I always despised Sam Seder for smug attitude, upon further examining his reasoning, his belief is shallow and nihilistic. And who knows if he's not being 100% truthful here.
Ultimately these are the rocks upon which any materialist outlook gets wrecked. Utilitarianism is a woolly viewpoint that feels good to tout but falls apart under examination. Seder didn't want to tie himself to it but said nothing that differentiates his moral basis from utilitarianism. It boils down to 'just do what's bestest for the mostest' - well what does that mean? That which will leave most people happy? Completely unquantifiable. Most healthy? Hello last 5 years; anyone empowered by a certain policy will rig stats and metrics to make that policy seem like the most healthy option. Most people alive? See above, even mortality figures can be queered, hidden and straight up ignored, plus now you've skipped over the issue of quality-of-life and overcrowding is on the table. A pure mathematical system of making society moral is a childish pipe dream wide open to abuse, as mythical as genetic impulses making us 'moral'.
Seder didn't even get into issues as complex as that, he tried to reach for 'well people vote and decide what's right' (ie. moral), meaning morality is just a movable feast that changes every few years, subject to propaganda and electioneering, and the moral framework you end up with is derived from nothing other than the messy system of laws you're left with over centuries. Which is fine if you believe that and are content with it, but at that stage it's pointless to pretend you have any greater vision for a nation other than a nihilistic morass, and you will get trampled in argument by anyone whose morals proceed from something timeless and intangible. And obviously he got shot down in the next sentence when he revealed it wouldn't be moral any more if people voted for something he didn't like.
You can have what looks like top-level moral imperatives (i.e., the examples you named) but then you start running into problems with more nuanced issues, at which point "common sense" varies to the wisdom applied by the participants involved, and that wisdom will be based on their limited knowledge (or lack thereof).
For instance, you can argue that murder, thievery, and fraud are bad, but then you have things like monopolies, murder in self-defence, or people who steal to survive. Those are also all bad, but the punishments per each one will vary per person's definition of "common sense".
Same thing with the degrees of incest. Sure, between immediate family members it's bad, but then it was not uncommon that throughout recent human history marrying cousins of degrees was not considered as bad. So how far out do you go?
We can also see that promiscuity is bad, but then even here in this sub people will argue about the consequences of promiscuity or safeguards resulting from it, such as abortion. Some believe that it's good because it has helped keep the black population in check in first-world nations, while others argue that it is inherently bad. But as you said, if the morals are based on "common sense" and not something timeless or intangible, then what does "inherently bad" even mean in this context since keeping the black population low is inherently and objectively GOOD for the native population?
That's the problem every materialist and utiliarian runs into when you start picking apart the minutiae of self-imposed morals based on "common sense".
You are absolutely correct. And Christianity or any other religion hasn't changed that fact of life in the slightest.
You can have what looks like top-level moral imperatives (i.e., the examples you named) but then you start running into problems with more nuanced issues, at which point "common sense" varies to the wisdom applied by the participants involved, and that wisdom will be based on their limited knowledge (or lack thereof).
Yes and religious morality is the same. But it's not a problem as long as the people in charge aren't idiots.
For instance, you can argue that murder, thievery, and fraud are bad, but then you have things like monopolies, murder in self-defence, or people who steal to survive. Those are also all bad, but the punishments per each one will vary per person's definition of "common sense".
Killing in self defense isn't murder. Stealing for surival is a sign for greater societal issues that need to be fixed. A monopoly isn't inherently bad.
Same thing with the degrees of incest. Sure, between immediate family members it's bad, but then it was not uncommon that throughout recent human history marrying cousins of degrees was not considered as bad. So how far out do you go?
Yes and in parts of the world cousin marriage is still common. Doesn't change the fact that incest is bad. Not because of morality but because it creates fucked up offspring. So how far do I go? Don't allow it. It's simple.
