Speaker 1: Maybe you're not familiar with what grounding is. That just
means giving an epistemic justification for why that's the case,
good reason.
Speaker 2: So what's yours?
Speaker 1: Well, I believe the Christian world view, and I would
defend that and now explain it. But it's it's coherent,
it's consistent. Right, How Well, if you don't have that worldview,
you are immediately caught it a bunch of contradictions like
what like picking and choosing? Like what like picking and choosing? Well,
I'll believe this thing and then I won't believe this thing.
Speaker 2: That would make what things are contradictory? What are you
talking about?
Speaker 1: Well, to say that, we do it because it works
as a contradiction. Why, because it's a fallacy works to
do what?
Speaker 2: Explain your idea?
Speaker 1: I explained the fallacy right there.
Speaker 2: That's a fallacy explaining it. I don't have to. It
is you've contradicted yourself because that was a contradiction. It's paradoxical. Well,
you said you said one thing wasn't one thing wasn't,
so you're wrong. I'm not going to elaborate.
Speaker 1: I mean I have been elaborating. So if you're characterizing
my position is not elaborating. I mean it's very explicit.
Neo Conservative is out of the UK. Bernard Lewis, who
is the father of Leo, father of Samuel Huntington, who
wrote uh books that influenced the Bush administration. So the
Bush Cheney those are like sort of the arch neo
cons but it's actually out of the UK from Bernard Lewis,
and then they are also influenced by Leo Strauss who
was influenced by Hilper. But they also have an influence.
No joke, it was a Hungary joke. Jeans were made
actually I think originally for for communist purposes. No, no, no, Ittually.
Speaker 2: Jeans was like American Uh, it was like mining and.
Speaker 1: Well they wanted to have a standard for like in
a company town, like everybody had the same outfit. So
I'm not saying that, I'm not saying they make profits.
I'm just saying, like a company town, you could say.
Speaker 2: It's it's leave. I. Strass invented blue jeans and it
was in the United States, Denham work pants, but it
was made by in San.
Speaker 1: Francisco company town made what are you kidding me?
Speaker 2: You mean in the US it was that company town, like.
Speaker 1: A company town is not really a capitalist institution, like
they make money, but like you have to buy everything
from the company town.
Speaker 2: Well, I disagree with that. I mean, if there's a
barren wasteland and a company's like, we need to import
a bunch of people and there's no industry here, then
they have to create means by which people can choose
to buy food.
Speaker 1: But it's not classical libertarian free market. If everybody has
to shop at the company town, it might be the but.
Speaker 2: But but again, the point is if no town exists
and they build it, they're sure it's I wouldn't call
it communists. Well, it's called monopolistic.
Speaker 1: Okay, But I mean, if you're a libertarian, monopolistic capitalism
isn't classical libertarianism.
Speaker 2: Also again, so like if if if if I personally
have a private piece of land and I hire a
bunch of people and they're like, hey, there's no restaurants anywhere,
what do we eat? And I go, all right, I
guess I'll have the crew coming open up a restaurant.
But you got to pay for the food. Is that communism?
Speaker 1: It's I mean again, monopoly capitalism isn't really.
Speaker 2: Hold on, This is not this is this is not
an issue of there's no competition, like it's an issue
it is. I mean it's an issue there's no competition,
not forcing people to do anything that so is the alternative.
I just go, you know what, guys, I'm going to
open a restaurant where only I get to eat. You're
not actually not not allowed to eat it.
Speaker 1: So I don't want to be a communist, right, But
this is the same argument as to why people would
own like an entire water supply, right, So if you
privatize water, then no one has a right to the world.
Speaker 2: But but I'm not talking about that.
Speaker 1: I'm saying the company town could own the water. Indeed,
what right do you have to take it? It's communist.
It's not communist to have myalities. Wait what it's not.
Speaker 2: I own a swath of land and I invite you
to come work on it. I have to now relinquish
my right to the water body and my property.
Speaker 1: No, I'm saying, if you're going to create a society
or civilism, and you have if you own the entiret
year we're.
Speaker 2: Talking about company towns. We're talking about company town.
Speaker 1: That's the beginning of a civilization. Right, it's no different.
Speaker 2: Right. So the point you bring up is that if
I own let's say one hundred acres and I have
a grain mill on it, and then I can't produce
that much. So a handful of people are like, how
do you good sir? We could increase the output of
the grain if you give us, if you let us come,
And I say, all right, you know what I'm gonna Actually,
I'll pay you guys a share of the grain that
you mill. Thank you for voluntarily coming and offering this service.
