Speaker 1: Temple.
Speaker 2: So he's saying he's not a Christian, but he's appealing
to Christian theology. He's appealing to the Old Testament Genesis,
be fruitful and multiplied. So if he's appealing to that
and he's saying, well, this is where I get this
idea of rights from, and people need to be fruitful
and multiply, why would you discard the rest of it?
Because if you're saying that that is the reason, and
that is how you ground your understanding of rights, and
it comes from that God, then why would you discount
the other things that that God says? Why would you
discount the other aspects of orthodox Christian theology? For example,
let's get into this, shall we.
Speaker 3: Jo father of Samuel Huntington, who wrote books that influenced
the Bush administration. So the Bush Cheney those are like
sort of the arts neocons, but it's actually out of
the UK from Bernard Lewis, and then they are also
influenced by Leo Strauss, who was influenced by but they
also have an influence jeans No joke, did you joke?
Hung jeans were made actually I think originally for communist purposes.
Speaker 4: No, no, no, it was actually jeans was like American
it was like mining, and.
Speaker 3: 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 mean not saying they make profits.
I'm just saying, like a company town.
Speaker 4: You could says it's Levi Strass invented blue jeans, and
it was in the United States, Denham work pants, but
it was made.
Speaker 3: By in San Francisco company town. Are you kidding me?
Speaker 4: You mean in the US it was that company town.
Speaker 3: Like 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 4: 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 3: But it's not classical libertarian free market. If everybody has
to shop at the company town, it might be the.
Speaker 4: But but again the point is if no town exists
and they build that, they're sure it's like a right.
So I wouldn't call it communist. Well, it's called monopolistic.
Speaker 3: Okay, but I mean, if you're a libertarian, monopolistic capitalism
isn't classical libertarianism.
Speaker 4: 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? 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 3: It's I mean again, monopoly capitalism isn't really.
Speaker 4: Hold on, this is not this is this is not
an issue of there's no competition, like it's an issue
it is. There is no I mean it's an issue
there's no competition, not forcing people to do anything. Then,
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.
I don't want to a communist, right, But this.
Speaker 3: 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 4: But I'm not talking about that.
Speaker 3: I'm saying that a company town could own the water.
Speaker 4: Indeed, what right do you have to take it? It's communist.
Speaker 3: It's not communist to have wait, what it's not.
Speaker 4: I own a swath of land and I invite you
to come work.
Speaker 2: It's not specifically communists to have public municipalities, like lots
of different systems have public municipalities.
Speaker 4: I have to now relinquish my right to the water
body and my property.
Speaker 3: No, I'm saying, if you're going to create a society
or civilization and you have if you own the entirety.
Speaker 4: We're talking about company towns. We're talking about company.
Speaker 3: That's the beginning of a civilization. Right, it's no different.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 4: So the point you bring up is that if I
own let's say, one hundred acres and I I.
Speaker 6: Have a a grain mill on it, and then I
can't produce that much.
Speaker 4: So 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 going to 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 3: So no, it's not communism.
Speaker 4: So then if I as the landowner and the 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? 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 3: It's I mean again, monopoly. Capitalism isn't really.
Speaker 4: Hold on this is this is not an issue of
there's no competition, like it's an issue it is, I mean,
there's an issue if there's no competition.
Speaker 2: Chase Haggard says, I like Tim, but Tim was lost
in this entire exchange. Chase, what are you doing? Do
you want to come and review this with me? Do
you want to jump in Rachel's office? Because once we
get to the epistemology pot it would be because this
communism pot is all fun and everything, but in five
or ten minutes it gets to the religious part of things. Chase,
you want to jump on review this with me? Chase
would be a freaking good addition to this. Yeah, if
you can, if you can set up your camera somewhere
in the office or whatever.
Speaker 4: 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. I don'tant
to be a communist, right.
Speaker 3: 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 4: But I'm not talking about that. I'm saying that a
company town could own the water. Indeed, what right do
you have to take it? It's communist.
Speaker 3: It's not communist to have my palities. Wait what it's not.
Speaker 4: 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 3: No, I'm saying, if you're going to create a society
or civilization, and you have if you own the entiret year.
Speaker 4: We're talking about company towns. We're talking about company.
Speaker 3: Town that's the beginning of a civilization, right, it's no different. Right.
Speaker 4: So the point you bring up is that if I
own let's say one hundred acres and I I.
Speaker 6: Have a a grain mill on it, and then I
can't produce that much.
Speaker 4: So 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 3: So no, it's not communism.
Speaker 4: So then if I, 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 3: So, but you're describing a situation of a small microcosm
where there's no a company town, right, Well, there's no competition.