We can also see that promiscuity is bad, but then even here in this sub people will argue about the consequences of promiscuity or safeguards resulting from it, such as abortion. Some believe that it's good because it has helped keep the black population in check in first-world nations, while others argue that it is inherently bad. But as you said, if the morals are based on "common sense" and not something timeless or intangible, then what does "inherently bad" even mean in this context since keeping the black population low is inherently and objectively GOOD for the native population?
Abortion isn't inherently bad just as amputation isn't inherently bad. It's something that should be avoided but sometimes it is a necessary procedure for various reasons. But using abortion as a contraceptive method is inherently bad for various reasons.
The argument you're making with the black population doesn't work. Because you're conflating two seperate issues. Ethnic diversity is bad and needs to be fixed and you're not going to fix that problem with abortions.
That's the problem every materialist and utiliarian runs into when you start picking apart the minutiae of self-imposed morals based on "common sense".
Common sense isn't a form of morality. Common sense is pattern recognition.
It's something that should be avoided but sometimes it is a necessary procedure for various reasons.
Avoided why?
The argument you're making with the black population doesn't work. Because you're conflating two seperate issues. Ethnic diversity is bad and needs to be fixed and you're not going to fix that problem with abortions.
Sure, but now you've moved into another gray area -- you say common sense is pattern recognition, and pattern recognition would dictate that ethnic diversity is bad, but how do you permanently prevent people from becoming diverse? Outlaw it like the Jim Crow era?
What about the passport bros with yellow fever? Ban them from marrying outside of their ethnic nationality?
Because it causes physical and psychological harm.
but how do you permanently prevent people from becoming diverse?
You don't have to. Modern day 'diversity' did not occur naturally. Let me remind you that desegregation happened at gunpoint. Flooding white countries with non-white immigrants and propagating race mixing is also being done deliberately by hostile actors.
Diversity is enforced by government at gunpoint. So I don't see how this is a grey area.
Because it causes physical and psychological harm.
So what makes it necessary to not outright outlaw if it generally causes physical or psychological harm?
Diversity is enforced by government at gunpoint. So I don't see how this is a grey area.
Absolutely... except that doesn't address the passport bro situation. It should be outlawed according to those standards, yes?
Also, we look at situations like China and Japan -- they're the same ethnicity but are culturally very different. Chinese have shown that they typically cannot integrate well into Japanese culture, whereas Japanese can integrate into Chinese culture, but oftentimes are despised due to historical conflicts. It's why some regions in Japan bar Chinese nationals from visiting their shops/places, etc.
This leads back to the question of laws related to segregation -- even if people are of the same ethnicity, cultural differences can lead to disruption. So do you also outlaw disruptive cultures based on pattern recognition even when dealing with the same ethnicity?
So what makes it necessary to not outright outlaw if it generally causes physical or psychological harm?
Except for certain situations it definitely shouldn't be allowed.
Absolutely... except that doesn't address the passport bro situation. It should be outlawed according to those standards, yes?
No. It should if you want complete racial purity but otherwise it's a non-issue. Being against 'diversity' doesn't mean you're against race mixing.
they're the same ethnicity
When's the last time you looked at a Chinese and Japanese side by side? That's like saying Finnish and Germans are the same ethnicity. Or Russians and French.
So do you also outlaw disruptive cultures based on pattern recognition even when dealing with the same ethnicity?
You can disallow immigration from any part of the world you deem disruptive to your nations health. Not sure what the problem is supposed to be.
In one way I agree that morality is intrinsic and does not need to be dictated to the spiritually superior. However, 'common sense' is a misnomer because a majority of people are not equipped to recognise the common sense they are born with - yes, even white people and I'll refer to the example of the past few years again. It is 'commonly' 'sensed' but the term does not sum up what exactly it is that you're sensing - one can sense things which come from beyond the remit of immediate (or even long term) materialistic concerns, because morality comes with humanity as part of the package, but the manner we become alienated from proper moral behaviour is due to an alienation from this sense, a situation which a religious person might call 'falling from grace'. Once you boil it down to a simple calculation to reach an obvious outcome then once again you're in the materialistic mire.