They then say there's nowhere to eat for miles, and
I go, well, Unfortunately, if I were to create something
by which you could purchase food, that would be communism.
Speaker 1: So no, it's not communism.
Speaker 2: So then if I, as the landowner and the company owner,
then say I will open a restaurant the property for
you from which you can purchase goods, that's the beginning
of communism.
Speaker 1: So, but you're describing a situation of a small microcosm
where there's no company like a company town right, where
there's no competition. Huh, doesn't capitalism require competition.
Speaker 2: Who's stopping people from opening a restaurant across the street.
Speaker 1: Well, you would if you if you have a coon.
Speaker 2: No no, no, no no no no. If I own property and.
Speaker 1: You said a monopoly capitalism, that would you would be
then stopping the competition in a monopoly capitalist situation.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, we're talking about a company town right, privately
own property. Right, So do they have to relinquish their
water rights?
Speaker 1: If the city, if it grows to a certain size
where you begin to have competition.
Speaker 2: That's literally communism. It's seizing the assets from the private landowners.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: I'm literally going to a guy who owned land and says,
there's too many people here now, so your water is ours.
Speaker 1: That's compet No. If it's if you grow to where
you have a society that requires competition.
Speaker 2: And the people can seize your assets. Agreed, we're communists.
Speaker 1: If there's COMPETI but first of all, by the way,
Marx was a libertarian, so it begets really I want
to talk about it.
Speaker 2: I don't care about Marx.
Speaker 1: Well, you're accusing me of communism, then I'm not a
using you.
Speaker 2: I'm arguing if your argument is private land ownership is
void upon access population, that's literally a function of communism.
That's what the Venezuelands.
Speaker 1: Did what you're describing is literally just communism itself. A
company town is essentially the same as a communist side up.
It is, it is not, it is identical.
Speaker 2: It's completely so. So the people own the land in
a company town. In a company town, the people are
the people that the people have it. If we're talking
about the structures of communism by which there is a
private committee, and there's two ways we can look at it,
your argument seems to fuse to gather both the authoritarian
dictators ship components and the economic.
Speaker 1: That's monopoly capitalism. That's for your argument.
Speaker 2: If the argument is people can voluntarily choose to come
and work for a company, but there is no competition
because there's no market reason for it, it's not communism.
It's just a monopoly. But there's no oppression. And it
doesn't matter because you can always choose to leave.
Speaker 1: You can't always oose to leave if you're out in
the middle of nowhere, why did you go there? In
the west.
Speaker 2: And then again, Brot, I gotta tell you. If the
argument is I have no choice in my circumstances, therefore
I should get public rights, it's literally.
Speaker 1: Not what I said.
Speaker 2: This guy's a communist, So then leave, right, Why can't you?
Speaker 1: Well, you can say that, but in a company town,
especially like in situations when the eighteen hundreds company towns
are being set up, you didn't have the ability to
just leave right.
Speaker 2: Well, they're holding you at gunpoint.
Speaker 1: I mean, well, if you're under a contract, you might
have to be this.
Speaker 2: Why did you sign the contract? Well, again, is it
communism to voluntarily enter into agreement with the company.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you can call it voluntary even their situation
where something can be voluntary that you're actually locked into, right,
I mean, I can.
Speaker 2: You chose to enter into a contract.
Speaker 1: Amazon owns an entire area and it's the only place
to work, then to say well you can move and
you can't. Yeah, but it's yeah, but it's still a
form of wage slavery. Right. You don't think there's suit
things as well?
Speaker 2: No, I don't. I think that's comedy talk. Well, I
think this is quite literally the arguments of Chavez and
the arguments of Bernie Sanders, And my point that often
bring up to these leftists is what's stopping you from
just being a vagrant on federal land.
Speaker 1: There's no differences you.
Speaker 2: Want from my system without input, and that is the
the component of the left that I disagree with.
Speaker 1: This is your argument is a leftist argument. Actually, that
people should have to work with classical liberalism is a
leftist position. You argue classical liberalism, that's what I'm argus position.
Speaker 2: What I'm arguing for merit based capitalism is leftist.
Speaker 1: Yes, classical liberalism out of the Enlightenment, that is incorrect. No,
out of the Enlightenment origin.