Speaker 7: Huh.
Speaker 3: Doesn't capitalism require competition?
Speaker 4: And who's stopping people from opening a restaurant across the street.
Speaker 3: Well, you would if you if you have a cohone.
Speaker 4: No no, no, no, no no no. If I own property and you.
Speaker 3: Said in a monopoly capitalism, that would you would be
then stopping the competition in a monopoly capitalist situation.
Speaker 4: No, no, no. We're talking about a company town right privately
on property.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 4: So do they have to relinquish their water rights?
Speaker 3: If the city, if it grows to a certain size
where you begin to have competition.
Speaker 4: That's literally communism. It's seizing the assets from the private landowners.
Speaker 8: No.
Speaker 4: 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 common.
Speaker 3: If it's if you grow to where you have a
society that requires competition.
Speaker 4: And the people can seize your assets. Agreed, we're communists.
Speaker 3: If there's COMPETI first of all, by the way, Marx
was a libertarian, so it begets really I want to talk.
Speaker 4: About I don't care about Marx.
Speaker 3: Well, you're accusing me of communism, then I'm not accusing you.
Speaker 4: I'm arguing. If your argument is private landownership is void
upon excess population, that's literally a function of communism. That's
what the Venezuelands did.
Speaker 3: 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 4: It's completely so. The people own the land in a
company town. In a company town, the people are the people.
The people have.
Speaker 5: It.
Speaker 4: 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 3: That's monopoly capitalism. That's where your argument.
Speaker 4: 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 3: You can't always choose to leave if you're out in
the middle of nowhere.
Speaker 4: Why did you go there?
Speaker 3: In the west?
Speaker 4: 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 3: Not what I said. This guy's a communist so then leave, right,
Why can't you 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 4: Well, they're holding you at gunpoint.
Speaker 3: I mean, well, if you're under a contract, you might
have to be this.
Speaker 4: Why did you sign the contract? Well, exactly is it
communism to voluntarily enter into agreement with the company.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but you can call it volunteer.
Speaker 1: Tim's a big Tim's big on this.
Speaker 2: When he does the debates, he will do a lot
of interrupting, He'll get very excited, and he'll do a
lot of shotgunning, whereas Jay is pretty much the opposite
right now in this particular moment, just as cool as
a cucumber.
Speaker 3: Even their situation where something can be voluntary that you're
actually locked into, right, I mean, I can.
Speaker 4: You chose to enter into a contract.
Speaker 3: Amazon owns an entire area and it's the only place
to work, then to say well you can move and
you can share, Yeah, but it's yeah, but it's still
a form of wage slavery. Right, You don't think there's
such things as well?
Speaker 4: No, I die, I think that's commy 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 leftist is what's stopping you from
just being a vagrant on federal land.
Speaker 3: There's no differences you want.
Speaker 4: From my system without input, and that is the the
component of the left that I disagree with.
Speaker 3: 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 4: What I'm arguing for merit based capitalism is leftist.
Speaker 3: Yes, classical liberalism out of the Enlightenment, that is incorrect. No,
out of the Enlightenment origin.
Speaker 4: 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 3: The French Revolution wanted a constitutional monarchy on the right
and they wanted private property on the right. The leftist
wanted it.
Speaker 4: Is indeed, so when we say left and right in
an economic sense, at refers to left meaning communal right
meaning that affair.
Speaker 3: That's classical liberalism, which is against the traditional position of
church and state. And this is a state.
Speaker 8: This is the argument that that Karl makes about about liberalism. Now,
what's the that star of 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 form.
Speaker 4: I'm not I am not advocating for in this circumstance
classical liberalism. I'm advocating for private rights.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But and this is where it goes off the rails.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that part was like kind of boring
when they're saying you're more communists, you're more communist whatever.
This is where it gets really interesting. And this is
where Tim really gets quite the spanking because he starts
now advocating for roots. Jay asks him to basically ground
his roots in something where do you get your rights from?
Timp heeals to God and appeals to universals, and then
Jay just basically calls him out on just a series
of like everywhere Tim steps after that is a fallacy.
He steps onto a fallacy everywhere that he goes after that,
after he makes those claims. So yes, guys, we might
have to get this dono bar up though before we
move on. Honestly, might have to be how it is today,
because they're humble dono bars today, they're humble dono bars.
Speaker 1: I think we have to get to at least half
before I move on here.
Speaker 2: I know, I know, Izzie Man bad, Izzie Man bad,
Izie Man mean, but we need to get one of
these dono bars up, whether it be the.