Peace is not inherently good. There is peace arrived at through immoral means, such as mass killing - ever hear Tacitus', 'the Romans create a desert and call it peace'? - and peace which is fundamentally immoral, such as peace created through the suppression of action and thought, as in N. Korea.
Promiscuity is psychologically damaging because it impairs people's self-esteem, their ability to pair bond and their likelihood to be fruitful members of society, but to those for whom none of these things is considered inherently bad, then none of this even registers as damage. Nor is society itself even necessarily good. Some societies may need to crumble. The only unassailable thing you can say about promiscuity is that it is graceless.
If, for you, peaceful white societies are a moral priority which transcends mere preference then you have all sorts of troubling implications for your preferences. Modern society itself may have to go, in order to foster the peace which technology disrupts - we may have to go back to pre-industrial lifestyles enforced by the authoritarian suppression of a lot of white people. If fighting white erasure is an absolute, then incest is back on the table - whites can outbreed non-whites from within our own families. Who cares about genetic mutations? They will be the minority and we can abort or kill them, since neither of those things are inherently wrong either. And what about culling minorities? That could get started right now.
Fundamentally we know those things are wrong and any white society produced by these things will be a fruit of the poisoned tree. It would be lacking in things which are difficult to find in simple calculation, like beauty, justice, mercy, grace, nobility, courage and other essential parts of the human soul. Morality is part of the package of humanity and transcends calculation. Nihilists call this 'our fundamental irrationalism'. Religious people make sense of it through concepts of god and their spiritual canon, which they use to rehabilitate their communities to 'common sense'. The religious are more correct because it makes no sense to rebel against one's fundamental nature and larp as inanimate meat, sparked to life by neurochemistry.
For the materialist, if morality is built into the material - but not accounted for by genes and evolution, which it is not, but I didn't really get into that here - it is a losing argument to argue against god. To the religious, God is an inexplicable presence, intrinsic to our creation, which wants us to do good - to the non-religious who recognises their innate moral sense, it is the same thing. You can arrive at this interpretation either through enlightened self-reflection or through brute-forced spiritual didacticism (exotericism) - the latter being admittedly what much of religion appears to be in its social function, and it may need to be that in order to steer those who would act immorally without it.
Common sense is pattern recognition. It's not a form of morality. So what you call morality that comes with humanity as a package is what I call the ability to recognize patterns. And that ability differs vastly between different human populations.
You arguing from a morality standpoint. I'm not. The issues I've adressed aren't moral issues in my opinion. They're simply facts of every day life. That's the point I'm making. Remove God from the equation and nothing changes. A religious person one might take that as proof for the existence of God. As a non-religious I will say that God is a man-made fiction to personify and explain natural phenomena.
Just to make one thing clear. I'm neither an atheist nor a materialist. I'm non-religious and very much anti-organized religions as I see them as dangerous tools to manipulate and control populations that have been and are still regularly abused for nefarious means.
Religion provides a sense of consequences, even to things that the actor expects they won't be caught doing, to the kind of creature that isn't capable of reasoning out why moral behavior is preferable to immediate gratification / selfish behavior.
Yes, you are correct. For children and animals who are incapable of rational thought it is quite useful. But it doesn't change their nature. Which is why ethnic homogeneity is of vital importance. And it also shows that 'Christian' values are actually European values which is why they don't translate well to the rest of the world as one can see especially well in Africa and South America.
Have you looked at Europe lately, or ever read a history book? Christianity was brought to most European nations by the Romans. Weimar Germany didn't come from nothing. Communism didn't come from nothing. Centuries of degeneracy from every corner of the world disprove what you just said.
Have you? Should I dig up all the degeneracy and evil that the Church committed in the name of moral superiority?
Weimar Germany didn't come from nothing. Communism didn't come from nothing.
Yeah. A certain ethnic minority that is intrinsically tied to Christanity has been involved in both.
Centuries of degeneracy from every corner of the world disprove what you just said.
I'd say it proves what I say. Look at Christian South America and Africa. Strangely enough 'Christian' values there look very different from 'Christian' values in Europe and always have.
