read the 14th.
Read it.
I just did, but hold on.
I want you to read it in a way that goes to his argument.
I just want him to read the amendment, but I think that that's the case.
Besides, even if it wasn't, it's not dunk for you.
You didn't remember.
Wait, it is.
So the idea of remembering isn't what matters in a conversation of like which idea is more true, right?
Yeah, hang on.
So it's not about me.
I didn't read the amendment.
I don't know why he said that.
Aren't we trying to talk about ideas here?
So whether I remembered or not, like poo-poo for me, I should have remembered 14th Amendment.
But if the 14th Amendment says what I'm suggesting, that's point to my ideas, not me getting away.
I read all the clauses.
Okay.
One citizenship clause.
Yes, there we go.
It declares that anyone born or naturalized in the United States is a U.S. citizen, including formerly enslaved people.
Yep.
Overturned the Dred Scott versus Sanford decision number two, due process clause.
It says states cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
So I was right.
This protects individuals from unfair state government actions.
Clause three, equal protection clause.
It requires states to provide equal protection of the laws to all people.
This clause became the foundation for many civil rights decisions, including Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, Obergfeld versus Hodges.
So these were all interpretations of the amendment.
There's nothing in there about religion.
You're right, but you said that that was the 14th Amendment was saying that states could have their own unique religion, but in fact— No, that's the 10th Amendment.
Wait, why were you citing the 14th Amendment?
Because I was telling you that most of the reason states wanted to move back to the idea of religiosity.
It was through the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which had nothing at all to do with religion, had to do with birthright citizenship.
And due process.
They focused on that.
And here's how they did it.
What they were saying was basically states aren't going to be able to tell anybody who is or isn't a citizen.
Okay.
They're not going to be able to do that anymore.
And it needs to be uniform.
So what happened is the Supreme Court began to rule that, oh, well, since it has to be uniform, we'll apply the First Amendment there too.
This is way, way, way late in the game, though.
Early Constitution, remember at this time, your founders are all dead, right?
All these people are dead.
They didn't want anything to do with that.
They wanted the states to be able to make those prospective decisions themselves, which they were doing.
Sure.
So there was a compromise, particularly the compromise was because they needed to unite the colonies, but a lot of the colonies had a lot of different predilections about how to run statecraft, right?
And so one of the reasons why they wrote out separation of church and state at a federal level, but allowed states to maintain it, is because they wanted states to still join.
It was very important to them, particularly since the revolution was about to happen, that they had the states.
And none of that signed one another.
Well, again, so the 14th Amendment didn't, none of that proved that you were right.
Yes, it did.
100% did.
That has nothing to do with religion.
That was my point, not yours.
That was my point.
I never said the 14th Amendment had anything to do with religion.
You did.
You said the First Amendment.
I haven't written, I've only read it.
And I said, no, it was citizenship.
And you were like, nope, nope.
Oh, wait, it is citizenship.
And then Brian, he did a quick Google search.
And what he was reading was an interpretation of it.
When he read the actual amendment, no, I was correct.
I've never denied that it was about citizenship.
I said, what does the 14th Amendment have to do with religion?
Read it so that it favors Andrew.
But it did favor me because I was right.
Well, he started reading it and had nothing to do with religion.
It had everything to do with like equal liberty.
No, it was the opposite.
He was saying first that, hey, this was about religion when it wasn't.
No, he was.
What?
No, he was not.
Yes.
What was the first thing you read, Brian?
Okay.
It was the citizenship clause.
There's the due process clause.
No, no, no, before that.
The first thing that you read.
Oh, the first one.
Before I looked it up again.
Oh, that the 14th Amendment prohibits states from infringing on religious freedom by applying on religious freedom.
Thank you.
He was saying that the 14th Amendment was about religion.
I said, no, it's not.
That was about.
That was literally about citizenship.
I can look stuff up for you, too.
I appreciate that.
That's fucking crazy.
Wait, nothing crazy has happened here.
Yes, it has.
So would you agree that in this conversation, I brought up the First Amendment around religion?
You have brought up the 10th and 14th to justify why actually the states were given power to decide their own religion.
No, just the 10th.
The 14th was how it was reinterpreted to get away from the idea that states could have their own religion.
Okay, gotcha.
I see.
So can we read the 10th?
Yeah.
Yeah, sure.
One moment.
All right.
The 10th Amendment, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.
Which is why, post-foundation.
Just state power.
So none of that is states establishing a religion.
Yeah.
No.
This is just saying the federal government respects the state's right to make certain decisions.
Like in suffrage, the state reserved the right to decide who is people, right?
How many states maintained a state religion post-constitutional ratification?
I believe all of them did initially.
Then what is your argument?
My argument is that the states are not America.
The founding fathers.
And what is America?
Well, the founding fathers are probably a lot closer than what Maryland thought.
That's not Maryland, the states.
The states would be all.
Is Maryland a state?
Uh-huh.
But all states is different than one state.
Sure, and yet all states felt that religion and church should be unified, that they should have a state religion, that there should be a test for religion.
And the founding fathers knew that, and despite that, wrote it in explicitly that Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion and prohibit the free exercise there.
That way the states could do it.
Yes.
They were not saying what the states were going to do.
They were saying America, which is federal.
Yeah.
No, it's also state.
That's why we have the 10th Amendment.
America is federal government.
And state government.
So Maryland is America.
America is a state, or Maryland has a state government.
I didn't say that it didn't.
Great.
And is that state government allowed to do all the things that the federal government can't do that is not in the powers of the federal government via the 10th Amendment?
What matters more to what America is?
Now, what matters is answering my question.
Is Maryland allowed to do whatever Maryland wants to do under the 10th Amendment as long as that's not in the hands of the federal government?
As long as those aren't things which are allocated to the federal government, can Maryland do what it wants?
By and large, as long as it's not violating any of the constituents of the finish corporation.
Great.
So if that's the case, then there was actually no reason at all why states could not have their own state religions, and they did.
So what do you think is more important for America, what a state did, like Pennsylvania, or what the founding fathers wrote into the founding documentation?
The founding fathers wrote the 10th Amendment into the founding documents.
Yes, to respect the state's ability to make decisions.
Like have a state religion.
Sure, but also multiple things like commerce.
And also state religion.
Sure, but then they also explicitly prohibited at a federal level any involvement.
That's not in dispute.
That's what I'm saying.
Any involvement of a state religion.
There's no federal state, there's no federal religion.
That's never been in dispute.
Yep, that has been in dispute because the question here is, what's more America?
What's more American?
What Pennsylvania did in like the 1700s?
The question is nationalism.
That's my question.
That's my question to you.
What matters more for America, the American ethos, understanding America as a country, what Pennsylvania did at the founding of America, or what the American founding fathers wrote?
Both.
Both are important.
Which matters more.
Neither one of them matters more than the other.
Equally valid.
Equally mattered than the same.
The system wouldn't work without the validity of both state and federal government.
That's not what we're saying.
You're saying that the Pennsylvania policies are equally as valid as the founding fathers.
Under the 10th Amendment, yes.
No.
No, no, no.
Hold on.
You're equivocating again.
How?
You're being naughty.
Because you're pretending like what we're talking about is now statecraft, that Pennsylvania policy was valid under the Constitution.
But that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying I'm asking you about the American idea.
The idea of America.
This is.
What matters more to the history and understanding of America as a nation?
Both.
Which matters more?
That's what Pennsylvania matters just as much as the founding fathers.
More or less.
Which is fine.
It's just absurd.
Absent.
How is it absurd?
The system doesn't work unless you have the state governments.
It doesn't work.
That's not what anyone's saying.
Nobody here is denying that it's not.
So how could it be more important what the founders did when it was intricate that the states had the right to America as an idea?
I think what the founding fathers write kind of matters like the most.
Yeah.
Why?
Because they're founding the federal government.
They're founding.
Based on a compromise with the states?
Yeah, but they're founding a nation.
Based on the states.
But the nation is not Pennsylvania.
The nation is.
The nation is a collection of states.
So why is it the case that if all the states had all these religious practices and all these religious law, why didn't the federal government, if they wanted to unify them, why didn't they just write in that America is a Christian nation?
Why didn't they do that?
Because you had what was called pan-Protestantism.
Each one of these states had different religious organizations in them.
And some of them wanted to be this type of Protestant.
Some wanted to be Catholic.
Some wanted to be Quakers.
So they gave them the 10th Amendment.
And the 10th Amendment said that they could do that shit.
They could be a Protestant state.
Why not just say they have to be Christian?
Why not just say at a federal level that they can just be the Christian?
Because the states demanded that the federal government not step in to tell them what their state religion had to be.
That's not true.
Actually, the compromise.
So when they were standing, yes, it was.
So, no, no, no.
Hold on.
Hold on.
The compromise here is that states are allowed to make certain rules of law within state that don't, that are not within the federal purview.
That is the compromise, right?
Yes.
That's one compromise.
Okay, I don't know why you're interjecting there at all.
Thank you for the clarification.
This is like being like, there's three ways of feminism.
And I'm like, there's four.
And you're like, three's within four.
It's like, okay.
No, it's nothing like that.
It's like saying this.
It's like saying the states, the reason that this compromise happened in the First Amendment is because a Catholic state didn't want the federal government to tell them they had to be a Protestant state.
So why didn't they just have a state?
They did want the federal government to say that they could have a Catholic state, and they did under the 10th Amendment.
So why is it the case that within the first federal address, all of the states were extremely upset because they mentioned nothing about God?
There was no establishment of America as a nation of God.
There are ways, for example, that they probably could have compromised between all of the religions so that it wasn't saying a Catholic leader, but just saying a Christian leader.
They could have done that, but they didn't do that explicitly to the upset, actually, to the upset of the religious leaders, to the upset of some of the founding fathers.
It's because.
So why did they do that?
Because Protestants didn't consider Catholics to be Christians.
That's why.
That's not why.
It is why.
No, TJ writes about this.
The reason why, right?
And you have this in the Federalist Papers.
The reason why is because they were breaching away from a king who was also a spiritual leader, right, in the UK, and they had a huge issue with it.
They viewed this blend of church and state, especially at a federal level, as a problem.
In fact, I suspect if you go into it, a lot of the founding fathers thought that all the states shouldn't have a state-level religion.
They just weren't going to comment on that because they needed to unify the country.
Incorrect.
Over time, the colonies adopted the exact same framework as the founding freedom of a couple of them that didn't want to.
So, first of all, there was a couple, a couple of them who didn't want to.
That's true.
But the thing is, is like the entirety of the federal government.
Well, I'm talking about there was a couple of founders who didn't want states to have a religion.
That's what I'm specifically saying.
You're talking about the deists.
Not just the deists.
There were others who weren't deists.
But by and large, most of them were fine with the compromise.
So a majority of the founding fathers.
Is it my turn now?
So here's what actually happened.
Because since you have revisionist history, I don't know what he came up with.
Okay.
You couldn't say in the First Amendment that this is to be a Christian nation specifically, unless you gave a specific denomination, because denominations did not recognize other ones as being Christian.
So what they did instead was they said, look, Congress is not going to make an establishment of a religion, period.
We're going to leave that to the states.
And then they put in the 10th Amendment.
And that's exactly what the states did.
They put in their own religions.
Why could they have?
So why did they ban religious test clauses?
You could easily make religious test clauses.
They still had them in almost every state.
No, no, no, at a federal level.
It's Article 6.
It's explicitly banned.
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Because there could be instances where you had people who were representatives of states who, for some reason, needed to operate at the federal level, right?
They didn't want to be like, hey, you're a Catholic, so your oath is no good here.
Or you're a Protestant, so your oath is no good here.
Or you're a this, so your oath is no good here.
That was part of the compromise.
Why didn't they just use the Apostles' Creed?
Both Protestants and Catholics at the time acknowledged the Apostles' Creed.
Because they didn't recognize each other as Christians.
That doesn't matter.
They both recognize the Apostles' Creed isn't Catholic or Protestant.
It's just Christian, right?
Whether or not they would fight about who's a heretic or not.
Why not, if you want a religious test clause that compromises between these two religions, why didn't they just write in the Apostles' Creed?
I'm sure they were familiar with it.
Because they didn't recognize each other as Christians.
Meaning, at the federal level, if you swore in as a Catholic, let's say, right, in order to fucking, I don't know, help with some piece of legislation or do something that you weren't, you know, you were supposed to do at the federal level, the Protestant nations or states might be like, we don't recognize that because that's an oath of a Catholic.
So at the federal level, they had to stay secular.
They would have said that the Apostles' Creed is Catholic.
Why the Apostles' Creed Was Excluded00:14:33
What does the Apostles' Creed have to do with anything we're talking about?
The Apostles' Creed is like one of the central creeds to what we say is Christian.
So what?
That has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
Of course it does.
Why would you said if a Catholic takes the Apostles' Creed, why would a Protestant Government, it was not within the federal purview to make the determination of getting the states to compromise on the fucking Apostles' Creed.
It was under their purview to say, hey, what we're going to do is make it so that you don't have to swear any oaths from the Catholic or Protestant perspective, but rather we'll leave that to the states.
The states can make it so that you can swear that you're a Protestant or you can swear that you're a Catholic or you can swear this or you can swear that.
It was up to states perspectively under the 10th Amendment.
Right.
But at a federal level, it was barred.
And you're saying there's a certain amount of people.
Nobody's disputing that.
Hold on.
I don't, we're just like going in a circle.
We can keep going in the circle, but I'm not going to let this point go because I think that one of the issues is that what you're trying to do is say, well, because the states had this rule, that means that was the founding of America.
And it's like, no, the founding fathers knew that this existed, knew, for example, the Apostles' Creed existed.
And despite all of this, despite the standard of all of the states utilizing a religious test, they rejected.
Not only did they reject it, they explicitly wrote it in in Article 6 that no test can be utilized.
Despite the fact that the founding fathers were pretty smart, I imagine if they wanted a religious test in there that could satisfy both Protestants and Catholics, they probably could have found it like the Apostles' Creed.
So your whole position is: why didn't the founders try to find some way that all of the different religious denominations could agree to some creed and enshrine it in the First Amendment?
That's your argument?
My argument would be if they wanted a blending of church and state, they were pretty intentional to go out of their way to ensure there was no blending of church and state.
Except they gave the states the 10th Amendment so that they can blend the church and the state.
They didn't tell the states what to do.
That was part of the colony deal.
No shit, that's my point.
But at a federal level, they went above and beyond to explicitly bar this.
They went above and beyond to make the compromise that each single state could have their own religion if they wanted it, and the federal government wasn't going to tell them what that had to be.
Would no religious clause would not.
Yes.
That was the compromise.
Federal government can't tell us what our religion's going to be.
Why are you spurting out?
And the feds were like, okay, we could do that.
Do you think the founding fathers were like maybe a little bit thoughtful and intentional, that they like worked pretty hard to figure out the compromise?
Some of them were lazy, fucking womanizing pieces of shit, but what's the woman's?
They could be womanizing and what is your point?
My point would be that if they wanted a religious test clause that could unify the religions, they probably could have found one that would have worked because they found a whole bunch of other compromises.
What would it be?
The Apostles' Creed is one good example.
Okay, did Quakers follow the Apostles' Creed?
Yes, I believe the Quakers follow the Astrology.
Did Monsieur's Creed?
I believe Mormons also follow the Apostles' Creed, yes.
Really?
Yes.
Let's find out if Quakers follow the Apostles' Creed.
Can you look it up?
Look up if Quakers follow the Apostles' Creed.
Do you know what the Apostles' Creed is?
Pop Quiz Kyla?
Well, pop quiz, Kyla.
Are you saying you don't?
Yeah.
Most Quakers do not formally use or recite the Apostles' Creed.
Really quickly.
Hold on.
Really quick.
We're coming up on the hour.
Would you guys like to shift to a new prompt here in a few minutes?
So you're telling me that they don't acknowledge the Apostles' Creed.
Why are you saying that they don't believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he died and rose again?
That's the Apostles' Creed.
They don't recognize it.
That's the Apostles' Creed.
That's it.
They don't recognize it.
Hold on.
I do have a bit more information here.
It says many Quakers, especially in more evangelical branches, would agree with much of the theology in the Apostles' Creed.
However, they generally do not recite it in worship or require it.
Reciting doesn't matter.
They require members to affirm it.
I don't know if that changes.
So that wouldn't have been a unifier.
How would that not have been a unifier?
Because even if they theologically think it's sound, they're not going to recite the Apostles' Creed.
No, no, no, that's not what they said.
They didn't say they won't say it.
It said that they don't require people to say it, which is not the same thing.
I'm not talking about a catechism.
I'm talking about a federal government.
The entire argument is: why couldn't the founders find some compromise that every single independent Protestant, pan-Protestant religion could agree to for some kind of creed for oaths?
My argument is that if you're not.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Here's what they did instead: they went, We're just not going to legislate any sort of formal religion on your states, and you can do that instead.
Classic, Andrew, it's just absurd.
That's an actual absurd position.
That's not absurd.
The founding fathers were pretty smart guys.
I think that they could think about things.
They wrote a lot.
I think if they wanted to blend church and state intentionally, they would have done so.
But instead, hold on.
But instead, they explicitly wrote into the Constitution that they would not do so federally.
And over time, all states agreed with that and wrote out religious clauses.
What was the 10th Amendment for?
I don't know.
Okay.
We just hit the hour mark.
Shall we?
Do you want to tell me?
Shall we switch prompts?
The thing we've been talking about for the first time.
Yeah.
Well, I assumed that you were going to give me more information about it.
Why do I need to give you more information?
You don't even know what it is.
We do have a TTS coming in.
Can I just pause?
I think something.
I don't know what you're doing right now because I feel like we need to talk about these.
Okay.
No, continue.
Continue.
I'm going to wait for his tantrum to be over and then I'll go.
Okay.
I'll let you know when it's over.
We're done.
Are you still tantruming?
Me just sitting here as a tantrum.
You like were throwing in not willing to listen with me and throw your hands in the air.
I'm doing cross eyes and like making fun of me.
Well, that was silly.
It's silly to say that you think that the founders should have found some way that every single independent pan-Protestant religion would find some kind of unifying creed they would all just suddenly agree to rather than them just saying, we're just not going to impose any religious standards on states.
You guys can do it yourself.
Yeah, I think that if the founding fathers actually believed that the merging of church and state was important, they would have found a way to write it into the Constitution.
They did via the 10th Amendment.
They did.
So allowing states to have choice and purview is not the same thing as writing.
Were states allowed to make their own religions or not?
Yeah.
Okay.
That has nothing to do with, for example, saying that the church doesn't get a hand in statescraft, which is written exclusively into the only at the federal level.
Yes.
Because they didn't have a unification for things like oaths and other things that all the pan-Protestants would agree to.
They could think of one.
At the federal level.
They just couldn't think of any.
They were like, man, we really didn't.
They argued about it in this.
This is your premise.
This is your premise.
The founding fathers actually really wanted to write in the merging of church and state.
It was something that they really cared about.
At the federal level, they didn't.
But they couldn't find a way to federally write these things in together.
And so don't interrupt me.
And so, instead, what they did is they wrote it out and they just let states do so.
They could sneakily blend in their their uh, their blurring of church and state.
That's your argument truly truly, your yes, intellect is dizzying.
No, my argument is that are we getting personal that the founding fathers are we getting personal because you said no personal when we started this.
Do you want wait a second?
You said my intelligence yeah, you can call me stupid.
So the thing is is like I am so curious about this that I actually don't even understand.
I just want to be clear that we're breaking the rules of so the federal your, so the federal government.
Was that, was that really harsh?
Like truly, your intellect is dizzying.
That's harsh, I would say in general.
I would say in general.
But if we want to have a good engagement back and forth we, for example, agreed to things like not getting personal.
That's not personal, it's from the princess bride, it's a joke.
So you only meant it as a joke.
You weren't trying to call me stupid.
Well, this position's stupid.
Are you calling me stupid?
Because when you say my intellect is dizzying, it feels like you're stupid.
It is, it is dizzy.
So you think the thing is here I don't get.
I don't know why.
I wouldn't just tell them that you're insulting me.
You go, wait a second, Andrew.
It would have been way better for the pan-Protestant and Catholics at the federal level for them to somehow agree on some kind of unifying creed.
Didn't say better.
Or make more sense that they would agree to some sort of unifying creed, even though Protestantism can also change.
They can have like a new denomination which pops up that doesn't agree with this.
And so they're like, wait a second, instead of doing that, what we'll do instead is we'll leave it up to the prospective states and then they can impose whatever religion.
Kyla, calm down, Kyla.
Calm down, Kyla.
I just want to finish.
Okay.
Okay.
The states can blend and always were able to blend.
Church and state.
Yes.
And yet the federal level can't and doesn't.
That was never in question.
So what is in question here is by your logic, the founding fathers, they actually secretly wanted the church and state to be blended, but they couldn't write it in because they were not.
Where did you get that?
Your argument.
I never argued that.
This is the implication of it.
It's not even the implication of it.
You're saying that actually the founding fathers, they did want the blend of church and state.
Do you think that?
They wanted the states to be able to blend.
Do you think that the founding fathers wanted America to have a blend of church and state?
That they wanted the church to be a blended.
It depends on which ones you're talking about.
Some of them did.
You said the majority.
You said the majority of founding fathers.
No, the majority of the founding fathers who signed, I said, were not deists.
That's what I said.
I said the majority of them were like some.
Foundational Protestants.
Yeah, they were men of God.
And from different denominations.
And do you think that those men of God couldn't have tried to, like, if they wanted to write in that the federal government has a blending of church and state, that they couldn't have found a way to possibly do that?
Or they just give it to the states perspectively, which makes more sense.
Why would they then explicitly write it out of the federal government?
Because they wanted it to go to the states specifically so that for purposes of things like oath keeping and things like this.
There's a rule then that says states must maintain some form of Christian religion.
Because that doesn't mean anything.
If you say you have to be a form of Christian, who gets to make the determination of who a Christian is?
Usually it's going to be the Christian people of that state, right?
Exactly.
That's my whole point.
Exactly.
It's not your whole point.
Yes, it is.
No, it's not.
If the founders, if at the federal level, they can't make a determination of who a Christian is or isn't, and that's why you leave it up to the state.
The state determines.
So by your implication, you're saying the founding fathers did actually want church and state to not be separate.
However, they couldn't find a way to write it into the constitution other than through the 10th Amendment, which doesn't even talk about the same thing.
It's one whole part of this.
Don't interrupt me.
Don't interrupt me.
You can correct me after.
Just write it down.
Go ahead.
Okay.
So you're saying the founding fathers, by implication, they actually did want the church and state to be blended.
They actually valued that.
I'm not getting that.
Because you're saying that they wrote it into the Constitution by allowing the states to do it, which is implying then that the founding fathers did want church and state to be blended.
They just couldn't write it in within the First Amendment clause.
So they allowed the states to do it as a sneaky way to smuggle in churches and states.
Lord, this is like the worst straw man ever.
No, here's my actual position.
The actual position is due to the Articles of Confederation and that not working, we knew that we needed to have a federalist nation.
Otherwise, we couldn't have currency, a standing army, anything like this.
Because of that, the states were completely distrustful of having a federal government because they had just fought off a massive fucking kingdom were very distrustful.
And so they needed to sell it to them.
The way that they sold it to them is they were like, well, since it's all pan-Protestantism, we can't figure out our foundationalism.
We will take a secular approach at the national level.
And what we'll do is institute the 10th Amendment, and each of you can put in your own religions if you want to.
That was the compromise.
It has nothing to do with the motivation of the founders at the federal level wanting it, not wanting it, loving it, not loving it.
It has to be a lot of people.
This is my argument.
Okay, that's great.
But you just said what you're saying is, which infers that's my argument, and it's not.
My argument is there's a compromise between the states and between the feds.
And the compromise was that the feds were not going to tell the states what religions they could or couldn't have, period.
And was the compromise, why are the fathers, were the founding fathers compromising?
Because they had a hope that the church and state would stay connected.
They just couldn't write it in.
Is that what you're saying?
At which level?
So they were hoping that the nation broadly would stay Christian within the statecraft, that there would be no separation of church and state.
However, they couldn't write it in.
No, they wanted at the national level to adhere to the idea that only the states could impose whatever their religious value structures are.
I'm asking, is it more reasonable to conclude that the founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state or that they did not want a separation of church and state?
You have to explain, express at which level.
I'm assuming that if they felt it at the federal level, they probably felt it at the statehood level.
I don't know why a founding father would be like, Jefferson wanted it at the state level, but I actually do.
You said compromise, right?
Jefferson didn't like that states had religions, and he made that clear.
But other presidents made it clear that they were fine with it.
So the majority of the founding fathers, do you think that they wanted separation of church and state?
At the national level, that was the compromise, yes.
Do they want it, though?
I don't know.
I can describe to you each of their motivations.
What's your presumption of that?
Some of them did and some of them didn't.
Do you think most of them did or most of them didn't?
I don't know if it's most.
Well, you said a majority of the founding fathers.
No, you also said that they were loyal Protestant boys.
They were.
So my argument would be that these good old Christian boys all agreed that separation of church and state mattered.
That's why they wrote it into the Constitution.
At the federal level.
They didn't even prescribe states having a state religion.
They just didn't take the state's right.
They just didn't take the state's right away from them doing so.
That's not the same thing.
So they allowed the states to implement their own religions.
At a state level, but they would not at a federal level.
Then what are we arguing here?
We're arguing about whether or not the founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state or not.
At the federal level, okay, I don't know how else to say that.
Why would they want it not at the federal level?
At the federal level, they did not want a federal religion because states did not make religion.
Why didn't they want a federal religion?
They're not compromising with the states.
Sure, but do you think that overall, if they didn't have to compromise, they would have preferred a federal religion?
Well, there wouldn't even, the whole framework of the nation would be so different.
Federal vs. State Religion00:16:07
I don't even know how to speculate.
You're right.
It would be completely different America if we didn't have separation of church and state because the founding fathers, despite mostly being Christian, despite being loyal Christians, they understood the necessity of separation of church and state.
And most of those founding fathers.
And I'm not going to be able to America because there wouldn't then be states' rights, the 10th Amendment, there wouldn't be, the whole system would be totally different.
We're 10 minutes over.
So I don't have any idea what you're even referencing.
If you want to rewrite absurdism into it, that's totally fine.
But it's pretty obvious that if the founding fathers wanted to have no separation of church and state, they could have done something.
They could have employed in some direction.
I don't even know what she's arguing.
How about this?
You could steal Manme and try to get a lot of time on this prompt.
You seem to be saying that you guys want to do that.
Was it the motivation, if it was the case that there was no states, would the founders have preferred no religion?
So I've made already an affirmative claim, which I said, well, the founding fathers, despite being dominantly Christian, despite valuing their Christianity, despite most of the nation being either Protestant or Catholic, went out of their way to write religion out of a federal nation, grounding America at a nation level as a non-religious nation state.
In fact, so non-religious, so non-religious.
Here's the problem.
Hold on, I'm not done.
Okay, go ahead.
Go ahead.
Really quick before you go, we are a bit over time on this prompt.
It does give them some time to tantrum.
You can read your TTS if you want.
What tantrum?
I'm just sitting here.
Eye rolling and like getting upset, which is totally fine.
Like, it's an impassioned conversation.
I actually don't understand what the fuck you guys are talking about.
That's kind of the problem.
I really don't.
Do you guys want to continue on this prompt or do you want to move on to something else?
I just want to speak to that specific thing you said.
That's kind of one of my issues with Andrewism: you're not attempting to understand what I'm saying in any way.
And usually, I just tried to steel man, you cut me off.
When I was trying to steel man your position, you cut me off.
I corrected you because you were steelmanning me incorrectly.
Okay, got it.
So, here's the thing: well, if you're going to steel man me, you should probably be correct.
If we read a good faith conversation, I want to understand you, and you want to understand me.
So, let me summarize your position.
Okay, go ahead.
My understanding of your position is that you don't know.
You're agnostic as to whether or not the founding fathers wanted church and state to be blended, but you believe that essentially they allowed the states to do it so that the states could stay religious.
And they wrote it at a federal level because they recognized that they would have to compromise and they couldn't find a good compromisation amongst the states because they were of different religions, correct?
No.
How is that incorrect?
Well, the first part is what you're messing up.
Okay.
It's irrelevant whether or not the signers of the Constitution themselves would have ascribed for a state religion or not.
I think the founding is important.
What's relevant is what they actually did with the states.
The state itself, the prospective states, are as much of import as the federal government.
That's what anti-federalists thought.
You have a federalist mindset for some reason.
You keep on, I understand the disconnect.
Disconnect is you keep thinking that federal systems are just more important than state systems.
No, no, no.
They're definitely not.
Hang on.
Not only are they definitely not, but that's where the disconnect is.
Here's what's actually happening: there was a compromise that was done.
The compromise was that there was no possible way that Catholics over here were going to recognize the oaths of Protestants over there.
Not if the federal government was making the demand that you had to be ex-thing in order to swear an oath or do a thing.
So what they did instead was they said, what we're going to do is we're not going to implement a nationalized religion.
The prospective states instead are going to be able to implement whatever religious institutions that they want.
They were perfectly fine with them blending church and state.
Yes, perfectly fine with it.
Do you think they preferred it?
Many of them, yes.
So why didn't they read it into the federal constitution?
I don't know how else to explain it.
Like, I don't know.
So you're just saying that now.
Now I don't even know how to explain it.
Maybe a prompt switch.
Maybe a prompt switch.
I think we should probably do it.
I want to explain it.
I want to clarify.
Maybe a prompt switch could be good.
Sure.
The issue is.
I don't know if you want to have a good faith conversation or not.
It seems like the answer is no.
Because in a good faith conversation, we're both trying to understand the most coherent version of one another's opinions.
We're trying to actually understand that.
And why did you just ask me to explain it to me when I just explained it to you?
What?
You said, then explain to me why they did that.
And I'm like, I just explained to you why they did that.
So again, then I was going to say my next argument against that.
Yeah.
Right.
Which is that you're telling me that the founding fathers, in all of their intelligence and all of their battling, and their ability to do so much, like found America, they couldn't figure out a way to compromise amongst the religions if they actually all dominantly preferred a blending, a church and state blending.
They just couldn't.
They did find a way to do that.
So you're saying they actually did do that sneakily through the 10th Amendment.
It wasn't sneakily.
It was upfrontally.
Why wouldn't they just write that in the First Amendment?
Why would the First Amendment bar the union of church and state?
Because if they wanted at a federal level, at the federal level, what they did was they said, okay, we're not going to implement any religiosity on independent states.
We're not going to do that ever because each independent state gets to have their own religion as part of the compromise that they made with the federal government due to the Articles of Confederation.
Or, there's no or.
Yes.
There's no original.
Well, the or here is the more reasonable assumption.
The founding fathers wrote in an explicit separation of church and state at a federal level because that's what they wanted.
They understood that when you blend a church and state, it corrupts not only the nation, which they had just separated from, a corrupted nation that was utilizing statecraft and religion, and they recognized that it also corrupted the religion, which there were many issues with the corrupted religion of the Anglican and then Catholic and then Anglican British church.
No, that's not what happened.
What happened, first of all, they had not just done this, okay?
They had the Articles of Confederation first.
That happened first.
And what happened is they were just not able to govern because each state was like a mini kingdom and they wanted their own currency and their own militaries.
Okay.
And so, for like the common defense, they wanted to have some sort of federalism in order to do this.
Did they unify under one currency?
That was one of the primary reasons they wanted unification was because of a currency.
So, why couldn't they unify under one religion?
Because what you wanted was you wanted to have trade between each state.
But when you're talking about their religions, this was pan-Protestant.
So, there was no unification there.
So, they were willing to unify on a whole bunch of stuff, but they just couldn't, for the life of them, figure out a way to unify the religions because they actually did want the church and state to be blended.
They wanted the church to have weight and say on statecraft.
They just couldn't write it in at the federal level, so they just let statecraft.
Well, who's the church?
The church would be the Christian church.
Who?
Christian church.
Who's that?
The Christian church.
Who?
There's multiple branches of it.
Oh, there are.
Yep.
Okay.
So, because of that, were there multiple branches which had different states they were in?
Probably to some degree, although I imagine a lot of states mostly had a lot of everything.
I suspect that a lot of states had a lot of them had a lot of one thing.
Really?
Really?
Okay, so there was just like the Quaker state.
I mean, it was mostly brought up like that.
The Mormon state, but it didn't.
There was some delineation, but no.
So the thing is, no.
So the thing is, is like, look, when you look at it, because of pan-Protestantism, each state independently is going to have their own religion.
That had nothing to do with them being able to coordinate trade under one currency.
So, say if one of those states happened to be Muslim, do you think that they would have been like, woo, they get to have their own religion?
Do you think that would have been okay?
No, I don't think so.
So they did want a Christian nation.
Well, no, I think that they were banking on white immigrants not being Muslim.
Sure, but they probably did want a Christian nation.
And they had some feelings about the Catholics.
Well, they really think they recognized that they were more united.
I think that they thought that most of the immigrants coming in would be Western Europeans and so not Muslims.
Gotcha.
So they had no.
But say the Founding Fathers did have an expectation that a lot of a branch or a sect of paganism was about to be popularized in America.
They'd be okay with the state just being some pagan religion, some Nordic pagan religion that a bunch of these white Europeans were appealing to.
There wasn't, I don't even think that at that time they could have even indigenous.
Hypothetically, though, if there was, would they have been okay with that?
I think that you, I don't think there would have been a state federal compromise if that was the case.
Oh, interesting.
Why?
Because I think that the states would have been like, we're not going to allow a Muslim state.
So the federal government would have imposed a religion on them, except they wouldn't have imposed a religion necessarily.
They didn't do that.
In fact, the federal government explicitly wrote that out.
That would make my point.
That would make my point.
How would it make your point?
Because if the federal government wouldn't be okay with a Muslim government, then they probably should have written in that you have to be a Christian government in some way.
They probably could have found something connected amongst all the Christians to ensure that.
They just did it through racialism.
Okay.
If that's what you want to do.
Were they importing a bunch of brown people from Muslim countries when I wasn't looking or something?
They were importing a bunch of black people for slaves.
Yeah.
You mean the Christians?
The ones that they turned into Christians?
A lot of them had pagan religions and African religions that actually a lot of people, so and then they put them all in churches and made them convert.
Yeah, forced them to convert.
That worked super great.
That's awesome.
Well, whether it worked or not, they still were banking on Christian, yes.
Yeah, they were forcing them in by the way.
And by the way, they didn't even see blacks as being a people at the time.
You're right.
So why?
So one of the issues is, for example, they write about this.
They don't want, for example, black people voting because some of the states were worried about other religions getting in.
Yeah.
Because a lot of the black people held to pagan religions.
Wait, okay.
Who wrote about this?
I believe this would have been in like Connecticut.
There was a bunch of issues specifically in Connecticut around suffrage of women and suffrage of black people.
When?
I think like 1818.
I don't have it on the top of my head.
So long after what we're talking about?
I think like 30 years after what we're talking about.
So long after what we're talking about.
Not really.
I don't know what that is.
Wait, why would you think that that's not relevant?
Because how would that have any relevance?
Because the founding fathers at the time obviously would have known that the black slaves had their own pagan religion.
Wouldn't they be worried, for example, that the paganism spread?
Why would they be worried about the slaves?
They were constantly worried about tyranny of any form.
They were constantly worried about select interest groups rising up and taking away power from other people.
And that's why they put in the three fifths clause.
Okay.
Wait.
Sorry.
What are the three fifths clause?
Why don't you tell me?
Or is that a pop quiz?
That black people only count as three-fifths of the vote?
Right.
Oh, three-fifths.
I heard a different word.
I heard three.
I didn't hear three-fifths.
Yeah, problem solved.
And they were banking on whites coming in from basically Western European nations.
Right.
So they actually were a little bit worried about black pagan tyranny.
They just wrote it out of the Constitution.
Well, they were worried about southern states being able to outvote northern states.
They were worried in general.
So this goes back to suffrage, right?
If you look, for example, at Hamilton's writing of suffrage, which is really important, it's one of the founding documents.
I don't know what the fuck this has to do with what we're talking about.
Voting?
Yeah, what does this have to do with the fact that you still haven't acknowledged that the whole reason that there was this compromise which happened and that the federal government said, from our perspective, we're going to leave this up to the states via the 10th Amendment is literally because they wanted to allow the states to put in whatever religious institutions they wanted.
Theoretically, no religious institutions, right?
The federalists.
No, they weren't.
So they didn't have the purview to tell the states that.
Yeah, so the federal government would have been opposed.
Is that what you're saying?
They would have actually been opposed to a secular state.
Like if a state just got rid of all of the religious clauses that it had, would that be okay?
Under the purview of the 10th Amendment, states could do that.
Yeah, you're right.
It's almost like the founding fathers didn't care about blending church and state.
They actually cared about separation of powers.
So if you want to ask me about the suffrage stuff, the reason why the suffrage stuff is relevant is because when they were talking about voting, voting is really important as far as like stakeholders.
This is what happened to Hamilton, Hamilton, and Madison talk a lot about, right?
The voter has to be somebody with a high stakeholder in the country.
And they were constantly afraid that votes could get utilized in such a way that select interest groups could tyrannize other interest groups, right?
Which is why they had lots of separations of power, like the separation of church and state.
At the federal level.
Which they cared a lot about.
At the federal level.
You're right.
The thing not in dispute.
Yeah.
So when we're talking, so the thing that's in dispute here, as I'm saying, America and the founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state at the federal level.
Yep.
So what?
I think the federal level is pretty emotional.
Is America important?
Is America federal?
It's both.
So what matters more when we're talking about the people?
There is no more.
The system completely doesn't work unless you have both.
Does the federal government have hierarchy over the state?
No.
Yes.
On everything that the federal government has decided it has hierarchy over the state.
Yeah, so the hierarchy.
So, the federal government has hierarchy over the state over everything.
The federal government has the powers of hierarchy over the state.
Has decided to have power.
So, by that same logic, does the state have hierarchy over the federal government?
No, because if the federal government, for example, decided to overimpose on the state, they would fight it in courts.
Technically, the federal government has rule.
It's obviously no, that's not the case.
That's not even how the system works.
The states, perspectively, can override the federal government on all sorts of issues.
When it comes to the 10th Amendment, that's what it's there for.
That's the separation of powers you're talking about.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
What you just said was incoherent.
If it's the case that you say the federal government, yes, they have authority over the states based on everything they have the authority over the states with.
It's like, sure, but the same thing applies to the state.
What you're talking about, when you say more or less important, that's not even a coherent question.
That wouldn't even be the same system, it would be a completely different system.
So, if the federal government decides to go to war and draft people, can the states do anything about that?
Under the current law, I don't think they can.
Okay, gotcha.
And if the federal government, for example, decided to send the National Guard into Minnesota, have they been able to do that?
Only to federal buildings, yes.
Well, there's more than that, but yeah.
No, where?
The National Guard has been set in to just control riots generally across California.
I mean, this year only to federal buildings.
I mean, they go into crowds and disperse crowds like outside in front of federal buildings.
Okay, gotcha.
So, the government, the federal government just can actually impose into a state on federal property in like limited ways, yeah, of course.
Can they go and can the federal government go occupy the state building?
No, okay, then what the fuck are you talking about?
I'm talking about a hierarchy of two things: number one, the American ethos, yeah, right?
This is where we all started.
I was saying American ethos is life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, ingenuity, creation, right?
All these things, yeah.
And you said, Where is that?
And I said, Well, in the Declaration of Independence as a start, and what the founding fathers value.
No, I didn't say where is it, I said, What is it?
You also said, Where?
Yeah, what is it?
And okay, I'm not equivalent to it.
What is the philosophy of it?
And you still haven't told me.
Well, you still haven't told me what an Irish ethos is because all these things are searching for.
Oh, I did.
Well, the liberty is the foundational thing.
Yeah, so you're just referring, so liberalism is just a referent back to a system.
And if it's just a referent to a system and I can change the First Amendment, liberalism is insisting on the same ones, and I can change the system within the confines of liberalism.
You shouldn't have an objection.
Because if I can change the First Amendment, the only thing you would be appealing to that I shouldn't is not the system, it's just your preference.
Well, I would be appealing to what the American ethos is.
Appealing to American Liberty00:05:48
Yeah, I do not think American Americans.
Which is what?
Free speech is one of them, right?
The separation of church and state is a second one of them.
Also, amending the Constitution is one of them.
Yeah, with extremely high power.
And what's amazing is that Americans would probably agree with me that it would be un-American to remove free speech, right?
Unless we go 20 years in the future where they don't.
Those people aren't American.
Okay.
Do you think that the free speech is American?
Right.
At this current moment, sure.
Do you think most Americans listening would go, of course, free speech is American.
At this current moment, sure.
40 years from now, if our children don't believe that, they've lost what it means to be America.
Then how come they didn't have the same referent to it 55 years ago?
What do you mean?
What?
Yeah, so how come it wasn't, you know, if we're looking just 100 years ago, we're talking about things like the First Amendment, Second Amendment, various things like this, you could go into a Western town, they could strip you of your guns.
That was totally legal.
That was a violation of the Second Amendment, right?
So it was legal.
When you're talking about presentism.
So it was a violation of being America, but they could just physically do it?
Well, at the time, it wasn't ruled as a violation, was it?
Okay, gotcha.
So, but do you think it's more American to have access to guns?
I think that when you say more American, it's incoherent, and here's why.
Of course not.
You're just focusing on what do present people within the liberal system think is American.
No, I'm actually clear.
Do you think in 1800 they thought it was very American to let women vote?
No, probably not.
Okay, well, I don't.
Do you think that right now that if I asked, do you want to take the right of women away to vote, that people would say that that was un-American?
Yeah, okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Wait, so do you think, wait, so you're just saying America's nothing.
America doesn't mean anything.
From the liberal perspective, it's just a system.
No, from your perspective.
America is not a person.
Actually, you know what?
I guess from my perspective too, it is the case that liberalism, that the liberal identity, which is America, is just reduced to systems.
So America doesn't mean anything to you.
I think that it might have.
Just empty.
If you had something, if you had some sort of like cultural glue or you had some foundational glue or something that we could appeal to.
It's a distinct American culture that we could point at.
Point to it.
Not just point to, but see it historically.
Point to it.
I did.
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
Those are slogans.
No, these are, these are foundational values.
Then how is it that if I change, so in England, do they have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Well, they don't have those specifically, but they do seem to have adopted a lot of literal things like free speech.
They don't have free speech.
Okay.
I'm not getting into UK.
You can go to jail for insulting someone via a text message.
Gotcha.
So you would say that English people don't value free speech.
I'm just asking if they have life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
I said, no, they don't.
They probably have different views.
Is America the only place that has life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?
No, I think lots of cultures can have overlapping values.
I mean the same way that you just said That the Irish ethos Just tell me which one No, you stop.
Answer my question.
Which one?
No, I'm going to answer your question.
I am going to answer your question, but I'm going to answer the question the way that I would like to.
You're not going to answer it.
Do you just want to have temper tantrum after temper tantrum?
I'm going to answer the question I'm asking.
Okay, I'm going to answer your question and then I'm going to have a meta-conversation with you because I thought that we were going to have a good faith conversation because it's crazy.
My favorite debate that I've ever had was with you.
You enforced a bunch of rules in the hallway.
The one where we said, would you agree to being good faith?
And you said, yes.
Yeah.
So you're just agreeing that you're being bad faith with people?
You know, Brian was there.
That's not how the conversation went.
I said specifically that I was concerned about you making personal attacks about my husband and that you are not going to be good faith.
Yeah, but here's the thing that's funny about that.
I went back and reviewed that conversation, right?
It was no different than the one I'm having with you right now.
The only difference is that I'm actually holding you to the things you say.
The difference is that in the, so for people who are unaware when I say bad faith, I just want to be able to.
Forget the meta.
Answer the question.
You obfuscated.
No, I'm going to stand up.
I'm not going to answer it.
I will answer it afterwards.
You're just not going to answer it.
Wait a minute.
No, no, write it down.
Just answer the fucking question.
Write it down and I'll answer it afterwards.
You can be an adult.
Is that good faith?
Is that good faith?
Yeah, it is good faith.
It is good faith.
Yeah, I said, I will answer your question afterwards.
Write it down.
Just where else do they have life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?
I imagine lots of countries value things like liberty.
I think most Western liberal democracies value liberty, for example.
So Western liberal democracies have life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
I didn't say life, liberty, and pursuit.
I said liberty.
So I didn't ask you about liberty.
I asked you about life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
What other nations have that?
For example, so they wouldn't have the exact language, but liberty is held by most Western liberal democracies.
Life, for example, is also, in some version of the way that they would describe it, also valued by most Western liberal democracies because America is so great.
We kind of set the tone of what the ethos of a Western liberal democracy generally looks like.
In the same way, for example, that you said the ethos between Ireland and Spain is both Catholic and then they're different culture.
You're doing this like, so when the theory is not available, I want to finish.
No, the thing is, is you didn't actually tell me if all Western nations have life specifically.
Did you just answer your question?
No.
If you say all countries have because you miss a contradiction, I did not say all of that.
I said most Western liberal democracies share some version of the people.
Give me one name.
I said Canada.
Okay, Canada has life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Do they have free speech?
I said liberty.
Which I want a country that has life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
I didn't say that every single country shares every single day.
Yeah.
Which one?
So in the case of liberty.
No, all of them.
To get all of them together in the way that it's phrased is a uniquely American thing.
So just to make sure.
I just want to make sure I got this right.
Only America, only in America, can you pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That's not what I said, and you know that that's not what I'm saying.
Where else can you do it?
Now we're going to have the conversation about good faith versus bad faith.
So one of the things that has to happen when you have a good faith conversation is you have to actually try to understand the person.
Good Faith vs. Bad00:02:43
So for the chair, I'm going to go off a square.
Wait, wait, wait.
Perfect.
Actually, that's even better.
Really quick.
Let me let the two super TTS come through while we have you.
All right, guys.
We have.
Hail Pope.
Thank you.
Hail Pope donated $200.
It's lent, so I'll be nice.
She's confusing the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, which would also be wrong.
Neither of those were unanimously accepted by the founders or their states' populations.
Me when I make things up, I guess.
Good job, Hail Pope.
$1200 available.
We have one more coming through here.
Give me just one moment.
Guys, if you want to get a TTS in, that's streamlabs.com/slash.
Oh, it triggered a second time.
He's got to pay double for that.
You got to send another one, Hail Pope.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Kyla.
We have one coming in from Not Professor Dave.
There's a bit of a delay now because the Hail Pope one caught up our system.
Hail Pope.
Hail Pope.
He's breaking in all those dollars.
There it is.
There it is.
But if you guys do want to get a TTS message in, you can do so.
Streamlabs.com/slash whatever.
$199 TTS.
There it is.
Thank you.
Not Professor Dave donated $200.
Two truths.
That's an attack of rachel.
Rachel Wilson has a double-digit body count.
Smoking increases the risk of lung disease and premature death.
I did not.
That's just in a Rachel attack.
Guys, don't be rude to Rachel Wilson, okay?
Rude, Professor Dave.
I'm sorry.
I didn't read it first.
That's between you and him.
Can I have a smoke now?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, of course.
Okay.
Of course.
We can talk a little bit about good faith versus bad faith.
Are you down here?
Yeah, yeah, we're all done.
I'm going to talk to the crowd.
I mean, I can talk to you too.
So, one of the things that you're seeing me get frustrated by is that typically when you have good faith engagement, which the previous debate that we had with Andrew, that was one of the requirements that I talked about.
Specifically, I was like, I don't really want to just do a debate with somebody who's just bad faith for like six hours straight.
It's not super enjoyable.
So, when we say good faith, I just want to be clear.
When I say somebody's bad faith or good faith, it's not like moral condemnations.
People are bad faith all the time.
I'm bad faith some of the time.
He's bad faith some of the time.
But good faith typically means you're trying to hear the genuine version or what's reasonable to conclude from what they're saying and grant the and like grant some of their presumptions to build out whether or not that idea has flesh or not.
So, what happens, though, is that Andrew Wilson will often do this technique where he'll kind of strawman and pillory over like a couple of unique words and then refuse to actually understand what I'm saying, right?
Consensus vs. Bad Faith00:14:22
So, the obvious argument that I'm saying is, wouldn't it make more sense?
It seems a little funny.
I don't know if it's fair, he can't respond.
He said, I got to do it when I wanted to.
He said, I don't want to do this.
I'm going to take it for granted.
Right?
So, when I say, for example, in the case of states versus federal, he's saying, well, the federal government did want church and state to be united.
They just couldn't write it in because they couldn't find a unifying clause of faith.
That's what he's saying.
And therefore, they allowed it in through allowing states to make decisions.
But the 10th Amendment doesn't say states should make a religion.
It just allowed them to because at the time that the Constitution was written, almost all states had a religious clause for holding office.
The issue is that if the federal government wanted, which is absolutely America, wanted to establish some sort of, you don't want to be on screen when I say this, right?
I said, you don't want to be on screen when I say this, hey?
What do you mean?
Oh, you just swapped it over to me.
It's just a better angle.
Okay.
There's a reasonable argument here to be made of what did the founding fathers intend?
What was their actual vision in principle?
Because I think it's a pretty good principle.
And if their principle was they actually wanted no separation of church and state, they would have found a way to write it into the original Constitution, even at a federal level.
But they didn't.
In fact, not only did they not, they explicitly wrote it out.
So just because they allowed states to continue the practice that they rejected at a federal level is not them saying we want church and state to be united.
They said explicitly in both this document and at multiple points throughout the Declaration of Independence, especially the original version that TJ wrote, that there is a strong intention of separation of church and state.
This is talked about in the Federalist Papers.
This is something valued by many religious people.
And part of why so many religious people, majority of whom were founding fathers that signed, signed this and agreed to the separation of church and state is because they had seen what happened in England.
They saw the erasure not just of the state, but also of the faith in the bonding of these two things, which is bad.
It's bad for the religion and it's bad for the state.
Okay.
Yeah.
Good times.
Good times.
I just wanted to say, Rachel Wilson, if you're watching, I'm very sorry.
I apologize for letting that TTS go through.
Usually, if there's something that's insulting to overly insulting to one of the guests, I will hide it.
But that was a mistake.
I didn't read the whole thing.
I got baited.
And I read the first sentence.
I was like, oh, it's probably pertinent to the discussion.
Rachel, if you're watching, sorry to let that one come through.
I'll have to.
Andrew is back.
Andrew's back.
Yeah, why is there confusion?
I think Small breaks every single day.
What do you mean, confusion?
There's no confusion.
I'm not confused.
Oh, what do you mean?
I was saying apologies for letting that TTS come through.
Yeah, he was apologizing to you for the TTS coming.
I didn't read it.
I read the first sentence.
I was like, it's probably fine.
Whatever.
I apologize.
So sorry, Rachel.
Guys, W's in the chat for Rachel.
Shall we switch prompts or do you guys want to continue?
We've been on it for an hour and 30 minutes.
No, we can do that.
Let me read you, at least before we, if you do choose to dive in, the other prompts that we do have.
Modern liberal values are not compatible with Christianity.
Another prompt, secular states are destined to likely revert back to religiously informed governments because atheists have no moral basis for which to govern.
And then the other prompt, Christians should attempt to maintain political power in the U.S. and rule through Christian ethics as it is the superior system, which maybe we talked a bit about from the first prompt.
I think that's what the prompts are a little bit like slidey between them all because they're decently related.
Interrelated.
Yeah, but I'm happy to pick up wherever Andrew would like to pick.
Andrew, do you have any insight on whichever one you want to go with?
It's up to you, boss.
Let's do modern liberal values are not compatible with Christianity.
Oh, we're going to the last one?
Okay.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, again, if you guys have a preference.
That one's fine with me.
Sure.
So there are no Christian values in modern liberalism.
It's just an appeal to a system.
Sure, but the system doesn't have to be.
So my argument basically says, I don't think that Christian rule should be utilized as statecraft.
I think separation of church and state is one of the most fundamentally important things, not just for a state, but more so for a Christian.
That's an odd claim, you agree.
Sure.
Okay, were you deriving that ought?
From my faith.
So your faith tells you that Christians should be liberal?
No, I said that the separation of church and state.
So your Christian values tell you that Christians should not be in charge of states?
Yeah.
Okay.
And do you think that Christians who were in charge of states before were wrong?
Yeah.
You do.
Okay.
Which ones?
All the ones that came after Jesus and did it.
So do you think that historically they just got it all wrong?
Yeah, I think that like if you look, for example, at like if you, I mean, we can get into the typological argument here, but if you look at like all of the history of the Bible, for example, what we see over time is when we go from the Old Testament to New Testament.
And for those, because I'm not trying to do a pop quiz, just for those who are listening that don't know what a typological, it's just like a type.
We're looking at types typically from Old Testament to New Testament.
It's a pretty standard like apologetics or a theological argument that gets made.
So when you look, for example, through the Old Testament, we have multiple periods that I'm sure you would agree to.
Judges, kings, priests.
Agreed?
Okay.
So what we see is basically a blending, a high blending of statecraft and faith that gets reduced over time with the final answer of Jesus, who actually actively and aggressively rejects statehood, rejects politics, and rejects any kingmanship.
In fact, that's a large reason, not the only reason, but a large reason why the Jews felt that he was not the Messiah is because they didn't see a physical political kingdom unifying the northern and southern kingdoms.
Okay, so back to the awk claim, Christians ought not be in charge of governments and government systems.
It depends on what you mean when you're saying that.
Well, you said that Christians ought not do that, right?
I don't think that Christians should try to push for a blending of church and state.
Okay.
And does state need to be a nation?
When I say state, I mean a nation.
So how come it's only at the national level?
Well, it would be at this, I guess, when I say, so when I say nation, I guess I should say governmental level.
I don't want, and when I say this, I don't mean that Christians can't be a government official.
Christians should not impose Christian ethics into the rule of law.
I have not, I don't know, I haven't thought about tribes.
But those governments, right?
Not really.
Not like meaningful.
Why is that not meaningful?
I would not say that anyone who's like a political philosopher would look at a tribe and call that a government.
Usually when we mean government, we mean post-the invention of the nation.
What about a nation-city?
Yeah, nation-state.
That's not, well, a nation-city, let's say.
The city itself.
If there's a formalized Roman, like to some degree, like if there's a formalized actual government, not just like a tribe, then sure, potentially.
But again, I would need to know what we're talking about here.
I need more specific examples.
Like you have a city that has 100,000 people in it, and they have a government there, right?
That government should not mix church and state.
Yep, they shouldn't rule with Christian ethics as a thing that makes laws.
Okay.
What should they rule with?
Consensus.
Because I like democracy.
Consensus.
Yeah.
Okay.
And more importantly, laws have to be what works.
And what happens when the consensus says kill babies?
Well, that would be against what works, right?
No.
Yeah.
A nation is not going to work very well if they kill all their babies.
A nation would work just fine if they kill other people's babies.
No, because that nation would be then a target for probably war, not just from that nation, but probably neighboring nations, because it seems like in general, most people have this emergent value of not killing babies.
Okay, I don't understand.
Let's say that for like 100 years, a nation kills every third baby that comes up in the nation.
It's like overpopulated, so they just take a rock and bash its fucking brains in.
I don't know how to, really bad for China.
It seems like it was really bad for the fact that people don't like seeing dead babies skewered everywhere.
It seems like it crushed their population.
As long as the nation, though, consents to that.
Well, it's not just about what the nation consents to.
Yes, you said, your exact words, I wrote them down.
They should rule via consent because I like consent because I like democracy.
Yeah.
So when I say rule by consent, that doesn't mean that state's craftsmen aren't imposing laws that are reasonable and work, right?
The law is about what makes a state work.
Yeah, but there's no contradiction in how the state would not work if they killed every third child.
How would that state logistically work?
I feel like that state worked.
It would work fine.
They used to do it all the time.
They used to sacrifice children all the time inside of Rome, inside of many states.
Sure, but it worked just fine.
Well, not really.
Yes, really.
Well, I would argue a lot of the, where are those nation states?
They lasted a lot longer than America, some of them.
are they?
Well, are you saying that?
So that's a fallacious argument.
It's not fallacious.
Are you saying because this didn't continue in perpetuity, that means it didn't work?
I could just say, well, don't you agree that America as it exists right now is not going to exist in perpetuity, therefore it doesn't work?
Probably because there are theoretically, and hopefully there'll be better systems that emerge.
Okay, so then it doesn't work?
By and large, no, not by what I'm meaning.
What?
Okay, so I just want to make sure.
So Rome didn't fall, right, just because of one thing.
But when we look at, for example, a nation that kills every third baby.
Can you grab me another beer while you're out?
This probably wouldn't work for a number of reasons.
Number one, citizens don't like killing their babies.
But if they did.
They don't.
Yeah, but if they did.
They don't.
Yeah, but if they did.
What person enjoys killing their babies?
Like a pagan nation, let's say.
