1 00:00:00,160 --> 00:00:02,120 Speaker 1: What do you think epistemic justification is? 2 00:00:03,279 --> 00:00:06,120 Speaker 2: I mean it would be justifying epistemologically somehow. 3 00:00:06,120 --> 00:00:11,199 Speaker 1: I don't know, so justification is justifying it? Good job? 4 00:00:11,519 --> 00:00:14,400 Any any other circular statements? What is episomic? You can't 5 00:00:14,400 --> 00:00:16,239 even tell me what you even have as in epistemology? 6 00:00:16,280 --> 00:00:17,160 Want one class? 7 00:00:17,640 --> 00:00:19,800 Speaker 2: No, I've not been to an epistology one on one class. 8 00:00:19,920 --> 00:00:20,120 Speaker 1: No. 9 00:00:20,199 --> 00:00:24,359 Speaker 3: Okay, on this topic, liquid Zulu is going to open. 10 00:00:24,719 --> 00:00:27,160 You have seven minutes on the clock. I'm gonna set 11 00:00:27,160 --> 00:00:32,679 the clock right now, and you can you can go 12 00:00:32,719 --> 00:00:33,280 ahead and begin. 13 00:00:33,960 --> 00:00:34,240 Speaker 1: Cool. 14 00:00:34,600 --> 00:00:37,359 Speaker 2: So, libertarian property theory can be split up into two 15 00:00:38,039 --> 00:00:39,920 basic parts, both of which are derived from the non 16 00:00:39,960 --> 00:00:43,399 aggression principle. So first there's self ownership, and second there's 17 00:00:43,399 --> 00:00:46,560 ownership in external means that basically covers everything. 18 00:00:46,640 --> 00:00:46,880 Speaker 1: Right. 19 00:00:47,600 --> 00:00:50,399 Speaker 2: If one does not grant self ownership, there are two alternatives. 20 00:00:50,840 --> 00:00:53,799 Either one some group A owns group B, or two 21 00:00:53,920 --> 00:00:57,039 everyone co owns every other person. Issue with the first 22 00:00:57,079 --> 00:00:59,359 alternative is that it does not make for a human ethic. 23 00:00:59,679 --> 00:01:02,039 It's that sets up a group of humans owning a 24 00:01:02,039 --> 00:01:04,640 group of subhumans. The problem with this is that it 25 00:01:04,760 --> 00:01:08,159 is therefore a particular rather a universal ethic, but particular 26 00:01:08,239 --> 00:01:10,640 ethics are per se arbitrary, as if you were to 27 00:01:10,719 --> 00:01:13,239 drive an ethic for man qua man, it would have 28 00:01:13,359 --> 00:01:15,239 to apply to all men, as all men have the 29 00:01:15,239 --> 00:01:18,640 same nature. Therefore, selectively revoking this ethic from a certain 30 00:01:18,640 --> 00:01:21,040 subclass of men would be to contradary reasoning that was 31 00:01:21,120 --> 00:01:23,799 used to prove it for all of mankind. The issue 32 00:01:23,840 --> 00:01:25,799 with the second alternative is that would imply the death 33 00:01:25,799 --> 00:01:28,359 of humanity, as if every man were co owned by 34 00:01:28,400 --> 00:01:31,319 every other man, he would require everyone else's permission before 35 00:01:31,359 --> 00:01:34,280 engaging in any course of action, but asking their permission 36 00:01:34,319 --> 00:01:36,599 would also be an action. Thus you could not do anything, 37 00:01:36,599 --> 00:01:40,120 and you would die. Moreover, it would not be possible 38 00:01:40,120 --> 00:01:41,840 to even begin to combine with this ethic in the 39 00:01:41,840 --> 00:01:45,959 first place, because you cannot purposely not act. Even staying 40 00:01:46,000 --> 00:01:48,760 completely motionless, if done for a purpose, would be a 41 00:01:48,799 --> 00:01:51,719 form of human action. This leaves us with the choice 42 00:01:51,719 --> 00:01:54,799 between a universal death ethic or a particular and thus 43 00:01:54,799 --> 00:01:57,680 irrational ethic which does not per se kill off humanity. 44 00:01:58,599 --> 00:02:01,159 So much for self ownership, then ourselves to ownership in 45 00:02:01,239 --> 00:02:04,799 external means. The libertarianism of libertarianism is clear on this, in 46 00:02:04,840 --> 00:02:08,000 that they first possess or aka the homesteader is of 47 00:02:08,039 --> 00:02:10,479 a good is its owner. This can be demonstrated from 48 00:02:10,520 --> 00:02:13,639 the simple observation that ownership and possession are distinct, and 49 00:02:13,680 --> 00:02:15,919 this preestpose is true by anybody who engages in any 50 00:02:15,919 --> 00:02:20,120 conflict whatsoever. Consider a home says homestead's a stick, and 51 00:02:20,199 --> 00:02:22,159 B initiates a conflict over the use of that stick. 52 00:02:22,599 --> 00:02:24,400 Both A and B are asserting that they own the 53 00:02:24,400 --> 00:02:27,159 stick and the other does not. And moreover that even 54 00:02:27,159 --> 00:02:29,360 if the other comes out of the conflict victorious, they 55 00:02:29,400 --> 00:02:32,439 would still not own it. Therefore, ownership in possession are 56 00:02:32,439 --> 00:02:35,560 indeed distinct. What this means is that a latecomer cannot come. 57 00:02:36,080 --> 00:02:38,000 Latecomer to a good cannot come to be the owner, 58 00:02:38,400 --> 00:02:41,120 as if he was, then a later comer c could 59 00:02:41,120 --> 00:02:43,680 come along and take it from him, thereby becoming the owner. 60 00:02:43,800 --> 00:02:45,560 But what this means is that we have a rovert 61 00:02:45,560 --> 00:02:48,039 to a mere possessor ethic which implies that ownership and 62 00:02:48,080 --> 00:02:50,840 possession are not distinct, thus contradicting in the presumption that 63 00:02:50,879 --> 00:02:53,520 they are distinct. So we therefore have it that all 64 00:02:53,560 --> 00:02:56,520 men own themselves and whatever external goods they come into 65 00:02:56,520 --> 00:03:00,120 first possession of, thereby completing our libertarian property theory. 66 00:03:03,400 --> 00:03:06,039 Speaker 4: Okay, is that the end of your opening Zulu? 67 00:03:06,439 --> 00:03:10,120 Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, Jay, you have seven minutes on the clock 68 00:03:10,240 --> 00:03:10,919 for your opening. 69 00:03:11,080 --> 00:03:11,479 Speaker 4: Go ahead. 70 00:03:13,319 --> 00:03:16,960 Speaker 1: Yeah. So today's topic is the debate of God and 71 00:03:17,080 --> 00:03:19,039 the state, and I appreciate him for being willing to 72 00:03:19,080 --> 00:03:21,759 discuss both of those topics, because for me, the issue 73 00:03:21,759 --> 00:03:25,319 of authority is what is kind of assumed. He your, 74 00:03:26,080 --> 00:03:28,039 I listened to this opening statement. I got a lot 75 00:03:28,080 --> 00:03:30,879 of notes, so I'll wait until maybe we have more 76 00:03:30,919 --> 00:03:33,120 of a back and forth before I go through the 77 00:03:33,159 --> 00:03:35,919 claims and the views that he put forth in his 78 00:03:35,960 --> 00:03:38,199 opening statement. But I would say that the first problem 79 00:03:38,240 --> 00:03:43,240 with the notion of the libertarian theory of property ownership 80 00:03:43,439 --> 00:03:45,759 or rights or anything that he's really putting forward is 81 00:03:45,800 --> 00:03:48,599 that libertarianism comes out of an ethos that doesn't come 82 00:03:48,639 --> 00:03:50,879 to us in a vacuum. It comes to us, particularly 83 00:03:50,919 --> 00:03:54,680 from the Enlightenment, and the Enlightenment philosophical ethos is pretty 84 00:03:54,719 --> 00:03:58,479 much dominated by an anti metaphysical stance. If you look 85 00:03:58,520 --> 00:04:02,080 at Dick Cartes wanted to retain some of the Enlightenment 86 00:04:02,120 --> 00:04:07,680 metaphysical ideas. He's severely critiqued and contrasted by Hume and 87 00:04:07,800 --> 00:04:11,360 Kant to take enlightenment philosophy to its next logical step, 88 00:04:11,360 --> 00:04:14,159 which is to, as David Hume says, toss out all 89 00:04:14,240 --> 00:04:18,639 the metaphysical books and universities throughout Europe. So what happens 90 00:04:18,639 --> 00:04:20,920 when we do this is that we're severely limited in 91 00:04:21,000 --> 00:04:22,879 the types of claims that we can make. And the 92 00:04:22,920 --> 00:04:27,199 rest of the history of empirical philosophy after Hume, all 93 00:04:27,199 --> 00:04:29,879 the way up until Bbo Kwined in the twentieth century 94 00:04:29,879 --> 00:04:32,199 with his two Dogmas of Empiricism, really leaves us in 95 00:04:32,279 --> 00:04:36,120 a kind of a box where we're severely limited in 96 00:04:36,160 --> 00:04:38,560 what things we can say. And ultimately, with qwins Essay, 97 00:04:38,560 --> 00:04:43,839 we're again reduced to the subjectivism and skepticism of logical posism. 