Jarred: "I dont like that the government I get to vote for/against has a monopoly on force." Also Jarred: "Id much rather let private security firm that I have no influence on enforce contracts instead."
The funny thing is, when you vote there is no option for “no government”. But upwards of 65% of people eligible to vote as an adult, don’t vote. So when you say “government I get to vote for/against” it doesn’t make any sense that when you (vote) you’d be voting against government. Anytime you vote you’re voting FOR government. But if we tallied up all the people who don’t vote and equated that as a vote for (no government) we would have been without a government for a very long time. In other words voting in and of itself is nothing more than people granting government legitimacy. Believing that another man has a higher claim over your life and property than you is to me the same as a religion backed by no proof, a government sanctioned religion called statism. And it’s backed by nothing more than a barrel of a gun, 3rd party oppression contracted out by “voters” for the sake of having their subjective moralities imposed on others who want to be left alone.
@@duelz3885 You’ve turned all the unwell and feckless into part of a silent libertarian majority. Cool trick. I dunno where you be for 65% of adults not to vote though.
@@duelz3885 Sometimes people do not use their votes as positive support for those that they're explicitly voting for. Protest votes, or voting to block a worse option, etc. I'm surprised you're challenging that point, given the 2020 US presidential election. Or perhaps you're talking about voting against government intervention, which is also a thing if you're voting for candidates with de-regulatory platforms. Secondly, it's a choice that people can abstain from voting, for whatever reason they like. They could feel like they aren't being represented, or dont think they have vetted the candidates enough, or just pure forgot to. I'm fine with any of those, as long as they got to choose.
Letting individual people and companies hire armed security that's allowed to enforce whatever bullshit they want by whatever means sounds pretty dystopian.
@@DanDan-eh7ul when you say that all I can think of is all the 3 letter agencies that the government keeps pulling from their rectum in short fashion every time a problem they’ve created goes sour… the Hegelian Dialectic
@Secular Heretic I love Cannibal Corpse and Slayer. What death/thrash bands do you like? I used to love Burzum and slow atmospheric black Metal but I like the faster stuff as of recently.
Definitely a libertarian, not sure why he called here, but I'm glad he did. I almost wish more were just smart enough to know about AXP, but not smart enough to know it was a bad idea.
What has the government ever done for us? Roads. Well apart from roads, what has the government ever done for us. Law and Order. Well apart from roads and law and order... Jared is as logical and sensible as a comedy sketch. (Monty Python and the Life of Brian for those that dont know - its very funny)
Matt debating someone in the veins of Ben Shapiro could be interesting. But anyone from Westborough church. I don’t think that would be productive. They are in their own little bubble of fanaticism, where they use religion as an excuse to hate people. Matt could rip through their ideology and rationales for their actions quick enough. They are nonsensical but predictable claims that anyone who is a member of any institution, like the military, who dies signifies a punishment from God for excepting homosexuality as a valid alternative to heterosexuality. But they do not argue in good faith at all. Maybe Matt has already debated with members of the clan. I don’t know. At this point in time, I would not waste Matt‘s time with those people. An example of how that kind of argument would go is in another clip, “How Is Homosexuality Rationally Justified?“ Check that clip out for a pretty heated discussion that did not end well.
I traced back 1000s of years of my family history and found that my great great great great great great great great great great grandfather was a caveman named Arty and apparently he introduced the concept of morality way back at the dawn of humanity ! Another caveman was beating Arty over the head with a club but Arty, being the enlightened caveman he was , grunted out some sounds which in caveman language meant “hey stop hitting me over the head ! That hurts ! How about instead , I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine !” And walla ! The basic concept of morality was laid down thanks to my great caveman grandfather. No need for religion .
@@brianharbort6728 Except where it’s illegal and actively abusive by other humans to do so. Can’t even camp on public lands, like forest parks, to live.