Speaker 2: The origin of the left is the left aisle in
the French Revolution, referring to those who wanted a socialist,
anti monarchist and the right wanted a top down monarchist system. Okay,
so you're arguing it was a French revolution, it was
a left and the right.
Speaker 1: The French Revolution wanted a uh, constitutional monarchy on the right,
and they wanted private property on the right. Leftist wanted communism.
Speaker 2: Indeed, so when we say left and right in an
economic sense, at refers to left meaning communal right, meaning.
Speaker 1: That's that's classical liberalism, which is against the traditional position
of church and state. And this is a state.
Speaker 3: This is the argument that that Karl makes about about liberalism. Now,
what's the argent that a cod this is I'm only
saying that they're they're similar, that that liberalism is actually
a creation of the left, and that the ultimate.
Speaker 2: Form I'm not I am not advocating for in this
circumstance classical liberalism. I'm advocating for private rights.
Speaker 3: Yeah yeah, But the point that i'm the only point
that I make. His perspective is similar to Carl's perspective.
Speaker 2: Sure, but that's immaterial to the argument being made.
Speaker 1: It's not because what you're you're saying that you're a
socialist here in Marxist, but what I'm arguing would be
the same as any medieval village philosophy, and they weren't
Marxist or socialists back in the Middle Ages. Like if
you end up French village.
Speaker 2: In that, you're okay. Again, if the core of your
argument is there's a private landowner, twenty years later, there's
now three hundred people working in this land. We now
transfer the private rights from the landowner to a communal function.
Speaker 1: Again, it's complex where you have something like the total
ownership of something like a water supply, right, yeah, so
when you have people that need that, that's different than
a situation where Nestley's trying to buy an entire countries
like private water supply.
Speaker 2: So again the issue was company towns. I have one
hundred acres, I own the body of water on that land.
I invite a bunch of people to work. They say
i'll work here. I need a place to say. I say,
I'll bag a house. They say where do I get food?
I'll build a store, and they say we need water.
I say, I'll set up a water pump for you.
That's communism.
Speaker 1: Well let's go to the rights then, because you're arguing
that this you have this right as a company owner,
and I would agree, but on what basis do you
have those rights? Because classical liberalism lost this whole argument.
Speaker 2: Can I don't know why you're bring up classical liberalism.
Speaker 1: It's not it's not your position.
Speaker 2: No, it isn't your it is you're not aware of that,
but it is your positions. Now you're throwing a blanket
to encompass one point and combine with a bunch of
other point.
Speaker 1: Because your arguments come out of that ethos, whether you
know it or not, they're classical liberal.
Speaker 2: And you can have varying ideologies mix and match. Let's
make an argument what I actually the basis for the
right to own private property well ethos. So I argue
that the rights of man are derived from the will
or the duties God bestows upon man. The requirements that
we have from God, which is be fruitful and multiply
requires a handful of things for which we recognize in
the United States that we allow the people to do fully.
Recognizing that other groups have different ideas of what rights are,
so I would argue rights are we need to be
able to communicate, we need to to protect ourselves, and
we be able to we need to be secure in
our possessions. These are principal rights that we struggle to
survive without. As the basis of this is is look
at commune in general in the Soviet Union, and when
you don't have property rights, congratulations. Look what happens when
you have mass monopolization and oligopoly you get something similar. So,
in a simple sense, certainly it is my moral worldview
and faith based structures that define what I think someone
has an inherent claim to. Progressives think of an inherent
claim to someone else's labor, which would just I would
describe as slavery. So when it comes to the idea
of private land, ownership. The argument is fully understanding population
expansion can come to a point where some people will
never own land. But the idea is I need to
be secure in my possessions, to know and prepare for
harsh winters, for instability, so that I can survive, so
that I can be fruitful, and that I can multiply.
Speaker 1: So you build a genesis, and God, what God? What
principles of Genesis? Tell you that? What are you talking about?
Speaker 2: I'm not a Christian?
Speaker 1: Then how are you going to base this argument for
rights in God? What do you mean? What? God?
Speaker 2: My God? My moral worldview?
Speaker 1: So it's not a universal principle, it's just subjective.
Speaker 2: Well, I think to a lot of people they have
a moral worldview and a philosophical understanding of some things
and not others, And I base mine largely on First
I would argue that perhaps there are greater moral philosophies
than the Christian moral structures. We just don't know them yet.