Utilitarianism is a fancy word for Socialism. Money makes people sad so wealth is taken away. You won’t need land since that makes other people mad because they don’t have it. You have a gun? That hurts people, no more guns! Plus, the government will protect you! That is what’s best for people.
To be honest, I was a bit skeptical, because people normally claim that whoever agrees with them won the debate. When I saw this video recommended, I thought Seder owned the conservatives, because politics is his day job.
But he did seem exceptionally weak here. He also contradicted himself by saying that incest is bad because "we decided as a society" while refusing to affirm it for anti-transgenderism. Credit to him for actually answering instead of stonewalling and filibustering though.
Whoever that guy was, he brought a nuclear weapon to a knifefight.
I didn't think the other guy did very good either, since he just used a lot of gotchas. Though that was in part because Seder has an obnoxious approach that many leftists have.
They can't just say,
"I'm okay with trans people but I'm not okay with incest, simple as."
Leftists have to pretend there is some evidence behind their values to lend them credibility. They can't come to terms with the idea that their opinions and preferences are just a fart in the wind. They want to put authority behind their value statements, so they can bludgeon the rest of us with them.
I mean it's Jubilee video where you are only given 3 minutes to make your case. Surely he could have completely obliterated seder like Mr Metokur did to destiny.
It all boils down to ''I feel like it and I think the people in power ( lawmakers, media ) in the USA agree with me''.
Lawmakers disagree with him? Well ''he feels that...'' so he's still morally correct, since the mainstream media, and his people agree with him. He also thinks current political pushback is just a fluke and once Trump is out, trooning children and males in girls changing rooms will be cool again among lawmakers.
People overall disagree with him ''well he feels that...'' and the media and his immediate woke circle says he's still right, so he is.
Was he eventually able to articulate that religions are the same thing, but the people in power who wrote the code of behavior down did so 500, 1500, 2000 years ago depending on which?
That those religious codes of behaviors definetively changed anyway influenced by attitudes in each society, media, education and politics? ( And hand half of the argument to religious fundamentalist with that reasoning. )
Even if you are an atheist ( I sort of am ), it's obvious something about current society is toxic to White people, and leftist morality isn't going to save us ( it's killing us faster ).
We're headed towards extinction. Which subsets of Whites are not commiting collective suicide? The most religious ones having many children. ( This excludes most US conservatives today, with an average fertility below replacement. )
Honestly, the caliber of arguments and word smithing here (in this forum) is awesome. I love reading comments like yours where you perfectly break something down.
While I agree this Seder guy got absolutely pantsed, I think there's a distinction between preference -- which suggests the possibility of choice -- and a seemingly self-evident sense of fairness that isn't the product of conscious choice or decision-making.
I also don't think saying "feels good" as a way to undermine whatever Seder's position is is completely fair since adherence to faith and devotion also feels good.
Yes but in seder's position and anybody that take his ideals, they don't draw any lines whether it harms another party or not. They selfishly impose their ideals on unwilling people. Not saying rellgious people aren't guilty of that either but Sam Seder and his ilk are far guiltier than any that force their own beliefs onto the rest of us. To me that's the crux of the problem, they are forcing the ideals built on shaky concepts they can't even define well enough.
Adherence to faith doesn't always feel good.
In fact, sometimes it outright sucks.
Especially when you are tempted to do something that most definitely would feel good and you don't because of that very adherence to moral doctrine (don't commit adultery, don't kill, etc).
My point is that religion is something at least some people do not because it feels good because they know deep down it is good regardless of how it feels, much like eating healthy food or exercising.
That happens with law all the time too though. It can feel bad to want to hit someone and realize there are consequences, but most of the time you recognize the good in that the law should be preventing randoms from doing the same to you or your children.
The comfort of community and belief in God and the afterlife etc. outweighs the bad overall. Impulsivity will lead to clashing with all kinds of things that mostly feel good, whether it's religion, law, romance, whatever. Just because it doesn't always feel good doesn't mean it doesn't feel good overall. I bet that's true for being gay, which was what this example was originally about.