I would basically argue that they don't enjoy killing their babies either.
Usually, like even when you look at pagan nations where babies are killed, right, oftentimes when you can find evidence for it, the mother of that child, for example, or the father of that child are completely opposed to it.
It's usually forced upon them, right?
They don't enjoy it necessarily.
And usually the child sacrifice was occurring.
But if there's consensus, what grounds would you oppose the consensus?
What makes the state work best for most of the people?
Yeah, that's typically.
That's a lot of people have now given you consensus that this is working best for us.
You can't give consensus that this is working for us.
We actually have to look at material outcomes, right?
So for example, how we know that America's law system works pretty well, although there are problems, is the fact that our military is the strongest.
We have the most amount of scientific output, which is awesome, right?
That we are the number one currency in the world, the largest thing.
So we know, okay, the system that we essentially kind of erected around, for the most part, works pretty well.
It's a pretty competitive system.
Okay, but that's post-hoc.
Do you agree with me that it takes time for you to gather data on a system which is implemented?
Yeah.
Okay, great.
So for example, for five years, we have a consensus that we kill every third baby and the people go along with it and they adore it.
They think it's great.
We don't have the data to show them how wrong-headed they are yet.
I don't think that would emerge.
So, okay, but it has emerged.
I think it's.
No, it has not.
Yes, it definitely has.
There's definitely been many nations where they kill their children, including China.
So I don't know what you're talking about.
It didn't work.
In fact, one of the...
Yeah, that's post hoc.
That's you post-hocying.
It didn't work after the fact.
We're talking about in the fact that it's in the fact, though, when it's happening, what are you appealing to to oppose it?
Me personally?
Yeah.
Oh, me personally.
Well, I'm a defined command theorist.
I would say that murdering babies is wrong.
Okay, gotcha.
So the consensus would be wrong.
Again, it's my morals, yeah.
Okay, so you hold, so you hold a form of dualism.
No, this would be relativism.
Well, not relativism, it's relativistic.
It's probably the worst thing.
Relativistic, perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.
No, it's just relativism.
Why?
It's relativistic.
Well, why is consensus good?
It's not ontologically good.
Okay, good.
I think it makes the most, I think, for the most part.
Well, I can answer you.
All right.
Breathe.
You're going to be okay.
So for the most part, I think that, for example, consensus is good because it's worked.
I think it's worked insofar as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well.
I think the world outside is pretty good.
There are a lot of problems that people will point to.
But I think America overall is a pretty good nation.
I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed at any time in history.
So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?
Well, it would probably be multiple things that I would appeal to.
Like I would use multiple evidences for it.
Well, the reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.
Okay, gotcha.
Do you think it's wrong to murder?
But if there was a consensus.
Well, yeah, of course.
But if there was a consensus, you said that's the thing that we should run things by is by consensus.
That might become state law, but I'm saying to you, A, I think that would fall out of state law very quickly, and I would probably be a person who would advocate strongly against that state law.
Because not all state laws are moral.
Based on your morality.
To some degree, but I wouldn't be imposing my morality.
What if the consensus is that you're not allowed to oppose the consensus?
Like an authoritarian regime?
Well, no, that wouldn't be authoritarian.
That would be democratic.
How so?
Because you can democratically vote in laws which are oppressive.
Sorry, so I feel like you're just making something into democracy that doesn't exist.
Could you explain it more?
Yeah.
If everybody votes tomorrow in a democracy that Kyla can never say another fucking word or else, I don't know, she gets beat to death with a rock.
I would have due process.
Okay.
Well, the thing is, is she's not a fan of the rules.
And I could argue free speech violates my amendment.
Hang on, you didn't say due process.
You said consensus is how we should rule.
Consensus is typically how we select for like electoral people.
And then electoral people are hopefully, although not always, supposed to be educated in such a way that they can make statecraft policies that brings about most good for citizens.
Euthyphro Dilemma Debate00:15:25
Because I don't think statecraft is in and of itself moral.
Okay, so we're not actually appealing to consensus for how we should run things then?
Well, to some degree, because the stakeholder is the voter.
So to some degree, you have to appeal to what stakeholders will be doing.
So what's preventing voters in a liberal democracy from voting in laws which go against your morals?
Well, I would basically, I would argue that God puts like a sense of conscience within each of us.
And I don't think that almost anyone actually emerges in such a way that they say it's good to kill babies.
I think, for example, pagan institutions did erect very historically, and you will notice that they don't exist anymore because they don't work very well and people don't like them.
And I also would argue that they were immoral at the time, right?
And so in the case of statecraft, we would use consensus to vote in elected representatives, and these elected representatives would impose laws.
But if we don't agree with those laws, then we can oust that person.
Yeah.
That's not my question.
My question is, what actually prevents inside of a liberal society from people utilizing consensus in order to pass laws which are immoral from your view?
Immoral from my view?
Yeah.
Nothing, but I don't think that every, wait, I don't think that all of my moral system should be rule of law.
I understand.
Do you think that?
All I'm doing is making sure that I get it right.
Can I ask you a question?
Yes.
Do you think that all...
But before you do, I'm going to interrogate the position that you can interrogate mine.
I don't know.
I would just like to have some back and forth.
That's the fair way to do it.
The problem is, is you just divert.
Wait, no, that's true.
The first conversation we had, the first segment.
I don't care about the meta.
Just let me finish it out.
I'm not dropping the meta because you're doing some of that.
How's it bad faith to want to interrogate?
Because I haven't said you can interrogate my position.
I said, can you wait for a second so I can ask you some questions?
Because in the case where I was interrogating your worldview with the first prompt, I also allowed you to interrogate my worldview with return.
Let me do the interrogation first, and then you can do your second.
Okay, so do you think that we should?
No, no.
I said, let me do my interrogation first.
You can do yours.
I'm saying I would like a back and forth.
All that does is derail from the questions I have.
Derails from the dunk that you're trying to lead me into.
How do I understand that it does that?
Well, because what you're trying to do is to get to some foundational thing of being like, see, it's born on nothing.
And it's like, okay, Andrew.
That's what's bad faith.
Do you want to just not allow your position?
Everyone knows that this is what's happening.
So you're saying that your position, when it's interrogated, its foundation is going to be incoherent?
I would say every single foundation of any worldview, normative, or meta-ethics is unjustifiable.
Yes, this is what axioms are.
Oh, really?
They all fail Agrippa's trilemma.
Yes.
Because of Agrippa's trilemma.
How do you not fail Agrippa's trilemma?
Oh, man.
That's really weird.
Tell me again, what does Agrippa's trilemma say?
It's dogmatism.
All justification systems fail at a foundational level because they will fail in one of three ways, or all of three ways: dogmatism, infinite regression, and circular reasoning.
Is that position justified?
No.
Okay.
So anyway, back to this.
Wait, so you run away from Agrippa's true.
Okay, you know what?
I ran away from it.
Yeah.
You just said that Agrippa's trilemma is not a justified position.
Well, what do you mean by justified?
Well, whatever you mean by it in Agrippa's trilemma.
Well, it's an internal critique of justification systems.
Agrippa's, what do you mean is Agrippa's trilemma unjustified?
It is a philosophical tool that we can utilize to understand that at a foundational level, no belief systems.
How do you solve Agrippa's trilemma?
Like truth?
How do you solve Agrippa's trilemma?
Well, it's self-refuting.
This has been known for a thousand years.
I don't know if you know this or not.
It's a self-refuting Agrippa's trilemma, self-refuting.
So how do you not engage in dogmatism?
If all things are axiomatic, you assume the reduction to axiomatic.
Are we making a truth claim?
You are making a truth claim.
Okay, and is that truth claim justified?
No.
No.
Yeah, because you assume.
Wait, are you not making a truth claim?
It doesn't matter.
Of course it does.
Are you not making truth claims?
Oh, wait a second.
Does your moral system not utilize truth claims?
Did you posit an argument to me, which was Agrippa's trilemma?
Yep.
And was that argument justified?
No.
No more than any.
Wait, is your arguments justified?
What does that have to do with you?
I'm internally critiquing you this.
You can internally critique me with your arguments.
How are you not?
Yeah, so I said, how do you not fail Agrippa's trilemma?
And you said, Agrippa's trilemma doesn't matter.
That's not how you solve Agrippa's.
I don't say it doesn't matter.
You said it's unjustified.
Well, it's self-refuting.
How is it self-refuting?
Because if you claim that you're making a truth claim that's unjustified, then you're not making a truth claim.
Sure, you are.
You're just assuming.
Agrippa's trilema, I guess, engages in dogmatism.
That is not justified?
Yeah.
So Agrippa's trilemma, I suppose, engages in dogmatism itself, but how is it self-refuting?
You just explained it.
Every single system is self-refuting them by this.
Is that a truth claim?
Yes.
Okay, and does that fail because of Agrippa's trilemma?
Yes.
So should I take anything you say seriously?
Give me a single truth.
I don't have to make your argument.
I'm going to run from this one again.
Watch.
Give me a single truth claim that doesn't fail Agrippa's trilemma.
Go.
Okay.
First of all, back up.
Whose argument is this?
Give me a single truth claim that doesn't fail Agrippa's trilemma.
Who's arguing?
I knew you were going to weasel on this one.
I'm just going to stay here.
Okay, stay here.
Whose argument is it?
Right now, both of us.
We're both wait a second.
Are we both having a conversation?
I didn't argue that Agrippa's trilemma is true.
You did.
I said it's true in like an assumed way, in the way that all things are assumed.
So is it true or not?
It's true in like a, I suppose, like, yeah, true in the way that we mean true for everything else that's true.
What does that mean?
Well, give me an example.
Yeah, it's not my argument.
You don't get to interrogate me for your argument.
No, no, I'm asking you for counterfactual to prove that.
I don't need to.
It's your argument.
My argument is nothing is.
Nothing is this thing you're saying.
Nothing's true.
Can you provide me a counter?
So nothing's true?
I didn't say nothing's true.
I said truth.
Then what's true?
Truths are assumed.
Tautologies.
Truths are assumed tautology?
Yeah.
No, truths are assumed.
They're tautologies.
Truths are tautologies.
Oftentimes at a foundational level, yeah.
Often or are?
R. R.
So is Agrippa's trilemma a truth tautology?
It's not an axiom.
It's a philosophical system.
It's a philosophical equation, how you test your own thinking.
So how do you do that?
I'm super curious.
Give me a truth claim that doesn't solve Agrippa's trilemma.
You don't have to make your argument.
This isn't my argument.
My argument is all arguments foundationally will fail Agrippa's trilemma.
Okay, so you're already an argument.
You're saying that's not true.
I didn't say anything like that.
I asked you how it was true.
Wait, so you're agreeing with me that no truth claims.
I didn't agree with anything.
So you, but you're making.
You're making an argument.
I guess you could be a coward and you could run away from it.
That's cowardice.
You posit that there's that Agrippa's trilemma is true.
Yep.
Okay.
And I'm saying that's assumed because all things at a foundational level are assumed.
And I said, can you give me an example of this true?
Yeah, God is dogmatism.
Okay, so you think.
Assuming God exists is true.
So when I ask you, does God exist?
And you say, yes, that's not true?
It's true, and I'm assuming it.
How is it true?
It's true because I believe it's true.
I'm a divine command theorist.
So, okay, so I just want to make sure I got this right.
How do you possibly run?
When you posit, well, you can.
You have to pay like 10 bucks to force this question.
How do you posit the arguments and then I have to answer to the argument?
So if I pose an argument and I give you the justification for my argument, and it seems like the way that you're acting is that you think that that is incorrect, then you have to pose me a counter.
So I said, if I'm wrong, Andrew, you can just prove me wrong like that.
Find me a truth claim that isn't fundamentally unjustifiable.
Yeah, so go ahead.
How do you find me one truth claim that doesn't fail Agrippa's trilemma?
Who posits Agrippa's trilemma is true?
Andrew or Erudite?
Agrippa's trilemma isn't.
This is like saying Euthyphro's dilemma is true.
Is Euthyphro's dilemma true?
Okay, again, why are you asking me questions about your arguments?
Because what you're doing, I think you're.
I can't tell.
I can't tell if you genuinely don't understand Agrippa's trilemma, maybe, or if you're being bad faith.
Those are the only questions.
How am I being bad faith when you posit an argument and I ask you about it?
Andrew, I said there's two options.
You genuinely don't understand or you're being bad faith.
Or there's a third option, which is maybe you don't understand.
I do understand how dilemmas work.
Okay, then let's.
Are trolley problems true?
If Agrippa's trilemma is like a trial, would we plotted?
Yeah, I just want to make sure Agrippa.
It's a philosophical test of logic.
Okay, I got it.
So when you're talking about Agrippa's trilemma, would you have any criticisms for this argument that you're making?
I can't solve it.
That's the point of the dilemma.
Okay, so when you say that when I ask you, is Agrippa's trilemma true?
I can't solve it.
Is it true, though?
Is a trolley problem true?
Is Euthyphro's dilemma true?
What are we doing right now?
Yeah, I think philosophically you can say that the conclusion is true or false.
No, no, Agrippa's trilemma isn't a conclusion.
Agrippa's trilemma is a problem.
It's a philosophical problem.
Is Euthyphro's dilemma true?
Wait, wait, wait, I'm not talking about it.
I'm talking about Agrippa's trilemma.
Yeah, it's a problem in the same way that Euthyphro's dilemma is.
Okay, so walk me through Agrippa's dilemma.
I'll make sure I understand it.
Okay, Agrippa's trilemma posits that no beliefs are justifiable foundationally because they will fail one of three ways: dogmatism, infinite regression, or circularity.
And I'm saying, can you find me an example of a true claim that doesn't fail Agrippa's trilema?
Well, that sounds like, that sounds to me like you're positing propositions and a conclusion.
I'm giving you something similar to like a Euthyphro dilemma or a trolley problem to see if you can solve it logically.
Yeah, yeah, but that has nothing to do with Agrippa's trilemma, which we're talking about.
It has everything to do with Agrippa's trilemma because you're asking if it's true, which is like asking me if trolley problems are true.
No, it's not.
Are trolley problems true?
If it's propositional, this sounds like propositional logic to me.
You're actually giving me premises and a conclusion.
Is the conclusion true?
This is not what's happening.
It's a dilemma.
Is the Euthyphro dilemma true?
Well, that's a whole different thing.
I'm trying to understand that.
These are a one-to-one comparison.
This is a comparison I'm trying to make because I feel like you're not understanding what a dilemma is.
It out for me.
I don't need to.
Do you wait?
How do you solve Euthyphro dilemma?
Right now, I just want it written out so I can see if this is a non-propositional problem.
Okay, I'm just going to write out what I've said.
Okay.
Okay.
All foundational.
Private chat, Nathan, if you want to pull it up.
I will, yeah, get the TTS in here.
Make Brian some money, okay?
Oh, no, I was going to pull up Agrippa's trilemma.
Oh, so it's on screen.
People know what the heck you guys are talking about.
Go F11 with it, Nathan?
Do you have it?
Okay, can you?
It also goes by Munchausen trilemma, I guess.
I would just look up specific Agrippa's trilemma.
Well, scroll down.
Just finish it while writing it.
I want to see if it's proposed.
Yeah, continue on, though.
Go ahead, scroll down.
Keep going.
It says the name.
Scroll down.
It says, so Munchausen trilemma is also known as Agrippa's trilemma.
So I guess it's just a different name for it.
Scroll back up.
Yeah, succeed though.
So I'll read this.
Keep working on this, but the circular argument in which the proof of some proposition presupposes the truth of that very proposition, the regressive argument in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum.
The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts, which are merely assertive rather than defended.
The trilemma then is having to choose one of the three equally unsatisfying options.
Okay.
So you can read that.
Sorry if you can't.
Just tell me if you need me to rewrite something.
Circular argument, infinite regression, or dogmatism.
So then you believe in objective truth, right?
I believe in objective morals, yeah.
And like scientific realism.
Are they objectively true?
Morals.
Well, objectively, and like they exist outside of me.
Is that true?
Yeah.
Okay, what makes it true?
I'm assuming.
So is everything you assume true?
No, but everything I assume is true because I'm really good at philosophy.
How do you solve?
All I'm asking.
It has nothing to do with me.
It does.
You don't believe it.
So here's what's happening.
How do you solve Euthyphro's dilemma?
Why do I need to solve your problem?
Because if I'm posing you, Euthyphro's dilemma, a philosophical problem, you can't go, is the problem true?
That's not, that's...
I'm not even asking about that.
That's sidestepping the conversation.
If you believe that this is correct and you also believe that objective morality is correct.
Yeah, correct in the way that we're assuming Agrippa's trilemma.
Correct in the way that trolley problems are good at testing.
So we're just both making assumptions about everything?
Everyone is, well, better, you're infinitely regressing.
Those are your two.
Well, there's your circular reasoning, which is just tautology.
So everyone's kind of doing tautology.
So we're just assuming God.
Yeah, of course.
Okay.
How are you not?
So all these things, all of these things in philosophy are just going down to these three categories for you?
No, not these.
These aren't categories.
These are ways in which you're fallacious.
Your thinking is fallacious.
So it's saying all beliefs, all meta-ethics, normative frameworks are fundamentally unjustifiable because they can't solve for one of these three things.
Thank you.
I see.
And I'm asking you, how do you solve it?
I can't.
I'm going to adopt it.
He's like, Euthyphro's dilemma.
I don't know.
Hey.
Can't find an answer.
I don't know.
I'm going to adopt it.
You're right.
I'm just going to assume everything's true because I assume it.
That's fine, but now.
That's what you said.
Now you're in line with like, so this is one of your issues.
That's what you said.
Yeah, yeah.
No, that's fine.
Welcome to my world, okay?
Yeah, I'm in your world.
We're based over here.
Okay.
The issue is that I wouldn't go to secular people and be like, you don't have a moral ethical system because it's unjustifiable because I already know that mine's unjustifiable.
I'm assuming.
I'm doing dogmatism and they're doing usually infinite regression.
Or they're being cowards and they're being like, oh, I don't know.
So then you can't make a justification for why I shouldn't pull out a machine gun and kill everybody.
These are not the same thing.
You understand?
Yeah, so when I'm talking about foundational beliefs.
Yeah.
Pop quiz.
What's foundational?
Do you know what foundationalism is?
Yeah, it's going to be the pillar in which the belief stands on.
Yeah, okay.
So not all statements or beliefs are foundational.
You're welcome.
Well, I don't actually do pop quizzes.
I usually ask questions.
It's a multiple debate style, but go ahead.
It's not.
Me knowing more information than you is not like some crazy maniacal tactic.
And in fact, when we get to the point where you do, this is the issue, Andrew, is it speaks to your insecurity that when I ask you questions about whether or not you know something, I'm asking in genuine good faith because they're like esoteric and I don't expect people to know them.
But you take it as an insult to like your prior or something like that?
Of course, because you think I'm doing something like maniacal when it's like me asking you, do you know what a gripper's trilema is?
isn't to say, huh, idiot, you don't know anything about a gripper's trilema?
We won't even talk about philosophy.
It's for me to go, okay, if you don't, let me explain it to you.
And then I'm curious how you would reason through it.
Yeah, I would just reason that I'll adopt it, and anybody that I decide to impose my will on can't actually say that I'm unjustified.
Of course you can.
How?
Well, you wouldn't say that your foundations are unjustified, but they would say, for example, here's a list of evidences and arguments as to why I don't think that's what you're doing.
Yeah, but none of those are justified.
They're all going to be just a lot of people.
They're building off of tautologies.
So what?
Everything's built off of tautologies.
There's no justification.
Tell me you can't do anything.
Assumptions and Tautologies00:15:20
Wait, do you think math doesn't exist?
What does that have to do with what we're talking about?
Math is tautological.
Oh, my God.
Wait, do you not know that?
What is the justified?
Pop quiz time.
Do you know that math is tautological?
How can you tell me?
You see what I mean?
Pop quiz.
Well, I'm doing it now because you're just being ridiculous.
Yeah, yeah.
Squirrel brain.
Can you tell me?
Tell me how it is then that you can create any justifications that anybody's ever doing anything wrong.
Logic and reason.
You build on top of like tautological axioms that seem reasonable based on kind of assumptions, but they seem reasonable.
And you build upon an entire structure of world belief, which is what.
None of them are justified.
At a foundational level?
No.
All beliefs are unjustifiable.
Well, then you don't.
How do you solve dogmatism?
When you just told me then that I can't go to secular people and tell them that their beliefs are unjustified.
You can't and be consistent.
So then we should just throw philosophy out.
No.
Why not?
It's not justified.
Because philosophy.
It's not a level.
It's just the tautology that we make up.
Because people accept tautologies because that's how you think about the world.
Right.
Like math, we just accept tautologies in math.
We have to because you have no starting point if you don't.
So we assume these things and then we build on top of them.
And then the beauty of things like math and science, in the case of like, you know, science realism, is you can use math and these things to observe and test and see if you're actually mapping onto the correctness of the world.
I see.
Yeah.
So then if I'm inductive and deductive.
So then if I utilize the assumption that God is real, this would.
That's dogmatism.
Yeah.
Yeah.
This would satisfy you because you also use the assumption that God is real.
I'll just grant it, of course.
Okay.
So then if that's the case and we assume that God's real and then we assume God's commands and then we build our case off of that, that's justified.
As justified as something can be.
Yeah.
Okay, well then I don't know what we're arguing about.
We'll just do that.
That's what we were arguing because you wouldn't ask for a Gripper's trilemma and saying that it wasn't true and coping.
No, I was asking you if it was true.
Well, we're arguing this because you were walking me along this thing and being like, secular people have no justification.
You're still getting their worldview.
And I went, well, we can go there, Andrew, but I'm just going to jump ahead to a Gripper's trilema.
I still want to get back to the interrogation.
Okay, but your line of argumentation is going to fall apart because when you go, well, why are you assuming that this is good?
I'll go, we're assuming it.
Okay, that's fine.
But anyway, back to this.
Can we get back to this now?
Sure.
Okay, so when we're talking about the issue of secularism.
Yeah.
Or not secularism, I'm sorry, liberalism.
Wait.
Liberalism is what we're discussing here.
So we'll pull back up on the note since we went down that whole train of nonsense.
It's not nonsense.
It's like foundational philosophy.
Phil 101, really.
It's kind of important.
You like to weaponize it for your dumb audience against mean people to like innocent OnlyFans girls to be like, see, their belief system isn't justified.
And it's like, no one's.
Name a single time when I've done that.
Every time you were on the show.
Yeah, so give me, do you have one?
Yeah, when you debate any secular person, when you debated Charlie, when you debate Destiny, when you debated Naima, when you debated Zeno, when you debated like, et cetera, et cetera.
No, my argument is that your belief system is unjustifiable.
That's a direct thing.
Your beliefs are unjustifiable.
I do the opposite.
I start at the end.
I just say if it's the case that it's just preferences, then you have absolutely no criticism for me imposing mine.
Well, most secular people, if they're good on philosophy, wouldn't say, well, it's not just preferences, right?
It's some mixture of like, we use, if they're utilitarian, they would use U-tiles.
These are all preferences.
Not really.
There's no more preferences than you preferring God.
That's my point.
But then all of this is empty.
That's right.
So your arguments are empty.
Wait, wait, but then you have to grant that your arguments are just as empty as theirs.
If that's the case, then you would have no room to criticize me for imposing my preferences.
I'm sure we could, because then we could just use reason and logic and evidence of what people are doing.
Yeah, I think it's reasonable to assume that I prefer that people are well, that people experience less harm, right?
And I think that's a reasonable preference to have because I want it.
Then it's perfectly reasonable for me to say no.
I didn't say it's unreasonable.
There's nothing to argue.
Because you're insisting that they're unjustifiable while you are.
And I'm saying, no, you're all unjustifiable, but both are actually reasonable.
You can have your Christian preferences.
But as a Christian, I'm fighting you and saying, actually, your preferences are icky and bad for the faith.
Don't do it.
Also, Jesus wasn't political, so you're kind of going against what Jesus taught.
So also bad to do.
Okay, so then back to this, when we're talking about liberalism and the system of liberalism, and you're appealing to consensus, right?
If the consensus is that they want to kill every third baby, which is just part of their like preferences, man, and they assume that it's fine, you don't, you can't actually critique that.
Of course you can.
We do it all the time.
With what?
You could use utilitarianism.
And you could say, actually, killing babies is bad because it makes a worse world.
It harms that specific baby.
It probably also harms the mother, which would actually decrease the amount of flourishing and increase the amount of harm, which is why I think it would be bad to do.
That's what a utilitarian could say.
And then say, but you would say that.
God doesn't like it when you kill babies unless he orders you to do it like in the malchites.
And which one of you is right?
Well, we would have to fight.
I mean, the issue is like we have to assume at the end of the level.
We have to fight, right?
Yeah, and I would go, I think my argument's more reasonable.
I wouldn't say my argument's more justifiable at a foundational level.
This is what you do.
You try to say, my beliefs are foundationally justified and yours are not, which is why I'm reasonable and you're not.
It's like, that's not true.
Actually, I do the opposite.
No, we don't.
I start at the end of the argument and say I agree with you.
It's all preferences.
Just because the chronology of how you get there is different, it doesn't change that this is the tactic that you typically utilize when you debate people.
Listen, I'm doing the same thing with you.
We're at the end now.
Yeah, you're like, I start at the end and I walk people all the way back to the foundational axioms.
I'm just asking you.
And then I go, see how silly this is?
I'm not silly.
And I'm saying, you're just as unjustified as you're not.
I'm just asking you.
There's reason that you can use the whole question here.
Yeah, which is that there is consensus when you're talking about consensus.
That's how you want things to be, right?
Well, no, this is not an ought.
Like, a consensus isn't an ought.
I think it's the best system that's arrived so far.
So when I asked you to say, I'm a better one.
And when I asked you earlier, this is an ought, and you said yes, that's not the case.
Oh, well, there's a second part to what I was saying, I believe, at the time.
No, I asked you, is consensus how we ought to, how Christians ought to do things?
You said yes.
No, I didn't.
Yes, you did.
No.
I specifically wrote it down.
If I did, I didn't mean it.
You didn't?
No, I should have clarified.
What do you actually want to ask here?
Yeah, so I want to just ask you about consensus.
So if they want to kill every third baby, I would oppose this.
Yeah, but why would they be actually wrong?
I would, for example, in the case of a pagan, I would probably appeal to their own moral system.
I think that most people, for example, I believe you probably believe this too, that God gives us conscience, right?
He like puts a spirit inside of us, that God's meta-ethical system emerges naturally out of us, right?
So, like, what I would do, for example, is I would probably, first of all, try to examine that pagans' belief system.
And I would be like, do you actually think killing babies is okay?
Right?
I would actually morally question them.
And one of the issues is that this is unobservable.
We can't truly know whether somebody thinks something is wrong or right.
But I think the knowledge of wrong or right is really important, kind of biblical, one might even say.
So I would question whether or not they know it's wrong or right.
And then I would appeal to things like state.
So like civic ethics, for example, it doesn't work very well in nations to kill every third baby.
You're just reducing your population.
Usually the mothers don't like it.
Usually the fathers don't like it.
Doesn't seem to have any good outcome.
In fact, most of the reasons why people in the past killed babies was to satisfy some sun god.
And we would go, that's not an overly reasonable argument.
It's probably more reasonable to say we shouldn't kill babies.
That seems more reasonable.
So I could appeal to them within their own worldview of secularism or their own worldview of paganism.
Because I think God doesn't like you to kill babies unless he orders it, like in the male case.
Because he assumed you assumed that.
I assumed God.
Yep.
You assumed it.
And so they assume.
Well, I'm assuming God.
So they assume not God.
Yep.
And so they come to you and say, well, you're just assuming this anyway.
And I would say, so are you.
And then they would say, good, we're going to go back to killing babies.
And the problem with that is what.
They'd say, I'm going to use my language and quill to convince you that you're wrong and that there's a more compelling and better way to live.
And I'm going to appeal to the spirit that I think God puts into all of us to try to pull out of you the fact that murder is actually really bad.
I see.
So if a Christian nationalist does that within a liberal system, they're not doing anything wrong.
Yeah, so you guys can try to compel people to Christianity, but my issue isn't Christian.
No, we can compel you to, we can compel ourselves to the will of the state.
Why not?
What's wrong with that?
I don't know what you're saying right now.
If Christians take over the entire state, rewrite the entirety of the Constitution within your liberal framework.
They can in the liberal framework, but as a Christian, I think that they're being unchristian by doing that.
Yeah, but who cares?
You're just assuming it.
God cares.
And I'm assuming that we're all.
Yeah, but I assume God doesn't care.
I would question your Christian theology.
Oh, why?
I just assumed it.
Scripture.
Do you think that logic, reason, evidence, scripture doesn't exist outside of foundations?
It doesn't matter.
What matters is what I assume.
How would scripture not matter when I'm talking to fellows?
Because I just assume things.
Well, no, you don't just assume things.
Why not?
Oh, you're equivocating again.
So what you're saying.
Why am I equivocating?
Because you're saying assuming at a foundational.
So when I say assume, I mean at a foundational axiomatic level.
That is not the same thing.
My axiom is that I'm always right about everything.
Why can't it be an axiom?
Because it's not tautological.
I'm right because I'm right.
That's a tautology.
Yeah.
Now I can go, oh, I don't think that's justified.
And then I would prove you wrong.
Okay, but who cares?
You just said nothing's justified.
Sorry, are we just doing like nihilism warped word?
Nobody should care.
Nobody should care about you granted me that even at Christianity, you granted me that your worldview is just as unimportant.
So how do you make people?
Because that makes my point, actually.
So your hands off.
You're like, none of it matters.
My system is justified.
If it is, now I at least understand what you're saying.
So great.
If it's the case, two hours and 15 minutes.
Yeah, if it's the case that we're just assuming the worldview at a foundational level, and it's an axiom I'm right because I'm right.
Now we have a tautology, then there's actually no good reason for me not to assume that I'm just right about reforming liberalism after my own image.
So reason can be included, it includes things like inductive and deductive logic.
This is the stuff that we build off of our axioms, right?
Can.
Well, that's what we do.
That's what all philosophical systems are.
That's what you do.
That's what I do.
Well, that's an assumption.
This is crazy.
Because foundationally, you're assuming it, right?
Yeah, you're right, Andrew.
Everything doesn't matter anything at all.
And in fact, everything that you say doesn't matter, and none of your systems are justified.
And that's all just arbitrary and silly.
That's what you're saying, too.
By your view, yeah.
No, no, no.
You granted my view.
You said, I'll grant you Agrippa's trilemma.
Yeah, that would be.
This is our view now, baby.
You said you're joining me.
You're in the Agrippa's Trilemma acceptance state.
In fact, then, if that's the case.
You're just as arbitrary and just as stupid, and we can't assume that you're not.
So if that's the case, we shouldn't talk about anything.
Why are we here?
Exactly.
Each other finish, please.
So I just want to know.
Well, you're in my role.
How are you solving that?
What would the argument?
What now is the argument for me to impose Christian nationalism?
Let me ask that to you.
What's your argument for it?
Because I want to.
You're just assuming that.
Because I want to.
Yeah, but you're just assuming.
It's a tautology.
It doesn't make it.
That doesn't make it.
Exactly.
So it's fine to do.
So why are you saying that it's an ought statement?
Wait a second.
I'm assuming.
Right?
Yeah, so why is it an ought statement?
Because I want it to be.
Because I assume it.
Okay, so your system is wholly unjustifiable.
There's no reason why Christians should do it.
They're just like moving on violence.
And there's no reason for Christians not to do it.
Okay.
Right?
So I believe in a foundation.
I'm a foundationalist, so I believe in...
Yeah, but you assume your foundations can't be justified.
Everything.
Everyone assumes foundations.
You've already granted me this.
Then if that's the case, then who cares what your foundation is?
Because in philosophy, we typically ground foundations to some extent.
We don't do anything in philosophy.
I don't know what you do with philosophy.
Okay, Mr. Philosopher, in any level of respected philosophy, we assume.
Which respected philosophers are you referring to?
Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, what are some modern ones that I can think of?
What did Socrates say?
Heidegger.
Socrates assumed that you couldn't justify anything?
Well, no, what he, well, sort of, what we do is we grant assumptions because we understand that at a foundational level, they're all unjustified.
All you did was destroy the possibility for there to be objective morality.
That's it.
Nope.
Because I think God exists.
Yeah, but you just assume it.
So, but non-Christians also assume that he doesn't exist.
Yeah, so then if they have an anti-moral realist position, I would use logic and reason to compel them as to why I'm correct.
Okay.
Let's assume for a second I'm a moral anti-realist.
Use logic and reason to compel me when you tell me that your whole worldview is just assumed.
Sorry.
You really love that assumed word.
Can you rephrase that in a way that's coherent?
That was coherent, but I'll do it again.
Let's assume it wasn't.
Foundationally.
Let's assume.
I'm a moral anti-realist.
Okay.
Your moral foundations are assumed and not justified.
And I would say, how do you solve Agrippa's trilemma?
No, no, no, no.
You told me the moral anti-realist that.
Yeah, and then the anti-realist goes, well, your opinions are just assumed, right?
And I go, yeah.
How do you solve Agrippa's trial?
Why would they need to?
They're anti-realist.
So even subjectivists.
You just destroyed the possibility for objective morality, Aaron.
No, I didn't.
You did?
No, even subjectivists fail Agrippa's trilemma.
They fail by infinite regression.
Okay, again, who cares?
You forgot about that one, didn't you?
That doesn't hurt my argument.
Yes, it does.
If I'm an anti-realist, a moral anti-realist, I say there are no moral facts.
And that is completely and totally in line with Agrippa's trilemma.
So Agrippa's trilemma would say, how do you solve for infinite regression?
Why would I need to?
Because it's a fallacy.
So thinking's a fallacy.
No, infinite regression is a fallacy.
Okay, but everything's going to reduce to an infinite regress, right?
So what comes before thinking?
Well, that would be transcendentals, would come before thinking.
Okay, what comes before that?
Well, we would make the justification of God, right?
So you're assuming, so no, secular anti-realists.
You're talking about you.
Nope, not me.
You don't assume God?
I do assume God, but we were talking about moral anti-realists.
Andrew, respectfully, we should probably, I don't think you're ready for this conversation.
I don't think.
Oh, I'm having a good time with this one.
I just want to make sure that me, the moral anti-realist, right, that you are telling me that objective morality is real, right?
And I would use reason and logic and argumentation, and I would build off of my foundational axioms that a good faith moral anti-realist would just grant me.
So they'd be like, well, why do you believe God?
And I'm like, I just assume him.
And they're like, okay, well, I can't really contend with that.
It's just assumed.
And then I build my entire case for why I think morals are objective because I think God instilled them outside of us and that they are in every person.
And I would say you can see this in the universal ways in which morals consistently emerge.
We see this trajectory of humankind moving towards greater and greater moral systems, right?
Free speech and respecting one another and treating everyone kindly.
And what you'll notice most importantly is not only are those morals objective, but they're the Christian ones because God is real.
My God specifically is real.
That's how I would do that argumentation.
Okay, so are there moral facts?
Moral Facts and Foundations00:03:45
Yeah, yes.
And are they just assumed?
Yeah, at a foundational level.
Okay, so then any moral facts that I assume at a foundational level are equivalent to any moral facts you assume at a foundational level?
No, not equivalent.
I didn't say these are all equivocal.
What would make them different?
My use of inductive and deductive logic is better.
I use better reason.
I have more evidence for my practice.
Better, hang on.
What does better mean here?
Better means like more coherent, more consistent.
Yeah, but why is that?
Because it seems to produce better thinking.
It seems to be a better idea.
That's a tautology.
Yes.
It's better because it's better.
Yeah, tautologies.
Welcome to fully.
Yeah, so then I just want to make sure.
So you're just going to endlessly be in a case of infinite regress and tautology.
Sweet of you.
I appreciate that.
And then there's no moral facts or just assume.
Just let me pour my energy drink that, Brian, respectfully, and then we'll get back into you really struggling with philosophy.
Oh, I'm having a struggle.
That's true.
You are.
This has been very difficult for me.
I agree.
I mean, hey, you've at least accepted the reality that your beliefs are just as unjustified as everyone else that you mock, which is great.
So might makes right.
No.
Yeah, it does.
Yes, why wouldn't it?
Because of things like coercive power versus legitimate authority.
Who cares about that shit?
You're just assuming it.
No.
So again, it's foundation, whatever arguments you have.
You think like all of this around me just doesn't exist because I'm assuming it.
Wait, wait, wait.
Material things?
Yeah.
Is philosophy material?
Yeah, it can be.
How?
Pragmatism is often pragmatism?
Yeah, how is it?
It's often interested in material effects.
That's not material.
You're just saying what it's like.
I'm so sorry.
Hold on.
Party foul.
You were so sweet to remind me, and then I destroyed your tech.
Yikes.
Did we get all the tech out of the way?
Can we get paper towels?
Yeah, just passing the Kyla there.
A little spillage.
It's okay.
Here.
No, no, no, it's all good.
I'll take care of it.
You guys continue with the debate.
It's all good.
Don't worry about it.
No, it's all good.
Let's get on your stream deck first.
That's what it doesn't get anyway.
Yeah, yeah.
Here, let me take care of it, though.
You guys can continue on with the conversation.
It's all good.
It's all good.
I'm so sorry.
It's okay.
I'll continue.
When I knocked that over, did that happen materially, or did we just all assume that it happened?
Well, I would say that that happened in material reality.
Oh, and so how do we think about that?
Like, how do we decide that actually it fell because of gravity versus like God trying to push it down?
We would probably run an experiment or something like that.
Yeah, we would use like reason and logic to build up a belief system.
Well, the thing is, though, is like that wouldn't make philosophy material.
So, not all of philosophy.
So, philosophy, like the art of loving wisdom, isn't material, but it commentates on materialism.
Yeah, but you just said it was material.
Well, parts of it can be material, yeah.
Which parts?
The part that is your brain thinking about things.
Is your brain not material?
Okay, so is the conversation if I didn't have it?
The philosophy itself material?
Or is the brain material?
The brain's material.
So then, not the philosophy again.
I don't know why you think that this is a dunk.
Saying that's not trying to dunk.
You said philosophy can engage in the material, of course.
But you said it's not a problem.
And then I said, for example, one of the schools is pragmatism.
Yeah, but that's not material.
Sure, okay.
You win.
That's all.
You're so smart, Andrew.
You got me.
I don't know.
Hey, you're way better at this than me.
Help me out, though.
I'm actually fine kind of staying right here.
So you accept that your belief system is just as unjustifiable?
Oh, sure.
Especially for the purpose of this conversation.
No, no, no, not for the purpose of this conversation.
Don't be like bad faith and it is bad faith to presume things that you don't actually believe.
That's what I'm saying.
Don't purport.
Do not purport to me that you believe in things that you don't believe.
Stance-Independent Reasons00:15:56
That is definitionally bad faith.
By self-delusion or self-deception, or in this case, explicit deception, saying, Yeah, I believe this.
And it's like, no, you don't.
You literally don't.
Got it.
Or do you?
Do I what?
Do you believe that Agrippa's trilemma means at all?
One, you convinced me.
Okay, so now I'm not, I don't know what to do with this.
I guess falling into SNARK is your way of solving your bad feeling.
How am I falling into some snark?
Because you are either being genuine.
You convinced me.
You convinced me all moral foundations are completely unjustified.
And since all moral foundations are completely unjustified, any facts we build off of those are not going to be justified.
Well, they're not going to be axiomatically justified, but they can be reasonable and coherent.
So?
They're still unjustified.
Yeah, but we seem to value these things that seem to produce good outcomes.
Yeah, but you couldn't.
You could never say, we seem, we seem, we seem.
It seems to me like that men could collectivize and just beat shit out of women, stuff them in cages, too.
That seems to me like a possibility.
Sure, the issue is that.
There's no.
Other men wouldn't like that.
There's men out of class.
A lot of men would love it.
They did it for years.
Half the world enslaves half the women.
What do you mean?
Okay, men also freed a lot of women, right?
And they also enslave them.
Okay.
And so who cares?
It's like, if that's the case, if all it is is a reduction to the idea that there are no moral facts.
Things that are unjustifiable does not mean that things don't matter.
Well, it means that there's no moral facts.
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
No, because you have to assume.
You're assuming there's moral facts.
Yep.
Do you know what a fact is?
Yeah.
What is it?
A fact is something that is real and true.
Okay, so you're making a truth claim.
Yeah, I'm making a truth claim that God exists and that he has made a real objective world with real objective moral systems.
Are you not doing this?
And you're assuming it.
Are you not doing the same thing?
Damn, I'm here, baby.
I'm right here with you.
So, what, do you think that you can't state moral facts now?
I think that anything that I would state as being a moral fact now becomes unjustified.
And since it's unjustified, I can do whatever the fuck I want.
Okay.
And there can be no actual objection to that now.
We've destroyed all possibility for objective morality now.
No, because people have accepted that agripus trilemma exists for a long time, and we still object one another.
Because whether or not, so you and I assume this is.
These aren't moral facts anymore.
You don't have moral facts.
You just have assumptions.
I'm sure you do because God exists.
We're assuming that God is exactly the same.
No, no, no.
That's an assumption.
It has to be.
Then if it is and has to be, there are no moral facts.
Nope, that's incorrect because we're assuming moral objectivity.
Okay, give me a stance-independent reason for the existence of God.
Sorry, a stance independent of reason?
Stance-independent reason, assur.
I don't know what that means.
Sorry.
So give me, other than because Erudite believes it, God is real.
Yeah, so I'm kind of a Thomist in this way.
I think that God demonstrates and shows himself in every part of the world.
I think that he is in the design of the trees.
That's a stance.
Yeah.
Yeah, I need a stance-independent reason.
So, are you?
So, you want me to not use any logic or reason for just something outside of you, which would demonstrate this?
The Cambrian explosion.
Okay, saying that demonstrates God?
I think it does, yeah.
Okay, and that's a stance-independent reason.
Yeah, because the Cambrian explosion literally happened.
So therefore it's a stance-independent reason?
Yeah.
Are you sure?
Sure.
Okay.
I just want to make sure.
So your stance-independent reason is there's an explosion and that proves God.
I think that's one of the proofs, yeah?
Okay, got it.
And that's not your stance of that.
You're just doing like word games now.
No.
You are.
Nope.
I'm just asking for a stance-independent reason.
So how do you have nothing to do with me?
We get to do like I'm with you.
There are no stance-independent reasons for God.
Okay, so what you're doing, I guess I need to just be meta again because we can't engage in any fucking substance in this conversation.
This is the most substantive it's been.
Literally not substance for you to go, oh, I guess I'm assuming the same thing as you.
So you're just assuming and you're just assuming, you're just assuming, and reason and logic don't exist.
It's like, no, of course reason, logic exists.
I would object.
Where do they exist?
Out there.
You can.
Where?
But math tautologies.
Humans don't create math tautologies.
They exist regardless of whether or not I want to engage with them.
Where?
Two plus two equals four always.
Where?
Out there.
Where's there?
Two ducks and two ducks equals four ducks.
Yeah, but where's that?
The material world.
And the material world.
This is what I mean, by the way, when I say that he's just trying to do word games now.
How is it a word game?
It's necessarily a word game because everything that I am saying is completely reasonable, coherent.
You're just trying to make it seem absurd.
That's what you're attempting to.
How am I making anything seem absurd?
This is obviously what you're attempting to do because you, A, will not allow me to internally critique you in return and show the audience, for example, convinced me.
What do you mean?
No, I have not convinced you.
And I'll just take it.
I'll just grant that I've convinced you.
But convinced me.
But you're not letting me internally critique you now.
Go ahead, internally critique me.
Okay, so how do you believe?
Like, why do you believe in God?
What do you think is good?
Because I assume him.
Okay, but why do you assume that it's good?
Because I assume it.
So you just assume it?
Yeah.
So it's just preference.
Yes.
So nothing, there's no like moral objective facts.
Correct.
So you don't believe in any moral objectivity.
Yeah.
Okay.
So when other Christians insist that there's moral objectivity, what would you say to those Christians?
I would say that they're wrong.
Oh, okay.
Is that what you're actually going to say to people?
Yeah.
Of course.
Okay, so you're looking at the camera right now and you're telling all of your Christian followers that you're going to be.
Erudite has convinced me that the Christian position is that there are no moral facts.
Yes.
Okay.
Wow.
I don't believe that there's no moral facts, but that's fine that you.
You don't?
Yeah, I assume that there are.
Oh, and you assume that there's moral facts.
Yeah.
So therefore there are.
By the word games that you're playing now, sure.
So you assume that there's moral facts, so therefore there's moral facts.
I believe that God is real.
I assume God is real, and I don't think that God lies to me.
So you believe that there's moral facts because you believe there's moral facts.
And I have evidence for that.
What?
Math.
Math is an evidence of a moral fact.
How?
Because it exists outside of us.
Well, how would that be evidence of a moral fact?
Because something that's objective has to occur outside of my mind.
So regardless how it's going to be.
How would that show a moral fact, though?
Even if you could demonstrate math occurred outside the human mind.
We were just talking about facts, but sure, in the case of a moral fact, I would point to, say, for example, emergent universal values.
Seems like over time, universally, what has emerged is people valuing sanctity of life.
And I think that that comes from God, because I think God is good.
Okay, got it.
But that's just an assumption, right?
That one.
Thank you so much.
How would that be a moral fact if the foundation's assumed?
Because you can build on top of your axioms.
Yeah, sure, but they're just assumed.
So how could it be a fact?
Because I think that God objectively exists.
Yeah, but that's just assumed.
Again.
How do you solve this?
How could that be a moral fact?
I just told you I'm a Christian, now a Christian moral anti-realist.
You convinced me of that through your argumentation.
So I think facts exist, and I can point to evidences like math, like tautologies.
Yeah, that doesn't prove that there's moral facts.
So I think there are also moral facts like kindness is good.
How's that a moral fact?
Because I think that no matter where you look, kindness is viewed as good.
We appreciate kindness.
I think that it is something that God decrees.
If everywhere you looked, people were like molesting children, would that then be a moral fact that you should do that?
No, Andrew.
Are you tracking this conversation?
I'm trying to.
Then why would you ask that?
Because when you just say, I observe that people, some people reciprocate kindness, that doesn't demonstrate how kindness is a moral fact.
I didn't say that some people reciprocate kindness.
I said that kindness seems to emerge as a value overall.
And I think that God specifically likes things.
So kindness is an emergent property?
Of God's will, yeah.
Okay.
How is kindness a moral fact?
You ought be kind.
Because God decrees it.
But you just said God's assumed.
Yeah, you have to assume God at some point.
But I think that he's objective.
So then if you assume God.
Look, you're the Christian anti-realist.
I'm not.
Yeah, but you haven't told me why I'm wrong.
Yeah, so I believe in God because of a process mostly of like personal experience, right?
He's shown himself to me, which is why I assume this preference of God is a fact.
You're saying, well, if I can't prove God, I guess what?
Do you think he doesn't exist?
Well, no, I just don't think that there's any moral facts because we're operating that could be a moral fact, right?
No, that wouldn't be a fact.
So you don't think God exists.
Those would be, when you're talking about universals, like moral facts, right?
You're saying that this is indeed universally always true.
No, that's a good question.
Nope, that's not the same thing as a moral fact.
Okay, what's a moral fact?
So a moral fact would be something like justice exists.
And we can outside of us, yes.
That's a universal claim.
No, that's not an absolute claim.
That's a I didn't say absolute, I said universal.
Yeah, universal is the same thing as absolute.
Well, hold on.
The way that justice looks in different contexts are different, right?
Justice in the case of some.
Every context are different.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah, I was a little redundant when I said that, but yes, the point still stands.
Okay, so I'm confused.
When you say justice exists, are you saying that's not a universal claim?
I'm going to put this as far away from my pen as possible.
Too far away.
Say that again.
Because a moral fact would be universal, wouldn't it?
Nope.
Then how would it be a fact?
Because something can be objective and relative.
Aristotle.
Okay, so help me out here.
When you say something is a moral fact, what does that mean?
What I mean is that God created it and it exists outside of us.
And ought people adhere to what God says?
And ought people adhere to what God says?
Ideally, yeah, I would like that.
But they don't all agree with God.
Okay.
But my preference is God ought to be.
Okay, but it is a moral fact that they ought to.
Yeah.
Based on your assumption of God.
Okay.
So I still don't understand how we got to realize that.
You're making that very clear that you have to.
How do we get to moral realism from this?
Okay, because I think God is true.
Do you think God is true?
Sure.
Do you think God exists outside of you?
Sure.
If you didn't exist, God would still exist.
I think that, yeah.
Yeah, me too.
Great.
There's your first shot.
But that doesn't.
I don't understand, though, how we get to moral realism.
Well, because if God then says love exists.
Yeah.
Okay.
Then love must exist because God said love exists.
So our axiom is God exists.
And from that, God says love exists.
So unless we think God is a deceiver, which would be a different belief system, but you and I don't think that.
We think God is telling the truth.
Okay.
Then love exists.
But the way love looks, hard to know.
We have to do a little bit more work to figure out what love looks like.
Okay.
Yeah, like what is love?
How do we get into moral facts, though?
Love is a moral fact.
How?
Because it's based, because God says that love is good.
Okay, so the thing that you assume becomes a fact because you assume it.
Well, it's a fact because God, part of the assumption is that God exists outside of me.
So you assume God, and so therefore, because you assume God, now we have actual moral realism.
I assume the existence of God.
Correct.
Yes.
So if somebody assumes not God, then I would fight with them.
Yeah, I get that you would oppose that, but how do you do that with an unjustified axiom?
Reason.
Yeah.
Reason.
Yeah.
Why if reason reduces down?
Do you think reason just stops the purpose trilemma exists?
If reason reduces down to cannot be justified, then why do I care if when we get to your pillar, you just say, because I assumed it.
I'd say, it's obvious that you care, man.
Look in your soul.
God put it there.
You do care.
You do care.
Gotcha.
That's why we're all here.
That's why we're talking about what's right or wrong, is every human has this universal predilection to seek right and wrongness.
And in fact, even when more anti-realists insist that there's no such thing as truly right or wrong, and they insist on these things, the moment that you put them in a pragmatic situation where they have to act as though that's true, they don't.
They act as though moral facts exist.
And that would be my evidence of saying, see, moral facts do exist.
I'm more right than you are.
I'm more reasonable than you are.
My argument is more compelling than you.
So it just comes down to what most people would do.
Nope.
Well, if it's a moral fact and you say most people would just do this thing, and so it seems like an emergent property.
Well, I think that God puts it.
Do you think that God put his spirit in us?
It's your view.
I'm asking, do you agree?
Why does it have to do with me?
Because I'm assuming that we both agree to this.
I'm saying there's no moral facts at all.
There can't be.
Because any pillar I have to base them on is completely unjustified.
So you don't think God exists?
No, if I assume that God exists, right?
And this is my, and then I assume that assumptions cannot be justified.
Well, one of your prompts, what is one of your prompts here?
Christians, Christian ethics is superior.
How is it superior?
Oh, I just think it's better because it's better.
How, though?
Yeah, because it's better.
Can you make an argument?
Sure, because it's better.
In what ways?
The ways in which it's better.
What do you mean by better?
The same thing you meant by better.
No, not necessarily can you.
Whatever that is.
What do you mean by better?
I don't know.
I think outcomes for people, they like it better.
Okay, well, then why did Christians, why did Christians like power get shirked off by the people?
It didn't.
What do you mean?
Well, most people.
Right now, there's a bunch of people who are proposing that Christians retake power.
What are you talking about?
Yeah, and there's not a lot of political will, thank goodness, behind them.
But if there was, I still haven't actually heard an objection for it.
Yeah, I would say that people did want to shirk it because of Western liberal democracy.
But Western liberal democracy allows the conditionals for Christians to do it.
Yeah, then Christians still do it.
So then I still don't.
I've never ethical for Christians to think.
I guess back to the heart of it, now that we're tying it all back in, what is the objection to Christians utilizing the framework of the Constitution to take over and amend the Constitution?
It's unchristian.
I've already said this.
Oh, why is it unchristian?
Because I think that the faith itself, Jesus is not political.
I think there is a typological argument for over time we see a complete reduction of statehood and priesthood, and it separates entirely to the point that in the typology of Jesus, we see him rejecting being a king, rejecting statesmanship, and refusing to make a physical kingdom on earth.
And we have it through multiple verses, which we can get to if you want.
Okay, well, let's get to him.
Okay, so John 18 is a good example.
My kingdom is not of this world.
If it was, my servants would be fighting.
And this is when he's talking to Pontius Pilate.
Okay, so that's a good example of him saying, I'm not a politician.
I'm not a king.
And if I was, there'd be civil war, but I'm not this thing.
So Jesus says, I am not a political figure.
Is Jesus God?
Yeah.
Okay, so when God anointed.
You just assumed that?
When God anointed kings, was he doing something wrong?
Nope.
I'm super confused.
Why would Jesus anoint kings?
Jesus didn't.
Jesus is God.
So why did he, because I don't think humans were ready for a secular state, a state where Christianity is separated from church and state.
I think it took us a long time to get there.
So God was anointing kings and putting them in charge of entire kingdoms based on the fact that he thought that humans weren't ready to not have kings.
Yeah, for the same reason that before we get to certain parts of the Old Testament, men could have many, many wives.
And then over time, that got reduced because God's like, look, you were blind then.
Now you know better.
Now you can't do this thing, right?
We've seen this.
So why was it permissible for people to have multiple wives for some time?
And then at some point in the Old Testament, that got barred.
Do you know why?
How come post-Jesus, we still had kings in Christian lands?
If God had changed his mind about having kings, why did he continue to allow there to be kings?
Because humans can sin.
So it's sinful to have a king?
I would say it's like it's heretical to engage in politics, yeah, as a Christian.
As a Christian.
Well, do you engage in politics as a Christian?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Let me correct that statement.
Not engage in politics, specifically to rule from a Christian ethics, to say, I am God or inspired by God, and therefore my rules come from God, and you must listen to my Christian rules.
I think that that's wrong for Christians.
So when someone's a politician who's a Christian, they shouldn't make any legislation based on their actual moral purview of Christendom?
Blending Church and State00:06:50
They can do it on their moral purview, but they shouldn't do things that blend, that like merge church and state together.
So saying.
Oh, hang on, hang on.
Now you've just made a different statement.
You just before said that it's sinful, sinful to rule from Christian ethics.
Yeah, in specific ways, yeah.
So why would it be sinful for so it would be sinful for a politician to utilize Christian ethics to promote legislation?
No, I said in specific ways.
So one specific way would be, for example, forcing non-Christians to observe the Sabbath or Lent, forcing non-Christians to do that from like a state level.
I think that that would be wrong for Christians.
Yeah, but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
That's what I'm talking about.
Yeah, but what?
Okay, so there are...
Engage with that.
So there are forms of Christian ethics which you can impose on people?
Well, you shouldn't impose it because it's specifically Christian ethics, but you might agree with, again, you shouldn't impose Christian ethics on non-Christians.
Why not?
Jesus doesn't do it.
Wait a second.
I'm confused.
You're saying that the apostles that when they were like, let's take Paul, for instance.
True.
Okay.
When Timothy, obviously you've read Timothy, right?
Are you familiar with what happened with Timothy and the Cult of Artemis?
Is this like PopQuiz style debating, or is this okay?
No, I'm actually asking, are you familiar with what happened with the Cult of Artemis?
Nope, I'm not.
Do you want to tell me though?
I'm going to tell you.
I'll tell you.
The cult of Artemis.
By the way, that's how you react to these types of questions.
It's normally admitting when you don't know things.
So anyway, just as a heads up.
Okay.
Anyway, the cult of Artemis was a fertility cult, and it was essentially really pissed off that Christianity was taking off.
And it was because they had a silver trade.
And that silver trade, they were making basically mock statues of their religious figures.
Okay.
And so they were doing everything that they could do to undermine Christianity.
And a lot of them, because it was a fertility cult, had priestesses, and they were trying to subvert Christianity, which is where you get 2 Timothy saying that I don't like it when women speak in church, right?
The whole idea there was that a lot of these women were fertility cultists and Timothy was asking for help.
But at that time, Timothy had a massive flock and was definitely, because they were diametrically opposed to the government, is persecuting Christians, was definitely ruling the Christians.
Definitely ruling them.
Are you saying so they rejected Roman occupation, they were shirking it, and they were only imposing Christian law, or were they telling Christians how to act?
Because telling Christians is totally fine.
A church, like the Pope, telling fellow Christians how they should conduct themselves is exactly what the church should be doing.
But the church should not be going, hey, secular people, you have to do this same stuff too.
That's not what the population says.
Yeah, so when there's a policy like women cannot speak in this church, they can't do that.
Okay.
Is that a command?
From what?
Is that a command from a bishop or a priest or something like this?
It might be.
How are you not ruling?
Because it's not, your church is in a state.
Like you can just leave that church, right?