98 00:04:44,399 --> 00:04:47,959 So that's a more consistent approach to Enlightenment philosophy, which 99 00:04:48,000 --> 00:04:50,639 is the school, which is the ethos from which the 100 00:04:50,680 --> 00:04:53,800 opponent here comes. And so I'm just I'm going to 101 00:04:53,879 --> 00:04:59,160 be curious to hear when he's asked all these essentially, 102 00:04:59,160 --> 00:05:02,800 what are metaphysical concepts that he's made reference to, such 103 00:05:02,879 --> 00:05:07,160 as universal ethics particulars in universals, which comes out of 104 00:05:07,199 --> 00:05:11,600 the universal nominalist debate. The realist nominalist debates of the 105 00:05:11,959 --> 00:05:15,240 Middle Ages, which are all of Enlightenment philosophy after Hume 106 00:05:15,360 --> 00:05:19,439 is predicated on denying the real existence of universals. I'm 107 00:05:19,439 --> 00:05:21,519 going to be curious to hear what a self is 108 00:05:21,600 --> 00:05:25,439 because he talks about self ownership. I'm curious again about 109 00:05:25,480 --> 00:05:29,480 there's so many claims, so many phrases that were used 110 00:05:30,079 --> 00:05:33,439 which do not make any sense in an Enlightenment atheist 111 00:05:33,600 --> 00:05:37,800 materialistic paradigm and cannot be ground that are justified. Now 112 00:05:37,800 --> 00:05:40,480 beyond these claims that are very common in sort of 113 00:05:40,480 --> 00:05:44,399 libertarian and artical circles, like the non aggression principle, I'm 114 00:05:44,439 --> 00:05:48,360 curious to hear why anybody is bound to the aggression principle, because, 115 00:05:48,360 --> 00:05:51,199 of course, after Hume, we have to answer the question 116 00:05:51,360 --> 00:05:55,040 of how is their normativity? How can we have what 117 00:05:55,120 --> 00:05:58,000 we ought to do? From an is and the atheist 118 00:05:58,079 --> 00:06:01,720 materialists presubpositions of most of the Enlightenment after day Heart 119 00:06:02,160 --> 00:06:07,639 really leave with no possibility of any is ought without 120 00:06:07,879 --> 00:06:10,480 justifying an hot claim from the fact that things are 121 00:06:10,560 --> 00:06:12,639 the case. We can see this all the way up 122 00:06:12,639 --> 00:06:16,639 into modern philosophers. Alexander Harris, who is still besieged by 123 00:06:16,680 --> 00:06:19,920 this question of being unable to answer the is aart 124 00:06:19,959 --> 00:06:23,160 dilemma from David Hume. And again, any atheist is going 125 00:06:23,240 --> 00:06:25,000 to have to deal with this dilemma because there's not 126 00:06:25,040 --> 00:06:28,439 a justification for the illogical move from the fact that 127 00:06:28,480 --> 00:06:31,079 things are this way, so they ought to be this way. 128 00:06:31,120 --> 00:06:34,720 But again, the entire non aggression principle presupposes this kind 129 00:06:34,759 --> 00:06:38,240 of universal ethic, this kind of universal claim, which I 130 00:06:38,240 --> 00:06:40,839 don't understand how he's going to have justification again for 131 00:06:40,879 --> 00:06:44,199 any of his universal claims. He also made an odd phraseology, 132 00:06:44,240 --> 00:06:48,040 such as having the same nature. Nature is a metaphysical concept. 133 00:06:48,040 --> 00:06:50,879 It's a metaphysical claim. And I'm curious again to know 134 00:06:50,920 --> 00:06:53,199 how he's going to justify that such a thing as 135 00:06:53,240 --> 00:06:56,399 a human nature given the fact that most of his enlightenment, 136 00:06:56,680 --> 00:06:59,959 for Father, denied ultimately that there is such a thing 137 00:07:00,199 --> 00:07:02,000 is a human nature, even though they might have wanted 138 00:07:02,040 --> 00:07:06,079 to retain this for their universalized ethic. I don't think 139 00:07:06,079 --> 00:07:08,480 it's justified claim. And beyond that, I'll say that the 140 00:07:08,519 --> 00:07:12,160 history of anarcho libertarianism also I think presents us the problems. 141 00:07:12,240 --> 00:07:15,160 The history argument isn't necessarily a defeat, but I think 142 00:07:15,160 --> 00:07:18,959 it's relevant for how this actually plays out, since it's 143 00:07:18,959 --> 00:07:21,759 been positive, and what we see is the same types 144 00:07:21,879 --> 00:07:25,920 of manipulations. We see the libertarian ethos pretty much being 145 00:07:25,959 --> 00:07:30,360 dominated by monetarism, monopoly capital You know, most of the 146 00:07:30,920 --> 00:07:35,240 important figures that come out of this ethos, David Rockefeller, 147 00:07:36,079 --> 00:07:39,800 Von hyak Alan, Greenspan, they're all proponents for a form 148 00:07:39,839 --> 00:07:42,399 of world governance. And so I'm curious now again, maybe 149 00:07:42,399 --> 00:07:45,800 he'll say that those are just inconsistent principles and nobody's 150 00:07:45,920 --> 00:07:50,120 really put into play authentic libertarianism. We're just many many 151 00:07:50,120 --> 00:07:52,120 times from a lot of the proponents, which is ironic 152 00:07:52,160 --> 00:07:55,199 because it's exact same argument that Marxis say, they're flip 153 00:07:55,240 --> 00:08:01,000 side cousins that no one's ever actually really tried. We're 154 00:08:01,040 --> 00:08:02,839 just waiting for that to actually happen. And so the 155 00:08:02,839 --> 00:08:07,079 irony is that whether it's Marxism socialism, or whether it's monetarism, 156 00:08:07,279 --> 00:08:11,319 monopoly capitalism, usery based economic systems, they all are children 157 00:08:11,360 --> 00:08:13,560 of the Enlightenment, and they're all part of a dialectical 158 00:08:13,600 --> 00:08:17,319 revolutionary philosophy that's ultimately in a way coming out of 159 00:08:17,319 --> 00:08:21,720 her Meticism and later on free Masonic lodges. And we 160 00:08:21,759 --> 00:08:23,839 can see this in the two schools of thought coming 161 00:08:23,879 --> 00:08:26,079 out of the French Revolution. The jacob Is in the 162 00:08:26,079 --> 00:08:30,199 Grondin's the two false left and the false right dialectic 163 00:08:30,279 --> 00:08:34,200 of revolutionary thought. And so I don't think that Jacobinism 164 00:08:34,279 --> 00:08:37,879 or Grondinism, either one has a sufficient answer. And so 165 00:08:38,080 --> 00:08:40,559 this leads us back to questions of authority, and authority 166 00:08:40,639 --> 00:08:43,120 questions are ultimately going to be determined by the ultimate 167 00:08:43,159 --> 00:08:47,080 presubpositions in our worldview, and so I think that the 168 00:08:47,159 --> 00:08:48,840 Christian parent That's why it comes back to the question 169 00:08:48,879 --> 00:08:52,000 of God in metaphysics. The Christian paradigm gives an account 170 00:08:52,039 --> 00:08:55,639 for God metaphysics. I'm assuming that God gives an account 171 00:08:55,639 --> 00:09:00,080 board metaphysics and pistemology, ethics, and the possibility of grounding 172 00:09:00,120 --> 00:09:02,879 those things in a coherent worldview and thus attaining too 173 00:09:04,039 --> 00:09:08,240 justification in an epistemic sense. So we're talking about epistemic 174 00:09:08,360 --> 00:09:11,960 justification for things like human rights, or why we shouldn't 175 00:09:11,960 --> 00:09:14,399 engage in the non aggression, why we should adhered to 176 00:09:14,440 --> 00:09:17,240 the nonaggresion personal I should say, why there are universal ethics, 177 00:09:17,240 --> 00:09:19,440 why there are universal claims at all, why there are 178 00:09:19,519 --> 00:09:24,080 universal principles, or universals at all or particulars. How there 179 00:09:24,120 --> 00:09:26,840 is induction and deduction, How there's identity over time, How 180 00:09:26,879 --> 00:09:31,440 there is the principle of causation. How there's the principle 181 00:09:31,440 --> 00:09:33,600 of telos. All of those things make sense in a 182 00:09:33,639 --> 00:09:37,399 world that is created, sustained, governed, body, mine, providence, and 183 00:09:37,519 --> 00:09:39,759 has a purpose or a telos or an end. In 184 00:09:39,799 --> 00:09:42,840 a position where the world is just matter in flux, which, 185 00:09:42,840 --> 00:09:45,080 as I understand, my friend is an atheist here, so 186 00:09:45,320 --> 00:09:47,279 I assume that he just thinks that everything is a 187 00:09:47,360 --> 00:09:50,360 sort of matter in motion, not a grounding or justification 188 00:09:50,480 --> 00:09:54,480 or an explanation for anything in immaterial invariant like the 189 00:09:54,559 --> 00:09:58,600 laws of logic, like ethical standards like universals, and universal 190 00:09:58,600 --> 00:10:03,080 claims like human rights and dignity, like the notion of ownership, 191 00:10:03,440 --> 00:10:07,039 like the notion of the self or quote human nature. 192 00:10:07,080 --> 00:10:09,279 All of those things have to be grounded, and I 193 00:10:09,279 --> 00:10:11,799 think Christianity does that. And this is also where the 194 00:10:11,799 --> 00:10:15,639 state comes in, because the state is an entity that 195 00:10:16,120 --> 00:10:18,240 does have authority in history. And we can get into 196 00:10:18,240 --> 00:10:18,679 that lay. 197 00:10:20,679 --> 00:10:23,919 Speaker 3: All right pretty much, hit it right at that marker, 198 00:10:23,960 --> 00:10:27,120 that seven minute marker before we jump into it. Guys, 199 00:10:27,120 --> 00:10:29,039 a couple things. We are going to be taking call 200 00:10:29,120 --> 00:10:31,759 ins today. The mods will be putting in the discord 201 00:10:31,840 --> 00:10:33,879 so that you guys can call in when we get 202 00:10:33,879 --> 00:10:36,279 to the call in section, of course, sending your super 203 00:10:36,360 --> 00:10:38,279 chats if you have those, if you have questions for 204 00:10:38,320 --> 00:10:40,159 the debaters, and we'll be getting to all of those. 205 00:10:40,200 --> 00:10:44,480 Two one final thing, liquid Zulu, The audience is requesting 206 00:10:44,559 --> 00:10:47,240 that you don't have an accent because it's really hard 207 00:10:47,240 --> 00:10:48,000 to understand you. 208 00:10:48,000 --> 00:10:49,960 Speaker 4: You think you can do something about that, or. 209 00:10:49,919 --> 00:10:51,480 Speaker 2: Well, I mean, I suggest the audience that she's just 210 00:10:51,519 --> 00:10:53,399 become smarter, and then. 211 00:10:55,200 --> 00:10:57,039 Speaker 3: All right, full fine, I guess I guess we'll live 212 00:10:57,039 --> 00:11:00,919 with your handicap. Gentlemen, the floor is open and go ahead. 