Speaker 1: Stream elements or the YouTube dono bar.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, Beaten Cheeks did donate on stream elements, but
twenty and up comes through though, But he said it's
extremely unhealthy to speak to someone like this. They them
they'd have a stroke after speaking alonger than fifteen minutes straight.
Speaker 1: His poor knees also have twenty eight.
Speaker 2: Days left of Twitter jail free speech, my ass. Yeah, yeah,
that was Yeah, that was a sad site that we
were watching before. If you guys didn't see that one,
it was a sad site. Indeed, a sad site.
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 2: Aussie man on strike, that's true, guys. Comedy tactics, that's right. No,
pretty capitalist, actually pretty capitalist than anybody who has a
problem with it, I'll just ban you for Life's that's
fine because you know, unlike the commies, I actually like
to get paid for my work.
Speaker 1: And you know, I've.
Speaker 2: Got different aspects of the audience. I've got some of
the audience that really likes the long form videos. I've
got some audience that really like the streams. Blame Pisachik
with twenty says tim is having they them energy a
little bit like that, isn't it. Thank you very much, Blaine. Yeah,
so I've got some audience that likes the short form
appeal to They appeal to the Instagram. Everything appeals to them.
Speaker 1: That's great.
Speaker 2: I've got some audience that only really like Most of
my audience on Rattleskink TV only ever watches the I'll
just let you know, you guys know how it works.
Most of the audience only ever watches the long form videos.
And most of my income comes from the long form
videos and then putting sponsors on the long long form videos.
So streaming is something that I kind of do as
more of a fun thing for a pastime. But four
hours of my time is just a lot. So this
is why I have the donot goals and why I
need to actually fill them up and why I'm shameless
about drifting because I need to get paid for my time, guys. Otherwise,
I've got a whole team who relies on me. You know,
a lot of people who rely on me to make
to make this content and to go out and write scripts.
And I got advertisers who are freaking wanting me to
make videos and everything. So there's a lot going on.
So the streams all good and everything. Enjoy doing them,
but there needs to be these need to get greased.
And that's just the way that it goes, guys. So
if anybody doesn't like that, and if you want to
call it e begging or whatever, then I'll just ban
you for life and you can go yourself as far
as I'm concerned. So, yeah, you if you don't like it,
basically anyways, Yeah, that's just the way it goes, guys.
Not a massade agent for twenty says this money is
not from any intelligence agency. Not a massad agent. What
have I told you about publicly donating money to me?
Speaker 1: Masad? What have I told you about publicly.
Speaker 2: Donating Hey, come on now, Beaten Cheeks for twenty says
I'm here for the commie hatred commies for the win
beaten cheeks. At least you're funny, you know what I mean.
I try to find a way to make fun of
beaten cheeks today. How can we give shit to beaten cheeks.
He's one of those ones that it's fun to. It's
fun to chat. Spar with Tiffany for ten says I'm
making smoked chicken with fried rice for the Fam. Always great,
takes Jake. Well, thank you, Tiffany, and I hope the
fam enjoys it. Nothing better than a homegooked meal from
a woman with love. Shameless gift for a shameless grift,
says Josh. Thank you, sir, much appreciated, my friend, much
much appreciated.
Speaker 1: Yeah, sloppy job by Massade. That is so true.
Speaker 2: And Billy Schmidtz for ten. Over on the stream Elements side,
thanks for your time, Jake. Did I miss Rachel?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: I think you can re fast.
Speaker 2: Rewind it though, you can rewind it and you can
catch her over there. Twenty more on the super chat side, guys,
and then we'll get back into it. Twenty more on
the superchat side. Then we'll get back into it. Or
twenty more on the stream elements side, and then we'll
get back into what we're.
Speaker 1: All here to see.
Speaker 2: The debate missed the boat on those seven seven K shekels,
how do you guys know I'm not getting this seven kit?
What an insult that you guys automatically assume that I'm
not getting my seven K?
Speaker 1: I think that that's that's sort.
Speaker 2: Of like you're saying to me, radlsnag, I think that
you're not a shrewd businessman. What an absolute insult? Blaine
Pisasik says, says, Beaten Cheeks is an Indian woman. That
was a good one. Now that was a good one
by Blain Pisa That is true. Actually, Beaten Cheeks is
a good woman. And Shelby says, for your time and trouble,
thanks for the livestream reviews. They've been peak content. We
thank you, Shelby, Thank you appreciate that. All right, let's
get back into it, shall we. Now that the palms
are sufficiently great.
Speaker 7: That.
Speaker 8: His perspective is similar to Carl's perspective.
Speaker 4: Sure, but that's immaterial to the argument being made.