You can say, I'm not of the faith anymore.
I reject this.
Whereas if the Roman occupation says you must pay your taxes, what happens if you don't pay your taxes?
What happens if the Roman emperor converts to Christianity?
Then he began to impose Christian ethics through fiat, which I think was wrong.
Yeah, but what would make it wrong?
I don't think that the whole principle of the faith is regeneration.
And I don't think that regeneration and legitimate salvation occurs when fiat imposes Christian ethics on you, which is why I actually think that blending church and state is so bad for the faith.
Because I think what it does is that A, when you force it upon people, it makes people hate faith.
And B, nobody gets to actually personally know and understand God by and large because they're being forced to do that.
This is actually what makes Christians very different than like Muslims.
Muslims believe, for example, that you can act according to the faith and you can be saved.
Christians would say you can do every single thing you were told to to act like a Christian, but if your heart isn't regenerated, if you don't believe in God and have a personal relationship, you are not saved.
So let me just talk briefly.
Sure.
I just want to make sure that I, because I'm not strawmanning your position.
I want to make sure I got it right.
Appreciate that.
Christians are in power.
They should not directly appeal to Christian ethics for the things in which they prescribe and policy.
I didn't say that.
They can appeal to Christian ethics.
What they can't do is impose specific Christian ethics onto non-Christians.
Okay, so they can't, if they had a law, for instance, like, oh, I don't know, no prostitution, and that's purely informed from their Christian ethics, not from empirical data or anything like that, they should not actually impose that in law.
They can impose it if they think it would actually be good for the betterment of people, but I don't think that they should impose it if there's a large consensus of the population that vehemently opposes that and would not elect for it.
Okay, but let's just assume it's not a democracy.
I am assuming it's a democracy.
Yeah, but let's assume it's not.
Okay, in an authoritarian regime, are Christians acting illegally?
If a Christian says, yeah, okay, so a Christian says there's no prostitution allowed.
Yeah, I think theocracies are bad.
Yeah, okay.
But anyway, so if he says no prostitution is allowed, right?
Let's say you agree with everything else that he says, right?
What would make you specifically disagree with him appealing to Christian ethics for the imposition of no prostitution?
Well, as a Christian, I probably wouldn't disagree with him, right?
Because we share the same Christian ethics.
The issue is that there may be a non-Christian in that state that does disagree and is now being forced to do it only and exclusively because of Christian ethics.
Now, if the Christian found statescraft argumentation for why we shouldn't have prostitution, like for example, it leads to high levels of STIs and the abuse of women, then that might be something that could be, in my case, collectivized and worked towards to oust.
But again, I don't really believe in authoritarian governance.
I think that they're very bad, just generally.
Yeah.
So do you agree that fathers and mothers have rule of their household?
Yes.
Yeah.
Would you advise then that a father who had no empirical data to tell his daughter not to be a prostitute, but only relied specifically on Christian ethics to say that to her and then impose that as a rule is doing something wrong.
What's the difference between a father and a state?
Yeah, I'm going to.
No, I'm asking you.
That's my response.
Oh, my God.
Your response is a question.
My response is: this is disanalogous.
What's disanalogous between these two things?
Well, because I asked you about politicians, you said no.
Sure, I'll say fathers aren't statesmen.
So that's okay for them to do it?
Potentially, yeah, within their household, yeah.
As long as it's not abusive, as long as they're not being abusive.
But why is it wrong for them to do it at the state level?
Because at the state level, that's not what the church is for.
Statescraftmen is for politicians and church things.
The state is also there, or the church is also there to help with moral information.
Church and State Fusion00:06:38
Eastern Orthodox agrees with me, right?
Symphonia.
Yeah, Symphonia is a blending, actually.
It's a blending of church and state.
Okay, so you're saying they don't disagree with me, which would probably explain why the Russian Orthodox Church is such a bastardization of the faith.
The Russian Orthodox Church?
I mean, we know, for example, what Kirill is in basically, like, not excommunication, but he's basically just not talking to the church because they allowed Ukrainians to have their own Orthodox church, the ecumenical patriarch, right?
And the reason that they did this is because Kirill, who's just an ex-KGB agent, is insisting that the Russian war is a holy war, right?
So, yeah, if it's the case that Eastern Orthodox actually is for this and they want to go back to the Byzantine, I'd say, well, it makes sense why Eastern Orthodox is such a weak branch of Christianity.
Okay, but I don't know.
And Russian Orthodox is the worst for that.
I don't know what this has to do with the view.
Okay, Russian Orthodox is a great example of why church and state shouldn't be blended, right?
So what happened to the Russian Orthodox Church when the Tsar was there?
He was good about respecting the church.
And the communists killed him.
Not just killed them, replaced 50% of the clergy with KGB members.
Yeah, after they killed them.
Yeah, which is awful, right?
And were the communists secularists?
But then the communists used to be the same.
Hold on, he doesn't want to get to the last point.
The communists used the Russian Orthodox Church because they actually put in place clergy that are KGB members and they warped the Russian Orthodox Church.
And unfortunately, because the Eastern Orthodox Church is so traumatized by the schism between Catholics and them, they wouldn't even excommunicate the Russian Orthodox Church that had been compelled to be a Christian.
Are you saying that there was KGB agents at the time of Tsar Nicholas?
No, I didn't say Tsar.
I said in communism.
Yeah, so then the communists killed Tsar Nicholas and then imposed communism after that.
They also infiltrating the church with KGB agents at the time of Tsar Nicholas.
That was not happening.
Tsar Nicholas wasn't when communism existed.
Communism definitely existed.
Yes, it did.
It was all Marxism.
And yes, that ideology existed.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, it did.
Wait, the ideology existed, but Stalin, like when we're talking about communism, we're talking about Lenin Stalinism, right?
Yes.
Okay, so Stalin, I believe it was Stalin that killed 50 people.
But we're also talking about Marxism.
Well, when I'm talking about Marxism as like a state, I'm talking about this specific state.
Yeah, but we're talking about the ideology of Marxism.
No, I'm talking about the Russian state that...
Yeah, the Russian state, which was secular, came from communists, killed Tsar Nicholas.
Killed 50% of the clergy, and then replaced that clergy with their own people because they recognized the fact that they were.
After they killed them, secularists killed the Christians, not the other way around.
Then they used the church and implanted their own state members into the church to weapon.
That's a good example of how the state corrupts churches.
The reason that, no, that must be the opposite.
What happened is that the church was doing what it was supposed to do, and they fucking killed them and then replaced the people within that structure.
True, and that's the same thing.
And they're still replaced to the state because Kirill was found to be an ex-KGB.
First of all, he was.
He absolutely was.
Well, the Eastern Orthodox Church has determined that the Russian church is in communion with them.
In communion, but the issue, so that they're willing to still talk to them.
The issue is that the patriarch Kirill will not talk to them because what happened is the patriarch, what is it, Bartholomew I, I think, right now?
Bartholomew and the Ecumenical Council were.
The Communist Bartholomew?
Yep.
They gave autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which means self-governing for those who are not like EO words.
And this made Kirill so mad because he's so in line with Putin and insisted that the Ukrainian war is a holy war that he stopped talking to all of them.
But all the ecumenical, they oppose what Russia is doing insofar as they allowed Ukrainians to self-govern away from the Russian Orthodox because they recognized that there was a problem here.
Yeah, but this.
This is a good example of why church and state is true.
I don't understand.
Your example of why church and state is bad is because secularists can come in and kill the members of your church and then replace them with people who aren't real Christians.
My argument.
That's your argument.
No.
Do you want to steal my marriage?
Demon meaning.
Yeah, here's your steel man argument.
No, you're about to straw man.
No, stop, stop.
You're a strong man.
How do you know?
I don't know.
Your tone.
Your tone, I can tell.
I can tell.
Okay.
Here's the actual argument that I'm making.
I'm not saying that the state was bad, that the blending of church and state is bad because the state came and killed.
I said what's bad is that they later then used the church as an arm of the state.
So they blended church and state.
They used Kirill and other people to impose theological law that was just sympathetic to communism because the state utilizes this.
And what happened is when 50% of the clergy got killed and replaced by statists, which were not clergymen, the Eastern Orthodox Church wouldn't even excommunicate that church, despite the fact that their theology changed dramatically, significantly, and has maintained that to such a point that Eastern Orthodox didn't even send people in to correct the theology.
Do you think that the church would remain what it is supposed to be?
Yes, I'm moving my hands.
Very exciting, Andrew.
Do you think that the Russian Orthodox Church would be what it is if the KGB hadn't killed 50% of it and removed it?
This is why, by the way, the separation of church and state is valuable.
It protects the church and it protects the state.
How is the separation of church and state protect us from communism?
Because it doesn't allow communism to utilize the church as a statecraft.
It doesn't need to.
It can just take over the state.
Yeah, that would be bad.
Yeah, but it can do that within your liberal framework, no problem.
No, because liberalism is opposed to liberalism.
Yes.
Liberalism.
Yes, again, literally.
Liberalism is opposed to tyranny.
Okay.
First of all, particularly of monarch, your liberal framework has amendments in it, and these amendments can be at any time changed by consent.
Is it a framework the Constitution, or is it a framework of no, it's political philosophy.
The Constitution isn't my name.
Power to political philosophy.
Yeah, if we're talking about the world.
So your liberalism is a problem.
Wait, what would we be using if?
And I want to make sure that your political philosophy is kind of important when we're talking about liberalism.
I thought your political philosophy was just life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
No.
Oh.
That was something I pointed to as like a central American ethos.
So what is the liberal foundational philosophy then?
Typically, it's going to be maximizing freedoms and rights of people.
So giving people both rights and what's the other one when it's not rights, it's like privileges.
I forget the word.
I'm blanking right now.
It gives them access to rights.
It has strong institutions.
And in more modern forms of liberalism, which I like, by the way, it believes in a social safety net.
Entitlements?
Entitlements.
No.
There's like a fill, there's a political fill word where it's like you have both rights and oh, I don't know why I can't think of this word right now.
Liberties and Liberties00:02:37
My brain is like, you could probably look it up.
Right, liberties.
Rights and liberties.
Okay.
Liberties are the things that you get that aren't your right.
The problem you have here is that your foundation here is democracy, right?
Well, a liberal system, I think, works best with a democracy.
I think a liberal democracy is a very important thing.
So within the confines of a democracy, as long as people vote out the liberal system, the liberal system literally lets them do that, right?
Yeah, I agree, but this is why I think that the founding fathers did a really good job of setting up like girding principles against this, right?
I'm not maximal for democracy.
I actually like liberalism more than I like democracy.
So I want my democracy to stay within the confines of liberal values.
That's nice.
So look, it is nice.
It's made all of this.
It's made the best countries on the earth.
America, the country you hate, apparently, and don't think stands for anything.
You must.
You want to go back to a time before America existed.
You want to go back to the Byzantine Empire.
When did I say that?
You said this multiple times.
I've listened to you.
I've known you for three years.
I've known you since the big publication.
Would you like to put $1,000 on the fact I've never said anything like going back to the Byzantine Empire?
The Byzantine Empire was great.
Never even said that?
Really?
You don't like the Byzantine Empire?
Whether I do or don't doesn't mean I ever said that we should go back to it, does it?
Wait, do you believe this is not a problem?
I'm not doing a bet with you.
No, of course not.
Yeah, because I'm having a, wait, well, first of all, I'm poor.
So if I lose, I literally can't pay you.
So there's no point.
But second.
500?
I probably literally don't have 500.
500.
250?
I could maybe spend 100, but I'm not interested in making a bet with you.
Well, now I understand.
This is the reason why I'm rejecting the bet is because you're doing the thing again where you're trying to catch me on like a couple of key words when I'm trying to talk about an idea.
And so it's like, if I say a few key words that like you don't like, we can correct them.
But I would ask you, do you think the Byzantine Empire was good?
Do you like it?
Do you think that there's some level of what that empire was that we should try to adopt?
No, I think all systems have things which are valuable.
Do you think that we should try to adopt it into the American system?
No, not the Byzantine Empire.
No.
Of course not.
What empire would you like to see?
Well, I don't see you see how you just loaded that?
Why would I?
Sorry, why would I want to see an empire?
I can unload it.
What statescraft would you like to see?
Yeah, so I'm glad that you asked.
Now that we understand, I feel like after letting you talk here for a while, I actually understand a much broader base for your position.
It took three hours for you to get there.
Congrats.
Well, you don't stop talking.
I stopped talking lots and I've made it pretty simple.
You just been letting you go and go and go.
So now we can get to the.
I have.
I've been letting you go and go and go.
I just asked you a few questions.
You did all.
Right?
I mean, I've tried to internally critique you, but you don't really want it.
Just keep running away from it.
Income Tax Threat?00:14:56
Christian.
And then being bad faith in you.
Oh, yeah.
I actually don't think that exists.
It's all assumed.
I know.
I'm terrible.
I don't think you're terrible.
So now we've gotten to Christianity.
Just so it's clear.
I just want to clear.
I don't think anyone's going to be able to do it.
Can I say a word?
While I don't want people rocking around things.
Can I say anything in this debate?
Do you think that I think you're terrible?
Erudite, who cares?
You said it.
Oh, my God.
Can we get back to the debate?
You said it.
Okay, can we get back to the debate?
Well, do you think that I think you're terrible?
Oh, my God.
Who cares?
You said it.
Yeah, I do.
I think you think Smokey Man bad.
Yes.
Okay, I don't.
Okay, great.
So anyway, back to the debate.
I just want to make sure, because you haven't actually answered this question.
If Christian nationalists change the amendments of the Constitution, they change them.
So now Christian nationalists go, First Amendment, that's gone.
Right?
Gotcha.
What the fuck is wrong with doing that if it's actually in the confines of the American system to do that?
So as a Christian, I'd say it's unchristian to do.
That's nice.
I'm asking about the political philosophy, remember?
So sure, within the political philosophy, I would say, I don't believe in absolute democracy.
I believe in democracy that serves liberalism values because I think liberalism is the best political philosophy we've achieved.
So if a nation state would vote in an authoritarian, which has actually happened many times, I think that that's bad.
And I think the nation state has failed in that case.
And I think that we should do our best with democracies to prevent the overtaking of radicals.
That doesn't actually answer my question.
Sure, it does.
Yeah.
Liberalism provides girds against that.
I'm not for absolute democracy.
So in my liberal system, I would say.
So who shouldn't vote?
What?
Who shouldn't vote?
I haven't said anything about who shouldn't vote.
When you say absolute democracy, what does that mean?
Oh, so like popular vote.
Like, I don't want just because somebody gets the most votes of people, I don't think that that should be the leader.
Because like cities are more than utilizing the system, which is liberalism and is the American framework.
Christian nationalists can get amendments passed in order to tailor things to Christianity.
They can.
I just think that that's wrong for Christians to do.
Yeah, that's nice that you think that, but from a political philosophy, when you're talking about political philosophy, it is just utilizing liberalism.
Sure, but I would say that it's also un-American to do because I think we can go back to the beginning because I said the American ethos is built on things like ingenuity, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.
And I think when you take over the first A as a Christian nationalist and you make it so that people don't have free speech, they can only praise God, for example.
I think that's un-American because I think the founding fathers wrote it in intentionally to separate these things.
They did not want to impose religion on other people.
And I think that that's good, and I think it's an American system.
Why are they putting in an amendment system?
Because they recognize that over time, technology and development occur, so there are things that they haven't even thought of that might be relevant.
For example, stakeholdership.
They recognize.
Or, for example, people are rejecting the status quo and they want to move outside of the idea of liberalism.
I think the founding fathers probably thought that democracy was good no matter what and that we should definitely try to stay.
That's really funny because they basically let nobody vote.
Well, why?
Because they didn't trust the electorate by their yes.
Oh, yes.
No.
Oh, we have 1,000%.
Okay, we can just go to Federalist Number Two.
You're very wrong.
Oh, no, I'm very right.
The Federalist Papers even are specific about this.
There's a reason that they demanded that there be stakeholders in the nation.
They actually did not trust the electorate, even the stakeholders they had a large amount of distrust for.
Well, the issue, what they actually had is they recognized that different, so when we say stakeholders, we mean like people that have some stakes in the country, right?
Yeah.
Okay.
So the reason that they recognize is that different people would have different stakes in the country.
And so they were very concerned about people with very low stakes in the country to display.
Which was most people.
But the stakes, so landowners.
Which was most people.
So landowning was used as a proxy because they thought if anyone is going to want to see America continue and America to flourish, irrespective of what they personally want.
Then most people couldn't vote.
It would be landowners.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So most people couldn't vote.
I agree.
Yeah.
For a reason.
Well, I would say the reason was built on bad premises, right?
They were concerned, for example, that the landless man would be less invested in the country.
And I would say, there's a lot of people that don't own land.
They're very patriotic together.
You got to interrupt me because I'm cooking, don't you?
Yeah, and under the well, I've got to be able to talk to you.
You have to.
I've barely said a word.
Do you feel like for an hour I've just let you prattle?
It's my turn too.
First of all, for the last hour, you've insisted on internally critiquing only me, and you wouldn't let me internally critique.
No, you can internally critique.
Second of all.
You can internally critique.
But here's my question to you.
I'm just curious because I still don't understand why it would be that if we changed an amendment that's anti-democratic or anti-liberal.
It's anti-democratic.
I said that it would be un-American.
It's not un-American.
Yes, it is because the first.
We've changed how many amendments?
We've added a number of amendments, yeah.
And changed them.
Sure, that's fine.
Yeah, but it's like, for instance, we added women's suffrage.
We had an amendment for prohibition, and then we got rid of the amendment for prohibition.
We've added and taken away many, many amendments.
Sure, yeah.
The American system is actually a hodgepodge, isn't it?
Yeah, and I think that's one of the beauties of it.
But I think one of the things that are central to the American dream, the thing that makes America stick out, which makes it the unique country that it was, so unique, actually, that when other monarchies fell, they adopted similar structures to us, is things like free speech, like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
So that's the fact that Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers looked at the world and said, we need a government system that's for the common man and reduces the capacity.
It's built into liberalism.
Built into liberalism, the idea of the guardrail bumpers, right?
Checks and balances.
If the population gets the right to vote, which it now has, it has almost totally universal suffrage, except in very minimal cases, then passing these amendments becomes much easier based on the agenda of the people.
That's within the country.
That would be much easier.
Because at that point, you can consolidate power blocks in parties, which was an emergent property of universal suffrage.
So the issue is when you have these two parties, why would you be more likely to pass an amendment when amendments actually require a large amount of votes, right?
It's not just 50-50, right?
I don't remember what you're saying.
Because if you have two parties, you're probably going to have a lot of your politicians under one party flag or the other.
Right, you want them to work together.
It's a separation of power.
No, unless one has overwhelming control, which can easily happen.
Yes, but it's actually interesting when you look at the creation of the United States.
They went back into this.
I just want to make sure.
You don't want to deal with any facts of the reality.
If you have an overwhelming amount of a single party who's in charge, then getting things passed is much, much easier.
Sure, it absolutely is much easier.
But this is why, for example, we've done things like splitting the Senate so that you need like 60 votes to try to prevent true partisan voting.
They can end the filibuster.
They could.
They probably won't, which is unfortunate.
Yeah, but they could.
They may.
And the thing is, they can also pack the court.
That's all within the confines of liberalism.
I agree.
The very idea here that we can't utilize liberalism to remove parts of the liberal framework that we don't like.
I'm not rejecting that.
Well, then there can be.
It's not un-American.
It's not un-American.
It's the most American.
I would say it's un-American to reduce, get rid of some of the most foundational things, which is like the pursuit of life, liberty, and having a lot of people.
No, don't worry about it.
I think that if we do things like that, it's not getting rid of any of those.
Hold on.
You can do that.
But if, for example, Christian nationalists took power and they wanted to get rid of the First Amendment, I would say that that is a violation of life liberty.
That's a big violation of liberty, which would be un-American.
I would say those Christian nationalists are un-American.
They don't believe in the ethos that made the state great, which was the common man gets a say that he has his rights protected.
Did you say the same thing about the Second Amendment?
Yeah, I actually like the Second Amendment.
Great.
So I should be able to own a bazooka.
Potentially, I just think all of the natural limits to it are.
What are natural limits?
Most people can't afford it.
Like storage, for example, I think state store it.
Yeah, they're within the confines.
Sure, but I think a state would regulate a lot on what you can do with it.
Wait a second.
I'm a community.
Wait, are you against 2A?
Are you saying 2A?
Are you saying?
No, no, no.
I'm a big Second Amendment.
So should you be able to own a bazooka?
Sure.
Okay, why?
Absolutely.
Because it's within the confines of the right.
Why does that matter, though?
What if we voted to get rid of that?
Yeah, I believe in the right of self-defense.
Well, what if we voted to get rid of that?
Then that would be within the confines of the liberal framework.
Would that be okay with you?
Okay, no.
I would object on different grounds, though.
I'm not a liberal.
Sure, yeah, of course.
I'm not a liberal, though, right?
That's within the confines of the framework to completely eliminate the Second Amendment.
Sure.
I've never rejected that.
I've said that it would be un-American to be aware of that.
How's that un-American?
Because I think like 2A, for example, gun culture is extremely American.
It's a deeply, deeply American American.
Sure, I would agree with that.
But what's not un-American is removing amendments that Americans don't like.
That's the most American thing.
Sure.
The most American thing is Americans introducing things and amendments that they like.
It's getting rid of amendments that they don't like.
It's doing things that they fucking want based on what it is that they want.
And so if Americans say, we want Christian nationalism and we'll impose various amendments for Christian nationalism, that is the most American country.
I think if America goes back towards like a more theocratic state, I think it is fundamentally now have become something that isn't America anymore.
I would be the person running around like Trump's.
Based on what?
the last 40 years the founding fathers and the entire point the founding fathers gave the states the ability to do it the entire point of the revolutionary war which was to break away from tyranny and to separate power so that the common man had a chance to exist and have a right to have a right to speak to those who that was That was great sloganeering, but the truth is American.
The Revolutionary War was about money.
The very first thing George Washington did was implement a tax.
Very first thing he did was institute, and it led to the Whiskey Rebellion.
He put a tax on whiskey.
Do you think that our founders who wanted to apportion taxes, directly apportion taxes, wanted us in any way to have a fucking income tax?
Because that is against life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
We're the most taxed country on planet Earth.
One of the most taxed on planet Earth.
I don't think that's true.
And it's like most Western liberal democracies are taxed.
If you went back, if you went back to the country.
Do you want to walk that one back?
If you went back to our founders.
Can we see if there's anybody that taxes more on income than America?
I just want to fact check you because it's not just income.
It's one of the most taxed countries on planet Earth.
So the thing is no more.
There's no other Western liberal democracy.
I said one of the most, yes.
So anyway, the court.
You said the most, but yeah.
Okay, whatever.
There's my qualifier.
Look, we can actually give grace to the people.
So anyway, back to this before you divert again, because that's all you do is divert.
When it is the case, when it is the case that you move back to, I don't know, let's say 1800, do you think that they would have allowed an income tax?
I'm not sure.
I have no idea.
Probably not.
I have no idea.
Do you think that the way that people are taxed right now, that our founders fought for that?
Sort of, yes.
Yes.
Sort of, yes.
Because I think the thing that the founders cared about was that the common man gets a say on the policy.
They do not want an income tax at all.
Okay.
I don't think income tax by itself just breaks this entire American ethos.
I don't think like it's just shattered, right?
So I imagine.
Why not?
Because, like I said before, it's a threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
How is it a threat to life and liberty?
Because they're directly taking an unapportioned tax from people.
How is that a threat to life and liberty?
I'll just ask you again.
Because don't you think that you need to have money in order to have liberty?
Sure, but in case of liberties, this is things you get access to.
So one of the things that taxes do is they give you access to things like free education.
Okay, wait a second.
The income, you can have sales taxes, things like that.
That's constitutional.
Initially, there was no income tax in the Constitution.
Sure.
Yeah.
So why was that passed?
Probably because we needed to have greater government receipts so that we could pay for the things that we wanted that we collectively had decided would be better for the people.
No, it's because of the monster of Jekyll Island.
It was written by a bunch of bankers, essentially.
And Jackson was against it first, and he killed it.
He was against the centralized market.
He killed the.
Well, because the bank wanted to create an income tax.
That's not actually just.
It is actually true.
So I agree that that's true.
What you're presuming, though, you're trying to make it seem like Jackson was most opposed because of income tax.
Jackson was most opposed to the central bank, to the central bank, specifically, because he was concerned about government statesmen having access and control over our economy.
He wanted that to be separate.
As a separation of power.
He was concerned about debt.
That's why one of the first things he did was pay ours off.
Okay, all of these are.
It was about debt.
So you degree that Jackson had multiple reasons for why he was opposed.
Not just income tax.
Yeah, but income tax would have made him lose his fucking money.
So do you think that it is unappropriate?
And the point is, so it's completely American to roll back the income tax.
It's completely American to roll back all of these various.
So what you're doing is you're saying liberalism and the process of democracy gives us the capacity to change rules.
And you're saying that's America.
That's the most American.
No, so I'm arguing that the most American thing is the value of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.
Yeah, but you keep on ingenuity, science.
Yeah, but you keep equivocating because you, and the one that you say that's not foundational is not a foundation for my philosophy is life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
And then when I say wait, the most American thing that we can do is the most important thing.
Sorry, how is this equivocal?
It's the American thing that we always do.
And then you move back and forth between these two ideals as though they're interchangeable.
My foundation's actually political ideology.
No, my foundation is actually life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
I've never seen that.
Hold on, Andrew.
So you're being bad faith again.
No, you're being bad faith, Kyla, by saying I'm bad faith.
Good job.
So I have never said that my moral system is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
I didn't say moral system.
You did.
I'm talking about no foundational system for liberalism.
For American, for the American ethos.
Yeah, they do.
Not for liberalism.
Whatever that is.
No, I said the foundation for liberalism is some thing of balance of state power, right?
There is strong institutions, protections of human rights and liberties, and in modern liberalism, especially, some form of like welfare state or caretaking.
So hold on.
Can we just acknowledge right now that you are the one equivocating?
I'm going to make sure that we have it.
Hold on.
Just let me finish my thoughts.
Go ahead.
You were saying that my moral system is this life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
But I've never said that.
The foundation of America.
That's the foundation of America.
And I said, yeah, that's the American ethos.
And they said, yeah, liberalism.
I said, no, liberalism's foundation is these other things.
So you're the one equivocating.
You're trying to understand.
Let's make sure I'm not equivocating.
When we reduce it down, the thing that makes Christian nationalism un-American is that it's a threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That Christian nationalists, if they had their way, would impose Christian ethics and restrictions on people that they wouldn't accept.
And I think realistically, Christian nationalists, if they had their full way, would usher in a theocracy.
And a theocracy is fundamentally un-American.
Got it.
Now, let's say Christian nationalists are able to take power through their machinations, running for political office, guys like Fuentes, super popular, many people like this.
They sway the electorate.
The electorate puts them in office under the promise that they're going to change many of these things.
I'd say those American people are not American.
I get it.
They're not.
They're very un-American.
And bad Christmas.
These Americans are very un-American and bad Christians.
Christian Nationalists' Vision00:15:42
I get it.
These guys get into office, and all they do is this.
They just immediately legislate that you can't be prostitutes, no prostitution, no pimping, no gay marriage, right?
That's all they do.
They keep everything else equal, right?
Can you tell me why it would be that you would oppose that?
Typically, in the criminalization of prostitution, we typically see that women are disproportionately abused as a result of.
Well, how would it be un-American, I guess?
I didn't say it would be un-American.
Okay, but it's definitely in direct violation of this whole liberty thing, right?
Not necessarily, right?
Like prostitutes specifically, are you not going to be able to do that?
Yeah, but homosexuals, for instance.
So are you also wanting to impose a law that homosexuals can't get married?
Yeah.
Okay, then I would oppose that, yeah.
Yeah, because it's a threat to liberty.
Yeah.
Okay, so how come three people can't get married?
Mostly, I think right now it's taxation.
Yeah, but I mean, if we can make a legally, sure.
I don't have a problem with it legally, because legality is not my moral system.
17 people?
Sure.
Hold on.
What reasonable world exists where 17 people are getting legally married?
Well, right now we just recently had three people who got married.
I don't see why you couldn't add a fourth or a fifth.
I'm saying, do you think it's reasonable to presume that 17 people are going to get married?
Yes.
Really?
Yes.
I think you're absurd.
I at least think it's reasonable to assume four or five would.
So the thing is, well, if it's three, why can't it be four?
I've spent time with people, but maybe you haven't.
I don't know.
If three people just got married, why couldn't it be four?
Well, I would argue, for example, in the case of polycules, even, a lot of these relationships tend to fall apart because I don't know.
Yeah, but they can still get married.
Legally, yeah.
Yeah.
Okay, so anyway.
So again, yes, if we could create a taxation system that could manage 17 people getting married legally, I don't have an issue with it necessarily.
Got it.
Now, hang on.
Let's say that we allow for, we pass an amendment, liberals pass an amendment, and it says three people can get married.
Okay.
And this is now part of a new constitutional amendment.
Christian nationalists get power.
They remove that constitutional amendment.
That is now violating the idea of liberty.
I don't think so.
Now you're violating the idea, the very idea of liberty.
So that would be un-American for those Christian nationalists to get rid of three people getting married if there was an amendment.
So this is where pluralism comes in.
You're making it seem as though I'm a liberty extremist, right?
I think that there are some liberties that can be girded, right?
I don't want people running around maximally doing anything they want at any given time.
And neither does liberalism, typically, because liberalism is also a problem.
Well, where do we draw the threshold then?
Because your whole objection to Christian nationalists and gay marriage with probably three, because I don't think taxation would ever be functional for seven years.
Okay, so they pass an amendment, three people can get married.
That's what I said.
True.
And then Christian nationalists take control, and the only thing that they remove is that amendment.
I probably personally wouldn't have an issue with it.
But that's a threat to liberty.
That's hurting people's liberty.
I don't think necessarily.
How is it not necessarily hurting their liberty?
Because I'm not a liberty maximalist, which is what you're trying to say.
So what?
It would still be hurting their liberty, whether you're a maximalist or not.
So for example, the reason why we might not allow three people to get married legally is because it may create situations where people like divorce situations can't be like easily solved.
It makes divorces extremely messy, particularly because it manages the divorce.
So the issue is now your hypothetical is going, imagine we exist in a world that is fundamentally not in any way like the world that we exist in.
No, it's like that.
Now what you would do.
And I'm like, I don't know in this fundamental world where like human beings don't marry.
Three people just got married.
If three people can get married, then those three people can already get divorced.
And if they have children, those three people can already have some kind of custodial fucking problem with the people.
We already have major custodial issues within divorce court is increasingly messy.
Alimony.
So how would that not be a threat to liberty?
Well, we might not allow this liberty because it actually, the divorce courts and the way that the system works, it limits people in such a way that we can't actually function.
Then Christian nationalists going in and limiting liberty is not really a problem.
To some extent, to some extent.
So them outlawing gay marriage, that's a problem, but not three people getting married.
Why?
Because I would say consensually as a society, we've agreed that gay people can get legally.
No, we never did.
There was no vote on that.
We voted for the electorate that did this.
Okay, and you're voting for the electorate who goes in and undoes it.
So what?
I would say that opposes, that in this case, the only reason that you're doing that is because you think being gay is evil.
So?
I think that that's wrong to police.
That's nice you think that, but they were elected.
It's not nice.
They got into office.
It's not nice that I think that I would say that.
Thank you.
I would say that it's fundamentally un-Christian for them to do because now at this point, they are not imposing something that they're not going to be able to do.
Yeah, that your liberalism can't, your liberalism can't actually stop at one and two.
And it doesn't matter to have any argument.
It is not un-American for them to go in and change amendments.
That's the most American.
We're just back here again.
So what I would say is that there are some things that are central to the American ethos, right?
But these things are not maximalists.
So what you're trying to do is you're trying to say, well, you're for liberty.
You're for maximal liberty.
And I'm like, no, I'm for some limitations on that.
Of course you are because you're going to be saying that.
But what about 17 people?
And I'm like, I don't know.
I don't live in a world where that's even like kind of functionally reasonable.
I don't know what I think about 17 people getting married at a legal level.
Just three.
Sure.
Even just three.
I'm not even sure what I think about three people getting married legally because I think that there's going to be a lot of complications as far as like how we manage these things necessarily because I'm not a liberty absolutist.
But I do think that the value of liberty, giving common man access to these choices is central to the American ethos.
So what would be wrong with Christian nationalists going in, right?
They pack the court and then they go ahead and re or don't even pack the court.
They just put two Supreme Court justices, new ones on.
They reinterpret that, well, you know what?
Gays actually can't get married.
They overturn a Burgerfell.
One of my issues would be them intentionally packing the court.
I think they're not going to be able to do that.
No, no, I just put that off the table.
They just put in two new Supreme Court justices.
That's it.
How do they do that?
Because two of them die.
Okay, so two of them die.
They elect two of them with the intention of packing the court.
So they're specifically selecting.
They're getting packing.
Wait, do they select them on the basis that these judges will be Christian as well?
Well, then make their judicial laws.
They're only selecting them because the party in charge wants them there.
Yeah, I think that that's the bad point already.
Why?
Because I do not think that we should be putting them in the middle.
That's how parties do it now.
They put in justices that they want that they think are going to represent their views.
Do you think that I like the fact that we try to make the judicial system partisan?
That's very un-American.
I think it is un-American.
No, it's very un-American for you to go against that.
Why?
Because it's the most American thing.
That's how we've always done it.
I would say that if it's not girding the common man, the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, packing the courts, for example, I think is bad.
I think that this is not a good thing to do.
I don't want partisan courts.
The point, hold on.
The American idea, the zeitgeist of the separation of powers, actually really, really, really matters because one of the things that's fundamental to Americanism is the opposition of tyranny.
And how you oppose tyranny is you separate power.
So if you're packing the court to be biased towards a single side, you're already engaging in some other tyranny.
What about them getting rid of abortion?
What about it?
Yeah, is that hurting life or helping life?
Depends on what you think life is.
Well, I'm asking you.
So I'm for the decriminalization of abortion entirely because I think when you look at the actual, yeah, when you look at the ramifications of abortion policy, it leads to more infant death, more mother deaths, more children in foster care, more children in poverty, and more children death.
Is it more or less American that abortion's banned?
I don't think that this is necessarily an American concept.
Not everything is like tied to these.
So if Christian nationalists get in and they completely outlaw abortion, right, via constitutional amendment.
I think that they would then be imposing onto non-Christians their view of human life.
That's nice, but that doesn't violate any of the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness that you consider Americanism to be.
It reinforces life.
It would be because probably 50, I think it's like 50% of the population definitely disagrees with the contention of when life is.
Who cares?
You're not an extremist.
What do you mean?
The main thing is that if it's the case.
What do you mean, who cares?
Well, first of all.
Probably the voting electoralists.
Yeah, sure.
The ones who elected the Christian nationalists?
Well, more so, in this case, the ones who didn't.
Yeah.
So now the Christian.
You know what?
It's the most American thing possible when Christian nationalists get in.
How's that tyranny?
By trying to impose only Christian ethics on other people, knowing for a fact that 50% of the population would not want to adhere to the people.
50% of the population doesn't want to adhere to abortion.
They think that abortions are.
They don't have to get abortions.
Isn't that crazy?
They think you're murdering people.
Sure, but they don't have to get an abortion.
It doesn't matter.
You're not allowed to murder people.
Wait, does the state compel anyone to get an abortion?
Why would that matter?
Because it kind of matters if you're talking about the Christian ethos.
Is it the case that if the state said that you could murder random people, that you could object to that in a democracy?
Yes.
So you can object to fucking people murdering people in your democracy.
You can, of course.
And you can get an amendment together to say stop murdering people.
This is fine as long as the reason that Christians aren't doing it is intentionally to impose Christian ethics on non-Christians.
And yet you have not made an argument for why that's even bad.
You've just said within the framework.
I said, don't like it.
No, no, no.
I said it's un-American.
No, I said Christians imposing Christian ethics on non-Christians is unbiblical.
It's heretical to do that.
Yeah, but we're talking about whether or not it's un-American.
No, I've said from the beginning.
Now you're going to fucking equivocate.
We're talking about what's un-American five seconds ago.
Are you trying to slant me into specific types of arguments that I'm not making?
You are making it.
Equivocating.
You said that this is the most American thing we could do.
What?
To outlaw abortion.
For the purpose of life, Erudite.
The purpose of life.
I said this.
No, no, no.
We're talking about what's un-American or American.
I'm postulating that it's the most American thing we can do if the idea is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for Christian nationalists to outlaw abortion.
Do you think it would be also super American to get rid of evolution in class?
I don't know if that would be American or not American.
Well, Christian nationalists would probably want to do it.
Is that American or not?
I don't think that they would.
But they're not what you mean.
They've multiple times advocated for removal of evolution from the Louisiana Act of 2008.
I think that that should be left up to the states, like the 10th Amendment says.
Okay, so that's what Christian nationalists would say.
Okay, so you think that's not true.
And you know that you don't believe that.
You think that Christianity?
But at least people advocate for my version of it.
So Christian nationalists would violate all parts of the Constitution except for the 10th.
They really like that one.
Most Christian nationalists, at least ones who are in the mainstream that I'm aware of, they do advocate that most of this stuff gets pushed back to the state, like what used to happen with gay marriage, which is why it was, you know, every time it was voted on, they said no, and he had to use the constitutional route.
And do you think Christian nationalists would prefer it's at the state, or do you think they would actually prefer a federal rule on abortion?
Do you think the Christian nationalists want a federal ruling?
If they had a federal rule on abortion, they would have to pass an amendment, which would be the will of the people.
Do Christian?
Yeah, of course.
What's wrong with that?
So I am outlining right now that you trying to pretend as though Christian nationalists just want state rights is dishonest.
I didn't say that that's because I said, well, do you think that Christian nationalists would try to push through Christian ethics on people?
And he said, well, I think they just want it at the state.
No.
Of course.
I don't know.
If they said that issue, they would refer it to the state.
But within the purview of the world.
Do you think that they would prefer a federal ban on this?
I don't even think that that would be possible unless you amended it.
But even if they did, that would be.
Didn't they want that?
Yeah, if they amended it, that's within the confines.
So I don't know why the fuck you're bringing up states at all.
You're just running away.
Because that's what they would say.
They would say defer it to the state.
If you could pass an extra statement, why?
Because they don't think that they can do it through federal powers.
But if Christian nationalists could do it through federal powers, they would, right?
But that would be totally constitutional and very American.
I don't think it would be.
It would be the most American.
But it would be within their constitutional capacity.
Not only their constitutional capacity, they would be following Americana, baby.
No, I would say, for example, 100% Americana.
Absolutely not.
Absolutely, yes.
So America is just a Christian theocracy secretly waiting to be discovered.
America is just a fucking secular fucking nonsense machine.
Do you think America just, what is America to you?
To me, America, at least how you define it, is just how I define it, how you define it.
Yeah, so for me, I've told you this multiple times.
If there was some kind of cultural glue, I would give America a lot more credence on this.
But right now, it just looks like a system.
It's not an answer to what America is.
I just answered it at the end if you would have listened.
I think right now America is just a system, yes.
So you don't believe in America.
You don't have any pride in America.
You don't think there's a central American ethos?
Like America is a style of the world.
I think there used to be.
And mass migration, other things destroyed that.
So American doesn't exist anymore.
Not how it used to, no.
What did it used to be?
What was some of the central ethos?
What made something American?
Yeah, so I would largely agree that if you have a population center or a population group, it would be the people plus the values.
So I would say that what was fundamentally American once upon a time was what would be called pan-Protestantism, and that would be combined with the ethno-group and then the cultural glue.
Okay, so what was American was being Christian, white.
What else?
Well, I'm just saying if you wanted to have something which was foundational, that's what we had at the time of our founders, yes.
Well, I'm asking you what American ethos is to you, because you think it's dead now.
So what was it?
That's what it was.
So Christianity, white.
Well, pan-Protestantism.
Sure.
Not just Christianity.
Sure, but we can probably.
Pan-Protestantism was what it was.
Okay.
Pan-Protestantism.
So you think that it is a religious endeavor and it's an ethnicity?
I think that without the religion, that whole idea of a moral people doesn't exist.
So you believe America is white?
I think foundationally it was, yes.
No, but is that central to the American identity?
I think it was, yes.
Okay, and you think that we've lost that.
Yeah, of course.
And that's a bad thing.
Well, I don't think it's an American thing.
So it's un-American to have people of color.
I think by this standard, the idea of what America is, when I say it's now just a system, then I'm saying what it used to be were these things.
Do you agree it used to be these things?
It was an idea.
Yeah, an experiment.
Great.
Yeah.
And within the confines of this experiment, it's perfectly acceptable for us to change the parameters.
So would you, so to bring America back to what America was, is that something you would care about doing?
Do you love America?
Like at least when I say America, I mean your version of America.
Would you like to bring America back there?
No.
Why not?
Because I think that there's a better way, which is Christian nationalism.
Okay, and what's the conclusion of Christian nationalism?
The conclusion of Christian nationalism is to move Christian ethics into the mainstream, utilizing legislation within the liberal confines of the machine that you've built.
Why didn't the founding fathers do that then?
Didn't we just go over this?
They left it up to the states.
And why didn't they write it into some federal capacity for the states to do that?
We've already been over that twice.
So the thing is, it's like, what am I on?
Any pan-Christian nationalism?
Let's see if we can find some agreement.
Yeah, sure.
Let's see if we can find some agreement.
Do you agree with me that foundationally this was a white nation?
No.
I don't think whiteness is central to American ethos.
Okay, Western European?
I don't think the color of your skin is central to an idea at all.
You don't think that foundationally, though, that was a part of the cultural glue that kept things together?
No.
Not at all.
Well, what do you mean by foundationally?
Like, they really just wanted white people here.
Did that exist at the time?
Yeah, but I don't think that that's what makes the American ethos, is a preoccupation with whiteness.
Okay, no, I'm not saying that.
I'm just saying that foundationally definitely was a white nation.
When you say foundationally just mean there was lots of white people in America?
No, that they only wanted white people in America.
Well, the issue is they didn't even have a good conception of white at the time that you're talking about, right?
They did Western European.
Well, they didn't like Irish that much.
True, there was a whole bunch of issues.
They definitely wanted Western Europeans.
Anti-Science Movements00:07:06
I don't know if that's true.
Like they wanted the English.
They wanted the French.
They only wanted the English.
They didn't really want the French.
I'm even willing to concede that.
Right.
But they wanted something that wasn't, that was not what we have now, which is like South America pouring in.
Immigration preference is a central thing to the American ethos.
Because I think that if it was, the founding fathers probably would have written it into like at least the Declaration of Independence.
They would have done somewhere to say white man.
Yeah, early laws, they did say that, actually.
I don't know if you knew that or not.
The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with white man.
No, the Declaration doesn't.
Yeah.
But early laws is what I said.
Early laws did regard people of good character who are white.
Sure, but I don't think that that's central to being an American.
Okay.
Because I don't think the Founding Fathers are the only thing that makes American.
Okay, I agree.
I'm just saying that when we're talking about a culture, the culture of the time, right, it was white and pan-Protestant.
Sure, and I just, if, say, if I found out the founding fathers sat me down, they're like, and that's really central to being America.
I'd be like, no, I think goes to the city.
Then if all that is central to being America is this experiment, and the experiment is just the idea of we have checks and balances in a system.
No, it's more than that.
What is it?
Ingenuity.
Yes.
Christian nationalists.
Hang on, I'm almost done.
Christian nationalists have ingenuity.
No, they don't.
Yeah.
They're opposed to science fundamentally.
They don't want kids to go to university.
They think evolution is not true.
They think the Earth is 10,000 years old.
They deny vaccines.
This is fundamentally opposed to the American ethos of science.
What are you talking about?
What do you think makes America so great?
What Christian nationalists are opposed to science?
Most.
What science?
Evolution.
That's it?
Not just evolution.
Are they opposed to like rocket ships?
Are they opposed to fucking machinery?
Are they opposed to firearms?
Are they opposed to strong militaries?
Are they opposed to any of that?
Not all of that is science.
A lot of that is engineering, right?
But what they're opposed to is.
Engineering is a science.
They're opposed to multiple brackets.
The science.
Yes, the science is engineering.
Oh, is that the science?
Because what you're talking about, when you're talking about anthropology or you're talking about even evolution, right?
Biology, chemistry, physics.
When we're talking about American ingenuity and industrialization, things like this, we're talking about automobiles, trains, rocket ships, machine guns, bazookas, fucking.
Development of vaccines, development of modern monetary.
Christians aren't against medical.
Christian nationalists, especially, are not against medical school.
They're pretty opposed to vaccines.
Well, wait a second.
RFK is pretty opposed to vaccines.
A lot of Christian nationalists.
So you think that if I pulled Christian nationalists, that most of them would be for vaccines?
They love vaccines, actually.
Do they think that their kids should go to university and study science?
Yeah, I mean, some of them, sure.
How many?
I don't know.
Neither do you.
My assumption, because I'm actually familiar with Christian nationalists and I'm not lying about them.
Which ones?
Like the broad meditation.
Which prominent ones?
Of Christian nationalists.
You're a prominent one.
I think that Kirk, before he passed away, was a prominent one.
Yeah.
There's two.
What?
And Kirk didn't say that he wanted the government to go in and outlaw fucking vaccines.
He was pretty anti-vaccines and anti-scientists.
He was anti-vaccines.
He didn't think that people should send their kids to school.
But even if it was the case.
Do you think that he believed that?
Do you believe in the dinosaurs?
You know what?
I'll just grant this.
You won't get engaged with that one.
I'm just going to grant it.
Yeah.
Christian nationalists, they want to get rid of evolution.
They want to get rid of vaccines.
They want to get rid of all this.
They're anti-science.
Let's just say.
Yep.
Well, that's not anti-science.
It is fundamentally anti-science to get rid of major scientific theories.
Yes.
Oh, really?
Yes, and it would be harmful to America to do so.
So what happened to race science?
It was proven in science to be invalid.
Well, wait a second.
I'm super confused.
Who proved that?
For example, in the case of IQ, right?
We've done like multiple studies on IQ to show that the moment that you normalize things like education, access.
You're saying there was no politics involved in that?
I didn't say that, but I said that what solved it dominantly made it a weaker argument.
Is eugenics a valid form of science?
But what do you mean, a valid form of science?
What's wrong with eugenics?
Don't be anti-science.
What's wrong with eugenics?
What's wrong with eugenics is that it typically violates certain major ethical principles.
Got it.
So you're diverting to ethics over science.
Not exclusively.
Yeah, but if you're going to divert to ethics from science, then Christian nationalists have every grounds to do the same thing.
So the difference between eugenics, the reason why we would be opposed to it, is that it did things like force sterilizations and reduced people to like breeding.
Not disputing that.
What the Christian nationalists are.
But you're diverting to ethics.
What the Christian nationalists.
But the issue is the eugenics.
The reason we're rejecting eugenics isn't because we're saying you can't, it's not scientific to even possibly do that.
We're saying that's too far.
What the Christian nationalists are saying is evolution's not real.
Don't go to university.
Vaccines are actually bad.
The earth might be flat.
If the earth is 10,000 years ago.
If they're inside of a democracy.
I'm just going to grant it all.
If they're inside of a democracy and they can amend all of these things and that's the will of the people, right?
Then guess what?
The people before were like, no booze.
They were like, nope, can't do this.
Can't do that.
Homosexuality is illegal, right?
Up until the 60s, all 50 states had anti-sodomy laws.
Okay, so like the thing is, it seems like it's the most Christian thing to me, or not the most American thing to me to say.
To be anti-science.
No, to utilize the system in order to implement.
I don't know if you remember that, but we were talking about the American predilection towards science.
And I said one of the issues I have with Christian Nationalism, for example, is its complete rejection of science, which I think is intangal to the ingenuity and development of America.
It's rejection of some sciences.
I would say most major sciences.
Some sciences.
Because you want some sciences rejected too.
You want racial science rejected.
You want probably.
I don't want racial science rejected.
I want it properly studied.
But wait, you don't want it rejected?
Racial science?
Like looking into seeing if there's.
No, because I think, for example, racial science is incredibly important in medicine, right?
Understanding how hemoglobin can be.
Yep.
So just.
But what I don't want, what I don't want is when we utilize science to abuse other people.
But this isn't being anti-scientific at all.
Because in this case, I'm not saying eugenics can't work.
Yeah.
It's untrue.
I'm saying it's wrong to do.
Christian nationalists are saying evolution is false.
It's not true.
It's not proof.
So what?
They can.
It's anti-science to say.
It's not anti-science.
It is anti-science.
No, it's not.
Yes.
If you believe that evolution isn't true.
Are you saying that Christian nationalists are going to say you can no longer study evolution?
I didn't say that.
No, they just say you can't teach it in school.
That's not anti-science.
That is anti-science.
No, it's not.
Why wouldn't you?
You don't have a right to learn evolution in school.
How is not.
The right to learn evolution shall not be infringed.
I would say that when we're publicly educating our children, we should teach them on the most empirically supported evidence.
That's nice that you say that.
Well, that's what public education is for.
Public education is to teach you reading, writing, arithmetic, not math, science.
Wait.
I'm sorry.
You forgot about those two, hey?
I'm confused.
Reading, writing, and arithmetic.
What does arithmetic mean?
Math?
Math.
Why did you say math, science?
Because you didn't include science in your list.
Oh, my lord.
Do you include science in the list?
Sure.
Okay, so people should learn science.
Black Market Dilemmas00:10:51
Sure.
Do you think it's important to engineering that?
What's wrong with them learning science and learning about God?
I don't have a problem with them learning about God necessarily if they're in a private institution that wants to impose it.
Oh, they can do it in public.
But when a state forces you to teach children about God in a public institution, I do have a problem with that.
That's nice that you have a problem with that.
But within the confines of your moral framework of liberalism, that's not my moral framework.
Nothing.
Andrew, stop saying that my moral framework is liberalism.
Foundationalism for liberalism.
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
Is not my moral framework.
No, I'm sorry.
Your foundationalism for liberalism.
Is not life liberty.
Oh my God.
It's not life liberty.
That's the foundation of the American ethos.
Liberalism.
What is the foundation of liberalism?
I'll go over it again.
You should write this one down.
I'm going to write it down.
Go ahead.
Do you need a pen?
I'll write it down.
Just tell me.
Strong institutions, separation of powers, welfare, and protection of rights and liberties of people.
And you agree Christian nationalists can do all that?
Yeah, of course they can, but I don't think that they can do so if they are imposing Christian ethics.
So then the only thing that you would say is it's a life, liberty, pursuit of happiness thing.
I would say like forcing.
That's what makes it an American.
I mean.
Yeah, forcing people to, for example, learn and like pray to marry in public schools.
Yeah, my counter is that it's the most American thing, the most American thing because, well, we've amended the Constitution.
I don't know how many times.
It's American because the democratic system allows it.
That's not what American is.
But it's American because even though foundationally we didn't have any of these fucking laws, we've only had them since like, oh, I don't know, 40 years and you violate any of them.
Now it's the most American thing.
Well, you've already granted me that.
Americanism is just what's happening now.
No, Americanism is like an ethos that emerges over time, right?
So when you look at like America over time.
You've rejected American identity.
All you say is like it's fucking ingenuity or something.
How have I rejected it?
It's ingenuity and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It's the opposition of tyranny.
It's giving people the capacity to speak.
It's advocating in the world.
It's not oppositional to tyranny because you define it.
What do you define tyranny as?
Tyranny is.
Is Donald Trump a tyrant?
In some ways, sure.
Yeah, so it's like, so for you.
Wait, I think that that's un-American of him to do.
Yeah, it's un-American.
Yes.
I think it's the most American thing.
To be a tyrant.
Was Jackson a tyrant?
I don't know all the details of Jackson.
I'm not sure.
Was the Trail of Tears tyranny?
I think it was murder, I think is the word we use.
Tyranny.
Tyranny doesn't equal murder.
Presidents ignore the constitution.
Do you think tyranny just equals murder?
If, well, I mean, I think it leads to it often, but when we're talking about, when we're talking about the...
That's not the same thing, just is tyranny murder?
No.
No.
Oh.
Of course, they're different things.
Of course, yeah.
Yeah.
But one leads to the other usually, right?
It often does.
Yeah.
Wouldn't that be your primary opposition?
It's like it's going to lead to murder, this tyranny thing.
No, I actually think it reduces the capacity.
So like one of the most important things to me is humans' agency.
I don't know why you're rolling your eyes, but I'm not.
Okay.
I wasn't rolling my eyes.
What do you mean?
Okay.
What I care most about is human agency.
I think it's extremely important for people to have a capacity to choose so that the noble thing that they do isn't just impressed upon them, but it's actually nobility itself.
Because if all you do is you force the right choices on people through law and legislation, then all that means is that goodness is a necessity of survival.
And I don't think that that's good.
You keep saying I don't think that that's good.
You keep saying that's not.
I'm talking about what's American.
We're talking about what's American right now.
Yes, you like to slip back and forth between all these things.
When are we talking a little bit about liberalism?
Do you know what my foundations of liberalism are yet?
Yeah, you said something about ingenuity.
No, that's opposition to tyranny.
Again, that's the American ethos.
Oh, sorry, American ethos.
Do you need a pen?
No, no.
Just tell me one more time with liberalism.
What was it again?
I'm not going to tell you again unless you actually.
You don't remember, do you?
You really do.
I've said it like four times.
Let me say it one more time.
The foundations of liberalism, strong institutions, balance of power, protection of rights and liberties, and a welfare state.
And you admitted Christian nationalists can do all of those things.
They can, but not because they're ruling from fiat.
But sorry, a power of Christian ethics.
And what Christian nationalists are proposing that that no longer be the system.
But you've already granted to me that Christian nationalists would change central parts of the American Constitution and the American ethos that I have a problem with.
Hang on, it's fine for them to change the Constitution.
That's part of the liberal system that you just outlined.
I don't think the liberal system is necessarily a moral system.
I think it's the best philosophy guiding system.
And they're just using that system.
Okay, and I think it would be wrong for them to do so.
Yeah, that's, but it doesn't violate anything.
Well, I would argue it violates their Christian moral ethos to do so.
Christian nationalists.
Yes.
Because Christians aren't allowed to rule from their moral position.
They should not be trying to blend church and state power and rule from a state of statesmanship.
No, I don't think.
I think Jesus is obviously and fundamentally opposed to the same.
But they're not doing that.
What they're doing is changing amendments.
You've already granted me.
They're changing amendments.
Increasingly, so that they can limit people's choice to be aligned with what Christians ought to do, not what secular people may be.
They can do that.
That's within the confines of the American ethos.
It's not within the confines.
It's a violation of the American ethos.
No, it's not.
But it is within the confines of liberalism.
You're really struggling with this.
Both.
Did you write down my value?
It's actually both.
Did you write down my values of liberalism yet?
Yeah, sure.
You're saying separation of power, strong institutions, right?
They would impose strong institutions.
There would still be a separation of power.
Strong institutions doesn't mean that.
You've admitted that Christian nationalists can take control, and all of those institutions are there.
So we're back to just this one position, and the one position is that it's going to violate the ethos.
Yeah, because you know what?
But it doesn't violate the ethos.
Of course it does.
No, because if Christian nationalism.
If they outlaw abortion, that is good for your ethos of life.
No, I would say that what it does is it imposes on non-Christians who don't even believe in ensoulment a law of Christian policy.
So fuck them.
Why is it fuck them?
Why are we supposed to make law towards the minority?
We don't have to do that.
It's not about the minority.
It's about the fact that Christians should not be imposing onto secular people Christian policy.
I think not only does it just create worse states, as evidenced by, you know what states aren't awesome?
Theocracy.
Oh, secularists, though, can impose that, oh, we can have pornography.
It's not imposing.
You don't have to.
That's an imposition.
It's not.
Imposing means compelling.
But super.
I'm sorry.
Is it the case that right now the town squares X?
Would you say that X is a good representation of how a lot of people communicate?
X, probably not, but I'll grant you social media.
Yeah, it's very difficult to avoid porn, isn't it?
Sure.
Do you have to be on social media?
The idea of the imposition here is like if they go in and they outlawed it, if they outlawed pornography, right?
So what?
Isn't it difficult to be an OnlyFans model?
You have a hard time signing up with banks, all these sort of things.
So you have the liberty to do these things.
You have the liberty to get rid of all porn on your social media.
There's means, right?
It's harder.
And you can take those things away.
That's part of the American, that is part of Americanism.
So none of that has to do with states compelling, right?
A secular state isn't forcing people to look at porn.
But a secular state is allowing for it.
It doesn't need to.
Yeah, they are allowing it.
Yeah, and we don't need to allow a secular state to do this.
It's not necessary.
Sure, you could try to collectivize and convince both Christians and non-Christians to make laws on porn.