@@hayuseen6683 In the U.S. there are plenty of places you can live homeless, it is just a rough life. The fact that there are places you can't stay if you are homeless is beside the point. The city where I live there are always homeless people sleeping on public areas and at most you get put in jail for a few days. That is heating, shower and food that is being payed for by my taxes. There are also homeless shelters and food and clothes donated by people that do pay taxes.
@@brianharbort67281. That's not leaving or getting away from the current social contract he's objecting to 2. He would still be under the authority of that contract and it would do anything toward his goal. His argument was mostly stupid but y'all really attacking it with the worst rebuttals
Regarding the battery acid example, I find that someone drinking battery acid themselves would be an amoral act - there is no moral value to assign to someone doing that to themselves, although that doesn’t take into account the emotional impact that would have on that person’s loved ones. The time when drinking battery acid takes on a moral value is when an individual forces someone else to do it, since that impacts the wellbeing of a third party (and their loved ones).
Yah! Screw all those nurses, doctors, emt's, patients waiting their turn, insurance providers, insurance payers, family members, whoever has to do the wellness check/discover the body if they died, etc., etc., etc., ....oh.... /s “There is a cult of ignorance… and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” - Isaac Asimov
I went to some atheist groups and exactly this kind of guy is what kept me from coming back, the atheist libertarian. My theory is they don't believe in god not because of logic and science but instead because they are such greedy narcissists that they believe the world revolves around them.
I would think that today’s theists would at least have to be open to acknowledging that many, many beings believed in MULTIPLE gods at some point in Earth’s history. Beliefs changed over time into MOSTLY the concept of just ONE god. I don’t believe in multiple gods or a single god. (If I DID, then the concept of multiple gods actually makes MORE sense to me. Delegation, democracy, shared responsibilities. I don’t know.) That said, I can ACCEPT & UNDERSTAND, from an anthropological perspective, many people believing in “higher powers“. I believe that the human brain has always been hard-wired to search for MEANING IN EVERYTHING in order to process bodily functions and to direct the body in its physical interactions with everything around it. Many human thoughts and actions originate from instincts, conditioned reflexes and the subconscious, so the brain looks for patterns, repetition, connections (like cause-and-effect), and makes conclusions in that search for meaning. For the BIG things, like the Earth, the blue, cloud-filled day sky, the star-filled night sky, the Sun, the Moon, the movement of all these things. High and low tides. The change of Seasons. Natural Disasters. What is the MEANING of all these things and events? Why are some things created and other things destroyed? Somehow, the brain, much of the time, concludes that some “higher power” created everything. The school of thought that I go with is that all of those beliefs in a higher power throughout the world are proof of how similar all of our BRAINS are, how ALIKE we all are. All those shared beliefs are NOT proof that some higher power actually exists.
It is interesting to see those two defending government force and talking about the right to leave at a time before Roe got overturned. I wonder if, after they heard the Supreme Court decision, they just thought, oh, well we agreed to the social contract. If we don't like it, we can leave.
Therefore your morals match your sister's morals EXACTLY, right? /s "You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Subjective morality states there is nothing objectively right or wrong morally. So if a man commits a murder, he is not objectively wrong. If he is not objectively wrong, he is innocent. As true as 2+2=4 is how innocent he is objectively according to your view. This is why subjective morality isn’t reasonable or true.
I don't agree with Jared but the "being here is voluntary/you choose to enter into this social contract/you elected this government" isn't really a good argument. Leaving requires money that you have to stay for a *while* to build up, and our politicians often try to limit our right to enforce our part of the social contract and the electoral college is a miscarriage of our right to elect our government. The "freedom to leave" is illusory when it has the level of prequisite resources to make it viable that it does. And (sidenote here on something they said on the end) we still can't agree and go back and forth on a representative government, if the purpose of a representative gpveremt is truly to enforce the will of the people, there should be no issue to eliminating the middle man.
What about Jared's point do you disagree with? His point was that the government uses force to make people do things, and that conflicts with the moral rule that your right to swing your fist ends at another person's face. I did not hear Jared say that force is never morally justified. I think a lot of people, including the hosts, started arguing against that straw man that Jared never claimed.