Speaker 3: It's not because what you're you're saying that you're a
socialist here a Marxist. But what I'm arguing would be
the same as any medieval village philosophy, and they weren't
Marxist or social back in the Middle Ages. Like if
you end up French village in that.
Speaker 4: Here, 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 2: Joel By with twenty over on stream Altains says, fea
steadfast and unwavering support and propagand propagation of our shared.
Speaker 1: Day Christian values.
Speaker 2: Ah gel, don't make me crash, Yeah, don't make me
chimp out. Now, beaten cheeks, don't quit, bro, don't quit,
beaten cheeks. What would your family think? You're an Indian woman,
so what would like, how are you going to get
a nice big dowry payment for your hand in marriage
if you just quit?
Speaker 1: Who's going to pay their? Who's going to give their
for that? Or a quitter?
Speaker 3: Again, it's complex where you have something like the total
ownership of something like a water supply, right, so when
you have people that need that that's different than a
situation where Nastali's trying to buy an entire countries like
private supply.
Speaker 4: So again the issue is 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 bage 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 3: Well let's let's go to the rights then, because you're
arguing that this you have this right as a as
a company owner, and I would agree, But on what
basis do you have those rights? Because classical liberalism lost
this whole argument, but it can.
Speaker 4: I don't know why you're bring up classical liberalism.
Speaker 3: It's not your position.
Speaker 4: 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 points.
Speaker 3: Because your arguments come out of that ethos, whether you
know it or not, they're classical liberal and.
Speaker 4: You can have varying ideologies mix and match. Let's make
an argument on what I actually just basis for the rights,
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.
Speaker 2: Big mistake this is you do not want to make
this argument to Jay Dyer if your name is Timple,
If your name is Timple, and if you are like
a libertarian, maybe Senna right, guy, like Senna, Senna right,
sort of guy. I guess you don't want to make
this argument. Well, well, I argue that rights are bestowed
upon man by God. You're then well, then you're appealing
to universals. Then you're saying that it's universally true and
that God and you have like you would have to
have like a grounding epistemology for that claim.
Speaker 1: Right, What is God? How do you know that?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: How is that logically coherent?
Speaker 2: Jay has that, Tim doesn't have that, And we're going
to see that play out.
Speaker 4: The requirements that we have from God, which is be
fruitful and multiply requires a hand.
Speaker 2: That's a Christian doctrine, The idea of being fruitful and
multiplying Christian doctrine comes from obviously the Book of Genesis,
or yeah, it comes from the Old Testament.
Speaker 4: Sorry, and full 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 able to
protect ourselves, and we be a we need to be
secure in our possessions. These are principal rights that we
struggle to survive without. As the basis of this is
look at communism in general and 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 3: So you appealed to Genesis and God? What God? What
principles of Genesis tell you that?
Speaker 4: What are you talking about? I'm not a Christian?
Speaker 3: Then how are you going to base this argument for
rights in God? What do you mean? What God?
Speaker 4: My God? My moral worldview?
Speaker 1: So my God?
Speaker 2: Okay, So this is a new age worldview, is what
Tim has got. And this is as incoherent as any
new age worldview, by the way, So his worldview is essentially, well,
my God. I don't believe in the Christian God. I
don't believe in any particular God. I think that everyone
gets it wrong. So Tim Poole's interpretation of God is
what he's going to.
Speaker 1: Appeal to here. That is.
Speaker 2: Beaten Cheeks for twenty said, you guys wish I was Indian.
This is absurd. I blame the nineteenth for letting a blame.
Have they their energy? That's so true, Thanks Bed and Cheeks.
Appreciate that, bro. But anyways, Temple is appealing to my God.
Here my God his interpretation of God. So he's saying
he's not a Christian, but he's a appealing to Christian theology.
He's appealing to the Old Testament Genesis, be fruitful and multiply.
So if he's appealing to that and he's saying, well,
you know, this is where I get this idea of
rights from, and people need to be fruitful and multiply,
why would you discard the rest of it? Because if
you're saying that that is the reason, and that is
how you ground your understanding of rights, and it comes
from that God, then why would you discount the other
things that that God says? Why would you discount the
other aspects of orthodox Christian theology for example? Then it
becomes basically a get out of jail free card because
people like Tim for example, who are on the libertarian
side of things, or liberals for example, they know that
when they are asked about any sort of presuppositions that
they have, their worldview tends to crumple. So he's trying
to use this, well, I ground it in God. Well
you can't really ground it in God, unfortunately, because that
makes it logically incoherent. You become a relativist.
Speaker 3: Anyways, it's not a universal principle, it's just subjective.
