probably cuddle and smooch in front of my roomate

Love to continue this another time. Enjoy the rest of your evening.

@Ape You're gay.

❤

No u

he y boys

did sargon support ukip?

Mhm

sweet

will he support GI though?

f

@Ape Re-watching the circus from the last chimpout... It felt like demanding a political theory or philosophy be grounded in an objective or scientific truth seemed like an unfair request. If that is the value you hold or want to hold that seems fine, but what is the scientific truth behind financial freedom or the scientific right to freedom of religion, or freedom to bare arms/defend yourself? And if you wouldn't mind I would like to know if you can explain to me how they are Judeo-Christian values. Are you arguing Jesus would be pro-gun?

It is called Judeo christian because a lot of our morals and basic laws originate from the old and new testament

by 'our' i mean here in the western world

Freedom to bear arms is a weird one though.

'Golden rule' and other such concepts pre-date judeo-Christian faith. Evidence as far back as sumeria for basic concepts of person agency and various grades of liberty over the eons. I take issue with 'judeo-Christian' being a catch-all for western princples and ethical pre-suppositions.

Personal*

It always strikes me as an attempt to co-opt or rebrand something beyond their scope. No issue with mcdonalds claimimg to have served 17 quasrillion burgers.... But they dont get to claim to have invented them.

The religious institutions around Europe found the enlightment ideas and the principles behind them to be outside of God's will and direction... Yet now they are Christian? Seems a bit revisionist.

For example Jesus sites the Golden Rule as originating from the Mosaic law and God directly. However if we look at ancient Egypt we can see a legal commandment given for the people to operate on and in general capacity. Does that sound familiar? General Commandments given to an entire population to follow as a legal guideline? Besides that glaring coincidence the first written form of the Golden Rule comes from approximately 2000 BCE. Which is 400 years before the Egyptians even dare mention Israel or Jews or Hebrews. The simple truth of the matter is judeo Christian principles were at play in other parts of the world and how humans interact it they just seem to be the first people that wrote it down. Now if you want a political movement based on scientific truth that we have to realize that the archaeological and scientific and historical data we have makes it clear that these are not necessarily judeo Christian principles. In the same way that a cheeseburger Hamburger french fries or a chicken nugget is not necessarily and invention of McDonald's. I would hope that the first French chef to thinly Julianne potato and deep fry it wouldn't have his legacy besmirched by a Mega Corporation attempting to make it so they can sue anyone that calls their burger a cheeseburger or at least have them pay a licensing fee.

So I do take personal issue with anyone attempting to Brand some of the concepts that play with in Western democracy is judeo Christian. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence and indicators of people looking for freedom of choice freedom of movement and the general well-being amongst each other. Judeo Christian values emphasize submission respect and being willing to take punishment from someone who is your better because of their association with God. If you choose to be a religious person and still hold liberal Western values I think it is possible. Look at someone like Steven Crowder who is religious but separates his religious beliefs from his political beliefs. Why do you think someone who is so staunchly conservative would think in such a way? Because they are not the same set of principles they may overlap and some general areas. But for the most part they should remain separate.

Please Overlook the typos. I might be an autist and possibly retarded but I try not to type like I am. This is mostly Google speech to text.

@Hellstorme This is why liberalistism is FUCKING retarded @everyone

EVERY single ideology that has existed before you existed as a claim of absolute moral and ethical truth based on a metaphysical interpretation of objective reality.

You are nothing more than a bunch of soyboy libtards who don't want feminists to come for your videogames

You have no real reason to beleive any of your values except it just so happens to stroke your ego and your political position right now, because it helps your "opinion"

I was more asking why you believe your values, which are typically conservative. What is the 'scientific truth' of being pro-gun, or conservative, etc. And how do you hold them as Judeo-Christian views if they existed before Judea did?

My paragraphs above were answering someone else's assertions.

Is not the position that the state is not larger than the individual a statement of truth? @Ape

You seem to want a simple, STRONG declaration of truth and principle. IS that to say some truth is more true than others? My ultimate question is, if a stance is true, cannot a belief be legitimately based upon it?

He's basically making a bunch of baseless assertions about our movement and arguing from personal incredulity. The fact that he doesn't understand liberal values does not invalidate liberal values.

What I want to know is what he means by truth. Does he mean that our principles are based in falsehoods? Or that they are based in half-truths, as opposed to an ultimate truth

I just meant that in the discussion him and Aydin kept demanding 'scientific truths' then stating it was all Judeo-Christian principles without providing direct examples.

I wasn't sure if it was an attempt to discredit, ofr a false equivalency, or a form of projection.

So what principle of his own is a 'scientific truth'?

Any example would clarify.

It's false equivalence imho, @Hellstorme.
He really doesn't seem to understand that facts and values are different categories. We get the same fallacious argument from the alt-right all the time. I don't think that its malicious in his case, just a complete lack of comprehension when it comes to such things.

Also, I don't think he's a conservative. He seems more like an authoritarian traditionalist to me, but I don't know that much about him so that's just a conclusion I came to from watching that one stream.

I see no difference between types of truth. Truth is truth, whether scientific or moral or whatever else.

And if something is true, it can have a legitimate belief based on it

the supposed "strength" of the truth doesn't matter. If a belief is true, it is true, and presumabely better and preferable to a belief that is false