I’m guessing that the audience has to decide when an argument is lost or won by raising the flag. Essentially, flagging announces that you’ve lost the debate.
I always despised Sam Seder for smug attitude, upon further examining his reasoning, his belief is shallow and nihilistic. And who knows if he's not being 100% truthful here.
It was like watching Sideshow Bob walk around in a field of rakes.
He's got the kind of voice you want to punch in the face
There's a 0% chance he actually holds the beliefs he espouses.
Ultimately these are the rocks upon which any materialist outlook gets wrecked. Utilitarianism is a woolly viewpoint that feels good to tout but falls apart under examination. Seder didn't want to tie himself to it but said nothing that differentiates his moral basis from utilitarianism. It boils down to 'just do what's bestest for the mostest' - well what does that mean? That which will leave most people happy? Completely unquantifiable. Most healthy? Hello last 5 years; anyone empowered by a certain policy will rig stats and metrics to make that policy seem like the most healthy option. Most people alive? See above, even mortality figures can be queered, hidden and straight up ignored, plus now you've skipped over the issue of quality-of-life and overcrowding is on the table. A pure mathematical system of making society moral is a childish pipe dream wide open to abuse, as mythical as genetic impulses making us 'moral'.
Seder didn't even get into issues as complex as that, he tried to reach for 'well people vote and decide what's right' (ie. moral), meaning morality is just a movable feast that changes every few years, subject to propaganda and electioneering, and the moral framework you end up with is derived from nothing other than the messy system of laws you're left with over centuries. Which is fine if you believe that and are content with it, but at that stage it's pointless to pretend you have any greater vision for a nation other than a nihilistic morass, and you will get trampled in argument by anyone whose morals proceed from something timeless and intangible. And obviously he got shot down in the next sentence when he revealed it wouldn't be moral any more if people voted for something he didn't like.
I'd argue that something is common sense and not religion. In the end religion is just seasoning for societal rules that are based in reality.
Why is murder, thievery, fraud etc bad? Because it threatens societal life/peace.
Why is incest bad? Cause it produces genetically fucked up offsprings.
Why is promiscuity bad? Because it is psychologically damaging and because of that threatens societal life/peace.
Common sense varies per culture and time frame.
You can have what looks like top-level moral imperatives (i.e., the examples you named) but then you start running into problems with more nuanced issues, at which point "common sense" varies to the wisdom applied by the participants involved, and that wisdom will be based on their limited knowledge (or lack thereof).
For instance, you can argue that murder, thievery, and fraud are bad, but then you have things like monopolies, murder in self-defence, or people who steal to survive. Those are also all bad, but the punishments per each one will vary per person's definition of "common sense".
Same thing with the degrees of incest. Sure, between immediate family members it's bad, but then it was not uncommon that throughout recent human history marrying cousins of degrees was not considered as bad. So how far out do you go?
We can also see that promiscuity is bad, but then even here in this sub people will argue about the consequences of promiscuity or safeguards resulting from it, such as abortion. Some believe that it's good because it has helped keep the black population in check in first-world nations, while others argue that it is inherently bad. But as you said, if the morals are based on "common sense" and not something timeless or intangible, then what does "inherently bad" even mean in this context since keeping the black population low is inherently and objectively GOOD for the native population?
That's the problem every materialist and utiliarian runs into when you start picking apart the minutiae of self-imposed morals based on "common sense".
You are absolutely correct. And Christianity or any other religion hasn't changed that fact of life in the slightest.
Yes and religious morality is the same. But it's not a problem as long as the people in charge aren't idiots.
Killing in self defense isn't murder. Stealing for surival is a sign for greater societal issues that need to be fixed. A monopoly isn't inherently bad.
Yes and in parts of the world cousin marriage is still common. Doesn't change the fact that incest is bad. Not because of morality but because it creates fucked up offspring. So how far do I go? Don't allow it. It's simple.