Speaker 4: Well, I think to a lot of people they have
a moral worldview and a philosophical understand think 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.
Speaker 2: I would say, an appeal to we don't know them yet.
That's another bad one, Like this is what scientists are
always doing. This is what the atheist sector us are doing. Yeah, well,
you know, there's a way better explanation out there than
God created mankind, but we just don't know it yet,
and we'll figure it out. We're sciencing so hard that
we're going to figure it out one day. And there's
an explanation for consciousness, we just don't know it yet.
Trust me, Bro, there's a scientific atheist explanation for consciousness,
but we just don't know it yet. But where sciencing
hard is right now. Me and the boys are sciencing
so hard right now that we're going to find.
Speaker 4: It historically, based upon what we have seen throughout the
world and what we think we know the Christian moral
worldview has been dramatically superior.
Speaker 2: To the absolute nerve and absolute unabashed hutzpa from Chase
Hayard to not reply to my WhatsApp messages, to not
reply to my invitation to come on stream and to
review this with me right now and to be in
the comments, just like a freaking Migtao man going his
own way from retelsnake TV man, going his own way
from my WhatsApp messages and from my invitations on the stream.
It's all utilitarian attempts to justification from Tim. Yeah anyways,
Chase anyways, Chase just doesn't want to come on stream
with me, doesn't want to review this with me, and
thinks he can just still comment, seeks he can just
still come in here and comment.
Speaker 4: He's just migtown to other moral structures. So that being said,
I'm 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 organizing free
energy into complex systems, So just utilitarianism.
Speaker 3: So because it works.
Speaker 2: Well, that literally exactly what he said was just utilitarianism.
He's saying, this is what I believe because it works,
and then he's just denying the But that is what
he's saying there, let's listen to it again.
Speaker 3: It's just subjective.
Speaker 4: 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'm 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.
Speaker 2: So that is literally a utilitarian worldview. He's saying that
he doesn't believe that Christianity is true. He's saying that
he doesn't think that like the actual faith itself of
Christianity is literally true. But and he's saying that, you know,
I think we're going to find one that's way better,
you know, if we keep going, because me and the
boys were philosophying hardest right now, Like me and the
boys are philosophying out right now.
Speaker 1: Right we're just.
Speaker 2: Philosophying all day and all night until the cows come home,
and we're going to find one that's way better. We
just haven't found it yet. So but I don't think
that that's true. But you know, it's got some decent philosophy.
So if we use that, then I guess like it's
the best thing that we've come up with so far.
That's utilitarian. He's using it because the utility of it
is such that it's the best that they found. Yeah,
it doesn't get much more utilitarian than that, really.
Speaker 4: Which is ultimately beneficial.
Speaker 2: It's actually the argument as well that and this is
why I like to argue the debate of what's better
for society Christianity versus secular humanism. It's a fun debate
to have with these secular humanists because essentially I can
come at it from the utilitarian point of view, I.
Speaker 1: Can just grant God, that's what makes it fun.
Speaker 2: I can grant God not real dough, and I can
just say, okay, cool, let's see what's better for society
from a purely utilitarian point of view to.
Speaker 4: The standard function of life, which is organizing complex organizing
free energy into complex systems.
Speaker 3: So just utilitarianism. So because it works, well, that was
utilitarian You're wrong, that's utilitarianism.
Speaker 4: No works well, 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 3: The argument.
Speaker 2: It couldn't be further from a straw man. Because Jay
just encompassed what he said. It's like, okay, well, yeah,
that's what you said was the Christianity works really well,
and the moral system tends to work really well.
Speaker 1: That's why I use it. That is, you were.
Speaker 2: Using Christianity as a utility. The utility is Christianity. The
utility works utilitarianism. Jay points that out, and all of
a sudden, he's straw manning.
Speaker 3: It was utilitarianism. I'm it's literally not I did. We
can talk about it, is it not utilitarian?
Speaker 4: Well, we can talk about dentteological ethos. We can talk
about new this. No, indeed, my point is enlightenment. Instead
of arguing what I said, you're going you're arguing thing.
Speaker 2: I'm like, well, now Tim's doing the Well, we could
talk about geontological ethics. Well, I mean you could if
you wanted to that, if you wanted to have a
different conversation, you could certainly talk about deontological ethics.
Speaker 1: And we get it. Okay, you understand the different branches
of ethics. That's good.
Speaker 2: You know geontological and utilitarian, virtue ethics, these sorts of things.
Speaker 1: That's good. But you haven't.
Speaker 2: You don't realize that you've You just laid out a
utilitarian framework and now now he's getting mad about it.
Speaker 4: I gave you a specific outline.