213 00:11:02,039 --> 00:11:05,799 Speaker 2: Sure. So, I mean, I'm somewhat familiar with Jay's position 214 00:11:05,879 --> 00:11:08,840 that you know, any stands you're gonna hold is gonna 215 00:11:08,840 --> 00:11:12,279 have all sorts of presuppositions about metaphysics, pistmology, YadA, YadA, YadA. 216 00:11:12,960 --> 00:11:15,679 So I would suppose you know, just on that note, 217 00:11:15,840 --> 00:11:20,519 is libertarian property theory personally incompatible with the orthodox Christian worldview? 218 00:11:23,240 --> 00:11:29,519 Speaker 1: Well, owning proper ship, owning property is certainly a right 219 00:11:29,639 --> 00:11:32,720 that we have, So I guess it depends on how 220 00:11:33,159 --> 00:11:36,759 how we scale that down and how minimal the claims 221 00:11:36,759 --> 00:11:42,879 are as opposed to whether or not your atheistic paradigm 222 00:11:42,960 --> 00:11:47,080 can justify these kinds of claims and these kinds of ideas. 223 00:11:48,320 --> 00:11:50,519 Speaker 2: I mean, then you're gonna have some sort of property 224 00:11:50,559 --> 00:11:54,720 theory in your entire worldview, right, So is that incompatible 225 00:11:54,720 --> 00:11:57,120 with the libertarian property theory? Like, well, it's your property. 226 00:11:56,840 --> 00:11:59,120 Speaker 1: Theory, not necessarily if we just mean that, you know, 227 00:11:59,240 --> 00:12:03,919 individuals have human u ownership, they have the right to 228 00:12:03,960 --> 00:12:06,879 own property. You know, they have. The notion of rights 229 00:12:07,000 --> 00:12:09,200 is something that I think is a you know, this 230 00:12:09,320 --> 00:12:11,360 is tied to the notion of the good. It's tied 231 00:12:11,399 --> 00:12:14,559 to value judgments, and so we need more than just 232 00:12:14,960 --> 00:12:17,679 the notion of property ownership. We have that that rests 233 00:12:17,720 --> 00:12:19,919 on other ideas, and so how do we give an 234 00:12:19,960 --> 00:12:21,919 account for those ideas that that rests on? 235 00:12:22,399 --> 00:12:25,440 Speaker 3: Sure to hang out ang on Zulu before before you 236 00:12:25,480 --> 00:12:29,639 respond when when Jay's talking or when when you're talking. 237 00:12:29,679 --> 00:12:31,639 I appreciate it if you didn't type on the keyboards, 238 00:12:31,720 --> 00:12:33,600 very distracting. People can't hear what he's saying. 239 00:12:33,440 --> 00:12:35,360 Speaker 2: All right, So I'll mute when he's talking. 240 00:12:35,399 --> 00:12:38,919 Speaker 4: Then, Okay, go ahead, with your response. 241 00:12:39,360 --> 00:12:41,679 Speaker 2: Yeah, so I agree that you know, your understanding of 242 00:12:41,720 --> 00:12:44,039 rights is going to be tied to other areas. I 243 00:12:44,039 --> 00:12:46,480 for you philosophy, I completely agree with that. Like, you know, 244 00:12:46,519 --> 00:12:48,600 if you don't think that humans exist at all, then 245 00:12:48,639 --> 00:12:50,159 there's no going to not going to be any notion 246 00:12:50,240 --> 00:12:52,840 of what rights humans have. But like, and you know, 247 00:12:53,639 --> 00:12:57,480 just setting out a sight, you know, what is your 248 00:12:57,480 --> 00:12:59,200 property theory? Like, I know you don't have just a 249 00:12:59,240 --> 00:13:01,639 property theory, but is the property theory and is it 250 00:13:01,639 --> 00:13:02,919 incompatible with the one I've. 251 00:13:02,759 --> 00:13:08,080 Speaker 1: Presented necessarily if we scale it down to the right 252 00:13:08,960 --> 00:13:11,639 to own these things? Right? So you know, if you're 253 00:13:11,679 --> 00:13:14,720 asking what is property in our paradigm or what, I 254 00:13:14,759 --> 00:13:17,279 don't know that we have any really precise, you know, 255 00:13:17,519 --> 00:13:22,679 minutia definition of property. But if you're saying that, well, okay, 256 00:13:22,679 --> 00:13:24,960 it might rest on these other things, but you're not 257 00:13:25,000 --> 00:13:27,240 concerned with that. But I am concerned with that. So 258 00:13:28,679 --> 00:13:31,240 I mean, I'm happy to answer your question not necessarily 259 00:13:31,240 --> 00:13:32,240 incompatible now. 260 00:13:33,480 --> 00:13:35,559 Speaker 2: Right, So if it's not necessarily incompatible, do you have 261 00:13:35,639 --> 00:13:38,360 any contention with my property theory of non aggression, where 262 00:13:38,360 --> 00:13:41,559 you know, everyone owns themselves and whatever goods they come 263 00:13:41,600 --> 00:13:44,320 to first possess no again. 264 00:13:44,480 --> 00:13:47,000 Speaker 1: And as I said in my opening statement, I would 265 00:13:47,000 --> 00:13:50,600 agree that we should not engage in overt aggression, you know, 266 00:13:50,720 --> 00:13:53,279 unprovoked or anything like that. I think that it's correct 267 00:13:53,360 --> 00:13:55,840 in its basic idea, but we got to have a 268 00:13:55,919 --> 00:13:57,879 reason as to why we should believe that and not 269 00:13:58,000 --> 00:14:00,960 just not just arbitrary positing of it. 270 00:14:04,360 --> 00:14:05,919 Speaker 2: Do you think that would apply always? Like, do you 271 00:14:05,919 --> 00:14:09,399 think there's going to be some you know, some side constraints, 272 00:14:09,399 --> 00:14:11,440 like some situations where you should in need engage in 273 00:14:11,440 --> 00:14:14,039 aggression or is it like always you're not you shouldn't 274 00:14:14,039 --> 00:14:15,320 be ingreate engaging an aggression. 275 00:14:20,200 --> 00:14:23,200 Speaker 1: Well, I mean if you mean like self defense, which 276 00:14:23,240 --> 00:14:25,960 is an aggression. But I mean I understand the non 277 00:14:25,960 --> 00:14:29,600 aggression principles that I don't engage in aggression without any 278 00:14:29,679 --> 00:14:30,679 reason or without any cause. 279 00:14:30,799 --> 00:14:33,720 Speaker 2: Right to be clear, I would say that, you know, 280 00:14:33,759 --> 00:14:36,320 defending your property or whatever, that would not be aggression. 281 00:14:36,360 --> 00:14:39,200 So the way I define aggression is the initiation of conflict, 282 00:14:39,440 --> 00:14:42,440 where a conflict is defined as contradict reactions. So let's 283 00:14:42,440 --> 00:14:45,399 say Crusoe and Friday on an island. Crusoe owns a stick, 284 00:14:45,720 --> 00:14:47,559 and then Friday comes along and he tries to wrestle 285 00:14:47,600 --> 00:14:50,440 that stick off of Crusoe. So there's a conflict over 286 00:14:50,440 --> 00:14:52,519 the use of the stick. They can't both use the 287 00:14:52,519 --> 00:14:55,000 stick for their incompatible ends at the same time. So 288 00:14:56,000 --> 00:14:58,600 and Friday has initiated the conflict because he's come in 289 00:14:58,720 --> 00:15:00,759 and he's trying to take the stick off Cruso. 290 00:15:02,600 --> 00:15:04,320 Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree that we shouldn't engage in that kind 291 00:15:04,360 --> 00:15:06,679 of activity. But I'm asking, like, let's say that there 292 00:15:06,720 --> 00:15:08,919 is no God. Let's say that we live in an 293 00:15:08,960 --> 00:15:14,000 atheistic worldview. Why is it wrong to engage in conflict 294 00:15:14,039 --> 00:15:17,559 in that way, or or to contradict, or to engage 295 00:15:17,600 --> 00:15:21,240 in subversive practices of business or you know, let's say 296 00:15:21,279 --> 00:15:24,440 that I have a Let's say I have a business 297 00:15:24,519 --> 00:15:27,399 that a competitor is starting up a business in my village, 298 00:15:27,919 --> 00:15:31,720 and I don't physically aggress them, but I engage in 299 00:15:31,879 --> 00:15:34,559 let's say, subversive activities where I spread rumors about his 300 00:15:34,679 --> 00:15:38,080 business or something that destroys his business. I mean, those 301 00:15:38,120 --> 00:15:41,480 are not ethical activities, but they're not aggression if we 302 00:15:41,559 --> 00:15:44,399 restrict aggression to physical activities. And so the first question 303 00:15:44,519 --> 00:15:47,480 is do you restrict it only to physical aggression or 304 00:15:47,519 --> 00:15:50,840 is it also ideological and subversive activities, and then on 305 00:15:50,879 --> 00:15:53,120 what basis ought we not do those things. 306 00:15:53,840 --> 00:15:56,039 Speaker 2: Well, I would say aggression is you know, I gave 307 00:15:56,080 --> 00:15:58,720 my definition of aggression, it's the initiation of conflict. So 308 00:15:59,200 --> 00:16:01,159 that's going to be over physical things, like you can't 309 00:16:01,200 --> 00:16:05,440 have conflicts over like ideaological No, you can't have ideological 310 00:16:05,480 --> 00:16:09,000 conflict too, not possible under my definition of conflict. You know, 311 00:16:09,120 --> 00:16:11,240 you can say colloquially that you could have a conflict 312 00:16:11,240 --> 00:16:14,120 over ideas, but not really. You both two people can 313 00:16:14,159 --> 00:16:16,799 have incompaible ideas at the same time, right. In fact, 314 00:16:16,840 --> 00:16:19,320 one person can have a contradiction in their head like 315 00:16:19,440 --> 00:16:21,480 ideas can't have conflicts. 316 00:16:23,440 --> 00:16:29,159 Speaker 1: I'm saying that if I start a rumor that's trying 317 00:16:29,200 --> 00:16:32,039 to put a competitor out of business, does that fit 318 00:16:32,120 --> 00:16:33,720 under your notion of aggression or not? 319 00:16:34,000 --> 00:16:34,679 Speaker 2: It would not know. 320 00:16:36,200 --> 00:16:37,960 Speaker 1: Okay, so aggression is only physical. 