Abortion isn't inherently bad just as amputation isn't inherently bad. It's something that should be avoided but sometimes it is a necessary procedure for various reasons. But using abortion as a contraceptive method is inherently bad for various reasons.
The argument you're making with the black population doesn't work. Because you're conflating two seperate issues. Ethnic diversity is bad and needs to be fixed and you're not going to fix that problem with abortions.
Common sense isn't a form of morality. Common sense is pattern recognition.
Avoided why?
Sure, but now you've moved into another gray area -- you say common sense is pattern recognition, and pattern recognition would dictate that ethnic diversity is bad, but how do you permanently prevent people from becoming diverse? Outlaw it like the Jim Crow era?
What about the passport bros with yellow fever? Ban them from marrying outside of their ethnic nationality?
Because it causes physical and psychological harm.
You don't have to. Modern day 'diversity' did not occur naturally. Let me remind you that desegregation happened at gunpoint. Flooding white countries with non-white immigrants and propagating race mixing is also being done deliberately by hostile actors.
Diversity is enforced by government at gunpoint. So I don't see how this is a grey area.
So what makes it necessary to not outright outlaw if it generally causes physical or psychological harm?
Absolutely... except that doesn't address the passport bro situation. It should be outlawed according to those standards, yes?
Also, we look at situations like China and Japan -- they're the same ethnicity but are culturally very different. Chinese have shown that they typically cannot integrate well into Japanese culture, whereas Japanese can integrate into Chinese culture, but oftentimes are despised due to historical conflicts. It's why some regions in Japan bar Chinese nationals from visiting their shops/places, etc.
This leads back to the question of laws related to segregation -- even if people are of the same ethnicity, cultural differences can lead to disruption. So do you also outlaw disruptive cultures based on pattern recognition even when dealing with the same ethnicity?
Except for certain situations it definitely shouldn't be allowed.
No. It should if you want complete racial purity but otherwise it's a non-issue. Being against 'diversity' doesn't mean you're against race mixing.
When's the last time you looked at a Chinese and Japanese side by side? That's like saying Finnish and Germans are the same ethnicity. Or Russians and French.
You can disallow immigration from any part of the world you deem disruptive to your nations health. Not sure what the problem is supposed to be.
In one way I agree that morality is intrinsic and does not need to be dictated to the spiritually superior. However, 'common sense' is a misnomer because a majority of people are not equipped to recognise the common sense they are born with - yes, even white people and I'll refer to the example of the past few years again. It is 'commonly' 'sensed' but the term does not sum up what exactly it is that you're sensing - one can sense things which come from beyond the remit of immediate (or even long term) materialistic concerns, because morality comes with humanity as part of the package, but the manner we become alienated from proper moral behaviour is due to an alienation from this sense, a situation which a religious person might call 'falling from grace'. Once you boil it down to a simple calculation to reach an obvious outcome then once again you're in the materialistic mire.
Peace is not inherently good. There is peace arrived at through immoral means, such as mass killing - ever hear Tacitus', 'the Romans create a desert and call it peace'? - and peace which is fundamentally immoral, such as peace created through the suppression of action and thought, as in N. Korea.
Promiscuity is psychologically damaging because it impairs people's self-esteem, their ability to pair bond and their likelihood to be fruitful members of society, but to those for whom none of these things is considered inherently bad, then none of this even registers as damage. Nor is society itself even necessarily good. Some societies may need to crumble. The only unassailable thing you can say about promiscuity is that it is graceless.
If, for you, peaceful white societies are a moral priority which transcends mere preference then you have all sorts of troubling implications for your preferences. Modern society itself may have to go, in order to foster the peace which technology disrupts - we may have to go back to pre-industrial lifestyles enforced by the authoritarian suppression of a lot of white people. If fighting white erasure is an absolute, then incest is back on the table - whites can outbreed non-whites from within our own families. Who cares about genetic mutations? They will be the minority and we can abort or kill them, since neither of those things are inherently wrong either. And what about culling minorities? That could get started right now.