And that would be the proposition of Christian nationalism.
And then I would go to those people and say, how effective is that?
If the goal of the Christian nationalists and of the secular people is to have people consume porn less, right, overall, because they think it's better than them.
And say, how well has abolition laws worked for getting rid of a behavior?
Well, I mean, by that metric, why do we abolish murder?
Why do we have a law against murder?
Because I think it's way more possible to use deterrence on murder.
It's possible to use deterrence on everything.
Porn is going to be significantly more difficult to prove.
But also, on top of that, I don't think that's a problem.
The consumption necessarily is going to decrease.
Well, again, statescraftman is about making what makes for like a better society to live in.
That would be a better society.
No, it would be a more moral society by your standards.
It would be empirically better, too.
People having to do black trade porn, which is what would happen.
Oh, I'm sorry.
How are they being forced to do blackmail porn?
I don't say that they're being poor.
Right.
I'm saying that would be the natural conclusion.
They're not being forced.
They're being forced to not do porn.
That's it.
Sure.
But what I'm saying is that statescraft isn't about anything that you're talking about.
It's about whether or not this policy would lead to a better outcome for society, right?
How would these policies not lead to better outcomes?
Because having a proliferation of black market porn is probably going to increase human trafficking, which we have actually seen.
It's probably going to increase the type of like.
We see it the opposite way, actually.
Places where prostitution is legal, you see more human trafficking.
Do you know why?
Why?
Because they're prostitutes.
So they become far easier to exploit because they're in sex work.
You'll find this, by the way, across the board.
That's been one of the most comprehensive studies.
You can find it on Rachel Substack, in fact.
And the truth is, is like, there's a ton.
Well, it's a meta-analysis.
It's not like she didn't just make it up.
She wasn't like, oh, she wasn't like, oh.
Is it replicated?
But anyway, it was replicated.
But the thing is, is like, this is what's interesting.
is every time you see that there's prostitution which is legalized, you see human trafficking go up, not down.
So my understanding of when you look at like longitudinal studies of abolition is that while there is like a decrease in consumption, right, in the case of like alcohol, there's a decrease in consumption in human trafficking.
But there's also an explosion over time, particularly of like money into black market things.
So like while human trafficking probably acutely goes down, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that all of these groups that are engaging in black market porn are getting more money and can engage in more drug black markets, can engage in more human trafficking.
You could just make that case for anything you banned.
No, this would be a lot, yes.
Like, oh.
Yes, I am making that for a while.
Yeah, you just make the case for ban murder?
Well, I mean, that just increases the chances that people are going to utilize the black market to hire hitmen.
No, I think.
Yeah, I'm sure it would.
Wait, no, but the issue is why we ban murder is that almost all murders isn't because people are hiring hitman.
It's usually done in like an explosion of anger.
What's a person like planning it out, right?
And so if you get, if you don't have murder be banned, then all of the people who just explode out and kill somebody, second-degree murder, what do you do with them?
Yeah.
What do you do with them?
Well, I mean, obviously you would imprison them.
Well, but in the system that you just suggested where murder's not bad and that, you know, if we legalize it, then more murders would happen.
Yes, of course.
More murders would happen if you legalize murder.
Yeah, obviously.
Obviously.
Okay.
Just like more porn will happen if you legalize porn.
Yeah, but the issue.
I agree.
Wait, I've granted that from the beginning.
Yeah, so I mean, I don't understand the outcomes of banning porn.
Why were the outcomes in like 1930 where porn was bad worse?
Mostly because I think it made people engage in black market.
And I think that it led to.
There was not very much black market porn in 1930.
There probably just was.
Isn't there like this whole like pin up?
Why Religion in the Constitution?00:15:27
There definitely just wasn't.
There just wasn't that much porn in 1930.
I'm sure that that's not true.
Well, it is true.
Isn't porn like one of the oldest institutions of trade?
So it just, we just got rid of it when we abolished it.
I didn't say we got rid of it.
Oh.
I said there wasn't very much of it.
Especially in comparison to now.
Don't you think that right now with prostitution legalized, OnlyFans legalized, we have more porn we've ever had in this country?
Yeah, I would grant that.
Yeah, of course.
Yeah, but the issue is that like, for example.
It's probably the most ridiculous thing ever.
And if Christian nationalists get rid of it, there's nothing un-American about that.
Most of our history, porn was outlawed.
Sure.
Most of it.
Sure, I don't think porn is in America.
It's completely within the confines of Americana to do that.
It's completely within the confines of Americana to ban homosexuality.
Again, another thing, which was banned for most of American history, banned transgenderism for most of American history.
Why was it banned?
Mostly due to religiosity.
Yeah, and I think that that was bad.
I think it was.
Well, that's fine, but it makes my point.
You say, wait a second, religiosity, the founders didn't want that.
And we can't allow the states to do any of this type of thing.
The founders wanted a separation of church and state.
This is self-evident.
And it is unchristian.
At the federal level only.
Okay.
Federal level only.
If you want to cling to that one, you totally can.
Because it's true.
It's absurd, but sure.
No, I mean, the position that they should— The founding fathers definitely wanted Christian nationalism and a blending of church and state, but they wrote it out in the Constitution because they knew states would do it instead.
Yippee-yippe.
That was the literal compromise they made with them.
Not because they wanted states to have state-level religions.
Then why didn't they ban it in the compromise?
Why didn't the founders say states, you can't have any religion?
Because they knew that the states wouldn't join.
And as you said, it was a very important thing.
That's right.
It was a compromise.
You're right, but that doesn't mean that federal leaders actually wanted church and state to be blended.
And if they did, if they did, if they did, they could have written it into the Constitution.
In fact, probably the states that are joining would have liked that.
If they found some way to compromise and bring religiosity into state to do it.
The Anabaptists were like drowning kids.
What are you talking?
What were they going to find that was going to unify them under that?
I'm sure they could find something.
They're going to find some.
Because Erudites says so.
No, because they did.
What they said was you could do what you want with your states.
Because they wanted.
And we were not going to impose a federal religion on you.
Correct.
That's it.
Yeah, because they wanted a separation of church and state at the federal level.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Federal level.
But I've never tried at the federal level.
This has been my position the whole time.
Yeah, you've insisted that because it was happening at the state level, it actually suggests that maybe the federal leaders did want church and state to be blended.
They just couldn't write it in because compromise stuff.
Compromise stuffs.
The states wanted it, and the states are part of the system.
Correct.
But the federal leaders didn't.
The feds don't usurp the states?
Sure.
That's fine.
But you think that if they wanted to.
The foundation was not just about 39 guys signing a fucking document.
The foundation was a contribution of tens of thousands of people.
Yes, of course.
And by the way, all of these Christians couldn't find a way to impose church and state together at a federal government.
They did.
The federal government.
They found a way to do it.
No, they didn't.
They didn't want them to at the federal level.
Why not?
Because they didn't want the federal government to be like, Maryland, you got to be a Catholic.
You got to be a Catholic state.
They didn't want that church.
They could have imposed it in some other way.
could have written way more like godness into things they could have written for example that they did write god They wrote godness into the Declaration of Independence.
First of all, they wrote Creator.
None of the TJ references in any way can be cited to godness in a Christian way.
What's a Creator?
A rock?
A creator.
Do they think they think a rock was not God?
How many religions have a creator deity?
And are those creators God?
Why did TJ say that?
Are those creators God?
I don't think so.
But why did TJ.
Hold on.
Why didn't TJ?
Why didn't TJ just say Christ?
No answer.
God?
Christ.
No, they said God because there was some...
They didn't say God.
They said Creator.
Because some of these states, again.
Some of the Christians wouldn't have agreed with Christ.
Yeah, well, they rejected the idea of the Trinity, yes.
Christ.
The idea of the Trinity.
I didn't say the Trinity, I said Christ.
You think that if TJ had written in Christ, that some Christians would have been like, how dare he?
It's possible.
No, come on.
But not only that.
That's absurd.
Let's just point this out.
So, TJ, you can grant me a few.
You'll concede.
TJ definitely explicitly did not write the Christian God into the Christian.
Using the non-offensive position in order to make sure that they would compromise, right?
When they say creator, they definitely mean a God.
The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with compromise.
No, no, no.
But when they use the language in the Declaration of Independence for Creator, what do you think they're referencing?
I think TJ is explicitly not referencing Christ because he didn't want to.
What is he referencing?
He's referencing a general conception of creator.
Which is what?
To Christians, it would be Christ, but he didn't say Christ.
Now, did he?
Okay, but what would the Creator be?
To Hindus, it would be like.
Would the Creator be God?
Yeah, he didn't say God, I think.
But Creator here meant God, right?
Why would you assume that?
Because what else is the Creator?
Why wouldn't they just say Christ if they meant the Christian God?
Well, again, you're splitting hairs here.
I'm not splitting hairs.
It's kind of important.
Yeah, the idea here is simple.
He just couldn't think of it.
He said, oh, what's that word for the creator that Christians like?
Oh, I can't remember.
I'll just throw creator in there.
Pull up the Declaration of Independence and read it.
Sure.
We find these truths to be self-evident.
Yeah.
That all men are endowed by who?
Creator.
Their creator.
Yep.
Are you saying it doesn't say God anywhere?
I didn't say anywhere.
I said that says Creator.
I think it might say I'd have to look through.
Oh, it does?
It does say God?
I don't know.
I'd have to look.
What do you think they're referencing by creator there?
I think if they wanted to reference the creator of the world, how would humans be endowed by a creator who wasn't their God?
Well, you can probably understand why didn't TJ say Christ?
So what?
Answer my question, then I'll answer that.
Answer my question.
Answer mine.
I asked you first.
The creator could refer to any creative deity.
How do you endow people as a creator if you're not creating the people?
This is what all most creation stories think that the creator is endowing wawula.
And the creator is usually referencing what?
For Christians, they would mean Christ.
Now, why doesn't?
But they would also mean God, right?
So why doesn't TJ?
That's a trial.
Why doesn't TJ say that it's not?
Because it's probably the triune concept, yeah.
Because Christians would have had an issue with that.
I actually do think that there's a referent to God.
And I do think that there's often references to Jesus Christ as well.
Not in those documents, though.
Now, the other thing that's interesting here is that you still have an answer to this.
Why it is that at the federal level?
What's the question?
I said, why didn't TJ use the word Christ?
I just told you.
I literally.
And so then my fault was.
So he said, because of the triune nature, yeah.
So the Christians, any form of Christian pan-Protestantism, I think you said the word is Protestantism, yeah.
They would be opposed to the word Christ.
Yeah, probably deists and others would, yeah.
Come on.
Yeah, no, that's true.
Deists are Christian?
Deists reject the divinity of Christ.
Yeah.
So he's using creator because he doesn't want to use the word Christ.
Yeah.
Okay.
Okay.
Literally.
But TJ meant Christ.
No.
I didn't say he meant Christ.
You're basically.
You're saying the implication of this is part of using non-offensive language, which then led to compromise using non-offensive language.
The compromise was that the states, the states could have their own religion, couldn't they?
That's the point.
The feds are just not allowed to tell the states what religion they can have.
I feel like if any of the feds really wanted to write Christ into the Constitution, they did a really shit job.
They're not writing it into the Constitution.
They probably should if they want it to be a Christian nation.
Oh, my lord.
Probably should.
Was it pan-Protestant at the time?
Can we agree on that?
Yeah.
Okay.
So when they're making this compromise with the states, did the states want their states to be Protestant?
No.
But they want it to be Christian.
Pran-Protestant Christian.
They didn't want their various states to be some form of Protestantism, usually.
It would depend on the people collecting in that state.
If they're Protestantism.
Most of the states.
Were what?
Protestant?
Yeah, were Protestant.
That's funny because you argued with me on that one before.
Yeah, I'd grant that most of them were Protestant.
No, I didn't argue with you on that.
You did.
I said most of the states would have been Protestant, right?
And you said, no.
That never happened.
That would have been all of them.
No, that's not how that conversation was.
It's fine.
If you're granting me that.
But here's the thing that's funny.
I'll take it.
Yes, it was pan-Protestantism.
But most of it was Protestantism, right?
Yes, pan-Protestantism, correct.
And they disagreed about all sorts of things: the divinity of Christ.
They disagreed about their theology of baptism.
They disagreed about their theology about all sorts of different things.
They didn't disagree that Christ existed.
Yes, but the divinity matters.
And so the thing is that's interesting here is like when we're talking about each of these individual states, each one of them was allowed to have a religion, and that was part of the compromise.
The entirety of the First Amendment is just saying that the federal government can't establish a religion because those states didn't want them to impose that religion on them.
Not that the states could not have religions.
That was never the intention.
You're right.
They didn't want the federal government to impose religion on them.
It's almost like a founding piece of the American ethos is not forcing religion and not forcing beliefs onto people.
Yeah, unless you're in the city.
Yeah, that is the American government.
Unless you're in the states, which is part of the American ethos.
Oh, so now we can impose they did.
Like what?
Oh, my God.
You had to make declarations that you believed in God in order to vote in many of these states.
Federally.
I didn't.
What states?
States.
I'm talking about America.
You were talking about.
America is a collection of states.
America.
I don't know.
I said the word state four times.
Yep, so you were talking about how the federal government did not impose on the states a religion.
Yes.
And then I said, so I responded.
Yes.
And I said, you're right.
It's almost as though the founding fathers did not want to impose a religion on the people.
And then my response to you was, of course, with that been established.
The states did, yes.
But the states did.
The states did.
Yeah, we're talking about America.
The American ethos specifically.
The states are part of the American ethos.
Sure, but I don't think that like Maryland deciding that they want to be, let's say, Protestant.
I don't know what the dominant.
No, it's Maryland's ability to do that.
That's part of the American ethos.
Sure.
And then they got rid of it, all of them.
No.
The American ethos.
It's not they got rid of them.
The American ethos from the Founding Fathers was we don't impose religion on people.
At the federal level.
We let the states choose.
We don't impose religion on people.
True, base.
Thanks, Andrew.
Oh, except we did.
Where did we find it?
At the state level?
It was supposed to be federal.
I'm talking about federal.
Why didn't the federal government go in there and stop those fucking states from imposing their religious values?
Because they couldn't.
Well, they didn't want to.
Yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
They couldn't.
They couldn't.
They were not allowed to.
Sure.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's almost as though the American founding fathers agreed that we should not impose religion on people, which I would say Christian nationalism wants to violate.
Except they didn't agree with that.
They compromised for it.
Oh, so they did want it.
They just couldn't do it in the federal thing.
So they're not.
It was the compromise, yes.
Yeah, so this is what I'm saying.
You're saying, actually, the founding fathers did want the imposition of religion on America.
They just couldn't do it at the time.
So they wrote it in this backhanded way to let the states do it.
But the actual intention of the founding fathers was to write in religion.
It was written into the 10th Amendment.
That's not a backhanded way.
It's an upfront way.
It's very uphill.
It's almost like if they wanted religion to be imposed on the nation, they would have done so.
They didn't want a national religion imposed on the nation.
You're right.
They didn't.
They wanted separation of church and state at the national level, which is central to the American ethos.
They agreed with that 500 times.
True, but then you keep on trying to fight me and being like, well, Maryland kept it for a while, so that's actually also the American ethos.
It's like, no, it's not.
Yes, it is.
No, actually, they updated to agree with it.
In fact, every single thing.
Sing update.
Yes, every single state no longer has a religious text.
Because the 14th Amendment.
That's not the states doing that.
That was the federal thing.
Most of the states updated and got rid of the religious test long before the 14th Amendment.
Oh, yeah.
When do you think the last one ended?
I have no idea.
When do you think it comes out?
The 60s?
I think the last one was in the 60s where you didn't have to say, you know, like, declare that you worshiped God in order to, you know, swear an oath or something like that.
I think it was the 60s.
Sure, but the last one happening in the 60s doesn't mean that most of the states hadn't updated before then.
Some of them did.
Sure.
Yeah, some of them.
Yeah, that's all I'm claiming.
The truth is, but that's what I'm claiming.
Most of that was because the 14th Amendment.
Do you think most of the states got rid of the religious clause when the 14th Amendment came out, or do you think most states had already adopted the federal landscape and then some places had ruled it?
No, what was going on was that a lot of the states wanted to return, actually, to the idea of having state religion.
A lot of them.
And this was challenged in courts.
And so what happened is, yeah, actually, yes, this was a national conversation.
And they were challenged in court.
They said, well, based on the 14th Amendment, which is about fucking citizenship, states can't do that anymore because of the fucking uniformity clause or whatever it is.
It's like, what the fuck are you talking about?
Well, so the federal government of America, in line with the federal government, initially doesn't want to impose religion.
And then when it became a big question of whether or not states could continue to do so, the same American government over time also agreed that it was un-American to do so.
Cool.
Well, they didn't agree it's un-American.
Well, they definitely felt that it was a violation of the Constitution.
Based on the 14th Amendment.
That doesn't make it un-American.
Sure.
What would be un-American about repealing that?
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing would be un-American about that.
Yeah, I think the federal government initially and throughout all of America's history has moved in a direction of separation of church and state.
They think it's very important to not.
At the federal level, that's true.
Yeah, America.
We are talking about America.
America's not just the federal government.
I didn't say it just is, but when we're talking about the emergent principle of America, we should probably think about what the federal government is.
We are thinking about it.
We're thinking about the guidelines.
And we're thinking about the state.
I know the federal government said that we can't impose religion, but states said they could.
So actually, the American ethos is imposing religion.
I know that the states could definitely impose all of their religious values on everybody, but the feds, all that matters is what the feds want.
I feel like when I'm a little cuter.
All that matters is what the feds want, man.
Because the states don't even matter, bro.
Even though that was who the compromise was with.
Like, what are you talking about?
Your wifey.
Yeah, it's almost like since it was founded by Christians, and these same Christians separated church and state.
So it's almost like the Christians, even then, agreed with me that it would be un-Christian to impose a religion at a federal level on the people.
It's almost like it's never in question.
It is.
You're just trying to be like, but the states, but Maryland kept it for a while, man.
Okay.
Not just Maryland's not America.
No, you're right.
Okay, you're right.
Maryland's not America.
You got it.
But 10 states aren't America.
America is a collected, unified group under the Constitution, particularly the federal constitution.
A unified group of what?
People.
States?
People.
States?
Sure, as well as states, but like the people of the states, yeah.
When we're talking about rights and separations of power, do you think that state separation and federal separation matter?
Liberty's Threshold00:02:29
Yeah.
Yeah, I do too.
Cool.
That doesn't mean that we were founded on a Christian nation, that Christian nationalism is what the American ethos is, or that it should be.
Well, what was in question is whether or not un-American to change the Constitution because Christian nationalists want to.
And you never made a compelling case for that at all.
No, it was not about whether it was un-American to change the Constitution.
That's literally the prompt.
The prompt is if it's un-American to have Christian nationalism.
Your only argument was, I think that if they went in and restricted things that I don't like, that that's un-American because no reason.
Nope.
Your reasoning was like, because life, liberty, and some nebulous pursuit of happiness.
And even if I grant that Christian nationalists can get in there and they can do things like go after liberty, that's fine because I'm not a liberty maximist, but they can preserve life.
That's fine.
I'm not a life maximist.
It's like, it just, you just equivocate on everything.
I'm not, how am I?
How is any of that?
Because you utilize, when I say, wait a second, when you say liberty, if you go against liberty, that's going against some kind of American ethos.
I say, okay, that's fair.
Then I give you an example of when we would go after liberty and it would be fine.
You're like, that's fine because I'm not a liberty maximalist.
How is that equivocating?
Because you're using the word liberty here in two different ways.
You're saying, well, liberty in this case.
I'm using it the same.
Okay, so where's the threshold for maximalism for liberty?
I'm not sure exactly where it is, but there is a threshold.
I got to take a leak.
There's a threshold somewhere.
Of course.
Wait, there's a threshold for most things, but not knowing the precise point of Loki's wager where it falls isn't like incoherent or inconsistent.
Yeah, it just doesn't tell us anything.
Well, if we work as a collective to find where that line is, it would tell us something meaningful, right?
Yeah.
We have some chats here.
I think there's one actually specifically for you, Kyla, that I'm going to have come in here.
Maybe I should wait until Andrew returns so he can maybe hear your response.
But I'll go ahead.
Can you look at David's night?
Kyla, are you a Christian?
Yes.
What denomination?
Are you pro-choice or pro-life?
Would you get an abortion under any circumstance?
If so, what?
Are you fine with gay marriage?
Can women be clergy?
So what denomination?
And if you want to.
Yeah, so I can answer these.
What these are basically like Christmas Christian litmus tests to basically like see how pre I am because Christians love to be snowflakes and clutch their pearls as much as anyone else.
Christian Litmus Tests00:03:29
Do you want to throw them back on screen so I make sure I respond to them all?
Yeah, I will pull it back up right now.
So am I Christian?
Yes.
Which denomination?
I'm broadly Protestant, but I appeal to a form of theology called post, it's called radical orthodoxy.
So it's not really like a denomination, but Protestant generally is fine.
Are you pro-life or pro-choice?
Me personally, I'm pro-life as maximal as possible, but at a policy level, I think decriminalization leads to the most good outcomes.
And I think God, as a virtuous, wants the most good outcomes maximally as much as possible.
Would I get an abortion under any circumstances?
I have no idea.
I would have, I probably not, but I'm not sure.
I haven't had to confront that in a serious way.
If so, what?
I'm not sure.
Possibly, but probably not.
I'm pretty conservative when it comes to doing sin, so probably not.
Are you fine with gay marriage?
Legally, yes.
Can women be clergy?
I haven't actually theologically looked at that one.
I just don't really care if I'm being honest.
I'm not sure.
Okay.
All right.
Those are some TTSs.
We have a few more, but I'll wait until Andrew's back.
If you guys do want to get a TTS in, that's streamlabs.com/slash/whatever.
We've lowered the TTS.
It was previously $200.
Now it's $199.
That's if you guys want to get one in.
Yeah, they're getting a good deal.
Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, like the video.
What are we at on the likes?
Does anybody know in the chat?
What are we on?
Or Nathan, can you check what we're on?
The likes.
Maybe we can hit a threshold here before Andrew returns.
How many likes do you want?
3,700.
Guys, there's 11,000 people watching.
Andrew's going to return in just a moment.
Let's get to 4,000.
We can do it.
We need 300 likes.
300 likes if you guys can get us to 4,000 likes.
Regardless who you like here, Brian was kind enough to host this debate and bring you guys content.
Give him the likes.
And instead of properly moderating the debate, I spent most, the bulk of it cleaning up.
Cleaning after women, cleaning up the tape.
Andrew spilled too, by the way.
Hello.
But not as big of a spill as a bad.
Mine was pretty bad.
It was pretty bad.
I'm very sorry about that.
This is a bad spill.
Dude, is this okay?
Yeah, it's all good.
Okay, we rescued it.
Yeah, it's all good.
So, guys, like the video.
Like the video for the spill.
Like the video.
I'm over here carpet cleaning.
Feminist Brian Atlas, cleaning up after women.
Whoa, that it was good of you to not make me to do it.
Well, hey, you know, you guys are in the middle of the debate, so I figure I'm just do the cleaning, you know?
Yeah, okay.
He's trying to make himself not seem that nice, but he was reminding me of things.
He was helping me out.
You were being very gentlemanly.
Well, I try to be fair to both participants in the debate.
Egalitarian, like feminist-like.
Nathan, can you pull up Twitch for us, guys?
If you're watching over there on Twitch, we have, I think, about a thousand viewers over there on Twitch.
If you can pull up, Nathan, the Twitch on Windows, perfect.
Guys, 1,300 over there on Twitch.
If you have a Prime sub available, I am a starving, broke college student artist.
If you guys can just, you know, if you have Amazon Prime, link it to your Twitch.
It's a quick for easy way to support the show every single month.
So if you guys could support the show, very much appreciate it.
Also, drop us a follow if you guys would like to see more debates.
Appreciate it, guys.
Like the video again, get us to over 4,000.
I'm going to read this super chat here.
Texas Red, thank you very much for the super chat.
Very kind of you.
This is getting annoying.
Rejecting Christian Laws00:14:10
SCODUS gets to determine what the Constitution says based on the power grab of Marbury v. Madison power grab.
No state agreed to the loss of their ability to determine a state religion.
The 14th says that entirely from the bench of SCODUS.
Totally un-American, by the way.
Texas Red, thank you for the super chat.
Did you want to respond further or was that kind of...
Yeah, he's right.
It's totally un-American.
The whole idea here, we're asking about whether or not Christian nationalism is American or not.
She's appealing to ideals which are not even, like, for instance, I don't even think the word secularism existed at that time.
True.
Okay?
Like, you're appealing to ideals in the presentism form that you're like an ideal of America.
Yeah, the ideal of America, when you're talking about the pursuit of happiness, how it's ingenuity, it's all about science, it's about these things.
It's like it's also about states' rights.
States' rights was fundamentally an American core value.
The idea that Christian nationalists would give it back to the states, give gay marriage back to the states, give abortion back to the states, that is fundamental to that ideal, and it's very, very much an American ideal.
Right.
But there's obviously going to be times where federal policy imposes over top of states.
Not if Christian nationalists are in power, then they can change federal policy.
Wait, so if Christian nationalists are in power and they want to cede power, would they accept California allowing the transing of kids and for gay marriage and for all of the liberal porn, the liberal degeneracy?
Christian nationalists would go, if it's the case.
That's okay.
If it's the case that inside of a democracy, Christian nationalists are elected to these high offices and can pass legislation which then stops California from doing that, you could not have a single objection to that.
Sure, I could.
I would say probably those Californians don't want that, and that would be a pretty major violation of state rights.
But under the current framework, you're calling it un-American if we don't adhere to the 14th Amendment and the SCOTUS ruling of the 14th Amendment.
It's fundamentally un-American because the founders didn't want states to have religions or some sort of.
I said that what's un-American is imposing federal religions onto others, imposing religion generally.
Yeah, but that was never in question, whether or not the feds were supposed to impose a religion.
Well, the question is: is it an American ethos to impose religion on others?
And I'm saying, no.
No, that's not true.
It is the American ethos of the people.
You equivocate again between, you say the federal government's not allowed to impose religion.
I say, yeah, that's true.
And you say, well, so then America's not supposed to impose religion.
No, that doesn't follow.
One thing doesn't follow from the other.
America's not just the federal government.
America's not just federal amendments.
America's not just this.
America's also states, states' rights, what the states want.
What states are.
And by the way, the most key American thing, the states used to be the ones who sent up Congress.
You didn't get to vote on that shit.
The states were the ones who did that.
That was the most American system.
So I don't know what you're even talking about with this.
You never demonstrate how it's un-American for Christian nationalists to use the system of liberalism in order to change it around for Christianity because, oh, the feds aren't supposed to impose religion.
Christian nationalists aren't proposing one single unified Christianity.
They're saying that the states should be able to impose Christianity if they fucking want to.
But you already granted me that if Christian nationalists had power, they would probably prefer a federal religion.
They would probably prefer federal policies on abortion and on gay marriage.
They would impose these things at a federal level.
And the system is set up for them to do that.
That doesn't make it good.
That doesn't make it bad.
For Christians, it makes it bad.
No, it doesn't make it bad for Christians because you say so based on this trilemma of your assumption of God.
That doesn't make it bad.
Nothing's bad for us.
I know that.
I know Agrippa's trilemma really stressed you off.
But I would say that it's good.
It's un-Christian.
Yeah, I think it's heretical, right?
Jesus.
Well, I think that theological argument is the embodiment of Christ himself rejecting kingship, right?
John said that.
Even though Christ after feeding the 5,000, he perceived they were going to crown him king, so he withdrew to the mountains, right?
We see Christ, Jesus, regularly rejecting political office, regularly rejecting political power, because he said, my kingdom is not here on earth.
It's not a state.
It's a heart condition.
It is a kingdom of heaven.
But you also said on the other side of your mouth that the reason that God anointed kings and Jesus Christ is God is because we just weren't ready for liberal values yet.
Yeah, in the same way that I don't think that we're not hold on, not liberal values, God's values.
Yeah, where does it say that?
Anywhere in the Bible.
That the reason that God anointed kings, he only did that because, well, we didn't have a better system yet.
Why?
So why?
Now, answer my question.
Don't ask me one.
Where in the Bible can I find anywhere in the New Testament?
I don't care if it's Matthew, I don't care if it's Mark, I don't care if it's Luke, I don't care if it's John.
I don't care who you want to reference.
Show me anywhere in the New Testament where it says that God stopped anointing kings because we just weren't ready yet for democracy.
I'm not throwing memory verses at you like I'm some scholar kid.
When we actually engage in theology, right, we look at chapters, we look at typology.
Can you answer my question?
Yeah, I said I'm not throwing memory verses at you.
So there's nowhere in the Bible that says that?
No, I would say that there was a strong theological typological argument.
Would you reject typological arguments as a sound form of theology?
No.
Oh, okay.
I'm just saying that here, when we're talking about typology.
I didn't say that there's a specific verse that says Jesus went and he said, you guys, democracy is actually the best thing.
But you're going to cite a verse where he decides he's not going to be king as proof that he doesn't want any more kings.
As evidence that, like in my typological argument, which looks at the transition over time of the Christianity, let's look at the transition over time.
Sure, yeah.
So in the case of Moses, we have like extreme statecraft and Christian law.
The judges, right?
We have tribes.
King David's later.
Yeah, also King David.
Let's talk about it.
He was anointed by the prophets, right?
So now we have one step of separation between the king and God.
So in the case of judges, they were both kind of acting as statesmen and as like spiritual leaders-ish.
Whereas by the time we get to David, we have Samuel anointing the king.
But Samuel's actually the prophet.
He's the word of God.
And the kings are supposed to honor that.
Then by the time we get to the priests, now there's no statecraft at all.
The priests are existing under Roman occupation.
And then we get to Jesus, the final typological fulfillment of this, and it is a complete and utter rejection on Christ's part of politics.
That's what we see over time.
Then how come the apostles engage in politics, including Paul?
I don't, Paul.
When did Paul ever say that we should like usurp?
Didn't he say render unto Caesar?
Paul literally went to Corinth in order to battle for the position of authority because the super apostles came in and usurped his position.
Not yet.
Yes, that was part of statecraft in Corinth.
Yes, it was.
Yes, it was.
You're incorrect here.
Was state by Romans or by the Christians?
Well, that's not relevant here.
It's kind of important to say that it's relevant under the Roman episode.
Yeah, but do you realize that inside of many of these Roman places, while they're under Roman occupation, there was still a lot to govern within the cities, as long as they didn't violate Roman rules?
As long as they didn't violate Roman rules.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't impose, and they did all the time, their own cultural, spiritual, various things like this.
Yeah, they didn't engage in statecraft.
That is statecraft.
No, so could you pass laws inside of Corinth as a spiritual leader?
Because the answer is yes, you could.
So if that's the case, as long as they didn't violate Roman law, you could do that.
How is that fill in with your typography or your typo, typographic, whatever it is?
How?
Show me.
At no point is Paul going there and saying that we should impose Christian laws and all these things.
He's saying this is what good Christians should do.
This is how we should must and ought to conduct ourselves.
When he's in the corner of the world, why is he removing these people?
What?
Why is he removing the super apostles?
Why is he there to remove the super apostles?
Probably because he found them unbiblical, not because he thought they were bad states.
He said both.
He said both.
He said that.
Where's the verse?
Give me a verse.
Yeah, let's go into Timothy.
First of all, let's go into Timothy, and we can go to Ephesus, what was going on in Ephesus, especially when it came to the ideas of the cult of Artemis.
This was purely political.
The fact of the matter was...
Worshipping the cult of Artemis is only political?
Yeah, it was.
It was economic.
It was economic and political.
It had no bearing on your spiritual condition if you were engaging with the culture.
Both.
It was both.
What do you think actually mattered here to Paul?
Both.
No.
No, both did, and I'll tell you why.
What was going on with the cult of Artemis, the reason they were so fucking pissed off is because the entire economic model of Ephesus revolved around the fact that they were making these silver statues.
Okay.
This was a political battle and it was a spiritual battle.
It was both at the same time.
So did they say that nobody can now make these silver statues or did they say that Christians should not engage in it, not make it?
Christians were trying to remove that as an economic forum for the cult of Artemis.
And did Paul go there and say we should get rid of it as an economic forum and just say that?
Told Timothy just that.
No, he said don't engage with it.
No, no, no, no.
You need to read the letters to Timothy because you're incorrect here.
Okay.
The truth is, is that the reason, and I understand why.
I understand why you came up with this idea.
The anointing of kings happened.
God put kings in place, but it was just because they weren't ready for another system that didn't have kings.
Does that mean right this second, anywhere that there's a king, that king's sinning?
No, but it depends on what the king is.
What do you mean?
Like in your country, is it sinful to be a king in your country?
No, because the way that, I mean, the kings are exclusively performative.
Like they have no actual monarchic power.
The king can't, for example, tell Canada that they must impose Christian morals.
But let's just say that you have like a king, I don't know, in Zimbabwe, and this king.
Is he Christian?
Yeah, he's a Christian.
Zimbabwe is like hell on earth, okay, let's say.
And this king gets into authority and he imposes all these Christian values and it brings in all sorts of economic prosperity and people are very happy.
Is he sinning?
That's a great outcome.
Is he sinning?
He might be.
Does he know that it's wrong for him to impose Christian statecraft?
I don't think it is wrong.
It depends on what he's imposing.
What is he imposing?
He's imposing that you can't murder, no homosexuality, no prostitution.
He's imposing no drugs.
He's saying all sorts of things like this and imposing them from Christian ethics.
Yeah, so I would have an issue with a number of the Christian ethics that is only conducted around sin and not actually about statecraft.
But you can't demonstrate that he's actually sinning.
What do you mean you can't demonstrate?
Show me how this Christian king is doing anything which is incorrect biblically by being a Christian king.
Yeah, so if he imposed on his people, for example, something that they can't do because he thinks it's a sin, not because he thinks that it makes for like a worse statecraft, I would think that that would be wrong.
Show me the sin.
He was robbing people of agency.
You're not robbing them of agency by having rule of law based on Christian ethics.
You still have agency.
If you're forcing it exclusively because it's sin, right?
So if there are secular people in Zimbabwe that are gay and you force them to not be allowed to engage in it, and let's say there's how is that sinful?
Throwing people in jail who are non-Christians would be wrong to do, yeah.
Why?
Well, it depends on what you mean by sin, right?
Like if when I talk about sin, if the king of Zimbabwe says homosexuality is not to be engaged in anymore and you can't get married, how is he sinning?
Because he's imposing on non-Christians something about sin.
So?
So I think the issue would be that that's inherently anti-Christian.
No, it's not.
You can make impositions.
Where does Jesus impose himself on non-Christians?
He doesn't have to.
Jesus wasn't here specifically to give us the message of how to rule.
Should you be more like Jesus or Paul?
He was giving us the ethical framework for how we were supposed to live our lives.
And if it's the case.
Shouldn't we live our lives politically then?
If Jesus wanted us to live our so why, so why did he reject it?
Reject what?
Politics.
Because that wasn't what Jesus was here to do.
So we shouldn't act like Jesus.
So Jesus wasn't here to activate.
We are acting like Jesus.
So theoretically, though, if Jesus, if it was actually more Christian to impose Christian policy, shouldn't have Jesus established the kingdom of Judea and Samaria?
Shouldn't he have done that?
He established off the wrong.
He established the brand new kingdom, which is Christianity.
Which is where it is.
Which is the body of people who are Christians, yes.
Where is it?
Like, what state is it?
State what?
What state did Jesus make?
No, he didn't make a state.
Well, you're right.
He didn't.
That was not what his purpose was.
So should we be more like Jesus or like Paul?
We're still like Jesus, even if you're a king who imposes Christian ethics.
How are you not like Jesus?
Because if you impose on other people, should we all get crucified at 33 to be like Jesus?
Does Jesus think that we should all get crucified?
You tell me.
It's your Christian.
That's my answer.
That's not an answer.
That's a question.
Should every Christian get crucified at 33 because Jesus did?
No.
Why?
Because Jesus didn't say that his crucifixion was his.
He didn't say that kings couldn't be Christians in a post-Christian ethics.
Did he say it's sin to not get crucified?
Did he say it was sin to be a king in a post-Christian ethics?
Show me where.
He certainly seemed to reject it outright.
He certainly didn't.
Show me where.
Sure.
We'll go back to John 6.
After feeding the 5,000, he perceived they were going to crown him king, so he withdrew to the mountains.
So?
Matthew, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?
Yeah.
Right?
Matthew 4.
Does that say Caesar can't be a Christian?
He offers Jesus political dominion over the earth and he refuses.
Because why?
Because he is not here to do political bullshit.
The reason that that happened was because Satan came to him and he said to him, I'll give you everything if you'll worship me.
And so why did he reject it?
So he rejects, so he rejects it, not because he's saying you can't be a Christian and rule.
He rejects it because he, God, is not going to bow at the feet of Satan for material shit.
So then why did he reject?
So why would you put that up as an example?
That doesn't even make sense.
I brought it up and examined a litany of other things of Jesus regularly rejecting political power.
Yeah, his mission was not to come here to be a politician, but that doesn't mean that he rejects that politicians can use Christian ethics.
Well, a lot of Jews seem to believe that the Messiah's role was specifically to be a Jew?
No, but I don't care.
Okay, so Jesus rejects the political position, and we should what?
Embrace it?
There's no problem within Christian ethics of having a position of political authority.
I didn't say that there is.
Then, if you're ruling from Christians onto non-Christians is wrong.
No, it's not wrong.
And you haven't demonstrated it.
Mission and Ethics00:16:05
Absolutely.
All you've done is give me some passages out of context.
One of them in which he was supposed to bow at Satan's feet, another one where he says, I'm going to reject being the king of the Jews.
So what?
How are these out of context?
Well, the first one we're talking about with Satan, he did not reject it due to political office.
He rejected it because Satan said he got to bow down to me in order to get material shape.
I could grant you that one, yeah.
Yeah.
When it comes to the kingdom, that did not serve his mission.
His mission was to come here and give us the good news.
He was to give us the good news that his kingdom has come to earth.
His kingdom is here.
How would re-establishing Israel not help him with showing that the kingdom is here, that we're here to bring the good news?
Ask him.
Why are you asking me that?
Because you're the one who asked me to do it.
You're asking me about the guys of God.
His entire mission here was just to give you the good news.
That was his mission.
So we shouldn't be like Jesus.
How are you not like Jesus because you rule with Christian ethics?
Because he regularly pushed off imposing himself politically.
He did not anywhere ever show us where secular governance was supposed to be the order of the day and Christians were supposed to only follow secularism.
He never showed us this.
So then why does he say render unto Caesar, right?
Even Paul, in the case of Paul.
Because they were talking about taxes.
Okay, so Paul, for example.
So what was happening is existed under Nero.
Do you want the answer?
Do you want the answer to why he said render under Caesar?
Yeah.
Okay, so here's what happened.
He was dealing all the time with lawyers, and lawyers would come up with these, well, not just Pharisees, but yes, also Pharisees.
And they would come over to him and ask him, oftentimes, hypothetically loaded questions.
In this particular case, we're talking about taxes, right?
So he gives a parable, and then he says, render unto Caesar what is his, right?
Yes, you can render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
That in no way says that Caesar shouldn't be a Christian or use Christian ethics.
Okay.
There's like nothing there for that.
Sure, I would argue that alone wouldn't substantiate this.
None of that is substantiated.
Say the consistent pattern of Jesus rejecting political power over and over.
His mission wasn't to come here to be a politician.
It was to die for mankind.
You're right.
In fact, not a single Christian.
Is your mission to die for mankind or do you have a different mission?
No, my mission is to represent Christ as best as possible.
Okay, got it.
So it's not to die for mankind.
You had a different mission than Jesus Christ did.
Got it.
So where's the where am I going to find that Christians must live in only secular countries?
I didn't say that that's where you would find.
Okay, then why should I assume that Christians should only be able to rule in a secular way?
I didn't say that they should only be able to rule in a secular way.
Well, then what is the same?
I said that they should not impose onto Christians Christian moral law that it only exists.
Most of the common law that you're referencing is imposed from Christian ethics.
It's not imposed from it.
It's informed by it.
Yeah, and it's, by the way, you might notice I never said I had an issue with being informed.
Yeah.
Why is it that Christians can't impose that, but secularists can impose that?
Because secular people aren't Christian.
So they can just rule over Christians?
But Christians can't rule over them.
Yeah.
What?
Why not?
Because they're not Christian.
So what?
So Christians shouldn't be imposing tyranny on other people.
That's not tyranny.
Yeah, imposing your religious prediction onto others when it's against their interest and not their religion is kind of tyrannical.
Yeah.
No, that's not tyrannical.
How not?
It's not a team.
All laws would be tyrannical if it's an imposition on somebody's values that they don't like.
It would be if it's compelled, yeah.
Compelled speech, for example, is that so?
So when you're talking about compelling a person to do a thing, are you saying that secularists don't compel people to do things?
Nope.
What about the draft?
Yeah, that's not moral necessarily.
It's not?
States can compel.
Christians should not compel.
I don't understand.
The draft is compelling people to do a thing, right?
I don't have a problem with states compelling.
I have a problem with Christians compelling.
Yeah, but I don't understand the problem.
But the difference here between Christians versus secularists.
What you said was that secularists should be able to, unless it's the case that they're pushing some value.
Yes.
So not secularists, states.
Yeah.
States shouldn't be able to compel people to do things that they would be a violation of some of the fundamental rights and liberties.
They shouldn't do that.
Those rights and liberties are informed literally by the perspective of the person.
So if people are like, hey, we want to be able to watch porn if we want, and you're like, no, you can't.
You can't do that.
Or, hey, we want to run stop signs.
You're like, hey, you can't do that.
They're imposing their will and they're using force, force of law.
I don't have a problem with states compelling or using the force of law.
Well, I don't have a problem with Christians doing that.
Yet that's where we differ.
Yeah, and you haven't made a compelling case anywhere.
So just because you don't find it compelling doesn't mean that it's just not compelling.
You haven't shown me anywhere that Christians can impose Christian ethics.
Nothing.
In fact, I have the entire standard of the Bible to show that God anoints kings, that Jesus Christ is God, so he anointed kings.
Your whole, the entirety of your argument to that is, it's because we didn't have democracy yet.
That's because we weren't ready for not kings yet.
Nope, it's the yep.
So show me where that's the case.
Show me where it's the case that God is.
Jesus, Jesus.
Jesus did not say we were not ever going to have moral kings again, ever.
You're right, but if we look at the type, I never said that he did.
What I said is a typological argument.
In the same way, for example, typology makes no sense.
Do we just do everything that the Old Testament says?
No, of course.
Why not?
Because of Acts.
Go through it.
Why don't we?
Okay, well, not a pop quiz.
I just want to make sure, though.
Are you familiar with Acts?
Yeah.
Okay, great.
So then you should know why we don't do everything the Old Testament says.
Okay, so for example, why don't we follow mixing of fibers?
Because of Acts.
Walk me through it.
Okay, so in Acts, this question is asked especially about the idea of like, well, this was the question, circumcision.
Do you have to get circumcised?
What did they say?
No, they said no.
But they, because they imposed three new laws.
They said, no.
In order to convert, you no longer have to do circumcision if you're converting over from being a Gentile.
But you have to adhere to these moral laws, which is strangulation of animals.
That was one.
I think it was strangulation of animals, and then there were two other ones.
We can pull them up real quick, though.
These weren't laws, right?
These were like precepts for Christians to do.
Yes.
Which are not laws.
Well, wait a second.
They're laws within Christianity.
That's not the same thing as state laws.
Yeah, but I think that's equivocation.
We were specifically discussing Acts.
Sure.
Yeah, and you were asking how it is that you were like, why don't we follow Old Testament law?
And it's because in Acts, this was reconciled with what the conversion of the Gentiles needed to be.
Right.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That makes my point, not your point.
This doesn't make any point.
Yes, it does.
It answers your question as to why we don't do that anymore.
Did you have some reason that you're asking that question?
Yeah, I think.
Was it just for fun?
Yeah, it was for an establishment of a new covenant, right?
Old covenant or new civilization.
No, no.
Covenant theology, the way that you view it, I don't view it that way.
I view things as a continuum.
It's not old and new covenant.
There's no reconciliation.
This is a continuation.
We still follow the old commandments.
Okay, so.
We still follow the old commandments.
We still follow all 10 of them.
Jesus Christ told us to, and then gave us two additional commandments on top of it to follow.
So, no, that's incorrect.
We do follow much in the Old Testament.
We don't generally follow Levitical law, and we don't follow Levitical law because Gentiles converting over, we were told exactly in Acts how that was supposed to operate.
So, if they engaged in Levitical law, would it be sin?
Or why is it not sin for the Gentiles to not participate in Levitical law?
Ask the question again.
Why is it not sin for Gentiles to not participate in the Levitical law?
Why is it not sin to not participate?
Ask it a different way.
I hear two words.
Why is it not wrong for the Gentiles to not get circumcised?
Why is it not wrong for Gentiles to not get circumcised?
Ask it in positives.
Should.
Maybe should.
Why is it wrong?
Why is it okay for Gentiles to remain uncircumcised?
Why is it?
Oh, because that's what was laid down in Acts by the apostles.
Yeah, but why?
Because they were trying to figure out how to convert over people who wanted to convert over to Christianity and whether or not they needed to follow Jewish law.
Right.
And the answer was no.
Right.
And they drew on the teachings of Jesus Christ, which they were intimately familiar with, but you're not, that, yeah, no, you don't have to do that.
Okay, so they looked at it and they said, these laws actually, they don't matter anymore.
They were valid in the Old Testament.
They were sin in the Old Testament, but now they're not sin.
We've updated it.
No.
So was it sin?
Those are still sinful things.
So being uncircumcised is sinful.
No, no, no.
Not being uncircumcised is sinful.
But even in the Old Testament, this was prescribed for Jews only.
But was it a sin for Jews to do it?
It wasn't a sin for not Jews to do it, but it is still sinful.
Even if you don't follow Christian ethics, you can still sin.
This is the thing.
There's the distinction in our worldview.
Sure.
The issue is like when we talk about non-Christian sinning, right, it's almost empty, right?
It's not empty.
Of course it is.
When we talk about sins.
Yeah, of course we do.
Because when we talk about sins, we're talking about the sins of omission, commission, and original sin, right?
No, we're talking about, well, first of all, I don't believe in original sin.
Okay.
I believe in ancestral sin.
That's a Catholic thing that you're referencing for original sin.
Okay, so you don't believe, let's say, you don't believe that humans are born into a state of separation from God.
No.
And that we need salvation to bring us back to him.
Well, wait a second.
You do need salvation.
That's true.
But when you're talking about original sin, this gets into Genesis, the ideas of Genesis.
Do you not recognize Genesis?
Yes, of course I do, but I'm giving you a distinction in theology.
When you say original sin, you just mean Adam and Eve both sinned.
And so what do you mean by original sin?
Okay, what I mean is a state of being that we are bent towards sin and need the mercy of salvation, right?
The existence that all humans are kind of born into.
Well, I would consider this to be ancestral sin.
Okay, we can call it ancestral sin.
Yeah, that's the curse, basically, the curse on the earth.
And meaning salvation towards the end of our end.
Yes, of course we need salvation.
Right.
And we're all in that status without salvation, right?
Yes.
Including non-Christians.
Yes.
Whereas in the case of omission and commissions, right, one of the important things about omissive sin is knowing something is right and failing to do it, or commission, which is knowing something is wrong and failing to do it.
I just made a big mistake because remember earlier you said the truth's written on your heart.
Yeah, I think that we should know broadly know these things.
And that would mean that you cannot allow people who are not Christians to give them a pass on sinning because they know the truth, right?
Not in the specific way of religious precepts, right?
In the way of truth do they know?
The virtue ethics of orienting towards like less harm in doing so then they know what's not sinful?
Not necessarily.
So I don't understand.
Why do they know here exactly?
They have an orientation towards the good that God builds into them.
Okay.
So an orientation not to sin.
Because to not sin is good.
Well, it depends on what sins we're talking about.
All sins are bad.
Sure.
Okay, so then they would have an orientation to not do any of those bad things, which is sinning.
Okay, so let me ask you this.
Why do you think that?
No, no, don't ask me, answer first, then ask.
Answer then ask.
No, I'm not going to.
Okay, then I'm not going to.
Okay.
We'll just sit here and stare at each other.
Sure.
This is such a perfect time to let some chats come through.
We have Char here.
Thank you, Char.
XD donated $100.
Thank you, Char.
How exactly is opposition to evolution anti-science?
Evolution doesn't even satisfy the scientific method.
It requires faith-based presuppositions.
It's not even science.
Supposing it is science.
I don't know.
You just don't know anything about the scientific method.
Of course, it's falsifiable.
It's testable.
You can make hypotheses on it and then test for those hypotheses.
Yes.
And we have robust scientific, validated evidence for it.
Char, thank you for your message.
If you want, streamlabs.com slash whatever.
For your own?
Kyla, the equality of human beings, regardless of differences or likability, is not even established without Christian beliefs.
Endowed with unalienable rights by creator, etc.
Equal rights and democracy.
No, creator doesn't mean God.
It means something else that's creator.
Just talk to seculars who believe in like natural law.
Like, yes, there are secular arguments for all humans having value.
I don't know what to tell you.
For us, thank you very much for your message.
If you guys want to get your own information, you just don't find them compelling.
Streamlines.com.
It's not even a matter of compelling.
It's a matter of Christian ethics.
You're a Christian ethicist, right?
Okay, well, then when you're talking about secular natural rights, what the fuck are we even talking about?
You don't believe in them.
Well, we're going, well, because we're going back to Agrippa's trilemma, right?
I understand.
Back to Agrippa's trilema.
Yeah, you're at least favorite theory.
So it's not justified.
So your beliefs aren't justified, neither are theirs.
Well, in the way that he's saying this, right?
So he's trying to say, you can't even establish this thing because secular beliefs are unjustified.
And it's like, at a foundational axiomatic level, all beliefs are unjustified, right?
A natural law theorist, while I don't find it compelling, is the coherent, recognized philosophical system that does have strong argumentations for how it establishes like equal moral value.
Yes, of humans.
And while I don't find Kyla's, you know, entire worldview compelling, right?
All that matters is that because both of us can't establish justification, I can do whatever the fuck I want because I don't find it.
That's what anyone has said.
But it reduces the business.
You can shaman me.
You can shaman me if you like.
No, I'm making an argument.
It literally would reduce to this that there's no moral facts and moral anti-realism if it's the case, that Kyla just says that she assumes her worldview, therefore it's true.
She's building everything up basically.
Do you need a grip's trilema to me?
That would be the point, though.
If neither of us can justify, we have no moral facts.
You were lying before when you said to you.
You didn't lie?
I just said I adopted the entire worldview.
So you believe that?
Well, then, of course, of course, you think.
There's no moral facts.
So when you say secular factors.
I didn't say there's no moral facts.
And by the way, even when it's the case, when he says secular ethics, if it's the case that you're like, oh, okay, well, the thing is, is like, I don't find that compelling.
The secularist says, oh, okay, that's nice.
I don't find your shit compelling.
Yep.
How do we determine who's right?
Reason and logic.
We argue it out, right?
We grant each other's assumptions.
I grant infinite regression.
Why should we follow reason and logic?
Why?
I think it's led to the best outcomes, and I think it's the only sense data that we can possibly do.
Yeah, but when you say best outcomes, right?
You mean in a virtue ethicist way and a pragmatic way.
Right.
Within the way that you think that they're the best.
No, I think the way that God thinks it's the best.
Right.
The way that you think God thinks it's the best.
Yeah, of course.
The same as you.
Right.
So if you think it's the way that God thinks it's the best, and somebody else says, I think that that's the way that God thinks it's the best, how do we draw the delineation between the two to determine you're right?
Usually we use reason and logic to make arguments.
We can use reason and logic and they disagree.
From a foundation.
Yeah, sort of foundation.
Well, the problem is that some reasonable beliefs are fundamentally unresolvable.
That like there are reasonable conclusions that we can hold that are built on a foundationally unjustifiable system where we have to go, I think that's a reasonable conclusion, but I think you're wrong because I prefer dogmatism.
And they go, well, I think what you're saying is kind of reasonable, but I think you're wrong because I prefer infinite regression.
And I utilize infinite regression in this case to make natural law.
Okay, so then if that's the case, then if all of us are just going off of like vibes, bro, because that's not just vibes.
Don't reduce philosophy to just vibes.
Well, in your case, I'm sorry.
Our case, remember?
In our case, it's just vibes, man.
See, if I don't agree with Kyla and we get through logic, it's the most good faith.
If we get through logic, we get through reason.
We get through all these things.
We have fundamental disagreements still.
We don't agree on any of this.
It's just like, that's fine.
Okay.
How do you solve it?
Great.
It's fine.
I'm agreeing.
It's fine.
So if we agree, I'm not even just agreed.
Moral Objectivity Debate00:09:22
You just don't want to solve Agrippa's trilemma.
Totally fine.
You believe that there's objective moral fact, right?
Literally.
Wait, we believe it.
Well, you do as well.
Don't we believe there's objective moral fact?
You do as well.
Okay, how do we believe that there's objective moral facts, though?
I'm asking you.
I don't know because I don't believe in objective moral facts because I'm an Agrippa trilemmist.
What are you, a trolleyist?
What does this even mean?
It's just a philosophical problem.
I'm asking you.
I don't believe in moral facts.
I'm a moral anti-realist and I hate it.
This is obviously not true.
It's obviously true.
So I'm asking you, how do you solve Agrippa's trilemma?
Why would I solve a thing I concede it is true?
Because you don't actually believe it's true.
Prove it.
Based on everything that you've said.
Hence, we talked about Agrippa's trilemma, right?
You keep on insisting that I don't believe in moral fact, but you present it in such a way as saying, this is so absurd and silly.
I don't believe in moral facts.
I believe in moral facts.
Maybe you don't.
Oh.
But you can't figure out how you get there without a foundationalist lens.
You can use, so moral objectivity can exist in a foundationalist lens, right?
So you build some axiom.
God is real.
Okay.
God is my axiom.
God's your action.
It's a tautology.
Yeah.
And God can make real moral facts.
And then you can build off of that.
That's how you do it.
Okay.
I believe that.
That's how you do it, too, by the way.
But I have an axiom for more powerful God than your God who negates your moral facts.
That's not an axiom.
Why is that not an axiom?
How is my God's more powerful a tautology or an axiom?
Because it's not powerful because he's more powerful.
What do you mean by powerful?
Like, he can do more stuff than your God?
Like, what do you mean by more stuff, though?
Like, I don't know.
He can make gods more powerful than himself.
Prove it.
Well, wait, I'm sorry.
Justify it.
We can't justify things.
Remember?
Okay.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So these aren't axioms.
Why is that not an axiom?
Because none of this is tautological or axiomatic.
They're not foundational.
Wait, do you think you think you have to have a tautology to have an axiom?
Not always, but most axioms reduce into tautologies, yeah.
Well, you're talking about a reduction to a tautology.
Does an axiom need to be a tautology?
No.
No, but basically, yeah.
No, no, they don't have to be tautologies.
So if it's the case.
A moral.
So what's the moral case for my God is more powerful?
What do you mean, moral case?
Why would that be a moral case?
I'm about morality.
Why would that be a moral case?
Why would God be more powerful be a moral thing?
I'm assuming if you're using it as your axiom for your moral basis, because we're talking about morality.
Well, just God.
Well, we're talking about morality.
I'm just saying God.
Are we not talking about moral laws?
Chrom.
Chrom is the God, man.
Yeah, and Krom doesn't believe in these moral facts.
He just doesn't.
Okay, so you would be a divine command theorist and also a subjectivist, I suppose?
What do you mean?
That's objectively true.
Yeah, that's what I said.
Subjectivism, right?
Wait, subjectivity.
Subjectivity.
I shouldn't say subjectiveism.
That's the opposite of objectivity, right?
Yeah.
Okay, so you're saying that I can't have objective moral facts?
No, I didn't say that.
You said I believe in crom, and I said, why?
And you're like, well, my subjective thing.
And I said, you can be, I guess, a subjectivist and a divine command theorist, but I'm a divine command theorist who is also an objectivist.
Oh, okay.
Then I'm confused.
The God that you believe in establishes moral law outside of me.
That's what you've engaged in.
He does.
Okay.
And can you name one of these moral laws?
Yeah, you can go through the Bible.
Kindness, good job.
I asked you to just name one.
Love.
Love is a moral law?
Yeah.
Based on your laws.
If there's not a moral law, that would be an objective, like moral fact.
Love.
Is it universal?
It depends on when you say universal, I don't know what you mean.
Do you mean in an absolutist way?
Do you mean in an ontological way?
Yeah.
No, because you like, how?
How would it be absolutely hard to do?
What does love look like?
Is there any moral universals from your God?
Universals as in like they exist outside of us and they like are, can affect us.