321 00:16:38,960 --> 00:16:41,279 Speaker 2: I can't think of any like non physical way to 322 00:16:41,279 --> 00:16:43,840 aggress unless you mean, like, you know, maybe if you 323 00:16:43,840 --> 00:16:45,480 think light isn't physical or something, and you could like 324 00:16:45,519 --> 00:16:46,679 shine a laser a someone. 325 00:16:46,600 --> 00:16:48,440 Speaker 1: You know, the version I mean if I engage in 326 00:16:48,519 --> 00:16:53,600 ideological subversion against a competitor, that's not aggression, corporate corporate espionage. 327 00:16:54,120 --> 00:16:56,120 Speaker 2: If you if you right now like started you know, 328 00:16:56,240 --> 00:16:58,320 you pulled a document and you'd been like compiling a 329 00:16:58,320 --> 00:17:01,720 massive list of lies about me to make everyone hate me, right, 330 00:17:01,759 --> 00:17:03,399 and you start going through this on the stream, that 331 00:17:03,399 --> 00:17:04,400 would not be aggressive. 332 00:17:06,160 --> 00:17:09,559 Speaker 1: So again I'm just asking in terms of the practicality 333 00:17:09,599 --> 00:17:12,559 of this. You said that we shouldn't engage in certain 334 00:17:12,559 --> 00:17:16,400 activities based around the NAP, and I'm just trying to 335 00:17:16,440 --> 00:17:20,720 figure out, like, how do you restricted only to physical 336 00:17:20,720 --> 00:17:23,640 aggression on what basis is that if I can achieve, 337 00:17:23,680 --> 00:17:27,480 let's achieve more of a of an effect against you 338 00:17:27,519 --> 00:17:30,720 in an unethical way through non physical means. I mean, 339 00:17:30,880 --> 00:17:33,880 don't you think governments, for example, or corporations engage in 340 00:17:33,960 --> 00:17:34,960 corporate espionage? 341 00:17:36,680 --> 00:17:38,880 Speaker 2: Surely do. But like the reason why I restricted to 342 00:17:38,920 --> 00:17:41,640 physical things is because I think that's the only type 343 00:17:41,680 --> 00:17:43,480 of thing which can be an aggression. I think it's 344 00:17:43,519 --> 00:17:46,240 the only when you're engaging in some sort of physical activity, 345 00:17:46,359 --> 00:17:48,839 and that's the only time when you can initiate could someone. 346 00:17:48,960 --> 00:17:51,799 Speaker 1: So I'm not so if I completely destroy your life, 347 00:17:52,799 --> 00:17:55,200 I haven't violated any ethics as long as I don't 348 00:17:55,200 --> 00:17:56,880 do it physically, you. 349 00:17:56,880 --> 00:17:57,759 Speaker 2: Might have done something wrong. 350 00:17:57,839 --> 00:17:57,960 Speaker 1: Right. 351 00:17:58,039 --> 00:17:59,920 Speaker 2: It may be the case that you know, we say 352 00:18:00,039 --> 00:18:01,759 that that's a bad thing to do, like you shouldn't 353 00:18:01,799 --> 00:18:03,559 do it. But the question is whether or not it's 354 00:18:03,559 --> 00:18:05,880 aggressive to do it, like whether I could resist you 355 00:18:05,960 --> 00:18:06,359 doing that. 356 00:18:06,640 --> 00:18:09,799 Speaker 1: And that answer is you know, okay, and on what 357 00:18:09,880 --> 00:18:10,839 basis ought or not? 358 00:18:11,799 --> 00:18:15,240 Speaker 2: Because you aren't initiating any conflicts. 359 00:18:15,359 --> 00:18:17,960 Speaker 1: On what basis? Is that the standard of what is 360 00:18:18,039 --> 00:18:18,599 right and wrong. 361 00:18:19,240 --> 00:18:20,720 Speaker 2: I didn't say it was the standard of writing wrong. 362 00:18:20,720 --> 00:18:22,079 I said that's the definition of aggression. 363 00:18:22,079 --> 00:18:24,240 Speaker 1: When I'm asking, you said ought you ought not? And 364 00:18:24,279 --> 00:18:25,359 I'm saying, okay, so let's. 365 00:18:25,240 --> 00:18:27,920 Speaker 2: Just yeah, I didn't. I don't property theory, like law 366 00:18:28,000 --> 00:18:32,240 doesn't encompass all of ethics. There are questions outside of. 367 00:18:33,359 --> 00:18:36,000 Speaker 1: Boiling it down to the main point, which is on 368 00:18:36,079 --> 00:18:38,559 what basis ought we not do this or that in 369 00:18:38,599 --> 00:18:38,960 your view? 370 00:18:39,920 --> 00:18:42,440 Speaker 2: Well, on the main point is an anarchism versus statism, Right, 371 00:18:42,480 --> 00:18:45,519 that's the main point. And if you agree with me 372 00:18:45,599 --> 00:18:49,000 that people should never aggress, then we have anarchism, right 373 00:18:49,039 --> 00:18:51,279 because the state is a necessarily aggressive organization. 374 00:18:53,799 --> 00:18:55,960 Speaker 1: Well, I have a basis to say that we shouldn't 375 00:18:56,000 --> 00:18:58,240 do that. I'm asking what your basis is other than 376 00:18:58,319 --> 00:18:58,880 just saying. 377 00:18:58,680 --> 00:19:01,480 Speaker 2: That we shouldn't right. And if you have a basis 378 00:19:01,559 --> 00:19:03,720 that we shouldn't engage in aggression, then you still agree 379 00:19:03,759 --> 00:19:05,960 with me. Right, You might, you might, You might say 380 00:19:06,000 --> 00:19:07,000 that you have agreement. 381 00:19:07,119 --> 00:19:09,319 Speaker 1: Does the agreement doesn't mean that we have the same 382 00:19:09,400 --> 00:19:13,759 reasons for believing that. I'm asking your reasons for believing 383 00:19:13,799 --> 00:19:14,880 that we might have. 384 00:19:15,759 --> 00:19:18,160 Speaker 2: We might have different reasons for being anarchists. But if 385 00:19:18,160 --> 00:19:22,759 you are an anarchist, and that matters to a position. 386 00:19:23,720 --> 00:19:28,839 If you're an anarchist, vacation for the claims that you're making, okay, 387 00:19:28,960 --> 00:19:32,880 and based the justification for your standard. Sure, I justify 388 00:19:33,000 --> 00:19:36,920 the libertarian property theory in my opening statement, other any 389 00:19:36,920 --> 00:19:40,799 alternatives are incoherent. Sorry, n. 390 00:19:43,680 --> 00:19:44,799 Speaker 4: No, You're good now go ahead. 391 00:19:44,920 --> 00:19:47,319 Speaker 1: So, in your worldview as an atheist, I'm asking for 392 00:19:47,359 --> 00:19:52,039 the justification for things like human rights, human ethics, universals, natures, 393 00:19:52,240 --> 00:19:52,720 et cetera. 394 00:19:53,440 --> 00:19:56,000 Speaker 2: What are these I mean? In my opening statement, I 395 00:19:56,039 --> 00:19:58,079 gave the justification for a libertary and prompty theory, which 396 00:19:58,079 --> 00:20:00,799 apparently you agree with, and in which case then there 397 00:20:00,880 --> 00:20:02,599 is no state in your. 398 00:20:02,480 --> 00:20:07,119 Speaker 1: Work specifically about you. No, I asked for your justification 399 00:20:07,240 --> 00:20:09,599 and your worldview of those metaphysical things. 400 00:20:10,279 --> 00:20:12,960 Speaker 2: I gave the justification for the property theory, which is 401 00:20:12,960 --> 00:20:13,599 what this debate is. 402 00:20:13,680 --> 00:20:15,799 Speaker 1: Here, was the justification for the things, not things I'm 403 00:20:15,839 --> 00:20:17,240 asking for, not property theory. 404 00:20:18,519 --> 00:20:21,279 Speaker 2: This isn't a debate about anything other than property theory, though. 405 00:20:22,480 --> 00:20:24,480 Speaker 1: It's a debate about God and state. That's what you 406 00:20:24,519 --> 00:20:27,240 agreed to. Do you think that relates to metaphysical ideas 407 00:20:27,279 --> 00:20:27,960 and categories? 408 00:20:28,359 --> 00:20:31,000 Speaker 2: Sure, but I agree to debate you on your justification 409 00:20:31,079 --> 00:20:33,079 for the state, which apparently you don't have. 410 00:20:34,799 --> 00:20:37,440 Speaker 1: And it's going to rest on metaphysical concepts. And you're 411 00:20:37,440 --> 00:20:39,680 a child of the Enlightenment with your atheism, and I'm 412 00:20:39,720 --> 00:20:43,599 asking for a justification for the metaphysics that your forbearers denied. 413 00:20:43,640 --> 00:20:44,799 Do you believe in metaphysics? 414 00:20:44,799 --> 00:20:44,839 Speaker 4: No? 415 00:20:44,960 --> 00:20:47,119 Speaker 2: No, Do you have a justification for the state or not? 416 00:20:47,240 --> 00:20:51,079 Because you're switching between anarchism and statism when a dying here. 417 00:20:52,000 --> 00:20:54,839 Speaker 1: I'm asking you about the assumptions of your worldview, and yes, 418 00:20:54,880 --> 00:20:55,160 I do have it. 419 00:20:56,640 --> 00:20:59,079 Speaker 2: Okay, so you do. You are in favor of aggression 420 00:20:59,160 --> 00:21:01,160 sometimes then you said you weren't before. 421 00:21:02,759 --> 00:21:04,960 Speaker 1: Now I'm saying that as individuals, we don't have a 422 00:21:05,039 --> 00:21:08,279 right to engage in aggressive activities per se. But there 423 00:21:08,319 --> 00:21:10,200 are authorities in the earth and they do have the 424 00:21:10,319 --> 00:21:13,200 right to engage in warfare and aggression. 425 00:21:13,279 --> 00:21:15,720 Speaker 2: Yes, are those authorities made up of individuals? 426 00:21:18,720 --> 00:21:21,359 Speaker 1: Uh, their collective and their individuals? 427 00:21:21,400 --> 00:21:24,720 Speaker 2: Sure, but surely any aggression they've engaged in would have 428 00:21:24,720 --> 00:21:26,559 to be done on an individual level, right. 429 00:21:28,039 --> 00:21:32,039 Speaker 1: I mean armies fight as groups, they're not only individuals. 