I would say, historically, based upon what we have seen
throughout the world and what we think we know, the
Christian moral worldview has been dramatically superior to other moral structures.
So that being said, I am not a Christian, and
I don't believe in the faith structures they have. However,
I have recognized that the moral structures of a Christian
society tend to make life more successful for individuals, which
is ultimately beneficial to the standard function of life, which
is organizing complex or organizing free energy in and complex systems.
Speaker 1: So just utilitarianism. So because it works, well, that was
utilitarian You're wrong, that's utilitarianism. No argue that works. Well.
Speaker 2: Hey, if you don't have an argument for what I said,
stop trying to blanket it with something else. As a
straw man.
Speaker 1: The argument was utilitarianism. I'm it's literally not I did.
We can talk about it. Is it not utilitarian?
Speaker 2: Well, we can talk about dantological ethos, we can talk
about No. Indeed, my point is, instead of arguing what
I said, you're going you're arguing thing. I'm like, well,
I gave you a specific outline. I'm giving you the.
Speaker 1: Problem with utilitarianism. I'm sorry that you're not aware with
of the problems with that, but.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry that you can't actually address what I told you.
Speaker 1: I'm addressing it now, which is you're not utilitarian. Arguments
are pragmatic and it's not a justify.
Speaker 2: Right, I'm not a utilitarian, but you made a utilitarian
argument a component of some perhaps, so I don't believe
in utilitarianism because that would sacrifice individuals. Again, do you
know what dantological moral ethosism? Okay? Great? So when you
say something like and then I bring up we do
not we do not take immoral actions against an individual
for the betterment of the of it. I know you
are making an argument the needs of the many outweigh
the needs of the few, which I did not say.
You can have different types of utilitarianism. Sure that instead
of arguing the point that.
Speaker 1: I made, point you argue a pragmatic point.
Speaker 2: Argue the point I made. Stop trying to blanket into
other hou.
Speaker 1: Does pragmatism justify the rights? That's what you argued? Okay?
Speaker 2: I made an argument about private land ownership as a
benefit to human survival.
Speaker 1: Right pragmatic?
Speaker 2: Okay, So address what I said. How does appeal you
make yours? Addressing what I said?
Speaker 1: That's not a justification.
Speaker 2: It's a bad argument.
Speaker 1: Why because appealing to things that work or pragmatism isn't
a justification.
Speaker 2: Explain why I'm wrong about the requirement of private land
ownership for survival.
Speaker 1: You grounded the right in utilitarianism and pragmatism, and I'm
saying that's not a good justification. It's a bad argument.
So explain anything that works could be all over the place,
that could be subjective.
Speaker 2: Indeed, that was my point in which I said, there
is structuralism that work better we have not discovered yet.
Speaker 1: Then if it's so, you don't know. So if it's
a future thing that you haven't figured out yet, then
you don't know right now.
Speaker 2: That justase I understand certain principles of gravity and the
speed at which things fall, but we don't know for
sure how the structures work. And it wouldn't we operate
based on probabilities, but it.
Speaker 1: Would then that would not work to justify the rights
as grounded in an unknown.
Speaker 2: Then go jump off a building and see how it works.
For you.
Speaker 1: You told me I have to I have to go.
Speaker 2: Jump off a building and see how it works. Because
you don't know gravity, it's a future thing you haven't
figured out yet. We operate on probabilities based on what
we think we know because we actually don't know.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't ground a right. That's the point, indeed
future probabilities. I asked you for the grounding for the
right to private property.
Speaker 2: So far human history has proven private land ownership is
beneficial to human existence.
Speaker 1: That's a circular argument benefit. I'm asking how you know
that it benefits of what does mean to benefit? And
you're saying, because it.
Speaker 2: Was good, it makes more of it.
Speaker 1: That's a circular argument. Why well, why maybe making more
of it's bad.
Speaker 2: It's certainly not.
Speaker 1: Okay, but why not? That's the point, That's why it's circle.
Speaker 2: Well, let's go back to the origin of what we
think we know again, because everything we think, everything is
rooted in what we think we know. Right, some people
think the Earth is flat. They're probably wrong, But honestly,
I've not done the experiment experiments myself to a great degree.