But the issue is how do you know them?
And you have to know them.
I'm not even asking how you know them.
I'm just asking if it's the case that there's a universal, a universal moral fact.
Yep.
What is it?
Love.
Love is the universal moral fact.
It would be one.
So everybody ought love.
Kindness.
Justice.
Everyone ought love.
Everyone ought be kind.
Everyone ought seek justice.
Everyone ought to do.
And if those people don't do that, they're sinning.
Theoretically, but we would have to look into the context of what's going on to actually know if they're not doing that or if there isn't a pluralism.
Well, let's just say they're not loving and they don't know anything about God.
Well, if they don't know anything about God, right, it's hard to do sins.
Because when we're talking about sins, we're talking about sins of omission and commission, mostly, and action.
If you don't know something.
If you don't know anything about God, are they sinning?
No, wait, if they're not, I don't know.
What are we talking about?
Wait, no, hold on.
You're being like, if they don't act in love, what does that mean?
Whatever you mean by it.
Well, I believe in relativism as well, right?
This is relativistic.
So what, when you...
I thought you just said that it was an objective moral universal.
Yeah, you can have objective stuff that is also relativistic.
Okay, so in this case, you're okay.
Well, what?
What would you have that's moral universal that's relative?
Most, like, justice is a moral objective thing that exists outside of God.
Sounds like you're saying it's a moral subjective thing.
No, I'm saying it's a moral objective thing that exists outside of us, and we have to use the relative context of the situation to figure out how to enact it.
Well, let's find out if that's true.
What is justice?
I'm not sure if I could define a seeking.
This is the issue.
These are irreducible.
Doing things just, justly.
Justice is doing things justly.
Yeah, it's circular.
Okay.
You don't like tautologies?
What do you think justice is?
Why would that matter?
I'm curious your thoughts.
If you're so unstable, justice is doing things justly.
What's your answer?
I just gave you my answer.
No, that's my answer.
What's your answer?
Same.
It's not.
I have the same view.
You're being bad faith again.
How is that bad faith?
Because you don't believe that because you scoffed at it.
Unless you think your own purview is just a faithfulness.
I didn't scoff.
I just repeated it.
Justice is doing things justly.
So is that not a scoff?
No.
So you don't think that that's a silly answer?
No, of course not.
Oh, you think it's a good answer?
Sure.
Okay.
I think it's fantastic.
Okay, great.
My favorite answer of the night.
So again, you're being dishonest.
How is that dishonest?
Your favorite answer of the night is that justice equals, you don't think that there's a better answer.
I don't understand.
Why do I have to continuously answer your questions for you?
I'm asking about your answers.
But I literally believe the same thing you do.
You obviously do.
You convinced me of Agrippa's trilemma.
I told you that.
Yeah, but you're being bad faith when you say that.
How am I being bad faith?
you don't actually believe in this because this would require you to just concede that there's uh that according to you you were saying well if i agree to gripper's trilemma now there's no moral object uh um sorry objectivity but the issue is facts yeah that same thing Good job.
Yeah, I still don't understand how we believe in moral facts because justice is just.
So axioms.
So objectivity just means that we believe that something exists outside of our minds, right?
Where subjectivity says it only exists because of my mind.
So I think justice exists because God made it.
Yeah, objective is something that does not require mind.
Yeah.
Subjective is saying which requires mind.
Correct.
Agreed.
When I ask you about objective moral facts, these are going to be moral facts that require no minds.
And the context to understand how it's being implicated.
Yeah.
So what's a moral fact, an objective moral fact?
Justice.
Justice exists.
And what is it?
Acting just.
Oh.
Do you have a better answer?
Nope.
So then why are you shrugging and shaking your head at it?
What do you mean?
I just said, oh.
It's pretty obvious what's happening right now.
What?
That you are saying, I'm accepting this, but you're saying it in such a way to appeal to absurdism.
You're trying to be like, oh my gosh, it's just circular.
Yeah, it's, yeah.
I don't know.
It sounds like you're assuming.
Okay, you win Caddy Girl of the Year award.
I don't know what else to tell you.
I don't know what I'm doing.
That's caddy.
Oh, hey, if you don't want to keep talking and you just want to be like, oh, I'm a moral nihilist now, which is not true, obviously, then we can do that, but I don't know how to go forward.
I don't know what I've done here, except I'm just adopting.
You convinced me of the trilemma, that's all.
I don't even know what that means, but okay.
You've convinced me of the trolley problem.
What?
We do have some chats here.
Thank you, Joe.
Joe D.C. donated $99 to the pro-choice chick.
Why do you get upset at the point of the founding fathers deferring religion to the state?
I don't understand it either.
You can't separate federal from state because the 10th Amendment combines ideas.
Man, it's crazy that my audience agrees with me.
That's not my audience.
Of course it is.
Most of the whatever audiences don't understand.
Most of my audience is on the Crucible watching.
And they're not watching here.
I don't think most of them are.
But the thing is, is like, that is a good question.
I don't understand either.
Could we see ones in chat for how many people watching are also Crucible fans that are watching because Andrew Wilson's here?
We're currently in members-only mode.
Well, even with members-only mode, we can see how many of the members are crucially.
We can do that.
We can do that.
Members-Only Mode00:05:10
Really quick before we let the next one come in.
Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, like the video.
We're about 300 likes away from 5,000 likes.
There's still 10,000 plus people watching.
I mean, even if you guys can get it to 6,000 likes, it would be much appreciated.
Right, that you're in members-only mode.
There's 10K watching?
For the chat.
Why are you in members-only mode?
Like the chat.
Oh, the chats in members-only.
The chat.
So they couldn't spam it.
Yeah, I get it.
Anybody can watch.
Yeah, but just sometimes we put the chat just to members-only mode.
If you guys want to get a TTS in, $199 and up for TTS, that's via streamlabs.com/slash whatever.
We have a chat coming in here from Giovanni JD, a name I recognize.
Good to see you.
Giovanni Jade, you donated $100.
You're pro-life personally because you know dismembering your unborn child is evil.
And yet you're pro-choice legally so other women can dismember their babies.
What a vile human you are.
We don't want, in our worldview, to impose Christian ethics on women killing their children.
That's well, statecraft.
We want to do what works best for society.
So when you impose abortion on states, women die more often, children die more often, unborn children die more often, children move into foster care more often at a significant rate, and child poverty overall increases.
And if you don't ban it, more children die.
Just saying.
It depends on what you mean by children.
That would be fetuses.
Well, when do we ensol?
When does a fetus get ensold?
At conception.
Where's your biblical evidence for that?
We can go all the way back to the Old Testament, in fact.
And the Old Testament portion that you would use here is the most interesting.
Yeah, you prepped for me, hey?
Yeah, well, the thing is, it's funny.
I appreciate that.
Genuinely.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So I just want to make sure.
Before we get into this, I want to ask a couple of qualifiers so that we make sure that we're on the same page.
Is that okay?
Possibly.
Okay.
So under your Christian belief, right, which denomination do you adhere to?
Or do you adhere to any of these?
I'm a Protestant broadly, but I don't think there's a specific Protestant denomination.
So you adhere to Protestantism?
Sure.
Okay.
Although Catholics looking, I don't know, I like their theology a fair bit.
Catholic theology.
I'm not Catholic, but and there are some issues I have, but I like Catholics too.
Got it.
Why would you be against abortion legally?
Legally, because I think it leads to more harm in all of the things that we care about as Christians.
If God is like kind of a virtue ethicist, I think.
Makes sense.
And then why are you against it personally?
Because I don't know at what point a human life confers, and I also don't think that any of the negative outcomes that I'm concerned at a statecraft level is going to happen in my case specifically.
So if you don't know when a human life is going to be ensouled, is the reason you're against it because you assume that it's possible it could be ensoul at conception?
Yeah.
Then I'll just take that position.
That's a concession on the position.
Sure, but the issue is that I'm not imposing that on non-Christians.
Yeah, but I think it's fine to impose it.
If it's assumed, yeah, I'll have one more.
I think it's fine to say that if it's assumed that it is the case, that we can say with some degree of certainty within both of our worldviews that ensoulment could potentially happen at conception, then we should err on the side of life.
So why didn't God ask him?
Exodus.
We can.
Exodus 21, 22 from the Saturday.
Why are you unsure?
But because in the Bible, which is part of how we figure out what God thinks about things, we have the Septuagint.
But no, I mean, why are you unsure about ensoulment?
Because there's nowhere in the Bible where it says God ensols us at age zero.
Then why would you assume that it's even possible that we're ensoul at conception?
I'm not.
What do you mean?
Why would you even assume that at conception is even a possibility for ensoulment?
Because I don't know when God insolves a fetus.
Okay, so then we can just assume that it's possible he insolves them at conception.
Not really.
Well, but you do.
Well, the issue is how do you so I'll read Exodus 21, 22 because I don't know how you would deal with this one.
Right.
So Exodus 21, 22, and I'm going to read from the second.
Oh my God, I'm retarded.
I'm actually retarded.
Today is the day of stills.
Can we?
Is it?
Oh, it's over here.
I got it.
Throw it to me, quick.
Hang on, come on, quick.
Throw it.
Okay.
Okay.
I was trying to do a little bit.
Your claw.
No good.
Andrew.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, Andrew.
Hang on a second.
I got some beer on my leg here.
Oh shit.
Thanks, Brian.
Aw, man.
One second.
All right, so you're wrong about everything.
Base.
I win the debate.
Uh-oh.
You sound just like Andrew.
Uh-oh, you didn't mean to do that.
You're like, wait, book.
I should have anybody bring this up.
I don't know.
Sorry, chat.
I think as the man of the house, it's up to you.
Very unfortunate, a very unfortunate situation.
What were you trying to do?
Genesis Debate00:08:45
Is that like a bit?
Is that why you keep using the claw?
Dude, you got that shit everywhere.
Wait, is that worse than my spill now?
Is this the number one spill?
Ah, come on.
Anyways, continue on.
Well, I'm going to have a smoke real quick and then we'll come back and do this.
Can you wait just two minutes?
Well, I just.
Two minutes.
Can I have more water?
You got one a oh, you guys continue on with the combo.
I'll take care of it.
Yeah, I don't want to get in the combo before I have a smoke.
Oh, okay.
Because otherwise, it'll be like 30 minutes.
I got it.
Do you think fundamentalism?
I'm just curious, this is a broad thing.
Are you a fundamentalist?
Like, you think that Genesis is a literal story of how God made earth and genealogy is like an actual legitimate timeline?
Are you a fundamentalist?
I don't actually know.
I don't think Eastern Orthodox is usually fundamentalist, but I'm not sure.
Well, that's not what I would consider fundamentalism to be.
It's taking all of the Bible as like literal.
No, it's well, it's taking the Bible as being literal, allegorical, and spiritual.
So is the Genesis story allegorical?
Like it didn't literally happen?
It's allegorical, spiritual, and literal.
So it literally happened or it did not happen?
All of those things.
Okay, so you are a fundamentalist.
No, because there's some things there which could be specifically allegorical, but also literal.
So when we use fundamentalist, we're usually meaning like the Genesis story is a good case test of fundamentalism.
Yeah, I understand what you're saying.
But you think Adam and Eve literally existed?
Yeah, I do think Adam and Eve literally existed, but do you understand that you can have something which is a literal and allegorical interpretation?
Sort, like there's a mythologized history, but the issue is that the mythologized part is kind of important, right?
So like in the case of the Battle of like Troy, we don't even know if it really happened, but battles do happen.
It probably happened, though.
It probably happened, but probably not in the way.
I don't think Achilles was like running around doing Achilles stuff.
I think there was an Achilles, likely.
Yeah, but he probably wasn't blessed by the gods with a heel.
And I think they probably got, I think Agamemnon probably did get pissed off that they what happened with the children.
Yeah, but for example, the holding of the heel didn't happen, the dipping in.
He might have got shot in the heel.
That may have been where Achilles was.
Is that what killed him?
Because the gods dipped him in like a pool of goddesses.
No, that part's probably mythology.
Oh, okay.
So what part of Genesis is mythologized?
Well, I think Genesis is literally true and allegorically true.
How is it both?
Well, because.
What part is the allegory?
Thank you.
Well, some of the parts that are allegorical are also literal, but that doesn't mean it gives us the full picture.
So remember that there's canons outside of Genesis about Genesis, which are still considered inside the Catholic and Orthodox Church to be true.
That doesn't mean that we thought Adam and Eve literally lived in a Garden of Eden and that they're the beginning of human creation and that all of human life descended down from there, right?
Yeah, we do believe that.
Okay, so do you think that Samson killed a thousand soldiers with a donkey bone?
I actually call that story mythological.
Samson, I'm sure you're familiar with the Samson story, but he's killing.
It was used to describe how strong he was, right?
He's killing a thousand people with a donkey bone.
He takes foxes and ties their tail together and releases them into a field with their tails split on fire.
Do you think he literally took two foxes, tied their tail together, and then released them into the wild?
Yeah.
Okay.
How did they run?
Do you literally believe that a donkey talked?
Probably.
I don't really care.
Okay.
Maybe not.
I could be moved either way.
Okay.
Yeah.
How did they run with their tails?
Do you believe that they could?
How did they run with their tails?
Well, if God could make donkey talk.
Okay, so we just made them run around.
If God can make a donkey talk.
Okay.
I mean, I'm not sure.
I said, I'm not sure.
If God can make a donkey talk.
Sure, yeah, but I don't think that Genesis is literal fact.
No.
Do you not think there's anything literal?
Or just some things aren't literal?
Some things aren't literal.
Which thing?
Do you think that there was an Adam and Eve?
I think anything that's, for example, written in pretty prototypical, oral, orally translated Hebrew poetry is literally true.
For example, if we look at Egypt.
Do you believe that there was a literal Adam and Eve or not?
Not in the way that the Bible describes.
No.
Okay, so what do you think happened in Genesis?
I think it's an allegory of a creation story.
I see.
So how many people do you think God created?
All of us.
From how many different people, though?
I don't know.
Thousands?
I don't know the evolutionary numbers of when that happened.
And where are you getting that information?
Both from science and the creation story, allegory.
What part of the creation story allegorically would lead you to believe that thousands of people?
Well, God created mankind, right?
Yeah.
So where did the people come from that Adam and Eve meet outside of Eden?
From Adam and Eve.
How did they come from Adam and Eve if they were outside of the garden?
Because Adam and Eve had multiple children.
That they kicked out of the garden?
Cain also, well, wait a second.
This is post-garden.
Right, so as soon as they get kicked out of the garden, they meet up with other people.
Yeah, so remember how women have...
So where do those people come from?
Well, wait a second.
That's not exactly what happened.
No.
Pull it up.
That's not actually what happened.
So what you're talking about is that you're talking about daughters, and then we incestuously turn into all the humans of the planet.
Well, no, hang on.
You got to back up.
So the first thing is when we're talking about Cain, you know, Cain founds Enoch, the city of Enoch.
True.
Okay.
And yes, there was, yes, early on, that was how it went.
It all came from two people, but the genetic line was much more pretty.
It was a thousand years.
Or at least a thousand years, I think it was around it.
Yeah, that's correct.
Okay, I don't believe in that.
Okay.
Can you show me the source in the Bible which would negate that?
Like all of the Old Testament prophets.
I'm not a biblical deconstruction.
All of the Old Testament prophets that you would defer to who heralded Jesus Christ's coming pointed to the Genesis and would literally say that that was true.
That these people lived for hundreds and hundreds of years, thousands of years.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that.
Why were those prophets who were getting prophecy from God not know that that wasn't true?
Because they didn't have the invention of modern science, for example.
Why would they need the invention of modern science for God to tell them, hey, we know how long people live, man?
About 86 years in your life.
God is specifically predisposed towards concerns about science.
Where do you get the information that the extra biblical information to negate Genesis?
From what?
I'm not negating Genesis.
I'm saying it's allegory.
When you say that, though, where are you deriving that information from biblically?
You're a Christian.
Where are you deriving the information that Genesis is incorrect?
It didn't say incorrect.
Stop.
Or that it's not literally true.
Yeah, it's an allegory, right?
But the principles that emerge out of the corner of the world.
Where are you getting the information?
It's allegorical from the Bible.
Exegetically.
You exegeted that it's allegorical?
Yeah, part of exegesis is looking into history and how these things came to be written, how the saints understood.
Show me how you give me the process for how you exegeted that Genesis is allegorical and not literal.
We know at the time that, like, when writing was first coming into the ancient Hebrew people, that the main tradition of conferring stories was through the oral tradition, often through poetry, which is why a lot of the original allegory in Genesis is actually written originally in ancient Hebrews.
Where's the exegesis come in?
The exegetical would be the research that we've done into the people groups at the time.
Where's the exegesis from the Bible here?
Exegesis doesn't just mean only literally, it doesn't just mean Bible verses.
But you are going to exegete the Bible.
Do you think that it's exegesis?
No, don't ask me what I think.
None of you are executing.
I get to ask the Bible.
I get to ask you questions.
You're going to exegete the Bible at some point here?
What do you think exegetical means?
I think that that means that you're deriving meaning from the things that you're reading.
How do you derive meaning if you don't, for example, look into the culture at the time to understand what they thought and felt that?
I think that is necessary.
Yeah, so that's part of how we do it.
But as that's a conditional, I'm granting the conditional.
I'm asking when we get to the Bible.
Yeah, so for example, in the case of Genesis, we know that most of the early fathers didn't think about history in the way that we think about history.
They engaged in mythologized history.
So it didn't matter that Jews literally weren't probably slaves ever in Egypt.
That doesn't matter because Egypt was the largest nation that people had heard of.
And when these priests are telling...
So you think that's allegory too?
The...
The slavery part, yeah, seems to be mythologized.
Moses' allegory.
There was probably a literal person named Moses who was a tribe leader, or it might have been a collection of tribe leaders.
So you think that all of the early parts of Genesis are just total allegory?
If we have evidence for being allegorical, yeah.
Which there's lots of Genesis that we have evidence for being alleged.
When does the Bible stop being allegorical?
It varies on different books.
Bible Allegory Debate00:05:40
I'm not asking you which when.
I don't have it on the top of my head.
I don't think there's this hard line.
Wait, do you think Job is allegorical?
Andrew, you did want to take a little smoke break.
Yeah, so we'll do that.
The answer is he does think Job is allegorical.
But that one's okay.
You don't think Job is allegorical?
Come back and.
Let the man smoke.
Go smoke.
Let the man smoke.
It's important that you do your sins, Andrew.
Go!
Hurry!
Smoke!
It's important.
Smoke and drink.
Come on, Andrew.
That's a sin.
Drinking's a sin.
Oh, boy.
Being drunk is, yeah.
Let the man.
Aren't you hungover from being drunk?
Let the man have some peace.
Let him have some peace.
Let the man smoke.
He's welcome to smoke.
Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, you want to see more debates.
We're going to have Kyla back.
We're going to have her.
Who do you want to debate?
Who do you want to debate?
Tell me who you want to debate.
Who do you want to debate?
You had told me about one of the politicians, a Republican politician.
He's got the eye patch.
Oh, yes, yes.
What's his name?
I don't know.
He's actually playing for me.
I know.
Nathan, do you know who?
You can look at that.
Look up Republican.
Crenshaw.
Den Cranchoff.
That'd be great.
Yeah.
What about Trent Horn?
Would you square up with him?
Yeah, but we've already got plans to talk about.
Oh, really?
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah, yeah.
Here we go.
Well, guys, we have the likes at about 5,100.
Guys, if you want to see more debates, get us to 6,000.
There's still 10,000 people watching.
Get us to 6,000 likes.
We have also, if you're enjoying the stream, yeah, like the video.
You want to see more debates.
Guys, if you want to get a TTS in, $99 an upfront.
Prove me wrong.
$100 to destroy this stupid feminist liberal.
We do have some TTS.
Did you do the ones in the chat, by the way?
What was the answer?
I wasn't paying attention.
What do you suggest?
What was the question?
How much, what percentage of the people who watch your show are probably also major Crucible fans?
Or have huge.
Wait, what?
Sorry?
Have huge dongs and are crucible fans.
Those two things are ontologically tied.
Of the current viewers, I want to say it's probably like 60%.
I think.
50-60% of the viewers.
Yeah.
Me too.
Yeah, at least.
Maybe even more, to be honest.
Speaking of which, I'm going to let the, as the chat, I don't think they're.
I'll let the.
They can be fans of both, right?
But when people are sending in clearly religious chats that are shitting on me, it's not overly surprising that they have any Andrew fans.
Sure, but I don't think that my fans are sending in dollars.
Not at all.
Wait, hold on.
Don't do Raka.
Well, she says she's Christian.
Don't do Raka.
Don't insist that I'm Raka.
Raka means like fool.
So it's questioning whether Christians face.
Yeah, I am.
You don't think that?
I would not do that.
Well, I don't care.
I'm doing it.
Do you think that Job literally happened?
No, it's definitely, it's very obviously poetry.
Very obviously.
Yeah, I don't think that Job.
Is Ecclesiastes poetry?
I'm not sure.
I haven't looked into Ecclesiastes.
Proverbs.
Proverbs is literally just poet.
What do you even mean something literally happened in Proverbs?
Proverbs isn't literal.
What's literally?
I don't know if Proverbs is literal either.
I mean, it's mostly like ideas and poems about how to conduct oneself, right?
Do you think Songs of Solomon is literally true?
Well, some of it, yeah.
But the thing is, it's funny.
There is allegory there, yeah.
Yeah, true.
The thing is, Job is trying to reconcile two positions.
Do you know what the two positions are from the wisdom books?
I don't know.
No, I'm not sure.
No.
Ecclesiastes was interesting because.
Are we going to talk about Job or?
This is Job.
I'm telling you what happened with Job.
Can we pause it super quick just to let some of the chats come in?
I'm going to write down Job.
Yeah.
Is that Job?
J-O-B-J-B.
J-O-B.
Is it Ja?
Job.
It's Job.
It's J-O-B, but it's Job.
We have.
I recognize some of these names.
Justin.
Justin Martin's donated $100.
Thank you, man.
It's always fun to watch Andrew get his opponent to disprove their own argument in real time.
If this is what you want to think is happening, that's fine.
Thank you for your message.
Definitely not biased.
Justin.
Appreciate it.
I recognize your name there, Justin.
Good to see you back.
Thanks for the message.
I wonder where he's from.
Do you think he's from the Crucible fan audience?
Maybe.
I think he's from the Destiny D D G D G D G G. Do you think that he's more like destiny than African?
Durandi donated $100.
Thank you, Joe.
Andrew Carmel sighs, are you done having a tantrum?
You are truly the arbiter of good faith debate.
Please don't come back to Canada.
We don't want you.
Durundahl's another name I recognize.
Thank you for that.
Appreciate it.
Where do you think he falls between Andrew and I?
Do you think he's more of an answer?
He's a fan of yours, to be honest.
I've actually never seen Durundahls in my channel.
I don't know if somebody saying, please don't come back, we don't want you, would be a fan of mine.
I think he's a fan of yours.
I would suspect not.
I think he's a fan.
Possibly.
He's probably a fan.
What suggests he likes me there?
The reference to Canada.
Yeah.
Okay.
He's a Canadian.
He's a fellow Canadian.
Okay.
But you're immigrating to the U.S., is that correct?
You're trying to become an assistant.
I love America.
Do you have to revoke your, no, you'd keep your Canadian.
We got Desert George, another name.
Desert Judge donated $100.
Thank you, man.
Appreciate it.
Didn't think I could lose more brain cells after last night's debate.
Tyler proved otherwise, as we are dumber for trying.
Understand her nonsense.
Constant prattle, filibustering, and goalpost moving.
When did I move the goalpost?
When did I filibuster?
What about the prattle, though?
You didn't deny the prattling, so I'm a woman.
I can't help it.
You didn't deny the prattling part.
All right.
Desert.
Is it Jorge or?
I don't know.
We got another name we recognize.
Giovanni Jadi donated $100.
Where you been, Jadi?
Mocking the Infants Tradition00:08:58
The Didique was written in the first century and is still a liturgical document that condemns abortion.
That's true.
Advocating for mothers tearing off the limbs and heads of their own children.
Sick via woman.
I guess God was really bad when he ordered the Hebrews to kill infants.
That was just allegorical, though.
You've got to do it.
You believe in it literally, too.
So how do you deal with that?
Well, the idea here is warfare.
The idea here is warfare.
So in warfare, it's okay to kill infants.
It can be justified, yes.
Okay.
Yes.
Okay.
Like if a country attacks your country and you attack them back and you're if you're bombing them, our infant's going to die.
That's not the same thing as saying it's good.
Well, it's justified is not the same as saying it's good.
But God ordered it and what God orders is good, right?
Yes.
In fact, the Amalekites, when they didn't get fully killed and genocide and the way that God ordered, the Hebrews were punished for it.
You said that everything God says is good.
So then if God says to kill those infants because these are for reasons that he wants.
So there are times where God can say killing infants is okay.
Sure.
Okay, based.
Thank you.
Did he say that with abortions?
Well, he definitely didn't make it clear with abortions in Exodus 21, 22, which we still haven't gotten to.
I'm curious, though, what is your church history that you adhere to say about abortion?
What do you mean?
The church history that you adhere to.
There isn't like a tradition that I adhere to necessarily.
Oh.
Yeah.
I'm not Eastern Orthodox or Catholic, right?
And I don't have to be.
Do you just adhere to your own tradition?
I use exegesis, Eisegesis, and divine revelation to try to figure out what's going on.
So I look at beloved scholars.
I look at biblical scholarship.
I look at Hebrew scholarship, right?
And I try to look at all these things, including what the saints say to try to figure out what's true.
Why do you care what the saints say?
Because I respect a lot of what those saints say.
Which saints?
I love Thomas.
I'm a Thomist.
You're a Thomist?
Yeah, in a lot of ways.
Not always, but in a lot of ways.
Okay.
So it's like a mix of Thomism, Protestantism, other isms.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yep.
And then you use divine revelation.
And what's interesting, actually, is on the basis of this Protestantism that you're mocking is how most of America got converted.
Well, of course you are, because you're being like, oh, there's just no tradition, but that's a Protestant thing.
I didn't say, ha, there's no tradition.
I just don't know what you're saying.
Do you think that it's bad that Protestants don't have.
Well, why did you ask me that if you weren't slightly condemning it?
Because I'm just curious about your worldview.
Okay.
Do you think it's bad that Protestants don't have tradition?
Bad?
Yeah, I think they don't have much to appeal to, no.
Okay, so you were saying that.
Gotcha.
I'm glad we were.
Wait, I'm sorry.
Me trying to understand your position is not mocking it.
It wasn't you just trying to.
I asked you.
It was me just trying to.
Of course.
No.
Which is why I just asked you a question.
This is again bad faith, where he's acting as bad faith.
He pretended to be a predilection of one thing when he's actually engaging in another thing.
Everyone can understand tone, Andrew.
Everyone understands tone.
Well, not just the tone.
Do you think that when you're like, I'm like to ask that, is that tone?
Yeah, sometimes.
Okay, so then is that you mocking me?
No.
Sometimes.
Yeah, sometimes I'm being mean.
Yeah.
But the issue is that when I'm being mean, I would probably just own it, whereas you have to lie about it.
Have you been mean this whole debate?
Not the whole debate, I probably mean a lot of it.
Sometimes, yeah.
You big meanie head.
Yeah.
Okay, but what we're talking about here when I was outlining this, like, the tradition that you were asking about is the reason why I thought you were talking down to me is I said, do you think it's bad that we don't have tradition?
He said, well, yeah.
And so it's like, okay, so you're obviously asking about the traditional root because you think it's bad to not have a traditional root.
So you want me to answer yes so that you can be like, oh, see how absurd and silly she is?
Well, no, you got to do it.
Just so it's clear to all the Protestants watching, he's saying all of you are sinners.
Yeah, so what I said, I made a differentiation.
She asked me about an appeal to, or I asked her, what tradition do you appeal to?
And she just said Thomism, and then she mixes it with this, she mixes it with that.
And I said, okay.
I said, I don't appeal to a specific tradition.
That was it.
I just said, okay.
Then she asked a separate question, which is about whether or not Protestants have any church tradition to appeal to.
And I said, yeah, generally speaking, I don't think that's great.
But that has nothing to do with me trying to understand your view or being mocking of it.
So you don't think that I'm stupid for not appealing to tradition?
Stupid?
I'm not saying it's stupid.
Really?
Yeah, I didn't say it was stupid.
What do you think it is?
Wrong?
Okay.
Just wrong.
Yeah, wrong.
I don't think that you're stupid.
Really?
Yeah, I've never thought you were stupid.
Okay.
I appreciate that.
You hear it here, guys.
Andrew Wilson actually disagrees with all of you fans writing in that I'm stupid.
He actually thinks I'm not stupid.
And I appreciate that.
Yeah.
I would use the word retarded.
Isn't that the same thing?
No.
What's the meaning for this?
Like more powerful than we think I'm more than just stupid.
Oh, okay.
So you are.
Okay, so you are doing the thing.
Gotcha.
See, bad faith for it to take this long for him to just submit that.
Crazy.
Keep going.
Agrippa the Declama donated $200.
Can you guys debate force doctrine real quick?
He fully utilized that $200.
Oh, yeah.
Do you think that's the max characters he could submit?
Probably.
Probably.
I think so.
I think so.
That was a lot.
But his question was: can you guys debate force doctrine?
Yes, we're the last micro debate because I'm getting over to In-N-Out.
Sure.
Well, what I was going to propose.
I prefer not to, unless this guy pays.
If this guy pays another $200, then I'll do it.
What I was going to propose at the end here, we could.
You guys probably both want a closing statement.
I was going to order pizza for us, and we could let some roasts come in.
Okay.
Well, if you're not sure.
So order pizza.
We can bring in the roast because all the roasts are out of it.
Do you like pizza?
Are you vegan or anything?
I'm not a vegan.
That's good.
Okay.
Pizza often just makes me sit.
I have healthy.
Yeah, I was going to get some pizza.
Okay.
I'll stick around for pizza.
Did you?
Okay, so.
I'm getting in and out, though.
So don't order me any.
What's that?
I'm getting in and out tonight.
Oh, yeah.
Get some more.
Well, why don't we do In-N-Out?
Oh, yeah, there's plenty of time.
They don't deliver.
I was going to bring it in here.
Yeah, the Uber won't go.
Wait, really?
Yeah.
Okay, this is not important.
So I'll do these two chats.
I'll read these two chats.
And then if you guys want to bite briefly on the force doctrine, five minutes.
If somebody donates another $200.
But I didn't come to talk about force doctrine today.
And I think it's not going to be in my category.
I think it's a long, long, long time.
So, Abe, thank you for your super chat.
Agrippa assumes justify equals derive, yet derivation requires hinge certainties plus norms.
Those aren't conclusions.
They're prerequisites.
So the trilemma attacks a straw epistemology.
So prerequisites or dogmatism?
Prerequisites is just dogmatism.
I don't know why he thinks that this did anything.
Okay, awaiting.
Thank you for your soup chat, Abe.
And then we have from Canada, your homeland, JP Belly, Kyla.
I rooted for you before you met Destiny.
Please let some of your ego/slash utilitarianism down and listen to Andrew.
I do no harm to nobody, so I can do it, but what about the harm I do to society as a whole?
So, JP Belly, I am married.
I appeal to my husband long before I'm going to appeal to Andrew.
Most of my theological stuff, because I'm not a preacher, I don't think anyone should look to me as a spiritual leader.
Most of the theology that I have is somewhat downstream of Nick, and I honor my husband, and we talk about this and listen to it.
So, unfortunately for you, I am married and I honor my husband.
Okay, I don't know.
I think he was looking for a date.
Sure.
We have too much.
Okay.
We have two more chats here coming in.
We have Dr. Pierce.
Dr. underscorpius underscore aft donated $100.
Appreciate that.
Tyler has a Lincoln view of federal dominance over the states, where in their writings the founders were statesman first, Virginian, etc., and then American.
Kentucky Resolutions 1878.
Thomas Jeff.
Thomas Jeff.
I'm ordering pizza for everybody.
That's okay.
Done.
Dr. Pierce, thank you very much for your TTS.
I do appreciate it.
And we have You Can Do X coming in here.
He has two coming in, actually.
I'll do those back to back.
Docs donated $100.
That's a good thing.
Great work, Drian.
I don't know either of these people debating, but the guy on the left is winning because he does not take one step back.
Sure.
I'm sure you don't know either of us.
Very believable.
That was the joke.
Change your name to not-so-air diet subscriber.
Please do.
Yeah, just to clarify that you're not a crucible crew member.
Thank you.
You have another one coming in here right now.
You've indoctrinated 100 years.
Don't know either of these people debating, but the guy on the left is winning because he does not take one steps back.
Bizarre Compromise Conceded00:05:06
Also, I don't like Canada.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you, man.
Appreciate it.
So we're going to have a pizza party.
I'll lower the TTS to 69.
If they want to send in, like, you know, kind of a final cherry on top of that, you can send in $200.
Can they watch you eat a piece of pizza slowly?
Well, you guys can eat the pizza on stream.
That's why I'm ordering the pizza.
So we're having a lot of time.
Oh, we're having the pizza party on stream.
Debate, during debate, maybe even pizza party.
I feel like Andrew and I should charge you to give the fans that pizza eating ASMR.
Only if we had pineapple on the pizza for Andrew.
So okay.
Oh, right.
You're not having pizza.
I don't know if you guys wanted to close any threads or if you wanted give your closing statements or I'll leave it up to you guys.
You want an energy drink, Andrew?
I have applesauce.
Do you want apple?
I've got applesauce.
I have more energy drinks.
You can't spill it, though.
Don't spill it.
I want to sleep tonight, so no more energy drinks.
All right.
Closing statement from both of you?
I think he goes first because I thought I started, right?
Yes, go for it.
So yeah, just incoherent nonsense.
Kyla's position is that the feds, if it was the case that they wanted states to be able to implement religion, would have come up with some kind of bizarre compromise where the entire pan-Protestant fucking who lived inside of the United States would have all agreed to adhere to.
It's bizarre.
It makes no sense.
It ignores the historic context of all forms of the compromise, which happened due to the Articles of Confederation.
She didn't know anything about the very amendments she was talking about.
She doesn't understand the government structure whatsoever.
Anytime we got into these various dilemmas when it came to what is un-American, what is not, she just appealed to vagaries.
When it came to the various ideas of what it was that we were even discussing, when it came to, oh, this whole thing's un-American.
This is what's American.
This is what isn't.
The entire appeal, even for how it wasn't Christian, didn't actually make any sense.
The idea was just you can't rule with Christian ethics because me, Kyla says that you can't because I exegeted it that way because of Agrippa's trilemma.
It's bizarre.
Not only that, yeah, that's true.
The entire thing you claim was, why are you going out of your way to interrupt my closing statement?
I wouldn't do that to you.
So anyway, the whole point here is like she did.
She said that she just exegeted it to mean that Christians can't rule their ethics.
She literally said she could not point to anything in the Bible except that even the passages she pointed out, the one she points out, she concedes immediately, yeah, you're right.
That's because he's bowing to Satan.
The next thing is she couldn't point out the contradiction of kings except to say, well, the entire reason for that is because God wasn't ready to cede that people didn't need a king yet.
And the second we came up with the new idea of democracy in America or Western nations or the nation state, now we're prepared to not have kings anymore.
And that's what God prefers.
It's the most bizarre shit that I've ever heard.
Not only that, the entire idea that we could have moral facts within the idea of Agrippa's trilemma is fucking absurd.
It literally is a reduction to that.
So I like the whole thing to me was incoherent.
But I guess the most incoherent part was, I still don't understand how it's un-American for Christian nationalists to take office using the confines of liberalism in order to impose laws that they want.
That's literally what America is.
It's designed for this.
It's just a system at this point.
And it's not even a coherent position because she concedes that all the states were able to make laws which regarded the ideas of the institutions of religion inside of the states.
She even ceded that it was mostly due to the 14th Amendment.
States did not give up this right.
Rather, the feds took it from them.
She also continuously equivocates, or not equivocates, but in this case, makes a conflation that federal power is somehow less important than state powers.
That was a bizarre part too, which I still don't understand.
The entirety of the system, even if I ceded that the founders didn't want to have a federal national religion, which I did 80,000 times, even though we kept going back to it, they didn't want to impose one on a state specifically because the states didn't want that as part of the compromise.
So I don't understand why she thinks the system wouldn't drastically be something completely different if we didn't have the checks and balances between states and the feds.
The rest of it was me just pulling out incoherent worldview after incoherent worldview, which was fun, I must admit.
But ultimately, like the clips from this are possibly going to be the most amazing the Crucible has ever produced, I must admit.
So for that, I do thank you, Kyla.
Yeah, I guess to start this, it's unfortunate that we didn't have a pickle jar so we could see if you're still strong enough to insist on the force doctrine.
Do you want to arm wrestle instead?
Do I want to arm wrestle instead?
Do you want to arm wrestle instead?
No, I didn't say that.
Arm Wrestling Frenzy00:03:31
You were saying it's interesting.
Hang on, I want to make sure.
Are you interrupting my outro?
You interrupted mine for a while for a little bit.
Did you want to arm wrestle, Kyla?
No, I think that you'll probably get away from it.
Oh, okay.
Well, then I'm going to go ahead and do that.
Although if I did, I'm wrestling.
What was the point then?
What was the point of the question?
Well, the point is that it's the force doctrine.
I just wanted to take a shot at you.
That was the point.
Do you want me to continue or do you want to keep interrupting my outro?
Go ahead.
Okay.
So I think one of the things that's really frustrating when talking to Andrew is that he's really, really smart and he's actually really capable of engaging in good debates.
In fact, my favorite debate ever is when we both agreed to be in good faith.
The issue is that Andrew knows that in the case of like philosophy, he can't win the argument by being good faith.
So he has to insist on straw man's of my position.
He has to be bad faith by pretending that he's granting my worldview when he's obviously not granting it, which is unfortunate.
It's frustrating because when we have good conversations where we engage with one another honestly, that's what like furthers truth.
And I think that that's something that honors God.
I think it's something that's interesting.
And Andrew didn't want to do that today.
I think one of the things that's really important to pull apart here is that insisting that your partner is incoherent, that they're stupid or retarded, doesn't mean you're right.
It just means you're mean.
It just means you're mean and nasty.
And you can be mean and nasty.
The issue is that your entire platform is built on this presumption that you're going around looking at non-Christians and calling them dirty, degenerate whores, while A, you barely tell most of Brian's whatever fans that they're also degenerate whores as men.
And B, you look around and you won't remove the plank from your own eye.
You have gluttony going on, right?
You're addicted to cigarettes.
You drink all the time.
You're overweight.
I'm not interested in telling other people all of their sins because I mostly have the predilection of trying to figure out my own and trying to be honest before God.
I think that, for example, it's bad for Christians to impose our worldview on others.
I think Romans, for example, if you go to Romans, right, if a person believes an action is wrong, then performing that action is a sin for that person.
This is something most priests believe.
This is actually why, for example, priests won't tell people what blaspheming the Holy Spirit is because they believe that if they can't know what it is, then they can't do the sin, right?
Knowledge of the sin is essential for doing the sin, which is why when non-Christians who reject the idea of Christ in the first place can't know certain things, so we can't hold them to these standards, right?
In Romans 14:14, we have, I know and I am persuaded in the Lord that Jesus is, that in the Lord Jesus said nothing is unclean in and of itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean.
In Romans 14, Paul goes through this long litany of outlining things that might be sin for you, but are not sins for others, or vice versa, right?
This is well established.
But Andrew wants to pretend like this is incoherent, that this isn't Christian, because it makes him win, I guess.
And that's fundamentally like what this discussion came down to: Andrew wanted to win, which is why he was being bad faith incessantly and didn't want to actually have a meaningful discussion about things that I think we both value.
In fact, he went so far as to not just call me retarded, but to insist that I am not even saved, right?
Which is, by the way, just a really just look up how God feels about people who engage who are raqa, right?
Who calls me fool.
You shouldn't do it.
In fact, he says to the Pharisees that the blood of those who they insist are unsaved is on them, that their salvation is just smirched by them.
And in fact, Jesus goes so far as to say, you're a Pharisee, and I would crush you under my foot like a snake.
I think at the end of the day, there is a risk that my biblical interpretation is wrong.
Why The Fuck Would You Say That?00:04:37
And that's okay, right?
I'm open to that.
I'm doing my best to seek truth.
What Andrew's insisting on doing is using Russian Orthodoxy, maybe the most garbage religious system ever that has been completely usurped by the KGB, by the way.
He's not even honoring Eastern Orthodoxy.
He's using it to justify his baby Christianity to instantiate his bigotry.
That's what he's doing with his faith.
And I think it's definitely.
What are you?
Well, I'm not going to say, but I'm not Russian Orthodox.
Which part of Orthodoxy are you a part of?
I'm not going to say.
The reason I can't.
If I dox that and people find church, they'll actually harass the church.
Sure.
Okay.
You don't believe me?
I believe you, but I don't think that saying which branch of Orthodox you're a part of will lead to like all this thing.
I imagine that there's more churches around you than this world.
You're in Dallas, right?
There's probably more.
Why the fuck would you say that?
Like, why?
Wait.
Why would you say that?
Sorry, was that not publicly known?
Well, you didn't know if it was.
I assume that it was decently publicly.
I've never said it.
I've never specifically said that.
No.
Gotcha.
Okay.
So I just note to self.
Don't tell Kyla anything personal.
Not a good idea.
So he's going to stand on this that I don't know if he even cares that much about to just like point to me and say, see, bad, stupid woman.
That's not good conversation.
If it is the case.
That was an actual bad thing to do.
Well, I had no idea that that was a good idea.
You know how I like just never say anything about where you live, family members' names, and don't talk about any of that stuff.
It's because I have people who literally threaten to kill me every day.
I've had an assassin come out to try to kill my wife, and I just really prefer you not do that.
That's fair.
I apologize for releasing that information genuinely.
Is there a way that it can be struck from the final VOD?
Well, it's done now.
You just saw it.
Fucking 12,000 people heard it.
That's done.
But from the final VOD, at least, can it be removed?
Why would it matter?
Why wouldn't that matter?
If 12,000 people just heard that shit, that's done.
That's done.
Okay.
I would still prefer that it's removed.
Genuinely offer my apology if that wasn't publicly out there.
Look into, I think there's editing tools.
Cool.
I really appreciate that.
I always just said Texas.
That's it.
I didn't know that, genuinely.
It seemed like you're decently open about it in the way that I'm open about being in Tampa and moving to Dallas.
I just always should have a rule of thumb just to not say stuff like that when you're ever on stream about it.
Just never.
True, and I apologize.
None of this, however, takes away from the fact that you've engaged in bad faith, that you use other people's sin as a tax while you dismiss planks.
And now he's just walking away to Pearl Clutch.
It didn't matter that you were insulting Rachel Wilson, but apparently this is a big deal.
Okay.
I'm listening.
No, you're not.
Is having a smoke?
In the middle of my outro.
The guy has, you know, he smokes cigarettes.
Would you allow Jones?
Yeah, would you allow me to just walk out in the middle of somebody's outro?
Well, I can't.
What am I going to physically force somebody?
Well, you'd probably be like, hey, don't do that.
No, I mean, we've had Andrew on for debates, and women will have walked off.
Is that good?
Of course, you won't force me, but you don't like that, right?
Yeah, I mean, of course, but I'd prefer Andrew to stay, but I also acknowledge that the guy smokes cigarettes and he wanted to have a smoke.
But yeah, women will walk off.
And in fact, when Andrew Wilson was debating Crash Out Kylie, as she's called, Rage Quit Kylie, Crash Out Kylie, she got up multiple times.
And of course, it's our preference for her to stay there.
But I'd be like, okay, she'd be a little frustrated or flustered.
And I'd be like, okay, you need a few minutes to cool off.
So yeah, I'm not going to lose my mind if a woman, hey, you're trying to make it like a sexist thing here.
I don't think it's a sexualist.
It's a gendered favoritism.
Did I say sexist?
You didn't say sexist.
I think you were.
I think Andrew's your friend.
And so you give him extra stretches because you understand that he's been good to you and you want to be loyal to him.
But you wouldn't get to me.
I agree, but you did allow him to walk out in the middle of my outro and interrupt my outro significantly more than I've interrupted his.
Well, there's some interruptions both ways, but also in terms of, look, Andrew, yeah, okay, you're doing your closing, but Andrew's pointing out, hey, don't say that.
That's super fair.
And I'm genuinely arguing for that.
We should not even draw more attention to that whole thing.
I think we can.
All it's done.
Yeah.
There's nothing you can do about it now.
Addiction and Dysfunction00:08:50
Did you have more?
I don't know.
It seems like he doesn't want to engage with me and what he's saying.
You walked away in the middle of me talking, which is totally fine if you were upset.
And like genuinely.
I'm not upset.
Of course you are.
You're upset.
I'm listening to what you're saying.
Cut the man some slack.
He has an addiction.
Oh.
Don't say that.
That would be a sin.
What?
An addiction.
Look, hey, you know, go ahead.
Finish your over.
Finish your closing.
The man needs his smokes, okay?
I get up and smoke every debate multiple times.
That's totally fine.
I didn't say that that's new.
Cut him some slack.
I've cut him slack the whole time.
The issue is that he's called me retarded, right?
He's called me multiple things.
So if you want to have a chance.
I'm calling him a bit overweight.
At the end, out of solidarity as an overweight man, I took great offense.
Sure, but it's not a sin to you because you're not a Christian.
You body shamed Andrew Wilson.
Nope, I think you owe the man an apology to if he thinks that gluttony is a sin, then he probably shouldn't do that thing.
Look, couldn't you?
Yeah, I got a few pounds, but I don't think I'm a fucking glutton.
I mean, there's a difference.
Like, I've seen fat people, and I'm not one of them.
I mean, you're, I think you're wrong.
I think you're a beast.
He's got a dad bot, okay.
That's fine.
That's fine.
The issue is.
This man has multiple children's.
If he's going to obsess about other people's sins, he should probably take the planks out of his own eye first.
But it's not sinning.
My understanding, it's not sinning to smoke.
It's not a sinfulness.
It's a sin to be addicted.
Is it sinning to smoke?
No, it's not.
Prove it.
It's not a sin to be addicted.
Yeah.
Addiction itself is it a sin?
Well, really?
Is addiction itself a sin?
Yeah.
I'd say since okay, so what if you're addicted to going to church?
Is that sinful?
How are you addicted to going to church?
Because anything can be an addiction.
Playing your guitar too much can be an addiction.
Yes, it can.
I'm sorry.
If you go to church every single day and you're like, man, I just feign for it.
I just want to go all the way.
Part of addiction is like a functional disability that happens, right?
Like doing something a lot isn't inherently an addiction.
Addiction has like specific standards.
Apparently, I didn't say.
I just said, could going to church be an addiction?
Probably not, no.
No, okay.
So, could playing the guitar become an addiction?
Again, probably not.
So, what things can't fit the category of what is an addiction?
It requires mood modification.
It has to have withdrawal symptoms associated with it.
It needs to cause significant impairment or dysfunction within your life.
Those are the things that you're doing.
Why can church fall under all those things?
How is church causing impairment in your life?
Because without it, you experience withdrawals and that impairs the way they live.
Withdrawals is not the impairment that we're talking about.
We're meaning that when you use heroin, you do drugs, you might do crimes, or you might end up with a drink.
Are you addicted to coffee?
I don't drink coffee.
If you did, would that be a sin?
Potentially, yeah.
Because it's potentially, or it is.
Yeah, I say it is because it's a substance.
So, people who drink coffee every single morning and then they have caffeine withdrawals.
Well, do they know that it's that they're addicted and that it's wrong?
They know that they're addicted to coffee.
And do they think it's wrong?
No.
Oh, then no, it's fine.
Oh.
Yeah.
Welcome to Romans 14.
Okay, so Christians.
Yeah, Christians, yeah, Romans 14.
Yep.
So as long as Christians don't believe it's wrong, it's fine.
To some extent, yeah.
Oh, okay.
Well, then I don't think smoking's wrong, so it's fine.
Or drinking or gluttony.
None of it's wrong, so it's fine.
Well, that's not the same thing.
Thinking that it's not wrong isn't the same thing as not knowing it's wrong.
Well, what if they just disagree with you?
That wouldn't matter whether it's sinful.
Okay, so then I'm asking you: if a Christian is addicted to coffee, is that wrong?
It depends on if they know that it's wrong to be addicted to coffee.
Oh, and how would they know?
Like if you told them, now they know?
I would think that they would engage in exegetical exegesis and divine revelation to figure out what their sins are.
I think that parishioners and whatnot, yes, this is typically how we go about figuring out sin.
Okay.
Do you deny prayer as a way of self-correction of sin?
No.
Oh, okay, great.
What would that have to do with anything?
Well, typically when you're trying to figure out whether or not your behavior is sin, specifically in sin, that's not clear.
The caffeine didn't exist at the Bible days, right?
So we're trying to figure out when you're doing sin.
You usually have to do it prayerfully.
This is why, for example, things that could be sin for me might not be sin for you.
Okay.
Okay, so I just want to make sure I got this right.
It's not sinful for a person to be addicted to cigarettes.
If they do not know that it is sinful.
Okay, well then I guess it's not sinful.
Of course you do.
You know that it's sinful.
Okay, demonstrate that.
I would say all the evidence of like, it seems like you're pretty theologically based.
It seems like you have a pretty good understanding of the Bible.
And I think you went through the catechisms of your faith.
And according to all of the, I know priests who smoke.
That doesn't make it not a sin.
Yeah, they don't think it's sinful.
The Orthodox Church does not think smoking is sinful.
I didn't say smoking.
I said addiction.
Even addiction in and of itself may not be necessarily sinful.
What are instances where addiction isn't a sin?
Because you can have things which you would consider fall under the category of addiction that may not be anything which is non-preferable.
Like for instance, like I would say, guitar.
You could become so infatuated or have an addiction to the guitar.
Perhaps this is part of your profession or something like this, but you actually experience withdrawals if you're not playing or something like that.
How is it causing dysfunction in your life?
Because if you're not playing or you're not pursuing that, it causes you distress.
It causes you distress.
That's not the same thing as dysfunction is usually within social, economic, or interpersonal.
That's usually what we're looking for.
So what is the dysfunction from heroin?
It typically has massive impacts on your relationship, your job, and your health.
So if you were addicted to the guitar and it was having some kind of like negative effect where your wife is like, hey, I really would prefer that you didn't play guitar so much.
I would really prefer that.
That's creating dysfunction now, right?
It depends on if you guys negotiate it and talk about it and you're just absolutely unwilling.
But you being absolutely unwilling to stop playing the guitar isn't evidence of addiction necessarily.
Might be evidence of what you're saying.
Well, I'm just asking about your wife wouldn't fit all these criteria.
You haven't established that it does.
I'm asking you why it couldn't.
You have to establish that it does.
That's on your own.
I'm asking you why it couldn't.
Because the dysfunction of causing interpersonal preference issues isn't the necessity of dysfunction.
We're looking at like a little bit of a message.
So then you could responsibly use heroin where it's not causing dysfunction in your life.
No, not really.
How would you do that?
How?
Well, I mean, if you just are living your life normally and then you also do heroin and then live it normally.
How do you live it normally when you're doing heroin?
Heroin will knock you out for like hours straight.
Okay, let's say meth.
But you just take like a little bit.
Definitely even more so.
You take like a little teeny tiny bit and that's it.
How is that not related to dysfunction in your life?
Because it's not causing any sort of distress for the people around you, at least under the criteria that you gave.
Well, you typically are going to, it's because sleep dysfunctions at minimum.
It doesn't even cause that.
Meth is active in your system for about 14 to 24 hours.
Little teeny tiny amount.
No, the duration it's active is the same.
It would just be the dosing.
That doesn't mean it would affect your sleep.
It would necessarily.
When you take a stimulant, it does affect your sleep, especially long, long-standing sleep.
Unless it's the case that you're taking this stimulant all the time, and so your sleep is always on the same pattern.
Then it's not affecting your sleep at all.
It typically is, and you require the tolerance buildup specifically for dysfunction.
Okay, so now you have the tolerance buildup.
Tolerance buildup is often part of specifically substance addictions.
Okay, yeah, so you have all of that.
Exactly.
Where's the dysfunction, though?
The withdrawals.
You're not having any withdrawals because you keep taking it.
Well, if you stop taking it, you would have withdrawals.
And if you stop playing the guitar, you have withdrawals.
Okay, so then when it comes to dysfunction, if the guitar, stopping the guitar, is affecting your sleep because you just want to play the guitar?
We would probably put that in the bracket of OCD before we would put it in the bracket of addiction.
Why?
Because it's not using the same neurocognitive underpinnings.
The neurocorrelates are usually going to be different.
So you're saying you can't be addicted to behaviors?
You can be addicted to behaviors, but just not the guitar.
I don't think there's any evidence of guitar addiction.
Really?
I don't think so.
Pull it up.
Can you become addicted to guitar?
Is there guitar addiction?
Yes, guitar addiction can absolutely be a real thing, though it's not a formal medical diagnosis like substance addiction.
What people usually mean by guitar addiction is a behavioral addiction, similar in pattern, though usually not severity to things like gaming or social media addiction.
But you can become addicted.
But not in any medical way that we mean.
Gotcha.
Do you qualify that it needed to be a medical diagnosis?
Wait, what are we talking about with addiction if we're not talking about some level of medical diagnosis?
Why does that need to be medically diagnosed?
Well, when we say it doesn't.
Hold on, I have no medical diagnosis for addiction.
Not I didn't say that it has to be medically diagnosed, but the medical standards of diagnostics is what we're referring to when we're talking about functionality, withdrawal tolerance.
These are like medical diagnosis.
Apparently, this also can obviously be addicted, even if they haven't seen a doctor that says.
Can you be addicted to the guitar?
Cream Rises to the Top00:04:00
I think very rarely, and most of the time, anyone.
So yes?
Sure, I would add.
Okay, thank you.
But the issue is, find me a single example of somebody who's actually addicted to the guitar.
You can't pull teeth to get the answers out of you.
What do you mean?
That's been your side as well.
No, it's the opposite.
Really?
So the Agrippa's Trilemma thing wasn't pulling teeth, getting you to admit that you were being judgmental about my lack of traditionalism wasn't pulling teeth.
No, I don't think it was.
You're just the perpetual victim.
Only you are suffering.
No one suffers like Andrew suffers.
That's true.
At least not on this show.
Nobody suffers like I do on this show.
That's true.
Well, you make a lot of money from it, so it's pretty good for you.
Well, not on this show.
But this show dominantly led to a large portion of your success.
So sort of.
I would have still had, I think, the same amount of success.
Really?
Without Brian?
Yes.
Crazy.
You know who told me that?
Brian.
I'm sure he did because he was your friend.
That's a nice thing to say.
Well, you know, I like to think I, you know, had a bit of a guiding hand.
I don't disagree.
That was my position.
You're extremely large platforms.
Andrew is you're so talented.
The cream rises to the top.
The cream rises at the top.
Very talented guy, Andrew.
And yeah.
Can you give him a platform for many months, which helped the platform?
You know what?
I'm not saying it's only Brian.
I'm just kidding.
I'm not saying it's only Brian.
Of course, you're talented, right?
Of course, of course, he's important for your rise up.
I thought so.
Okay, then I don't know why you were fighting me.
Because I told you what Brian said, which didn't seem to disagree with me.
No, Andrew has the sauce.
What he said to me.
Andrew has the sauce.
You think he would have made it completely without you.
I had no contribution to his career.
Well, you know, I like to think that I played a helping hand.
You too.
I agree.
You got an opportunity through Brian, and you're talented.
So you maximize the opportunity.
That's great.
Okay.
I could just take, maybe I should just take more credit.
You know, I don't know.
I think you could.
More credit, you know.
Who in the, just curious, like for the Crucible, like, did you, you know, some of you discover Andrew from whatever, you know?
Anyways, we have some super chats.
Why don't we read the super chats?
A portion.
Of course.
You know, maybe a good amount.
Good amount.
And, you know, but I do want to say, though, you know, look, Andrew's trajectory has been stellar.
I agree.
He, within two years of his, essentially two years, basically two years of his first appearance on the whatever podcast, the man was, he went on Joe Rogan.
He's been on a bunch of other Steven Crowder.
Absolutely.
Patrick Bett David.
He's got his own huge audience.
Of course.
And the thing you don't know about Andrew is he likes to do skits.
His skits are very good.
I actually, so I actually do know this because I've known Andrew for three years.
Oh, yeah?
Yeah.
I knew him in the big papa fascist days.
Oh, boy.
So I remember the, he wrote me a song.
He wrote me a song.
It was a really big.
Actually, for those who don't know, Andrew is a good guitar player and a pretty decent singer.
Did you know that?
He is.
Sometimes after the shows, he serenades me.
Is that when you land?
Is that when you land?