430 00:21:32,160 --> 00:21:34,839 Speaker 2: Surely as groups, but like you know, it's not the 431 00:21:34,880 --> 00:21:37,880 group acting, it's the individuals in that group, like is 432 00:21:37,920 --> 00:21:39,440 having a group behind. 433 00:21:41,200 --> 00:21:44,559 Speaker 1: In groups? Okay, so but you use phrases like same 434 00:21:44,720 --> 00:21:47,920 nature and universals? Did you not use these phrases? 435 00:21:48,440 --> 00:21:48,680 Speaker 2: Yeah? 436 00:21:48,720 --> 00:21:49,640 Speaker 1: Okay, what are those? 437 00:21:51,039 --> 00:21:52,559 Speaker 2: I mean is irrelevant? 438 00:21:54,160 --> 00:21:57,880 Speaker 1: Yeah, you're using claims about metaphysical things that I don't 439 00:21:57,920 --> 00:21:59,960 think you know whether they are nor can you justify. 440 00:22:00,039 --> 00:22:01,559 Then then that's very elevant for a debate. 441 00:22:01,640 --> 00:22:04,279 Speaker 2: Yeah, well no, no, no, because the debate is over whether 442 00:22:04,359 --> 00:22:07,920 or not the state has the right to engage an aggression. Yeah, 443 00:22:08,200 --> 00:22:10,319 you're saying they do collectively. 444 00:22:10,079 --> 00:22:13,480 Speaker 1: Individual metaphysical concepts. You understand that rests on metaphysical CONTs. 445 00:22:13,480 --> 00:22:17,680 Speaker 2: Okay, but how can they collectively engage in aggression and 446 00:22:17,759 --> 00:22:18,880 not individually do it? 447 00:22:20,640 --> 00:22:24,039 Speaker 1: Well, Individuals also make up groups, and I think groups 448 00:22:24,079 --> 00:22:26,920 have a real existence and a real reality like groups 449 00:22:27,039 --> 00:22:31,000 like human nature that you mentioned. So you yourself believe in 450 00:22:31,160 --> 00:22:35,400 real universal categories, don't you? Sure? 451 00:22:35,519 --> 00:22:38,400 Speaker 2: Whatever? But like the question is kind. 452 00:22:38,240 --> 00:22:39,400 Speaker 1: Of you're not whatever. 453 00:22:39,480 --> 00:22:42,519 Speaker 2: The individual the individuals are having to engage in the aggression, right, 454 00:22:42,559 --> 00:22:46,160 which is a contradiction because you said they're they're you 455 00:22:46,240 --> 00:22:51,359 said individuals, not individuals said, you said that individuals do 456 00:22:51,400 --> 00:22:51,720 not have the. 457 00:22:51,759 --> 00:22:53,960 Speaker 1: Right claim of universe. 458 00:22:54,039 --> 00:22:56,200 Speaker 2: I'm asking about your claim about the you know, anarchism 459 00:22:56,240 --> 00:22:56,839 verse statism. 460 00:22:56,960 --> 00:22:59,279 Speaker 1: You're not going to answer whether or not metaphysical things 461 00:22:59,359 --> 00:23:02,359 have a real exist since they're not. Are these things relevant? 462 00:23:03,079 --> 00:23:05,519 Speaker 2: What was your opinion on the Heisenberg principle? 463 00:23:05,759 --> 00:23:09,440 Speaker 1: You're arguing on presupposition that you won't justify. 464 00:23:09,559 --> 00:23:11,279 Speaker 3: Yeah, let's let's back up here for a second and 465 00:23:11,319 --> 00:23:13,559 see if we can we can get this back on track. 466 00:23:13,640 --> 00:23:17,799 So liquid Zulu, Uh, if you're asking for the justification 467 00:23:17,880 --> 00:23:22,200 that Jay has for state, Jay is saying that he 468 00:23:22,279 --> 00:23:26,519 has a justification for the state, right, let's question that 469 00:23:26,519 --> 00:23:29,359 that hang on, let me finish and then we'll we'll 470 00:23:29,400 --> 00:23:31,720 we'll get it right back but you're saying his justification 471 00:23:31,799 --> 00:23:35,559 for the state relies on metaphysics. That's what he's saying. 472 00:23:35,640 --> 00:23:39,519 That's his positive claim. I don't see a problem with 473 00:23:39,720 --> 00:23:43,519 that claim. Uh, with allowing that claim for the concept 474 00:23:43,519 --> 00:23:45,079 of this debate. Can you can you tell me why 475 00:23:45,119 --> 00:23:46,240 that would be incorrect? 476 00:23:46,680 --> 00:23:48,960 Speaker 2: Like, I'm not I'm not specifically making the claim you 477 00:23:49,000 --> 00:23:51,960 said there, I'm I'm not asking for his justification of 478 00:23:51,960 --> 00:23:54,720 the state per se. What I'm saying now is that 479 00:23:54,759 --> 00:23:57,119 he has said that individuals do not have the right 480 00:23:57,119 --> 00:23:59,559 to aggress, but that states are allowed to engage in 481 00:23:59,599 --> 00:24:02,000 aggresson but the states would have to engage in aggression. 482 00:24:02,000 --> 00:24:05,039 That would have to involve individuals aggressing, which they don't 483 00:24:05,039 --> 00:24:08,240 have the right to do, apparently right, because. 484 00:24:08,039 --> 00:24:10,559 Speaker 1: I don't believe that only individuals exist. That's what I'm 485 00:24:10,559 --> 00:24:14,200 trying to ask you about universal concepts and collective things 486 00:24:14,240 --> 00:24:16,799 having a real existence, which you want it. You won't 487 00:24:16,839 --> 00:24:19,200 seem to admit even though you said you believe in universals. 488 00:24:19,559 --> 00:24:22,440 Speaker 2: I think things other than individuals exist, right, I think. 489 00:24:22,680 --> 00:24:24,319 Speaker 1: You know, like, do universals exist? 490 00:24:24,559 --> 00:24:25,680 Speaker 2: Plenty of other things exist? 491 00:24:25,759 --> 00:24:27,680 Speaker 1: But what the question universals exist? 492 00:24:27,799 --> 00:24:29,240 Speaker 2: You're currently a contradiction. 493 00:24:29,559 --> 00:24:31,880 Speaker 1: Right, do natures exist and universals exist? 494 00:24:32,039 --> 00:24:35,000 Speaker 2: You're currently calling a contradiction because you say the individuals 495 00:24:35,000 --> 00:24:37,880 both don't right to exists. 496 00:24:40,079 --> 00:24:43,880 Speaker 1: Let's have real collective ontological realities. 497 00:24:44,079 --> 00:24:46,400 Speaker 3: I want you to be able to state firmly what 498 00:24:46,440 --> 00:24:49,640 your what your actual question is here, Like with lou Jay, 499 00:24:49,720 --> 00:24:51,039 let it. Let him get the whole thing out so 500 00:24:51,039 --> 00:24:52,279 we can see what it is that he's after. 501 00:24:52,319 --> 00:24:55,200 Speaker 2: Go ahead, liquid My actual point of contention here is 502 00:24:55,200 --> 00:24:57,799 that Jay has said that individuals absolutely do not have 503 00:24:57,839 --> 00:24:59,880 the right to aggress, right, But then he says that 504 00:25:00,039 --> 00:25:02,599 states are allowed to engage aggression, but that would involve 505 00:25:02,640 --> 00:25:05,920 individuals aggressing. So he has a contradiction here where individuals 506 00:25:05,920 --> 00:25:07,759 are and are not engage in. 507 00:25:07,759 --> 00:25:12,960 Speaker 1: Aggressionally, individuals exist, No, no, no no, it's whether other things exist, 508 00:25:14,039 --> 00:25:15,160 whether other things exist. 509 00:25:15,720 --> 00:25:17,359 Speaker 4: You have to let hem respond now, Liquids. 510 00:25:17,759 --> 00:25:21,440 Speaker 1: This rest on a metaphysical reductionist move that I don't 511 00:25:21,480 --> 00:25:24,160 believe in. I don't believe that only individuals exist. That's 512 00:25:24,200 --> 00:25:28,000 why I'm pointing out that there are real ontological categories 513 00:25:28,039 --> 00:25:31,480 and groupings and collective things that have a real Can 514 00:25:31,480 --> 00:25:33,400 you do? Can you stop typing? When I talked seriously. 515 00:25:33,400 --> 00:25:35,319 Speaker 2: I'm sorry, should I thought I hit the mute? 516 00:25:36,240 --> 00:25:37,599 Speaker 1: No, I mean you're doing that on purpose. 517 00:25:38,839 --> 00:25:40,000 Speaker 2: It wasn't n I thought I hit the meat butt. 518 00:25:43,720 --> 00:25:48,279 Speaker 1: You said in your opening statement, you yourself affirm universal 519 00:25:48,400 --> 00:25:52,920 categories and metaphysical things like nature's existing. That means that 520 00:25:52,960 --> 00:25:56,319 there's more than just particulars. I'm just giving you another 521 00:25:56,400 --> 00:26:00,119 example of a particular that of a universal or a 522 00:26:00,160 --> 00:26:04,559 collective reality that I think actually exists, namely states and 523 00:26:04,640 --> 00:26:07,960 authorities and people groups. There are real collectors like women 524 00:26:08,039 --> 00:26:10,640 are a group, men are a group that have a 525 00:26:10,680 --> 00:26:15,000 real ontological existence, And I'm saying that families are a 526 00:26:15,000 --> 00:26:18,279 real thing that exists. It's a real metaphysical category. And 527 00:26:18,319 --> 00:26:22,319 in the same way states and people groups exist and 528 00:26:22,400 --> 00:26:27,119 they have real ontological categories known as authority. And so 529 00:26:27,319 --> 00:26:31,839 it's not purely a reductionist move of atomized individuals, which 530 00:26:31,880 --> 00:26:38,799 is your Enlightenment philosophy, which denies fundamentally collective ontological realities. 531 00:26:39,119 --> 00:26:42,319 But in your opening statement you made multiple references to 532 00:26:42,440 --> 00:26:48,400 collective metaphysical realities that you can't justify, right. 533 00:26:48,440 --> 00:26:51,200 Speaker 2: So in these groups they have some authority, right, but 534 00:26:51,279 --> 00:26:53,279 can not authority make it such that the individuals who 535 00:26:53,279 --> 00:26:57,400 make up that group have the right to aggress? Say 536 00:26:57,440 --> 00:27:01,720 that again, like these these groups they have some authority. 