Fundamentally we know those things are wrong and any white society produced by these things will be a fruit of the poisoned tree. It would be lacking in things which are difficult to find in simple calculation, like beauty, justice, mercy, grace, nobility, courage and other essential parts of the human soul. Morality is part of the package of humanity and transcends calculation. Nihilists call this 'our fundamental irrationalism'. Religious people make sense of it through concepts of god and their spiritual canon, which they use to rehabilitate their communities to 'common sense'. The religious are more correct because it makes no sense to rebel against one's fundamental nature and larp as inanimate meat, sparked to life by neurochemistry.
For the materialist, if morality is built into the material - but not accounted for by genes and evolution, which it is not, but I didn't really get into that here - it is a losing argument to argue against god. To the religious, God is an inexplicable presence, intrinsic to our creation, which wants us to do good - to the non-religious who recognises their innate moral sense, it is the same thing. You can arrive at this interpretation either through enlightened self-reflection or through brute-forced spiritual didacticism (exotericism) - the latter being admittedly what much of religion appears to be in its social function, and it may need to be that in order to steer those who would act immorally without it.
Common sense is pattern recognition. It's not a form of morality. So what you call morality that comes with humanity as a package is what I call the ability to recognize patterns. And that ability differs vastly between different human populations.
You arguing from a morality standpoint. I'm not. The issues I've adressed aren't moral issues in my opinion. They're simply facts of every day life. That's the point I'm making. Remove God from the equation and nothing changes. A religious person one might take that as proof for the existence of God. As a non-religious I will say that God is a man-made fiction to personify and explain natural phenomena.
Just to make one thing clear. I'm neither an atheist nor a materialist. I'm non-religious and very much anti-organized religions as I see them as dangerous tools to manipulate and control populations that have been and are still regularly abused for nefarious means.
Religion provides a sense of consequences, even to things that the actor expects they won't be caught doing, to the kind of creature that isn't capable of reasoning out why moral behavior is preferable to immediate gratification / selfish behavior.
Yes, you are correct. For children and animals who are incapable of rational thought it is quite useful. But it doesn't change their nature. Which is why ethnic homogeneity is of vital importance. And it also shows that 'Christian' values are actually European values which is why they don't translate well to the rest of the world as one can see especially well in Africa and South America.
Have you looked at Europe lately, or ever read a history book? Christianity was brought to most European nations by the Romans. Weimar Germany didn't come from nothing. Communism didn't come from nothing. Centuries of degeneracy from every corner of the world disprove what you just said.
Christian morals are learned, not inherent.
Have you? Should I dig up all the degeneracy and evil that the Church committed in the name of moral superiority?
Yeah. A certain ethnic minority that is intrinsically tied to Christanity has been involved in both.
I'd say it proves what I say. Look at Christian South America and Africa. Strangely enough 'Christian' values there look very different from 'Christian' values in Europe and always have.
Great post. Seder offered such a basic bitch worldview that he might as well have thrown a pumpkin latte at each participant
Utilitarianism is a fancy word for Socialism. Money makes people sad so wealth is taken away. You won’t need land since that makes other people mad because they don’t have it. You have a gun? That hurts people, no more guns! Plus, the government will protect you! That is what’s best for people.
To be honest, I was a bit skeptical, because people normally claim that whoever agrees with them won the debate. When I saw this video recommended, I thought Seder owned the conservatives, because politics is his day job.
But he did seem exceptionally weak here. He also contradicted himself by saying that incest is bad because "we decided as a society" while refusing to affirm it for anti-transgenderism. Credit to him for actually answering instead of stonewalling and filibustering though.
Whoever that guy was, he brought a nuclear weapon to a knifefight.
Put your hand on that wall, trooper
I didn't think the other guy did very good either, since he just used a lot of gotchas. Though that was in part because Seder has an obnoxious approach that many leftists have.
They can't just say,
Leftists have to pretend there is some evidence behind their values to lend them credibility. They can't come to terms with the idea that their opinions and preferences are just a fart in the wind. They want to put authority behind their value statements, so they can bludgeon the rest of us with them.