I've just been in a plane. So if we go
back to again the roots of science, we can take
a look at a few things. Free energy tends to
coalesce into complex systems, starting with the baser elements, or
we can say quarks, I'm sorry, quarks into particles, into atoms,
into elements into compounds. At some point, for some reason,
you get gravity. Likely because if you're familiar with our
current understanding of gravity. Mass creates attraction, et cetera. And
this results in certain masses coming together. Eventually you'll get
something like a gas giant. You'll get something that compresses
then ignites fusion, and you get a sun. We get
all this stuff, then you get an Earth. Earth is
the result of certain things slamming together, creating a bunch
of complex elements through process of fusion, et cetera. And
then at some point on Earth, for some reason, again
we don't really know for sure, these molecules and compounds
start forming self replicating proteins. The Again, in modern science,
the one thing we recognize is that there is greater
entropy and limited entropy. Negative entropy can only exist in
a slightly greater entropic system. But we do see free
energy organizing in the complex systems throughout the Earth and
in the universe. That's what we monitor. Eventually, these complex
systems ultimately become mult They become cellular organisms, single cells,
then multicellular organisms, by which they then create complex organism systems.
They create ecosystems. Now, you've got a squirrel planting a nut,
growing a tree. The tree then drops the food for
the squirrel, And now I've got two distinct life forms
that form a complex system within its own free energy.
And then we get to the craziest part with humanity
in the creation of abstract complex systems. That is, humans
give names to things that don't exist anywhere in reality
except and the energy transference between the mind and the
vibrations between their mouths. So what we then see is
the function of life is negative entropy within a larger
entropic system. If we as life, which are driven to
reproduce and are and we typically associate all of those
things with being good and enjoyable, like having kids having
Christmas morning, then we track based on what we have
seen throughout the Earth, what is the most beneficial to that.
There are few answers for this. Islam could be one
of them. They've certainly been massively successful, have lots of kids.
We can take a look at Africa and say, certainly
that is beneficial. However, I would make the arguments that
the European cultures that develop science, space travel cures for
diseases and then effectively colonize the whole planet, as well
as the Asian cultures, have proven greatly that these moral
worldviews lend themselves greater to the ectropic system within the entropy,
and then we would say, well, it's maybe a toss up.
But I do think that the American Judaeo Christian or
just Christian moral values, which include things like private property,
have lended itself to the formation of complex systems that is,
life expansion and all the things that we cherish in
the world, and thus those are the things we aim for. Certainly,
these things are very subjective, and some people believe other things.
Some people might think it's better to watch the whole
world burn because humans are a virus that's spread like
a plague. I don't believe that, but I do recognize
I can't convince other people, nor do I know everything.
So in the end, I ultimately conclude if we want
people to have families and have kids, private land ownership
is probably the best thing we can do.
Speaker 1: That's a good story, but it doesn't get to grounding
or justification for why the right is actually something that
is grounded in God. So storytelling is one thing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, it's grounded in God because God commands us
to be fruitful and multiply and the But.
Speaker 1: You don't accept that revelation. So it's just I do
what do you mean to we? You said you're not
a Christian.
Speaker 2: You indeed, just because you're not a Christian, you can't
believe some things Christians believe.
Speaker 1: Well, but I mean it would you could do that.
But it's not a consistent position, is all I'm saying.
Speaker 2: It's a consistent position to believe that humans should be
fruitful and multiply. I didn't argue that I believe Jesus
died on the cross, but to pick.
Speaker 1: And choose elements of the worldview as a grounding for
rights and private property.
Speaker 2: As well, is something that everyone will do.
Speaker 1: But that that's another fallacy, the fact that people do it.
Speaker 2: I don't have to connect myself to one of someone else's.
Speaker 1: Books use their fallacies. It's the fact that people do
things doesn't have anything to do with whether that's correct
or whether that's right.
Speaker 2: I agree.
Speaker 1: Then you're admitting it's a fallacy.
Speaker 2: No, you're arguing that if I believe one thing from Christianity,
I have to believe everything. No.
Speaker 1: Again, it was an argument about grounding the idea of
private property. So maybe you're not familiar with what grounding is.
That just means giving an epistemic justification for why that's
the case, good reason.
Speaker 2: So what's yours?
Speaker 1: Well, I believe the Christian worldview, and I would defend
that and now explain it. But it's it's coherent, it's consistent. Right,
How Well, if you don't have that worldview, you are
immediately caught in a bunch of countrydiction like what like picking
and choosing? Like what like picking and choosing? Well, I
believe this thing, and then I won't believe this thing.