That's why my morals are EXACTLY the same as EVERY single one of my 6 brothers!!!! /s "You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
Body autonomy... It's not freakin' rocket surgery... Unless your imaginary world has people calling for legally forced blood donation as the "moral" thing to do... "I don't have a problem with ignorance. We are all ignorant about a variety of subjects we are not currently aware of. The real problem is when that ignorance is wilful, intentional and used as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with you, or anyone who has the nerve to present facts you don't want to accept." - anyone who actually cares about verifiable reality
I usually find two types of gods the pagans worship: some believes their god(s) are just personnifications of certain concepts, while others think those gods truly exist and have agency and such. Do you think this is accurate? Which category do you adhere to?
@@DiMadHatter this is true and to add more to this there are some pagans that believe that Ragnarok (the end of the norse Gods) has already happend so in order to keep the Gods spirits alive they believe they have to live as them I personally believe Ragnarok has not happend yet and i believe the Gods are real and personally believe the best way to honour them is to be like as much as possible as in trying to be more wise and respectful and trying to gain as much knowledge as possible and not the super powers part lol
@@huginn-muninn5916 okay, so now, why do you believe they exist? Have you seen them? Detected them in a replicable manner so that we can confirm they do in fact exist and aren't just your imagination?
@@DiMadHatter if your asking for evidence then my answer will shock you..or maybe not lol and my answer is that i have no evidence and unlike Christians im not going to claim that i have. I have personal experiences that has lead me to believing in the norse Gods but i understand that cant be used as evidence outside of myself. So of your asking for proof honestly i have none but i personally have seen things that makes me a believer and you havent and theres nothing wrong with that
Being able to leave doesn't grant you the ability to stay somewhere else. Also, we have representation because when the country was founded, it was absurd to think that everyone could go to one place to vote. The internet age has the potential to change this completely (not that you're going to get the power back from the oligarchs at this point.)
In our government money talks. Minority with wealth overrule majority as they get to write and define laws. Majority might get to vote, but they have no effect as they only two sides are owned and take orders from the same group.
Please take your "BuT... bOtH sIdEs!" BS to those who are too gullible to see that this is the method the "Minority with wealth" uses to get you to stop even trying to elect the "side" that actually cares about anything other than profit, dogma and the destruction of anything resembling governance and accountability. “How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!” - Mark Twain Brandolini's law - "The amount of energy needed to refute BS is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.”
I will never be able to understand why people grasp to ideas that are hundreds of years old thinking that it could be the best answer here and now...they're sacrificing now for what was wanted hundreds of years ago by others both good and very bad, some good old ideas are still worth keeping but many are not.
Indeed.👌 Here's an analogy: You have an x amount of people and they all agree to live together. They agree amongst themselves that all decision must be unanimous or as close to it as possible because they all have the mental acuity to understand completely agreement on every point is impossible. A group that's united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs. As you know, "a group" has a superior ability to survive over that of the "single individual". They all agree that to best support the group is to pay a reasonable fee on their income. Said fee is set to to support common resources, such as police and firefighters. Said fee helps to ensure the roads they travel on are safe and well-maintained. This fee aswell fund public libraries and parks and their maintenance and many more examples can be made but this isn't necessary. But what happens next, is that a tiny splinter group has decided that living in such an society infringes on their _freedom_ because they're expected to "support the group" the same as everyone else. Because to support the same services they all enjoy is _Theft_ . Because living "their way" doesn't allow the minority to get their way all the time. "Voting is evil because voting is dictatorship." As such It’s Unethical for the group to aquire the agreed upon fee from those that owes them said fee for freely living in their society, for voluntarily staying and voluntarily applying for a jobb in said society. It's evil to not let those that disagree live off of the effort of the group without supporting said group. If they're not allowed to leech of the group without consequences, It's a dictatorship, no two ways about it. "I shouldn't live in a way that's conducive to the group/society and the people around me, No. I should only live as I myself please because I should have the right to do whatever I want, however I want, where ever I want(because that's totally not going to infringe on anyone elses freedoms at all). Agreeing with other people infringes on my freedom irregardless of their will because my will is more important than there's. Taking responsibility for myself and my place in society and towards those around me lessens (my)freedom. ... That's what's what in a nutshell. (simplified ofcourse)
If our society wasn’t founded on Christian morals, what would it look like? Edit: since we are talking about slavery, it is not an Godly invention, it is a human invention. In Genesis, did God ever say “I made slavery and saw it as good”? No, he doesn’t. He made Adam and Eve and he saw them as very good. It was only during the Fall when Adam and Eve sinned that slavery entered the world in the form of sin.