Is it a photonic kind of way?
Metallica is his goal.
What's your go-to when you do something?
I listen to oldies a lot now.
Yeah.
Anyways, guys, get us to 7,000 likes.
Like the video.
We have some super chats we're going to let through.
I hold on one second.
He's an obese man.
The pizza is.
Which is fine.
I just.
The pizza's almost here by the way.
Okay, we have JP Belly.
Thank you for the Canadian 100.
How much is that?
What's the conversion?
I think it's like $2.
I'm sorry.
So $2?
This guy is scamming.
He is.
He's getting a lot of people.
JP, you got to step it up.
To Andrew, give this to her.
Utilitarianism is if I do no harm, I can do it.
But what if is, what if is, wow, the Canadian education system is.
We Had the Resource Advantage00:15:36
What if is hurting society as a whole?
Utilitarianism fails.
Thank you for the super chat.
Appreciate it, Professor.
I was just going to say she's not a utilitarian.
Thank you for that, Mr. Canada.
Abe, not dogma, preconditions, even skepticism, presupposes logic, language, and meaning.
Without those, you couldn't argue skepticism at all.
You can argue all sorts of things and recognize that axioms at a foundational level are often unjustifiable, are unjustifiable.
Always unjustifiable.
Unless you can solve Agrippa's Trilemma.
Oh, from our view.
In bad faith again.
How's that bad faith?
Because you don't believe that.
I just corrected the guy.
I was like, it's always unjustifiable.
I'm not doing this song in dance, by the way, anymore.
Okay.
By the way, we're 200 likes away from 6,000.
If you guys can help us break the threshold.
Okay, we have a bunch of chats coming in here.
One moment here while I get these pulled up, if it will finally load.
We have King Ryan with a message.
Thank you, King.
King Ryan donated $69.
We do what works.
Until a Christian majority does what they think works, then suddenly the method is bad.
Basically.
Works isn't moral, right?
Works is pragmatic.
And if you'll notice, almost all Christian, almost all theocracies got crushed under Western liberal democracies because they're better systems.
They work better.
Theocracies lasted longer than any Western democracy.
It doesn't matter.
They've still fallen, haven't they?
All you're saying, that's the most fallacious argument you've made.
No, it's not.
Yes, the idea that because this thing failed after existing for a thousand years and thing hasn't failed, which has existed for a couple of hundred years, thing which has existed for a couple of hundred years is better than thing, which existed for a thousand years.
It's better in a lot of ways.
It's better in, for example, life expectancy.
I believe under most theocracies, the average age was, I think, like 35, whereas now we've jumped all the way up to like 85 to 90.
Because it was fucking 900 years ago.
You're right.
Technology changes, which makes certain systems obsolete and better systems that work alongside that technology come around.
And in fact, I'm sure you would agree with me.
Our society now is flourishing, not necessarily morally, but it's flourishing more than any theocracy that exists now or in the past.
I think that if the United States was a theocracy, it would flourish just as much.
The idea, yeah, absolutely.
We would still be locked away from any of the enemies that could ever possibly harm us.
We would have an ocean between us and them, like we do right this second.
An ocean, which like ICBMs can be used to be a lot of money, an ocean.
You know, planes.
We have the largest, most resource-rich fucking area on planet Earth.
How are you in the future?
And how do we utilize it?
Well, I don't know if I think Russia has a larger environment.
We utilize it for oil.
We utilize it for all sorts of reasons.
Isn't Russia larger and more resource-rich?
Well, I think it's larger by land mass, but that's because you add Siberia to it.
Sure, but isn't it more resource-rich as well?
No.
I don't think it's more resource-rich, no.
Okay.
Than the United States.
The United States was completely untapped of resources, in fact.
So what the American project is, it's not flourishing and successful and amazing because of Western liberal democracy.
It's just like an inevitability of the resources.
It was flourishing under the 13 colonies in a monarchy, too.
Actually, it wasn't flourishing in the way that it did.
It was flourishing.
When did it become the superpower?
Based on the technology that was available at the time, the 13 colonies, especially as an emergent, young, only just, yeah, they fucking were flourishing.
Fuck yes, they were.
Yes.
They were flourishing.
Are we flourishing now?
Under a monarchy.
And by the way, England was the most powerful military of the time, and it was under a monarch, and it was flourishing.
And it, yes, it still has a monarch, and it's still flourishing.
I mean, nobody would look at England and actually say that it's a monarchy.
It's obviously not a monarchy anymore.
It's obviously a democracy.
No.
In England, the monarchs actually leased the land to the state.
That's true.
They actually do have more authority.
They're not just figureheads.
Does a democracy exist in the UK?
Of course.
But that was part of the way that they did the land structure.
But the point is, is that for the time, the technology of the time, the monarchies were the most powerful technologically.
And monarchy did not in any way, shape, or form stymie technology.
In fact, it assisted with it due to all the mass warfare which was going on between nations.
Sure, and then Western liberal nations and democracies came along within America, and it was even better at innovation and science at technology because it just allowed it to change.
It's not any better at innovation.
You don't think that America is leading in science?
Right.
Right this second?
Yes.
But it's the hegemon.
It's the hegemon of planet Earth.
And when England was the hegemon of planet Earth, when England was the hegemon of planet Earth, it was still the hegemon, also thanks to science, and it was a fucking monarchy.
Sure, but do you think that the monarchy supported science more or less than the founding fathers?
They loved it.
It was critical to military technology.
Yeah, and that America still somehow did it better.
Did what better?
American technology.
Yeah, military technology.
When we got to mass industrialization, and we have a massive landmass of untapped resources.
Yep.
But if America was a monarchy, I have no reason to believe that it wouldn't be every bit as successful as it is right now.
So then why aren't all of these successful theocracies and monarchies out there just dominating compared to the Western liberal democracies?
Well, it depends.
Some of them are doing quite well.
For instance, the United Arab Emirates is doing quite well.
They're on par in any way with America or any of them.
Of course not.
But they're different nations.
You're talking about different nations.
That's true.
What I'm asking you specifically here isn't whether or not we transitioned to Western democracies inside of the West due to philosophy and what was going on at the time.
We did.
That does not answer the question as to whether or not if we had remained monarchies, if we would be as successful or not as successful.
Yeah, so find me a monarchy that's just so successful.
That would not have any bearing on that argument.
Whether or not a monarchy exists right this second that's more successful than the United States or a Western nation would have no bearing at all on whether or not if Western nations remained monarchies, they would be just as successful.
It does not answer that question.
It does because most of the Western liberal democracies.
I don't want any.
Andrew, I got pizza for you.
I'm getting in and out, I told you.
Get both.
Why not both?
Because I'm obese and I'm trying to lose some weight.
You're very trim.
You're very fit.
Don't let it be.
I'm getting in and out, Brian.
Yeah, anyway.
That does not answer the question.
That's a liberal red herring.
It doesn't actually answer the question as to whether or not monarchies would be just as successful as Western democracies.
What evidence could we support?
Well, what we would want to do is we'd want to make comparisons as to scientific and technological advancements based on the technology of the time.
And it's the case that in the time of monarchs, there was massive advancements in technology due to the fact that there was lots and lots of warfare.
In fact, I would argue that most of the United States technologies were not pre-20th century.
These happened post-20th century, most of these technologies, and that was due to mass warfare.
This includes nuclear energy, nuclear bombs, things like this.
Those were all things which were products of war.
Thank you.
All of them were products of war.
Products of war, products of science and technology.
Because of the push of sufficient evidence.
So is there any evidence that could be supplied to make you go, actually, maybe Western liberal democracies are more effective with science and utilize them better, which is why they're the preferred form of governance now.
That's not why they have a profit.
I didn't say that's why I said is there any evidence that I could supply that would convince you.
Yes, you could look at scientific advancement under warfare conditions of countries that and based on their technology of the time in comparison to other nations.
So do you think America jumped forward in military innovations during World War I or II more or less than the innovations in, say example, the Hundred Years War that Britain and France?
I think that the Germans, who were under a fucking fascistic leader and it wasn't a democracy at all, had way more technological innovations via warfare than we did.
Really?
Really?
Okay, that's crazy, but sure.
Why?
Why is that crazy?
We saw the Manhattan Proctor.
We solved nukes and nuclear atomic bomb.
Yeah, they were working on heavy water.
They were Boeing, the P-51 Mustang fighter jet, right?
Like almost all of our technologies.
Yeah, the MP-44, the Tiger Tank.
The list of engineering fucking marvels from Germany was endless.
Why do you think we got their scientists?
Why do you think we brought all their scientists here?
Because they were fucking better than our scientists.
We were especially at Rocket Land.
Why did their scientists come here?
Did they come here because maybe Western liberal democracies give more capacity to get them to work?
They came here because we told them if they don't, we would kill them.
And we called it Operation Paperclip.
Nope, a lot of them left long before that.
The ones who came here on Operation Paperclip, it was that or you faced the wall like all the Germans did after the war.
If you were part of the German hierarchy, what the fuck happened to you in the Nuremberg trials?
Happened.
A lot of them were trying to process.
You got fucking hung.
You got hung.
For what?
What do you think?
By the way.
Yeah, what do you think would have happened?
What do you think would have happened to the people who were making the fucking weapons?
They would have fucking the same shit would have happened to them.
Do you think most of the wait, so you think that we that most of the German scientists came over here after World War II was ended, but also that the American engineering was exploding in World War II because we took all of their scientists?
I didn't say during World War II.
No, the opposite.
Well, World War II is awesome.
Major advancements in technology.
Germans during World War II, the only thing you could give to the United States, which wasn't even just the United States, it was a co-opt, including with German scientists for the Manhattan Project.
That's one.
And two.
Yeah, they came here.
Yes.
The fucking Western liberal democracies are a little bit better for the United States.
Because they didn't want to die.
The Germans came here because there were tons of innovations.
Yes, especially Einstein, probably.
But the thing is, it's like, yes, the Germans had parents.
And these regimes are really bad for science development because they weren't.
How is it bad for what?
What about Nazi Germany was bad for scientific development?
Chasing away every one of their Jewish scientists was pretty bad for their scientific development.
Okay, having massive amount, like they developed interstate highway systems.
They were the very first time.
I didn't say that.
They didn't do that.
They developed the very first automobile, which was available to the common man.
Like, these people...
Wait, no.
Yes.
Mercedes-Benz was developed in, like, no.
The first vehicle that existed was the Mercedes-Benz.
You didn't say the first vehicle.
You said the first automobile.
The first inexpensive automobile which was available to the common man was the Volkswagen, yes.
That's what it was made for.
I believe Henry Ford is the one that revolutionized automobiles to be affordable.
They weren't very affordable.
Not in comparison to the Volkswagen.
And the Volkswagen was designed specifically for this.
Wait, do you think the assembly line was more contributory to the automobile being cheaper or Volkswagen?
What do you mean?
Well, I don't even know what you think Volkswagen did uniquely that reduced the cost.
Henry Ford is the one that proliferated vehicles because he just developed the assembly line.
Well, what happened with Volkswagen?
And Mercedes-Benz were developed in Germany, but the Volkswagen itself, first of all, Germans had autoengineering before World War II.
I didn't say that they did anything.
Granted that Mercedes-Benz was innovations on assembly lines that the United States didn't have.
And the thing that's interesting about Germans, right, is, again, their technology, especially in the battlefield, was leaps ahead of ours.
Leaps ahead.
With rocketry, it was leaps ahead, even including with their fighter aircraft, with their tanks, with everything.
It was only near the end of the war that we ended up with any jet plane at all.
But the Germans were kicking the fucking shit out of it.
The only reason we had such a hard time with them is because they were fighting with fucking all of Europe.
Otherwise, we would have been dealing with three and a half million of them, and it would have been a fucking nightmare.
Would have been a nice thing.
So you think Germany is just better at science and innovation.
It's not really a uniquely American thing.
You think that Western liberal democracies have nothing to do?
I don't think it's unique to liberal democracy.
No.
No fucking chance.
I said Western liberal democracies are the best at it.
No, they're not.
They weren't the best at it then.
It seems like we developed the atomic, you know, the Manhattan Project, New South Wales.
With the help of German scientists?
Well, Jewish German scientists.
Yeah, German scientists?
Well, did Germany and the lack of Western liberal democracy maybe facilitate why those scientists were here?
Nobody's disputing that.
Okay, thanks.
That has no bearing on whether or not Germany.
Germany under their fascist rule.
How does the fascistic rule that was aiming to kill Jews not significantly contribute to the scientific development in which Jews had to flee Germany for fear of genocide?
How is that, how is the statecraft which made the genocide happen not contributing to the scientific development?
So you're saying that under fascism, that even though one group of people who had scientists in it had to flee.
Not under fascism.
Germany was still doing so well that they had more technological innovations than the United States during the war.
I don't believe that they had more.
They definitely did.
I just don't think that that's true.
I think that the United States developed the Sherman, right?
Part of why the Sherman was nothing.
The Tiger destroyed it like it was nothing.
They had to do, in fact, they had to produce them five to one.
That was what our literal war model was.
We cannot beat this thing unless it's five to one.
Okay.
Here, pull up.
How did a Sherman match up against a tiger?
Sure.
It's not even in the same fucking, the only reason, in fact, it was only because they could not mass produce them.
You're right.
And what system did we utilize to figure out a cheaper, more cost-effective way to make tanks?
No, that had nothing to do with anything.
That is a large part of it.
So German engineering is like state of the art.
It has nothing to do with that.
There is nothing that competes with German engineering.
One of the problems with German engineering.
Are you going to let me speak?
One of the problems with German engineering is that it's so complicated that typically the training required to fix the tigers.
Are you going to let me talk?
Yeah, but even the non-tigers were.
You can stop interrupting me.
It's so fast.
The answers were better.
All of them were better.
Sure, but the issue is that they were harder to build.
They were harder to maintain, and they required a higher level of expertise, which is why, despite the fact that maybe only it was one to five, we could build five.
And they could only build one with the time and expertise.
Yeah, we did.
That's actually part of science.
It's making things easier to do, like Henry Ford did.
That's part of the world.
We had the resource of not having our nation being fucking attacked.
True.
That is part of it.
So you don't think America ingenuity at all had anything to do with it?
Well, no, of course.
That had something to do with the innovations that we had, of course.
Warfare.
I don't understand why you dislike America so much.
Okay.
I dislike America because I'm not a revisionist about history.
I'm not revising history at all, right?
So was it the case that the tiger was like one of the most effective tanks?
The Panzer for an individual.
And the Panzer.
Sure.
Yes, because German engineering is a state-of-the-art of the art.
The issue is that part of engineering and part of science isn't just making things at the state of the art, it's also making them cost-effective and easy to utilize, right?
So if you can have one, five tanks that you can build more quickly, you can man more quickly because less expertise is required.
So you can use those five tanks to take out the one.
The five tanks is better in this situation.
The problem you have with this logic is that if Germany was only going head-to-head with the United States, that would not have been an issue.
I'm not sure if that's true.
That is true.
Not only can you not say that that's true, there's no way that we can get it.
We can say that.
Actually, we can.
We can do a military matchup between what would happen if every single Panzer and Tiger was only fighting with the cross-continental United States only.
No Britain, no Russian front, none of that, and we can match it up.
And yes, the fucking German tanks would have blown our shit out of the fucking water.
Five Tanks vs. One00:09:03
But the issue is that we could build five times more.
So could they if they weren't fighting the whole world?
No, the reason why they can't build five times more is because part of science is making things more efficient and easier to utilize, right?
One of the most important things that we're doing.
In that case, that wasn't the problem, though.
The problem was they were getting fucking destroyed because they were fighting the world.
That's a really big part of it, right?
Part of science and engineering, part of the importance of science and engineering is making things more easily acceptable, right?
So in the case of internet, it used to be the case that we needed huge buildings to house everything, and now we have it in our phones.
That's science and technology.
Science and technology doesn't just mean big and strong and fast.
It means efficient.
It means all of these things.
And while German engineering was state-of-the-art, the machines themselves operated fantastically.
There was a high level of expertise required to operate them, and it was significantly more complicated to build.
Whereas most American tanks are easy to build.
This is why the Abrams is now the dominant tank that people use, because it's both fantastic at basically fucking everything.
But on top of that.
It does have a Rolls-Royce contract.
That's why.
OK.
Yeah.
So the thing is, this doesn't do.
This doesn't do anything for your position.
Of course it does.
Is it not the American set of position?
The position is whether or not I can name a nation that wasn't a Western democracy, Germany, World War II, that had as many technological innovations as the United States.
The answer is definitely yes.
I would say that you have not proven Their tank was better is not the same thing as saying that they had no sense.
It's my turn.
I just let you prattle forever.
So here's the thing that's funny: you can't actually equalize for these things.
If we took the entire Soviet front out, we took the entire European front out from the Germans, and we were able to just match up tank for tank, man for man.
Yes, they were a much more technologically advanced army, and that would have been a much more likely unwinnable war at that point.
It would have been very difficult, right?
By no means am I interested in dismissing Germany.
But what I am saying is that it seems to be the case that under— It seems to be the case that Western democracy, under democracy, does not just make the most innovative shit and that fascists do to.
So I just let you prattle on for a while.
It's my turn to talk now.
Okay, right?
So in this case, you're saying, well, one for one, their tanks were better.
Sure.
The issue is that that's not necessarily innovation and engineering.
Part of engineering and science and technology is making things more efficient.
Oh, I see.
Due to that.
Is France a Western democracy?
Yes.
Then why the fuck did the Germans just roll over them like they were bitches?
A whole bunch of things.
No, no, no.
The part of science, Kyla, is making sure that your army is super sophisticated and that you can make assembly line products so that you can attack these people.
That's what we can do.
Why were the Germans able to literally walk in and make France surrender to us?
I think that there was a significant amount of surprise.
They invented a new technology called Blitzkrieg.
Oh.
Yeah.
How could they be surpassing these Western democracies?
How?
Multiple ways.
I thought you couldn't surpass a Western democracy in science and technology.
Why did I say that?
You said Western democracies are by far the best at science and innovation and this and that.
That doesn't mean that.
How come all those Western democracies were getting blown to bits by the fascist?
Because there are going to be Western democracies that are worse than fascism.
That doesn't change.
Wait, that doesn't change the broadly Western democracies are better at allowing science and technology to flourish because of the power.
I guess France should have done that better.
I guess France and England should have done that better.
I'm not sure how to engage if you're only going to strawman me in the US.
That's my argument.
That's my argument to you is it makes no, it can't strawman you with my argument.
Let me guess, it's incoherent.
I didn't say incoherent.
I said I'm making an argument.
What are you even talking about?
My argument is simple.
If you have a Western democracy, you're saying Western democracies are the only ones that can make the only ones.
They're the ones that make the most innovative ones to do.
They make the most innovative technology that's based on the fact that they have various assembly lines when you have those assembly lines.
Part of science is making sure that you can assemble these things as quickly as possible.
Grot it.
The Nazis were fascist, and they took these Western democracies and took a giant shit on them.
And they didn't give a fuck about them.
They made them surrender in carriages within two fucking weeks.
Are you done?
They occupied their entire nation.
No, Western democracies do not, because they're Western democracies inherently, have better scientific methodology than other forms of government.
No, it allows for more scientific and innovation and development because it doesn't do things like genocide a large portion of the population and chase them out because of their authoritarian purpose.
Yeah, but some of the things that it does is like it brings in a huge amount of people who are low skilled, oftentimes pricing people out who may have been able to go to like these higher-end colleges, not based on DEI, things like this.
Yeah, Western democracy also, Western democracy can also provide barriers in which people don't have the access to the scientific pursuits because they're not going to them based on merit.
They're going to them based on skin color.
So that's a big problem, one.
And the second problem that you have with this is Western democracy itself, because you're democracy, does not mean that you in some way are more innovative, have better technology, that you're going to make better technology.
It technologically does.
I see it seems to emerge consistently over time.
That's not what you said.
You said name name any nation that's not a Western democracy doing, that was doing better than Western democracy.
Well, Germany under fascists did a lot better, and they had way better technology than most of these Western democracies.
Not America.
No, even America they did.
I don't think the difference is that they were fighting in a European theater.
We could endlessly send troops because our shores couldn't get attacked.
They were bogged down with other people.
If that was not the case and it was head-to-head with Germany, then America would have been dumpstered.
I'm not sure that, no, they wouldn't have been invaded.
Say they could evade them.
I think that Germany may have been able to hold out.
I'm not sure.
That's a hard one to call.
Okay.
It is.
It's a hard one to call.
The problem is that we have such vast manpower here.
That has nothing to do with being a Western democracy.
That has to do with land mass.
Well, in this specific military tactic, yes.
The issue is that it's tough.
You don't want to actually engage in my life.
I am engaging.
You're not.
You're strawmanning my argument and then attacking it and being like, see, this is an example.
France got beaten.
Therefore, erudite dumb actually in Western liberal democracies don't create the controls.
Well, that was your position, it was, whether you believe it or not.
It's that Western liberal democracies seem to have, over time, created the conditions in which science does the best, right?
This is why in Western liberal democracies.
Except in places that they didn't.
Except in places where other things that were not Western democracies did better.
Until they didn't, right?
Until they got crushed.
For example, one of the benefits of Western liberal democracies is allyship.
It's a lot easier to be allies with people that recognize each other's sovereignty and they can do allies.
Being a Western democracy didn't stop France from getting crushed.
That's not.
Why do you think that's getting crushed?
How do you think that that's a counter to anything I just said?
Because you just got done saying, well, until they got crushed, as though getting crushed means somehow they were not innovative technologically.
Yeah, I would say that like the innovations of respecting sovereignship, of the nuclear bomb, right?
Of the P-51 Mustang that had massive air superiority, right?
Of having efficient, easy-to-make tanks that are still high quality and good, like the Sherwin and then later the Sherman and then later.
Saying that the United States didn't make some good equipment, they did, and that they didn't have innovations during World War II.
They definitely did.
Innovations that they could do was because it was safe for people to move there, safe for people to develop, and that development wasn't just limited to what the government was organizing.
And what Germany had was mass national patriotism and people moving in lockstep towards the war effort.
They had massive technological gains.
Fascism straight at military crushed tons of Western democracies under their boot.
If the United States hadn't gotten involved, England would have fallen.
In fact, they could have defeated England in a single battle and Hitler let them go.
So it's like, look, unfortunately for you, history does not show that Western democracies are the most cutting edge and most innovative.
That is not actually the case, especially in the 20th century.
They create the conditions in which science can flourish the most, which is why, for example, while you're right, a fascist government that's oriented, let me talk, towards war is going to have lots of military advancements.
But things that they didn't have during that time would be advancements in other areas other than the eugenics and crazy shit that they did on hypothermia.
Whereas in the cases of America, not only were they innovating in military, they were still innovating in other areas.
Don't you think science progresses better when you eliminate ethics?
Sure, but I don't think that we should do that with that.
But they did.
And so how could you say that that was somehow curtailing science?
They literally eliminated ethics in science.
So how did that not assist them with scientific pursuits as one of your fucking like key barriers here?
Because a lot.
So one of the things that happened is that because of the reduction of ethics, there was constant confounding factors of torture and stuff like that that created issues.
Not average German.
In fact, the average German support.
You're right, not for the average German.
Yeah, the average German actually supported, for instance, when Hitler went in and he literally did this is the most monstrous thing ever, but he killed basically everybody who's mentally handicapped in the nation.
Lack of Ethical System00:06:26
He actually did that.
And they did do all sorts.
If you're in a nation like this, you eliminate scientific ethics.
That's going to lead to more advanced scientific methodologies.
It's going to because ethics are gone.
That's one of the big confounding confines, right?
Is scientific ethics?
So you're just saying like Western democracy lead to the best conditions for science.
It's like, no, I would say that actually the best conditions for science would be if you eliminate the future.
But one of the issues with authoritarian states consistently over time is that they also impose arbitrary, often, rules on things like science because authoritarian regimes aren't for free speech.
So there are always necessarily going to be things that they oppose to.
They impose arbitrary shit all the time, especially on the shit.
Not on things like free speech and open science.
That's not free speech itself is arbitrary.
What does that even mean?
It means that there's no particular system that we're appealing to for free speech.
Okay.
That's what arbitrary is, without system.
No, arbitrary means like meaningless and random, usually.
Pull up the meaning of arbitrary, the definition, please.
Sure.
The definition of arbitrary based on random choice or personal whim rather than any reason or system.
Thank you.
You're like, the end of it is mine.
Wait, but the beginning of that was to my point.
It wasn't to the point.
Arbitrary.
Arbitrary and random.
Well, arbitrary doesn't mean random.
True.
Yeah, so no.
Arbitrary and random.
Arbitrary is literally pointing to a lack of a system.
Because it's random.
No, it doesn't have to be random to have a lack of system.
In fact, you can have randomness and you can even implement a system for randomness, I think.
So here's one of the things.
When we read this definition, the beginning half supports my definition, and the second half supports yours.
Which part does yours?
Read it again.
Read it again.
Arbitrary based on random choice or personal whim rather than any reason.
Random choice.
That was nothing you said.
Yep, I said random.
No, it's not about random, though.
Random choice.
It's about a lack of system.
That's what arbitrary, especially when you're talking about morality.
So if this was good faith, and to be fair, I should grant you this.
What we could go is, oh, actually, when we synthesize our ideas together, that makes for the best definition of arbitrary.
Okay, you can stop talking.
Do you want a slice of pizza, Andrew?
No.
Okay.
Well, shall we let some chats come through?
We've got quite a few chats.
I'm going to go have a smoke real quick.
Of course, of course.
Go for it.
Do you want to enjoy your pizza there while we let some chats come through?
How much are you going to pay me to eat this pizza on camera?
I have to set a TTS for that.
I have to pay you.
They should at least pay you.
They should pay me.
Are you saying it's like a weird, like a fetish kind of thing?
Why do you want me to eat on stream?
You don't have to.
I'm trying to feed you.
Okay.
Scrolls like making me out to be a monster.
I'm trying to stop.
I don't think you're a monster.
I'm trying to feed you.
I think you understand.
You're a businessman.
You're an excellent businessman.
You think I'm, oh my, it's pizza.
That's why I'm saying make it worth some money.
Be like, hey, you have to pay 70 bucks.
You don't want to do that?
I think you're overthinking it.
You, human, need food.
Food in front.
Eat food.
Gotcha.
I don't usually eat on the camera.
Oh, okay.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, I mean, okay, let me let some chats.
That's why I said you should make your pizza party.
Okay, guys, if you're enjoying the stream, like the video.
Get us to 7,000 likes.
I think we're sitting at like about 6,200.
There's still 10,000 people watching.
Andrew's having a quick smoke.
He's going to be right back.
Get us to 7,000 likes.
We're at 6,200.
If you're enjoying the stream, like the video.
Like the video if you want to see more debates, guys.
If you're enjoying the debate kind of content, it seems like you guys really are enjoying it.
So we'll do some more debates.
So like the video so we know to do more.
$69 TTS.
I know there's a backlog.
I'm sure you guys are those of you who've sent one in.
Yeah, if you've sent one in, we're going to get to them.
Let me just read these super chats here first.
El Guapo, thank you for the $100 super chat.
The woman is dishonoring her husband by dressing like a bathhouse worker from Kingdom Come, delivering.
Let alone her heresies where she's inverting scripture.
Quick response.
My husband bought me this dress, and he told me that I should have.
Nathan, could you grab waters for me?
One water?
I guess you'll have to take it up with my husband.
Never mind, Nathan.
I'm good.
Never mind.
Okay, thank you, El Guapo.
I like your avatar there.
That looks cool.
Abe Biscotti, thank you for your super chat.
If unjustifiable means cannot be derived, sure, but that is the point.
Derivation presupposes hinge norms.
Calling hinges unjustified is a category error.
They are conditions for justification, not items awaiting it.
This is just like a philosophy psycho babble, basically.
He can try to attempt to tell me how presupposition doesn't fail at dogmatism, how it's not dogmatism.
Presupposing is assuming, which is dogmatism.
Abe, thank you very much for your super chat there.
We have a Nixian X. Anyxian?
That's like World of Warcraft player.
USA has 45 trillion in natural resources.
Russia has 75 trillion.
So I was right on that one.
He said that America has more resources.
And I said, probably Russia has like more total resources.
It was about natural resources?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay, gotcha.
Thank you, Nixian.
El Guapo, again, with a very cool avatar there.
It was a quote from Rommel, I believe.
A German tiger tank was as good as four Sherman tanks, but they always had five.
True, because they were easier to build.
Edmann.
A member.
There it is.
Good job.
Guys, I'm going to get into the TTSs now.
$69 TTS.
That's streamlabs.com/slash whatever.
Reminder, guys, like the video really quick.
Nathan, can you pull up Twitch?
Let me do a quick Twitch announcement.
When he gets back, can I go to?
Do you want us to both leave right now?
Or I've suspended you on one of the other things.
But if you want to.
Yeah.
Guys, go to twitch.tv, Nathan, pull it up, please.
Twitch.tv/slash whatever.
Drop us a follow in the Prime sub if you have one.
I'm a broke, starving college student, artist.
So if you want to show some support, twitch.tv/slash whatever.
Drop us a follow, drop us a prime sub.
Like the video.
$69 TTS.
Andrew is returning from a smoke break.
We're going to let the TTS roll through.
Kyla is going to also take a bit of.
Oh, no.
Feedback Loop00:10:10
Andrew is not quite yet returning.
But I'm going to let some TTS come through here.
We have this from Jay Giovanni.
Giovanni Jade, you donated $69.
Sorry to delay.
Erudite, your only resolve in the Jay Dyer debate were my super chats.
So much so, you only clipped all of my super chats on your TikTok and nothing else.
No mercy for baby murder apologists.
W Andrew.
I'm very sorry, Giovanni JD, that you personally were bothered by my TikTok, I suppose.
The reason why I didn't clip up the Jay Dyer thing more was, frankly, I just didn't have the logistic back ends.
I now have a much faster turnaround of clips.
Well, you can still clip it if you.
That's true.
It always feels weird posting like year and a half old clips.
It's evergreen.
I feel like it's evergreen.
No problem.
Maybe I will.
Maybe I should go back and clip it.
Let Amio donated $69.
Is she evil?
Of course not.
Is she wrong?
Yes.
No.
She's not bad.
She's pretty.
We get it.
But she needs to learn culture, not data, to understand Andrew properly.
That's why she never.
Take a shot.
Skull.
It's why she never got popular.
Merudite never got popular because of this.
That was always the reason.
She always, she always, like, I know you're sitting here, but I'm just.
She always could.
She always had the potential to be very popular on Twitch.
Like, she could have dominated that whole space.
It was the fact that she was supremely unlikable.
That's what always did it.
You know what I think it is, Andrew?
It's the whatever to the whatever podcast to the Joe Rogan pipeline.
She just didn't come on.
She didn't come on the whatever podcast.
That's true.
You did offer me a host position at the same time, actually, that you offered it to Andrew.
I think you offered it to me first, and I said no because I was doing bridges at the time, which unfortunately blew up.
I mean, one of the reasons why my platform isn't as big as I've never prioritized it.
Hold on.
Yes, Andrew's biggest.
I've invited you to come back on the show.
It's not a flex.
You definitely offered me that.
You did.
You were like, think about it.
And I was like, I don't want to fly to Santa Barbara all the time.
Fake news.
This is not fake news.
Disinformation.
Misinformation.
It's not true.
Fake news.
You were like looking at.
I won't say names.
We were looking at one person.
You were talking a little bit to Andrew.
You're talking to me.
And then Andrew took it, which was awesome.
I'm glad that Andrew took it.
I think it was good.
Andrew was there?
No, no, no, no.
Not Andrew was there.
We were talking about it.
We went out for like tacos one night.
And we were talking to girls and trying to maybe get them on the show and stuff.
And you're like, you?
Yeah.
No, no, no.
After the show, I think we went to get like a group of us all went to get food.
And we were just talking after the show.
But you did offer me a host position.
But I said, I'm sorry.
What's that?
Do you have anything we can take a shot of?
We got more beer.
We have, oh, you know, those, like, that super high alcohol beer that I have?
No, no.
The one that will kill you?
No.
What is it?
Like, absent.
Hey, Nathan, in that cabinet right there, can you see at the very top?
I think I just have like wine and champagne.
I don't.
Yeah, can you see that?
You could chug a beer there.
Yeah, I'll just have another beer.
Forget it.
Can you?
Oh, tequila?
Yes, tequila.
Do we actually have tequila?
Oh, rip.
Brian.
Yeah.
Big L's on the alcohol content.
Tequila?
Do you want tequila?
Yeah.
Andrew?
Yeah, do you want to?
No, that was really it.
That was always that.
It was always that.
It was always the supreme unlikability.
No, I mean, I don't know why you're like making these weird digs.
So part of the reason why my story is.
It's not even a dig.
Of course it is.
No, it really isn't.
How is saying I'm unlikable and that's why I'm not famous is not a digital?
No, no, no.
It's why you never did as well in Twitch and YouTube as you could have done.
There's always a lot of people.
That's the difference between these statements.
I'm unlikable, which is why I'm not more popular.
Yeah, well, for how is that not a dig?
That's not a dig.
That's just a statement of fact.
There's more DTS.
So a statement of fact cannot be a dig.
If you said, Andrew, the reason nobody bought your book is because you're a bad writer, I don't think that's a dig.
It might be depending on like the.
Yeah, I'm not even trying to make a dig.
I'm just saying that that's the reason.
The Super Chatters one is like, that was, she always had the potential to be.
I took two years off of content creation.
That's a really big contributor.
In fact, when I started picking it back up in September, I've like grown critical.
You had every advantage.
You were there with Destiny.
You had a complete access to DGG.
At first, they loved you.
At first, everything was going really good with that.
What ended up happening ultimately was the unlikability.
You had bridges.
Bridges was tuned into by tons of DGG.
They ultimately just ended up not liking you.
That was the problem.
It was that particular audience just did not like you.
That was not the problem.
That was the problem.
Okay.
If you want to make it, there's nothing I can say to this.
Look, I've been in the space for years.
This is therapy.
This is not true of myself.
You can ask me the lore on basically any content creator from Twitch poll to YouTube, and I could fucking tell you the entire transition that they made, the entire lore behind them.
Because I study my opposition like no other.
Did you know that I took basically two years off of content creation?
Well, it wasn't two years.
It was about two years, yeah.
Nope, it wasn't.
You still did content creation even in that two-year span.
I didn't grow any of my own personal platform or promote it.
But you still did content creation within that span.
Almost none.
But you still did some.
Sorry.
If you want to grow, so here's a pro tip.
If you want to go in content creation, consistency is a really big part of it, right?
Just so it's clear.
I'm not inconsistent, by the way.
Well, here's one of the issues.
Who the hell?
I care.
Cash.
Because you're more famous.
No, no, no.
I'm just saying that I shirked all conventional wisdom.
It's not about consistency.
It never has been.
It's never been about consistent.
That's an old trope for content creators, but the ones who follow the consistency model are always the smallest ones.
Yeah, Asmund Gould is popular, not because he's consistent, but because it's not because he's consistent.
For sure, consistency is a large part of it.
It's not the only part of it.
It's not even a particularly large part.
The largest part, of course, is a picture of trying to pillory me like this.
I'm not even pillaring you.
I'm just pointing it out.
You're trying to say you're less famous because you're on the list.
It's not about less famous.
I didn't host it.
That's where I fucked up.
It's about less famous.
Is that what brought this on?
Is that you feeling that?
I brought this up before he said anything about that.
Andrew, you do have a bigger platform than me.
I'm not awesome.
It's not a matter of time.
It's amazing for you.
Why do I think it's a dialectic of like there's there's content creators who are much larger than me?
That's all relative.
I've never been a fucking egoist about that.
And the thing that's funny is like, never.
Why did you bring up my size?
Never.
Well, no, I'm saying that the reason that this happened in content creation was because of the likability issue.
It always matters.
It doesn't matter necessarily.
Well, because that was what the question was.
No, it wasn't.
Yeah, they were taught.
I've said the reason for this has always been the case with Kyla.
He was speaking to the unlikability.
And I was like, it was always the case.
It was the reason she never got big on any of those platforms.
Your audience doesn't like me, but that doesn't change the fact that there are significant other audiences that do like me.
There are no significant audiences that like you.
None.
Name one.
My own?
You don't have a significant.
No, they don't.
Yes, they do.
And you don't have a significant audience, and DGG does not like you.
I don't think I have a significant audience.
Then why would you say that?
Because you said, who likes you?
And I said, my own audience.
No, you said significant.
You said the word significant.
Yeah, the Jubilee audience seemed to really, really like me.
They like anybody who's going against conservatives, but none of them came together.
There were multiple people on my Jubilee platform that were against conservatives, and yet I was the one that got all the promotion.
I gained like almost 10K subs from it.
They didn't do anything for you.
Your live streams are about the same size and they're about the same size because it's a likability.
They're actually larger issues.
My CCV is actually bigger, despite the fact that 30 live viewers.
Well, yeah, for like a small channel, that's pretty significant.
30 live viewers.
It's always been a likability problem.
I just disagree, and I'm not asking you.
I know, but you should, you would, though, right?
An unlikable person would disagree with a person who tells them the reason you're not getting anywhere in this is because you're unlikable.
You would disagree with that.
That's the point.
That's like the most unlikable part.
Disagreeing?
No, it's just that it's the argumentative nature of every single individual thing.
Aren't you argumentative?
No, I concede most points, actually.
Which points did you concede to?
Oh, I conceded tons of points.
Which ones?
I also conceded multiple points.
No, not really.
Sure, I did.
Okay.
All right.
You're super likable, by the way.
That's true.
That's one of the things.
Kind of the feedback that I get the most is just that.
You're a very likable guy.
Yeah, that's why there are so many conservatives that are not allowing you into certain spaces that don't want to work with you.
I'm definitely not saying names.
Yeah, because there aren't any.
There absolutely are.
I just want to be very clear.
There absolutely are, but I'm not going to be able to do that.
And I guarantee you that all those conservatives are probably not as popular as me.
They're just jealous.
They're just jealous.
Probably, I guarantee you that almost all of them are not as popular as I am.
But he doesn't care about how popular it is, guys.
Don't worry.
Well, it's just funny to note that it's like conservatives who won't let me in their space, but I'm not going to name them.
Right.
So it's like, well, I can name all the conservatives who do let me in their space.
And it's all the really popular ones, interestingly enough.
Just saying.
None of the unpopular ones.
Yep.
Yeah, I don't even know who these people are because you ain't going to name them.
You do know who they are.
I'm just not going to like obviously.
But you're not going to tell me who they are.
Yeah, here.
Of course not.
Yeah, of course not.
Yeah.
Likeability issue.
Yeah, because being argumentative is the likability issue.
It's not just being argumentative.
Mostly it's in your streams.
The entire stream is just condescension.
That's the tone that people hear is just pure condescension.
You wouldn't say that that's true.
I mean, most people, so for example, condescension would be me feigning kindness and niceness while like discerning down like in a patronizing way.
But that's not typically what I do.
In fact, when I mean, I belittle people.
And I say that pretty openly.
Yeah, but I've just said the whole tone of your stream sounds like condescension to people.
That might be your issue, but that's just the issue.
If you change that, if you change the condescension and you changed the likability problem, you would be a fucking megalistar on those platforms.
So in the case of like Jubilee, for example, I spoke mostly the same way that I spoke speak most of the time.
People didn't find me condescending.
They find me really likable.
In fact, one of the things they specifically like.
Ever Doubt00:02:07
20 live viewers, 20 more live viewers.
Yeah, live streams typically are going to grow slower.
And I think I gained six to seven K subs from that single Jubilee performance, which is awesome.
Okay.
You know what I think your issue is, Kyla?
There's no color in your hair.
If it was picked up, there actually is.
If it was a little bit copper or purple or blue or green, I think that would go a long way to bolster you.
If you want to hire me as a consultant, I have very affordable rates, you know, image consultant.
Why isn't Andrew more popular?
What's his issue?
You know what?
He doesn't come on the whatever podcast enough.
He needs to come on more, just like True.
True, to grow his platform from Andrew needs to come on the whatever podcast more.
And you know what I think his big thing is as a diagonal?
I'm going to diagnose you, Andrew.
Okay.
He doesn't smoke cigars on stream.
The guy only smokes cigarettes.
I think that's if he started just like Tony Soprano.
Big phallic shaped tonight.
Whoa, hold on.
Let's not project like that.
That's crazy, Kyla, that you would say that.
I just think it's that maybe if he smokes cigars, he would get, you know, I think that would be big.
He'd improve the aesthetic.
I think it'd be big.
And I would like to see him sing more on his streams, though.
I think singing would do well.
And I think the women love the singing.
Andrew, actually, like, I know we're kind of like having a bit of a joke here.
If Andrew did IRL, like table stuff in public, either man on the street or change my mind, Andrew would be the biggest fucking streamer, bigger than all the, even like the young guns that do the fuck, I don't know.
Probably not, right?
Like a lot of people's issue with Andrew is like, I don't know.
You guys have always doubted me, and I'm one of the largest conservative streamers.
When would I ever doubt you?
Purpose-Driven Streams00:06:47
Also, he doesn't care about it, though.
When did I ever doubt you?
No, I'm telling you.
Oh, my God.
We can go back to the old streams.
This is why nobody likes Andrew.
Nobody will debate with Andrew.
Everyone hates Andrew.
Andrew's bad.
They had tons of streams like that.
Destiny had Cope streams about that.
I remember you having all you fuckers.
I remember you having roast streams where you would spend three to four hours insulting me, calling me a whore, insulting me.
I've never called you a whore.
You absolutely do.
I've never used the word whore.
That's incorrect.
Slut.
I don't even, nope.
I don't, I don't even.
The only time I call women whores is if they're actual prostitutes.
I've always made that clue.
Now, slut, I don't usually use that language either.
I get conflated a lot with red pillars who say that shit.
I don't.
I will say stupid bitch, but I don't call women whores unless they're actual whores.
Yeah, so one of the issues is like you're saying, like, oh, we were just sitting about talking about how negative Andrew is.
Yeah, lots of people didn't like you in the Twitch poll space, obviously.
Yeah, and you're kind of an asshole.
Because they were all leftists.
That's why.
Well, I like plenty of conservatives.
I wanted all of the leftists hating me is good.
That is my favorite part of the joke.
What about the conservatives disliking you?
Who?
The ones who shall not be named?
Yes, I'm not going to drop people that dislike you for a while.
Right, exactly.
Because for all I know, they don't even exist.
How the fuck do I know?
They do exist.
I'm not going to drop them for your audience to go and harass them in the way that your audience harasses most of the people that you talk about.
For example, when you made multiple three to four hour roast sessions on me, I don't remember at any point spending three to four dedicated hours just talking shit about you, your life, your choices.
I don't remember doing any of this.
This was your style of content.
Uh-huh.
Yeah.
And that, so I don't know why you would begin to even point at me and say, you really dislike me.
It's like, I didn't like that you talked nasty.
No, you were.
This was long before I ever did a trash talk extravaganza that you were talking about.
Basically, we had one interaction where you said, I'm going to interview you.
And then it was a really obnoxious debate.
And then after that, you just trash talked me basically all the time.
Yes.
That wasn't how that went.
Absolutely.
Why did you delete all those roast sessions?
Put them back up.
I didn't.
They're all behind a paywall right this second.
You go watch them.
Gotcha.
Okay.
And what you'll notice behind my paywall is there isn't a single time where I spend three to four hours talking shit about shit about you.
But not talking shit about anyone.
I don't spend like three to four hours.
Yes.
Do I like you that much?
No, I don't like you.
Right.
The idea.
But that's not the same thing as holding me to some standard that I talk negative and that I didn't think you were going to go for.
Like ability.
That's it.
You said that I didn't ever think you were going to go for it and that I was questioning you.
I had, I'm completely agnostic on that, especially at the time.
I didn't know anything about social media.
I had no opinion on who was going to be famous or not.
Okay.
Okay.
We have more chats coming through.
We have chats coming through.
TTS chats.
Okay.
Very important.
Very important.
TTS.
$69 TTS streamlines.com slash whatever.
I'm waiting for it to load.
One moment.
We have Chaw XD.
Chaw XD.
Listen to this one.
$69.
Go for it.
Hey, Kyler, because you don't know anything about evolution.
You fucking puppy.
Demonstrate to us how random mutation leads to purpose-driven biological mechanism.
Go ahead and show us.
Biologists sure can't.
Quick answer if you can.
I don't know how to quick answer evolution.
Typically, because random mutation leads to things that are functional for the environment that they are in.
So that will lead to functionality in the environment over time, which leads to the situations that we have, right?
If an angled beak was more effective for getting worms out of a specific type of soil, then that would be successful until that soil changed, for example, and then that would be out-competed by other things.
That didn't answer that question.
Of course, it did.
Put up the question.
I'll show you.
I'll show you what he actually asked.
Okay.
I'm going to go to the bathroom all you guys.
Of course.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's.
Yeah.
The question is: demonstrate to us how a random mutation leads to purpose-driven biological mechanism.
The purpose-driven biological mechanism is the point.
Did I pull the super chat?
Is that the one?
Is this the one that started the did I pull this up, Nathan?
Andrew?
Did I no?
I didn't see that one.
Isn't this the one that I'm not saying that it wasn't there?
I'm just saying I didn't see it.
Okay.
Well, while she's on break, let's take this opportunity, Debate University.
Guys, debate.
If you want to become a master debater like Andrew, you want to watch people argue against their own position for hours and not get end up having to take a shot so you can maintain your sanity.
If you want to watch a person argue against their own position for hours, they don't even know that they're doing it, and then you just show it in clip after clip afterwards, and you have to end it with a shot.
Go to debate university because it's really going to help you do that.
Do you want more tequila, Andrew?
You want some more?
One more.
Can you give him another shot, please?
Guys, debateuniversity.com.
To become a master debater, if you want to, there's video tutorials, hours and hours of video.
Andrew is, and a few others are giving you a video tutorial on learning.
For hours.
You can make them argue against their own position for fucking hours, and they do it.
They'll do it for hours.
They'll argue against their own position.
How the fuck does that even work?
How does it even work?
That's what I want to know.
Naima argued against her own position for hours.
They just argue against their own shit for fucking hours.
Andrew, could I have you ask the viewers to like the video?
Like the video.
Guys, like the video.
Like the video.
Like the video.
Let's have a shot, everybody.
And God, I can't wait for the dating talk tomorrow.
Boy, that sounds awesome.
We have a little breakdown.
Oh, yeah.
We got a breakday.
Maybe I'll do a stream tomorrow.
I haven't been very consistent yet, and that's the key to popularity.
Is consistency.
It's consistency.
Consistency.
Consistency.
Or wait, no, that here, I'll pull that one up in a bit.
We have Mike Davis here.
Mike Davis coming in just one moment.
I'm waiting for it to load.
Kyla is rejoining us.
Mike Davis.
Oh, I don't know why I didn't play audio.
I'll just read it.
All jittery won't stop yapping, trying too hard and cringy.
What kind of autism is she?
Are you the same kind this guy is?
I don't know what he is.
As Mike Davis.
Yeah, we have the same type.
Okay.
The thing is, is like they're all trained in Twitch poll.
There used to be.
Yeah, they're all trained by each other.
They don't like, you don't go to formal training sessions, but they were all trained by each other in the Twitch poll era, which is largely dead, by the way, now.
Common Complaints About Streamers00:14:46
It's largely doesn't even exist.
But essentially, what they would do is they would use these long prattling word salads.
And the second you could actually decode those, I always found that the method to decode them was you let them praddle, prattle, prattle, ask two questions, watch them contradict, they would switch the position.
The way that they got away with it for so long is people didn't clip them doing it.
They didn't clip it.
If they had clipped it, they would have put an end to Twitch poll way earlier.
But it took a long time for that fucking whole thing to finally fall apart.
All right, we have a message here from, let me make sure it's okay.
I think it's all right.
Oh.
Erudite, sneaky link donated $69.
Good thing you only submit to your husband.
He let you date and flirt with other men.
Your Christian ethics are on point.
Why don't you dox Brian next?
You're a jokov.
Christian and decent human.
Look, I don't think that she intended to be charitable.
I don't think that she intended to dox.
I'm not going to put that on her.
I do think that it's just genuinely, or generally for streamers, it's just a good idea to never say a location, never sit.
It's just generally a good idea.
Okay, we have Dr. Peace Raff.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Part of the reason, just apologize again.
Wait, Dr. Cortez donated $69.
I'm glad the Bundy's fathers of Papua New Guinea are showing love, kindness, guidance, charity, and patristic love to members of their society.
Truly they shine with the light of God.
True.
The seminal warriors of Papua New Guinea?
Yeah, so I was going to say again, I do apologize if that wasn't public.
Part of the reason why I presume that it was is that I believe that both of us have always been aggressively and openly dox.
I assume that you already had been.
And I knew that in the past you were very open about being from the, I'll say, vaguely, the previous state that you were in.
I had seen multiple mentions of you publicly online, acknowledging which state you were from.
And in fact, not just which state, but which kind of area.
Did you ever notice I never told anybody where I was at in that state?
Ever.
For a reason.
But the thing is, is like, look, I don't hold it against you.
I get it.
It's just, it's just bad etiquette for streamers generally to do that.
That's all.
Okay.
We have airborne animal.
Airborne animal donated $69.
This stupid BTCH.
She thinks she dictates what is and is not true.
Moral and God's will.
To her, smoking is bad, but abortion is good.
Just to wanna be gen destiny trying to fast talk her way to a win.
Um, thank you for the insult.
I don't think I dictate what is and is not true.
Stusta donated $69.
As ao, I struggle with smoking.
Andrew, can you name a non-martyr that enjoyed such a hobby or dismissed its use?
A non-martyr?
Like, um, a non-marty.
I want to make sure I get the question right.
Maybe you can rephrase it: a non-martyr.
When you say a non-martyr, gotta send in more money.
You can't answer the question.
Well, I want to make sure I get the question right.
Because I want to lean towards like Father Seraphim Rose, but I'm not sure if that would be a non-martyr.
So I'm just trying to make sure I got it right.
If you want to clarify, I've got Big Mike.
Thank you, Big Mike.
Big Mike donated $69.
I'm Protestant.
My father's a Baptist preacher.
This is my primary concern with our faith.
Women can derive heresies arbitrarily utilizing their own interpretation.
What oldies do you listen to, Andrew?
I've been listening to this one lately.
It's called oldies called.
Oh, yeah, It goes something.
It's like this guy has this old school voice, and he's like, please kill yourself.
You'd rather be anywhere but here right now.
This is annoying.
This sucks.
I just want to fucking go eat a cheeseburger.
It goes something like that.
It's pretty good.
Good one.
It's pretty good.
Saint Isaiah donated $69.
NSE, if intelligence were measured by tone, you'd be a genius.
Unfortunately, it's measured by substance.
Too much equivocation, obfuscating, and gaslighting for us to see any substance.
Cue the cope.
IQ is not measured by substance.
IQ is measured by five primary factors.
I'm sure you don't need me to go through them, but nice try.
AJ Bombastic donated $69.
Natural selection must have been on break while this woman's mother was pregnant with her.
I don't even know what they think that that means.
Good one.
Got him.
We have Desert Jorge coming in here in just a sec.
AJ Bombastic, thank you for your TTS.
Thank you.
Jorge.
Jorge?
Hesert?
How do you say desert in Spanish?
Desert Judge donated $69.
Thank you.
Operation Paperclip, secret U.S. program that brought over 1,600 German scientists, engineers, and technicians to America after World War II to utilize their expertise for military and technological advancement.
And they got us to the moon.
After.
Yeah, good job.
Well, they were doing it during two.
Okay, not to anyone's point.
Josh donated $70.
The docks was likely on purpose.
Don't do that.
As a Christian, you say you respect and honor your husband, yet you sit there in a low-cup dress displaying your breasts for every man in the world.
Why?
Was not on purpose, and this is a dress that my husband picked out and told me that I should wear to this show.
So take it up with him.
I don't think I don't think that she would try to dox on purpose.
I don't think that.
Okay.
What the heck?
Onus donated $69.
I think you should just eat your pizza before it grows mold on it.
I don't think that's uh, I don't think your timeline is good here for mold development.
It'll be okay.
Don't worry.
Don't worry about my food eating, okay?
Thank you, Onus.
We have ex-Jay Law coming in, and then Onus again, and then it looks like we have currently two more after that.
Thank you, Onus.
Appreciate it, guys.
Ex-Jay Lord Onay.
That's called DTS in here, guys.
So desperate to be right, she'll quibble about any minute detail until the audience forgets what they were originally debating.
Then she literally asks Andrew for evidence to support her argument.
Lol.
Good reframing.
Good revision of the entire conversation.
She's like, did what he said?
I didn't.
Yeah, the only one quibbling.
Just eat the pizza already.
It's growing mold.
Damn, that guy really wants me to eat this pizza.
I wonder why.
You did say if somebody sends out.
I said $200.
200 collectively onus if you she said 200.
That's her fee.
That's her.
Well, I'm not making any of this.
That's her ask for her to eat the pizza.
Leftists will destroy donated $69.
Erudite Andrew said what we were all thinking.
You come across as a smug, condescending bunnies.
P.S. Andrew, thank you for graping Matt Dillerhunty.
That guy robbed me of a relationship with God as a kid.
You're welcome.
I'm sure Leftist will be destroyed as a really unbiased source of my career.
Thanks for telling me about it.
King Ryan donated $69.
Appreciate it.
Kyla, you think you're being cute and snarky, but it actually comes across as condescending.
Andrew was kind to point it out.
I feel the same.
You have real potential.
She always did.
So this is patronizing, right?
By saying, come on, kid, you have real potential.
Just being a snarky, condescending bitch is actual condescension, which is fine.
I'm not accepting your advice.
Sorry.
It's funny.
She always did.
She always did actually have potential for this.
It's just that she just always came across to the audience as being condescending and unlikable.
Unlike you.
The most likable man on the planet.
I mean, again, the feedback, I remember going in the DGG servers years ago and talking to those guys, and that was all of their complaints.
Like, they hated a lot of the orbiters.
That's true.
They hated some less than others.
A lot of them liked Max for a long time, for instance.
But the thing is, it's like Max, I understand that they steered away because he was weird.
Destiny actually kept Erudite on for a long time.
Like, she had a long time to develop that relationship with that audience, and they just never warmed up.
They just always thought she was unlikable.
How many times did it go on his stream?
Destiny's?
Oh, between Bridges?
Nidges.
That's not his stream.
Yes, it is.
No, it's not.
Nobody tuned into fucking Bridges for you, Erudite.
They didn't give a fuck about you.
When did I say that?
That's Destiny's stream too.
No, it's not Destiny Street.
Yeah, it's Destiny.
Because a large portion of his audience didn't transfer over to Bridges.
Most of it did.
All of the audience that did was his.
I agree.
Yeah, so then what are you arguing about?
I'm saying what's going on.
Bridges was Destiny's show.
You were on his show all the time, including Bridges.
I was not on his stream most of the time because I am a baby bitch.
Yeah, most of the time.
Both of those are his streams.
Bridges is not his stream.
Bridges was his stream.
Okay.
You were not the appeal for Bridges.
I didn't say I was.
I mean, I'm just good.
Then it was Destiny's stream, right?
No, I would say it was dominantly his audience that pulled down.
Why wasn't it dominantly your audience that left with you?
I think he's like, you never converted DGGers.
You just didn't do it.
You could never get them to really warm up to you.
I mean, like, day one of me attempting to stream, I had three viewers, like most people.
And then I talked to Destiny and I jumped immediately, like 200.
So I converted people.
Yeah, they were checking you out.
I agree.
The problem is that it was only sexuality.
Well, they stayed.
I maintained 200 for like ever.
In fact, it's like most of my baseline.
Yeah, you don't have the same 200 you had originally.
I didn't have it.
Maybe you have some of them, but the thing is, it's interesting, is it's like, I don't even know what that is.
What is me?
I don't even know what's a rebuttal.
What is there even to argue here?
The truth is, is that that was the most common complaint from DGG was that you're unlikable.
It's the most common complaint about your stream is that you're a very unlikable person.
I mean, the most common complaints.
They all say she's really hot is that you're a hypocrite who doesn't live out any of his values because he purports to be some like trad conservative man.
You know what I mean?
All converted like two years ago.
You have like a sordid history on that.
That's right.
Why are you?
I don't even know why you're attacking me right now.
What do you mean?
I don't know.
I'm not.
This isn't even attacked.
If you get personal, I get personal.
If you get personal.
This isn't even personal.
I'm just telling you, it's the most common complaint.
I'm telling you the most common complaints.
These guys are asking what they're wondering.
Wait, I'm just telling you the most common complaint.
It's not personal.
I'm just saying this is the most common complaint of your channel.
You know what's that you're dishonest, bad faith, and a hypocrite.
Sure.
From who?
Multiple people that I can't.
Can you name anyone who's not a leftist?
Can you name a specific individual that you've talked to about this?