Speaker 3: I'm give you the problem with utilitarianism. I'm sorry that
you're not aware with the of the problems with that, but.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry that you can't actually address what I told you.
Speaker 3: I'm addressing it now, which is not utilitarian arguments are
pragmatic and it's not a justify.
Speaker 4: Great, 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.
Speaker 2: All right, Chase coming on stream, guys, that'll be good,
this will be this will be excellent.
Speaker 1: Chase one of the best filbros that I know.
Speaker 2: So we'll get a really, really solid perspective here. I've
sent you the link. Chase says, link expired. No, surely not,
surely not. Let me have a look again. Keep playing
this again.
Speaker 4: Do you know what denttological moral ethosis? 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 arguments the needs of the
many outweigh the needs of the few, which I did
not say.
Speaker 3: You can have different types of utilitarianism.
Speaker 4: Sure, instead of arguing the point that I made, you
argue a pragmatic point. Argue the point I made. Stop
trying to blanket into other.
Speaker 3: Does pragmatism justify the rights? That's what you argued, Okay.
Speaker 4: I made an argument about private land ownership as a
benefit to human survival.
Speaker 3: Pragmatic.
Speaker 4: Okay, So address what I said. How does appeal you
make yours? Addressing what I said?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's not a justification. It's a bad argument.
Speaker 2: All right, give you one set, guys. I'm just teching
right now. I'm just teching right now, lounge guest screen
share Guys. If I get this right first time, then
I'm a freaking genius bomb Chase.
Speaker 1: Can you hear me? Do we lose? Chase? We lost? Chase?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 1: I think he's got a call back. Here we go, Chase.
Can you hear me?
Speaker 3: I can?
Speaker 7: Yes?
Speaker 1: Is there any echo?
Speaker 7: No?
Speaker 3: There's not.
Speaker 7: Can we can we turn my camera off? That I
look crazy? I've been working all day on mixes and
I want to show my face.
Speaker 2: Can you just like put it down? Because we had
the same problem yesterday. I couldn't do it. Can you
just like put it?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: That would be good.
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: Can you can you hear me?
Speaker 7: Right? I don't have to subject people to the face?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 7: I can?
Speaker 1: All right? Tell me? First of all, what have you seen?
Speaker 2: Initially from the debate, Tim comes in and he basically
says okay, so he basically grounds rights in God.
Speaker 1: And then he.
Speaker 2: Refers to Genesis be fruitful and multiply, so he's referring
to like the Old Testament scripture. And then he's saying, well,
I don't think that that's true necessarily, but it tends
to work pretty well, and there's a better moral system
out there, but we haven't realized it yet. But we're
philosophying hard as so we're going to realize it. And
then Jay says he's a utilitarian. Tim says, no, I'm
not a utilitarian. Stopped trying to straw man me. It
doesn't seem like a straw man to me. What are
you getting from it?
Speaker 7: No?
Speaker 9: Not?
Speaker 7: I agree. I don't think it's a straw man at all.
Speaker 9: And the core question Jay's asking is is very simple,
is just Okay, how are you justifying this outside of
you know it works?
Speaker 7: Because I could say.
Speaker 9: Me being like a Morton Joe from Mad Max and
just having this horrible breeding farm, it'll work, it's effective.
So how is that gonna not fall under the same
justification as you? So I agree, And I don't think
I liked him. I've always enjoyed Tim. I think he's
a great bell weather for kind of like the middle
of the road Americans. I'm not talking about intelligence, just politically,
but he was very out of his depth here and
I was watching it and was just kind of shocked
that dude.
Speaker 7: Just let it go. It's not a big deal.
Speaker 9: Yeah about company towns and it got it got all
the way down here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, all right, let's keep you go on with it.
Speaker 3: Because appealing to things that work or pragmatism isn't a justification.
Speaker 4: Eplain why I'm wrong about the requirement of private land
ownership for survival.
Speaker 3: You grounded the right in utilitarianism and pragmatism. I'm saying
that's not a good justification. It's a bad argument. So
expect anything that works could be all over the place,
that could be subjective.
Speaker 4: Indeed, that was my point in which I said, there
project relatives that work better we have not discovered.
Speaker 3: Yet, then it's justification. 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 that it would be a.
Speaker 4: Justificating I understand certain principles of gravity and the speed
at which thing fall, but we don't know for sure
how the structures work, and it wouldn't we operate based
on probabilities.
Speaker 3: But it would then that would not work to justify
the rights as grounded.
Speaker 4: In an unknown Then go jump off a building and
see it works for you.
Speaker 3: You told me I have.
Speaker 1: So gravity and rots the same thing.