Our society wasn't founded on Christian morals, our Constitution was one of the first secular constitutions made. It is true that a lot of our laws have been made by men who were Christian, but Christianity is not the foundation of the country.
@@LoveOldMusic808 there have been countless nations throughout history making secular constitutions, belief systems, governments, etc. our constitution is not unique as a secular document. It was, however, inspired by basic human rights, which were derived from Christianity. If the Constitution was made without any Christian morals, I believe it would be a very different document.
Majority of the world's population believes in God, even weak rebellion (atheism)frequently obey God's spiritual laws as given in the Ten Commandments...
At no point does the number of people who believe something, nor how fervently they believe it, or for how long, or how much it's all written in a lovely big story book, have absolutely ANY bearing on whether it's true or not, does it? Hmm? No it doesn't.. There was a time that the VAST majority of people in one civilisation or another, believed very fervently, that Zeus and Thor threw thunder and lightning down. Was that true? Or that the sun revolved around the Earth. Did that turn out to be the case....or not? Argument ad populum means f**k all. Sorry. It just does. I'm not saying it can't be true, just that how many people think it is, is absolutely irrelevant. End of. Proof and evidence is what REALLY counts, as with every other point in anyone's life that is rational.
Jarred: "I dont like that the government I get to vote for/against has a monopoly on force."
Also Jarred: "Id much rather let private security firm that I have no influence on enforce contracts instead."
The funny thing is, when you vote there is no option for “no government”. But upwards of 65% of people eligible to vote as an adult, don’t vote.
So when you say “government I get to vote for/against”
it doesn’t make any sense that when you (vote) you’d be voting against government.
Anytime you vote you’re voting FOR government.
But if we tallied up all the people who don’t vote and equated that as a vote for (no government) we would have been without a government for a very long time.
In other words voting in and of itself is nothing more than people granting government legitimacy.
Believing that another man has a higher claim over your life and property than you is to me the same as a religion backed by no proof, a government sanctioned religion called statism.
And it’s backed by nothing more than a barrel of a gun, 3rd party oppression contracted out by “voters” for the sake of having their subjective moralities imposed on others who want to be left alone.
@@duelz3885 You’ve turned all the unwell and feckless into part of a silent libertarian majority. Cool trick. I dunno where you be for 65% of adults not to vote though.
@@duelz3885 Sometimes people do not use their votes as positive support for those that they're explicitly voting for. Protest votes, or voting to block a worse option, etc. I'm surprised you're challenging that point, given the 2020 US presidential election.
Or perhaps you're talking about voting against government intervention, which is also a thing if you're voting for candidates with de-regulatory platforms.
Secondly, it's a choice that people can abstain from voting, for whatever reason they like. They could feel like they aren't being represented, or dont think they have vetted the candidates enough, or just pure forgot to. I'm fine with any of those, as long as they got to choose.
Letting individual people and companies hire armed security that's allowed to enforce whatever bullshit they want by whatever means sounds pretty dystopian.
@@DanDan-eh7ul when you say that all I can think of is all the 3 letter agencies that the government keeps pulling from their rectum in short fashion every time a problem they’ve created goes sour… the Hegelian Dialectic
Wow the guy deleted his comment because he was getting trumped…
Yup, who would've thought?