537 00:27:01,880 --> 00:27:04,559 But can that authority then grant the individuals who make 538 00:27:04,640 --> 00:27:07,000 up that group the right to aggress? 539 00:27:08,599 --> 00:27:11,759 Speaker 1: Yes, because there are authorities. And when I was talking 540 00:27:11,799 --> 00:27:16,559 about individuals, I'm talking about individuals that don't have authority. 541 00:27:18,079 --> 00:27:20,160 Speaker 2: Okay, so what does the authority how can how does 542 00:27:20,200 --> 00:27:23,279 that change the general rule? Now individuals don't have a 543 00:27:23,319 --> 00:27:25,559 right to aggress? How does this authority imbue them with 544 00:27:25,680 --> 00:27:30,200 that right? So I am how does the authority imbew 545 00:27:30,279 --> 00:27:32,640 individuals with the right that they didn't have to aggress? 546 00:27:32,720 --> 00:27:32,799 Speaker 1: Like? 547 00:27:32,839 --> 00:27:33,880 Speaker 2: How does it give them that right? 548 00:27:35,920 --> 00:27:38,920 Speaker 1: Because authority comes from the divine, It comes from God, 549 00:27:39,039 --> 00:27:43,440 and so for us, authority comes via ultimately divine revelation. 550 00:27:43,559 --> 00:27:46,039 And then we have in our worldview the notion of 551 00:27:46,079 --> 00:27:49,680 God ordaining authorities. Church and state have authority in the earth. 552 00:27:52,759 --> 00:27:55,000 Speaker 2: Why does the fact that comes from God imply that 553 00:27:55,039 --> 00:27:56,039 they have the right to aggress? 554 00:27:57,640 --> 00:27:58,960 Speaker 1: Because God gives that right? 555 00:28:00,160 --> 00:28:01,920 Speaker 2: Okay? Can God make contradictions true? 556 00:28:03,480 --> 00:28:03,559 Speaker 1: No? 557 00:28:04,519 --> 00:28:07,160 Speaker 2: Okay, But then you have a particular property theory of 558 00:28:08,000 --> 00:28:09,480 a owning b right. 559 00:28:09,680 --> 00:28:11,640 Speaker 1: I gave you a balanced theory of the one in 560 00:28:11,680 --> 00:28:14,599 the mini you deny that by only saying that there's 561 00:28:14,640 --> 00:28:17,880 particulars as you then turn around and talk about universal categories. 562 00:28:17,960 --> 00:28:20,000 So can you tell me what the universals are that 563 00:28:20,039 --> 00:28:20,599 you referenced? 564 00:28:20,720 --> 00:28:23,000 Speaker 2: No, no, no, I'm saying you're making a particularistic norm here. 565 00:28:23,000 --> 00:28:24,720 Speaker 1: You're not gonna are you not going to answer this question? 566 00:28:25,039 --> 00:28:26,880 Speaker 2: I'm saying you're making a particularistic norm. 567 00:28:26,920 --> 00:28:29,519 Speaker 1: You've asked me five questions. I'm asking you a question. 568 00:28:29,319 --> 00:28:31,759 Speaker 4: Now, So that that is true, liquid Zulu, he did 569 00:28:31,839 --> 00:28:32,440 you did? He did? 570 00:28:32,559 --> 00:28:34,279 Speaker 3: You did ask him a series of questions and he 571 00:28:34,319 --> 00:28:38,559 did answer them. So let's let's see if we can 572 00:28:38,599 --> 00:28:38,799 get this. 573 00:28:38,920 --> 00:28:40,759 Speaker 1: What are the universals that you referred to in your 574 00:28:40,759 --> 00:28:42,119 opening statement? What are those. 575 00:28:43,599 --> 00:28:47,359 Speaker 2: Not seeing here? And you know I was talking about 576 00:28:47,359 --> 00:28:50,319 a universal ethic, an ethic which applies to the entire set. 577 00:28:50,880 --> 00:28:53,160 Speaker 1: What's the universal? What's the universal there? 578 00:28:53,359 --> 00:28:56,160 Speaker 2: I just told you is a universal ethic I applies 579 00:28:56,160 --> 00:28:57,000 to the entire set. 580 00:28:57,599 --> 00:28:59,880 Speaker 1: So a universal ithic is a universal that's a circular? 581 00:29:00,160 --> 00:29:02,319 What is the universal that you're saying there? No, I 582 00:29:02,400 --> 00:29:05,200 use the word universal? What are they? What's the ontological 583 00:29:05,240 --> 00:29:06,279 status of universals. 584 00:29:06,440 --> 00:29:08,319 Speaker 2: I use the word universal because they applies to the 585 00:29:08,480 --> 00:29:11,039 entire set. It's universal within that sense. 586 00:29:11,079 --> 00:29:13,039 Speaker 1: Okay, so an entire set of what do you have 587 00:29:13,119 --> 00:29:14,359 experience of that entire set? 588 00:29:16,519 --> 00:29:19,559 Speaker 2: No, that's just well, I'm defining a universal antheica. 589 00:29:19,559 --> 00:29:22,240 Speaker 1: How do you justify the claim that you have asccess 590 00:29:22,240 --> 00:29:28,960 to a universal What is a pismology? One on one? Okay? 591 00:29:29,079 --> 00:29:33,640 Speaker 2: This is around the definition of a universal anth to universals, 592 00:29:33,799 --> 00:29:36,519 an antic which applies to the entire class. That's what 593 00:29:36,559 --> 00:29:37,039 I'm saying. 594 00:29:37,960 --> 00:29:39,920 Speaker 1: So a union for the justification if you make class 595 00:29:39,960 --> 00:29:42,559 based claims, I don't I know you think that? How 596 00:29:42,559 --> 00:29:45,720 do you make that claim? That move means the ontological 597 00:29:45,799 --> 00:29:47,839 status of universals? Where are they? What are they? 598 00:29:48,519 --> 00:29:51,000 Speaker 2: Do you disagree with the ability of me to do that? 599 00:29:52,720 --> 00:29:54,519 Speaker 1: So you're not going to answer it because you don't know. 600 00:29:54,960 --> 00:29:58,759 Speaker 2: Okay, But do you have a dispute for my prompty theory? 601 00:29:58,759 --> 00:30:02,440 Speaker 1: You don't have a justification for human ethics as a 602 00:30:02,559 --> 00:30:03,519 universal category. 603 00:30:04,720 --> 00:30:08,000 Speaker 2: No, I'm referring to a universal ethic as applying to 604 00:30:08,079 --> 00:30:10,920 human kind. I meaning that you're deriving an anthems for 605 00:30:11,200 --> 00:30:13,839 humans versal class. So it would have to apply to 606 00:30:13,880 --> 00:30:16,519 all humans. That's what I'm saying universal. 607 00:30:18,279 --> 00:30:21,920 Speaker 1: I gave the justification universal. That's not a justification. You 608 00:30:21,960 --> 00:30:24,640 just stated your position again, so you don't even know 609 00:30:24,640 --> 00:30:26,880 what it rightfication, You don't. 610 00:30:26,680 --> 00:30:30,039 Speaker 2: Know I gave the justification for it, why it would 611 00:30:30,039 --> 00:30:31,720 have to apply to the entire staf humans? 612 00:30:31,720 --> 00:30:34,599 Speaker 1: You don't know what justification is by restating your position, 613 00:30:34,640 --> 00:30:35,799 that's not epistemic. 614 00:30:35,960 --> 00:30:38,119 Speaker 2: I'm telling you I told you the justification why it 615 00:30:38,119 --> 00:30:40,599 would have to apply to all humans. 616 00:30:40,960 --> 00:30:42,960 Speaker 1: What do you think epistemic justification is? 617 00:30:44,119 --> 00:30:47,319 Speaker 2: I mean it would be justifying epistemologically somehow. I don't know. 618 00:30:48,960 --> 00:30:53,079 Speaker 1: So justification is justifying it? Good job? Any any other 619 00:30:53,119 --> 00:30:55,599 circular statements? What is epismic? You can't even tell me 620 00:30:55,640 --> 00:30:58,000 what you e would have in epistemology on one class? 621 00:30:58,480 --> 00:31:00,640 Speaker 2: No, I've not been to an pistology want one class? 622 00:31:00,759 --> 00:31:00,839 Speaker 1: No? 623 00:31:01,039 --> 00:31:05,720 Speaker 2: Okay, right, So now can you tell me how the authority? 624 00:31:06,279 --> 00:31:07,920 Why the fact that comes from God? How does that 625 00:31:07,960 --> 00:31:10,400 imbue humans with the right to aggress? 626 00:31:11,720 --> 00:31:13,960 Speaker 1: Well, I mean if God has the ultimate authority and 627 00:31:14,000 --> 00:31:16,799 he endows people with a derivative authority, then that's. 628 00:31:16,640 --> 00:31:20,839 Speaker 2: How Okay, So God can just decide to that, Okay, 629 00:31:20,880 --> 00:31:24,160 right now, you're allowed to aggress, you're not allowed to aggress. 630 00:31:25,319 --> 00:31:29,079 Speaker 1: Well, human beings have the faculty of reasoning and they 631 00:31:29,079 --> 00:31:32,079 have the ability to make decisions, so it's not arbitrary. 632 00:31:33,119 --> 00:31:36,240 But some rulers are evil and some some rulers do 633 00:31:36,640 --> 00:31:38,359 you know, fight unjust war? 634 00:31:38,480 --> 00:31:42,559 Speaker 2: Sure, right, But it's because whether or not God has 635 00:31:42,599 --> 00:31:44,920 these say so, whether God says yep, if I put my 636 00:31:45,000 --> 00:31:47,960 rubber stamp on this aggression, that's what makes it such 637 00:31:48,039 --> 00:31:49,039 that it's a just aggression. 638 00:31:51,920 --> 00:31:55,039 Speaker 1: Well, what makes it just depends upon the situation, because 639 00:31:55,079 --> 00:31:59,440 there might be agitation or provocation that's unjustified, and so 640 00:31:59,640 --> 00:32:02,000 the war fear in that case might be justified. So 641 00:32:02,519 --> 00:32:06,079 there's not an easy, you know, a priori situation as 642 00:32:06,079 --> 00:32:08,440 to you know, how in every case the war might 643 00:32:08,440 --> 00:32:09,440 be good or bad. 644 00:32:10,839 --> 00:32:13,240 Speaker 2: So so let's just get the upshelf. That is it 645 00:32:13,359 --> 00:32:15,400 that God gives his rubber stamp to some aggressions that 646 00:32:15,480 --> 00:32:19,039 makes them okay. 647 00:32:19,640 --> 00:32:23,559 Speaker 1: The upshot is that this worldview gives an account for 648 00:32:23,640 --> 00:32:26,240 how there is a party in the earth and how 649 00:32:26,240 --> 00:32:30,759 there is the possibility of metaphysical groupings and classes, which 650 00:32:30,759 --> 00:32:33,119 your position denies even though it uses it. At the 651 00:32:33,119 --> 00:32:33,599 same time. 652 00:32:34,799 --> 00:32:36,960 Speaker 2: But is it God giving is rubber stamp to certain aggressions? 