Speaker 9: Yeah, exactly. And again notice so the conversation. I don't
think Tim intentionally did this, but it shifted from justification, right,
good reasons to believe something, which can be tough defining
in and of itself, but good reasons to believe in something.
It shifts from that again back to just pragmatism. Well
it works while societies thrive. Well again, you know, and
Morton Joe's society was thriving and he had plenty of women.
Everyone out in the desert was totally surviving. Lord Farquad
had a great kingdom. What's what's to say it's wrong
with it? But it shifts from truth to just what's
going to lead to better societies? And Jay keeps trying
to bring it back to well, that's not a grounding,
and then it just goes in circles constantly.
Speaker 1: Yeah it is.
Speaker 2: I do find it interesting and funny though the potway
Jay starts to call him that and all the fallacies because.
Speaker 1: Wants Tim, do you agree that? Like once Tim.
Speaker 2: Sort of starts to talk about universals, and once he
starts to say that he grounds things in God. Basically,
he's just walked into a room of just mouse traps
everywhere and everywhere he steps is a mouse trap fallacy, fallacy, fallacy, fallacy.
Speaker 9: After that, absolutely, absolutely, and even Jay was really patient
throughout all of this because he didn't even push the
question of well, what even is the standard of society working?
Because we can have functioning, horrifying societies. You know, you
can be like lords Lord Sauromo with all the orcs.
You can have a functioning society that way. He didn't
even do that. And Tim is just completely out of
his depth here, and yeah, just kept asserting, asserting it
works better, it works better.
Speaker 7: Coach Abafa building, see how that works.
Speaker 9: Well that if I die, that doesn't mean that my
system is less true.
Speaker 7: That's not the question.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's carry on.
Speaker 4: 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 3: But that doesn't ground a right. That's the point. Indeed,
your probabilities, I asked you for the grounding for the
right to private property.
Speaker 4: So far, human history has proven private land ownership is
beneficial to human existence.
Speaker 3: That's a circular argument benefit. I'm asking how you know
that it benefits of what does it mean to benefit?
And you're saying, because it was good, it makes more
of it. That's a circular argument.
Speaker 2: One of the chat has just made a good point
and said an aggressive metastasized cancer is a moral good
because it's thriving. Then in this case, yeah, it's growing.
Speaker 3: Yes, well why maybe making more of it's bad. It's
certainly not okay, but why not that's the point. That's
why it's a circle.
Speaker 4: Well, let's go back to the origin of what we
think we know again, because everything we think, everything is
written in what we think we.
Speaker 9: Know, right, it's just scientism. This whole, this whole next
like ten minutes is just dude.
Speaker 1: He did the same thing to Andrew. Have you ever
seen that debate?
Speaker 2: I think, uh, they're gonna release it sekend Yeah no,
but this I think it was a different debate. It
was on God and it was on Temple's like paywall show,
and then rache tended to us Okay, yeah, and it
was actually and Tim did this exact same thing where
he did this whole five minute story, and then it
went into like squirrels and ship and about you know,
entropy and and all this sort of stuff. But it
actually doesn't make an argument. It's just basically a bunch
of look at the stuff I know.
Speaker 9: But anyways, exactly when everyone father and an Ias who
runs the Patristic Faith Channel, father, deacon, doctor, and an
Ias always says, well, look, you know, that's an interesting story.
And in philosophy, what we are all telling each other
is stories. Now some of those stories can be true,
some of those stories can be false, but that's why
we asked the questions, how do you know that? And
does your system make knowing that possible? It's it's not
those questions are deep, but they're not. They're pretty basic.
Speaker 8: Right.
Speaker 7: It's like it's like.
Speaker 9: You coming to me and saying, Chase, I know that
I'm worse at FIFA than you, And I say, well,
how do you know that? And you go, well, because
we played constantly and I just kept losing it. I said, Okay,
that's a good justification, right, that's a good reason to
believe the story. But Tim just says, this whole long
story and all it's going to come down to is well.
Speaker 7: You grant me one premise.
Speaker 9: That the Big Bang happened, and then I can build
the rest of the system. We'll just say, well, no,
we're not going to grant that.
Speaker 7: Do I grant that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm gonna let the faith it comment go because
I think that, like the results speak to it make themselves,
and I'm not insecure like that, Like I'm pretty secure
in my faithor favoring abilities.
Speaker 9: But for sure, you don't even need to bring it up.
It doesn't even need to be said.
Speaker 2: And trivia as well. So yeah, maybe I should take
you on soon, because I want to take Rachel on soon.
Maybe you should come on and lose. Okay, good, good, tonight, good, right,
let's hear the story.