@@DiMadHatter “gods real” “how do you know” “the Bible” “why should I believe the Bible?” “god said it’s true”
@@morphology6891 pretty much XD
@Secular Heretic BLACK METAL!!!
@Secular Heretic I love Cannibal Corpse and Slayer. What death/thrash bands do you like? I used to love Burzum and slow atmospheric black Metal but I like the faster stuff as of recently.
In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point.
Friedrich Nietzsche
This is giving the vibe of those sam cedar libertarian callers lol
Definitely a libertarian, not sure why he called here, but I'm glad he did. I almost wish more were just smart enough to know about AXP, but not smart enough to know it was a bad idea.
What has the government ever done for us? Roads. Well apart from roads, what has the government ever done for us. Law and Order. Well apart from roads and law and order... Jared is as logical and sensible as a comedy sketch. (Monty Python and the Life of Brian for those that dont know - its very funny)
Bloody splitter
Bravo! 😂
I recognised some Ben Sharpio quotes in his argument. I'd love to see Matt vs people like him and also the westbro Baptist church
Matt debating someone in the veins of Ben Shapiro could be interesting. But anyone from Westborough church. I don’t think that would be productive. They are in their own little bubble of fanaticism, where they use religion as an excuse to hate people.
Matt could rip through their ideology and rationales for their actions quick enough. They are nonsensical but predictable claims that anyone who is a member of any institution, like the military, who dies signifies a punishment from God for excepting homosexuality as a valid alternative to heterosexuality. But they do not argue in good faith at all.
Maybe Matt has already debated with members of the clan. I don’t know. At this point in time, I would not waste Matt‘s time with those people.
An example of how that kind of argument would go is in another clip, “How Is Homosexuality Rationally Justified?“ Check that clip out for a pretty heated discussion that did not end well.
I traced back 1000s of years of my family history and found that my great great great great great great great great great great grandfather was a caveman named Arty and apparently he introduced the concept of morality way back at the dawn of humanity ! Another caveman was beating Arty over the head with a club but Arty, being the enlightened caveman he was , grunted out some sounds which in caveman language meant “hey stop hitting me over the head ! That hurts ! How about instead , I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine !” And walla ! The basic concept of morality was laid down thanks to my great caveman grandfather. No need for religion .
Being able to leave the US to live in another country seems more theoretical than plausible for most people.
True, but he could live on the street if he wanted to.
@@brianharbort6728 Except where it’s illegal and actively abusive by other humans to do so. Can’t even camp on public lands, like forest parks, to live.
@@hayuseen6683
In the U.S. there are plenty of places you can live homeless, it is just a rough life. The fact that there are places you can't stay if you are homeless is beside the point. The city where I live there are always homeless people sleeping on public areas and at most you get put in jail for a few days. That is heating, shower and food that is being payed for by my taxes. There are also homeless shelters and food and clothes donated by people that do pay taxes.
A country full of libertarian micro-fiefdoms enforced by unaccountable private militias seems 10 million times more theoretical than that.
@@brianharbort67281. That's not leaving or getting away from the current social contract he's objecting to
2. He would still be under the authority of that contract and it would do anything toward his goal. His argument was mostly stupid but y'all really attacking it with the worst rebuttals
Regarding the battery acid example, I find that someone drinking battery acid themselves would be an amoral act - there is no moral value to assign to someone doing that to themselves, although that doesn’t take into account the emotional impact that would have on that person’s loved ones.
The time when drinking battery acid takes on a moral value is when an individual forces someone else to do it, since that impacts the wellbeing of a third party (and their loved ones).
Yah! Screw all those nurses, doctors, emt's, patients waiting their turn, insurance providers, insurance payers, family members, whoever has to do the wellness check/discover the body if they died, etc., etc., etc., ....oh....
/s
“There is a cult of ignorance… and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
- Isaac Asimov
I went to some atheist groups and exactly this kind of guy is what kept me from coming back, the atheist libertarian. My theory is they don't believe in god not because of logic and science but instead because they are such greedy narcissists that they believe the world revolves around them.