653 00:32:37,039 --> 00:32:38,079 Is that what makes them just? 654 00:32:40,240 --> 00:32:42,000 Speaker 1: Well, what makes them just is that they are a 655 00:32:42,079 --> 00:32:44,319 reflection of eternal divine justice. 656 00:32:45,400 --> 00:32:47,799 Speaker 2: Okay. And what does it mean to be a reflection 657 00:32:47,839 --> 00:32:49,079 of eternal divine justice? 658 00:32:50,160 --> 00:32:53,359 Speaker 1: It means to act justly according to divine law, things 659 00:32:53,359 --> 00:32:54,839 like the Ten Commandments and so forth. 660 00:32:58,839 --> 00:33:00,640 Speaker 2: Okay, So how do you how do you know what? 661 00:33:00,880 --> 00:33:01,960 Like so is the Tank Commandment? 662 00:33:02,119 --> 00:33:02,599 Speaker 1: Is that just? 663 00:33:03,079 --> 00:33:04,559 Speaker 2: Is that all there is to the divine law? 664 00:33:08,119 --> 00:33:11,759 Speaker 1: Those are basic principles that would then kind of be 665 00:33:11,960 --> 00:33:15,400 delineating the rest of law. Fair. I mean, if you're 666 00:33:15,440 --> 00:33:17,839 a fan of Western civilization, then you would know that 667 00:33:17,920 --> 00:33:22,599 you know, the history of Western civilization incorporates Greek philosophy, Aristotle, 668 00:33:23,119 --> 00:33:25,519 you know, Church law, can in law, all these things, 669 00:33:25,720 --> 00:33:27,799 you know, English common law. All of these things go 670 00:33:27,880 --> 00:33:32,880 into how states engage in judicious activities. 671 00:33:34,119 --> 00:33:35,960 Speaker 2: Okay, So you said a bunch of things go into 672 00:33:36,160 --> 00:33:38,119 eternal divine law. Its not just the tank moments. So 673 00:33:38,160 --> 00:33:39,480 what is eternal divine law? 674 00:33:39,519 --> 00:33:45,759 Speaker 1: Then? Well, it's as the statutes in the expectations that 675 00:33:45,839 --> 00:33:48,559 God has, which are a reflection of his divine character. 676 00:33:57,400 --> 00:33:59,680 Speaker 2: All Right, so what are those statutes and expectations that 677 00:33:59,720 --> 00:34:00,519 God has. 678 00:34:02,759 --> 00:34:05,720 Speaker 1: Again, So, I mean there's moral law, there's natural law, 679 00:34:05,799 --> 00:34:10,239 there's divine law, there's church law, and then there's practical 680 00:34:10,280 --> 00:34:12,400 things like common law. All of these things can in 681 00:34:12,480 --> 00:34:14,800 varying ways be reflections of those principles. 682 00:34:15,840 --> 00:34:18,239 Speaker 2: Right, So if they're in varying ways reflections of the principles, 683 00:34:18,239 --> 00:34:19,320 can you just give me the principles? 684 00:34:20,960 --> 00:34:22,679 Speaker 1: So I gave you the Ten Commandments, I mean you 685 00:34:22,679 --> 00:34:24,800 can have the rest of the Torah. You can have 686 00:34:24,840 --> 00:34:27,280 the rest of the Bible, the New Testament, the history 687 00:34:27,320 --> 00:34:29,320 of the church. It's church, church, can and law. I mean, 688 00:34:29,320 --> 00:34:32,079 all those things go into this. I'm giving you lists 689 00:34:32,119 --> 00:34:33,400 of them. What do you want? 690 00:34:34,000 --> 00:34:35,760 Speaker 2: Sure? So I don't know the rest of the Torah 691 00:34:35,880 --> 00:34:37,719 or the rest of these other things. Can do you 692 00:34:37,840 --> 00:34:40,119 have like a list of these principles that you could 693 00:34:40,119 --> 00:34:42,480 give me, like just you know, state principal one, Principle two, 694 00:34:42,559 --> 00:34:44,440 Principal three, YadA, YadA YadA. 695 00:34:46,400 --> 00:34:50,280 Speaker 1: Well, I don't think anybody, even libertarian law theory, has 696 00:34:50,920 --> 00:34:55,559 some like ultimate perfect list because encapsulate a lot of things. 697 00:34:55,840 --> 00:34:57,679 Speaker 2: I've got my perfect list right now, I can give 698 00:34:57,719 --> 00:35:00,519 it to you. Attem number one. Not an agress principle, 699 00:35:00,880 --> 00:35:01,280 that's it. 700 00:35:02,079 --> 00:35:04,199 Speaker 1: Why are we supposed to follow the non aggression principle? 701 00:35:04,559 --> 00:35:05,880 Speaker 2: No, I was just demonstrating to you that I can 702 00:35:05,920 --> 00:35:07,880 give you the list. Can you give me your list? 703 00:35:08,679 --> 00:35:09,639 Can you give me your list? 704 00:35:10,599 --> 00:35:11,679 Speaker 1: Why are we supposed to follow it? 705 00:35:11,719 --> 00:35:12,719 Speaker 2: Can you give me your list? 706 00:35:13,440 --> 00:35:15,840 Speaker 1: Already listed? The tank commandments is an easy example. Why 707 00:35:15,880 --> 00:35:16,599 are we supposed to follow? 708 00:35:16,719 --> 00:35:19,599 Speaker 2: But it's not just tank moments, they were these different things. 709 00:35:20,159 --> 00:35:24,840 Speaker 1: Reflect noticed that he can't justify an at once again. 710 00:35:25,519 --> 00:35:27,880 It's arbitrary. I've asked him and he's not going to 711 00:35:27,920 --> 00:35:29,880 answer it because he doesn't have an answer to this. 712 00:35:30,480 --> 00:35:33,320 Speaker 2: You said, you said that you're different. 713 00:35:33,320 --> 00:35:36,400 Speaker 1: Followed the nap, you said, we followed it in. 714 00:35:36,880 --> 00:35:41,079 Speaker 2: You said that you're different. You're different types of laws, 715 00:35:41,119 --> 00:35:44,840 these differents, different degrees. 716 00:35:44,840 --> 00:35:46,159 Speaker 4: Both on guys. 717 00:35:46,280 --> 00:35:48,000 Speaker 1: And you noticed it's like the bab. 718 00:35:48,800 --> 00:35:50,639 Speaker 4: I got it and I got a guy. 719 00:35:50,639 --> 00:35:52,519 Speaker 3: I gotta get in here, just real quick break it 720 00:35:52,599 --> 00:35:56,480 up for a second, Liquidzulu. He is asking a very 721 00:35:56,519 --> 00:36:00,239 direct question. Is there some this is some take it 722 00:36:00,280 --> 00:36:02,639 a reason that you don't want to answer it, or. 723 00:36:02,599 --> 00:36:05,800 Speaker 2: I think it's an invasion technic. I think it's an 724 00:36:05,800 --> 00:36:07,559 invasion tactic because he's trying that. 725 00:36:07,599 --> 00:36:09,800 Speaker 1: You say that we ought to follow I'm asking you 726 00:36:09,840 --> 00:36:11,559 why we should follow that, and you're saying that to 727 00:36:11,559 --> 00:36:12,039 an invasion. 728 00:36:12,039 --> 00:36:13,920 Speaker 2: I'm going to explain to you why it's innovasion tactic, 729 00:36:14,159 --> 00:36:15,960 because every every time I try and pin you down 730 00:36:16,000 --> 00:36:18,840 with something, you go, okay, well, but this other thing. Okay, 731 00:36:18,840 --> 00:36:21,760 well by this other thing. So I'm asking you your 732 00:36:21,880 --> 00:36:22,760 legal code is. 733 00:36:22,719 --> 00:36:25,599 Speaker 1: I couldn't answer universal, and now what your legal code 734 00:36:25,599 --> 00:36:27,880 is another. Basically, I've only asked you two basic questions 735 00:36:27,920 --> 00:36:29,039 and you won't answer them. 736 00:36:29,320 --> 00:36:30,960 Speaker 2: I'm asking you what your legal code. 737 00:36:30,719 --> 00:36:33,719 Speaker 1: Has an answer. You can't tell me why I should. 738 00:36:34,280 --> 00:36:36,119 You can't give me one basic reason why I ought 739 00:36:36,119 --> 00:36:39,559 to follow your n A P. I'm asking you what 740 00:36:39,599 --> 00:36:43,000 your leg You're the worst debate in the last five years. 741 00:36:43,199 --> 00:36:47,119 You should go. Can you have t jump on like dump? 742 00:36:48,480 --> 00:36:52,920 Speaker 3: So so let me I am I am trying. I 743 00:36:52,920 --> 00:36:54,960 am trying to figure this out myself. I'm taking notes 744 00:36:55,000 --> 00:36:58,400 here as they go. If if he's you're putting down 745 00:36:58,440 --> 00:37:02,360 the justification for why aggression is wrong, and you're basing 746 00:37:02,440 --> 00:37:05,320 that on the NAP you say that this is my list, 747 00:37:05,400 --> 00:37:07,559 my whole list and nothing but my list n A P. 748 00:37:08,719 --> 00:37:11,400 If he asked you for your justification for the n P, 749 00:37:11,599 --> 00:37:13,760 it seems like a fair I don't see how that's 750 00:37:13,760 --> 00:37:17,000 an unfair question. If it's a if your query is 751 00:37:17,000 --> 00:37:18,119 about aggression itself. 752 00:37:18,440 --> 00:37:21,239 Speaker 2: Sure, I'm not saying it's an unfair question in a vacuum, right, 753 00:37:21,400 --> 00:37:23,679 if he was interrogating my position and he got down 754 00:37:23,719 --> 00:37:27,639 to let me answer, I said, if he got down, 755 00:37:27,719 --> 00:37:31,679 if he was answering Jesus Christ, I'm saying, if he 756 00:37:31,719 --> 00:37:34,199 was interrogating me down and it's like, okay, right, so 757 00:37:34,199 --> 00:37:35,880 we get down to the n P, and then why 758 00:37:35,920 --> 00:37:38,360 don't we do that? Okay, that would be fine, right. 