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