I would think that today’s theists would at least have to be open to acknowledging that many, many beings believed in MULTIPLE gods at some point in Earth’s history. Beliefs changed over time into MOSTLY the concept of just ONE god. I don’t believe in multiple gods or a single god. (If I DID, then the concept of multiple gods actually makes MORE sense to me. Delegation, democracy, shared responsibilities. I don’t know.)
That said, I can ACCEPT & UNDERSTAND, from an anthropological perspective, many people believing in “higher powers“. I believe that the human brain has always been hard-wired to search for MEANING IN EVERYTHING in order to process bodily functions and to direct the body in its physical interactions with everything around it.
Many human thoughts and actions originate from instincts, conditioned reflexes and the subconscious, so the brain looks for patterns, repetition, connections (like cause-and-effect), and makes conclusions in that search for meaning.
For the BIG things, like the Earth, the blue, cloud-filled day sky, the star-filled night sky, the Sun, the Moon, the movement of all these things. High and low tides. The change of Seasons. Natural Disasters. What is the MEANING of all these things and events? Why are some things created and other things destroyed? Somehow, the brain, much of the time, concludes that some “higher power” created everything.
The school of thought that I go with is that all of those beliefs in a higher power throughout the world are proof of how similar all of our BRAINS are, how ALIKE we all are. All those shared beliefs are NOT proof that some higher power actually exists.
We go to hell if we dont agree and follow if its real. To big of risk and then guilt of Yuhshua sacrifice
It is interesting to see those two defending government force and talking about the right to leave at a time before Roe got overturned. I wonder if, after they heard the Supreme Court decision, they just thought, oh, well we agreed to the social contract. If we don't like it, we can leave.
I do understand being bummed out about that one's tax money is used to wage war for rich folks in distant lands. 🙄
It still doesn't justify their arguments as per what's said in this video.
Morality comes from a cross between an elephant and rhino.
It’s called elefino
@Crypto Sanity Rodney Danger was telling that joke in 1957! It's still my favorite.
I learned to speak English.
I also learned not to pull my sister's hair.
I got both of these things from the same place.
Therefore your morals match your sister's morals EXACTLY, right? /s
"You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts."
- Daniel Patrick Moynihan
He drank Grover Norquist’s koolaid
Subjective morality states there is nothing objectively right or wrong morally.
So if a man commits a murder, he is not objectively wrong.
If he is not objectively wrong, he is innocent.
As true as 2+2=4 is how innocent he is objectively according to your view.
This is why subjective morality isn’t reasonable or true.
The caller had a great and valid point
I don't agree with Jared but the "being here is voluntary/you choose to enter into this social contract/you elected this government" isn't really a good argument. Leaving requires money that you have to stay for a *while* to build up, and our politicians often try to limit our right to enforce our part of the social contract and the electoral college is a miscarriage of our right to elect our government. The "freedom to leave" is illusory when it has the level of prequisite resources to make it viable that it does. And (sidenote here on something they said on the end) we still can't agree and go back and forth on a representative government, if the purpose of a representative gpveremt is truly to enforce the will of the people, there should be no issue to eliminating the middle man.
What about Jared's point do you disagree with? His point was that the government uses force to make people do things, and that conflicts with the moral rule that your right to swing your fist ends at another person's face.
I did not hear Jared say that force is never morally justified. I think a lot of people, including the hosts, started arguing against that straw man that Jared never claimed.
His basically arguing for proportional representation but he'll never accept that fact.
Libertarians and anarchists aren't the same thing. Just a little disclaimer
You get your morals from the same place that you get your language.
Exactly so.
That's why my morals are EXACTLY the same as EVERY single one of my 6 brothers!!!! /s
"You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts."
- Daniel Patrick Moynihan
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”
- Bertrand Russell
Aww libertarians are so cute.
That's not an arguement lol "social contract" 😂
@@valsidentity1582 and this gut made any argument? Libertarians ignore human nature the same way socialists do.
..shit, you smiled.