759 00:37:38,400 --> 00:37:40,400 But instead, what was happening is I was introgating his 760 00:37:40,519 --> 00:37:42,280 legal code. I was trying to get out of him 761 00:37:42,280 --> 00:37:45,360 what his principles are of law, of divine law, and 762 00:37:45,440 --> 00:37:48,320 he instant and then he evaded, like he's always doing 763 00:37:48,639 --> 00:37:49,559 every single. 764 00:37:49,679 --> 00:37:52,840 Speaker 1: Every everything, every multiple. 765 00:37:52,119 --> 00:37:56,199 Speaker 2: And you said they you said they were reflect divine 766 00:37:56,239 --> 00:37:58,559 law to varying degrees. So I want to know what 767 00:37:58,599 --> 00:38:01,119 the actual core of divine law is. And every time 768 00:38:01,159 --> 00:38:03,800 I try and push you in something you're vague, you 769 00:38:03,800 --> 00:38:05,920 bring something else up. You say what about this? What 770 00:38:05,920 --> 00:38:06,320 about that? 771 00:38:06,360 --> 00:38:08,360 Speaker 1: You're never going to say why we ought to follow 772 00:38:08,360 --> 00:38:08,719 the NAP? 773 00:38:10,079 --> 00:38:12,239 Speaker 4: I do think. I do think it's a fair it's 774 00:38:12,280 --> 00:38:12,960 a fair question. 775 00:38:13,039 --> 00:38:14,719 Speaker 3: For instance, if you asked him, why do you think 776 00:38:14,719 --> 00:38:17,000 we ought to follow the tank commandments? I think Jay 777 00:38:17,000 --> 00:38:18,039 I got to answer that too. 778 00:38:19,880 --> 00:38:22,960 Speaker 2: Sure, So I'll answer this and then can I please 779 00:38:23,000 --> 00:38:26,159 go back to interrogating what exactly your legal code is? 780 00:38:26,719 --> 00:38:27,719 Speaker 4: Yeah? I think that's fine. 781 00:38:27,800 --> 00:38:31,559 Speaker 2: Yeah, sure, So I think it's incoherent to justify any 782 00:38:32,159 --> 00:38:35,079 anti anyp norm, any negation of the NAP. You're going 783 00:38:35,079 --> 00:38:37,159 to fall into contradiction when you try and justify that. 784 00:38:38,400 --> 00:38:40,719 Speaker 1: How's the justification. Maybe it's okay to contradict. 785 00:38:42,440 --> 00:38:45,079 Speaker 2: No, contradictions are falsehoods. 786 00:38:45,119 --> 00:38:47,400 Speaker 1: If you say we are, hey, it's over time to 787 00:38:47,440 --> 00:38:49,280 pack it up. He said, no, don't do it. 788 00:38:49,960 --> 00:38:51,519 Speaker 2: Okay, So you think constrictions are fine? 789 00:38:51,559 --> 00:38:53,360 Speaker 1: I mean again, maybe if you'd had a basic. 790 00:38:53,119 --> 00:38:54,719 Speaker 2: Class, do you think contradictions are fine? 791 00:38:54,800 --> 00:38:57,519 Speaker 1: That's not what justification is. That doesn't get you justification 792 00:38:58,119 --> 00:38:59,800 to saying no. Okay. 793 00:38:59,880 --> 00:39:01,920 Speaker 2: So if I say I ought aggress and that implies 794 00:39:01,920 --> 00:39:04,719 a contradiction, that means I not aggress. Do you think 795 00:39:04,760 --> 00:39:05,679 contradictions are fine. 796 00:39:06,679 --> 00:39:08,800 Speaker 1: I want to know on your worldview, why we ought 797 00:39:08,880 --> 00:39:09,679 to do anything. 798 00:39:10,360 --> 00:39:12,880 Speaker 2: I just explained what to I just explained it what 799 00:39:13,239 --> 00:39:13,559 I did. 800 00:39:13,639 --> 00:39:15,119 Speaker 1: What's the How do we get an ot from it? 801 00:39:15,159 --> 00:39:20,400 Speaker 2: Is proposing certain statements, like the negation of the NP 802 00:39:20,800 --> 00:39:24,199 implies contradiction contractions are false, so therefore this must be false. 803 00:39:25,199 --> 00:39:26,199 Pretty simple, Okay. 804 00:39:26,519 --> 00:39:28,679 Speaker 1: The fact that something is false doesn't tell you that 805 00:39:28,719 --> 00:39:31,239 it ought or ought not be followed unless you have 806 00:39:31,320 --> 00:39:35,440 some justification for that move. If an statement, this is 807 00:39:35,480 --> 00:39:38,800 a basic abystomology problem. Getting an aught from it is. 808 00:39:38,880 --> 00:39:41,519 Speaker 2: If an statement is false, it's a negation has to 809 00:39:41,519 --> 00:39:44,840 be true. If an a statement is false, negation has 810 00:39:44,840 --> 00:39:45,360 to be true. 811 00:39:45,840 --> 00:39:48,440 Speaker 1: It doesn't matter because it doesn't tell you that you 812 00:39:48,480 --> 00:39:50,239 ought it doesn't do you know what normativity is? It 813 00:39:50,239 --> 00:39:54,119 doesn't grant your normativity. Go look up basic philosophical concepts. 814 00:39:54,320 --> 00:39:56,480 Speaker 2: So you think the negation of an at statement is 815 00:39:56,559 --> 00:39:57,920 not also an a statement. 816 00:39:57,559 --> 00:39:59,480 Speaker 1: You're you're not understanding the words. 817 00:39:59,519 --> 00:40:00,760 Speaker 2: I think you're an understanding the words. 818 00:40:01,199 --> 00:40:04,199 Speaker 1: I understand that it's a contradiction that doesn't get you 819 00:40:04,239 --> 00:40:05,840 to normativity. 820 00:40:06,079 --> 00:40:09,559 Speaker 2: Okay, So it's a contradiction to propose certain statements therefore 821 00:40:09,639 --> 00:40:11,360 they are false, therefore their negation. 822 00:40:13,280 --> 00:40:14,000 Speaker 1: It doesn't matter. 823 00:40:14,000 --> 00:40:16,000 Speaker 2: It's not whether you ought contradict or not. That's a 824 00:40:16,000 --> 00:40:18,559 relevant to your easy contradiction. 825 00:40:19,519 --> 00:40:22,320 Speaker 1: Drink more of your loco. Whatever it is. 826 00:40:22,840 --> 00:40:27,639 Speaker 2: Certain statements aren't contradictions, loco. Certain you think a negation 827 00:40:27,679 --> 00:40:30,400 of an AT statement is also an ALT statement? 828 00:40:33,119 --> 00:40:34,880 Speaker 1: You don't even understand what that. You don't even understand 829 00:40:34,920 --> 00:40:38,679 the categories are different. An art statement is not relevant 830 00:40:38,800 --> 00:40:43,360 to what you're claiming. I want I'm sorry not is 831 00:40:43,360 --> 00:40:45,800 it a contradiction? Of course? I don't believe in contradictions. 832 00:40:46,519 --> 00:40:48,880 Speaker 2: Okay, okay, what do you think the negation of I 833 00:40:48,920 --> 00:40:50,000 an't wear a blue shirt? 834 00:40:50,559 --> 00:40:52,000 Speaker 1: You know what narrativity is? 835 00:40:52,079 --> 00:40:53,800 Speaker 2: What do you think the negation of that is? 836 00:40:54,280 --> 00:40:56,079 Speaker 1: Okay? So again, it doesn't even This is like talking 837 00:40:56,119 --> 00:40:56,719 to a kid man. 838 00:40:57,000 --> 00:40:58,599 Speaker 2: It's like you thought you were going to come on 839 00:40:58,639 --> 00:41:00,280 here and to be a human or something. You don't 840 00:41:00,280 --> 00:41:02,559 even and you only prepared against you talking to. 841 00:41:02,599 --> 00:41:06,960 Speaker 1: A teenager who doesn't even know the basic concepts. What 842 00:41:06,960 --> 00:41:07,880 do you think is going to come? 843 00:41:08,039 --> 00:41:10,280 Speaker 2: Do you think the negation of an ALT statement is 844 00:41:10,400 --> 00:41:12,519 an IS statement or do you think it's an ALT statement? 845 00:41:13,840 --> 00:41:15,880 Speaker 1: I want to know it's a simple that's. 846 00:41:15,719 --> 00:41:18,880 Speaker 2: What I want to know in place. 847 00:41:20,159 --> 00:41:22,159 Speaker 1: Hello, he's nervously. 848 00:41:22,239 --> 00:41:22,719 Speaker 2: Are we back? 849 00:41:23,719 --> 00:41:24,039 Speaker 1: Okay? 850 00:41:24,719 --> 00:41:25,199 Speaker 2: Are back? 851 00:41:25,199 --> 00:41:26,199 Speaker 4: I think, I think tell. 852 00:41:26,079 --> 00:41:28,119 Speaker 1: Me what the problem is before we continue. 853 00:41:28,280 --> 00:41:30,480 Speaker 2: Sure, the problem is the fact value that called me 854 00:41:30,519 --> 00:41:33,440 I e. You cannot get fact factual values because there's 855 00:41:33,440 --> 00:41:36,920 a line separating them. You can't. You can only start 856 00:41:37,559 --> 00:41:41,559 get values from Yeah, right, and I don't. 857 00:41:41,599 --> 00:41:44,159 Speaker 1: I don't agree that there is a solve this with 858 00:41:44,199 --> 00:41:44,519 an ap. 859 00:41:44,880 --> 00:41:47,880 Speaker 2: I just explained it to you like ten times. So 860 00:41:48,039 --> 00:41:49,760 certain statements, you. 861 00:41:49,800 --> 00:41:52,840 Speaker 1: Didn't solve it. It's a classics Okay, So you what 862 00:41:54,239 --> 00:41:59,280 solved this classic problem with philosophy and after you googled it? Yeah? 863 00:41:59,320 --> 00:42:01,280 Speaker 2: I I googled it right now and I solved it 864 00:42:01,360 --> 00:42:01,760 on the spot. 865 00:42:01,840 --> 00:42:02,039 Speaker 1: Yeah. 866 00:42:02,320 --> 00:42:05,400 Speaker 2: If that's why you want to believe? So certain art statements. 867 00:42:05,000 --> 00:42:07,320 Speaker 1: And what was this delusion? Because you cut out. 868 00:42:07,360 --> 00:42:11,239 Speaker 2: Certain art statements imply contradiction. Contradictions are false. Therefore the 869 00:42:11,320 --> 00:42:14,119 art statement implies that contradiction has to be false. This 870 00:42:14,199 --> 00:42:17,360 negation has to be true. Jesus Christ. 871 00:42:17,440 --> 00:42:19,880 Speaker 1: Fact that something false doesn't tell you that you ought 872 00:42:19,920 --> 00:42:21,760 to follow what's true? Do you understand that difference? 873 00:42:21,920 --> 00:42:26,840 Speaker 2: Okay? Irrelevant irrelevant, all right, this guy's a reason I'm done.