Speaker 2: That would make what things are contradictory? What are you
talking about?
Speaker 1: Well, to say that, we do it because it works
as a contradiction. Why, because it's a fallacy works to do?
Speaker 2: What? Explain your idea?
Speaker 1: I explained the fallacy right there. That's a fallacy explaining it.
Speaker 2: I don't have to. It is you've contradicted yourself because
that was a contradiction. It's paradoxical. Well, you said you
said one thing wasn't one thing wasn't, so you're wrong.
I'm not going to elaborate.
Speaker 1: I mean I have been elaborating. So if you're characterizing
my position is not elaborating, I've been very explicit.
Speaker 2: So what makes what makes the Christian moral worldview on
private landownership.
Speaker 1: Well, we're made in God's image, so we have the
Ten Commandments. It has a position where you can't steal.
So that's a basis for private property right there.
Speaker 2: But I can't just pick and you can't explain it.
Speaker 1: What do you mean by explaining?
Speaker 2: Is your answer just God said no?
Speaker 1: The answer is that your world view is inconsistent and contradicts.
That's a transcendental argument. That's the argument.
Speaker 2: What is inconsistent about my worldview?
Speaker 1: You gave no justification for why rights are a thing?
You just said because literally did. That's not a justification
as a fallacy.
Speaker 2: That I explain function of existence.
Speaker 1: That's not a good argument explaining function.
Speaker 2: That's not an argument at all.
Speaker 1: Explaining functions. That's not a good argument to justification.
Speaker 2: That's a bad argument. So you're just saying things, Well,
you're just saying things to me.
Speaker 1: I'm explaining to you how it will work in a
college class if you take it in as epistemology class,
that you are getting the same critique.
Speaker 2: Is your arguments God wills it?
Speaker 1: No? Then what argument is that the worldview as a
whole is coherent and gives a justification under grounding for
the ethics for these.
Speaker 2: Things, and why explain the coherence of it?
Speaker 1: Well, if the world is made by God, if we
have ethics being made in the image of God based
on the tame commandments, these kinds of things, then it
makes sense why things are wrong and right?
Speaker 2: Are there other religions? Of course, do they think you
are wrong?
Speaker 1: That's a fallacy. It doesn't matter, So why would why
would there people that don't believe too? Tolle two is four, Yeah, sure, sure.
My point is it has have anything to do with anything.
Does that have anything to do with it?
Speaker 2: Let's try this before we actually go to the next segment.
If your argument is I am right and other world
views are just wrong and don't.
Speaker 1: Matter, that's not what I argue. They're contradictory.
Speaker 2: Okay, I argue yours is contradictory.
Speaker 1: And your that's not an argument it is. I gave
you the argument you gave to me. I showed your
contradiction because you said it's the contradiction. You said that
it's true because it works.
Speaker 2: I didn't say it was true.
Speaker 1: You said that that's why you believe it.
Speaker 2: That was I said, based on what we think we
know right now, and there may be better structures we
discover in the future. This seems to be the best
course of action for promoting human existence.
Speaker 1: Well, it works, let's say it works.
Speaker 2: Argument it I think that's an oversimplification of we act
upon probabilities to do the best we can.
Speaker 1: But again, none of those things work to ground why
private property should be something everybody should accept.
Speaker 2: I think my argument is it helps people survive better
than any system we have.
Speaker 1: So it works. That's a pragmatic argument, and that doesn't
work to justify our ground The position certainly does.
Speaker 2: No, not why should we use Why should we use
a fire hose to put out fires?
Speaker 1: You keep thinking that working means that it's a justification.
That's not what grounding is even asking for. It's a
different type of.
Speaker 2: Question, I understand. But you are not actually making any
point at all other than God wills it.
Speaker 1: That was not what the argument. Argument was that the
whole world view.
Speaker 2: Or argument is I have a Christian worldview.
Speaker 1: That is, it's a transcendental argument for the whole worldview.
Speaker 2: And I have I have that same exact thing.
Speaker 1: No, you didn't argue that I do. You argued utilitarianism
and pragmatism.
Speaker 2: I argued that the structure of life is organizing free
energy into complex systems.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't tell me what I ought to do.
That just says what is it?
Speaker 2: Indeed, tells you what you ought to do?
Speaker 1: Why? How is that universal?