(you, as male's)
What about the morality of me taking one person to save 10 other people by using their body parts
Body autonomy... It's not freakin' rocket surgery... Unless your imaginary world has people calling for legally forced blood donation as the "moral" thing to do...
"I don't have a problem with ignorance. We are all ignorant about a variety of subjects we are not currently aware of. The real problem is when that ignorance is wilful, intentional and used as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with you, or anyone who has the nerve to present facts you don't want to accept."
- anyone who actually cares about verifiable reality
Yess Massa!
.of our act,(shown)
,.eye'reaction..😡😠🌚👽
I never see norse pagans much here only Christians so being a norse pagan im open any question you guys want ask..unless you have nothing to ask lol
I usually find two types of gods the pagans worship: some believes their god(s) are just personnifications of certain concepts, while others think those gods truly exist and have agency and such. Do you think this is accurate? Which category do you adhere to?
@@DiMadHatter this is true and to add more to this there are some pagans that believe that Ragnarok (the end of the norse Gods) has already happend so in order to keep the Gods spirits alive they believe they have to live as them
I personally believe Ragnarok has not happend yet and i believe the Gods are real and personally believe the best way to honour them is to be like as much as possible as in trying to be more wise and respectful and trying to gain as much knowledge as possible and not the super powers part lol
@@huginn-muninn5916 okay, so now, why do you believe they exist? Have you seen them? Detected them in a replicable manner so that we can confirm they do in fact exist and aren't just your imagination?
@@DiMadHatter if your asking for evidence then my answer will shock you..or maybe not lol and my answer is that i have no evidence and unlike Christians im not going to claim that i have. I have personal experiences that has lead me to believing in the norse Gods but i understand that cant be used as evidence outside of myself. So of your asking for proof honestly i have none but i personally have seen things that makes me a believer and you havent and theres nothing wrong with that
Awesome name.
.ahhjust sigh no.
.what is the state of an art.?
..well, it is the state of th'heart.
Rick Springfield reference? If so, 👏👏👏
Oh christ, a Libertarian.
He is absolutely right ✅
Lol
Only if you just listen to his pathetic libertarian ideology and not to the host who rightfully demolish it.
Being able to leave doesn't grant you the ability to stay somewhere else. Also, we have representation because when the country was founded, it was absurd to think that everyone could go to one place to vote. The internet age has the potential to change this completely (not that you're going to get the power back from the oligarchs at this point.)
..ovary'eggd...
..............
....soon....
I thought that the point of this video was supposed to be about where morals come from?
Love how Matt ignored Tracie’s wicked comment at the end. It was worth picking up on Matt. Its only gone down from here unfortunately.
.thee erased off,🤗
In our government money talks.
Minority with wealth overrule majority as they get to write and define laws. Majority might get to vote, but they have no effect as they only two sides are owned and take orders from the same group.
Please take your "BuT... bOtH sIdEs!" BS to those who are too gullible to see that this is the method the "Minority with wealth" uses to get you to stop even trying to elect the "side" that actually cares about anything other than profit, dogma and the destruction of anything resembling governance and accountability.
“How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!”
- Mark Twain
Brandolini's law - "The amount of energy needed to refute BS is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.”
I will never be able to understand why people grasp to ideas that are hundreds of years old thinking that it could be the best answer here and now...they're sacrificing now for what was wanted hundreds of years ago by others both good and very bad, some good old ideas are still worth keeping but many are not.
.yeah,
I'm ,
or
...right!
Oh dear, he went full libertarian, didn't he?
.may you have the'rest',
of : you're alive.
Monarchist state is the best kind of government. One that is as small as possible who's only job is to uphold the rights of its citizens
The first sentence disagrees with the second.
Geezus kreist I hope you're being sarcastic. Of course there are many who wish to be servants to kings and queens.
If you don't like the government, move! Vote with your feet!
Oh lord...I thought sovereign citizens were a 2020 invention.