Speaker 4: Probably wrong, But honestly, I've not done the experiment experiments
myself to a great degree. I've just been into 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 processes of fusion, et cetera.
Speaker 2: And then it's like Tim like watched and memorized the
cliff notes of the history of the universe in two hours.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know those documentaries.
Speaker 9: Well, to me, basically, basically what I hear was we
used to live in peace until the fire Nation attacked
and then the Avatar went missing.
Speaker 4: Exactly at some point on Earth for some reason. Again,
we don't really know for sure. These molecules and compounds
are 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 multi 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 art notice
how he couldn't say how Africa's beneficial.
Speaker 7: Yeah, well it's just lots of kids. Again, notices.
Speaker 9: It's this whole story that fingerings exactly in all types
of metaphysics. Well, there's multiple different things that have their
own identity over time that persist and then they interact
in a cohesive system and they obey these things called
laws that suddenly can exist without someone intending them. And
then jumps to Islam could be true because they have
a lot of kids. Yeah, it's a total non sequitur.
And again, all of it is just he spends all
his time in politics, which doesn't make someone dumb or anything.
But it's like, if you don't know this stuff, you
shouldn't try to like speak about it yet, you know,
and then maybe ask some questions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that's a good point. Yeah, he's a smart guy.
Speaker 4: I like a lot.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, he is a smart guy.
Speaker 2: But there's a certain there's a certain level of knowledge
that you can't, like common sense can't really get you
over the line. A lot of the times in these
sorts of conversations. You have to really have questioned your
and like I'm I'm definitely no expert, Like I was
picking your brains a lot about this when we're in
when I was in Texas in December. But yeah, you
have to be able to sort of like dig in
to the layer is of how you know what you
know and why you believe what you believe, and then
be able to challenge that once. Once you can challenge
your beliefs on your own, then you're doing our art.
Speaker 7: Yep, and seeing the cost of your beliefs in what sense.
Speaker 9: Seeing the cost of your release in the sense that
we all operate within a box. So to say, whatever
your worldview is, if somebody says I don't have a worldview,
well you're still going to have a world a world
do you No matter what you.
Speaker 7: Say, You're going to have things that condition the.
Speaker 5: Parameters of what you believe is possible, what you are,
what you should do, shouldn't do, And realize that everything
that you commit to as any type of philosophy, there's
things that are now excluded.
Speaker 9: Right, I'm an orthodox Christian. I don't believe evil has
existence in a sense, right, there's a cost to that
where it's like, no, there's repercussions to be consistent with that.
I believe it's true obviously, but there's a cost to it.
There's reps.
Speaker 3: That's it.
Speaker 2: Principal Skinner sent Principal Skinner sent ten, thank you very much,
and David Moo sent twenty and said Tim needs real
time and patience. Walking him through the details of what
he does not understand is going to be slog He
feels the pressure to appear the smartest person in the room,
and it shows he will get there.
Speaker 1: I hope.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I think that Chase made a good point before. He'll,
like he do well to ask questions, you know, and
just sort of understand that, and then he might be
able to piece things together. And there might be a
few parts of the worldview that might have to die.
Speaker 1: But that's fine. That happens to all of us.
Speaker 3: I guess.
Speaker 7: Yeah, he's got the raw computing power. He's not a
dumb dude. Tim's a smart guy.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, guys, if you have any questions or anything about
this or any statements, just said him in and we'll
worry him out.
Speaker 1: But we'll continue here.
Speaker 4: 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 actropic system within the entropy.
And then we would say, well, it's maybe a toss up,
but I do think that the American Judeo 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 landownership is
probably the best thing we can do.
Speaker 3: It'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 4: Yeah, right, it's grounded in God because God commands us
to be fruitful and multiply and the.
Speaker 3: But you don't accept that revelation, so it's just I
do what he'll do.
Speaker 1: Well, you said you're not you're back and on camera,
it's good to see you. Yeah, oh okay, sweet sweet.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so they just said Jay's just said the part
about the story. So it's nice, but it's like, it's
a good story and everything, but it doesn't actually give
you grounding for the right in God because if he's
talking about Christianity from a totally utilitarian point of view
here and how you know, it's best for the entropy
and stuff then, and it's best for the complex processes
and we'll probably find something later that's better. Maybe Islam's
better because they have a lot of kids and everything.
Then you actually it's it's it's the logical leap of
them trying to justify some sort of a transcendental category
in the Christian God. When you've just said that that
isn't a real thing. Is quite something. If you enjoy
that clip, then don't forget to like and subscribe, And
if you'd like to see another one, click right here,