About you?
Oh, yeah, sure.
Absolutely.
Let's talk about Doobie.
He's right there in the chat.
Yeah, he doesn't like me.
It's not that he doesn't like you.
He just knows that the problem with your stream is that you're unlikable.
That's what he said.
Yeah, of course.
I don't believe you.
I don't care what you believe.
Ask him.
I will.
And you know what he'll say?
He'll be like, well, yeah, Andrew's right.
Look, erudite, you're a nice person.
I like you.
You're great.
Blah, blah, blah.
But yeah, the reason that your streams really probably never took off is because you're just kind of supremely unlikable.
I mean, going from 200 viewers and then maintaining that despite basically never really streaming.
That already puts me in like the top 01%.
And here's the issue: I don't think I'm a big streamer.
I don't really care about any of these people.
You're just saying, I'm not making it personal.
These are just all the reasons why you're doing it.
It's just there's only one day.
Unlike me, the famous conservative.
This is the reason why you won't make it, silly woman.
And this is why, you know, you're kind of bad.
I'm trash.
Okay, I'm not being personal.
I'm just saying the reason that people don't like you, that you don't get badges to certain cons that you would like to go to, the reason why you're rejected.
You know the cons.
No, I don't.
Which you, name one.
TPUSA is a good experience.
I never wanted to go.
Okay.
Never.
It was requested that I go.
No, it was.
Yes, it was.
No, you asked for a badge.
Do you want the proof?
Sure.
Okay, here's the proof.
Did they ask you and then not give you?
Why didn't they give you a badge?
It wasn't TPUSA who asked me.
I was asked by a third party.
Ah, the party.
So was that me asking?
I didn't say it was you.
I said they don't want you there.
They didn't want you to give you a media pass.
First of all, I don't think that TPUSA thinks I have any interest of wanting to go there.
But if they let Myron Gaines in, yeah, I don't think they're going to be able to do that.
I don't think that they rejected you because of standards of nonsense.
I don't want to reject a person who doesn't apply.
You wanted to go and you copy.
I never wanted to go.
It was requested of me by uncensored America to go.
That was it.
When I found out that it was some like fucking bar across the street they wanted me to debate in, I was like, yeah, fucking right.
I'm doing that shit.
We have some super chats.
Idiot 80 El Guapo.
$100 super chat.
Thank you.
I just want to say again, since the man is back, the woman is dishonoring her husband by dressing like a bathhouse worker.
Let alone her heresies where she's inverting scripture.
Did I?
Okay.
Is there any way to minimize how many people are paying money to just call me a dirty whore and like insulting my husband?
Could we minimize that a little bit?
Well, you could skip the Rachel Wilson one in the same way that you could probably skip it.
He didn't skip it, though.
He should have accidentally.
But he didn't.
I did.
I texted Rachel.
So now he didn't.
Sorry, Rachel.
I fucked up.
But he didn't.
By the way, I fucked up a lot.
I do think it's fine to skip those.
I did spill.
I did spill Andrew's beer.
That's true.
That is the biggest fuck up.
Doobie, I feel lucky to have met you both when you started this journey.
Happy to see you both grow and hope you're doing well.
Oh, no.
Thank you for the nice message.
Doobie, appreciate it.
We have she's trying to submit.
I don't know what currency that is.
What is that?
Two million of anybody?
Chat, what currency is that?
She's trying to submit Christians.
Nathan, can you figure out what currency that is?
Tell me what the chat is saying.
She's trying to submit Christians.
Why would it be okay to rule Christians, but not for Christians to rule?
Submit to your man.
Rob Noor Defends His Stance00:13:26
Not only pretend to honor him.
Let the Christians rule.
America got degenerated.
She might be narcissistic.
No long-term plan.
How about truth and honesty for once?
Okay.
What is it?
Nathan?
Are they saying?
They probably aren't sure.
It's very obscure.
Maybe he can send in another $2 million, whatever that is, to probably like $3.
It's probably like $2.
I'll actually stop the chat and I'll look up the denomination.
And if it's only like $3.50, I just kick the person from the channel.
I'll get that from Argentina.
They'll send like $5,000, but it's like $3.50.
It's Vietnamese dong?
This is the same one again.
I just want to say again, since the man is back, he sent it again.
Oh, he sent it just one.
This is a subsequent one.
Dishonoring her husband by dressing like, let alone her heresies, where she's inverting scripture from getting whopped.
My husband bought me the dress, likes when I wear it, encourage me to wear it here.
I'll have to take that off with my husband.
$5,000 Vietnamese dong to the U.S. $77.
Actually, hey, we shouldn't, by the way.
Respect.
Shout out Vietnam.
W Vietnam.
W Vietnam.
Love that place.
W Vietnam.
Okay, some TTS has come through.
My key mic donated $69.
Kyla, the more you talk, the harder you make it to underestimate you.
Wait, that would be a compliment.
No, it's the opposite.
The more you talk, it's harder to underestimate you.
Yeah.
Okay.
That means that if you're not talking, it would be easy to underestimate you.
But since you're not talking, right, it's harder to underestimate you.
Yeah, so I prove that I'm more worth esteem or more worth respecting when I talk versus I'm sure that's not what he meant.
He probably meant to say the opposite, but he's definitely saying, you know, no, he definitely wasn't.
He was definitely saying that the more because you talk so much, I find it hard to underestimate you.
That's what he's saying.
Okay.
We have Duby here.
Oh, he sent it.
Duby donated 69.
He sent it as a TTS.
I feel lucky to have met you both when you started this journey.
Happy to see you both grow and hope you're doing well.
Yeah, nice to see you, Duby.
Well, Duby, thank you for Duby has a rough gig over there.
He runs the politics discord.
It's the largest political discord, I think, in the world.
And it's like he has so many people there.
It's like a small city.
And so we have old man talks.
Literally, old man talks.
They're great talks.
I like Duby.
Me too.
All right.
We have Christian Imperialist and then XJ Law.
Christian Imperialist donated $69.
Kayla doxks Andrew, but won't name names.
You preach kindness, then make false accusations, feign outrage, and play victim.
Calling you joyful is an insult to whores.
Whores are likable.
You're a CT.
Yikes.
Good one.
Good Christian values, by the way, right there.
Amazing.
I feel like you guys have to say, 69.
I don't like it.
I haven't.
I wonder whose audience is.
I think that's a lot of fun.
She can claw while taking offense to any valid criticism.
Have an inkling of self-awareness and disappear with dignity back into obscurity.
I'm not interested in dunks.
Interested in good conversation, which is why I'm disappointed by the conversation with Andrew because I know he's fully capable of it, but he wasn't willing to engage in it, which is too bad.
From her perspective, what she means by bad faith is when I actually make arguments and I make arguments based on the worldview that she has and show that hers is fucking insane.
It makes sense.
I've already defined bad faith by what I mean by it.
I've been very clear.
Yeah, and I'm going to define that by what you here's what you say bad faith is versus what you actually think bad faith is because you call every fucking person bad faith.
I don't know.
Is Rob Noor bad faith?
Sometimes I said everyone's bad faith.
Man, they're all bad faith.
Wait, I said from the very beginning.
Is Rob Noor mostly bad faith?
I don't think so.
No, I've had really good debates with Rob Noor.
Okay, so he's mostly good faith.
A lot of the time, yeah.
Okay, gotcha.
So when you're on Destiny Stream and you say Rob Noor is extremely bad faith, what did you mean by that?
That in many instances, Rob Norris, I don't know if I actually said it.
Wait, didn't I also recommend Rob Noor to Lex Friedman show because they were looking for good conservatives that are good faith?
And I said, you should have Rob Noor?
You were on the Lex Friedman show?
I wasn't on it.
Lex was looking for conservatives to come on and debate, and I suggested Rob Noor specifically.
Yeah, who else were you going to suggest who's a good debater?
What?
I could have suggested tons of other conservatives.
Who?
Counterpoints.
Terrible debate.
Jeb Tan.
Well, Jeb Tan's actually a good debater.
But Jeb Tan's very obscure is a problem.
Lactoid.
Very obscure.
Rob Noor at the time I was recommending him was also obscure.
He's still bigger than those guys.
So?
I mean, he's the most logical consideration.
So you're saying I didn't recommend Rob Noor because I recommend Rob Norn.
Bad faith many, many times.
Yeah, I've called most people bad faith of the person.
Exactly.
Well, hold on.
The issue is.
No, your whole point is that I'm saying everyone's just bad faith all the time.
But call everyone bad faith.
No, I said most people are bad faith some of the time, including me, which is what I said to you.
I don't know if you remember that.
And I said, people are also good faith many of the time.
And in our previous exchange, Andrew and I had a good faith conversation, which was why it's an interesting debate.
And in this conversation, you mostly referred to bad faith tactics, which sucks, but it is what it is.
See, I feel like it's the opposite.
Okay.
That's just how you feel, though, man.
Yeah, well, objectively, it's the opposite.
What do you mean?
Aren't we just assuming everything?
How is it objective if we're just assuming things?
For instance, when I said no objectivity can exist, though, because we're so.
For instance, when I said, hey, Kyla, why don't we just do, I'll do a cross-exam, and then you can do a cross-exam.
We can just do it that way.
And you're like, no, I need, I must break up the monotony of getting to the thing that I want to get to.
And let me bring up Agrippa's trilemma, which I wasn't moving towards at all.
You were capable of allowing a cross-exam, and it's because you're bad faith.
Wait, I allowed you to cross-examine me multiple times.
In fact, multiple points where you said, you're not going to answer this question.
I said, write it down.
I'll answer the question.
You refuse to answer most of the questions.
Which questions did I refuse to answer?
Almost every question that I asked you, you would respond with a question.
Give me one then that I'm going to.
Oh, sure.
I asked you, I was like, well, let's talk about how this interjects with consensus.
I said, when it comes to consensus, how do we get to the point where if the consensus is that we have Christianity, you know, take up the mantle, why would that be in some way a bad thing?
Do you think that Christianity taking that up would be a bad thing?
Literally.
It was like that was a debate.
I said, I don't think Christianity taking out the mantle necessarily is bad.
I think it is bad, though, if they impose it.
No, what she did was you answered most of your questions with questions.
That's bad faith.
That's not true.
I answered most of your questions with answers and some of them with questions.
And you can also answer questions with questions.
Okay, I'll tell you what.
You're allowed to ask questions.
How about $5?
You can afford $5.
How about $5, most of the questions?
No.
Yes, most.
Most of the questions I asked you, you responded with a question first, and I had to literally beat the answer out of you.
Like 80% when you say most?
Over 50.
That's okay.
Okay.
No, I do not believe that most of the questions I answered.
It's a lot of people.
Pull it.
Pull it.
Wait, what?
Did you want me to?
No, no, no, later.
Yeah, yeah.
I'll have to clippers pull it.
I want my $5.
I'll mount it next to the Wes Watson $5.
Sure.
But I'll bet it's over 50% of the time that when I asked her a question, she would respond with a question first, and then it would have to be out of her answer.
When you say a question, do you mean a clarifying question of what you mean by your question?
Just any question.
Is that bad faith?
If you say you pose me a question and you use a bunch of little questions.
Let's just say debate questions, still the same.
I would say clarifying your questions is not bad faith.
Yeah, we can even take clarifying questions out.
And I still think that over 50% of the time you answered with a question and I had to beat the actual answer out of you.
Okay.
Whereas I think the opposite's true with me.
In fact, I'll clip it both ways.
When you ask me a question, I bet you most of the time I said yes or no, yes or no.
Yes.
I bet you anything.
Yeah, I'll bet you.
I would grant that.
I'll literally give you another.
You'll grant that?
That you answered questions.
That I answer questions, but you don't.
No, no, no, no.
Well, no, I said that you answered my questions.
But I've never asked you to ask me questions.
But you accused me the whole debate of being bad faith, but I answered all your questions.
Bad faith can mean more than answering questions.
What does it mean?
It typically means that you are acting as though you were under the guise or interest of one thing, but you're actually under the guise or interest of something else.
With this conclusion, you mean an internal criticism?
What?
You can utilize an internal critique by adopting the worldview of the opposition.
That's not bad faith.
That would be bad.
Exactly.
But that is bad faith is pretending as though you actually granted me Agrippa's trilemma to appeal to absurdism.
That's adopting the position.
No, because you weren't actually adopting the position because you refused to ask me.
You don't have to adopt the position.
You just have to adopt the position for the purpose of the debate.
No, you have to adopt it genuinely.
If you're saying, I'm not a privilege.
No, you don't.
That's not an internal critique.
You have to grant it.
I can't internally critique Brian on being a degenerate unless I, in fact, adopt that I'm now a degenerate.
That's not what I said.
Yeah, then what is it?
Well, with Agrippa's Trilemma, you didn't actually adopt it because you just used it to insist that moral objectivity can't exist.
But of course, moral objectivity can and does exist, despite the fact that Agrippa's trilemma is unsolved by all philosophical systems.
That's a contradiction, as you'll find out.
That's literally P and not V. It's not P.
No claims could be justified, but also objective truth and objective morality is real.
Can you justify that?
No.
So were you lying when they're like, what?
So were you lying when you pretended that you were granting me it and that you were working for myself?
How was that pretending if I grant it to you?
Because you were saying, I believe this now, too.
Was that adopting the position?
Wait, no, you said, no, I literally believe this.
And I said, no.
That's adopting the position.
It can't hurt me ever if you make the bold claim that all adoptations of any worldview reduce to a supposition which is unjustified.
You can't even tell me why it would be unjustified for me to be bad fucking faith.
What?
I don't know which part of that was confusing.
All of it.
Do you want me to repeat it?
Sure.
Oh, yeah, sure.
So if all axioms are unjustified, right?
If there is no justification for any of the various things that we're doing, period, because it all just reduces to whatever our arbitrary preferences are.
And that's what it would reduce to, and it would be a moral anti-realism.
Nope.
Then me even being bad faith, you couldn't even critique that.
You could just say, oh, you're bad faith, but as long as it reduces to an axiom where I'm bad faith, because it's a tautology of bad faith because I'm bad faith, then it's fine to be bad faith.
So then I asked you, okay, so since you're rejecting what I'm proposing, how do you never have to answer that?
How do you solve Agrippa's trilemma?
You don't have to.
Of course you do.
If I present yourself.
Because if I present you.
This fucking thousand-year-old question.
Because you're pretending as though it's not a strong argument against what you're saying.
So I'm presenting like something comparable to a trolley problem.
And you're refusing to.
Who makes my point?
No, the issue is what I'm saying is: here's like comparatively, the youth of ho dilemma.
How do you solve it?
And you're going, the youth pro dilemma itself is circular, so it doesn't matter, and nothing's real.
You never said anything about it.
The trolley problem.
Those are two things you continuously brought up, never mentioned them once.
You're right.
I'm using them analogously.
I can adopt the entirety of the view of a trolley problem or Agrippa's trilemma, and you won't solve it.
Well, you want me to solve the trolley problem?
No, I want you to solve Agrippa's trilemma.
Okay, but again, it's unnecessary to do so.
If it's granted and we've destroyed all moral realism, the Christian nationalism itself, you could have no objection to because there's no moral facts.
You obviously object to this.
There's no reason to object to it.
But you do.
No, literally, I'm going to explain this in really small words.
There's no reason for me to ever object to a worldview which affirms that if I institute Christian nationalism, you can't object to it morally.
There's never a reason for me to go against that.
Ever.
It's not my worldview or anything else.
It is your worldview.
You don't know it.
It's going to get pointed out to you a million times.
I'm sure your audience is going to be super, super happy to distances.
Phil Tube will pick the whole thing up.
You'll see.
Okay.
So the issue is: can you solve Agrippa's trilemma?
If you think that Agrippa's trilemma necessarily means that there's no moral objectivity, you obviously believe that there is such a thing as moral objectivity.
So how do you solve a gripper's trilema?
Why do I need to engage in that in a debate about Christian nationalism?
Because if I provide you a philosophical test of thinking, it's the same thing if I present like a pro-lifer the trolley problem.
You need to engage in it because it's a test of logic.
Listen, to be an honest interlocutor, you say that.
To be an honest interlocutor, all you ever have to do, ever, if a person gives you the view and the argument for their view, in this case, your argument for your view was that all moral claims are reductions to axioms.
Those reductions in axiom are suppositions.
Therefore, there's no moral facts.
Therefore, everything is.
They're often often supposed to be a problem.
Yeah, you're literally saying this is not objectively true.
You're destroying the possibility of what you're doing.
I never said that.
Salvific Claims and Inferences00:15:34
I said that they're unjustifiable.
And so if you reject this, I say that's fine.
How do you explain?
But when I ask you how do they exist outside of the mind, you have to say, because I suppose they do.
It's a subjective thing.
How do you think that they exist?
I don't need to ever answer them.
So you never have to engage in a grip of trilemma because you know that it's defeating and you don't want to enjoy it.
Because to my worldview, it supports it, doesn't hurt it.
Actually, you getting out of my way for Christian nationalism is good.
Great.
None of this does this.
It does.
You refusing to engage with a philosophical test of logic just proves that you're afraid of this test of logic.
I can just answer it honestly and you won't.
All right.
Okay.
Okay.
We've got some chats coming up.
I am Kangles donated $69.
Thank you, Aaron.
He said popular, not famous.
Correct.
He isn't nice, but he's honest equals likable.
You want likable?
Be real enough to take a bite of that.
Nothing authentic about you.
Arguing over his opinion equals low status.
Okay.
Kangles, thank you very much.
We have.
Oh, wait.
Did I just miss one?
Desert Judge donated $69.
Jorge, thank you.
Destiny chit show in Phoenix before we got the word you and Myron got dissed by them.
We have a bottle of Asbourbon with your name on it.
Fair.
Sorry, you guys showed up there.
It's too bad.
Thank you, Desert.
Jorge.
Thank you, George.
We got King Ryan here.
King Ryan donated $69.
She answered questions with a question 34 times up until our three.
I have already downloaded, transcribed it, and put it through Grok.
Check my work.
Sounds right.
Can you give us the opposition of how many times can you give us the opposition of how many times I answered a question with a question?
Wait, first of all, the questions have to be non-clarifying questions.
Oh, Lord.
That's what you agreed to.
And I've never said that you wouldn't answer.
I never accused you of this thing.
Yeah, I know.
I'm accusing you of it, saying that that's bad faith.
Then why do we care about whether you're afraid of it?
Because it's bad faith.
It's not bad faith.
It is bad faith to answer questions with questions.
No, it is not.
Can I ask you a question?
Yeah.
Okay.
Which way is up?
Okay, you see how easy that was?
Why would there be a requirement that you ask me a question about that?
Well, sometimes, if you're using terms that could be loaded and ambiguous, I need to clarify what you mean by, for example, bad or good or better.
Do you think most of those questions were clarifications, or do you think most of those questions was you saying, what would you do then?
What would you do?
A lot of them were clarifying questions, and then there was multiple times where I tried to turn your question on yourself to internally critique you, to highlight that your internal critique of me and being like, look how absurd and unjustifiable it is, falls apart for you too.
That's typically what it's doing, particularly.
It helps my position.
It doesn't help your position.
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if the entire morality of the thing falls apart, then me implementing whatever the fuck I want is fine.
I don't know why you don't get that.
Jay Dyer tried to show you that too, but yeah, Jay Dyer, the king of philosophy, truly.
HXCTXR donated $69.
Oh, boy.
I happily liked Brian.
You belly rubbing, burrito-loving, beer-dropping, brown turd shirts, wearing F-slur.
Also, arrogance and ignorance are never a good look and always a bad combo Eurodite.
Probably learned to spell.
Thank you, Harry.
See?
Why would I ever need to respond to this in a series of money?
You don't.
Okay, cool.
It's just.
Christian Imperialist donated $69.
Christian values like God's commandment, thou shalt not suffer a witch to live or in Hox Signa Vinces.
Tell me how women W slash three or more abortions don't tee meet the clinical criteria of a serial killer.
What is Inhax Signo Vinces?
What is that?
Do you guys know?
I do not know.
I'm not familiar with it.
I also don't know if it's God's commandment that works.
Well, thank you, Christian.
Jay Law donated $69.
Thank you, XJ.
Bad faith is her crutch and her biggest projection.
Deadly combination of ignorance and dishonesty because she can't bear to accept her fragile ego being destroyed.
Nathan, can you lower the volume to 80 for us?
Thank you, XJ.
Appreciate it.
I don't know if you wanted to respond to that.
I don't know why I would respond yet.
Okay.
We have Body IQ.
Body donated $69.
Great performance, Kyla.
Props on engaging for hours with painfully bad faith, Andrew, who can't open an olive jar and personally insults you while acting as though he said nothing offensive.
I don't really think I said much offensive, no.
Okay.
Did I?
Yeah.
Well, I mean, you went like, you always go nuclear.
You're like, you're fat and you're this.
You said I'm unsaved.
Well, no, I didn't say that.
You did.
No, I never said that.
Not a Christian.
No.
Never said that either.
I said, you asked me, are you questioning my faith?
I said, yes.
I said, do you think I'm not a Christian?
You said, well, actually, you can say, yeah, she's not a Christian.
She's not a Christian.
That never happened.
Okay.
Do you want to bet on that one, too?
Sure.
Okay.
I'm not giving that.
$100?
I don't have $100.
You don't have $100.
No, not for this.
You might have $100 or you're more popular because you weren't so fucking unlikable.
Just saying.
Was that personal or is that not personal?
I'm not sure.
Are we going to run it?
It's just a true statement.
It's true.
So it can't be an insult.
It's true, so it can't be an insult.
Got it.
Maybe that's true.
Well, it's true that you're overweight.
It's true that you're a hypocrite.
That's true.
Well, that's not true.
That's definitely true.
What's the hypocrisy?
Your entire worldview versus like the way that you live.
You offer like so much grace to yourself and almost no grace to others.
Who do I not offer grace to?
Me, most other people.
What grace have I not offered you?
You sit here and tell me that I'm not saved.
I didn't tell you.
I never saw it.
I would never sit here and tell you that.
It never fucking happened.
Yes, it did.
No, it didn't.
I made it up.
Why then did I go on a long conversation about Raqqa?
Because what happened was you said, are you going to question my faith?
And I said, yes.
That's not saying you're not going to be afraid of yourself.
No, no, no, my salvation.
Yes, even if I said...
You said, are you questioning me?
I have a question.
Yes, I'm questioning this.
That's not saying you aren't the thing.
You were not saying it in this, like, I'm just not sure.
It doesn't matter.
Yeah, I'm questioning whether or not you're safe.
I never ever said you were unsafe.
It never happened.
You made it up.
You have no opinion on whether or not I have salvation.
I'm not going to make a salvific claim.
But I can definitely question a salvific claim.
So do you think I'm a Christian?
Well, based on what you've said here, I would question the veracity of the Christianity, yes.
Okay, so then why would I clarify before when you came and said, yeah, she's not a Christian?
I said, wait, are you saying that I'm not saved?
I'm not a Christian either.
That's different than making a salvific claim.
Yeah, I am saying that.
And I said, well, I would be very cautious.
I wouldn't say that.
It's different than a salvific claim, which I did not make.
Sure, you weren't commenting on my salvation.
I would say I wouldn't even say Christianity.
I would say heresy.
I think you're a heretic.
Sure, that's fine that you think that.
But when you say I'm not a Christian, you were obviously commenting on my status of salvation.
No, that's not commenting on your salvation.
I think that there's non-Christians who can be saved.
Okay.
Like one.
Like, like what?
Like, how?
Well, I don't know what the methodologies of God say.
The Orthodox Christianity.
The Orthodox Church would never make a salvific claim.
So how can a non-Christian be saved?
Well, because we don't know the dominion of God, and there could be instances where there could be instances of people who we would consider to be heretics or something like this who could potentially be saved.
We would not think that that's likely, but it's possible.
So you think I'm not a Christian, but maybe I'm still saved.
I would not make a salvific claim.
Just saying it's, if we're looking at likelihoods, if you're not a Christian, the likelihood of your salvation is much lower than your likelihood if you had salvation.
I don't know why you're running from this so much.
There's no running.
That's literally a coherent answer.
If you're not a Christian, you don't think I'm a Christian.
That's not the same as saying you're unsaved.
By and large, it does.
No, by and large, is not the same as saying it, though.
You're right.
It's implying it.
No, it's not even implying it.
It's just saying that your chances, if you were a Christian, of being saved, are much higher than if they're not.
That's all it's said.
So I'm asking for an example of a non-Christian who's saved.
Again, how would I have access to that information?
So you think that I might be one of those?
The non-Christian?
It's possible.
I just think that the chances and likelihood of non-Christians being saved are very low.
Gotcha.
So then when I said, you probably shouldn't comment on my salvation, you shouldn't call me like, you shouldn't say like Raqqa.
Why did you fight against me on that?
What do you mean?
I didn't say you were unsaved.
Well, it was pretty clear that I was taking it to suggest that I'm not a Christian.
It doesn't matter how you're taking it.
I didn't say that.
You did say that I'm not a Christian.
I didn't say it.
Well, I didn't say you were unsaved, though.
Okay.
Where's P and not P?
Where's the contradiction?
The contradiction here is that there are obvious implications when people that are sending in are saying that I'm not Christian.
Implications are contradictions.
Do you agree with the TTS that you're saying?
Implications are contrasting.
And then when I clarify and I say, are you saying that I'm not saved, that I'm not Christian?
You said yes.
Are implications contradictions?
They can be.
No, they can't.
Of course not.
How can an implication be a contradiction?
Because if I say, for example, like, I think feminists are just X, right?
But by all the ways that I engage around talking about feminists, it's clear that I say feminism is just about the equality of sexes.
But the only way that I engage around feminism is talking poorly of men, being misandrists, and trying to take away men's rights.
Well, just because I say all these things doesn't mean that we would imply something, but I'd like to say that might make an inference of hypocrisy or something like this, but it's not a propositional contradiction.
Sure, it's not a propositional contradiction.
It's not a contradiction of my worldview.
No, it's not even contradicting your worldview.
Sure, if I say that I'm forgiven.
If you hold the worldview that feminists are evil and yourself be a feminist, there's no fucking contradiction there.
Okay.
There's none.
Okay.
What's the contradiction?
Where's P and not P?
I would say that if you say, I believe in X and then all of your actions, the way that you talk about it, suggest that you believe in Y, then yeah, we would go, maybe you don't actually believe in Y. Implications aren't contradictions.
Propositions have contradictions.
You're pointing to like, maybe hypocrisy?
Maybe?
Yeah, maybe.
That's not a contradiction, though.
It could be.
Could hypocrisy.
It's contradictory of your worldview.
Is it possible that hypocrisy can propositionally be a contradiction?
Maybe, but hypocrisy is not contradiction.
Contradictions are propositional.
So there are things that exist outside of deductive logic, right?
Inductive logic.
Yeah.
And so one of the things that we can utilize with inductive logic is like what it implies.
Well, that's inductive reasoning.
Yeah.
That's not inductive logic.
Will we use inductive logic for inductive reasoning?
No, you don't need to use inductive logic for inductive reasoning either.
Okay.
There's, well, you can smirk, but what's the difference between?
Do you know that there's a difference between reason and logic, right?
Yep.
Okay, so then when I say inductive reason, does that require inductive logic?
Typically, yeah.
Okay, typically or does?
Yeah, kind of does.
I don't know what's inductive reasoning we're doing if we're not utilizing it.
Yeah, so what is reason?
Huh?
What is reason?
I'm not sure you did.
Is reason logic?
They're not one-to-one.
So what is reason?
What are we doing right now?
Asking you what reason is.
How did we get here from this?
Because I'm trying to figure out if inductive logic and inductive reason are the same thing.
What is reason?
What are you trying to do?
See what I mean?
It's obfuscation again.
Oh, Andrew's bad faith.
I just never answer any fucking questions.
That when you said that I wasn't a Christianist, I just, are you saying that I'm not saved, that I'm not a Christian?
You never said you're not.
I said it, and you agreed to it.
Never happened.
Okay.
I mean, just making it up.
I didn't say you were unsaved.
Okay.
A heretic?
Yes.
Unsaved?
Didn't make that claim.
Okay.
You want more tequila?
I didn't literally say the words.
I'll have one more shot, yeah.
One more shot, please.
Garcon, garcon.
One more shot.
What's the difference between reason and logic?
What are we doing right now?
That's the difference.
What are we doing?
I don't really drink anymore.
Yeah, I don't think so.
What are we doing right now?
What are we doing right now?
Two chats.
Based just in donated $69.
The woman is dishonoring the debate dot by dressing like a bathhouse worker and not eating the pizza.
Very bad faith.
Just eat the pizza.
I think it is increasingly weird that all these TTFs really want me to eat the pizza.
It might suggest what I was going to before.
I'm why they want me to eat the pizza.
Justice is justice.
Do you disagree with me?
Justice is worth dollars.
Questions responded to with a question up until hour three.
Kyla, 34 total, 13 clarifying.
Andrew, 18 total, 5 clarifying.
Insults Andrew to Kyla, 12.
Kyla to Andrew, 8.
That's not what we're trying to test here.
We're trying to ask.
Kyla insulted me more than her, or has insulted me more than I've insulted her, and has answered questions, including clarifying questions.
Well, it depends on what he's defining as asking.
Yeah, so she knows he put the clarifying questions.
He said clarifying questions this morning.
I agree.
I agree.
The issue is that the issue wasn't whether or not I asked clarifying questions or answered with questions.
It was whether or not 80% of my responses to your questions was questions.
It's not bad faith.
It was bad faith.
It is bad faith.
There's nothing definitively bad faith in.
What you just did when I asked you about reason versus logic, when you made the claim and you're like, what are we even doing right now?
Total bad faith.
It's all bad faith.
That's not bad faith.
Because you won't respond to what I'm asking you.
Not responding isn't bad faith.
Oh, okay.
Okay, then we have our he doesn't look Vietnamese though is the thing, but it maybe he's it's I don't know if you're interested in good conversations lady.
Why the hell are you not acknowledging Andrew's top tier game here?
He was maybe 5% bad faith and yours was magnitudes higher.
Watch the conversation again multiple times.
You won't try to change your style.
You do have the equipment, but it's corrupt.
I think I've acknowledged multiple times that Andrew's talented.
I think on my stream, I regularly get mad at my stream when they try to be like, Andrew's just stupid and he's bad at debating.
I'm like, that's not true at all.
Andrew's good at debating and he's not stupid.
He's often bad faith, which frustrates like Phil Bro autist, but how are you good at debating if you're just bad faith?
Because debating.
Wouldn't that be the opposite of being a good debater?
I mean, I would argue on like debate purists, but a lot of people get like sucked in, like your audience, based on like rhetoric and like reframing of conversations.
And you didn't reframe shit.
You reframed it with strong end multiple times.
Ask Chat GPT the same question.
How many times did Kyla reframe versus Andrew?
That's what he's using, I think.
Well, I don't think of Chat GPT, but he's using the GPS.
He actually has a built-in AI that it's just you can like.
Yeah, just ask about reframing.
It's like, it's not even close.
It's literally all projection.
The idea is like, Andrew's bad faith.
How do you know that?
Because I was bad faith the entire time.
It's like, okay.
You know, I answer questions with questions.
I reframe.
I do all the shit, but Andrew's the one.
He's the bad guy.
Andrew's bad.
I did say you're a bad guy.
I don't think it's immoral to be bad faith.
Super chat here from Abe.
Thank you, Abe.
Logic as Dogma00:14:39
If every non-inferential commitment is dogma, then logic itself is dogma.
But if logic is dogma, arguments collapses.
So either presuppositions are legitimate or skepticism self-destructs.
Presuppositions, you can engage in dogmatism to build a foundational axiom system.
This is what people do all the time.
You can also engage in infinite regression to be able to like we just do this all the time, and that's okay.
Look, you're never going to convince her on this, dude.
Ever.
You're never going to engage with Agrippa's trilemma, are you?
You're never going to solve it.
This guy's engaging with you.
You don't even understand what he's saying.
I do understand.
He's trying to say that presuppositions basically are not dogmatism.
Nope.
Back it up.
Do you want me to actually explain what he's saying?
Because I will.
Sure.
Okay.
Back up the super chat real quick.
I might have.
I unstarted, so I don't know if I'm going to.
Because what you focused on was presupposition.
What he gave you was actually an informal syllogism.
He was trying to show you something important.
But if you back it up, I'll show you.
Give me a moment here.
Will you solve for Grippa's Trilemma yet?
Or are you going to continue?
Yeah, what is it?
Well, I said you, this is like the one thing I'm going to keep asking you to do.
You can ask me a million times.
But if your worldview just allows for me to do what I want, then I'm just going to do that.
But my worldville doesn't allow you to do it.
But it does.
You just don't know it.
Nope.
Okay.
Solve Agrippa's Trilemma then.
If Grippa's trilemma is true, the moral facts are destroyed.
Nope.
Yep.
Nope.
Yep.
Nope.
Yep.
Yes, they are.
Then solve for Agrippa's Trilemma.
You don't need to.
Moral facts are destroyed.
How do you not engage in dogmatism as a presuppositionalist?
How would it ever in a million years hurt my position to adopt that all moral facts are destroyed, therefore I can do what I want when we're arguing about it?
I've never argued that you can do whatever you want.
Was it a debate on Agrippa's trilemma or Christian nationalism?
Christian nationalism.
So if you adopt Agrippa's drilema and it helps me with Christian nationalism, why would I ever engage in gripper's trilemma?
Why would you not engage with a hush to the non-inferential commitment is dogma, meaning every commitment you make that's not inferred, then logic itself is dogma.
This is the start for what his argument is.
So is logic itself dogma?
The structure of logic is dogma?
No.
It's just a message.
Okay, so what is logic itself if it's not a dogma?
It's a system by which we try to analyze moral claims.
And then he says, but if logic is dogma, the argument has to collapse because presuppositions are legitimate and you just presupposed that dogma, that logic's not dogma.
Logic, like the system of logic isn't dogma, but presupposing is dogma.
Is logic a social construction which can be changed?
No, I would say it objectively exists outside of logic.
And is that dogma?
To assume like A equals A tautologically would be dogma, yeah.
Then you just, he's right.
You just refuted your own argument.
I didn't refute my own argument.
Okay.
I don't know how you're doing.
Logic is dogma, but not dogma.
How do you engage in, how do you have a belief system that doesn't fail a grip as trilemma by either dogma, infinite regression, or circular reasoning?
Yeah, but his question is.
I'm going to ask you again when you're finished talking.
Okay, good.
His question is referring to, is logic dogma?
Answer no.
Then when asked about presupposition, answer yes.
It's P and not P.
No.
Is presuppositionalism logic?
No, he's asking about you presupposing whether or not logic is dogma or not.
You say logic is dogma, and then when asked.
I don't say logic is dogma.
I say that logic is a system.
I presuppose God.
I assume God.
So logic is, is logic as a system dogmatic?
So it's unchanging.
It's unchanged.
It's not what dogmatic means.
It's a fact.
Dogmatic assumes.
Okay, wait a second.
Let's make sure we got this right.
Logic itself, is it a social construction which can be changed?
Is it a social construction that logic exists?
No and yes?
What does that mean?
I don't really know what you're meaning here when you ask.
Can you answer it?
What's the laws of logic?
Like, for example, some things that we would argue logically are fallacious, like through inductive logic, we later go, actually, it's not fallacious.
I'm not asking about fallacies.
I'm asking about the laws of logic.
Fallacies are like evidences of logic.
I'm just asking about the laws of logic, though.
How are fallacies not relevant?
Let's start with this.
Laws of logic.
Do you and I agree on what those are?
Like the three laws?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
And so you agree with me?
It's the law of identity, excluded middle, and then what's the last one?
Fuck, I would need to look it up.
I don't have it on the top of my head.
Do you want me to look it up?
Yeah.
Well, it's non-contradiction.
Yes.
Law of non-contradiction.
Are those dogmatic or changeable?
Law of identity is not a problem.
Are they social constructs or changeable?
Well, some people argue against law of non-contradiction, right?
Okay, so.
That one might be changeable.
But I think like tautology, like A equals A, law of identity.
I think that that one's like pretty irreducible, right?
It's like a tautology.
Is the law of identity a thing which is a social construct, or is it a thing which is changeable?
That would be the same thing, right?
No.
How is social construction constant?
Because you can change all social constructs.
That's what I'm saying.
Yeah, so is the law of identity a social construction or not?
I think it exists objectively outside of us.
Okay, so it's not a social construction.
The law of identity?
No, but like the way that we talk about it and describe it might be a social construction concept.
Okay, but the law itself is not a social construction.
No, I don't know.
Okay.
So when you say that, you agree that you're making a claim that this is now objective truth.
Yeah.
Okay.
So you're not assuming that then.
Well, you are assuming A, you can.
What do you think a tautology is?
But now you've created a contradiction.
How are you not assuming tautologies?
Because what he's saying to you is that if it's the case that you say this thing is true absent the mind, but then you say, no, it's assumed that requires a mind.
That's P and not P.
Well, it's assumed for us because we have to, but like that's inside of us.
It can't be both.
That's a contradiction.
It's P and not P.
It's not a contradiction.
It is.
How can you say that a thing requires a mind but doesn't require a mind?
So the existence of the tautologies doesn't require a mind.
They exist outside of us, right?
Axioms can exist outside of us.
Okay, so the law of identity exists outside of us, so it's not assumed.
Well, of course it's assumed.
Then it's now in the category of requires assumptions.
How is it not assumed?
Well, this is the whole problem that he's pointing out to you.
If it's the case that you say it exists outside of a mind, you're not assuming it anymore.
The second you say, no, I am assuming it, that requires a mind.
Otherwise, it can't be assumed.
What can assume a thing that's not a mind?
Something can exist outside of us observing it, obviously.
Yeah, sure.
But what could assume a thing without a mind?
Nothing, but I don't know how do you solve for Agrippa's trilemist.
So that again, this is a matter of fact.
How do you solve for Agrippa's trilemma?
But hang on.
Before we go.
How is this not dogmatism?
How can you possibly claim that you're not now in contradiction when you say this thing exists objectively outside of assumption, but must be assumed?
That's P and not P?
Oh, because I'm granting that essentially all things are unjustified at the fundamental level.
Right.
So that's, it's all a subjective required mind metric.
It's not subjective.
So how do you solve a group of dilemmas?
If you're saying...
Do you think A equals A outside of the minds?
You asking me a question doesn't help you here.
How is it the case?
This guy is saying to you over and over again, even if I couldn't, that wouldn't make your position here tenable.
The idea here is just this.
He's asking, how can this thing exist absent a mind and with a mind?
And you're saying it does.
But no, it doesn't.
But it does, but it doesn't.
But it does.
Well, I'm assuming it exists outside of the mind.
And does that require a mind?
Sort of, but this isn't like the pertinent question.
What do you mean, sort of?
How does something sort of require a mind?
How does that even work?
Oh, it sort of requires my mind.
No, it requires a mind or it doesn't.
Because I would say A equals A is true regardless of whether or not I assume it, but once I'm engaging in philosophy as the individual, I must assume it because I can't reduce A equals A any further, right?
How do you reduce that?
Then you're now in contradiction again.
How is that in contradiction?
Because when you say that this thing exists outside of minds, you're making a claim, an objective claim.
The second you say, but it must be assumed, you're making a subjective claim.
So how are you not engaging in dogmatism?
It has nothing to do with me.
I'm asking you.
It has nothing to do with me.
If I'm completely wrong in everything I'm about to say from here on out for the rest of the night, how does that help this position of yours?
How?
How?
By outlining you're in the same position that I'm.
Who cares?
Answer my question.
I care.
I care.
Can you just say finally, yes, this is a contradiction?
No.
Okay.
Can you answer the question how you solve Agrippa trilemm?
You must.
You brought it up.
Yes, I brought it up for you to solve.
You want me to solve your argument?
No, you are a moral objectivist, correct?
Well, no, I'm an Agrippa trilemmist.
No, you're not.
Oh, yes, I am.
You can't, that's not a thing.
It is now.
Are you assuming that?
Okay, so you're not.
Is that objective?
See how he won't answer this question.
But you don't understand the position you're in.
Are you a moral objectivist?
The position that you're in is that you destroyed all conformity to reality the second you allow the contradiction, say the contradiction must ride.
And then also further, you take it one step further and say, this thing requires a mind, but doesn't require a mind.
You don't understand.
You destroyed all moral facts.
All foundationalism.
You destroyed all foundational arguments.
I don't ever need to contend with anything.
You couldn't even tell me why it was wrong to not do that.
So again, how do you, are you a moral objectivist?
Yes or no?
Who cares?
Me.
You know what?
I would like to internally critique you now.
Yes.
You are.
Yes.
Okay.
So how is something objective?
How do you know that A equals A?
You mean transcendentals?
Sure.
Yeah.
How do I know that there's transcendentals?
Because they're unchanging.
They're unchanging?
Yeah, they can't be changed by the mind.
Okay, sure.
And so how do you, but you're using the mind, right?
To interpret, not to change.
Because they can't be changed.
I agree, yeah.
Okay, great.
So they're objective.
But the mind is, but the mind to some degree is assumed here.
No.
So you're assuming that they're unchanging.
No, they are unchanging by your own admission.
Okay.
So what now?
So now we're assuming them, right?
No.
Yes.
How could they be assumed if we both agree that they're unchanging?
Because assuming infinity of something solves dogmatic.
We're not assuming it.
We're agreeing that it is in fact objectively true that these things are unchanging.
There's no longer an assumption.
You're assuming that they exist.
No, there's no assumption.
Yeah, you're assuming that we're not like a pot of brain cells and that and let's ask me.
Okay, I'll show you again.
This thing unchanging, therefore, whether my mind exists or not, that still exists.
True, I can grant you that.
There's no assumption there.
Well, you have to presuppose.
We're not even presupposing.
We just agreed.
What's the presupposition?
We literally just agreed to this.
That the law of identity even exists, that any of this exists.
We don't need to even presuppose this.
You already agreed that this is an unchanging fact.
Because it's objective, but that doesn't mean that you're not.
That's the end of that argument.
That's dogmatism.
You're just presupposing that it is eternal.
You keep on making the claim it's dogmatism.
It is dogmatism.
But how's it dogmatism if it's an unchanging thing, which does not require changes?
I don't know.
I'm not a changing it doesn't make an assumption.
Is that not an assumption?
Is a rock dogmatism?
What?
Is a rock dogmatism?
No.
Why?
I don't know.
I literally don't even know what your question means here.
My question just means this.
Rock is material.
It exists absent the mind.
Therefore requires no dogmatism.
The laws of logic, by your entire estimation, require no mind.
Therefore, they require no dogmatism just like the rock.
Do you understand that now?
I do.
Which part am I wrong about?
You're assuming that the rock exists or that any of this world exists.
I assume that the rock exists.
Yeah, you're assuming that none of this is like a fabrication that we're not in like.
Oh, so now we're in simulation theory.
No, I'm assuming that we're assuming that we're not.
Oh, we're taking it for granted.
Well, we have to take it for granted.
I want to make sure I got this right.
The rock exists whether you die tomorrow, right?
If all human life is expunged tomorrow, is the rock still there?
Oh, okay, God.
Well, theoretically.
I mean, it depends on what happens.
I mean, it would be there, right?
Wraps in all of our minds.
And would this law of logic change absent all of our minds?
No.
That's the end of that.
That's the end of that.
Nope.
You're still assuming that this logic is like eternal in any means.
There's no assumption.
We just agreed that it's an objective fact that, regardless of our minds, this thing would not change.
What is the assumption?
That its existence.
If we were not assuming its existence, we already agreed that it's an unchanging fact.
Well, theoretically, none of this could exist.
We could all be like in a vet and have it.
Then you're not agreeing that that's an unchanging fact.
I agree that I'm not.
I'm not saying that.
Now you're not agreeing.
You can't figure out your own position on this.
I'm not sure that I am agreeing that it exists and it is objective, but you're still assuming that it's not.
Wait, you agree that it exists and it's objective, so it exists outside of minds.
Yep.
Okay, then there's no assumption.
There is still an assumption.
Where?
The eternal existence of it.
Why is that assumed?
You have to.
Did you just agree that it's true?
Yeah.
Then there's no assumption.
There is an assumption.
What's the assumption?
That anything exists.
Oh, so now we're back to anything exists.
Okay.
Do the laws of logic exist absent minds?
Does God exist absent minds?
I asked you a question.
Does the laws of logic exist absent minds?
Yeah.
Does God exist exist?
Then there's nothing else to argue about.
Does God exist absent minds?
Yes.
Okay.
But we assume that God exists.
No, there's no assumption.
We just agreed.
God just exists.
How do we assume?
That's the dogmatism.
How do we assume if you say God just exists?
That's the assumption.
So you're saying that God perhaps may not exist?
I'm saying I believe that he does.
Believe or he does.
Well, I would say objectively he does, but it is still fundamentally true.
So is God an unchanging fact?
Yeah, within my worldview.
Yeah.
So then I'm engaging in dogmatism.
How's that dogmatism?
Because I'm assuming his existence.
Assuming Existence00:15:27
But then that would be changeable.
No, it wouldn't.
If you make an assumption, why couldn't you change the assumption?
Well, you could, but that wouldn't.
Yes.
I could engage in a different assumption, but then I would have a different worldview.
My worldview makes this assumption.
And a different worldview might make a different assumption.
If the laws of logic and your worldview are unchanging, then they're not assumed.
I don't know what to tell you.
If you think that God exists outside of the mind, you are assuming God.
Wait, I'm sorry.
Does God exist absent the mind?
I believe that he does.
Then what's the assumption?
The assumption is that he does exist.
Then that's changeable.
Just because it's changeable doesn't mean that you're not assuming.
Is the law of logic changeable?
I don't think that it is.
Okay, but somebody could assume.
Is it?
I don't think it is because I'm not a child.
Can you show me how it could be?
No, because I'm not a.
Yeah, because it can't be.
So you're just admitting that the laws of logic are unchangeable and not dogmatic and not a tautology.
Assuming that it's unchangeable is the dogma.
Assuming that it exists is the dogma.
Assuming that God exists.
Oh, I see.
I see.
Okay, so I'm going to assume that the law of non-contradiction doesn't exist.
How is it possible for like, I don't know, the planet Earth to be the planet Mars?
I don't know how to engage with you anymore if you don't want to like do this stuff.
I'm doing this.
I use, so I'm doing it.
I'm literally doing the stuff.
So how do you solve a gripper's truth?
I just solved it for you.
I just assumed that you're not.
You're still assuming the infinity of it.
I just showed you that.
Which is either infinite regression or dogma.
There's no infinity here.
What's behind the logic?
If it's the case.
What makes A equal A?
I'm going to tell you.
If it's the case that it's not a social construction, that the laws of logic are changeable.
Okay, they're changeable.
They're not social constructs.
Then that's not assumed.
That's stating that this thing exists absent minds objectively.
So all you have to do to defeat that position is show me a single law of logic, which can be interpreted as subjective and therefore social construct and changeable.
I don't have to do that.
I just have to say there is theoretically a world where we exist in a vat of soup where none of this is real and it's all being created.
That's not a contradiction.
It would be.
No.
It wouldn't be.
How would us existing in a bowl of soup and able to breathe in the soup of contradiction?
That's not P and not P. Because theoretically, then something is just imposing and the A equals A that we're assuming isn't actually true.
We just assume that it's true because it's being manifested by the world.
That's not a fucking contradiction.
It has to be P and not P. If we could all breathe in a bowl of soup in some other world, some other place, where's the contradiction?
You have to show me where the law of non-contradiction can be violated, where Superman can be you, where fucking the earth can be Mars, where things can be what they're not.
Go ahead.
In a vat of soup where we're all actually the same being being projected into a million and infinite, like in a hypothetical world that can exist.
So I have to assume the world that we exist is true and real.
Just like you have to assume that.
So you can give me a hypothetical world that has contradictions?
I can't right now, but that's because I'm assuming that of course you can theoretically be done.
Do it.
You can't.
I'm assuming.
So are you?
No, there's no assumption here.
This is not even an assumption.
Now we've gotten to the crux of it, right?
I just told you that you cannot give me a world.
You cannot give me a law.
You cannot give me any logic which is unchangeable.
The law of non-contradiction is unchangeable.
You agree.
You say it's an objective fact.
And then you say we assume it.
That's not an objective fact.
You're in contradiction.
I'm not.
So there actually is an entire school of philosophy that basically argues that the law of non-contradiction can be contradicted.
That A.
Then show me how.
I'm not.
I don't know.
What are you doing?
Show me the law of non-contradiction being contradicted.
I don't know it off the top of my head.
That doesn't mean that you're not.
You have no argument.
You're still assuming logic.
There's no argument.
How is there an assumption of logic if we agree that it's objective without contradiction?
Because you're assuming the tautology is true.
That's not an assumption.
It is.
How could, okay, so you're assuming an assumption on a thing that you say is objectively true.
I'm not saying it's subjectively true.
I'm saying it's true.
You're saying objectively true.
It's unchanging.
It exists outside of our mind.
Is a rock an assumption?
No.
That's the end of that.
No, it's not.
Yes, it is.
If the rock exists, objective reality would exist even without your minds.
And so there's a law of the logic.
It's objective reality.
It would exist without the mind.
Yeah, the assumption would be that the rock exists.
You did your own argument badly.
The second you said the rock exists.
What you should have said is, no.
Absent the mind, the rock doesn't exist.
That would have at least made you consistent.
What you said instead is that thing objectively exists, even if I'm not here.
That's not an assumption anymore, nor dogma.
Same thing with the law of logic.
It's dogma.
It's assuming that it exists, even if I'm not here, is the dogma.
Oh, that's dogma?
Yep.
Okay, so that's changeable.
Dogma doesn't mean unchangeable.
Dogma means assuming.
Can you change dogma?
Like, I don't know what that means.
Can I change dogma from one dogma to another, but can I change a rock to not a rock?
I don't, I literally don't understand what this is asking.
I'm asking you this: if I came up with dogma right now, like, oh, it's the case that me drinking this cup of water means I'm going to hell.
How is that dogma?
Is that how would that not be dogma?
How is that dogma?
Because it's making a religious inference about a thing.
That doesn't mean it's dogma.
Okay, well, what is dogma?
Dogma is just when you presuppose something.
Okay, so you just assume.
So I'm presupposing that I'm going to go to hell if I drink this.
Potentially, you might be.
Well, if I say, I'm going to go to hell if I drink this, is that now dogma?
Sure, then I was right.
Okay, so anyway, so back to this.
Now that I'm right, you've conceded I'm right again for the 18th time.
Can I then say, oh, wait, you know what?
I changed my mind.
Yes, you can change the fundamental axioms.
Got you.
Can I do that with the law of logic?
Can I be like, oh, the law of non-contradiction doesn't exist?
Oh, wait, no, it does exist.
Or is it the case that's going to be a constant regardless of how I view?
Yeah, that's how I would, for example, go to a subjectivist and say, if this is, if this is constant, this is why objective.
That's not subjective.
It's objective, like the rock.
I know, which is why I said if I went and debated a subjectivist and they insisted that objectivity doesn't exist, I would say, well, the law of, you know, the law of identity is a good example of objectivity.
Dogma.
It is dogma because I'm still assuming the existence of A. There's no assumption now.
There is an assumption that's not objective.
It's circular reasoning.
It's not objective.
Is it circular reasoning?
It's worse than circular reasoning.
Now we're in contradiction.
Tautologies are worse than circular reasoning.
Yeah.
Contradictions are the worst.
Yes.
This isn't a contradiction to say A.
It is a contradiction.
How is it?
Because you're saying it's objectively subjective.
I'm not.
So I are.
I'm not.
I'm.
No, you're not tracking.
No, you're not tracking.
I'm talking about the law of identity.
Yeah, I'm not.
And I said, can you change it?
What do you mean?
I'm an objective.
Is the law of identity going to beat the law of identity even if not so erudite and all of them might die?
I'm an objectivist.
Great.
So I would say.
Is that an objectivist?
Yeah.
Or do you mean you believe in objective, like objective morality or objective truth or something like that?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Objectivism is its own branch of philosophy.
Sure, you're right.
I should have been really, really sensitive to the people.
When we're talking about objective.
Objectivity, sure.
Yeah, we're talking about objective.
But you could just graduate.
Subjective, you agree, is something which does not require a mind.
Yep.
Okay, subjective is a thing which does require a mind.
Yep.
The rock, then, by this logic, it requires no minds.
If all minds are gone, the rock is still there.
Is the law of logic still there?
I would say yes.
Well, no.
Why would you say yes with the rock?
Because I believe in objectivity.
So do you believe it, or is in fact the case that the rock would be there?
Well, I would say that it is in fact the case, but fundamentally, I'm still assuming that existence is.
You're assuming existence.
Yeah, sort of.
The thing you live in.
Well, I'm assuming God, and you're assuming God.
Oh, you're assuming God.
Yeah.
Do you think that a subjectivist would say that the rock would still be there?
That it would be objectively true.
That without minds, the rock materially would still be there.
I think some would.
I don't know.
I'm not a subjectivist.
I don't need to answer this for them.
Oh, you don't need to answer.
Not for them, no.
That's not my belief system.
Gotcha.
So B and not P, P and not P, P and not P. Why would I have to answer for you?
Look, you don't have to answer any more questions.
I'm just showing you, I demonstrated to you a hundred times now that you're pointing to a thing which you claim is objectively true, and then at the same time saying that you're assuming it, which means it can't be objectively true because it's changing.
Yes, you assume tautologies.
Okay, but that's not what I'm saying.
The law of identity is a tautology.
You assume tautologies.
How's the law of identity a tautology?
A equals A is a tautology.
I'm sorry.
How is A equals A the law of identity?
Law of identity is a thing is identical with itself.
A equals A. That's not what.
So wait a second.
I just want to make sure I got this right.
When you say the law of identity, and the law of identity is just saying that a thing must be itself, how is that tautological?
Because it's saying A must equal A.
No.
What does it say?
A tautology would be to be saying the same thing over and over again, right?
You agree with that?
It equals X equals X equals X.
Yeah, So if you say that X is X, is that a tautology?
I think so.
I need to think about it.
No.
Why not?
Because if you're saying that X is X because X, that's a tautology.
If you say X is X, all you're doing is stating that X is the thing it is.
Oh, yeah, it would be.
That is not tautological.
Yes, it is.
X equals X. Brian, pull up a tautology.
She doesn't know what it is.
Here, I'll just pull it up.
This is the most fucking crazy shit.
Oh, I love that we save this engagement for the end.
It just puts the icing on the cake.
So you don't know what a tautology is, but I'm going to help you out here.
Tautology is a statement that is true in every possible interpretation, essentially a representation, a logical necessity, unavoidable truth.
In logic, it is a formula that always yields true, while in rhetoric, it is redundant, repetitive phrase.
X equals X. Help me out here.
The thing is the thing, right?
X equals X.
Okay, so all you're saying is that it's tautologically true.
The law of identity, X, is always itself.
I didn't say it's tautologically true.
I said the law of identity is a tautology.
Okay, so what makes that true?
In my worldview, I think that tautologies are good examples of objective things.
What?
If A equals A, I think that A equals A, regardless of whether I'm observing it.
Wait, wait, hang on.
Hang on.
I just want to make sure I got this right.
So it is, when you're talking about a tautology here, the thing that makes it true is that it's true?
Well, it's assumed.
You have to assume it.
You have to assume it.
So is there no.
So there's no way for you to assume that the law of identity is untrue?
Based on what, in my worldview?
Period.
Is there any way to assume that a tautology is untrue?
I would argue no.
This is why it's objective.
So then you don't need to assume anything with a tautology.
Well, you're assuming existence.
You're assuming.
Well, you're assuming something that I asked you about a tautology, not existence.
Do you have to assume?
Do you have to assume a tautology?
Yes.
You have to.
Okay.
You just assume that it is true that A equals A and I.
So how do we assume a tautology is not tautological?
We don't.
We just assume.
We can't.
Yeah, we say A equals A.
We can't.
We just grant that.
Wait, we can't?
And that's not an assumption?
We just grant that A equals A.
We just grant.
Yes.
Okay.
That's what I say.
Is it now an assumption?
These are the same thing.
When you say we just grant that A equals A, we grant axioms.
Is it objectively true?
I would argue it is, yeah.
Okay, but it's not objectively true that a tautology is true.
No, I think X equals X is true.
Can I assume it's not a tautology?
You could, but I think it would be very hard for you to do so.
Why?
I think that logic and reason.
Why can't I just assume it?
I'm explaining if you pause.
Because if you assume that tautologies are not true, it's going to be really hard for you to build with reason and logic any sort of like philosophical system.
Are you assuming that?
Which?
Are you assuming that I just can't assume things?
Is that an assumption?
No, I said you can't assume things.
So help me.
I'm super confused here.
I know.
Yeah, I really am.
And I really just need an answer to one question.
Yeah.
The laws of logic, are they changeable?
I don't believe they are, no.