Extremes are useful to highlight philosophical disagreements. I don't think he was unfair.
I mean it's Jubilee video where you are only given 3 minutes to make your case. Surely he could have completely obliterated seder like Mr Metokur did to destiny.
He really failed to defend his position.
It all boils down to ''I feel like it and I think the people in power ( lawmakers, media ) in the USA agree with me''.
Lawmakers disagree with him? Well ''he feels that...'' so he's still morally correct, since the mainstream media, and his people agree with him. He also thinks current political pushback is just a fluke and once Trump is out, trooning children and males in girls changing rooms will be cool again among lawmakers.
People overall disagree with him ''well he feels that...'' and the media and his immediate woke circle says he's still right, so he is.
Was he eventually able to articulate that religions are the same thing, but the people in power who wrote the code of behavior down did so 500, 1500, 2000 years ago depending on which?
That those religious codes of behaviors definetively changed anyway influenced by attitudes in each society, media, education and politics? ( And hand half of the argument to religious fundamentalist with that reasoning. )
Even if you are an atheist ( I sort of am ), it's obvious something about current society is toxic to White people, and leftist morality isn't going to save us ( it's killing us faster ).
We're headed towards extinction. Which subsets of Whites are not commiting collective suicide? The most religious ones having many children. ( This excludes most US conservatives today, with an average fertility below replacement. )
Honestly, the caliber of arguments and word smithing here (in this forum) is awesome. I love reading comments like yours where you perfectly break something down.
Faggot leftists want to just sit back and act like they're correct and justified in their beliefs without putting any effort into WHAT they stand for.
It's "current year" consensus brain.
...and it's gone
https://nitter.poast.org/michaeljknowles/status/1899111503992676633
Twitter is gone today.
Don't you get my hopes up...
See this thread. Apparently "Ukrainian IPs" cyberattacked it.
It was hilarious how this motherfucker tried to fight back by implying to the guy that he's a bigot for not liking the gays lmao.
While I agree this Seder guy got absolutely pantsed, I think there's a distinction between preference -- which suggests the possibility of choice -- and a seemingly self-evident sense of fairness that isn't the product of conscious choice or decision-making.
I also don't think saying "feels good" as a way to undermine whatever Seder's position is is completely fair since adherence to faith and devotion also feels good.
Yes but in seder's position and anybody that take his ideals, they don't draw any lines whether it harms another party or not. They selfishly impose their ideals on unwilling people. Not saying rellgious people aren't guilty of that either but Sam Seder and his ilk are far guiltier than any that force their own beliefs onto the rest of us. To me that's the crux of the problem, they are forcing the ideals built on shaky concepts they can't even define well enough.
I'll disagree.
Adherence to faith doesn't always feel good. In fact, sometimes it outright sucks. Especially when you are tempted to do something that most definitely would feel good and you don't because of that very adherence to moral doctrine (don't commit adultery, don't kill, etc).
My point is that religion is something at least some people do not because it feels good because they know deep down it is good regardless of how it feels, much like eating healthy food or exercising.
That happens with law all the time too though. It can feel bad to want to hit someone and realize there are consequences, but most of the time you recognize the good in that the law should be preventing randoms from doing the same to you or your children.
The comfort of community and belief in God and the afterlife etc. outweighs the bad overall. Impulsivity will lead to clashing with all kinds of things that mostly feel good, whether it's religion, law, romance, whatever. Just because it doesn't always feel good doesn't mean it doesn't feel good overall. I bet that's true for being gay, which was what this example was originally about.
Page says ''an error has occured''.
Please refer to u/MargarineMoongoose's link above.
Thanks. For some reason the video works in both now.
I just love how the guy says "yes"
Not familiar with this. Whats the red flags for?
I would’ve liked more context as well.
I’m guessing that the audience has to decide when an argument is lost or won by raising the flag. Essentially, flagging announces that you’ve lost the debate.
I haven't seen anything but clips of this show, but I think it's other participants signaling they want to take a turn debating