Speaker 2: You are to be fruitful and multiply?
Speaker 1: Is that universal?
Speaker 2: Indeed? That life procreates and creates more life?
Speaker 1: Well, that's a universal claim. But you said that it's
subjective to you.
Speaker 2: Well, I recognize that other people believe other things.
Speaker 1: That's not what universally it just means. Is it binding
everywhere at all times?
Speaker 2: You said it was subjective to me, and I said
you said that, I said, no, I recognize other people
believe other things. That's what other people could perceive that
as subjective.
Speaker 1: Universal means it applies at all times, at all places,
to all people.
Speaker 2: They ought to do this, They should ought to do this.
Speaker 1: Okay, what is the basis for the aught in your position?
Speaker 2: The basis for why people should have children.
Speaker 1: And have private property or whatever God wills it. But
you don't believe in God any in any specific way,
So how does that have anything?
Speaker 2: I literally do believe in God, but you.
Speaker 1: Said, it's not the Christian God, it's just parts of Genesis.
Speaker 2: Correct. I don't believe in the God because.
Speaker 1: What's the principle of this god?
Speaker 2: Principle? God is largely a Christian God.
Speaker 1: So you do, but don't I don't get it.
Speaker 2: What do you have the ability to understand that there
are different eighth structures?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: You, by all means are allowed to say my religion
is wrong, but.
Speaker 1: It has to be coherent to argue that.
Speaker 2: I don't have to be a religion. Certainly my religion
is consistent.
Speaker 1: Okay, what is the basis for when you know when
to pick from what text and which ones to reject?
Speaker 2: I'd ask the same question of you.
Speaker 1: Well, that's a two quote.
Speaker 2: That's a fallacy to ask you to define, So you
can ask.
Speaker 1: Me the question I just asked you as a fallacy
in be yeah.
Speaker 2: Can can? Can you do it?
Speaker 1: Or no? Yeah? I don't pick and choose, so I
don't have that problem. I accept the totality of the
Christian paradigm. So for me, it's not a problem to
which you can choose or dogs.
Speaker 2: So are there things in the in the Bible that
you do not adhere to?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: Are you explained to me, like there's modernization, correct of
what of of of the of the Christian I don't know.
I guess moral structure is what you're supposed to do,
what you're not supposed to do? Like like like, talk
to me about Leviticus?
Speaker 1: What about it? It's a typology?
Speaker 2: Do you follow it? Are the things to be followed?
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's principles in the Leviticus. Sure, Jesus references those.
Speaker 2: Yeah, do you Is it okay to not follow some
of them? Is okay to follow some of them?
Speaker 1: Well, Jesus, being the one that gave Leviticus as the law,
would have the ability to decide how it's interpreted.
Speaker 2: So yes, are there things in the Bible that you
are supposed to do that you don't?
Speaker 1: There are temporary ceremonial commands that are fulfilled. So you're
talking about like sacrifice the animals.
Speaker 2: Sure, sometimes you do, sometimes you don't.
Speaker 1: If the principle is that Jesus gave the law and
he says how it's exercised and fulfilled, that's not inconsistent.
Speaker 2: What I don't understand is there Christians that don't eat
meat on Fridays.
Speaker 1: That's just a fasting position. That Catholics do.
Speaker 2: Yeah, is that? Is that right or wrong?
Speaker 1: But what does that have to do with Leviticus.
Speaker 2: I'm now moving forward and asking you about a specific thing.
I don't understand that there are Catholics they don't eat
meat on Fridays? Is that? Is that?
Speaker 1: Not? So?
Speaker 2: So again, I think you don't view Catholic says coherent.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: That is well, and the argument there you view your
religious structure as the coherent structure, and other structures are incoherent. Okay,
I disagree, and we are allowed to disagree. That we
have two different moral religious worldviews, and that is the
inherent disagreement. So in my moral worldview, I believe there
is a basis in private ownership because if you are
to fulfill God's will of having children, having families, you
need a way to control your resources so that you
can do that without being taken from you. I actually
think we agree on that point.
Speaker 1: I do.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I don't know why you were arguing when
we had completely agreed on that, other than to say
I'm not a Christian because it's.
Speaker 1: Not just a question of having the right position, but
what are the good reasons.
Speaker 2: For that'sh No, it's not that's what epistols. Let's let's
go talk to talk about Trump, City of the Union
and CNN, and it was fund debating, though I appreciate