I think they're objective.
Can you give me an example of where they're changeable?
No, because I think they're objective.
You think or they are?
Well, I'm assuming, yeah.
You're just assuming that.
Yeah, I'm granting that.
You should be able to, if it's a social construction assumption, change it.
I didn't say it's a social construction.
I said A equals A, and I'm assuming that that is true.
If you assume it, if you're assuming that this thing is true, can you make an assumption that it is not true?
Theoretically, yeah, I'm not doing that, though.
So how can I assume that the law of non-contradiction is not true?
It would be some like weird anti-realist, moral nihilist person who thinks like nothing is true anyway.
Then do it.
I don't believe in that.
Moral and anti-realist believe in the law of non-contradiction.
Sure, but they agree it's objectively true, even.
And this is why I go to moral anti-realists and be like, come on, you're an objectivist too.
You have to be because you granted that A equals true.
It hurts your position, though.
It doesn't hurt my position.
It does, because now we're outside of the assumption.
The second you say a thing is objectively true, this objectively is real, period.
We grant that it is true, yeah.
No, you're not granting it.
You're saying it is.
That's the same thing.
No, no, it's not the same thing.
Yeah, I'm engaging in dogmatism to say A equals A.
Okay.
A will equal A no matter what.
Okay.
Because I believe in.
You're absent.
Does dogmatism require a mind?
Like, does no, I guess, like, fallacies.
Does the law of logic require a mind?
No.
No.
But so dogmatism requires mind.
The law of logic.
I said, I guess technically, no.
So the law of logic does not require a mind.
Dogmatism does require a mind.
That's another contradiction.
That's not a contradiction.
Okay, does dogmatism require a mind?
No, I think like dogmatism, like the actual existence of dogmatism, the fallacy that is, the logical fallacy that is dogmatism, would exist whether or not we observe it.
Is dogmatism in and of itself a fallacy?
Yes.
Okay, can you show me the fallacy of dogmatism?
Because you have to assume things.
Can you show me the fallacy of dogmatism?
That's the fallacy, is that you are.
Yeah, show me the formal fallacy of dogmatism.
That would be like circular reasoning, usually.
Well, that's not the same word as dogmatism.
You're right.
Dogmatism would assume A. Does dogmatism require?
Does dogmatism require a mind or not?
No.
It doesn't.
I would say the actual concept of dogmatism exists outside of us.
Dogmatism Beyond Minds00:10:12
The concept.
Sure, yeah.
Concepts exist without minds.
Yes.
The problem is that you're trying to make me concepts exist without minds.
Yeah, in the same way that the law of identity exists outside of minds.
That's a concept?
Sort of, yeah.
Is it objectively true or is it a concept?
Both.
Both.
Yeah, like it's a, when I'm saying a concept, I just mean like an idea, right?
I just want to make sure I got this.
The idea is true and objective.
I want to make sure I got this right.
Okay.
This is a concept.
Concepts don't require minds.
It's a dogma.
Dogmas don't require minds.
Well, some concepts, it depends, like, again, it depends on what we're meaning here.
Like, the law of identity is something we would call a concept.
Dogma exists absent of mind.
Can you show it to me?
As an objective form of fallacy.
Yeah, where's that?
In the ether.
It exists in the ether.
Wait, where is law of identity?
Great question.
Now we're getting into transcendentals.
But the thing that's interesting here is like before we can even move into that, we have to start with foundationalism.
So the idea here for foundationalism is we assume something dogma requires no minds.
Sure.
Can you show me how?
Because I would say that like the three laws of logic exist outside of minds.
And dogmatism is like to some way connected to the three laws of life.
It's a fallacy that's been pointed out using logic and reason.
So if the three laws exist outside of the mind, then yes.
Fallacies also exist outside the mind.
Yeah, I think something would be fallacious, like circular reasoning, is circular reasoning, whether or not we've titled it that, labeled it that, or observed it.
Is dogma always a fallacy?
Yes.
Yes.
Yeah, because you're assuming.
Can you pull out your phone right now and ask, I don't care where, whatever philosophical source, if dogma itself is a fallacy?
True.
Slow. I'll wait.
Yes, dogmatism is considered a logical fallacy.
Dogmatism is considered a logical fallacy.
Let me see.
When it presents personal opinions or rigid, unproven beliefs as undeniable facts.
Oops.
Refusing to consider counterarguments.
That's why you didn't hand me the phone.
Read it again.
Dogmatism is considered a logical fallacy when it presents personal opinions or rigid or rigid unproven beliefs as undeniable facts.
How do you prove A equals A?
Boy, oh boy.
So how do you prove A equals A?
Now we'll try it the right way.
Is dogmatism in and of itself, which is what I asked you, is dogmatism in and of itself a fallacy?
Dogmatism in and of itself is not fallacious.
So here's the question that I have for you.
Why would it be the case?
Do you want to keep reading?
Oh, sure.
Sure.
We can keep reading.
It's only considered a form if a priority thinking where one starts with a preset conclusion and forces the evidence to fit it.
That's it.
Okay.
So it's not always a fallacy, is it?
So assuming A equals A. Hang on.
Is it always a fallacy?
I could be wrong about that.
Is it always a fallacy or not?
I don't know.
I could be wrong.
I need to look into it.
I'm not trusting your word because you're.
Then look.
Ask if it's always a fallacy.
Is dogma itself always fallacious?
Dogma.
It's considered a logical fallacy.
In and of itself, without any qualifiers.
Maybe it's not, but dogmatism is certainly assuming.
Okay, there are assumptions.
Which means it's failing Agrippa's trilemma.
Which means it's unjustifiable.
I'm just saying that those assumptions can be changed, right?
What does this mean?
That you can change assumptions, but you can't change things which you agree exist in objective reality.
Sure, yes.
Okay, so then you agree that the laws of logic exist objectively outside of assumption.
You've never denied that they exist objectively.
Outside of assumption.
No, the A equals A is the assumption.
That's what dogmatism is.
So then change trilemma.
You just said assumptions can be changed, right?
Sure, but I'm not going to change it because I believe it.
No, I believe that this tautology is a good tautology.
Can you change?
Can you change it or not?
Theoretically, yeah.
Can you change any assumption?
Yes.
Yes, you can assume different things.
Then can you change a law of logic?
I don't think so.
I think that they're objective.
Show me how whether.
I don't need to.
I'm granting you that they're objective.
I'm just saying that you're assuming it.
A equals A is an assumption.
Okay.
This is an axiom that you just granted.
So we'll just make sure we got this right.
It's objective and subjective.
No, I've never said that.
That's how you're trying to frame it.
Okay.
Is the trilemma subjective?
No.
It's objective?
Yeah, in the way that logic logic is objective.
Would the trilemma exist out absent minds?
Theoretically, yeah.
Show me how.
That the laws of logic exist outside of minds, and Agrippa's trilemma utilizes laws of logic to come up with the dilemma itself.
Who cares if it utilizes it?
If it's built on the back of the objective, observable things, and logic and reason itself is observable, and Agrippa's trilemma utilizes logic and reason to say all axioms, all beliefs fundamentally fail Agrippa's trilemma in one of three ways.
Yeah.
Then yeah, it's objective.
So it's not an assumption.
You have to assume something at some point.
Why are you assuming it?
You just said.
Well, you don't have to.
Absent all minds, Agrippa's trilemma exists.
Right?
Where's the assumption?
In the case that tautologies are true, would be the dogmatism, or you could just do infinite regression.
But you just said those require minds.
Okay.
This does not require a mind.
True.
So this exists.
Agrippa's trilemma exists absent minds.
Does circular reasoning exist absent minds?
Yeah, but my question is.
Wait, I've already granted that I think that Agrippa's trilemma is objective.
Yeah, I think that logic reductionism will become circular.
Circularity itself is not a problem.
It fails Agrippa's trilemma.
Well, but circularity itself isn't problematic.
What becomes problematic.
It's not justified.
No, you can make justifications even if it's circular.
In fact, you want the circle to point back to the justification.
Well, the point of circularity is saying that A equals A equals A equals A.
It's circular, right?
Yeah, but you can have a circularity which has an infinite presupposition.
Sure.
That presupposition will move back to a source.
So the source in this case that you're claiming would be the dogmatism.
But if you're circling for a second, logical circularity.
And you're failing Agrippa's trilemma through the circumstances.
Logical circularity itself is not what the problem is.
The problem here comes in.
It is a problem for a Grippa's trailer.
The problem here comes in when you say.
Because it's unjustified.
But it is justified.
How is circularity justified?
Because it exists, according to you, absent minds.
That doesn't mean that it's not justified.
It means it's always true.
If it's always true, then it has to be a justified true belief.
So you think circular reasoning?
No, I think that if you say Agrippa's trilemma exists absent all minds, then you're saying that that's a justified true belief.
It cannot be a justified true belief if it exists even absent your mind.
So Agrippa's trilemma again says any justification of knowledge must fail as all arguments lead to three equally unsatisfying answers.
So if you don't assume dogmatism, you can engage in circular reasoning.
Okay.
And if you don't want to do circular reasoning, you can engage in infinite regression.
All human beings are dead.
Is Agrippa's trilemma still true?
I would say yes.
Is that an assumption?
I'm assuming it, but I've already embraced that I'm doing dogmatism, which is fine.
You're assuming it.
Yeah.
But it is, in fact, also objectively true.
Well, I think dogmatism leads to objectivity the best, which is why I engage in dogmatism.
So it's objectively true and not true.
But somebody else, for example, the subject.
It's like Schrödinger's Agrippa trilema.
Schrödinger's Agrippa trilema.
The way that the subjectivists would try to get around assumptions is engage in infinite regression, which still fails Agrippa's trilemma.
But they wouldn't say it's objectively true outside of minds.
Correct.
They wouldn't.
They would engage in infinite regression.
The second you say it's true outside of minds, you're making the statement that it's a justified.
I'm doing dogmatism.
Is it a justified true belief that Agrippa's trilemma exists whether all human beings are dead or not?
Jesus Christ.
Don't hit me with fucking a bunch of nonsense prattle.
I'm not answering you with nonsense.
Question.
Question is, is it a justified, true belief that Agrippa's trilemma exists if all human beings are dead?
Yeah, because the laws of logic are objective.
Okay, so what I'm engaging in, what you're creating.
I'm assuming that they're objectivistives.
You just refuted your point.
I didn't refute my point.
I said that they're objective, which is an assumption.
What somebody could do if they didn't want to assume anything is engage in infinite regression.
Okay.
So you're engaging in dogmatism and you're not going to be able to do that.
You just refuted your point in the worst way possible, by the way.
No, I don't.
Yes.
I did not.
Me saying that I'm an objectivist has been.
Sorry.
You're not an objectivist.
Objective.
That's a libertarian philosophy.
You're right, Andrew.
Relax.
That's a libertarian philosophy.
Do you think it's called objectivism?
Do you think that I was meaning objectivity and that it's just been eight hours and I'm tired?
Or do you think that I'll say that?
I've been here for the same fucking eight hours.
Cool.
That's fine.
So anyway, the point is, is like, yes, you did.
You made your point.
I'm not trying to trip you up on like which specific word because I'm granting you what I think is reasonable that you're trying to mean.
Right.
When I say objectivist, you're right.
I should be more precise with my language so you don't do your silly little gotchas.
Go, this is it.
Obviously, I mean objectively.
Eight Hour Debate00:04:22
I'm the one with silly gotchas.
Yes.
You demanded the entire night that I engage with this, even though I didn't need to.
I still did in the spirit of charitability.
I still blew you out on it.
And then you gained.
I still destroyed you on it.
You didn't.
You just said, yeah, I'm doing dogmatism.
And I said, cool, man.
No, no, no.
I'm showing you that if we have an objective standard, we say that this is an objective standard, that this is true absent minds, and you say grippa's trilemma exists absent minds, then you're refuting grippa's trilemma.
There's no more assumptions.
No, I'm not.
There's no more assumptions.
Then it's not, then it's subjective.
No, that's this is dogmatism.
That's subjective, too.
No, it's not.
Infinite regression is more subjective.
All right, fine.
I don't know what else to say about it.
Okay.
Like arguing with them.
I don't even know.
Yeah.
It's like arguing with a bully.
Okay.
All right.
Well, we got some chats.
You know, some chats came in.
Jordan's donated $69.
We want you to eat the pizza.
So you want to kill us.
Andrew, or you true?
I'm going to have a smoke and one more shot.
All right.
But then we're going to wrap it up.
It's been eight hours.
Hey, look, I've been trying to wrap it this whole time.
You guys just keep.
Brian, keep it going.
I've been trying to wrap with Aloha.
Thank you, Jordan, though, for the TTS.
We have Selena Gournes coming in.
Selena Gournes donated $69.67.
Kyla still has a lot of potential, but is preaching to the wrong choir.
She's smart, but also biased and doesn't know it or understand how she is.
Call to action, Kyla, join the right in good faith.
You know, behind the scenes, Kyle is actually very based and red-pilled.
She told me she voted for Trump.
I can't vote.
I know.
I know.
I'm just saying.
If Trump would you be in favor of annexation of Canada?
No, not on Trump.
Definitely not.
But think about it.
would kind of ease the immigration process for you if we were like it would be personally beneficial but i don't think canadian You know, we annex Canada.
I think you got rid of our universal health care, which I'm super not for.
It could happen.
Yeah, I like universal health care.
Yeah.
Think about it.
All right, we have XJ Law here.
XJ Law donated $69.
Her ability to weasel and evade to avoid being revealed as an incompetent cloud demon is honestly impressive.
Must be exhausting, though.
The patience required for Andrew to engage with this drivel.
No one suffers like Andrew suffers.
Except maybe you.
I feel like you've suffered the most.
Yeah, I had a front row seat.
I had a front row seat.
That's true.
We have Intel Wild here.
Thank you.
Thank you, Law.
Intel Wilde donated $69.
Not so bright as a soulless, degenerate demon vampire.
Is that like his most common OnlyFan searches?
Or I wonder.
Intel Wild.
Yeah, he probably loves degenerate demon vampires.
Isn't that the woman thing?
The women like the sort of men do too.
There's like a whole thing.
Sort of the werewolves and the what was that book?
You're friends with Shoe on Head, right?
Didn't she do a video on this a couple months ago?
Yeah.
Where all the women were the milking, the milkmate, yeah, yeah, yeah, the Minotaur milking the Minotaur.
I don't know, y'all.
True, but men are into some weird shit, too.
It goes both ways.
Yeah, it really does.
We got Bronco here.
Thank you, man.
Sproncox donation.
She said $200.
$69.
I will give Tordar no more if she takes a bite of her pizza.
I hate wasted food.
She did say $200.
If you do $300, she will.
I'm actually thinking about starting a food channel.
She will actually speed eat.
You know, those speed eaters?
She'll speed eat the entire pizza if you do 300.
Are you paying me for it, though?
I'll give you a cut.
Okay.
We'll talk after.
I'll give you a cut.
I'll give you a cut.
We got King Ryan here.
King Ryan donated $69.
In the first three hours, when Andrew pressed her on a question, Kyle didn't give a direct answer nine times, while Andrew only did it twice.
Justifying Objective Truth00:08:42
Numbers can shift by parameters.
Doing money.
Can you pour it on?
I think this is an eight-hour conversation.
One more shot for Andrew there.
Did you?
No, you didn't want one.
That's right.
I'm curious, has anybody been keeping track of how many times Agrippa's dilemma has said?
Me and Andrew on the drive over, I bet him.
He didn't take the bet, but I said, Andrew, 20 bucks if she brings up Agrippa's trilemma.
I didn't bet.
I wish he took the bet.
But why didn't I take the bet?
Because you said that she would bring up a self-refuting axiom, which then I would pincer her in to watch her refute herself 80,000 times.
How did I bring up a self-refeating axiom?
Well, is there any point to debate?
Yeah.
How is that self-refeeding?
That's fine.
I agree.
There's no point.
Wait, no point.
I said there is a point to debate.
Oh, what is it?
To test logic and reason, ideally, in good debate.
To test assumptions?
Not usually.
Sometimes.
But all logic and reason is built on assumption?
Not all.
Some of it's built on an infinite regression.
But none of it's built on an objective truth.
I didn't say that either.
I believe in an objective truth.
I assume that's true.
I'm not asking about your assumption.
Is there objective truth absent assumption?
Sure.
Yeah, I would say so.
Are you assuming that?
Well, yes, to some degree.
Okay.
That's not self-defeating.
This is just dogmatism.
I don't know what's going on.
It's literally you saying that it's subjective and objective at the same time.
It's not me saying that.
It's just not me saying that.
Just is you saying that?
How is this not in circular reasoning?
They've donated $69.
Agrippa shows justification must terminate.
Exactly.
It's not circularity.
But whether your stopping point can non-arbitrarily ground rational normativity, what does yours terminate in?
Good question.
Agrippa's trilemma includes circular reasoning.
Circularity is a part of it.
Yeah, but he's saying circularity is not the issue.
It could be.
All these cups.
Oh my God.
He's got an army of cups.
I need them for this debate.
It's actually creating a protective.
It fortifies me.
No one suffers like Andrew suffers.
This is my fortification.
Create like a triangle, you know, just to well, I can just do this a bunch.
That's like destiny trial.
Circular reasoning is also on any justification knowledge fails because it's unsatisfying.
Circular reasoning, unsatisfying.
It doesn't satisfy it.
What does that mean?
It means that it is unsatisfying, that it is irreducible.
It doesn't mean irreducible.
It just means unsatisfying, right?
Unsatisfying and irreducible.
What does unsatisfying mean, though?
That it's like not, it doesn't like solve perfectly logical coherence in such a way that it's built always on something.
So no.
You have to assume something or you have to do circular reasoning or something.
I think that they are.
You bet you're assuming.
But my axioms are fundamentally dogmatism, just like yours are.
Assumed.
Well, that's what dogmatism is.
So there's nothing that exists objectively absent minds.
No, that's again, dogmatism doesn't mean anything about subjectivity.
Why?
I just want to make sure that you're not.
I don't know why I keep insisting this.
Well, I insist.
I know you like it, but it's not that.
That's true.
I'm just trying to figure out what would the circularity be if a thing did exist absent a mind, like a rock?
Where's the circularity?
That's not circular.
Okay.
But I've never claimed that it was circular.
I said all justifications of knowledge must fail as all arguments lead to three equally unknown.
But you just said that your knowledge of the rock fails.
What do you mean fails?
You just said all claims of knowledge fail, right?
Must fail, yeah.
Okay, so but why do you keep claiming that rocks exist in objective morale or objectively absent minds?
Because I assume objectivity.
Okay, so I assume God, and I think that God.
And that actually fails, right?
Yeah, in the same way that all false minds.
So a rock doesn't actually exist absent the mind.
Nope, it does.
But you just said that's a knowledge claim.
You just said all of them fail.
Yep.
Okay.
We have Super Chat here from Downdrift.
Not a fan on his channel, but he says it's night out and he she says not in Aussie.
Using big words, talking fast makes her think she is smart, but she's an idiot.
Overcomplicating everything for no reason will make you right.
Does the world see math true?
Does two plus two equal four?
Yeah, that's a tautology.
These are the things that we assume in math, that two plus two equals four.
Why?
Why does two plus two equal four?
We assume it.
It seems, I would argue, because it's objectively true.
We're just assuming this.
We're assuming that two plus two equals four because we must.
Rocks exist without minds.
That's true.
But I also assumed it, and all knowledge claims fail.
Yeah.
All justifications of knowledge.
No, all knowledge claims fail.
No, all justifications of failure.
Any justification of a knowledge of knowledge must fail as all arguments lead to three equally unsatisfying.
So then you're so then you saying that the rock exists objectively is unjustified and fails in the way that all arguments fail.
So then it well not in the same way.
Mine would be dogmatism.
So then is it true absent your personal belief that the rock exists if you die?
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah, objectivity still exists.
Okay.
Yeah.
We have warm storm.
Thing for the Canadian 100.
Merge physics with philosophy.
Nothing exists as we know it without a conscious observer.
Therefore, nothing is truly objective.
You're both potentially right and wrong at the same time.
How long is a piece of string?
The answer is an infinite is as infinite as the two of you arguing.
I would be willing.
Yeah, I would be willing to grant that, except that you said something there, which was very important.
You said that this thing, you said the answer is infinite.
Like, let's say we took an arrow.
You fired the arrow.
You did the old Greek philosophy thing, right?
It's always potentially in flight due to the fact that you can reduce time by an infinite amount.
But the second you say that that claim is objectively true, you have now destroyed the idea that there's that you have to make the claim that this thing is unjustified.
You can't say it's unjustified and objectively true, or you end up with P and not P.
No, that's not true.
Okay, is truth?
Can you justify truth?
You can attempt to, but all justifications will fail.
Do you believe that you can justify truth?
Sort of, but I'll fail eventually.
Okay.
Because of that.
Is that true?
Is what true?
Is it true that you can't justify truth?
It seems to be.
Okay.
But maybe not.
Maybe the infinite regression is going to be.
So it's true that you can't justify truth.
Got it.
Okay.
Got it.
I understand now.
Okay, we have.
I was confused before, but now it's clarified.
Ashes Rose 89 donated $69.
Kyla Yabebadfaith, you are more interested in winning or performing for an audience than in seeking truth, finding common ground, or being open to changing their mind.
I feel like I've changed my mind and granted you multiple things, but okay.
Ashes Rose, thank you for TTS.
We have Kyla Kyla Bunny Hugs donated $69.
Imagine her husband is married to her, and it's objective on both parties that her husband hasn't cheated on her because he's been home all day.
Kyla still will assume he still cheated.
We still love you.
Well, look, it's not.
listen, to be fair, it wouldn't...
She can say that it's a...
I'm sorry, respectfully.
Please don't engage with people making claims about me or my husband cheating on you.
Well, I'm just arguing the philosophy.
It would be the case that that is not objectively true.
I'm not postulating whether or not me and my husband have cheated on each other in the same way that I'm not engaged in some sort of philosophy about like Rachel Wilson having multiple baby daddies and blah, blah, blah.
All that bullshit.
I'm not interested in engaging in that sort of thing.
It's not interesting.
Yeah, I really wasn't going to engage with whether or not there's any truth to this.
I don't believe for a second that there's any truth that Nick has ever cheated on Kyla or vice versa.
Assumptions Without Evidence00:02:37
I have no idea.
I'm just saying that there's no way for her to justify the belief that he hasn't.
That's all.
That's all, right?
No.
No, you can't justify that.
I'm so over-engaging with you on this.
Okay.
Yeah.
All right, guys.
Well.
Even though it's your argument.
Look, you're straw man and I'm willing to engage with me, saying if you're assuming that's no assuming it's taking for granted.
Does assumption require a mind?
In this case, no, not technically.
Okay, then how is something assumed absent of mind?
Because A equals A must be like just assumed to be infinite and true forever.
Who's assuming it?
Nothing.
I just want to make sure that you understand what you just said.
I just don't know about the word assume.
So what you're saying is that something that is occurring within a mind.
By the way, clip that.
I just want you to understand what you just said.
I just said, does assumption require a mind?
You said no.
And I said, well, then who assumes the thing?
And you said nothing.
All right.
I'm good.
Okay.
Do you guys need to do another closing?
No, I'm good.
No.
Okay.
So the debate's done.
There's no further closing.
I was going to continue the stream just on my own for a little bit.
What?
Just, I wanted to talk to the audience.
Oh, cool.
I was going to lower the threshold a little bit, but I know you have another hour and a half, by the way, to get in and out.
I'll hang out with you for a little bit.
Okay.
Will you stay for a little bit?
Maybe we could just have a little pleasant convo for a little bit towards the end of the stream.
Only if you want to, though, because I'll give you 30 minutes.
Oh.
And then I'm going to fucking in.
Oh, that's perfect.
That's all I need.
You fucker, but I'm going to have a smoke roll.
You're a fucking legend, Andrew.
Guys, W's in the chat for Andrew Wilson.
W's in the chat for Kyla.
You guys were fantastic.
It was a fantastic debate.
We'll do an after, what would be the after hours?
Aftercare.
After.
Not exactly, but we'll do.
Assumptions Without Minds00:15:36
It assumes.
What's the without a mind?
You know, like the after show?
The late night show?
The after show.
After show.
So, guys, if you want to stick around a little bit, I'm going to lower the TTS threshold if you want to get a little message in here at the end.
We'll do $49 TTS if any of you guys want to ask a question.
And yeah, we'll do that.
We'll do that.
You're welcome to.
Oh, really quick.
Debate University, guys.
Guys, debateuniversity.com.
If you want to learn how to become a master debater like Andrew, you can assume things without a mind.
We've just abandoned philosophy at this point.
You're unironically just doing wordplay now, which is fine.
You can do that.
Unironically.
We decided that what is subjective requires mind.
What is objective does not require a mind.
When I ask you how you make an assumption absent of mind, you said yes.
That is objective.
And then I said, how can that be processed, absent of mind?
Well, what process is it?
Absent a mind.
You said nothing.
It can be processed, absent of mind.
What process is it?
Yeah, but I would say it exists outside of the mind, right?
So even though the mind isn't processing it, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist outside.
Does a mind process it?
It could, but I would say it's subjective.
It exists outside of us.
That would be objective.
Yeah, that's what I just said.
You said subjective.
I said objective.
You said subjective.
I definitely said objective.
And if I didn't say objective, then I absolutely meant it.
That's fine.
So objectively, it exists outside of the mind.
How can you assume?
How does something get assumed absent of mind?
It's like taken for granted.
By who?
By what mind?
By no one, but a mind engaging in agriposition.
There is no mind.
You just said does not require mind.
Yeah, I think the laws of logic exist outside of my mind.
Yeah, I know.
But then when we're getting to logic, what can make an assumption or axioms?
What can make an assumption?
Yeah, but what can make an assumption absent of mind?
Nothing.
Oh.
But this doesn't mean that objectivity doesn't exist.
But how can you said that you can make assumptions absent a mind?
Do you think that the laws of mind exist outside of mind?
Yeah.
Do you think that an assumption can exist outside of a mind?
Do you know that laws of logic exist outside?
Because they're unchangeable.
They're not social constructions.
They're not changing.
They're unchanging.
Okay.
Yeah.
So can you make an assumption?
Do you know that it's unchanging without a mind?
How do you know that?
Do you know what's unchanging without a mind?
It's funny.
With a mind, I understand that even absent the mind, this thing would be unchanging.
Like the rock.
Correct.
You have an assumption.
What can be assumed absent of mind?
These things exist outside of mind.
Yeah, what can be assumed?
Absent of mind?
Well, these things exist outside of mind.
But what can be assumed?
Well, the mind has to assume it to engage in philosophy.
Okay, so this is what the dogmatism is.
Absent the mind.
There aren't any assumptions?
No, no.
These things still exist.
No, I'm not sure.
So absent the mind observing the laws of logic logs.
What's the word assumption mean?
I don't have it on the top of my head.
Can you have assumptions absent mind?
In the like rules, it depends on what we're meaning here, right?
That's why I just asked you what assumption means.
What does it mean?
It's the mind observing it.
So this would go to the same question of you.
So can you say that?
How do you know the laws of logic exist?
Can you?
Infinitely.
Can you?
How do you know laws of logic exist?
I'm just diverting again.
I'm not diverting.
I'm not.
How does a fucking assumption exist absent of mind?
How?
Because I think it's objective outside of the mind.
Okay, that's great.
How is it objective?
An assumption.
Well, first, I guess just tell me what an assumption is.
I don't have a definition on that.
You don't know what an assumption is.
I can Google one for you.
Google it.
I'm actually fine with that.
Google it.
I got you.
What's an assumption?
Assumption.
Is a belief statement or proposition taken for granted as true without proof or concrete evidence?
Truth.
Taken for granted without proof.
What's the first word?
Belief?
Belief, yes.
Can you show me a belief absent of mind?
No, I think belief is fundamental to a mind, but beliefs are not the same thing as like axioms, right?
Is there a requirement of belief?
Is there a requirement of mind for a tautology to be a matter of belief?
Is there a requirement of belief?
For what?
An assumption.
Yes, I think that's what the term is.
Then how do we have belief?
Can a tautology exist?
How do we have beliefs absent a mind?
Can a tautology exist outside of mind?
A equals A. Tautology.
A equals A.
Oh, yeah.
I'll answer this, I promise.
But I want to answer my question first.
Belief.
How does belief exist absent a mind?
In the case of this, it doesn't.
Okay, so then when you say an assumption can exist outside of a mind, if assumptions require belief, can assumptions exist outside of a mind?
The assumptions don't, but the objective truth of the law does.
Okay, my question is.
This is dogmatism.
My question is, if beliefs are the requirement of an assumption, can assumptions exist outside of a mind?
I have answered this multiple times.
Then answer it again.
If a belief exist, If it exists, do beliefs, which are a requirement of an assumption, can they exist absent a mind or not?
Beliefs?
Beliefs.
No.
And are beliefs a requirement of the rest of the world?
Are beliefs requirements of assumptions?
Sure, but again, this is the mind of the science.
So you contradicted your whole thing.
Do you want to answer my question?
Are you going to answer my question?
Sure.
Okay.
But I just want to make sure we're clear.
A belief is a requirement of an assumption.
Assumptions can exist outside the mind, but beliefs cannot exist outside the mind.
Okay, so I just want to make sure we're clear.
Beliefs can exist.
Beliefs cannot exist outside the mind.
Assumptions can exist outside the mind.
Beliefs require assumptions, but assumptions can exist outside the mind.
Is that correct?
No, that objective reality exists outside of the mind.
Yeah, that's not my question.
My question is this.
You're not answering it until you do.
We're not moving on until we do.
I have answered that.
You have not.
I have not answered.
You have not.
I have multiple times.
Does a belief require a mind?
A belief does, typically.
Does an assumption require a mind?
Yes.
But the laws.
Yes.
Wait, but the laws.
Yes.
Yeah.
No.
The laws.
Yes.
Do laws exist?
Does the law of logic exist objectively?
What's that?
Does laws of logic object objectively?
Absent the mind, absent the mind, they exist.
Yes.
How do we know that that's true?
We can use inductive inference.
So we would know from inductive inference that if I was dead, the rock would still exist.
How do you use inductive inference?
Doesn't that require a mind?
Of course.
Oh, so you require the mind to even engage in objectivity.
So you're engaged in the idea of objectivity requires subjectivity?
No.
Oh, it seems like that's true.
No, no, no, no.
We're saying that's.
So how do you use inductive reasoning without a mind?
I'm explaining.
Okay.
The rock.
Is the rock material or is it immaterial?
It's material.
Can I ask one clarifying question?
Are you referring to the professional wrestler or the like the thing?
The geological object.
Okay, fine.
We'll get to the fucking chats, Brian.
No, sorry.
No, no, no, keep going.
Sorry, I was just curious.
No, no, no.
We'll get to your fucking chat.
No, no, no.
So, keep going.
So how do you know that moral laws exist objectively?
Well, we're not talking about moral laws here.
Here, we're just...
Laws of logic.
Yeah.
Here we're just talking about laws of logic.
Moral facts.
If a thing is a social construction, it's changeable.
If a thing is not a social construction, it would be unchangeable almost definitionally.
Well, theoretically, some things that are non-socialists are not.
If it is the case that I could change here in material reality, a law of logic, it would stand to reason that I could not change.
How could you know that it can't be changed?
Because any application to change the thing would appeal to the thing to change it.
So how do you change it without...
You can't.
Wait, how do you observe this, though?
We don't need to.
The observation is in the rationalization.
So the idea.
How is rationalization not required?
Because the idea.
Well, hang on.
I'm explaining to you.
I'm waiting.
And I just did, but I'll do it again.
The laws of logic are unchanging, and I know that they're unchanging because I have to appeal to the laws of logic in order to change the laws of logic.
How do you know the laws of logic?
Isn't it your mind?
No, these are discoverable.
They're discoverable through what?
They're discoverable as a thing which would exist absent the mind because nothing which is material.
How do you discover them?
Because anything which is material, anything which is material, if we agree, would exist absent us, then it would be the case that they cannot exist inside of contradiction.
Are the laws of logic material?
Well, no, they're transcendental.
Right.
They're not material.
So how do you know that they are objective?
Well, hang on.
Without reason.
They're transcendental.
I didn't say material or immaterial.
They're transcendental.
They're discoverable.
I agree.
When we're talking about laws, it's possible.
It could be possible.
Is it discoverable through a mind?
Well, it would.
Yes, it's discoverable through a mind, but it would exist absent that.
I agree.
Okay, but.
This is to assume that it is discoverable outside of a mind is a dogmatic.
Is that a justified true belief?
It would be unjustified because we're assuming that it is discoverable outside of the mind.
Then change it.
That isn't a refutation of that.
You can't.
That isn't a refutation.
You can't change it because the very thing you're appealing to is the very thing you're trying to change, which is hilarious to me.
Your whole dilemma here is fucking hilarious.
You're like, hey, Andrew.
Wait a second.
So you agree that you're not going to be able to do that.
It's not a justified true belief to believe that the laws, not even to believe, to say and state as a fact that it is justified that the laws of logic cannot be changed even absent human minds.
How do you know that?
You say to me.
How do you know that?
Well, because I would have to appeal to the thing to change the thing.
You'd have to appeal with the mind.
What's appealing?
But absent the mind.
What's doing the appealing thing?
How can a thing be discoverable if it doesn't exist absent minds?
How can something be discoverable if it exists absent minds?
If it doesn't exist, absent minds.
Sorry, I feel like I'm not understanding this question.
How would something be discoverable?
Yeah.
Absent minds.
No, I'm asking you this question.
Mathematics, right?
The laws of mathematics.
Yeah.
Do those exist absent minds?
Yes.
So they're discovered, which means they exist absent minds.
Correct.
Okay, so then when you make the appeal to a thing, you're saying the laws of logic are discoverable.
They are discoverable, which means.
What's discovering them?
Sure, a mind.
There's no discovering.
How are you discovering it?
Oh, through the laws of rationality.
How do you know laws of rationality exist?
Because these are things which, in order to change, you would have to appeal to the thing to change them.
You have to assume that there's a difference.
There's no assumption.
Of course it is.
How do you know that they exist?
Wait, what?
How do you know that they exist?
Oh, I would know that they exist through me.
Through your mind?
That's the only way I could know.
So your subjectivity is required for objectivity to exist?
No.
How is the rock is that?
If you are necessary for observing the objectivity.
The rock still exists, even if I'm dead.
True.
And I know this.
I know this because if you die, the rock is still there.
I agree.
So then if that's the case, then a social construction could be.
But how do you know this?
Well, the grounding of my epistemology?
Well, I mean, in this case, it's very simplistic.
If I can change the laws of logic because they're a social construction, then I would not need to appeal to the social construction to change it.
Sure.
In the case of the laws of logic, I cannot change them and would even need to appeal to them in order to change them.
But how do you know them?
Well, for me, I know them through the mind.
The mind, yeah.
But they would exist absent the mind.
I agree.
But they would actually have to absent an assumption.
There's no assumption necessary here.
The assumption is that anything exists, that God exists.
That's the assumption.
Yeah, we're not even assuming God.
We're not assuming any of this.
Well, we're assuming something.
We could assume existence.
You can make no assumptions and still make the inference that the laws of logic exist absent you.
Sure.
I agree.
This would be objectivity.
There's nothing there to fight about.
You're actually agreeing with me.
No, you're just saying.
What I would say is I can observe through my mind that logics are unchangeable, objectivity.
And you're saying my mind can use reason and logic, my mind to observe that these things are objective.
And it's like, that's true, but you assuming your mind, are you assuming that logic exists?
That's incorrect.
Let's say all minds are gone.
Do the laws of logic still exist?
Yep, because I believe they're objective.
Well, you're not here to fucking believe it.
So we're going to assume nobody's here to fucking believe anything.
We already established belief.
So you think the laws of logic don't exist.
I just answered five of your questions.
Yeah.
You already established belief requires a mind, that assumptions require belief.
You're fucking dead, and so is everybody else.
Are the laws of logic still here?
Yes.
Objectivity.
Then there's nothing here to argue about.
You're right.
We're all engaged.
You and I are engaging in dogmatism.
So are you assuming that they're going to be here or are they going to be here?
I'm using my mind of logic and reason to argue that it would exist outside of us, irrespective of us.
I'm assuming that this would exist outside of us.
That's what I'm granting.
So it's an assumption still.
Yes, there's an assumption there somewhere.
Okay, can you change that assumption?
That doesn't, again, can you change that assumption?
Yeah.
Okay, can you change the laws of logic?
I would say no.
No, no.
Can anybody change them?
I would say no because I think they're objective.
Just show me anybody changing them.
I don't need to because I agree.
They can't be changed.
Yes, they are objective, Andrew.
Good job.
But again, how do you know that they're objective?
I know that they're objective because I would have to appeal to them.
Your mind.
Yes.
Well, I would have to appeal to them to change them.
Epistemically, you use logic and reason to ascertain that morality is objective.
But at some point, you're assuming something.
You must just grant an assumption.
You must grant that A equals A.
So let me ask you this.
Is it the case that it's subjectively true that we would need to use Agrippa's triloma?
I don't know what this means.
That it requires minds for us to use Agrippa's triloma.
In the same way that it requires minds to engage in logic, but I think that logic would be true.
The laws of logic would be true outside of us.
Great.
Would it be true?
Same answers as you, by the way.
Would it be true?
I would say so, yeah.
That's true.
Yeah, Jay, not you.
You're not here.
That doesn't change the rock.
Laws Beyond Minds00:12:25
But is it still in existence even if you're not here?
Yep.
Okay.
Thank you.
True.
But I'm assuming that I am here and that everything exists.
Then you're making the assumption that this thing is true.
Yep.
Even absent you here.
I don't know.
I don't know how much longer you want to circle this.
Is it true?
You're absent assumption.
We, Andrew, so for all of his audience, Andrew and I think the same way about this.
No, we don't.
Yes, we do.
No, we don't.
Yes.
We're both engaging in dogmatism.
We think that objectivity, moral objectivity, exists outside of us, and we assume some sort of tautological fact like law of identity.
We assume it.
We assume A equals A because we can't think of anything else where A would not equal A. That's reasonable.
That's true.
If that's the case, then from a subjectivist view, you should be able to internally critique this.
Show me how you can violate the law of non-contradiction from a subjectivist perspective.
I don't need to do that.
Yeah, but that's not what I asked you.
Can you show me how?
Why would I?
Can you show me how to violate the law of non-contradiction?
Can you show me from a subjectivist position?
I don't believe in subjectivity.
Can you show it to me?
I don't believe in subjectivity.
You can't, right?
I don't need to.
Yeah, but you can't.
What do you mean I can't?
You can't actually show me from a subjectivist position how you could violate the law of non-contradiction.
Well, a subjectivist would say that none of these laws even exist if the minds don't exist because nothing is in existence without the minds observing them.
Gotcha.
But I would say they do exist outside of mind.
Right.
From the subjectivist perspective, can you show me how you could violate the law of non-contradiction?
If none of our minds exist at all, then laws and logic and all this stuff, none of it exists now.
So it doesn't matter.
Because nothing exists.
So everything's mind-dependent or not?
I don't hold this view.
What view do you hold?
I'm an objectivist.
So then nothing's mind-dependent.
Correct.
I do not think the laws of logic require a mind to be true.
I think they're true, irrespective of the mind.
Okay, but you're assuming that.
Yep.
Okay, so if it was the case that we would take this assumption away, would that still be true?
Yep.
Okay.
Yes.
Objectivity, dogmatism.
Gotcha.
Yes.
So then we can bypass the triloma.
Nope.
This is just dogmatism.
You just said that if we remove assumptions, then it would still be true.
Yep.
Because I think it's objectively true.
But dogmatism.
Me assuming that it would just be true is the dogmatism.
You just assuming that it would be true.
Yeah, me asserting that it would exist outside of me and it would be true outside of me.
So then you're the dogmatism.
So then you're not bypassing the assumption.
Correct.
Nobody can bypass a grip of truth.
That I've seen thus far.
Then if the assumption did not exist, this would not exist.
I think it would exist.
And then you're now bypassing the assumption.
Huh?
Then you're not bypassing the assumption.
Correct.
I'm not bypassing dogmatism, but I still think objectivity is true.
All right.
Yeah.
And the same way you do.
Not in the same way.
Yeah, I said, do you think laws of logic are true irrespective of mind?
You said yes.
And I said, how do you know this?
And you said, well, I can use laws of logic and reason.
I said, things like your mind.
Yeah, but I'm appealing to an unchanging faucet.
You're not.
You're appealing to a changing thing.
I am appealing to an unchanging thing.
I think the laws of logic are true forever.
You see how you say you think?
Subjectively true.
You think?
Yes, I think.
So you're mindful.
My perspective.
Just like you think.
Yeah.
Yes.
Dogmatism.
The question is, are these things true absent you think?
I believe so, yes.
Yeah, but you see how you said, I believe.
My question is.
Are these things believe?
Yes.
It is dogmatism to assume that.
Okay, so then you don't believe that or you believe that.
No, I do believe that it is both.
I believe that and it is dogmatism to assume that.
Yep.
Okay.
So it's subjectively true only it's so this requires a mind.
Can I cap this circling of the drain for like two more minutes?
Because like we're not moving anywhere.
You're saying the same thing I am.
You just don't.
Yep.
No.
Does the law of logic exist outside of the mind?
How do you know that?
Oh, wait a second.
I'm confused.
From a subjectivist perspective, how can you appeal to the laws of logic without using them?
What do you mean subjectivist?
Isn't that like a specific branch of belief?
It's not like objectivism.
It's not.
Subjectivist is an entire branch of philosophy.
You mean subjectivity, right?
Well, no.
In this case, I actually mean subjectivist.
You mean the entire branch of philosophy that I don't appeal to?
Well, I'm sorry, you are appealing to it.
Nope, I'm not.
I believe in objectivity.
You believe?
Yeah.
Is that subjective?
Nope.
Oh.
What makes it true objectively?
That you believe it?
It exists outside of me.
Oh.
Is that true?
Yeah.
Objectively?
Yep.
There's no assumption?
There is an assumption.
Then is that true?
Yep.
Objectively?
Yep.
Without assumption?
How do you do this?
Is it true objectively?
Is it true objectively?
Yes.
How do you know it?
Because I would appeal to an unchanging standard.
And how do you know it's unchanging?
Because absent my mind, it would still exist.
And how do you know that?
I know that through inference.
Inference, like using the mind?
There's no assumption there.
Of course, there is.
What's the assumption?
The existence of laws of logic, the existence that your mind is here.
These are all assumptions.
Everywhere you look, when a person dies, does the stuff that they leave behind remain?
What?
If it's the case that you're dead tomorrow, and I walk over and like pluck the cross from your chest, right?
Do you agree with me that that would be the case?
That if you were dead, the things that you leave behind are still going to be here materially.
Yeah, I believe in objectivity.
No, that's not objective.
Yes, I think it would be here materially.
Okay, it'd be here materially.
For some amongst the people.
Got it.
So then I could come over and take all that shit, right?
No, I would say you, when I'm dead, my next of kin.
Okay, yeah, sure.
They could take all that shit.
Sure.
But all that shit's going to be here, regardless of whether or not your mind is here.
Correct.
Just like the laws of logic exist outside of my mind.
Is that just an assumption?
Yeah.
So you're just assuming, so you're just like moving into simulation theory.
That's what, well, I'm not.
You are.
I'm granting existence.
But yeah, simulation is can't be proved.
Hang on, you're granting or is true?
Both.
Okay, but how can you make a truth claim by?
Just so you know, one minute left.
I'm not circling the drain with him for a while.
Okay, but this is not circling the drain.
Yes, I've already granted, for example, that one of the ways that you could try to refute the dogmatism of existence, of believing that existence is true, is saying we could all just be in a simulation.
And I said, I don't think that.
I don't think it's even useful to think like that.
But you could.
And then laws of logic don't actually exist.
They were just things imposed by the simulation onto us.
We don't actually know what's actually true.
Maybe it is nothing truly true.
Maybe nothing's truly true.
Well, I think that something is truly true.
Okay.
Are you assuming that?
Yeah.
Is that true?
I'm assuming objectivity.
Yep.
So it's true that you're making an assumption?
Yes.
Are you assuming that?
Bro?
I'm asking.
Are you assuming?
Asked an answer.
Are you assuming that you're making an assumption?
Aren't you using logic and reason to it doesn't have anything to do with me?
Are you assuming what?
What would it have to do with me if you're not?
Because assuming is your buzzword for the mind.
Yeah, but you're also using your mind to use inference and stuff.
My buzzword for the mind is mind.
the thing is is are you assuming that it's true yes that you're assuming uh am i assuming it's true that i'm am i assuming that my existence is true Yes.
No, are you assuming that it's true that you're making assumptions?
I suppose so, yes.
But is it also objectively true without assumption?
Yeah.
Okay.
That exists outside of the mind.
That's P and F.
But I use my mind.
But that's P and F.
It's the exact same thing that you do, which is that.
Do you think that laws exist outside of the mind?
Yes.
Do you think, what do you use to determine that?
I would use the fact that nothing could be appealed to to those laws except those laws.
Therefore, they must objectively be real.
They must objectively be real because you can't appeal to anything else.
Yes.
You must assume that A equals real.
There's no assumption there.
There's just nothing else.
It's impossibility to the contrary.
There's an impossibility of the contrast.
There's a theoretical world where it infinitely regresses, where A doesn't equal A and it goes down and it goes down and it goes down and there's a lot of people who are in the world.
Show me what a theoretical world looks like where contradictions can exist.
Where contradictions can exist in a simulation where contradictions are allowed to exist.
Okay, what does that look like?
It's hard to imagine for us because we're stuck in this thing.
So you can't actually.
But that doesn't mean that it's not logical.
But you just said that A could equal the same thing.
You just literally said that you can envision a world where contradictions can exist.
When I ask you what that vision looks like, you say, I don't know.
Yeah, I don't live in that simulation.
But theoretically, if this simulation created an idea, is it that you can't envision a world where that's the case, or is it the case that you just can't explain the world you're envisioning?
I would argue that it's objectively not true.
What?
That there is like some other alternate universe where the laws of logic are.
Yeah, that's great.
But my question is, is like, if it's the case that you can envision a world where contradictions can exist, can you tell me anything about that world?
Nope, because I'm not in that world.
Nope.
Okay.
How would I tell you anything about that world?
Yeah, of course.
You can't.
You can't tell me anything about the world because you would have to appeal to the very thing that you say is subjective in order to appeal to something that you're claiming is objective.
But it's subjective.
I would appeal to the object reality that we are in this reality.
I think that this reality is true, that it does exist.
And I am assuming that.
But if that's an assumption, is that true?
I think it's true, yeah.
But is it?
I would say objectively, yes.
Okay, but outside of your assumption, is it still true?
Yep.
Are you assuming that?
No, Andrew.
You're not assuming.
Now you're not assuming.
No, I'm not assuming it.
All right.
No, it's existing else out of my head.
We have a few chats.
Let's just blast through them while I still have you guys here at the table, and then we're going to get this wrapped.
Really quick, guys.
If you can like the video, get it to, we're, I don't know, 500 likes away from 8,000 likes.
Just get us to 8,000 likes, please.
It helps with the algorithm.
Warmstorm, thank you for the Canadian hundred.
Conspiracy theory: some bulk of confrontation in the convo was why she hasn't gotten popular or famous, has all the hallmarks to make it, and handed a piece of pizza and expected to eat it to gain popularity with the audience.
She refused to quote unquote eat the pizza.
Wait, I don't understand.
Why is there quote?
I don't know why.
I think eat the pizza.
It doesn't need to be in quotations.
That's what I was wondering.
You should at least take one bite.
Just I will for you right at the end, I promise.
Pinky swear.
Pound.
Sure, pound.
Pound it.
All right.
Thank you, Mr. Northumberland, for that.
We have the TTS coming through here.
We have Revolutionistic.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Get them in.
This is Ronald Calling.
Infinitely Beyond Our Understanding.
Stating this is true can be true, but may not be the full explanation of that truth.
Thank you for your message.
You want to engage with that?
Because that's to you.
I don't think it is to me.
Yeah, this is about assumptions, right?
What he's basically saying is that, like, you must assume that it's true, even though there is a theoretical possibility that truth is beyond what you even think of.
Yeah, but that's true.
That's beyond you.
You're saying objective.
So you're taking that out of the equation.
Nope, I'm not.
Yep, you are.
No, because truth can exist.
Like, I can know lots of objective truths, and there's more truth to know that I don't know.
I'm not asking what you know.
I'm asking what there is.
Is there objective truth?
Yes.
Then it doesn't matter if you know it.
Of course, you're just saying that it is the case that there is true truth.
Of course, it is.
I have to assume the truth that I have is true, that the existence of truth is true, and that the truth that I know isn't going to be held in contradiction to the truth that I don't know.
So you're assuming there's objective truth.
Okay, bro.
Yeah, okay, girl.
Type shit.
Support the Channel00:04:03
Justin Martin's donated $50.
Thank you, Justin.
At this point, I'm genuinely rooting for Kyla to understand what Andrew is saying.
She'll get there eventually, maybe.
Oh, because Agrippa's trilemma.
No, we're saying the same thing.
Andrew and I are saying the same thing.
Pope definitely $50.
Thank you, Pope.
She said subjective, I love you, Andrew.
You tell her.
Pope, thank you very much for that.
We have Chaw coming in here.
Comment.
Thank you, Chaw.
Chaw XD donated $50.
Brian, I love you and love the channel and debates.
But when I have to skip through an ad every 10 minutes during a live debate as a channel member, it makes me want to drive to Espy and throttle you.
Hang on, hang on.
I'm going to answer this.
In Brian's defense, let the guy raise some cash, right?
He has to pay people's fees to come out here.
He puts on the great entertainment.
You know, most people don't send in super chats.
It's always the threshold of people who do that make channels like this possible.
So if you've got to run some ads, watch the fucking ads.
It costs you nothing to watch an ad.
And if you have YouTube Premium, he makes good money from that.
That is, yeah, so I guess channel memberships, that doesn't do anything for ads.
But it does on Twitch.
On Twitch, yes.
If you have like if you have a tier one or what do they call it?
They're not memberships on Twitch.
They're subs.
Yeah, on Twitch subs.
It'll stop the ads.
Not the case on YouTube.
YouTube, you just need to have premium.
But yeah, you know, look, we're not exactly getting athletic green sponsorships every single episode here.
We're viewer supported, ad supported to a degree.
So, you know, just think about this.
All the people who are like, I'm too fucking broke to send in a super chat, but would love to support the channel.
Here's a good way you can support the channel.
Watch the ads.
Watch the ads.
It costs you nothing.
It literally costs you nothing.
And that's a great way where you don't have to spend any money but can still support the channel.
Yeah.
And, you know, the thing with our operation, it's I'm not exactly sitting in front of my desktop computer playing Fortnite where, you know, it's very, you know, low production cost to do something like that.
Studio, renting the studio space.
I've got a big team.
I've got an apparatus around me.
You know, paying for appearances, et cetera, et cetera.
So, you know, there are definitely expenses related to putting on the show, a production like this.
I'm not just streaming from my bedroom, playing video games.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the production cost for doing something like this is substantial.
The yearly costs are in the six figures to do a show like this.
So that was, I'm not going to get too far into the details on my expenses, but yeah, it's a lot.
It is in the situation.
I am intricately familiar.
It's a lot.
I'm spending the past every single year, not just total, like every year since 2023.
Well, even since 2022, when I was in the red, I was $100,000 in the red.
It's six figures a year in expenses to put on the show.
We have Christian Imperialist with looking like the final one.
Christian Imperialist donated $50.
If I use your logic to assume your husband's fidelity, which means it's only subjectively true, because it requires our mind to pretend it's true.
Me and Andrew are actually going to get Mexican food.
Unknownable Knowledge00:03:48
Does he know that?
He knows that.
You're out of your fucking mind.
No, we're actually getting Mexican food.
I promised you 30 minutes.
No, no, no.
Don't worry.
Don't worry, Andrew.
Don't worry.
Fuck off.
I'm going, bro.
No, we're going.
I'm taking you, but to get, we're going to get a different, we're going somewhere else.
Okay, whatever.
Don't worry.
I got you.
I got you, Andrew.
You fucker.
Okay, I think this is the final one.
This is the final one.
$49.
Did Einstein's predictions demonstrate anything of substance here?
And who has the bigger ego here, you'll think?
Kyla.
Definitely Brian.
Kyla has the biggest ego for sure.
I do not have a large ego at all.
All right, final shout-outs here.
If you want to support the show, my giant ego.
Huge.
If you want to support the show, Venmo Cash App, Whatever Pod.
Nathan, if you can, twitch.tv/slash whatever.
Drop us a follow-on-prime sub on your way out, guys.
Pull it up, Nathan.
There it is.
Yep.
Drop us a follow, drop us a Prime sub.
Thank you for the support over there on Twitch.
You can join our Discord, discord.gg/slash whatever.
I post my hate mail, stream schedule, post a bunch of cool stuff on there that's exclusive to the Discord.
Guys, like the video, please.
I don't know if we've hit 800 or not 800K, 8,000 likes, but if you can do so, please.
DebateUniversity.com if you want to learn how to become a master debater.
And then here, I'll just read this real quick.
Are there truths that are in principle unknowable?
If so, how is that claim itself justified?
And if not, why think Agrippa's trilemma shows justification if possible?
It is impossible.
Excuse me.
My bad.
We've been through this a million times.
No, no, no.
Because all justifications of knowledge fail in three unsatisfying ways.
Infinite regression, circular reason, or dogmatism.
Is there knowledge which is unknowable?
Thank you, Chop.
Possibly.
I'm not sure.
Is there?
I said possibly.
I'm not sure.
I haven't thought about it.
Oh, you haven't thought about it.
That's just a way for her to duck the question.
It's literally not.
I'm not sure.
We're playing it to Agrippa's Trilema.
According to Agrippa's Trilemma, would there be knowledge which is unknowable?
It has nothing to do with Agrippa's Trilemma.
I don't even know why you would.
Because that would be a claim which would be a universal.
It would be a universal, actually.
There's knowledge which is unknowable.
Universal has nothing to do with Agrippa's trilemma.
I'm not asking you about.
Wait.
I'm asking you this question.
If we apply the idea that there's some knowledge which is unknowable to Agrippa's trilemma, there is some knowledge which is unknowable.
Generally, yeah.
Could it show that Agrippa's trilemma is falsifiable and you can solve Agrippa's trilemma?
Theoretically, yeah.
No, that's not what he's asking.
He's asking, is it true that there's knowledge which is unknowable?
And if so, is that justified?
Can you justify that there's knowledge which is unknowable?
Theoretically, yeah.
Can you, though?
I don't know.
I haven't thought about unknowable truths.
But Agrippa's Trilemma would say no, right?
Agrippa's Trilemma wouldn't comment on this.
Yes, it would.
How does it mean that if you make a claim that says there's knowledge which is unknowable, and then your claim from Agrippa's Trilemma is that everything reduces to something which is non-justifiable, then that claim that there's some knowledge which is unknowable would be an unjustified claim, right?
Sure, but then yes.
Okay.
That's his question.
Left-handed assassin, thank you for the 50, man.
The mind is inherently energetic in nature.
Immaterial energy cannot be created or destroyed.
The mind is eternal as the almighty God, Jesus Christ, is eternal.
Sunday 5 PM Pacific00:01:40
Wait a second.
That's not justified.
Cody, thank you for the soup chat.
It's assumed.
All right.
It's assumed.
Yeah.
Guys, like the video.
We're going to wrap this up here.
I'm going to have a smoke real quick.
Oh, I'm just going to wrap it now if you want to set the table.
Guys, thank you for joining the stream.
We're going to be live again Sunday, 5 p.m. Pacific.
Andrew will be joining us for our dating talk panel show.
That's going to be a very good one.
We have other, some really fantastic panelists joining, Andrew.
So be sure to tune in.
That's Sunday, 5 p.m. Pacific here on the Whatever Podcast Dating Talk panel.
that was a marathon debate there.
You guys are, I want to thank both of you for coming.
Sure.
That was a really good debate.
I enjoyed it.
It was fun.
You guys were fantastic.
So thank you guys both so much.
I think it's always fair at the end if you guys want to do a little plug or shout out.
Sure.
My name is Andrew Wilson, host of The Crucible.
You can find me over on The Crucible.
A little bit obese, but still, I'm fucking entertaining and hilarious and a fantastic.
Thank you, Andrew.
You're cuddling.
Fantastic debater.
So make sure you go over there and you like, share, subscribe, all that stuff, and send me all of your money.
Not some of it, all of it.
Anything for you?
Yeah, you can find me at Not So Aerodide Everywhere.
Okay, perfect.
All right, guys.
07's in the chat.
07's in the chat.
Thank you guys so much for watching tonight.
It was an epic debate, epic stream.
I hope you guys have a great night, great weekend, and we'll see you guys on Sunday.