Nope...try again Jared
Indeed.👌
Here's an analogy:
You have an x amount of people and they all agree to live together. They agree amongst themselves that all decision must be unanimous or as close to it as possible because they all have the mental acuity to understand completely agreement on every point is impossible.
A group that's united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs.
As you know, "a group" has a superior ability to survive over that of the "single individual".
They all agree that to best support the group is to pay a reasonable fee on their income. Said fee is set to
to support common resources, such as police and firefighters. Said fee helps to ensure the roads they travel on are safe and well-maintained. This fee aswell fund public libraries and parks and their maintenance and many more examples can be made but this isn't necessary.
But what happens next, is that a tiny splinter group has decided that living in such an society infringes on their _freedom_ because they're expected to "support the group" the same as everyone else. Because to support the same services they all enjoy is _Theft_ .
Because living "their way" doesn't allow the minority to get their way all the time.
"Voting is evil because voting is dictatorship."
As such It’s Unethical for the group to aquire the agreed upon fee from those that owes them said fee for freely living in their society, for voluntarily staying and voluntarily applying for a jobb in said society.
It's evil to not let those that disagree live off of the effort of the group without supporting said group.
If they're not allowed to leech of the group without consequences, It's a dictatorship, no two ways about it.
"I shouldn't live in a way that's conducive to the group/society and the people around me, No. I should only live as I myself please because I should have the right to do whatever I want, however I want, where ever I want(because that's totally not going to infringe on anyone elses freedoms at all). Agreeing with other people infringes on my freedom irregardless of their will because my will is more important than there's. Taking responsibility for myself and my place in society and towards those around me lessens (my)freedom.
...
That's what's what in a nutshell. (simplified ofcourse)
Libertarians, always a good laugh
If our society wasn’t founded on Christian morals, what would it look like?
Edit: since we are talking about slavery, it is not an Godly invention, it is a human invention. In Genesis, did God ever say “I made slavery and saw it as good”? No, he doesn’t. He made Adam and Eve and he saw them as very good. It was only during the Fall when Adam and Eve sinned that slavery entered the world in the form of sin.
Our society wasn't founded on Christian morals, our Constitution was one of the first secular constitutions made. It is true that a lot of our laws have been made by men who were Christian, but Christianity is not the foundation of the country.
@@yabutmaybenot.6433 how would it be better?
@Secular Heretic do you love your neighbor? If you do, even in the smallest amounts, that is a Christian moral.
@@LoveOldMusic808 there have been countless nations throughout history making secular constitutions, belief systems, governments, etc. our constitution is not unique as a secular document. It was, however, inspired by basic human rights, which were derived from Christianity. If the Constitution was made without any Christian morals, I believe it would be a very different document.
@Secular Heretic and how do you know it’s not?
So how does the atheist differentiate between the moral and the immoral objectively?
Define 'objectively'.
Demonstrate that the moral and the immoral exist.
Don't need to differentiate between them objectively. Subjective morality has always been good enough for me.
It depends of what you mean by 'objectively'
Well if any individual is differentiating then it’s subjective. It’s a stupid question.
Majority of the world's population believes in God, even weak rebellion (atheism)frequently obey God's spiritual laws as given in the Ten Commandments...
So if the majority believes the Earth is flat does it become flat? If the majority believes no gods exist is that the truth? What's your point?
At no point does the number of people who believe something, nor how fervently they believe it, or for how long, or how much it's all written in a lovely big story book, have absolutely ANY bearing on whether it's true or not, does it? Hmm? No it doesn't..
There was a time that the VAST majority of people in one civilisation or another, believed very fervently, that Zeus and Thor threw thunder and lightning down. Was that true?
Or that the sun revolved around the Earth. Did that turn out to be the case....or not?
Argument ad populum means f**k all.
Sorry. It just does.
I'm not saying it can't be true, just that how many people think it is, is absolutely irrelevant. End of.
Proof and evidence is what REALLY counts, as with every other point in anyone's life that is rational.
Nah not here in here Aus.
The majority of the world's population cannot agree on which god is the real god.
Reported for spam, as always